It’s raining PFAS: rainwater is unsafe to drink even in Antarctica and Tibet(su.se)
su.se
It’s raining PFAS: rainwater is unsafe to drink even in Antarctica and Tibet
https://www.su.se/english/news/it-s-raining-pfas-even-in-antarctica-and-on-the-tibetan-plateau-rainwater-is-unsafe-to-drink-1.620735
455 コメント
The problem is we're effectively using the public as a guinea pig. Then when lots of issues are detected, the specific chemicals used are banned. Then industry quickly replaces it with a very similar compound(see e.g Bisphenol A being replaced with Bisphenol S and F in "BPA free plastics" even though it's not known that they are safer) which is likely to have similar problems, but not proven to yet, kicking the can down the road.
Some possible regulations come to mind. For instance, maybe a ban or very strict regulations on the widespread use of compounds like PFAS that have no known biological or other natural path of degradation. Because it's become very clear that such compounds are inevitably going to end up spread all over global ecosystems.
Edit: So I did some more research. Not only are BPS and BPF not known to be safer, they are already known to have many of the same problems as BPA. To make things worse BPS and possibly BPF are even less degradable than BPA. So they may even be worse. This is not even a little surprising. Their structure is identical except for the linkage between the phenol groups. From pharmacology it's well known that highly similar structures tend to have similar pharmacodynamic properties. So they're not even remotely likely to have been good replacements before the growing mountain of evidence to the contrary appeared. Clearly this blatantly irresponsible behaviour from industry needs to be stopped.
Some possible regulations come to mind. For instance, maybe a ban or very strict regulations on the widespread use of compounds like PFAS that have no known biological or other natural path of degradation. Because it's become very clear that such compounds are inevitably going to end up spread all over global ecosystems.
Edit: So I did some more research. Not only are BPS and BPF not known to be safer, they are already known to have many of the same problems as BPA. To make things worse BPS and possibly BPF are even less degradable than BPA. So they may even be worse. This is not even a little surprising. Their structure is identical except for the linkage between the phenol groups. From pharmacology it's well known that highly similar structures tend to have similar pharmacodynamic properties. So they're not even remotely likely to have been good replacements before the growing mountain of evidence to the contrary appeared. Clearly this blatantly irresponsible behaviour from industry needs to be stopped.
Along with banning the chemicals, the corporation could be “murdered”. Like a death sentence for a corp. They would cease to exist in that country. I’m sure this would make them think much harder about the effects of their actions.
CEO's love spouting that they have all the responsibility, so chuck them in jail for 50 years. They do so much more damage to the society than even murderers, it's time for some fucking accountability.
Same for the top shareholders. I get in trouble if my dog bites somebody, it should be no different for a corporation.
Why stop there? It should be ALL shareholders face imprisonment. That will make you think twice about diversifying your stock portfolio!
If I own 0.001% of a company which has to do 100 years of jailtime, it doesn't make sense to pay the overhead costs of jailing me for eight hours. Maybe I should do community service related to the harms my company caused or something like that instead.
It wasn’t obvious in retrospect, but I was being completely sarcastic. Anyone holding a managed retirement account or a mutual fund could be held liable.
Maybe there could be provisions where the fund manager goes to jail instead in that case.
My inflation adjusted $0.02 -
Maybe limit culpability to SEC Form 3 filers - easier to prove sufficient leverage and potential motive if not for criminal matters, then at least civil matters.
Maybe limit culpability to SEC Form 3 filers - easier to prove sufficient leverage and potential motive if not for criminal matters, then at least civil matters.
That risk would justify their salaries, somewhat.
The equivalent action is simply a fine such that the assets are gone.
It's pointless to dissolve a corporation, as new ones can be formed. A corporation is just a formal name and structure we give to a group of people working together.
The way to destroy means is to seize assets.
It's pointless to dissolve a corporation, as new ones can be formed. A corporation is just a formal name and structure we give to a group of people working together.
The way to destroy means is to seize assets.
Currently though, the relationship between the fine and the profitability of the transgression seems wrong. The fines seem to be too low to be an effective deterrent. In addition, white collar crime is punished far too leniently, given their often outsized societal effects.
I think by seize assets GP means a fine of 100% of the net worth of the company
Fine them 100% of their assets’ value and make shareholders personally responsible for any debt, proportional to their equity ownership stake.
It might be pointless to do so, however you could also make it illegal for the existing employees to continue to work in the respective industry. It would prove to be a huge incentive to ensuring best practice.
Aha, but you have one out. You could burn the trademark and lock it up for 10 years, and potentially, let all IP owners from the time of infraction causing the corporate death sentence go fallow (so any company that acquired such IP after the infraction would have a worthless piece of paper).
Or alternatively walking back the „limited“ liability. Would probably kill all innovation though
Limited liability sets up an incentive structure in some industries to create business with negative environmental externalities. They use the limitations of liability as a stop loss measure while converting environmental harms into profit. Simply make environmental liability unlimited.
I sort of like this line of reasoning. Though in penal contexts I'm against the death penalty and favour a rehabilitation based approach. So maybe if the government seized control the corporation for a time, to rehabilitate it?
You'd trust a government with that?
I wouldn't. It may be simplistic but I think that the judiciary applying firm measures designed to protect the public and the biosphere, is the best approach.
I wouldn't. It may be simplistic but I think that the judiciary applying firm measures designed to protect the public and the biosphere, is the best approach.
I tend to agree. But I could see scenarios where "corporate jail" might be an option in extreme circumstances. I.e where the corp is too integral to the public to leave to whatever power games result from shaking up the company theough fines and sending executives to jail(which we should do far more of by the way...).
It also depends though. Which government? I would have far lower credence in trusting the US government with this compared to some European governments that came out of a healthier democracy than the US. But that also goes for the regulations necessary for your less radical approach.
It also depends though. Which government? I would have far lower credence in trusting the US government with this compared to some European governments that came out of a healthier democracy than the US. But that also goes for the regulations necessary for your less radical approach.
[deleted]
> So maybe if the government seized control the corporation for a time, to rehabilitate it?
I could see that working in some areas, like military suppliers. Most of the time though it'd be bad to give the government any opportunity to generate profit from law enforcement actions. It could incentivize terrible behavior.
I could see that working in some areas, like military suppliers. Most of the time though it'd be bad to give the government any opportunity to generate profit from law enforcement actions. It could incentivize terrible behavior.
Isn't this what delayed prosecution agreements do? The company has to rehabilitate from the noncompliant behaviour or face full penalties.
Sounds a bit 1984.
Ultimately most CEOs are probably psychopaths. What would be useful is banning psychopaths from there positions as they lack empathy.
Not sure if we can reliably tell who is a psychopath but it’s always going to be an issue.
Ultimately most CEOs are probably psychopaths. What would be useful is banning psychopaths from there positions as they lack empathy.
Not sure if we can reliably tell who is a psychopath but it’s always going to be an issue.
It’s not like consumers don’t benefit from these chemicals
Sure I could buy all metal products but I still don’t because I still like plastic and I’m well aware that it’s destroying the world, but plastic enables my current lifestyle and I currently enjoy my current lifestyle
…As well as billions of other people.
It’s not an issue of “companies being bad.” It’s because we all love our current way of life and no one really wants to stop the companies because most of us still want the products
Sure I could buy all metal products but I still don’t because I still like plastic and I’m well aware that it’s destroying the world, but plastic enables my current lifestyle and I currently enjoy my current lifestyle
…As well as billions of other people.
It’s not an issue of “companies being bad.” It’s because we all love our current way of life and no one really wants to stop the companies because most of us still want the products
That will only lead to dubious constructs with shell corporations etc.
See Ciba-Geigy New Jersey
Corporations need to focus on being efficient, and doing what they do best within the rules. Government should concern itself with doing its best to continue a healthy, happy nation. Regulation does not always need to be complex, and it should put public interest ahead of corporate agency.
Would consider an assassin service blameless because government regulation was good enough.
While good regulations are good, companies are made of people, and the people need to act like it
While good regulations are good, companies are made of people, and the people need to act like it
Economists might favour something like a progressive tax on untested chemicals in consumer products. The less safety testing you do, the more expensive they will be to use.
Because you put your finger on the sociological problem at hand here. It's just cheaper to do the wrong thing right now. I always think that capitalism has this evolutionary nature where inevitably the biggest coroporations will be the ones that are maximally unethical within(or just enough outside that lawyers can handle it) the confines of the law. And you don't have to look far to find evidence of that. I think regulations need to be designed more with this evolutionary model in mind. It seems lost on most politicians currently.
Because you put your finger on the sociological problem at hand here. It's just cheaper to do the wrong thing right now. I always think that capitalism has this evolutionary nature where inevitably the biggest coroporations will be the ones that are maximally unethical within(or just enough outside that lawyers can handle it) the confines of the law. And you don't have to look far to find evidence of that. I think regulations need to be designed more with this evolutionary model in mind. It seems lost on most politicians currently.
The problem with such taxes are that the proposed tax amounts are never actually high enough to account for the damage done. Should the tax be equivalent to the amount required to reverse the damage? This is assuming the damage is going to or can be repaired.
For carbon emissions, I think the case for a tax is fairly clear, since we _can't_ just outright ban emissions, the harm is 100% known, and we can even estimate the cost of reversing the emissions through carbon capture.
For these chemicals, it seems much less clear. The uncertainty is so great I don't think I could estimate an appropriate tax rate. The danger is that the alternatives presented are a ban, and a low tax that wouldn't solve the problem. Vested interests would push for the second option and present the problem as solved.
For carbon emissions, I think the case for a tax is fairly clear, since we _can't_ just outright ban emissions, the harm is 100% known, and we can even estimate the cost of reversing the emissions through carbon capture.
For these chemicals, it seems much less clear. The uncertainty is so great I don't think I could estimate an appropriate tax rate. The danger is that the alternatives presented are a ban, and a low tax that wouldn't solve the problem. Vested interests would push for the second option and present the problem as solved.
These are all good points.
Making corporations more accountable for external costs is maybe the great challenge of our time. I think markets and capitalism are necessary. I can't help but think there must be some more fundamental selective pressure that can be applied that will lead to corporations that take externalised cost into account being more successful over time. I have no suggestions. I'm not sure anyone does. But I can't quite get it out my mind lately. I even caught myself considering going off to study evolutionary economics. The 25 year old me would stare at me in incredulity upon hearing this. I feel like the social sciences have a ways to go still before being able to answer questions like this.
Making corporations more accountable for external costs is maybe the great challenge of our time. I think markets and capitalism are necessary. I can't help but think there must be some more fundamental selective pressure that can be applied that will lead to corporations that take externalised cost into account being more successful over time. I have no suggestions. I'm not sure anyone does. But I can't quite get it out my mind lately. I even caught myself considering going off to study evolutionary economics. The 25 year old me would stare at me in incredulity upon hearing this. I feel like the social sciences have a ways to go still before being able to answer questions like this.
But you have to also take into account damage caused by not using these chemicals.
Corporations are people and how dare you threaten peoples' agencies like that! You wouldn't propose that of a human group, so why do it to non-human persons??
I don't get the satire - you would propose the same regulation for individuals ? Don't see anything corporation specific about the comment.
I know you're being sarcastic here. But man it depresses me how many people seem to unironically think this way.
I actually like that corporations want to be considered people - that means they are not above the law, no matter the size, therefore if they cause harm to people(s), and it is intentional/illegal it is entirely within the right of government to stop them.
Can you post those links for inquiring minds?
This. This is what regulation is for and should be doing.
Trying to keep track of what is safe and isn't is basically impossible for an individual.
I tried for years to avoid PFAS and friends, only to discover my sofa was covered in it.
What's the point.
Trying to keep track of what is safe and isn't is basically impossible for an individual.
I tried for years to avoid PFAS and friends, only to discover my sofa was covered in it.
What's the point.
Regulation works when experts really do have the answer.
But the problem here is that we just don't know. We know about a few worrisome problems and signs, but we don't have a clear picture like we do with lead or asbestos.
We could switch from "allow by default" to "deny by default", but I'm not even sure that would help. Often problems are hard to find even once its widespread.
We also don't want to foster a "chemicals are bad" attitude more than it already exists.
I think the right answer is more funding for long-term rigorous studies. That way we know.
But the problem here is that we just don't know. We know about a few worrisome problems and signs, but we don't have a clear picture like we do with lead or asbestos.
We could switch from "allow by default" to "deny by default", but I'm not even sure that would help. Often problems are hard to find even once its widespread.
We also don't want to foster a "chemicals are bad" attitude more than it already exists.
I think the right answer is more funding for long-term rigorous studies. That way we know.
> We also don't want to foster a "chemicals are bad" attitude more than it already exists.
Why don't we want to foster this? If some compound is unknown, it seems prudent to assume its a risk until proven otherwise. Then you can calculate whether or not the possible miniscule or nonexistent benefit is worth the potentially miniscule or catastrophic downside.
Some might respond that this would hamper progress, but really it would just hamper sales. You can continue to learn things without testing on the general public. And if you can't, then maybe that's no excuse to test it in prod.
Why don't we want to foster this? If some compound is unknown, it seems prudent to assume its a risk until proven otherwise. Then you can calculate whether or not the possible miniscule or nonexistent benefit is worth the potentially miniscule or catastrophic downside.
Some might respond that this would hamper progress, but really it would just hamper sales. You can continue to learn things without testing on the general public. And if you can't, then maybe that's no excuse to test it in prod.
We actually do have an example of a category that is regulated as “deny by default” in the US but not elsewhere!
Sunscreen is regulated by the FDA unlike all other cosmetic products, and is considered a cosmetic in Korea, Japan, Canada and Asia. The end result is that there are a lot of new sunscreen formulations no one wants to put through the FDA process despite several attempts at simplification by the FDA and Congress; a new sunscreen chemical hasn’t been approved since the turn of the century.
The problem is that the already approved 15 or so chemicals either have side effects of their own, or have bad cosmetic properties (bad texture, bad mixing, leaves white color on skin, etc.). We may actually be exposing people to more risk from skin cancer due to the lack of products that people actually want to apply to their skin daily.
Sunscreen is regulated by the FDA unlike all other cosmetic products, and is considered a cosmetic in Korea, Japan, Canada and Asia. The end result is that there are a lot of new sunscreen formulations no one wants to put through the FDA process despite several attempts at simplification by the FDA and Congress; a new sunscreen chemical hasn’t been approved since the turn of the century.
The problem is that the already approved 15 or so chemicals either have side effects of their own, or have bad cosmetic properties (bad texture, bad mixing, leaves white color on skin, etc.). We may actually be exposing people to more risk from skin cancer due to the lack of products that people actually want to apply to their skin daily.
> Sunscreen is regulated by the FDA unlike all other cosmetic products
Sunscreen is not a cosmetic product, the intended effect of the product is not cosmetic. It makes perfect sense to regulate sunscreen as a drug. I'm really glad if they aren't letting people in the US lather up their faces with sunscreen lotions that can't demonstrate themselves to be "generally recognized as safe and effective". People are using sunscreen more than ever these days.
If the products were so good that everyone would buy them over our tired old sunscreen formulas, and if they don't poison people or the planet, then someone will take the time and pay the money to meet that standard and they will make back their investment very quickly as they put every other sunscreen company in the US out of business. If no one has done that yet and you are so confident in these new sunscreens why not take a shot yourself?
Sunscreen is not a cosmetic product, the intended effect of the product is not cosmetic. It makes perfect sense to regulate sunscreen as a drug. I'm really glad if they aren't letting people in the US lather up their faces with sunscreen lotions that can't demonstrate themselves to be "generally recognized as safe and effective". People are using sunscreen more than ever these days.
If the products were so good that everyone would buy them over our tired old sunscreen formulas, and if they don't poison people or the planet, then someone will take the time and pay the money to meet that standard and they will make back their investment very quickly as they put every other sunscreen company in the US out of business. If no one has done that yet and you are so confident in these new sunscreens why not take a shot yourself?
> the intended effect of the product is not cosmetic
I mean, what is the working definition of "cosmetic"? Toothpaste and moisturizer are considered cosmetic by the FDA even though they certainly have health applications.
> they will make back their investment very quickly
The key words here are very quickly. According to the GAO, the process is anything but: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-61-highlights.pdf
> Return on investment. The testing FDA requested is extensive, would cost millions of dollars, or take several years to conduct, according to sponsor representatives. Some stakeholders and sponsor representatives said that sponsors are currently working to develop newer sunscreen ingredients and are therefore reluctant to invest in the testing FDA requested for the older ingredients covered by the pending applications.
So it's unclear that this process is worth it when the foreign cosmetics companies can just sell to the other 7.6B people not covered by these requirements, and the products might no longer be manufactured by the time they are approved for use in the US. Also, no ingredient has successfully made it through in the past 22 years, so it's not clear that spending all that money will actually result in actually being able to sell the ingredient.
