Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Excellent (Score 1) 192

Fair point, Symbian and RIM were still strong then in some markets, but in others the iPhone was definitely king - such as this 78% share in Western Europe in late 2009, or 50% share worldwide early 2010.

The iPhone certainly had dominant mindshare back then, but I will concede that its peak marketshare perhaps didn't last long enough to overly concern EU regulators.

Comment Re:Excellent (Score 2) 192

Have you forgotten that the iPhone too was once the dominant smartphone around? For many years after its release, before the rise of Android, the iPhone was the only game in town, and owned the market even more than Android does now. Same with iPads, which arguably still dominate the tablet market.

And at the time they were even more restrictive and locked down. Where was the EU then?

Comment Re: But how MUCH lead? (Score 1) 192

They grind the daylights out of that food.

As I said elsewhere, this does not explain why there are (even more) differences in liquids like apple and grape juice. Packaging is a potential source, but I haven't found the study to confirm if they controlled for that (highly likely it occurred to them to them too), as that would show up in "snack-sized" adult foods as well.

IMHO, since a difference has been established, the onus is now on the food manufacturers to explain (and hopefully eliminate) the elevated levels. But this will require pressure, either public or regulatory.

Comment Re:Yes, Well crap (Score 1) 192

And your point? The limit for candy is also in the report - but rice cereal is not candy, few babies would eat anything like 100g of candy daily, and TFA makes no claims that the levels found in various foods are all necessarily illegal under current limits (which are being reassessed).

Once again, I draw your attention to the point of the article.

Comment Re:You're comparing to a nonexistent zero state (Score 1) 192

it's pointless trying to avoid exposure to "ANY level of lead."

Sure, but we can keep exposure down to undetectable levels - as we manage to do pretty well with adult foods. Again, not so much for baby foods.

It's the higher concentrations of lead which you have to worry about. So OP is correct that without knowing how much lead was found, it's pointless.

So why not read the source report that the article cites? The actual numbers are all right there (I quoted some in a different comment). But the overall conclusion, that there is more lead found in baby food, still leads to the not-at-all-pointless question of "Why?"

Just as a guess, I'd say because baby food is finely minced into a gruel, any contamination is spread throughout the product instead of just sitting on the surface where it can be easily washed off

Your guess doesn't explain why simple drinks like apple juice are more than twice as likely to contain detectable lead if they're produced for babies (55% of samples vs 25%). There are many other examples in the report, and in other citations from the Ars article.

Comment Re:Perfectly foreseeable (Score 1) 155

Except the report makes it very clear at the beginning (page xi) that the only subsidies it describes, including tax expenditures, are given solely to the energy industry. Tax breaks that are also available to a different industry were not included in the report, which means depreciation of capitol is not shown, and all the figures in the Tax Expenditures column are indeed actual energy industry subsidies.

If you read the report; you'd see full breakdowns in Tables 2 & 6 of the specific tax subsidies that makes up those numbers. Capitol depreciation is not one of them, nor are specific subsidies like "Temporary 50-Percent Expensing for Equipment used in the Refining of Liquid Fuels" ($600M in FY2013) available to other industries.

Comment Re:This is not surprising (Score 2) 97

Then how do you explain the Air Force launching their recent NROL-76 satellite with SpaceX?

When you're saving that much money every successful launch (enough to cover the whole cost of the average satellite if Musk is right), you can easily afford a 5.7% loss rate. And replacing a satellite means more jobs, right?

Comment Re:Yes, Well crap (Score 5, Insightful) 192

Non-idiots would have simply checked the cited source, where all the numbers you're looking for are clearly displayed, before declaring it not worth reporting.

If you had, you'd see the 1993 FDA lead limit was no more than 6 micrograms/day for young children - and that e.g. baby rice cereal was found to contain up to 82 parts per billion. Which means that feeding your baby 100g of that cereal would already exceed the daily limit by 37%, without including other sources.

And again, you missed the whole point of the article, which was asking why baby food has more detectable lead in it than similar adult foods, especially as babies are so much more sensitive to its toxic effects.

Comment Re:Levels (Score 5, Interesting) 192

If you'd read the rest of the article, you'd see that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends lead levels in drinking water be kept below 1 part per billion - a thousandth of the amount you're talking about, even with imperfect absorption. And if you followed up the article's sources, you'd see data showing that e.g. Walgreen's 100% Grape Juice was found to contain around 15 ppb. FDA levels for e.g. grape juice are currently 50 ppb, so it can legally contain far more than the AAP considers wise, which is why the article noted that the FDA is currently reviewing its 20 yo standards to account for more recent research.

But again, that's not the actual point of the article. To repeat; if we can keep lead below detectable levels in most adult foods, why are we not doing at least as much for the baby versions of those same foods?

Comment Re:Perfectly foreseeable (Score 1) 155

Even if you accept that report as the whole picture (and it says right at the beginning that it isn't), it says very clearly in Table ES2 that your "$150 million" figure is low by well over an order of magnitude.

The question stands: why does any industry as mature as coal and oil *still* need billions in direct annual subsidies, on top of the $400+ billion it's already received in recent decades?

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it. -- William Buckley

Working...