In the house on my own and an article popped up on my feed with the following statement:
While the Government has insisted the chemical is safe, cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.
The proceeding paragraphs are about zinc cadmium sulphide.
I think this is a flawed argument, essentially inferring that any given molecule can be said to be toxic just because one of it's component parts is toxic but I can't think of a good example to back this up.
What is a good example of a common compound that is ingested often (daily?) but contains a particularly toxic element if that element were ingested in some way on it's own?
No comments:
Post a Comment