In addition, according to the same GAO report, the FDA requires animal testing. It is a really big movement right now in consumer cosmetics that the consumers who are paying for premium products also want cruelty-free products, so the required FDA testing may actually make the products unmarketable.
> if they don't poison people or the planet
To be clear, the approved ingredients don't necessarily do this either. Only two ingredients of the approved 16 are deemed to be GRASE (generally recognized as safe & effective) by the FDA. Two are just not safe, and the remaining 12 do not have enough data. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicin...
I mean, what is the working definition of "cosmetic"? Toothpaste and moisturizer are considered cosmetic by the FDA even though they certainly have health applications.
> they will make back their investment very quickly
The key words here are very quickly. According to the GAO, the process is anything but: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-61-highlights.pdf
> Return on investment. The testing FDA requested is extensive, would cost millions of dollars, or take several years to conduct, according to sponsor representatives. Some stakeholders and sponsor representatives said that sponsors are currently working to develop newer sunscreen ingredients and are therefore reluctant to invest in the testing FDA requested for the older ingredients covered by the pending applications.
So it's unclear that this process is worth it when the foreign cosmetics companies can just sell to the other 7.6B people not covered by these requirements, and the products might no longer be manufactured by the time they are approved for use in the US. Also, no ingredient has successfully made it through in the past 22 years, so it's not clear that spending all that money will actually result in actually being able to sell the ingredient.
In addition, according to the same GAO report, the FDA requires animal testing. It is a really big movement right now in consumer cosmetics that the consumers who are paying for premium products also want cruelty-free products, so the required FDA testing may actually make the products unmarketable.
> if they don't poison people or the planet
To be clear, the approved ingredients don't necessarily do this either. Only two ingredients of the approved 16 are deemed to be GRASE (generally recognized as safe & effective) by the FDA. Two are just not safe, and the remaining 12 do not have enough data. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicin...
I get the avoision factor, but what do we have to go on to know the safety of the other country’s products if they’re more loosely regulated?
It’s not like the FDA requires studies to be done in USA, so it’s hard(er) to argue that this is a case of regulatory capture.
It sounds like the evidence base for the non-FDA products isn’t there beyond “people in blank have used it and we can confirm they didn’t immediately die but otherwise we don’t really know”.
Meanwhile, I can’t just import a European car and register it, even though it has met almost entirely overlapping safety standards.
It’s not like the FDA requires studies to be done in USA, so it’s hard(er) to argue that this is a case of regulatory capture.
It sounds like the evidence base for the non-FDA products isn’t there beyond “people in blank have used it and we can confirm they didn’t immediately die but otherwise we don’t really know”.
Meanwhile, I can’t just import a European car and register it, even though it has met almost entirely overlapping safety standards.
The difference is that we certainly have approved new car safety features in the US in the last 22 years, not all of which were domestic in origin. How many regulatory categories can we speak of that have not allowed any new entries in that time frame?
In that time frame some of these ingredients like bemotrizinol have been available to hundreds of millions of people. If there was a risk of something like thalidomide babies here, it would’ve been observable by now.
In that time frame some of these ingredients like bemotrizinol have been available to hundreds of millions of people. If there was a risk of something like thalidomide babies here, it would’ve been observable by now.
Thalidomide was fairly straightforward because missing limbs are unusual and immediately obvious, among other issues with those exposed.
History of usage doesn’t make something safer than the tested options. And a lot of potential issues aren’t immediately obvious.
History of usage doesn’t make something safer than the tested options. And a lot of potential issues aren’t immediately obvious.
"Chemicals" is far too ill- defined a term. Even if you define it as a substance that doesn't occur in significant amounts in nature (therefore our bodies have had no chance to adapt to) arguably most chemicals produced (esp. medications) have benefits that easily make the risks/downsides worth it, particularly as there are usually ways of mitigating those risks (which we absolutely need to do more of).
It'd be great if we could use ML and super sophisticated simulators to determine ahead of time whether a particular chemical might have unexpected negative side effects were they to reach a certain level of saturation in our environment, and once such technology is available I'd be fully in support of it being mandatory.
There are some basic tests that could be done:
Does it fully degrade in soil and/or seawater in a reasonable time. If it does not, are the components that remain high-molecular-weight polymers or are they small molecules?
What happens to it in a mammal body? Does it accumulate or is it excreted or otherwise eliminated?
Does it contain harmful elements (which inherently cannot degrade)?
Does aging or UV exposure change the answer to #1?
Does it contain contaminants that are problematic as above?
By these standards, PFOA would massively fail. PTFE might pass by itself but might fail the contaminant test. Historical industrial discharges from fluorochemical plants would fail.
Does it fully degrade in soil and/or seawater in a reasonable time. If it does not, are the components that remain high-molecular-weight polymers or are they small molecules?
What happens to it in a mammal body? Does it accumulate or is it excreted or otherwise eliminated?
Does it contain harmful elements (which inherently cannot degrade)?
Does aging or UV exposure change the answer to #1?
Does it contain contaminants that are problematic as above?
By these standards, PFOA would massively fail. PTFE might pass by itself but might fail the contaminant test. Historical industrial discharges from fluorochemical plants would fail.
If those tests can be done within a reasonable timeframe and cost then sure, they should be mandatory. But there's still a question of whether the benefits outweigh any downsides.
There's been a number of hypotheses floating about that many of the industrial chemicals permeating our environment might be partly responsible for declining fertility - if true, how do you judge whether that's necessarily a bad thing in a world where we're already overstretching our planet's ability to sustain our lifestyles?
You’re scope creeping unnecessarily - even if we’re beyond carrying capacity for the planet the answer is not let ‘er rip with industrial chemicals. Better to address the issues separately, so you can make sure there are fewer unintended consequences. Also, if industrial chemicals are causing declining birth rates in humans don’t you think they’re doing that to other animals too? And that may be contributing to making the whole planet less livable?
Absolutely, but the research to determine these things is slow and expensive. We still don't have a clear picture around fertility after decades of study, and that's just one example. Banning things until we have conclusive evidence they're 100% safe isn't feasible, that's my only point.
And just to be clear I'm not the least bit in the laissez-faire camp of "allow anything and let the market decide what's safe" either. Regulation is critical, but it has limits and we (as in taxpayer-funded research facilities etc.) should be regularly reexamining whether the benefits outweigh the downsides for all industrially produced chemical substances.
And just to be clear I'm not the least bit in the laissez-faire camp of "allow anything and let the market decide what's safe" either. Regulation is critical, but it has limits and we (as in taxpayer-funded research facilities etc.) should be regularly reexamining whether the benefits outweigh the downsides for all industrially produced chemical substances.
How much economic harm would a ban on untested bioaccumulating persistent small molecules cause?
Suppose that there was no evidence that PFOA was harmful. Should we allow unlimited use of it?
Suppose that there was no evidence that PFOA was harmful. Should we allow unlimited use of it?
I'd agree on such a ban.
But how expensive is it to determine that a small molecule is bio accumulating?
And how much time/money do we need to spend on testing?
It's not the pure economic harm I'm worried about. Such a molecule might well be a key part of a genuine solution to reducing GHG emissions.
It's not the pure economic harm I'm worried about. Such a molecule might well be a key part of a genuine solution to reducing GHG emissions.
Overpopulation is a larger problem than most people seem to realize because they aren't usually thinking about anything more than how many bodies can be crammed into a given area. Once you start thinking about how many people a given area can sustainably support all the space we seem to have matters a lot less. I'm all for working to address overpopulation, but clearly there's a huge problem with choosing to murder or poison massive numbers of other people to "help".
When populations reach the point where they start genuinely thinking being dead or never being born is better than contributing to the problem they stop having kids, and start looking at suicide. Maybe you're at that point already, and if you made the choice to die in order to help, or by way of example, I wouldn't fault you for it, but your feelings on the matter should never become someone else's problem and it should never justify the actions of someone causing, or allowing someone to cause, large numbers of people to suffer.
When populations reach the point where they start genuinely thinking being dead or never being born is better than contributing to the problem they stop having kids, and start looking at suicide. Maybe you're at that point already, and if you made the choice to die in order to help, or by way of example, I wouldn't fault you for it, but your feelings on the matter should never become someone else's problem and it should never justify the actions of someone causing, or allowing someone to cause, large numbers of people to suffer.
Not sure how you got any of that from my message.
I'm not even suggesting we should keep using particular chemicals even if they're known to be linked to infertility, only that if said chemicals have a particular benefit, maybe the disadvantage of slightly decreased fertility is worthwhile (as it is that link hasn't been firmly established even after decades of research).
People don't need to decide if the "disadvantage" of being unknowingly poisoned until fertility is impaired is "worth it". Anyone who feels that they are too fertile can have themselves sterilized without the harm to the environment caused by these chemicals and anybody who hasn't made that choice for themselves should never have to worry about being poisoned either. That means nobody should get to decide it's worth it for them to keep using the chemicals if that means everyone else gets poisoned against their will. There's really no big moral dilemma here.
> arguably most chemicals produced (esp. medications) have benefits that easily make the risks/downsides worth it
Without some heavy qualification, this seems unlikely to be true.
Maybe if you restrict it to things that have successfully gone through some sort of heavy trials, but even then there are plenty of things that get through with a tiny upside (like the recent alzheimers drug that made headlines). And most things don't make it through trials.
If you open it up to any concoction that humans have discovered or whipped up in a lab, hoo boy.
Edit: my running definition here would be any kind of compound that we've isolated and attempted to sell.
Without some heavy qualification, this seems unlikely to be true.
Maybe if you restrict it to things that have successfully gone through some sort of heavy trials, but even then there are plenty of things that get through with a tiny upside (like the recent alzheimers drug that made headlines). And most things don't make it through trials.
If you open it up to any concoction that humans have discovered or whipped up in a lab, hoo boy.
Edit: my running definition here would be any kind of compound that we've isolated and attempted to sell.
[deleted]
>>Why don't we want to foster this?
Because already people
1. Have profound misunderstanding of what is a "chemical"
2. have profound Ignorance of how very very few things in life are "provably knowingly completely safe"
It's not that we would "eliminate a few bad chemicals" with that approach, it's that we would eliminate virtually everything. And let's not start with "let's use natural stuff" and get into silly argument as to how do you define it and how do you prove it safe (as people are also profoundly ignorant on what is "natural" or how provably safe it is).
Everything will kill you. You will die. Note that I am not advocating nihilistic approach of "anything goes" / rampant markets / zero oversight, but I'm also not advocating nihilistic approach of "nothing goes". Human body and interactions are mind numbingly complex and I don't know how you demonstrate, conclusively, anything without testing in prod or even then, for given value of "conclusively". I doubt we would leave apples for sale if we tried to decompose them and prove all compounds within it conclusively safe.
Because already people
1. Have profound misunderstanding of what is a "chemical"
2. have profound Ignorance of how very very few things in life are "provably knowingly completely safe"
It's not that we would "eliminate a few bad chemicals" with that approach, it's that we would eliminate virtually everything. And let's not start with "let's use natural stuff" and get into silly argument as to how do you define it and how do you prove it safe (as people are also profoundly ignorant on what is "natural" or how provably safe it is).
Everything will kill you. You will die. Note that I am not advocating nihilistic approach of "anything goes" / rampant markets / zero oversight, but I'm also not advocating nihilistic approach of "nothing goes". Human body and interactions are mind numbingly complex and I don't know how you demonstrate, conclusively, anything without testing in prod or even then, for given value of "conclusively". I doubt we would leave apples for sale if we tried to decompose them and prove all compounds within it conclusively safe.
Ok, I should clarify.
The things that have been around for generations and we haven't yet discovered deal breaking issues in should obviously get a pass (unless something is eventually found of course).
When a company comes out with a flashy new product that has a novel use of a compound, we should be skeptical by default, especially if it is something that eventually makes its way onto or into our bodies somehow.
I'm not asking for complete safety. I'm just suggesting that we don't presume "safe enough" by default.
Apples are fine. When you do some novel shit to that apple before it gets to me, no thanks, I'll wait and see. Whatever the benefit is, its probably not for my sake (it's probably good for margins though), and if it is it's probably not that much better than a plain old apple.
The things that have been around for generations and we haven't yet discovered deal breaking issues in should obviously get a pass (unless something is eventually found of course).
When a company comes out with a flashy new product that has a novel use of a compound, we should be skeptical by default, especially if it is something that eventually makes its way onto or into our bodies somehow.
I'm not asking for complete safety. I'm just suggesting that we don't presume "safe enough" by default.
Apples are fine. When you do some novel shit to that apple before it gets to me, no thanks, I'll wait and see. Whatever the benefit is, its probably not for my sake (it's probably good for margins though), and if it is it's probably not that much better than a plain old apple.
People are made of chemicals... and they are bad... so should we remove the chemicals from them?
I mean it's snark, but it's as legitimate as "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes" and you hear that all the time.
I mean it's snark, but it's as legitimate as "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes" and you hear that all the time.
Yup.
I ask people to point at something not made out of chemicals.
5% of time there's enlightenment.
95% of the time I get a testy "you know what I mean", to which 70% of the time I manage not to respond with "yes, but do you?? "
I ask people to point at something not made out of chemicals.
5% of time there's enlightenment.
95% of the time I get a testy "you know what I mean", to which 70% of the time I manage not to respond with "yes, but do you?? "
I knocked up this site a bunch of years ago. I should probably update it now that I have half a clue how to do that.
https://isitchemicalfree.com/
https://isitchemicalfree.com/
The problem is that (a) you can't prove something safe, you can merely fail to find harm; and (b) literally everything is a chemical, often it already exists in some form and is used for some purposes, and we reuse it for something else at a larger scale... at large enough scales basically anything is dangerous.
Just wait until you learn about all the chemicals in a banana https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2018/12/image.png
If they occur in nature, esp. in food, our bodies have had time to adapt to them, so that's a distraction. But even restricted to "man-made chemicals" (that can get into our bloodstream and interact with our cellular biology) it's still an enormous class of substances that it's silly to treat as dangerous-until- proven-otherwise - our scientific understanding is a little more advanced than that.
That's not a distraction at all. There are plenty of naturally-occuring chemicals in plants that are deadly poisons to humans. Some of them are even naturally present at low levels in food we eat, such as cyanide in some fruits.
True, but regulating the use of those in human industry is far less of an issue.
> If they occur in nature, esp. in food, our bodies have had time to adapt to them, so that's a distraction.
That's some serious woo and you just pulled it right out of your ass. Infant botulism. Anthrax. Cyanide. Belladonna. Poisonous mushrooms.
That's some serious woo and you just pulled it right out of your ass. Infant botulism. Anthrax. Cyanide. Belladonna. Poisonous mushrooms.
And yes, if manufacturers were creating unnatural quantities of those and polluting the environment with them in a way our bodies couldn't handle, they'd need to be regulated too (some probably are). But the chemicals that naturally occur in food we've been eating for 10s or 100s of 1000s of years aren't the issue here.
We already have too many people who won't get life-saving vaccines that will protect others because of "chemicals", and that was before covid.
This is probably not a great reading of what you wrote, so I'm happy to be corrected, but this is what I get from your comment: humanity has discovered or invented beneficial uses for some compounds (like for example some of the vaccines that have been developed throughout history), so therefore we should presume the safety of every other novel use of a compound that comes along.
Thats not what you mean, right?
Thats not what you mean, right?
You must be replying to the wrong comment, because I didn't say anything like that. Next time trust your instinct that you got it wrong.
There are lots of things that can be detected rather simply in a lab though. Like running a bioassay to ascertain activity at various receptors. Bisphenol A for instance has interactions with several hormone receptors. A single in vitro study is enough to label BPA as biologically active and therefore a potential risk.
Similarly, some PFAS compounds are now known to interact with certain receptors involved in lipid metabolism. So it can also be determined as biologically active in vitro.
There's just so much more that can be done about this on the regulatory side than is done currently.
Similarly, some PFAS compounds are now known to interact with certain receptors involved in lipid metabolism. So it can also be determined as biologically active in vitro.
There's just so much more that can be done about this on the regulatory side than is done currently.
There's a middle ground. You can permit novel substances but if it is discovered to be harmful then the burden of proof is inverted for the family of related chemicals. Like not only narcotics but also chemical analogues (even those that haven't been designed yet) are banned
Yes! That would catch firms touting “BPA-free” plastics that instead contain the chemically very similar BPS, for example.
And BPF, both of which are now known to have similar problems.
It's not like the companies developing these chemicals don't know that they're likely to have the same activity. It's just pharmacology. Similar structures tend to have similar activity.
I definitely second GPs suggestion of having the burden of proof reversed like that. It would greatly reduce the work required by researchers, too.
Interestingly, BPA was actually known to have estrogenergic properties in the 30s shortly after it was first isolated, and was first researched as a potential estrogen replacement. With the right regulation this could have been caught close to a century ago...
It's not like the companies developing these chemicals don't know that they're likely to have the same activity. It's just pharmacology. Similar structures tend to have similar activity.
I definitely second GPs suggestion of having the burden of proof reversed like that. It would greatly reduce the work required by researchers, too.
