←back to thread

92 points PaulHoule | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.623s | source
1. sriacha ◴[] No.42071144[source]
"The fact that we were able to detect similar effects of phthalate exposure on the function of central neurons for the low and 10-fold higher environmental concentration tested is important in this context: humans get exposed to phthalates mostly through ingestion and their indoor environment, while fish in this study got exposed to phthalates through the surrounding water. These differences in exposure may mean that humans generally take up fewer phthalates from the environment than the fish in the present study. However, even if fewer phthalates are taken up and reach/cross the BBB in humans, it must be assumed on the basis of our results that the effect could still be similar to that observed in our experiments on goldfish. "

It seems sloppy not to attempt to address the relevance of typical human exposure to the study amounts?

replies(1): >>42072310 #
2. yieldcrv ◴[] No.42072310[source]
This group didn’t have authorization or funding to do an experiment on humans, and of they attempted it the criticism would have been that the study was done wrong in some way

No other group seemed interested in doing the study of this specific material

Ideally now some other groups are interested

replies(1): >>42072542 #
3. GuB-42 ◴[] No.42072542[source]
But why did they chose one of the furthest classes of vertebrates compared to humans, exposing them in a way that is impossible for a human since we don't live underwater?

The obvious thing to do would be to use mice and put phtalates in their food. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems like a much better model if studying the potential effect in humans is the goal.