Toothpaste Widely Contaminated With Lead and Other Metals, US Research Finds (theguardian.com) 126
Bruce66423 shares a report: Toothpaste can be widely contaminated with lead and other dangerous heavy metals, new research shows.
Most of 51 brands of toothpaste tested for lead contained the dangerous heavy metal, including those for children or those marketed as green. The testing, conducted by Lead Safe Mama, also found concerning levels of highly toxic arsenic, mercury and cadmium in many brands.
About 90% of toothpastes contained lead, 65% contained arsenic, just under half contained mercury, and one-third had cadmium. Many brands contain a number of the toxins. The highest levels detected violated the state of Washington's limits, but not federal limits. The thresholds have been roundly criticized by public health advocates for not being protective -- no level of exposure to lead is safe, the federal government has found. Bruce66423 asks: "As ever the question that should be asked is: 'What level is worth worrying about and why?'"
Most of 51 brands of toothpaste tested for lead contained the dangerous heavy metal, including those for children or those marketed as green. The testing, conducted by Lead Safe Mama, also found concerning levels of highly toxic arsenic, mercury and cadmium in many brands.
About 90% of toothpastes contained lead, 65% contained arsenic, just under half contained mercury, and one-third had cadmium. Many brands contain a number of the toxins. The highest levels detected violated the state of Washington's limits, but not federal limits. The thresholds have been roundly criticized by public health advocates for not being protective -- no level of exposure to lead is safe, the federal government has found. Bruce66423 asks: "As ever the question that should be asked is: 'What level is worth worrying about and why?'"
Be careful (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce66423 asks: "As ever the question that should be asked is: 'What level is worth worrying about and why?'"
To answer your question too: Why not just mandate 0 lead and arsenic and mercury and cadmium in things that we put into our mouths and vigorously brush our permeable skin with? For fuck's sake, who on earth is in charge of these manufacturing companies? Cant we just have normal shit? All of things are why autism is way up, testosterone in youth is way down, and mental heath is in the toilet in our country. All of these processes are cumulative and we are wildly sick as a result. It isn't "Alpha Male" to be
Re: (Score:3)
Rational actors responding to the economic environment.
You want nonpoisonous toothpaste? Legislate it, and hire an executive who will faithfully enforce the law.
Re: Be careful (Score:2)
"Rational actors responding to the economic environment."
Remember the recent article about how the predictions of rational actor theory aren't observed, so prices are really just noise (as Fischer Black theorized in "Noise") not due to calculations of supply and demand?
Re:Be careful (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just mandate 0 lead and arsenic and mercury and cadmium in things that we put into our mouths
I remember a guy once said "Analyze this down to the trace of sodium that's in everything". Because somehow sodium tends to be present in a lot of places.
Also recall that unless you're buying steel smelted before July 16, 1945, or wine fermented before that date, it's radioactive. If you eat candy of any kind, you're also eating rodent and insect feces. Honey? Bee vomit. Like mushrooms on your steak or pizza? Fungus. Warifn, a heart medication, is also used in rat poison. It's a question of dose (and the ground glass in rat poison isn't good either.) Belladonna is also used by assassins and your pharmacist, cardiologist, and optitrition.
A tiny, tiny bit of whatever isn't going to hurt you. The question is "how tiny", what kind, how often.
Except polonium. That will hurt you. Or, if you're Superman, Kryptonite. And don't get me started on the evils of Unobtainium or Dihydro Monoxide.
Re: Be careful (Score:2)
Re: Be careful (Score:2)
How many more die quicker from its lack?
Re: (Score:2)
To answer your question too: Why not just mandate 0 lead and arsenic and mercury and cadmium in things that we put into our mouths and vigorously brush our permeable skin with?
That's one of those things that sounds great and everyone can agree with because it sounds so wonderful. Then you realize that the practical effects are that people stop buying toothpaste which naturally becomes more expensive in order to meet the new requirements and that people on average have worse health as a result.
If anything just require companies to report on what's in their products and let consumers decide. Otherwise you risk chasing diminishing returns beyond the point of practicality. Eventua
Re: Be careful (Score:2)
There is a third option, set and enforce reasonable limits. All or nothing is a fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and it is very likely that the Federal government has already set reasonable limits. After all, they have set limits. One state, the State of Washington, demands stricter limits, and apparently there are toothpaste manufacturers that fail Washington's stricter limits.