Interestingly, BPA was actually known to have estrogenergic properties in the 30s shortly after it was first isolated, and was first researched as a potential estrogen replacement. With the right regulation this could have been caught close to a century ago...
The fact that we are commenting in a thread about a report on something that has an implied "this is bad for people" suggests experts know, to a good enough degree, about certain things that should be regulated better.
It implies that some people think it's bad, but not necessarily that they're right. It's not like every science article shared here is accurate or reflects scientific consensus.
There's no heuristic shortcut for actually learning about the subject. Without doing the homework, all we can say is that it seems plausible that there might be a problem.
There's no heuristic shortcut for actually learning about the subject. Without doing the homework, all we can say is that it seems plausible that there might be a problem.
Given that these compounds are mass produced and spread all over the globe at an industrial scale, I think the plausibility of a problem should be sufficient for holding back. Especially when the compound is known to be non-degradable. Then we know, if there is a problem, we're gonna be stuck with it for a long time. Even more reason for extreme caution.
It's reason for concern but not enough to make a convincing case. This is still trying to take a logical shortcut to avoid actually learning specifics about the problem.
But if you don't learn anything then you're just another person saying their opinion on the Internet, like the rest of us.
But if you don't learn anything then you're just another person saying their opinion on the Internet, like the rest of us.
My point is, I don't like this defeatist attitude of "well there's no way to know, so we should just do more of the same". Just because it's a very hard problem doesn't mean there isn't a lot more we could do. And a lot of the chemicals causing problems today could have been ruled out with far less effort than haphazardly testing it on the whole world population.
I don't see why so many people these days need to reduce everything to this type of false dichotomy.
And it's also a question of how much concern is enough? I would argue that currently the threshold is set far, far too high.
I don't see why so many people these days need to reduce everything to this type of false dichotomy.
And it's also a question of how much concern is enough? I would argue that currently the threshold is set far, far too high.
I never said there's no way to know. What I'm saying is that those of us who haven't studied should be humble about how much we know.
It's a choice we make all the time. For anything you read about, are you curious enough to investigate it further, or are you going to let it go by?
It's a choice we make all the time. For anything you read about, are you curious enough to investigate it further, or are you going to let it go by?
Right. I'm a pretty bad example because I obsessively investigate further. I can't help it. I see something, I need to understand it. It's my curse in life.
“Oh it’ll probably be fine” is just not good enough any more. We’ve destroyed and irreparably harmed huge swaths of nature in a vanishingly short period of time due to this attitude. It has failed again, and again, and again. If we keep this up, we really will destroy ourselves and the habitability of the planet. The consequences are just so dire now that the notion that we should just roll the dice is frankly absurd. If we don’t know it’s safe, assume it’s not. Perfect? No. Better than the alternative? Yes.
Cognitive dissonance regarding this is completely crazy right now. As far as I can tell, most people will acknowledge that there is a big crisis looming ahead by now (some even that we're already in the midst of it) but the mere thought of the tiniest bit of action to deal with that crisis is met with steadfast resistance, even things that don't affect them all that much individually. You'd expect a lot of popular demand for political action to at least soften the crash, but at least where I live (southern Germany) I don't perceive any such demand. What concerns are voiced are always strictly in the abstract. Please do save the environment, but definitely not in my backyard, or village, or district, or anywhere else, thank you very much.
Yet the changes are really obvious by now. I've been on a hike in the northern Alps a few days ago. I know the mountain quite well, and it should be teeming with life this time of the year, insects, birds, but it was eerily quiet across the whole altitude range. The river in my hometown should carry yearly floodwaters from snowmelt, but this year there was not a hint of a flood. The all-time temperature record was shattered (again), though. Forest fires in areas that never saw any just decades ago. Clean windshields in mid-August. Either no rainfall for months, or several 1000-year floods, nothing in between. Silence where there have been annoyingly loud crickets and frogs since forever.
I guess we're running a deeply, deeply dangerous experiment on the biosphere and I'm not convinced anymore that it's going to be fine. I have a feeling it's going to be very, very much not fine at all.
Yet the changes are really obvious by now. I've been on a hike in the northern Alps a few days ago. I know the mountain quite well, and it should be teeming with life this time of the year, insects, birds, but it was eerily quiet across the whole altitude range. The river in my hometown should carry yearly floodwaters from snowmelt, but this year there was not a hint of a flood. The all-time temperature record was shattered (again), though. Forest fires in areas that never saw any just decades ago. Clean windshields in mid-August. Either no rainfall for months, or several 1000-year floods, nothing in between. Silence where there have been annoyingly loud crickets and frogs since forever.
I guess we're running a deeply, deeply dangerous experiment on the biosphere and I'm not convinced anymore that it's going to be fine. I have a feeling it's going to be very, very much not fine at all.
There are some suspected and known harms certain enough to be published by the EPA https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-hea...
You're right we're not completely certain, but I think it would be prudent to immediately cut back on all PFAS except scenarios where no viable alternative exists since they are so hard to remove from the environment. As nice as non-stick PFAS pans are, they need to go for now until we know more.
You're right we're not completely certain, but I think it would be prudent to immediately cut back on all PFAS except scenarios where no viable alternative exists since they are so hard to remove from the environment. As nice as non-stick PFAS pans are, they need to go for now until we know more.
precautionary principle is the answer. industry must have the burden to prove something is safe before using it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
It’s very difficult (if not impossible) to prove chemicals are safe. All regulatory bodies can really do is prove that something is not safe.
> It’s very difficult (if not impossible) to prove chemicals are safe.
Yes, but it's certainly possible to rule out entire classes of harms by asking the right questions before putting a product on the market. Maybe 100% safe is impossible but 99% is still a pretty low bar/standard when it comes to health/pollution risks.
The problem is in the current situation, corporations push toxic products on everyone that they either know to be toxic or really don't want to find out. Then we wait for people to get sick and die, then finally after it becomes a too big scandal for corporate PR and government regulators to pretend they didn't see, they start to maybe study the problem and issue guidelines.
This timeline is so broken and we see the same thing in the medical world where substances we'd known to be harmful for years/decades kept on being marketed and prescribed to unknowing patients. I personally have no faith in governments (who created or benefited from these abuses), but if you're a believer in regulations, the bare minimum they can do is publish 100% of toxicity claims/studies without any delay from submission (public inbox).
This could help in that whistleblowers are often coming forward with such claims (such as the EDF nuclear whistleblower lately) but it's hard for them to find a platform, and for the public to get informed.
Yes, but it's certainly possible to rule out entire classes of harms by asking the right questions before putting a product on the market. Maybe 100% safe is impossible but 99% is still a pretty low bar/standard when it comes to health/pollution risks.
The problem is in the current situation, corporations push toxic products on everyone that they either know to be toxic or really don't want to find out. Then we wait for people to get sick and die, then finally after it becomes a too big scandal for corporate PR and government regulators to pretend they didn't see, they start to maybe study the problem and issue guidelines.
This timeline is so broken and we see the same thing in the medical world where substances we'd known to be harmful for years/decades kept on being marketed and prescribed to unknowing patients. I personally have no faith in governments (who created or benefited from these abuses), but if you're a believer in regulations, the bare minimum they can do is publish 100% of toxicity claims/studies without any delay from submission (public inbox).
This could help in that whistleblowers are often coming forward with such claims (such as the EDF nuclear whistleblower lately) but it's hard for them to find a platform, and for the public to get informed.
>corporations push toxic products on everyone
One aspect we have, is defense materials being mass-produced for potentially large-scale warfare, then really raking in the bucks when a consumer application can be found. That way everybody wants some, not just soldiers. And if it's consumable, so much better since that calls for continuous mass-production. And where's it all going to end up? What part of the environment? Well, that's diferent for different materials.
Sometimes a material itself is highly disruptive, other times it's the vast quantities that end up being mass-produced.
Even then the risk of an unforseen toxic outcome has always been underestimated.
One aspect we have, is defense materials being mass-produced for potentially large-scale warfare, then really raking in the bucks when a consumer application can be found. That way everybody wants some, not just soldiers. And if it's consumable, so much better since that calls for continuous mass-production. And where's it all going to end up? What part of the environment? Well, that's diferent for different materials.
Sometimes a material itself is highly disruptive, other times it's the vast quantities that end up being mass-produced.
Even then the risk of an unforseen toxic outcome has always been underestimated.
Since it will be practically impossible to remove PFAs from the planet's surface and atmosphere short of hoping it will all eventually wash out and gets buried in sediments (but will it, ever?), when so much is at stake at our very existential foundations, I believe we should forego the immediate wide-scale application of novel compounds unless they have plausibly be shown to be safe. Yes, that can prove to be very difficult but somehow I feel having one less formula for making anti-stick pans or, historically, having to use a slightly more expensive antiknock agent are small prices to pay if it keeps the air and the water free from chemicals that cause troubles for decades if not centuries for uncounted numbers of people and animals.
There's always some risk left no matter the rigor of testing. Shouldn't keep us from doing our best.
There's always some risk left no matter the rigor of testing. Shouldn't keep us from doing our best.
Sure, but if your chemical can enter the hydrosphere and never break down, we should maybe study it for a long long long time before applying it to everything.
And yet it's potentially very easy to prove something is unsafe, or likely to have unforeseen effects. In vitro bioassays, animal testing. Lots of the chemicals causing problems today could have fairly easily been screened out this way. Just because epistemologically it's impossible to ever know for sure something is safe, that's not a justification for going ahead with almost no testing at all.
If it binds to hormone receptors it's pretty brain dead easy
Nothing in science can be "proven". Proof only exists in mathematics and logic. You can't prove something is safe, but you can provide evidence that it is unsafe. And generally the best evidence for something being unsafe is unfortunately only available after something is in widespread use because then the links to cancer, birth defects, or whatever can be found. There are lesser forms of evidence based on testing on animals and cell lines than can be done before the widespread use, but these have a lot of both false positives and false negatives.
Induction usually works, so we think it will work tomorrow. But that in turn is... uh oh!
Exactly! The burden of proof to prove that something is harmful somehow landed on the public, which allowed harmful things to continue to be in use for years (decades!) while things were litigated and all manner of disinformation was pushed out by industry. This should never have been allowed to be the case.
Slightly off topic: The recent movie starring Mark Ruffalo, Dark Water, is excellent. It covers PFAS and one lawyer’s fight to bring it to light. Very similar to the excellent “A Civil Action” starring John Travolta in the 90s or early 2000s (obligatory: the book is far better than the movie).
Slightly off topic: The recent movie starring Mark Ruffalo, Dark Water, is excellent. It covers PFAS and one lawyer’s fight to bring it to light. Very similar to the excellent “A Civil Action” starring John Travolta in the 90s or early 2000s (obligatory: the book is far better than the movie).
If I could make one change I would require more thorough scrutiny for any product that we know is going to persist in the environment for a long time. The half life of your new plastic is 10 years due to UV degradation? Great you can use that only moderate safety studies. The half life of your new waterproof coating is 100 years? Let's do some pretty serious studies. Half life of this gasoline additive is basically forever? Um, maybe don't use that.
> Regulation works when experts really do have the answer.
I think there are other significant factors to consider as well.
In the US at least I think regulation, in our current day, has failed in many areas due to 1) the slowing down of decision makers to become informed and make decisions (see congress for stagnation in passing legal regulations) 2) industries or large industry players have waged effective influence campaigns in mainstream and scientific communities to push a friendly agenda or inject uncertainty which has nock on affects when it comes to funding (see pesticides like neonics and glyphosates, oil and gas companies with respect to global warming and plastic recycling, tobaco companies and smoking causing cancer, …), and 3) a certain degree of capture in regulatory agencies by industry (industry players later work for the regulatory agency or the reverse, as well as other tactics). 4) the politicization of regulation (not sure how much this can be helped though).
It’s a mess.
> We could switch from "allow by default" to "deny by default", but I'm not even sure that would help.
There may be a middle ground here. As a chemic becomes more widely used that could trigger required enhanced testing by a regulatory agency as well as research grants looking into their safety.
And as a chemical becomes ever more widely used rigorous long-term studies could be required.
I’m not sure what the right long term answer is but I can’t help but think there is some fundamental mismatch of top down regulation by regulatory bodies in a market based system where companies are innovating and also creating these harms / negative externalities. In the former regulators are slow, reactionary, and often substantial harm must have already occurred for a regulation to be passed. The latter is a dynamic and fast moving system where companies are ruled by a fitness function which is often myopic and locally greedy.
It seems introducing another market for regulation could offer a solution by using one dynamic system to regulate another. Carbon credits is an example of this. However two or more interacting systems will make things much harder to reason about and may have their own significant flaws if not designed well (for example trees are planted but then die earlier than expected or are later harvested after the carbon credits have been sold).
I think there are other significant factors to consider as well.
In the US at least I think regulation, in our current day, has failed in many areas due to 1) the slowing down of decision makers to become informed and make decisions (see congress for stagnation in passing legal regulations) 2) industries or large industry players have waged effective influence campaigns in mainstream and scientific communities to push a friendly agenda or inject uncertainty which has nock on affects when it comes to funding (see pesticides like neonics and glyphosates, oil and gas companies with respect to global warming and plastic recycling, tobaco companies and smoking causing cancer, …), and 3) a certain degree of capture in regulatory agencies by industry (industry players later work for the regulatory agency or the reverse, as well as other tactics). 4) the politicization of regulation (not sure how much this can be helped though).
It’s a mess.
> We could switch from "allow by default" to "deny by default", but I'm not even sure that would help.
There may be a middle ground here. As a chemic becomes more widely used that could trigger required enhanced testing by a regulatory agency as well as research grants looking into their safety.
And as a chemical becomes ever more widely used rigorous long-term studies could be required.
I’m not sure what the right long term answer is but I can’t help but think there is some fundamental mismatch of top down regulation by regulatory bodies in a market based system where companies are innovating and also creating these harms / negative externalities. In the former regulators are slow, reactionary, and often substantial harm must have already occurred for a regulation to be passed. The latter is a dynamic and fast moving system where companies are ruled by a fitness function which is often myopic and locally greedy.
It seems introducing another market for regulation could offer a solution by using one dynamic system to regulate another. Carbon credits is an example of this. However two or more interacting systems will make things much harder to reason about and may have their own significant flaws if not designed well (for example trees are planted but then die earlier than expected or are later harvested after the carbon credits have been sold).
Experts never have "the answer". Science changes over time - see the article and how guidelines for what's OK grew stricter.
You work with what you have right now.
You work with what you have right now.
I disagree with your stance.
While emerging evidence should be used to change guidelines, we should not be at the mercy of corporations wishing to increase their profit margins with unknown chemicals.
You don't have to work with what you have only just invented and don't understand.
You're talking about bottles and pans. We have managed with bottles and pans for a thousand years before pfas.
While emerging evidence should be used to change guidelines, we should not be at the mercy of corporations wishing to increase their profit margins with unknown chemicals.
You don't have to work with what you have only just invented and don't understand.
You're talking about bottles and pans. We have managed with bottles and pans for a thousand years before pfas.
They used to put lead in everything. Just because it’s traditional doesn’t mean it’s safe.
No one said traditional. Time tested would be a better phrase for what I've described.
Cast iron, steel, glass, ceramic
We have thousands of years of evidence that these things are safe
Edit: traditional? That's not even what that means anyway. Old?
Cast iron, steel, glass, ceramic
We have thousands of years of evidence that these things are safe
Edit: traditional? That's not even what that means anyway. Old?
What? I'm saying we now know it's super harmful and should work with that knowledge to regulate against it, without waiting for all experts to agree and all studies to show.
That does not come across from the other post, but yes that seems fair
> But the problem here is that we just don't know.
Many of these things we don't know are because it would be unethical to do the experiment to give some people PFAS and some people no PFAS and see if the PFAS group get more diseases.
Instead, we allow PFAS to be used indiscriminately, and then afterwards regret it.
Experimentation of potentially harmful things on people should be allowed if the alternative is giving the same potentially harmful thing to everybody with no experimentation done.
Many of these things we don't know are because it would be unethical to do the experiment to give some people PFAS and some people no PFAS and see if the PFAS group get more diseases.
Instead, we allow PFAS to be used indiscriminately, and then afterwards regret it.
Experimentation of potentially harmful things on people should be allowed if the alternative is giving the same potentially harmful thing to everybody with no experimentation done.
>We also don't want to foster a "chemicals are bad" attitude more than it already exists.
I dunno, I kinda think we do want to foster that.
I dunno, I kinda think we do want to foster that.
The fireproofing chemical sprayed on fabrics for sheets upholstery etc since the 1970s in the US is and has been a known forever chemical but also very profitable so the mfr basically used the tobacco industry strategy for 20+ years at which point its in everyone's bodies for the rest of their lives. [1]
The book was published over a decade ago, so news travels slowly sometimes, even to regulators.
[1] Slow Death By Rubber Duck https://www.amazon.com/Slow-Death-Rubber-Duck-Everyday/dp/15...
The book was published over a decade ago, so news travels slowly sometimes, even to regulators.
[1] Slow Death By Rubber Duck https://www.amazon.com/Slow-Death-Rubber-Duck-Everyday/dp/15...
> Regulation
People, people. Why do you all expect regulation to work in the presence of corruption?
All regulations break down with high enough stakes. We are in this mess right now, because we made the mistake of thinking that regulations will be good enough to stop it.
People, people. Why do you all expect regulation to work in the presence of corruption?
All regulations break down with high enough stakes. We are in this mess right now, because we made the mistake of thinking that regulations will be good enough to stop it.
I think we should study the effects of materials well before jumping ship to production and consumption. The industry is guilty for rushing this and for the lack of knowledge pretends there’s no proof of effects on human health. They could always use something that is not (yet) banned but also not well tested in the first place. The regulators ‘regulate’ within the framework but if the framework is bad is complete different thing. The industry has bigger pockets so it can almost always put the consumer’s interest at the bottom of their priorities. Till we fix this imballance we’re likely to suffer again and again in different ways in the future. To me the return to simpler times really means simply consume less and if we all did that and coupled it with strong repairability movements and proper recycling we’d all benefit from this as well as the environment.
Exactly. Low-tech and repairability are the only way forward for humanity... all other scenarios end up in painful dreadful collapse. But our tyrannical overlords are ideologically opposed to this conclusion because it's a path of degrowth and sharing economy which is fundamentally contradictory to capitalist doctrine and interests.
> floss I use apparently has PFAS
I too had no idea. Pisses me off.
After trying a handful of alternatives, I settled on bamboo floss.
For all I know, bamboo floss contains arsenic and midi-chlorians.
> ...whole host of rare medical conditions become common when my generation gets older.
You mean like how leaded gasoline caused populate wide cognitive and behavioral problems?
I too had no idea. Pisses me off.
After trying a handful of alternatives, I settled on bamboo floss.
For all I know, bamboo floss contains arsenic and midi-chlorians.
> ...whole host of rare medical conditions become common when my generation gets older.
You mean like how leaded gasoline caused populate wide cognitive and behavioral problems?
It's not considered "unsafe" until there's enough sponsored scientific studies. Until there's enough ontological awareness, funding, time, & inclination for these studies, it's considered "safe". Welcome to public perception through the lens of Positivism.
Exactly. We need to stop playing and sounding the other side constantly.
There is enough evidence to suggest it's unsafe.
There is enough evidence to suggest it's unsafe.
Regulators were forcing its use and regulation was one of the main drivers of the PFAS industry. California forced furniture makers to spray new furniture with PFAS based flame retardants for years. As of just this year, 2022, in California, even though they are no longer required, PFAS are still allowed in furniture until 2024.
Consumer products are only part of the problem. PFAS are emitted from industry, like from farms and smoke stacks, straight into the atmosphere where they deposit and precipitate back down onto everything.
That's one of the main issues here: you don't avoid it just by avoiding the consumer goods in your post.
That's one of the main issues here: you don't avoid it just by avoiding the consumer goods in your post.
Another example people miss is plumber's tape. That tape is effectively all PTFE.
Literary every plumbing system in the last 20 years or more has all your water inlets lathered in PTFE along every joint of the pipework.
Literary every plumbing system in the last 20 years or more has all your water inlets lathered in PTFE along every joint of the pipework.
Which, as bad as it is in general, shouldn't be that much of a problem since it is not in direct contact with water flow, being used to seal the joints.
> Which, as bad as it is in general, shouldn't be that much of a problem since it is not in direct contact with water flow, being used to seal the joints.
have you ever taken apart half of those joints?
people love going overboard with the tape, when the threads are overloaded guess where the excess gets squished?
have you ever taken apart half of those joints?
people love going overboard with the tape, when the threads are overloaded guess where the excess gets squished?
Since the tape prevents leakage, isn't it in contact with the water flow by definition?
That's not correct. Neither PEX nor copper use tape, and that's been the vast majority of new water piping for 20+ years.
In connections that do use tape, like old galvanized steel pipe, the tape is entirely within the joints, because it's a lubricant.
(Just checked with my uncle who's a plumber)
In connections that do use tape, like old galvanized steel pipe, the tape is entirely within the joints, because it's a lubricant.
(Just checked with my uncle who's a plumber)
Yeah, there is generally no PTFE in the middle of anyone's PEX or copper system. Thread sealant only goes on threads, and PEX systems are crimped together and copper systems are (generally) soldered together. Threaded fittings are expensive and so they're avoided when possible.
But, either system will have often have PTFE at any terminations where transitioning to other fixtures via threaded fittings. [0] And occasionally there are brass fittings in the middle of these systems which are threaded and those will use PTFE as well.
[0]: https://terrylove.com/images/homeowner/lee_01.jpg
But, either system will have often have PTFE at any terminations where transitioning to other fixtures via threaded fittings. [0] And occasionally there are brass fittings in the middle of these systems which are threaded and those will use PTFE as well.
[0]: https://terrylove.com/images/homeowner/lee_01.jpg
>PEX
Yeah, rather than just the joints now the entire pipe is leeching toxic compounds
Yeah, rather than just the joints now the entire pipe is leeching toxic compounds
I could be mistaken but I believe PEX has been the dominant type of pipe used in new water systems over the last 15 years or so. There’s not really any plumbers tape involved with the various types of fittings that are used with those pipes.
Connecting the pipes, no. but connecting fixtures to those pipes, yes. Showerheads, faucets, etc. will all be screwed on and sealed with PTFE.
I have seen plumbers that are still using hemp.
That's exactly what I did with all my faucets.
Call me paranoid but I've taken them apart remove all the mangled PTFE tape and sealed the thread with hemp.
Call me paranoid but I've taken them apart remove all the mangled PTFE tape and sealed the thread with hemp.
can you point me at an authoritative source that says PTFE is bad and not inert in humans (unless you reach a temperature of 500F or so)? All I ever see are "holistic medicine" and food babe level sites saying it.
Is that one so bad in its end use? I would imagine production byproducts would be the bigger issue for plumbing tape, which is effectively solid and used in non-abrasive applications.
The PTFE itself is really an inert polymer that is harmless to the water flowing through. It will not get into your water or break down through decay, those were considered superior properties. It takes a lot more heat to decompose PTFE than it does regular plastics, but once that's happening the vapors are a lot more toxic. But these are not the kind of plumbing fittings for welding or soldering.
Chemically, ethylene is the gaseous hydrocarbon monomer that is polymerized to make the common polyethylene plastic, like so many milk jugs and other items needing a cheap plastic are made of.
Tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) is the fluorocarbon monomer which is the fluorinated analog of the common ethylene. It's really rough and wants to spontaneously react with itself (or any number of other things) to form a bit of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) polymer with somewhat explosive force under not-fully-predictable conditions. So nobody really wants to handle TFE.
Instead extensive research at places like 3M and DuPont came up with a number of different alternative starting molecules that were less self-reactive but could still be coerced into forming PTFE as a final product.
The PTFE was intended be a forever plastic like no other, but a variety of fluorinated starting materials and byproducts were also obtained some of which had interesting properties themselves. For instance some acidic PFAS compounds are not very inert on their own, one end of the molecule will firmly bond to some natural products like canvas or leather, which largely neutralizes their further reactivity. So after that those molecules aren't going anywhere until degradation of the substrate occurs. And the other end of the molcules possess the perfluorinated inert feature, forming an invisible coating which repels water like people had never seen.
So it's all this other stuff, and the final degradation products (of those PFAS that have a decomposition pathway), that ends up in the environent eventually, many with a physical propery of self-dispersal. OTOH the PTFE is a solid plastic and just sits there permanently inert, no decomposition pathway, with little tendency for further environmental spread unless incinerated or microscopically pulverized, which disperses it as a byproduct gas, or very tough microplastic, respectively.
Chemically, ethylene is the gaseous hydrocarbon monomer that is polymerized to make the common polyethylene plastic, like so many milk jugs and other items needing a cheap plastic are made of.
Tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) is the fluorocarbon monomer which is the fluorinated analog of the common ethylene. It's really rough and wants to spontaneously react with itself (or any number of other things) to form a bit of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) polymer with somewhat explosive force under not-fully-predictable conditions. So nobody really wants to handle TFE.
Instead extensive research at places like 3M and DuPont came up with a number of different alternative starting molecules that were less self-reactive but could still be coerced into forming PTFE as a final product.
The PTFE was intended be a forever plastic like no other, but a variety of fluorinated starting materials and byproducts were also obtained some of which had interesting properties themselves. For instance some acidic PFAS compounds are not very inert on their own, one end of the molecule will firmly bond to some natural products like canvas or leather, which largely neutralizes their further reactivity. So after that those molecules aren't going anywhere until degradation of the substrate occurs. And the other end of the molcules possess the perfluorinated inert feature, forming an invisible coating which repels water like people had never seen.
So it's all this other stuff, and the final degradation products (of those PFAS that have a decomposition pathway), that ends up in the environent eventually, many with a physical propery of self-dispersal. OTOH the PTFE is a solid plastic and just sits there permanently inert, no decomposition pathway, with little tendency for further environmental spread unless incinerated or microscopically pulverized, which disperses it as a byproduct gas, or very tough microplastic, respectively.
You realize we implant PTFE into human bodies as medical implants? What makes you so concerned about PTFE tape on a tap?
The FDA retroactively banned PFOA residue from PTFE coated stents and guidewires. So you would have had people with PFOA contamination during endivascular surgery prior to that.
PFOA-free PTFE guidewires suffer higher risk of delamination, i.e. flaking of the ptfe coating which becone an embulus in your bloodstream.
The FDA does an amazing job at keeping us safe but the more evidence we have about the effects of novel substances the more I am biased to applying a cautionary principle.
In my pipe fixtures at home I will stick to hemp to seal the threads. If in the future I happen to need a stent, then I'll worry about it when I cross that bridge. :)
PFOA-free PTFE guidewires suffer higher risk of delamination, i.e. flaking of the ptfe coating which becone an embulus in your bloodstream.
The FDA does an amazing job at keeping us safe but the more evidence we have about the effects of novel substances the more I am biased to applying a cautionary principle.
In my pipe fixtures at home I will stick to hemp to seal the threads. If in the future I happen to need a stent, then I'll worry about it when I cross that bridge. :)
Why do you assume that hemp is safe?
Hemp is being used by Humans since the Neolithic, we have been eating, wearing, and building houses with it for more than 10 centuries. If it really was unsafe the data would have revealed it a long time ago.
Synthesized fluoropolymers have been around for about 60 years with an overall poor track record for Health and Safety.
If we apply a moderate cautionary principle towards novelty and also consider the minor life quality improvements that these 3M innovations bring (fluoropolymers only make things slightly less incovenient they are not ground breaking in my life), then it really is a no brainer decision.
Synthesized fluoropolymers have been around for about 60 years with an overall poor track record for Health and Safety.
If we apply a moderate cautionary principle towards novelty and also consider the minor life quality improvements that these 3M innovations bring (fluoropolymers only make things slightly less incovenient they are not ground breaking in my life), then it really is a no brainer decision.
[deleted]
Just use crimped fittings or hemp.
>hemp
Incidentally, before Teflon tape became affordable enough for plumbing use, most plumbers were using a type of traditional "pipe dope" instead.
Maybe this is another application where it might be a feature if "dope sells itself".
Incidentally, before Teflon tape became affordable enough for plumbing use, most plumbers were using a type of traditional "pipe dope" instead.
Maybe this is another application where it might be a feature if "dope sells itself".
No, I’m talking about literal hemp fibers: https://youtu.be/QJAIFJtiRQo
That’s the traditional way of sealing joints. No chemicals, just hemp and your own saliva (you usually don’t have running water nearby when doing plumbing).
That’s the traditional way of sealing joints. No chemicals, just hemp and your own saliva (you usually don’t have running water nearby when doing plumbing).
This is banned in Europe as bacteria develop with time, making it unsafe for drinking water pipes.
Sometimes chemicals are safer.
Sometimes chemicals are safer.
Or copper pipes soldered with lead-free/SAC. Those are rather pricey though.
Fun fact:
Between 1986 and 2011, lead free plumbing can contain up to 8% lead per EPA standards. After 2011, lead free plumbing may now only contain 0.25% lead.
Between 1986 and 2011, lead free plumbing can contain up to 8% lead per EPA standards. After 2011, lead free plumbing may now only contain 0.25% lead.
For copper you want to use ProPress, it’s completely solderless
This is awful. That's the only floss I can use that doesn't disintegrate between my teeth. Where does one go to find pfas content in items like these?
This[1] has been a useful resource for me. It has lists of PFAS chemicals and products.
[1]: https://pfascentral.org/data-hub/
[1]: https://pfascentral.org/data-hub/
FWIW Tom's of Maine Naturally Waxed Antiplaque Flat Dental Floss works well for me. Pretty thick though.
Listerine Ultraclean floss is made of PEBAX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyether_block_amide
I use a water flosser, my teeth also like ripping floss.
Which one works for you?
This is why I switched to silk floss. Just search for it on your favorite Bezos emporium.
Waxed seems almost as good too.
Regarding the floss, the study doesn’t seem to have been corroborated. Instead I found this: https://www.ada.org/publications/ada-news/2022/february/ada-...
The "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) safety guideline from the FDA seems like it should be renamed
"we don't have statistically significant evidence this will kill you yet, but we're also not looking very hard for it"
"we don't have statistically significant evidence this will kill you yet, but we're also not looking very hard for it"
Why is it so in vogue to be a doomer? Malthus, the original doomer, was wrong on just about all of his predictions. Most likely, we're wrong too. I mean, the planet survived like half a dozen mass extinction events, what makes you think it won't survive another one?
I just don't understand the "woe is me" nihilistic narrative so many intelligent people are deeply fond of. Recycle, turn off the lights, vote with your conscience. Get a wife, make some kids, live a happy life, try to make a positive difference in the world. It's not hard.
I just don't understand the "woe is me" nihilistic narrative so many intelligent people are deeply fond of. Recycle, turn off the lights, vote with your conscience. Get a wife, make some kids, live a happy life, try to make a positive difference in the world. It's not hard.
> Why is it so in vogue to be a doomer?
Let's not be "doomers", but let's not ignore emerging risks of catastrophic outcomes, either.
Playing Russian Roulette a few times and getting away with it doesn't make it safe.
And plenty of stuff that would have been really bad has been stopped by diligent response by people and governments considering those risks.
If we keep making the same mistakes and exposing consumers to toxic things, and lacing the entire environment with them... maybe there's some processes that need to improve instead of just shrugging and saying "well, that's how we do it 'round here!"
Let's not be "doomers", but let's not ignore emerging risks of catastrophic outcomes, either.
Playing Russian Roulette a few times and getting away with it doesn't make it safe.
And plenty of stuff that would have been really bad has been stopped by diligent response by people and governments considering those risks.
If we keep making the same mistakes and exposing consumers to toxic things, and lacing the entire environment with them... maybe there's some processes that need to improve instead of just shrugging and saying "well, that's how we do it 'round here!"
The “doomers” who were right are what we call “modern health and safety regulation”. All that stuff is written in blood.
It wasn’t doomsayers spreading that, it was people shining the light on “this is how it is and it’s disgusting”.
More Kitchen Nightmares less “The end is near!”
More Kitchen Nightmares less “The end is near!”
At the time, many of the people who brought legitimate concerns to light were dismissed as alarmist.
History is full of instances of people not taking concerns seriously because “I’ve done things this way for years and I’m not dead yet”, only to find out a 30 years later, that in fact, it was something that causes a chronic disease.
History is full of instances of people not taking concerns seriously because “I’ve done things this way for years and I’m not dead yet”, only to find out a 30 years later, that in fact, it was something that causes a chronic disease.
Some alarmists being right in the past does not validate all future alarmists.
I agree. Likewise, some alarmists being wrong in the past does not invalidate all future “alarmists”.
The "safety regulators" required spraying furniture and other products with PFAS in the name of flame retardants. If anything, it was the regulators that helped cause this mess.
I'm not blaming anyone. Just pointing out that we don't know something is bad until we know it's bad.
It's not hard to look at everything we have and do and see how fragile it all is. It feels harder and harder to acquire the "things" necessary to feel successful, and once you get them, and see how easy it is to lose, it's not weird to think people might feel extremely vulnerable.
It also doesn't help that most popular cinematic futurism is post-apocalyptic now. I remember RedLetterMedia pointing to the success of Independence Day as the turning point and I can see some validity in that.
It also doesn't help that most popular cinematic futurism is post-apocalyptic now. I remember RedLetterMedia pointing to the success of Independence Day as the turning point and I can see some validity in that.
Yup, the truth is that there are a host of things that are going to make all of our lives slightly shorter. Our doom is that we’re not living absolutely optimum length or quality lives… but the real doom is that some people spend their long lives terrified of losing the last few percent and spread the fear instead of focusing on what makes life worth living.