So if you were truly paranoid you could potentially buy your toothpaste from a store in the state of Washington. We live in a world where such a thing probably isn't even that expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also like to see independent testing and labeling requirements. Setting reasonable limits is a good thing, but I'd also like something to motivate them to get that number as low as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Because 0 lead, arsenic, and mercury is basically impossible to achieve, you are saying not one atom of the above is allowed to be present. I will always be able to detect any really low level of anything.
It's a bit like coal power stations release more Uranium-235 every year than the Chernobyl disaster. Even if it is only one part per billion in coal, given that we burn ~8 billion tonnes of it a year, that is one tonne going into the atmosphere every year.
Re: Be careful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was the Iodine-131 that killed (plus a bunch of other short-life isotopes). U-235 is pretty harmless. Unless you drop it on someone in a gun-type bomb. Ithas a half life of around 700 million years. Meaning that in my lifetime, I'm more likely to die from lightning than cancer from the odd released neutron.
Iodine has a half life of eight days. And your body naturally concentrates it in your thyroid, where the high radiation flux and cincentration can do immediate damage.
Re: (Score:2)
But Fluoride isn't a metal.
(Unless you're an astronomer)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While we still have a functioning CDC [jhu.edu]
no studies have been done on the .7 in public water
What a load of horseshit, as a quick search on Google Scholar could have told you.
Re: (Score:2)
Swallowing Fluoride is the correct action. It only works when the Fluoride is constantly immersing you teeth from your saliva.
Swallowing toothpaste, on the other hand, would be bad for your health - Because of all those cleaning compounds ... and maybe some excess of heavy metals too it seems.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all about those precious bodily fluids [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Caught in a lie. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some companies have defended themselves, often claiming that lead is found in trace levels throughout the environment and is impossible to avoid. Others have said the levels Rubin found are not concerning.
...
Several children’s toothpastes, like Dr Brown’s Baby Toothpaste, did not test positive for any metals and did not contain the ingredients in question.
So much for impossible.
More Complex (Score:2)
Re:More Complex (Score:5, Insightful)
First we need to know what level of lead and the other metals detected is safe for a toothpaste bearing in mind that you spit almost all of it out
It has long been determined that no amount of lead is safe for humans. There is a shitload of data to support this conclusion. As such, it becomes a statistical gamble of exposure if there is lead in your toothpaste.
The simple answer to the complex question is that no lead should be in toothpaste.
You seem to be rehashing a lot of the arguments that were made be the oil and gas companies when leaded gas was still legal.
Re: (Score:2)
It has long been determined that no amount of lead is safe for humans. There is a shitload of data to support this conclusion. As such, it becomes a statistical gamble of exposure if there is lead in your toothpaste.
The simple answer to the complex question is that no lead should be in toothpaste.
Unwillingness to accept any risk / engage in balancing of competing costs serves no constructive purpose.
You seem to be rehashing a lot of the arguments that were made be the oil and gas companies when leaded gas was still legal.
Gas naturally contains lead. Leaded gas is still used in some relatively niche applications. Substances having replaced lead have their own set of human health problems. Gas is not risk free.
The result of refraining from adding millions of tons of additional lead to gas was average blood levels in humans being cut in half with substantial measurable impacts on human health. Benefits clearly outweighed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
uncontrolled experiments with brain damage in children due to low level lead exposure is not worth the risk
There has never been a time in the history of the world where humans have not been exposed to lead. Trace amounts are everywhere in the environment. Average human blood levels of lead have fallen by 95% since the 70s.
What is happening currently is people are hyperventilating over trace amounts of lead in toothpaste, food and the environment without any rational sense of proportionality in terms of risk and (opportunity) costs.
Despite significant decline in lead levels health outcomes have also declined sub
Re: More Complex (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck balancing competing costs. It isn't that hard or expensive to remove lead from the source ingredients being used. Whether that is the job of the toothpaste companies or the companies selling the ingredients - doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if it doubles the price of toothpaste on average. Lead is too easily absorbed by the body for ANY amount to be present inside your body, even temporarily. So, either don't use ingredients that contain lead (like the one baby toothpaste) or do work to remove lead from
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck balancing competing costs. It isn't that hard or expensive to remove lead from the source ingredients being used. Whether that is the job of the toothpaste companies or the companies selling the ingredients - doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if it doubles the price of toothpaste on average.