There is an amount of attention appropriate to give risks, but many people really overdo it and turn it into a kind of religion and obsession.
There is an amount of attention appropriate to give risks, but many people really overdo it and turn it into a kind of religion and obsession.
The only thing I've done in line with the absolute pessimism of my beliefs about the future is stop paying into my pension (for now). I still plan to have kids, gods willing.
It's one thing to worry about the planet and the animals, and people dying directly due to climate events (floods and storms, heatwaves and drought) etc. I am far, far more worried about what we will do to each other when the 3 billion of us who are vulnerable to climate change want to move somewhere else.
It's one thing to worry about the planet and the animals, and people dying directly due to climate events (floods and storms, heatwaves and drought) etc. I am far, far more worried about what we will do to each other when the 3 billion of us who are vulnerable to climate change want to move somewhere else.
Because for people who don't have their heads buried in the sand it can be very difficult to fully enjoy one's privileged position in the world without failing to recognize the vast socioeconomic disparity that got them there in the first place, and thusly be deeply frustrated when one's impact on the problem seems so inconsequential.
non stick pans use ptfe not pfoa, this has been a scare tactic by "holistic nutritionists" on the internet for ages. If your non-stick is from a name brand and less than 10 years old, they haven't used PFOA (or PFAs) in ages. Don't toss your stuff out.
> I feel powerless to make an impact.
Following a plant-based diet and trying alternative modes of transit to the car make a pretty great impact!
Following a plant-based diet and trying alternative modes of transit to the car make a pretty great impact!
I was recently in the market for high end rainproof hiking gear, and most brands are only offering PFAS free rainproof coatings.
Well either it does not contain PFAS but used PFAS in the manufacturing process thus harming the environment anyway.
Or it used some other long fluoropolymer with a similar biological effect as PTFE but can claim to be "PTFE free" because on paper no PTFE was used.
Or it used some other long fluoropolymer with a similar biological effect as PTFE but can claim to be "PTFE free" because on paper no PTFE was used.
I'd say this is the biggest issue with PFAS and PFAS-likes. PTFE-free doesn't mean anything useful.
Fjallraven reportedly uses wax instead of PFAS.
https://www.fjallraven.com/ca/en-ca/customer-service/care-re...
https://www.fjallraven.com/ca/en-ca/customer-service/care-re...
The thing to beware is X-free! Products often contain a slightly different X with similar risks.
> I feel powerless to make an impact.
Sadly, we are.
This system is broken beyond repair.
I'm not holding my breath for humans to fix this.
I have my money on an alternative.
Sadly, we are.
This system is broken beyond repair.
I'm not holding my breath for humans to fix this.
I have my money on an alternative.
What is your alt?
Every once in a comment has the mentality of, "it's not going affect me because I have reverse osmosis 9000, just get one and problem solved".
These people live life with heads in the sand while the world burns. They won't wake up even once their torso is rotisserie.
These people live life with heads in the sand while the world burns. They won't wake up even once their torso is rotisserie.
s/to consumers//
[deleted]
To all the chemical engineers:
(And computer engineers for that matter)
Your time is coming. The rest of the hard engineering disciplines have had their failures and now we have licenses and accountability.
The amount of damage one bridge can do is limited, but the amount of destruction caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals and authoritarian enabling surveillance tools is unlimited.
The civil engineer will be held to account for his failures. Hopefully, soon, the same will be true for the likes of your professions
Your time is coming. The rest of the hard engineering disciplines have had their failures and now we have licenses and accountability.
The amount of damage one bridge can do is limited, but the amount of destruction caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals and authoritarian enabling surveillance tools is unlimited.
The civil engineer will be held to account for his failures. Hopefully, soon, the same will be true for the likes of your professions
I agree that some more pubic accountability for chemical engineers and programmers would be great, but I hate the hostile, anti-intellectual "us good, chemists bad" vibe with which you say it. There's no need to threaten people.
There's chemists who make the world better and chemists who make the world worse, like with every other profession.
There's chemists who make the world better and chemists who make the world worse, like with every other profession.
> the hostile, anti-intellectual "us good, chemists bad" vibe with which you say it.
I personally didn't get that from the parent comment. It's just really weird (from an outsider/alien perspective) that in many sectors of the corporate mafia like in the chemical/IT industry obvious and sometimes intentional malicious schemes (which result in actual deaths) are either rewarded or ignored... when in many other branches harmless errors can get you kicked from your job (eg. in restaurants/shops).
It's not contempt to point that out. If you believe in the idea that there should be a social contract by which we are bound, the social contract must apply to everyone fairly. So why does it often not apply to cops, judges, landlords and some sectors of the engineering community?
> There's chemists who make the world better and chemists who make the world worse, like with every other profession.
True, but like in every other profession, it's very hard to make money if you're really trying to make the world better, and i do mean any money (as in find a job at all).
I personally didn't get that from the parent comment. It's just really weird (from an outsider/alien perspective) that in many sectors of the corporate mafia like in the chemical/IT industry obvious and sometimes intentional malicious schemes (which result in actual deaths) are either rewarded or ignored... when in many other branches harmless errors can get you kicked from your job (eg. in restaurants/shops).
It's not contempt to point that out. If you believe in the idea that there should be a social contract by which we are bound, the social contract must apply to everyone fairly. So why does it often not apply to cops, judges, landlords and some sectors of the engineering community?
> There's chemists who make the world better and chemists who make the world worse, like with every other profession.
True, but like in every other profession, it's very hard to make money if you're really trying to make the world better, and i do mean any money (as in find a job at all).
>have had their failures and now we have licenses and accountability.
Read it. We made those engineers accountable and should have done the same for the others.
Please review what it means to make a threat, as nothing stated is remotely a "threat". Sounds weakly middle management, BTW.
It is a notice that soon there will be accountability.
If you are an engineer making the world a better place, then there won't be much to account for will there?
Read it. We made those engineers accountable and should have done the same for the others.
Please review what it means to make a threat, as nothing stated is remotely a "threat". Sounds weakly middle management, BTW.
It is a notice that soon there will be accountability.
If you are an engineer making the world a better place, then there won't be much to account for will there?
[deleted]
lol, ok. sure, whatever. as a ChemE, we have already made so much progress on making plants blow up less, spilling toxic chemicals into waterways, stopping destroying the ozone, make food safer, ....
you maybe need to go talk to chemists who make this. ChemE just mass produce what the chemist makes. but the chemist just makes what the business needs and the business you makes what the consumer wants.
so oh wait, this is on you for being an irresponsible consumer. don't buy it and we won't make it.
also, north America and the west have already done impressive reforms contrary to Asia which really needs to learn environmentalism
you maybe need to go talk to chemists who make this. ChemE just mass produce what the chemist makes. but the chemist just makes what the business needs and the business you makes what the consumer wants.
so oh wait, this is on you for being an irresponsible consumer. don't buy it and we won't make it.
also, north America and the west have already done impressive reforms contrary to Asia which really needs to learn environmentalism
> ...so much progress...
Great, love that for you. When your company is ruining the world you should take a stand.
> ... irresponsible consumer...
No. Won't accept that shirking of responsibility. Consumers expect that the product isn't poison. We expect that planes fly and cars don't explode. It isn't reasonable to say that consumers want nonstick poison. They were sold a product that was "better" than the alternatives. They believed that would include not being poison.
Great, love that for you. When your company is ruining the world you should take a stand.
> ... irresponsible consumer...
No. Won't accept that shirking of responsibility. Consumers expect that the product isn't poison. We expect that planes fly and cars don't explode. It isn't reasonable to say that consumers want nonstick poison. They were sold a product that was "better" than the alternatives. They believed that would include not being poison.
>The civil engineer will be held to account for his failures. Hopefully, soon, the same will be true for the likes of your professions
So some mid level manager/engineer gets to be the fall guy and all the executives gets away scot free?
So some mid level manager/engineer gets to be the fall guy and all the executives gets away scot free?
Try to engage the situation. Executives are all the same. They are looking to sell something.
Engineers make the world. Be accountable to yourself and your fellow man. We can deny the CEOs of the world our knowledge
Engineers make the world. Be accountable to yourself and your fellow man. We can deny the CEOs of the world our knowledge
>The civil engineer will be held to account for his failures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi...
search jail : 0 found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi...
search jail : 0 found
I'm totally okay with this to be honest. I've been waiting on it.
I'm tired of software companies that just go hire another shmuck.
I'm tired of software companies that just go hire another shmuck.
The state that benefits from authoritarian surveillance is the same state that issues professional licenses.
No argument here. But the state is not one entity.
Licensing for many professions is bullshit. Licensing for engineering requires mentorship and certification by non-government societies in the US. They determine the amount of rigor to join their group and hold the status as a professional engineer.
Everything after that is just registration, which confirms you have evidence of the the prior
Licensing for many professions is bullshit. Licensing for engineering requires mentorship and certification by non-government societies in the US. They determine the amount of rigor to join their group and hold the status as a professional engineer.
Everything after that is just registration, which confirms you have evidence of the the prior
[deleted]
That all depends on the amount of lobbying going on.
What is it, exactly, that you think chemical engineers do? Blaming them is like blaming the plumbers' union for Flint Michigan's drinking water.
That is not a good analogy.
But I will add that professional chemist licensing should be required and revocable
But I will add that professional chemist licensing should be required and revocable
Chemists have nothing directly to do with toxicity and environmental effects either, they design and/or select chemicals to do a job. (The engineers make the aforementioned chemicals in bulk/cheaply/efficiently. Not that they never screw up, but the implied dereliction of ethical behavior you are insinuating doesn't exist and is frankly insulting.
So yes, it is a valid analogy. Just as it would be equally valid [read: not valid at all] to damn the software engineering profession for the sins of AutoDesk, or whomever your villain du jour is.
So yes, it is a valid analogy. Just as it would be equally valid [read: not valid at all] to damn the software engineering profession for the sins of AutoDesk, or whomever your villain du jour is.
If you do this work then you are intelligent enough to determine something about the chemicals you are mass producing. If nothing is known about them, should you be making them? There is your dilemma, I suppose. Claiming ignorance as a shield against accountability is a pretty weak stance. Just doing what you're told doesn't go over well either, if we can use history as a guide.
My statement is intended to denounce those among you that have no concern with what their work will wrought in the world. If you can stand behind your actions then you aren't the target.
Side note: most of software is written by hacks (read: google copypasters) that don't deserve the title engineer and do a disservice to actual programmers. No one cares about Autodesk other than Architects. The concern is Palantir, Facebook, Google, Cellebright, NSO Group
My statement is intended to denounce those among you that have no concern with what their work will wrought in the world. If you can stand behind your actions then you aren't the target.
Side note: most of software is written by hacks (read: google copypasters) that don't deserve the title engineer and do a disservice to actual programmers. No one cares about Autodesk other than Architects. The concern is Palantir, Facebook, Google, Cellebright, NSO Group
Related, in June 2022, the EPA changed its guidelines, which is directly triggering this news cycle about all water being unsafe to drink.
In other words, the sky is not falling, we've just adjusted the definition of where the sky starts.
https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-health-advisories-pf...
In other words, the sky is not falling, we've just adjusted the definition of where the sky starts.
https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-health-advisories-pf...
More like we were being overly optimistic about where the sky starts for years.
Or the sky has already fell and no one has noticed yet because our sky-watchers told us it was fine
Just like there was no reason to panic about leaded gasoline pre 1996.
[deleted]
Related, there was a pretty significant discovery of long term release of these chemicals that contaminated the water supply of a county in upstate NY.
Alot of money and research is exploring the topic, not surprisingly, guidance changes as knowledge gets refined.
Alot of money and research is exploring the topic, not surprisingly, guidance changes as knowledge gets refined.
The EPA’s new recommendation is still not low enough. You realize there is a some cause to panic right? We can’t fish in our streams and rivers, can’t drink rainwater, can’t raise domestic animals without them being full of heavy metals etc. We’ve ruined the basics and this isn’t hyperbole anymore.
[deleted]
We keep repeating the pattern of scaling some technical innovation up to all of society, and then years later discovering that it was really harmful. Leaded gasoline, CFCs, microplastics, pesticides collapsing insect populations etc. And it can take decades to fully understand those impacts. When the stakes are literally, "all rainwater on the planet is unsafe", should we ask -- would society be better off if we were much more conservative about demonstrating the long-term safety of new substances before scaling up their use?
Also, I'm curious if there will be legal implications from this: Will literally the whole planet be able to pursue lawsuits against 3M and peers for making our rainwater 'unsafe'?
Also, I'm curious if there will be legal implications from this: Will literally the whole planet be able to pursue lawsuits against 3M and peers for making our rainwater 'unsafe'?
> We keep repeating the pattern of scaling some technical innovation
up to all of society, and then years later discovering that it was
really harmful.
You missed the problematic last step.
We take technical innovations to a societal scale, discover a really harmful effect, and then stubbornly do the square root of bugger-all about it.
It's expected that harms, especially through complex side-effects take time to emerge. We can't see the future, nor can we exhaustively test everything in advance.
The problem comes with the response. A certain amount of market inertia is to be expected. Recalling and replacing products is expensive.
But what is absolutely inexcusable, and ripe for immediate radical global action to address [1], is the disgraceful, blatantly criminal behaviour of large corporations who move to suppress science, discredit researchers, silence critics and bury bad news.
Many problems concerning at-scale blow-back turn out to have been known about decades in advance of their impact.
[1] https://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/the-corporate-death...
EDIT: A better link on the idea of the "corporate death penalty" (actually quite a good read in itself) [2]
[2] https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/08/its-time-bring...
You missed the problematic last step.
We take technical innovations to a societal scale, discover a really harmful effect, and then stubbornly do the square root of bugger-all about it.
It's expected that harms, especially through complex side-effects take time to emerge. We can't see the future, nor can we exhaustively test everything in advance.
The problem comes with the response. A certain amount of market inertia is to be expected. Recalling and replacing products is expensive.
But what is absolutely inexcusable, and ripe for immediate radical global action to address [1], is the disgraceful, blatantly criminal behaviour of large corporations who move to suppress science, discredit researchers, silence critics and bury bad news.
Many problems concerning at-scale blow-back turn out to have been known about decades in advance of their impact.
[1] https://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/the-corporate-death...
EDIT: A better link on the idea of the "corporate death penalty" (actually quite a good read in itself) [2]
[2] https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/08/its-time-bring...
This is nonsense. We have solved a ton of environmental problems in my lifetime. When I was a kid, there were legitimate worries about the ozone layer -- we banned CFCs and now it's a non-issue. Acid rain is vastly mitigated. Before I was born, we cleaned up America's rivers. And we've dropped per capita carbon emissions in the US by about 40% so far from its high in the 70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#History
"CFC known to be an issue in 1974." What followed was a slow walk of bans that is still progressing.
And it was fought. "In 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, reversed its previous stance and publicly condemned CFCs."
There's plenty of non-compliance with the bans: "In 2018 public attention was drawn to the issue, that at an unknown place in east Asia an estimated amount of 13,000 metric tons annually of CFCs have been produced since about 2012 in violation of the protocol."
So, I state that while CFCs are mostly banned right now. They're still an issue, and it took far too long to regulate. It is seriously not nonsense.
So, I state that while CFCs are mostly banned right now. They're still an issue, and it took far too long to regulate. It is seriously not nonsense.
I was responding to a poster who said:
> and then stubbornly do the square root of bugger-all about it.
That's nonsense. There's a world of difference between "we do nothing about environmental problems," and "I think some particular action should've taken five less years go do," and when you retreat to that position it's a different point entirely.
As to whether it took "too long" to regulate CFCs, what's your measure for that? Is it just vibes? If we had started the process of banning CFCs five years earlier, what's your assertion for the harm mitigated compared to the factual?
> and then stubbornly do the square root of bugger-all about it.
That's nonsense. There's a world of difference between "we do nothing about environmental problems," and "I think some particular action should've taken five less years go do," and when you retreat to that position it's a different point entirely.
As to whether it took "too long" to regulate CFCs, what's your measure for that? Is it just vibes? If we had started the process of banning CFCs five years earlier, what's your assertion for the harm mitigated compared to the factual?
The 'do bugger all about it' wasn't aimed at society. It was aimed at internal company reports. PFAS was known to be harmful by DuPoint but they kept making it. Nicotine and tobacco industry. Global warming and oil industry.
What I honestly don’t understand is what the individual employees of these companies think. I’d love to see a documentary with interviews of a wide swath of employees (different levels within the companies) and how they rationalized this aggregate behaviour. Do they not have children and grandchildren? Do they think they don’t breathe the same air and drink the same water?
Certainly some, probably low level employees, didn’t feel they had the luxury of questioning their company’s ethics and looking for work elsewhere, but what about all the more senior people who presumably sat in boardrooms and spun ways to continue pouring shit into the environment with reckless abandon? What am I missing?
Certainly some, probably low level employees, didn’t feel they had the luxury of questioning their company’s ethics and looking for work elsewhere, but what about all the more senior people who presumably sat in boardrooms and spun ways to continue pouring shit into the environment with reckless abandon? What am I missing?
> how they rationalized this aggregate behaviour.
Fictionalised, quite accurately perhaps, Michael Cristofer as Phillip Price and Bruce Altman playing Terry Colby in Sam Esmail's "Mr Robot" both do an outstanding job of capturing the shrugging banality of evil at genocidal scale. The feeling I got from that (Esmail is a first class writer) was of those inside accounts of the Nuremberg trials with Eichmann laughing
The banality of evil is that murdering a million people is just something you do on a nondescript Wednesday afternoon over wine and canapés while everyone is watching the clock to get out to the golf course.
There is no "rationalisation". No moustache twisting or maniacal laughter. No drama. No thought at all. It is the "amorality", the total absence of moral thought that is horrifying beyond anything Colonel Kurtz could conjure up at the dark end of the river.
Fictionalised, quite accurately perhaps, Michael Cristofer as Phillip Price and Bruce Altman playing Terry Colby in Sam Esmail's "Mr Robot" both do an outstanding job of capturing the shrugging banality of evil at genocidal scale. The feeling I got from that (Esmail is a first class writer) was of those inside accounts of the Nuremberg trials with Eichmann laughing
The banality of evil is that murdering a million people is just something you do on a nondescript Wednesday afternoon over wine and canapés while everyone is watching the clock to get out to the golf course.
There is no "rationalisation". No moustache twisting or maniacal laughter. No drama. No thought at all. It is the "amorality", the total absence of moral thought that is horrifying beyond anything Colonel Kurtz could conjure up at the dark end of the river.
> they are doing horrible things to themselves, their loved ones,
their descendants. It is like a slow motion mass suicide. I feel
like it is significantly more difficult to explain,
Excellent points, well worth thinking about more.
Excellent points, well worth thinking about more.
I will check that out, but one point: I don’t see the Nazi atrocities as good comparables. Those examples are people doing horrible things to other people. In the current instances of people at major corporations poisoning the air, water, and land, they are doing horrible things to themselves, their loved ones, their descendants. It is like a slow motion mass suicide. I feel like it is significantly more difficult to explain, as it can’t be rationalized as crimes being done to some demonized group that isn’t seen as deserving of protection. How can self-harm (and harm to your own loved ones) be moralized in the same manner that Nazis felt their acts to be moral?
It’s not that we haven’t solved some major environmental problems; it’s that we haven’t solved all of them. In the U.S. we are also in a political environment where one party absolutely does not care. Republicans have gone from creating the EPA under Nixon and using cap and trade under Reagan to now considering environmental mitigation a leftist plot to destroy America. Dropping per capita carbon consumption is not the relevant thing to look at. When it comes to pollution and environmental effects the total amount is what matters. If x tons of a chemical causes a problem then talking about per capita values is meaningless.
The other party puts forward a figleaf of caring to appease its climate-minded constituents, while actively doing the doing the dirty work in the interests of some of the largest polluters on this planet.
Sure. If the political center of the U.S. shifted leftward to what it was back in the 70s then maybe the left leaning party would push for more tangible policies.
In my mind, part of the problem is that both parties are pandering to a base with nonsensical policies. One party wants to do nothing because that is popular. The other party is apparently allergic to economically-based policies like cap-and-trade or a revenue neutral tax and instead wants to throw money at the problem. Neither approach is particularly effective.
(At least one side is willing to acknowledge that the problem exists. That’s worth something but maybe not very much.)
(At least one side is willing to acknowledge that the problem exists. That’s worth something but maybe not very much.)
It's not the parties, it's the people. In Washington state some environmental groups fought against a revenue-neutral carbon reduction plan because it didn't give them a slush fund. A couple years later they got an initiative which involved teaching carbon and sending them the money -- surprise, voted down too. Been six years IIRC since we could have had a tax on carbon.
Democrats have proposed cap and trade for carbon and indeed supported this when it came to acid rain. I think your view about both parties pushing absurd positions on this topic is incorrect.
Hardly nonsense considering the speed of implementing new things far exceeds the research and attempts to scale back once harm has been identified. Private interests are far more powerful and well funded than the few scientists sounding alarms and attenpting to caution people. There were warnings about greenhouse gases causing climate change at least as far back as 1912, yet despite this the car and oil industries pushed forward against ethanol fuel, electric powered vehicles, public transportation, etc to spread and strengthen an automobile-centered norm of going about, which we take for granted as the way to get around and turning away from that is far more unlikely today than it would have been in 1912 if the science had been heeded and changes had been made. This is the norm of industries vs science, and it is present in almost every facet of our lives. Additionally, the issue with the ozone layer is still very much not a non-issue.
I think gp was arguing against the idea that there was a "problematic last step" where society does nothing about problems once they are discovered - not against the idea that innovation can bring unforeseen problems.
I don't think there was anything remotely close to a scientific consensus, or even a respected minority view, that fossil fuels would cause dangerous global warming in 1912, but correct me if I am wrong.
I don't think there was anything remotely close to a scientific consensus, or even a respected minority view, that fossil fuels would cause dangerous global warming in 1912, but correct me if I am wrong.
This one might be a tough nut to crack. The carbon-fluoride bonds present in these chemicals require much more energy to break than what is found in nature, e.g. as heat and sunlight. These chemicals simply do not degrade, and due to their surfactant properties, they are almost impossible to contain once spread to the environment.
We have no way of getting rid of these chemicals except possibly to spread more chemicals, which then would need to break apart only those specific molecules AND capture their fluoride ions in some inert matrix to prevent them from forming other compounds as well as directly affecting the environment and our bodies.
We’re pretty much SOL and the only thing we can do is STOP using fluoride chemicals permanently, which we can’t entirely do, because things like uranium enrichment are dependent on teflon.
We have no way of getting rid of these chemicals except possibly to spread more chemicals, which then would need to break apart only those specific molecules AND capture their fluoride ions in some inert matrix to prevent them from forming other compounds as well as directly affecting the environment and our bodies.
We’re pretty much SOL and the only thing we can do is STOP using fluoride chemicals permanently, which we can’t entirely do, because things like uranium enrichment are dependent on teflon.
We could ban halogens unless its impossible to substitute. PVC can be replaced with polyurethane or polyethylene. Hydrocarbon refrigerants instead of HCFCs or pentafluoroethane. If a tiny bit of teflon is needed for uranium enrichment, so be it.
> We have solved a ton of environmental problems in my lifetime.
While creating a ton of new ones, which is sadly in the nature of most solutions; They tend to create new problems.
The question is how much "environmental capital" do we have left trying to figure out something actually long-term sustainable.
While creating a ton of new ones, which is sadly in the nature of most solutions; They tend to create new problems.
The question is how much "environmental capital" do we have left trying to figure out something actually long-term sustainable.
Ozone damaging refrigerants are still a huge issue. China has been releasing a lot of them. We dumped all the DDT in the ocean. This stuff isn't solved at all. Things don't go away, there's no magic wand to disappear all our horrible choices...
We're still using refrigerants with halogens when completely benign, more-efficient, and low GWP hydrocarbons are right there!
[deleted]
Non-issue? The hole in the ozone layer still exists today.
>EDIT: A better link on the idea of the "corporate death penalty" (actually quite a good read in itself) [2]
Okay, but isn't "corporate death penalty" equivalent to a fine that exceeds the value of the company? If we're having trouble fining companies for even 1% of their market value, then demanding a 100% fine seems a bit premature. The whole situation feel like people wanting to reduce wealth inequality by demanding a communist revolution, rather than something more reasonable like higher tax brackets.
Okay, but isn't "corporate death penalty" equivalent to a fine that exceeds the value of the company? If we're having trouble fining companies for even 1% of their market value, then demanding a 100% fine seems a bit premature. The whole situation feel like people wanting to reduce wealth inequality by demanding a communist revolution, rather than something more reasonable like higher tax brackets.
> 100% fine seems a bit premature.
I don't necessarily agree with the "corporate death penalty" (for the same reasons I don't sanction individual death penalty - that organisations like individuals are not necessarily coherent and unified systems with clear intent and culpability) It's potentially a vast destruction of wealth unrelated to the crime.
BUT: It's a good example of radical action that's needed right now, so that's why I put it out there. The one thing that I vehemently disagree with you about is that it's in any way "premature". We are in the last seconds before midnight, and we ought to have the will put anything remotely effective on the table, before the crazies do, because they will soon have the will, the means, and the moral justification to go way beyond mere "corporate death penalties".
I don't necessarily agree with the "corporate death penalty" (for the same reasons I don't sanction individual death penalty - that organisations like individuals are not necessarily coherent and unified systems with clear intent and culpability) It's potentially a vast destruction of wealth unrelated to the crime.
BUT: It's a good example of radical action that's needed right now, so that's why I put it out there. The one thing that I vehemently disagree with you about is that it's in any way "premature". We are in the last seconds before midnight, and we ought to have the will put anything remotely effective on the table, before the crazies do, because they will soon have the will, the means, and the moral justification to go way beyond mere "corporate death penalties".
I'm encouraged that we have made sweeping changes in the past and altered the course of a disaster. Two examples are atmospheric CFCs and DDT.
Agreed it's harder now with increased misinformation, corporate capture, and failed political systems.
Agreed it's harder now with increased misinformation, corporate capture, and failed political systems.
I feel like just when we start to realize we're destroying things with our chemical creations - before things can get fixed the conversation evolves to salving all of climate change.
Can't we just finish stopping the C8/CFC/Pesticide/whatever before we try to stop everything all at once with some nebulous, all-inclusive climate change plan that mostly causes people to only focus on oil use?
Can't we just finish stopping the C8/CFC/Pesticide/whatever before we try to stop everything all at once with some nebulous, all-inclusive climate change plan that mostly causes people to only focus on oil use?
No, unfortunately multiple bad things can be happening at once, and FIFO isn’t a great way of dealing with that.
Dealing with it with FIFO is better than not dealing with it.
Yet we have a few billion people on the earth. I think we can spare a few thinking about other problems.
Yet we have a few billion people on the earth. I think we can spare a few thinking about other problems.
…the comment was suggesting not dealing with it, at least until earlier-identified problems had been dealt with, so it’s not clear what you’re responding to.
100% this. The climate change debate takes up wayyyyyyy too much political oxygen and leaves little room for tackling a lot more lower hanging fruit. I actually think society's efforts to fight climate change have been a net negative for the environment, not to mention that many corporations have "green washed" their pollution by feigning being climate change warriors. This narrative needs to end and real progress on environmental pollutants needs to return. Hopefully sanity can prevail.
Climate change is no longer about the environment, and that is why we see so much movement now.
I would argue PFAS isn't about damaging the environment either. It's about human health. Same goes for CFCs.
It is getting problematic that 'being green' these days can either be caring about the environment and biodiversity like green-peace. Or it can mean 'doing whatever is needed to stop climate change and keep harmful (to humans) chemicals out of the environment'.
Those are actually two very different thought processes with different people who support them. Sharing the term is not working out very well.
I would argue PFAS isn't about damaging the environment either. It's about human health. Same goes for CFCs.
It is getting problematic that 'being green' these days can either be caring about the environment and biodiversity like green-peace. Or it can mean 'doing whatever is needed to stop climate change and keep harmful (to humans) chemicals out of the environment'.
Those are actually two very different thought processes with different people who support them. Sharing the term is not working out very well.
If we spend all the oxygen on climate change and yet we are pretty much falling at tackling it, then I think there is way too little "oxygen" dedicated to not destroying the planet.
Strange to target society's efforts to fight climate change for consuming the political oxygen, rather than those fighting tooth and nail to keep pumping out CO2.
It is the biggest environmental threat facing civilisation, but if only the climate warriors would give up in the face of powerful vested interests and economic intertia, perhaps they'd have time to plant a few wildflowers? /s
It is the biggest environmental threat facing civilisation, but if only the climate warriors would give up in the face of powerful vested interests and economic intertia, perhaps they'd have time to plant a few wildflowers? /s
> Can't we just finish stopping the C8/CFC/Pesticide/whatever
Most of this comes down to figuring out what's harmful and regulating it. We can't outlaw "chemicals". And, of course, there's the whole cooperation in other jurisdictions problem, which affects the next point...
> some nebulous, all-inclusive climate change plan that mostly causes people to only focus on oil use?
Look, uh, the climate change thing is bad. Really bad. And avoiding burning stuff is really hard. We can live without PFAS and glyphosate if we decide we really should. Avoiding burning stuff for energy is really hard.
The chemical harms are complicated: there are some that are long-standing risks, but most of our concerns do not raise to the level of something that screws up climate, agriculture, etc, for centuries.
Most of this comes down to figuring out what's harmful and regulating it. We can't outlaw "chemicals". And, of course, there's the whole cooperation in other jurisdictions problem, which affects the next point...
> some nebulous, all-inclusive climate change plan that mostly causes people to only focus on oil use?
Look, uh, the climate change thing is bad. Really bad. And avoiding burning stuff is really hard. We can live without PFAS and glyphosate if we decide we really should. Avoiding burning stuff for energy is really hard.
The chemical harms are complicated: there are some that are long-standing risks, but most of our concerns do not raise to the level of something that screws up climate, agriculture, etc, for centuries.
We could ban halogens from construction and food industries though with a very short list of known safe exceptions (table salt, hypochlorite). Maybe we give up a tiny bit of convenience -- oh no, I can't leave tomato sauce in my pot overnight without washing, and I have to pay slightly more for longer-lasting fiberglass windows instead of junk vinyl -- but so be it.
I feel like just when we start to realize we're destroying things with our chemical creations ...
FWIW, this was understood quite a long time ago. Consider that the EPA "SuperFund"[1] program began in 1980. And it's not like that was the first time anybody understood that some chemicals have very harmful impacts "in the wild."
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund
FWIW, this was understood quite a long time ago. Consider that the EPA "SuperFund"[1] program began in 1980. And it's not like that was the first time anybody understood that some chemicals have very harmful impacts "in the wild."
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund
The ecological damage from unchecked climate change is by far the largest amount of damage. I'm not sure why we should give it a pass and only focus on smaller amounts of damage.
Because then the conversation will just be dominated on focusing on a smaller issue, with a similar impasse. Just because a bully gets outraged when somebody stands up to them is not a reason to stop standing up to them, and the same folks opposing environmental protection will fight just as hard on other issues.
Because then the conversation will just be dominated on focusing on a smaller issue, with a similar impasse. Just because a bully gets outraged when somebody stands up to them is not a reason to stop standing up to them, and the same folks opposing environmental protection will fight just as hard on other issues.
No, we have to immediately enact a huge number of measures globally for which we don't know the longterm impact and not worry about these things that make life more convenient if only minimally
/every s
/every s
The solution to climate change and all these crises is a vastly reduced human population living in small agrarian communities with preindustrial lifestyles. We keep having these environmental crises because technological civilization was a mistake.
It was only a "mistake" if the word is stripped of its normal meaning since it was inevitable. It may lead to our downfall, but it was then an inevitable downfall. That said, it's not at all obvious that this is the case yet.
agree agree agree. but it's completely unrealistic to hope that humans will do what must be done on their own...
What the hell are you talking about??? Technological civilization arouse because our ancestors living in "small agrarian communities" were tired of living in a nightmare in which their children died like flies and the starved to death periodically every time the climate farted.
I'm tired on hearing entitled little sh1ts like you that have lived incredibly pampered lives and don't have a clue of what is like to have to live without a refrigerator, hvac or modern medicine.
I'm tired on hearing entitled little sh1ts like you that have lived incredibly pampered lives and don't have a clue of what is like to have to live without a refrigerator, hvac or modern medicine.
> Technological civilization arouse because our ancestors living in "small agrarian communities" were tired of living in a nightmare in which their children died like flies and the starved to death periodically every time the climate farted.
This is what Daniel Quinn calls "living in the hands of the gods". We are not really fit to do anything else. Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years living off what the land provides them in its natural course. Civilization will probably not make it much past ten thousand years, if that.
So tell me again which is the bigger nightmare: living and dying according to the whims of nature, being one small part in a society that adapts and harmonizes to nature; or the death of billions, and the extermination of considerable amounts of other life, all because we wanted to rule in place of the gods and never learned not to shit where we eat.
This is what Daniel Quinn calls "living in the hands of the gods". We are not really fit to do anything else. Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years living off what the land provides them in its natural course. Civilization will probably not make it much past ten thousand years, if that.
So tell me again which is the bigger nightmare: living and dying according to the whims of nature, being one small part in a society that adapts and harmonizes to nature; or the death of billions, and the extermination of considerable amounts of other life, all because we wanted to rule in place of the gods and never learned not to shit where we eat.
> We are not really fit to do anything else.
If you go by that logic we are only fit to live in tropical savannahs in Africa where modern humans originated.