It does when people buy or use less of it as a result. A decline in dental health has systemic consequences that far outweigh risks associated with trace levels of lead exposure. To put this in historical perspective average blood levels of lead have fallen by 95% since the 70s. Meanwhile public health has gone to shit with a 7x increase in type 2 diabetes and 4x increase in child obesity over the same period.
Lead is too easily absorbed by the body for ANY amount to be present inside your body, even temporarily.
This is a non-sequitur.
So, either don't use ingredients that contain lead (like the one baby toothpaste)
This toothpaste like everything else contains some trace levels of lead.
Re: More Complex (Score:2)
Remember how rational actors decided not adding lead to gas costs more than adding it, and not adding salt and sugar to foods makes it cost more than accepting bribes from industry to make everything contain salt and sugar?
Re: (Score:2)
Unwillingness to accept any risk / engage in balancing of competing costs serves no constructive purpose.
That might have been a via argument if every toothpaste tested positive for lead contamination. However, the fact that there are toothpastes from multiple vendors that contain no lead shows that competing costs are not prohibitive to producing lead-free toothpaste.
Arguing in favor of allowing lead in toothpaste is a weird hill to die on but at least you're dead.
Re: More Complex (Score:2)
Unfortunately people go insane from lead before they get gangrene of the testicles which is before death.
Re: (Score:2)
That might have been a via argument if every toothpaste tested positive for lead contamination. However, the fact that there are toothpastes from multiple vendors that contain no lead shows that competing costs are not prohibitive to producing lead-free toothpaste.
Toothpaste you cited is meant for small children and doesn't contain fluoride. There was never any claim it doesn't contain any lead at all. Read the lab report.
Arguing in favor of allowing lead in toothpaste is a weird hill to die on but at least you're dead.
There is trace amounts of lead in the water and virtually all foods. What are you going to do starve? Vacuum it all out? And FFS most people don't even eat toothpaste ... they spit it out.. Some perspective could prove useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Gas naturally contains lead.
False.
Re: (Score:2)
False.
This is not the case, there are trace amounts of lead in unleaded gasoline.
https://archive.thinkprogress.... [thinkprogress.org]
Re: More Complex (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leaded gas is still used in some relatively niche applications.
I think "nearly every piston-engined aircraft in existence" qualifies as more than a niche application...
Re: More Complex (Score:2)
Re:More Complex (Score:4, Informative)
families that had children with high levels of the metal in their blood. The common denominator among them was a brand of toothpaste, Earthpaste, that contained lead.
As to why it's happening:
the contamination seems to lie in some ingredients added to toothpaste, including hydroxyapatite, calcium carbonate and bentonite clay. Hydroxyapatite is extracted from cow bone and added because it allegedly helps teeth absorb calcium. Calcium carbonate is added to help remove stains from teeth. Bentonite clay is a cleaning agent. Those with the highest levels of lead all had bentonite clay.
Sadly, Earthpaste is advertised as "Natural & Healthy Bentonite Clay Toothpaste." So nature wants to kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
"It has long been determined that no amount of lead is safe for humans."
But here you are posting and living on a planet infested with lead. So clearly there is a safe level of lead.
Even worse, the lead content of the planet is increasing over time as the uranium and thorium decay down to lead.
So the question really is at what rate does the body eliminate lead. As long as intake is less than elimination there is no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
But here you are posting and living on a planet infested with lead. So clearly there is a safe level of lead.
Not at all. Just because something doesn't kill you doesn't mean it's safe. You can recover from a lot of brain damage but that doesn't mean that being exposed to something that causes brain damage is safe.
Even worse, the lead content of the planet is increasing over time as the uranium and thorium decay down to lead.
The problem is human exposure to the element, not the element itself. Also, with half-lives measured in billions of years, I think we'll be OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Just because something doesn't kill you doesn't mean it's safe. You can recover from a lot of brain damage but that doesn't mean that being exposed to something that causes brain damage is safe.