What I find supremely arrogant, though, is any Westerner who, while living in comfort and safety amidst high technology, proposes that everyone in the world should just be content with not having the comforts they are currently using (including some, like vaccines and modern medicine, which arguably have vastly less negative effects than PFAS and burning fossil fuels).
Anyone actually serious about this philosophy should try as much as possible to make their lifestyles like what they want for everyone. It probably wouldn't convince everyone, but it would certainly earn them a lot more respect.
If you go by that logic we are only fit to live in tropical savannahs in Africa where modern humans originated.
What I find supremely arrogant, though, is any Westerner who, while living in comfort and safety amidst high technology, proposes that everyone in the world should just be content with not having the comforts they are currently using (including some, like vaccines and modern medicine, which arguably have vastly less negative effects than PFAS and burning fossil fuels).
Anyone actually serious about this philosophy should try as much as possible to make their lifestyles like what they want for everyone. It probably wouldn't convince everyone, but it would certainly earn them a lot more respect.
zmgsabst(2)
I do think that the human population is too much, but so is dangerous chemicals in the environment. But, additionally to that is harmfulness to nonhuman environment (animals/plants) as well as human, and also harmfulness earning money at the expense of everything else in this world.
>would society be better off if we were much more conservative about demonstrating the long-term safety of new substances before scaling up their use?
How? Why limit it to substances? Social media is unsafe What point in time were we only using safe substances so we can use that list of substances as the baseline and then somehow only allow new substances to be used when their long term safety has been demonstrated somehow?
How? Why limit it to substances? Social media is unsafe What point in time were we only using safe substances so we can use that list of substances as the baseline and then somehow only allow new substances to be used when their long term safety has been demonstrated somehow?
Is this even a real point?
Yes, we should take new chemicals and study them for a significant time frame prior to extensive global use. The bar can be set higher.
Don't conflate social science with hard science.
Social media is great at steering populations, generating useful propaganda and generating useful profiles of individuals.... Why would governments want to restrict that?
Yes, we should take new chemicals and study them for a significant time frame prior to extensive global use. The bar can be set higher.
Don't conflate social science with hard science.
Social media is great at steering populations, generating useful propaganda and generating useful profiles of individuals.... Why would governments want to restrict that?
who is we?
what is a new chemical?
who will study them?
how long is significant?
what does safe mean?
who will limit global use?
what is a new chemical?
who will study them?
how long is significant?
what does safe mean?
who will limit global use?
I'm not interested in a Socratic dialogue wherein you bring nothing to the table.
It would be good to have an objective measure of unsafe.
E.g. is the radioactive dust we are all exposed to from global coal plants unsafe? High levels of pm 2.5 from steel plants making your vehicles and roads? Low cost subsidized sugar making half the population obese?
We all die in the end, trying to balance where to act is a hard problem because time is zero sum.
E.g. is the radioactive dust we are all exposed to from global coal plants unsafe? High levels of pm 2.5 from steel plants making your vehicles and roads? Low cost subsidized sugar making half the population obese?
We all die in the end, trying to balance where to act is a hard problem because time is zero sum.
That's the very core of the issue, not knowing what is unsafe.
It's not that the concentration of these chemicals increases past what we thought was safe, what changed was our knowledge of his dangerous they are, making current levels unsafe.
Any notion for "objectively" deciding these things has to account for unknown information, which means assigning subjective risk to these unknowns. I don't find an "objective" framework a coherent concept because of that. Ignorance of the world must be confronted head on and taken into account, and those that do not incorporate that risk directly into their cognitive models will perform worse at achieving their goals.
It's not that the concentration of these chemicals increases past what we thought was safe, what changed was our knowledge of his dangerous they are, making current levels unsafe.
Any notion for "objectively" deciding these things has to account for unknown information, which means assigning subjective risk to these unknowns. I don't find an "objective" framework a coherent concept because of that. Ignorance of the world must be confronted head on and taken into account, and those that do not incorporate that risk directly into their cognitive models will perform worse at achieving their goals.
How do we determine the long term safety without first scaling it up? All of these things many seem innocent in a lab setting and it is only once they reach a critical point that the issues arise.
Usually if something is being eroded you check what chemicals the erosion releases. If you cook on a pan and you don't analyze the contents of the fumes you are totally responsible
The problem isn't that no one knew what's in the fumes and that those chemicals are being eaten/inhaled. It's that in laboratory testing they never showed any impact on humans - but scale it to few billion people and then you notice increased liver cancer rates.
The only good thing is that making non stick pans with this stuff has already been banned in US and EU for a good while.
The only good thing is that making non stick pans with this stuff has already been banned in US and EU for a good while.
I recommend the paper "Precautionary Principle" by Nassim Taleb and co-authors
It does a great job presenting your argument in mathematical format as well as rebutting usual criticisms you may encounter
It does a great job presenting your argument in mathematical format as well as rebutting usual criticisms you may encounter
In a lot of cases the harm was known up-front, but then a handful of people in charge of the profits decided to scale up to “all of society” anyway. Cigarettes, leaded fuel, and fossil fuels are all in this category.
No individual manager at any corporation involved in this has a KPI that says: “Terminate the entire category of industry on which our profits are based.”
This is the problem, and governments these days are just an extension of the same broken system.
Chasing after profits will lead humanity off the edge of a cliff.
No individual manager at any corporation involved in this has a KPI that says: “Terminate the entire category of industry on which our profits are based.”
This is the problem, and governments these days are just an extension of the same broken system.
Chasing after profits will lead humanity off the edge of a cliff.
To be clear, the US political party that starts with a D has been actively spreading awareness and working to ban the substances you mentioned since the at least the 1960s, while the party that starts with an R will never stop being in denial about their dangers.
But we're all guilty of buying products created with those substances and driving cars so.. the fault lies with each of us on an individual level.
What breaks my heart is that the people with all of the money and power actively prevent the rest of us from inventing better solutions. They've created an entire economy around dead end service jobs instead of automation, to keep us distracted and disillusioned so we can never catch a breather and disrupt their meal ticket.
If it were up to me (it will never be up to me), I'd work towards creating open source alternatives for all resources necessary for life. I'd make a wiki of everything people work for (food, water, housing, incidentals) and make each one sustainable and as close to free as possible. Money would be optional and used for aspirations beyond necessity.
It would be kind of a Jetsons solarpunk future where a backyard robotic hydroponic garden grows all non-animal macronutrients. Eggs and kefir would largely replace meat. The house would be made of 3D printed hempcrete and recycled materials. Power and HVAC would come from free (7 year amortized) photovoltaics and passive solar-thermal heat pumps connected to the buried irrigation system.
This stuff is honestly so easy that I can only blame conspiracy for lack of adoption. Or maybe extreme laziness. Whatever the reason is, it's defeatist.
So I'm trying to deprogram myself and incorporate these solutions into my own life. So far I've only succeeded in buying a used electric car though. It's just too hard to save the $10,000 to fix each problem one by one, so I pay out more than that to be a consumer and stay trapped in the matrix. Where are the loans for these solutions? Where's the political will?
But we're all guilty of buying products created with those substances and driving cars so.. the fault lies with each of us on an individual level.
What breaks my heart is that the people with all of the money and power actively prevent the rest of us from inventing better solutions. They've created an entire economy around dead end service jobs instead of automation, to keep us distracted and disillusioned so we can never catch a breather and disrupt their meal ticket.
If it were up to me (it will never be up to me), I'd work towards creating open source alternatives for all resources necessary for life. I'd make a wiki of everything people work for (food, water, housing, incidentals) and make each one sustainable and as close to free as possible. Money would be optional and used for aspirations beyond necessity.
It would be kind of a Jetsons solarpunk future where a backyard robotic hydroponic garden grows all non-animal macronutrients. Eggs and kefir would largely replace meat. The house would be made of 3D printed hempcrete and recycled materials. Power and HVAC would come from free (7 year amortized) photovoltaics and passive solar-thermal heat pumps connected to the buried irrigation system.
This stuff is honestly so easy that I can only blame conspiracy for lack of adoption. Or maybe extreme laziness. Whatever the reason is, it's defeatist.
So I'm trying to deprogram myself and incorporate these solutions into my own life. So far I've only succeeded in buying a used electric car though. It's just too hard to save the $10,000 to fix each problem one by one, so I pay out more than that to be a consumer and stay trapped in the matrix. Where are the loans for these solutions? Where's the political will?
Thing is, it won't even be possible to demonstrate that unsafety on a low scale. I think we should just accept the risk. It will happen once in a while. We will adapt.
meanwhile when new stuff is rolled out anyone questioning the safety or efficacy or theorizing about potential dangers is demonized as a quack, people are so compartmentalized that they can’t see that humans are still flawed and make mistakes, somehow current year everything is a godsend break through, it’s marketing bullshit and corruption
>Leaded gasoline, CFCs, microplastics, pesticides
Cigarettes, sugar, asbestos, hydrogenated vegetable oil, "clean" diesel cars...
Cigarettes, sugar, asbestos, hydrogenated vegetable oil, "clean" diesel cars...
Has microplastics been proven unsafe?
Yes. Yes it has.
It's always helpful to post a link to back your claims up. Presumably if gp is asking, it's because they couldn't find a credible source by Googling.
What harm does it cause
> I'm curious if there will be legal implications from this
Since it was considered to be perfectly safe when they used it, and they stopped 20 years ago (presumably when they discovered it was unsafe), I don’t think there’s any legal ground to stand on.
Since it was considered to be perfectly safe when they used it, and they stopped 20 years ago (presumably when they discovered it was unsafe), I don’t think there’s any legal ground to stand on.
They made money on something that turned out to cause damage. It's only fair that they give back the money they've made to mitigate the damage they caused. It doesn't matter that it was considered safe back then.
you think lawmakers are letting their highest-paying constituents expose themselves to that accountability?
Our rulers typically solve the lawsuits thing by limiting liability through statute. They did it with tobacco and they did it with vaccines
Guns too with the PLCAA
[deleted]
ta8645(1)
No need, metaobeyverse is coming, and everything will be new and shiny there. Virtual cities don't need maintenance.
There was a now-deleted reply to this that made a great point: Is it possible vaccines could be included in your list?
The answer to that is no, it is impossible for any vaccine to be included in that list, which gives rise to the more general point: modern scientific studies are so heavily agenda-polluted, that skepticism and conservative adoption are prohibited. That a handful of short-term (<100 years) studies are sufficient for rolling out unprecedented technologies to the entire world. That an absence of evidence of long-term effects is taken to mean evidence of absence.
Whether it be DDT, GMO's, or PFAS, if the science to date can't detect harm, then there of course cannot possibly be harm - throw caution to the wind and roll it out 100% the world over, from Antarctica to Tibet.
The answer to that is no, it is impossible for any vaccine to be included in that list, which gives rise to the more general point: modern scientific studies are so heavily agenda-polluted, that skepticism and conservative adoption are prohibited. That a handful of short-term (<100 years) studies are sufficient for rolling out unprecedented technologies to the entire world. That an absence of evidence of long-term effects is taken to mean evidence of absence.
Whether it be DDT, GMO's, or PFAS, if the science to date can't detect harm, then there of course cannot possibly be harm - throw caution to the wind and roll it out 100% the world over, from Antarctica to Tibet.
PFAS accumulates in animals and plants, so if all rainwater is unsafe to drink, I would guess most of the world’s food will be unsafe to eat soon, if not already.
Luckily, ‘unsafe’ here, for now, means a relatively small increase in the risk to get some diseases.
⇒ Apart from trying to buy less stuff that contains these chemicals, I think it’s not worthwhile to worry about the health impacts on our individual lives, as it’s an as good as unavoidable risk now (eating only food grown using melting ice caps or millennia old aquifers would work, but has other disadvantages. Filtering PFAS out of all water used in agriculture seems infeasible)
Luckily, ‘unsafe’ here, for now, means a relatively small increase in the risk to get some diseases.
⇒ Apart from trying to buy less stuff that contains these chemicals, I think it’s not worthwhile to worry about the health impacts on our individual lives, as it’s an as good as unavoidable risk now (eating only food grown using melting ice caps or millennia old aquifers would work, but has other disadvantages. Filtering PFAS out of all water used in agriculture seems infeasible)
Just wait until you find out that PFAS is already being spread on crops from the common practice of using sewage "sludge" as a fertilizer.
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/04/ewg-forever-c...
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/04/ewg-forever-c...
This isn't necessarily true for aquaponic/hydroponic crops, but I'm not sure how much of a percentage of food supply that makes up.
They are referring to crossing these thresholds (from Fed 87-118):
> EPA’s health advisories, which identify the concentration of chemicals in drinking water at or below which adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur, are: 0.004 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA, 0.02 ppt for PFOS, 10 ppt for GenX chemicals, and 2,000 ppt for PFBS. Health advisories are non-regulatory and reflect EPA’s assessment of the best available peer-reviewed science.
0.004 ppt is also more commonly known as the number zero. It's probably just the currently best limit of detection for PFOA in water.
> EPA’s health advisories, which identify the concentration of chemicals in drinking water at or below which adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur, are: 0.004 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA, 0.02 ppt for PFOS, 10 ppt for GenX chemicals, and 2,000 ppt for PFBS. Health advisories are non-regulatory and reflect EPA’s assessment of the best available peer-reviewed science.
0.004 ppt is also more commonly known as the number zero. It's probably just the currently best limit of detection for PFOA in water.
For anyone interested in this topic, I recommend season 41 of the podcast American Scandal, which depicts the DuPont cover-up of C8 dumping and how it was discovered. Great narration.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/american-scandal/id143...
There is also a less dramatic version in book form, called Exposure by Robert Bilott, the attorney who prosecuted DuPont.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/american-scandal/id143...
There is also a less dramatic version in book form, called Exposure by Robert Bilott, the attorney who prosecuted DuPont.
Also great: The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare (The New York Times). And the movie, “Dark Waters”.
PFAS is almost like optimizing for paperclips scenario. Except we did ourselves( for a little convenience). Micro plastics too. Both permeate every human in existence and now I guess is in rain water. I'm rural and get water from a well, pretty sure That's not even safe.
I drink mostly bottled tea or soda but that's usually in plastic which has bpa... There's really no getting away from this shit unless you literally carbonate or maybe your own organic teas using highly filtered water and maybe live in a bubble that catches and filters unhealthy particles.
I have two toddlers and I'm saddened they have to face this world. I honestly feel the last decent decade to be a kid was the 90s. I grew up in the 80s graduated in 98, and maybe it's just nostalgia but it just feels like the world is much darker and less safe.
I mean we could run all over town when I was 7, no worries.
We'd be dropped off at the swimming pool, or video arcade, etc... Or just ride our bikes exploring.
Now that's child abuse. I'm glad my kids are safe in their child harness but I'm also glad I only had to worry about seat belts as a kid, after 3 or so. Now it's like 8 or older...
And don't get me started on how weak Halloween is compared to the glorious 80s. Beggars night was an entire community affair, now there is no community anywhere that really gives af.
I'm reminded of the Queen song "is this the world we created" or when the children cry by white lion... Two excellent songs that sum up the world we're leaving our kids... It's beyond sad.
I drink mostly bottled tea or soda but that's usually in plastic which has bpa... There's really no getting away from this shit unless you literally carbonate or maybe your own organic teas using highly filtered water and maybe live in a bubble that catches and filters unhealthy particles.
I have two toddlers and I'm saddened they have to face this world. I honestly feel the last decent decade to be a kid was the 90s. I grew up in the 80s graduated in 98, and maybe it's just nostalgia but it just feels like the world is much darker and less safe.
I mean we could run all over town when I was 7, no worries.
We'd be dropped off at the swimming pool, or video arcade, etc... Or just ride our bikes exploring.
Now that's child abuse. I'm glad my kids are safe in their child harness but I'm also glad I only had to worry about seat belts as a kid, after 3 or so. Now it's like 8 or older...
And don't get me started on how weak Halloween is compared to the glorious 80s. Beggars night was an entire community affair, now there is no community anywhere that really gives af.
I'm reminded of the Queen song "is this the world we created" or when the children cry by white lion... Two excellent songs that sum up the world we're leaving our kids... It's beyond sad.
Can companies that benefit from PFAS, even in the old days, be held accountable? Heck even you have to keep your tax records for 7 years.
It makes me so angry some people benefiting at the expense of millions of others, under regulatory nose.
It makes me so angry some people benefiting at the expense of millions of others, under regulatory nose.
Really depressing.
If I get a reverse osmosis water filter, will that eliminate the PFAS?
PFAS always remind me about how we as a species knew about the toxicity of lead for very long, yet still decided to blast it all over the environment for decades [0]
Also makes me wonder how much similar hubris exists with other topics; Afaik to this day there is still no medical scientific consensus weather damage from radiation is actually cumulative or not.
By now we have myriads of other compounding factors, particularly for cancer, that make it increasingly difficult to filter the actual signal, of what causes these issues, from all the environmental "noise" we keep creating by changing our one and only habitat in such massive, and lasting, ways.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History
Also makes me wonder how much similar hubris exists with other topics; Afaik to this day there is still no medical scientific consensus weather damage from radiation is actually cumulative or not.