Nothing is safe, there are risks in ALL actions and inaction. It is necessary to objectively quantify risks and costs in order to make any kind of rational assessment.
Re: More Complex (Score:2)
Would your argument change if you gave up the assumption that prices are ational?
Re: More Complex (Score:2)
Risk vs Reward (Score:2)
It has long been determined that no amount of lead is safe for humans.
That's not true. The accurate statement is that there is no known safe level for lead exposure. This is partly a result of lead being highly toxic and hanging around in the body for a long time and partly a result that we do not allow experiments where people are exposed to different amounts of lead to see when bad things start happening because that would be extremely unethical.
The simple answer to the complex question is that no lead should be in toothpaste.
I'll freely admit that is my gut reaction too. However, I'm a scientist and I like to make decision rationally based on evidence
Re: Risk vs Reward (Score:2)
Re: Risk vs Reward (Score:2)
"I'm a scientist and I like to make decision [sic] ~~rationally based on evidence~~ fearing going against the social consensus,"
As for Covid, what if my actual risk of dying from it was in reality zero because I self-isolated in the woods?
Re: More Complex (Score:2)
Since houses burn down, why is homelessness illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Whether and how safe it is is going to depend a LOT on what form it is in, Lead nitrate, or lead acetate would be quite concerning, but lead hydroxide much less. I couldn't tell from skimming, but I didn't see anything to make me think we were talking about metallic lead. Lead as part of a molecule in clay *ought* to be relatively save. (OTOH, lead adsorbed into clay would be quite concerning.)
Re: (Score:2)
So much for impossible.
They are there, just needs more sensitive tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sample Size of 1 (Score:5, Informative)
They tested a single sample of a product. We don't know the lot number or manufacture date. Yet, the article draws conclusions about entire Brands.
This is someone with an agenda pushing it and has nothing to do with science or safety.
Re:Sample Size of 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
They tested a single sample of a product. We don't know the lot number or manufacture date. Yet, the article draws conclusions about entire Brands.
This is someone with an agenda pushing it and has nothing to do with science or safety.
Not only that, but the article is somewhat misleading. 90% of the toothpastes contain measurable lead, but only 3 out of 53 toothpastes exceeded the Washington state limits, so 94% of the toothpastes are far under the Washington state limits. And the Washington state limits are far lower than the federal limits.
As we have seen from some states like California, these state limits are often lower but without necessarily strong science. If "no level of lead is safe," then even Washington state's limit makes no sense. Sometimes I wonder if the limits are totally made up. Like someone is thinking, we'd like to set the limits at zero, but then everyone will just ignore us, so we'll pick a limit that is low but won't be summarily dismissed. But there's no science behind the limit, so the limit is just an arbitrary number.
Re:Sample Size of 1 (Score:4, Insightful)
You're probably right in practice, but what you're saying doesn't necessarily have to be true. Let's say I really do want to set a zero limit. There are two possible scientifically-based non-zero numbers I could choose to put in legislation:
So you legislate at the maximum of those two values, and you end up with a number that might look arbitrary, but is in fact scientifically driven.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the lead levels wax and wane like moon phases?
Re: (Score:2)
You think all toothpaste is made in one factory using one process and one set of raw materials and none of that stuff ever changes over time?
Re: (Score:2)
You think they only looked at a single tube of toothpaste?
The problem is the 90% (Score:2)
In this case they pulled 51 bottles of toothpaste off the shelf and found lead in 45 of them. So yeah we've got a problem. Big one.
This is a consequence of so many things being made overseas. It's not just about the lower pay and lower environmental
Re: (Score:2)
We've found something that requires further research, not enough information to draw conclusions. A proper study checks more samples from more places.
Single samples are not science. Bob bought some toothpaste and it had microscopic amounts of lead is a story, not science.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you lying or just really, really, stupid?
Either way, what could you possibly have to gain from intentionally misrepresenting this particular story? Are you just a fan of contaminated consumer products?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's clearly someone with an agenda. That doesn't, however, imply it "has nothing to do with science or safety".
FWIW, there have been official government statements that there is no such thing as a safe level of lead. While this is probably true, it's also true that small enough amounts don't do any detectable damage. But do remember that it took a long time to acknowledge that tetraethyl lead was doing damage. It was hard (impossible?) to detect in any one individual. To detect the damage requir
Re: (Score:2)
> On the one hand, it's probably a real problem. On the other hand, it's not going to be a major problem.
We cannot tell what is going on with this tiny amount of data.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't tell, but that's only because you're really, really, stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
As sample size of 1 is still valid in the context of an industry wide trend. You're talking about quality control within brands. When literally every toothpaste from every brand tested positive, quality control of individual lots is not actually relevant.
and has nothing to do with science or safety.
You are in no position to school people on science when you don't understand how to analyse a specific selection. It's like you have a completely difference science experiment in your head and are complaining that they aren't answering the thing you want th
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.allamericanmade.co... [allamericanmade.com]
"Crest manufactures most of its toothpaste in Greensboro, North Carolina, but they also manufacture at Proctor & Gamble’s Naucalpan plant, located to the northwest of Mexico City. Greensboro serves as the main location where they make toothpaste."
Where did the tested products come from? For example: https://www.colgatepalmolive.c... [colgatepalmolive.com]
This anecdote simply does not give us enough information to understand the situation. Hiding important details is not lending credibili
Re: (Score:2)
Hiding important details is not lending credibility
That's an irrelevant detail, not an important detail, you drooling moron.
Yes, that detail could be very important, but not in this case.
Why are you so hot to defend lead in toothpaste anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Where did the tested products come from?
Doesn't matter for the conclusion. The study is not looking at identifying a quality issue with a specific brand's product and identifying the source. The study is looking across the industry.
If you think your result shows lead only because you have a problem at one specific manufacturing facility then commission a study to answer *that* question. It's not the question here.
And based on the outcomes of this study here (which you seemingly still don't understand) the answer is most likely that it doesn't mat
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a study, its an anecdote. For all we know dude filled those tubes himself.
The full results (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the full chart for those who are interested: https://tamararubin.com/2025/0... [tamararubin.com]
How much toothpaste do people ingest? (Score:2)
Do you eat your toothpaste? I spit it out and I suspect most people do.
So the real issue is how much lead, etc. does a person typically ingest from the toothpaste relative to the FDA recommended limits rather than how much is in the toothpaste.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Although we do consume some toothpaste via what's leftover in the mouth after brushing, I'd expect you'd have to have quite high concentrations in the toothpaste to be of any concern. We probably ingest more lead via air pollution and in our food than via this vector, though it would have to be properly studied to be sure, assuming it hasn't been already. This study in particular seems to have some flaws.
It's worth noting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it worth noting though? It sounds like you're putting up a strawman given how the levels measured in this case are not in some cases above government safe limits, but additionally it is widely recognised that lead has correlation with bad medical outcomes at all concentration levels.
Skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)
I've no doubt they're doing the testing in good faith, but Lead Safe Mama doesn't sound like a completely impartial organization. I'd be more interested to see what researchers have to say about those levels of lead in toothpaste.
Re: (Score:2)
The owner is not impartial since her children are lead-poisoned. But the site says it is science based and reproducible. I think in the case of lead and other heavy metal poisoning this is spot-on. You don't need to take the side of the heavy metal producers, lol! Snipped from the site:
Tamara Rubin is a multiple-federal-award-winning independent advocate for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety, and a documentary filmmaker. She is also a mother of Lead-poisoned children (two of her
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt the numbers are real, and that she's uncovered multiple incidences of products with dangerously high levels of lead.
But advocates like that tend to hyper-focus on their issue and tend to insist on perfect outcomes instead of sufficient outcomes.
I agree those lead numbers look concerning, but I'd like to hear from qualified researchers who haven't built their identity around getting lead out of stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I've no doubt they're doing the testing in good faith, but Lead Safe Mama doesn't sound like a completely impartial organization. I'd be more interested to see what researchers have to say about those levels of lead in toothpaste.
It's pretty clear no levels of lead are "safe." The current limits for food safety are a negotiation between companies lobbying Congress and government regulators.
Absolutely safe no, but how much lead is one likely to inject via toothpaste, and what are the health consequences?
Are we talking an IQ point or two and a week of life expectancy, or 0.0001 IQ points and two minutes of life expectancy?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely safe no, but how much lead is one likely to inject via toothpaste
If you're injecting toothpaste, a little lead is not what you should be worried about ^_^
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely safe no, but how much lead is one likely to inject via toothpaste
If you're injecting toothpaste, a little lead is not what you should be worried about ^_^
Only amateurs only address tooth decay from the outside.
A pro goes after it from inside the body as well.
Dont rely on government regulation (Score:5, Informative)
Lead has been a known poison for centuries yet leaded petrol was a thing for 80 years (and still is with avgas) with mendacious car manufactures whinging about how hard it would be to make valves strong enough to cope without, so useless governments around the world just rolled over until momentum started to grow in the 80s to ban it. I wonder how many people had an early death so car companies could pay out bigger dividends.
Re: (Score:2)
You're speaking as if car companies capitulated. They didn't. Fundamentally it was a significant effort not only by car companies but also by chemical engineers to formulate an alternate fuel. Simply not adding TEL to what would be a leaded fuel and sticking it into any engine made in the last 50 years would outright destroy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet diesel engines with a far higher compression ratio and messier combustion process have never used it yet the engines last for a million miles. Don't tell me it couldn't have been done decades before.
Rinse vs Eat (Score:2)
Not sure about the rest of the world but here in the UK dentist advise you not to rinse after brushing and to swallow any residual toothpaste for what they call "a systemic effect". To me, being someone who was always told to rinse thoroughly from my childhood days, the idea of swallowing toothpaste sounds like total heresy. It's a complex chemical, for f...s sake!
But, if some of us follow this crazy guidance and swallow, they may indeed absorb quite a lot of those unwanted chemicals...
Re: (Score:2)
Toothpaste on regular toothbrush. Brush a quick brushing and tongue.
Sonic care brush the normal time with the toothpaste already on the teeth, 2 minutes total.
Put around 2tbsp of a alcohol based rinse into the water flosser and fill the rest with water
Water pik the tooth gaps
Use r
Re: (Score:3)
How to keep your teeth clean [www.nhs.uk]
Similarly for Scotland:
Teeth cleaning guide [nhsinform.scot]
Again no mention of swallowing.
Re: (Score:2)
If the advise is to not rinse then that is telling us to eat the toothpaste. Of course, it would be far better to take the fluoride in it's basic form rather than along with a stack of cleaning agents ... and it seem, a bunch of heavy metals to boot.
Alarm fatigue (Score:2)
Everything being contaminated is somewhat convenient. If you don't eat contaminated food then you won't have to brush your teeth with contaminated toothpaste.
hey if China will hold back on rare earth (Score:2)
We've got plenty of toothpaste around these parts
Joke's on them (Score:2)
I haven't brushed my teeth yet this year.
Whiter teeth? (Score:2)
Isn't/wasn't lead (and other problematic chemicals) used to make good quality white paint?
I think that was made illegal some time ago.
Would big companies claiming to make your teeth whiter use the chemicals that were banned in paint?
Just asking, I have no idea what the heck is in toothpaste.
Doing some basic math here... (Score:2)
The EPA's "action level" for lead in drinking water is 15 ppb. If you drink 8 glasses a day, that's a little over 4 pounds of water, or a bit under 2 kg.
The recommended amount of toothpaste per brush is a "pea sized portion", supposedly "0.25 grams". Assume you swallow a third of it (which would be a generous estimate), and assume you're brushing 3x/day... that's still 0.25 grams per day, or 1/8000 of the amount of drinking water you ingest.
You can nitpick the math of course. Most people don't drink 8 gl
Lead is probably coming from the tube (Score:2)
By and far that is the most likely source of the lead contamination. Those things are basically plastic-coated foil, and if it's recycled material, you can bet there's various metal types mixed in.
Here is the real question (Score:2)
Never mind how much is safe, how the hell did all these chemicals get in there?
Was is intentional, or was it accidental?
just remember (Score:2)
Just remember not to eat the toothpaste, even though it is really good on Ritz crackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that matter?
Re: (Score:2)
As I posted above, based on TFA not a click-baiting alarmist blog but a site made by a documentary filmmaker with two lead-poisoned children. But do troll on.