By now we have myriads of other compounding factors, particularly for cancer, that make it increasingly difficult to filter the actual signal, of what causes these issues, from all the environmental "noise" we keep creating by changing our one and only habitat in such massive, and lasting, ways.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History
I feel like we are talking past the sale here. Is rainwater actually unsafe to drink, or did someone just change a number in a spreadsheet? After I learned about how residential radon was determined to be the “second biggest cause of lung cancer” I stopped immediately trusting these things.
Are you one of the folks that doesn't have kitchen ventilation because, after all, how harmful can a little gas be?
No. I even have a radon mitigation system. I just don’t think the science that led to its installation is rigorous. It’s a basement not a coal mine.
> After I learned about how residential radon was determined to be the “second biggest cause of lung cancer” I stopped immediately trusting these things.
> I just don’t think the science that led to its installation is rigorous. It’s a basement not a coal mine.
Can you explain this thinking? What you've said so far sounds like an argument from incredulity, not backed up by anything.
Radon testing is fairly straight-forward, the nuclear science behind it is all rigorous and well understood; radon gas decays into radioactive "radon daughters" that, not being gases, settle as dust in places where there is poor airflow. You can test for radon in a building by either sampling the air in the building, or by leaving a filter there for a while and then testing the filter for radon's daughters. If you do this testing, you find that radon is prevalent in some areas and a non-issue in many others. Do you think this testing was never done, or the results mistaken for some reason?
> “second biggest cause of lung cancer”
Maybe you're incredulous because you heard this claim out of context? Smoking is said to be the cause of 80-90% of lung cancers; the "second biggest cause" is just the scraps, under 20%.
> I just don’t think the science that led to its installation is rigorous. It’s a basement not a coal mine.
Can you explain this thinking? What you've said so far sounds like an argument from incredulity, not backed up by anything.
Radon testing is fairly straight-forward, the nuclear science behind it is all rigorous and well understood; radon gas decays into radioactive "radon daughters" that, not being gases, settle as dust in places where there is poor airflow. You can test for radon in a building by either sampling the air in the building, or by leaving a filter there for a while and then testing the filter for radon's daughters. If you do this testing, you find that radon is prevalent in some areas and a non-issue in many others. Do you think this testing was never done, or the results mistaken for some reason?
> “second biggest cause of lung cancer”
Maybe you're incredulous because you heard this claim out of context? Smoking is said to be the cause of 80-90% of lung cancers; the "second biggest cause" is just the scraps, under 20%.
We don’t know that the amounts of radon found in residential environments is harmful because it’s never been studied. The claims about the number of deaths caused are arrived at by starting with something we do have knowledge about - the massive amounts of radon in coal mines and it’s effects on miners - and then drawing a straight line on a graph, assuming there’s no threshold where radon risk drops to zero, and computing what share of lung cancer deaths would result from that model.
You're wrong, radon isn't only found in coal mines. Testing has revealed that in some parts of the world there are very high radon levels in basements. This isn't true everywhere, it depends on local geological conditions. The mutagenic qualities of these radioactive isotopes is settled science.
You have a good point. It’s hard because radon dramatically boosts the risks for people who smoke or have other risk factors.
But since remediation is now part of the way of doing things, ironically nobody has an incentive to learn more.
But since remediation is now part of the way of doing things, ironically nobody has an incentive to learn more.
If the research in PFAS is at all like the article posted yesterday which did multiple statistical tests without doing the appropriate correction, I am not convinced that PFAS are all that harmful.
Because PFAS are so widespread and they have been around so long, if they were really bad we would be seeing massive issues. However, we are not.
Likely they do cause some harm if you have enough statistical power, but likely below the threshold that we live with (for example birth control, going to the beach, driving a car, red meat, and maybe even cooking itself).
Because PFAS are so widespread and they have been around so long, if they were really bad we would be seeing massive issues. However, we are not.
Likely they do cause some harm if you have enough statistical power, but likely below the threshold that we live with (for example birth control, going to the beach, driving a car, red meat, and maybe even cooking itself).
>Likely they do cause some harm if you have enough statistical power, but likely below the threshold that we live with (for example birth control, going to the beach, driving a car, red meat, and maybe even cooking itself).
Isn't the entire reason these things are unsafe that they bioaccumulate over long periods of small dose exposure?
Isn't the entire reason these things are unsafe that they bioaccumulate over long periods of small dose exposure?
I am interested in where/if this bioaccumulates, like mercury does in marine life.
| and they have been around so long, if they were really bad we would be seeing massive issues. However, we are not.
1. They really haven't "been around so long". Not even a single human lifetime.
2. Plenty of other things cause cancer, endocrine disruption etc. Red meat and the beach are here to stay, but why should I be ok with some unaccountable corporation dumping additional pollutants into my environment?
But, by all means, continue to avoid a rational, cautious mode of decision making. It's probably not that harmful in my opinion.
1. They really haven't "been around so long". Not even a single human lifetime.
2. Plenty of other things cause cancer, endocrine disruption etc. Red meat and the beach are here to stay, but why should I be ok with some unaccountable corporation dumping additional pollutants into my environment?
But, by all means, continue to avoid a rational, cautious mode of decision making. It's probably not that harmful in my opinion.
Interesting thought, can you talk more about the methods and their flaws? Also what’s the article you’re referring to?
The discussion is
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32438368#32442794
Here is my comment:
This is actually very poor statistics. Take a look at the actual study:
https://www.jhep-reports.eu/article/S2589-5559(22)00122-7/fu...
And look at table 3. They are testing 6 different types of PFAS, and only 1 is statistically significant. They need to be using the Bonferroni Correction because they are checking multiple hypothesis. To do that, you divide the required p-value (0.05) by the number of tests (6). If you do the Bonferroni Correction, none of the PFAS is statistically significant.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/882/
Thus the real conclusion is that the study did not find any statistically significant link between 'forever chemicals' and liver cancer.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32438368#32442794
Here is my comment:
This is actually very poor statistics. Take a look at the actual study:
https://www.jhep-reports.eu/article/S2589-5559(22)00122-7/fu...
And look at table 3. They are testing 6 different types of PFAS, and only 1 is statistically significant. They need to be using the Bonferroni Correction because they are checking multiple hypothesis. To do that, you divide the required p-value (0.05) by the number of tests (6). If you do the Bonferroni Correction, none of the PFAS is statistically significant.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/882/
Thus the real conclusion is that the study did not find any statistically significant link between 'forever chemicals' and liver cancer.
In the text they mention an FDR correction. In which case you typically don’t use 0.05 as the threshold. Bonferroni isn’t the only way to do that correction, but it a valid method (depending on the pvalue distribution). But with only 6 tests, it’s not really that critical. I usually only think of multiple testing correction in the context of thousands of tests.
Given your comment I was expecting something like 5 patients per group. But they had 50 cases and 50 controls. In this context, an uncorrected pvalue of 0.02 is pretty solid.
Given your comment I was expecting something like 5 patients per group. But they had 50 cases and 50 controls. In this context, an uncorrected pvalue of 0.02 is pretty solid.
No surprice as to why the amounts of PFAS in the enviroment are not decreasing, when more of it is pushed into it. And have for years.
https://illinoisnewsroom.org/pfas-can-still-be-incinerated-i...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/pentago...
https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/department-of-defen...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/company-linked-to-toxic-forever...
https://illinoisnewsroom.org/pfas-can-still-be-incinerated-i...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/pentago...
https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/department-of-defen...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/company-linked-to-toxic-forever...
If the water is unsafe (although there can be different level of being "unsafe"), then I would expect this would be bad for anyone (animals (including humans and nonhumans), plants; some might be more impacted than others). But even if it is only partially unsafe still it should still be reduced and eliminated to make it not unsafe like that. I do not know how to fix, other than possibly to reduce adding more PFAS, but maybe there is some. I do not know if lawsuits are the way to do it, but even if it is, it will not alone be the way to be done, I think. Stop making such chemicals which are potentially unsafe, don't do things bad just so that you can earn too much money (they say love of money is the root of all evil, and I think so; that is what they see anywhere), etc.
Quick update for everyone .... life is lethal and we will all die ... but our addiction to technology since the industrial revolution is adding to the cumulative toxins we are ingesting into our bodies.
Before the 1930's we were able to live lives without plastic, now, we have plastic in our lungs and blood because of technological progress and convenience. The very things that were designed to help us are now responsible for quickening our demise.
Why don't things change? Because everyone is too addicted to this modern lifestyle and will not do what is necessary to reduce plastics and contaminents in our life.
Just look in your house, how much you have of these contaminating technologies....if you feel so stongly about it, try to eliminate all but the most essential.
Before the 1930's we were able to live lives without plastic, now, we have plastic in our lungs and blood because of technological progress and convenience. The very things that were designed to help us are now responsible for quickening our demise.
Why don't things change? Because everyone is too addicted to this modern lifestyle and will not do what is necessary to reduce plastics and contaminents in our life.
Just look in your house, how much you have of these contaminating technologies....if you feel so stongly about it, try to eliminate all but the most essential.
Not far enough. If people feel strongly about it, they need to be writing to manufacturers and politicians, demanding change.
agreed
So let me get this straight, they’re excited because some government agency divided the ‘allowable’ levels of these chemicals by 40 million, and now the values (which are still the same) are too high.
…Wut?
Like, I get that the values are still ‘bad’, but there must be a different way to present that.
I’d also like specifics on exactly how bad ‘bad’ is, because these agencies tend to present their 0.5% increase of lifetime risk of cancer as something exceptional, when you can also get such a thing from, say, eating too much cheese.
…Wut?
Like, I get that the values are still ‘bad’, but there must be a different way to present that.
I’d also like specifics on exactly how bad ‘bad’ is, because these agencies tend to present their 0.5% increase of lifetime risk of cancer as something exceptional, when you can also get such a thing from, say, eating too much cheese.
> some government agency divided the ‘allowable’ levels of these chemicals by 40 million
That's one way to put it, yes. Another way is that recent scientific studies have shown these chemicals are way more harmful than we once thought. Should we not adjust recommendations accordingly? Seems rather obvious and undeserving of a "Wut?".
How bad is bad? Check out how they calculate the HA values here: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/technical...
That's one way to put it, yes. Another way is that recent scientific studies have shown these chemicals are way more harmful than we once thought. Should we not adjust recommendations accordingly? Seems rather obvious and undeserving of a "Wut?".
How bad is bad? Check out how they calculate the HA values here: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/technical...
There's a difference in increasing your lifetime risk of cancer 0.5% by eating too much cheese compared to atmospheric levels of PFAS. I can choose to not eat too much cheese, and in fact I don't, for that same reason. I can't choose to stop breathing in or drinking PFAS in the environment.
I don't know about you but 0.5% increase in lifetime risk of cancer is not something I'm comfortable taking on, and it's not fair that I don't have any say in the matter.
Cancer sucks.
I don't know about you but 0.5% increase in lifetime risk of cancer is not something I'm comfortable taking on, and it's not fair that I don't have any say in the matter.
Cancer sucks.
> I don't know about you but 0.5% increase in lifetime risk of cancer is not something I'm comfortable taking on
My point was rather that there’s probably a variety of things you do in daily life that have exactly that effect, but nobody is excited about those.
Probably because cheese is tasty and random chemicals in the air aren’t.
My point was rather that there’s probably a variety of things you do in daily life that have exactly that effect, but nobody is excited about those.
Probably because cheese is tasty and random chemicals in the air aren’t.
Sometimes we find out we were wrong about the safety of a substance.
Radium used to be sold in patent medicine tinctures because it wasn't considered dangerous. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor
Radium used to be sold in patent medicine tinctures because it wasn't considered dangerous. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor
But I can ski a little faster, McDonald's burger didnt seep thru the wrapper and my disposable umbrella is excellent!
It's not just one chemical we're talking about here, as there is over 9,000 variations of PFAS chemicals[1] identified to date.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pfas/default.html
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pfas/default.html
Why haven’t we seen higher incidence of cancer in global populations if its leached into all global water supplies?
But it is increasing over time: https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/#/Trends/
Global trends are difficult to accurately capture as we’ve seen with Covid. Most countries don’t have the infrastructure to get accurate and good statistics from.
Global trends are difficult to accurately capture as we’ve seen with Covid. Most countries don’t have the infrastructure to get accurate and good statistics from.
From the graphs it seems it's not increasing but decreasing. Population is getting higher so number of cancers is getting higher too but rate is decreasing (first graph).
And as people die from other curable illnesses less and less, cancer incidences increase and increase.
Have there been a set of cures in the last 20 years that would explain this curve? Would love to see the data.
Most of the global population doesn’t have access to cancer screenings/health treatment. Come on.
Who says we havent?
PFAS have been in use for +50years.
that would be almost impossible to control for
Public campaigning and awareness. We need to know what consumer products contain PFAs and the likes. It's perverse this exists so close to our food chain.
These companies have our govnement officials in their pockets but they live on the same planet. They have no conscious even for themselves or their children.
These companies have our govnement officials in their pockets but they live on the same planet. They have no conscious even for themselves or their children.
[deleted]
It's pretty common for the Arctic and the Antarctic to have higher levels of such contamination as water cycles upwards/downwards from the Equator, compounds as it moves along, and then gets trapped in the ice.
about 10 years ago the EPA had a mandate to reduce use by 95% before 2011(?) and eliminate it by 2025(?). I may have the dates slightly wrong. went through the process on tens of thousands of SKUs. so far so good.
The reason I am conflicted is our vendors got rid of PFOA but replaced it with something similar to it but not the same.
Effectively, we now have 2 "forever" chemicals in the environment. rinse repeat.
I don't know what the answer is unless we make a conscious decision to forego the performance benefits these chemicals provide to our products. waterproof shoes and sofas, dental floss, med dev, etc.
The reason I am conflicted is our vendors got rid of PFOA but replaced it with something similar to it but not the same.
Effectively, we now have 2 "forever" chemicals in the environment. rinse repeat.
I don't know what the answer is unless we make a conscious decision to forego the performance benefits these chemicals provide to our products. waterproof shoes and sofas, dental floss, med dev, etc.
Sometimes I wonder if we are rolling dice with synthetic substances life never had contact in billions years since it's origins until one of them gives us a Children of Men scenario.
This is how microbial life ends in a petri dish.
Either by consuming all the nutrients, or so polluting the dish with their metabolic waste that they can no longer survive.
Either by consuming all the nutrients, or so polluting the dish with their metabolic waste that they can no longer survive.
Fast and loose with definitions is what gets us to a place where no one believes anything anymore. I’m pretty sure that if one was stuck in a forest somewhere and drank only rainwater for a whole month, they’d come out just fine.
Sure, smoke cigarettes for a month and you probably won't be dead from stage 4 lung cancer at the end of those ~30 days.
Adulterating our entire ecology with hyperpersistent, novel, toxicologically dubious chemicals is bad. This should be self-explanatory and completely obvious. The benefits of PFAS and friends do not outweigh the downsides.
Adulterating our entire ecology with hyperpersistent, novel, toxicologically dubious chemicals is bad. This should be self-explanatory and completely obvious. The benefits of PFAS and friends do not outweigh the downsides.
Now this is concerning
This is an exaggeration, of course. The EPA guideline of 70 ppt for PFAS is probably just too low compared to other standards. For example, a Canadian guideline suggests an MAC of 200 ppt for PFOA, and 600 ppt for PFOS. These are the most common PFAS. Also, these are based on a lifetime exposure, and short term exposure to these amounts is probably not particularly harmful.
Additionally, even in the US, the guidelines by the individual states vary between 13 to 1000 ppt. [2]
[1]: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/health...
[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0099-9
Additionally, even in the US, the guidelines by the individual states vary between 13 to 1000 ppt. [2]
[1]: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/health...
[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0099-9
Since PFAS never really breaks down and we're still creating it, is a 200 ppt inevitable at some point?
The scary thing for me is that it's in the rain, so it'll be in crops, water reservoirs, trickling into the water table and into drinking supply. We have to stop this right now.
> You can't use techniques like distillation to remove PFAS
Can we get a citation on this? I’m not a chemical engineer, but distillation seems like a pretty good way to get rid of virtually everything.
Can we get a citation on this? I’m not a chemical engineer, but distillation seems like a pretty good way to get rid of virtually everything.
Some things absolutely distill over, it’s not magic, but depends on (to simplify) the boiling point of the substance compared to the boiling point of water.
For example it is not possible to completely separate ethanol and water with distillation.
A quick internet search seems to indicate PF* can be separated with distillation.
For example it is not possible to completely separate ethanol and water with distillation.
A quick internet search seems to indicate PF* can be separated with distillation.
Rain is a form of distillation.
a form of distillation with virtually no isolation, compartmentalization, and unlimited precursor conditions, which pours into a huge mass of possibly dirty air and debris.
This is a good point. I don't know what to think now. I presume 3M isn't spraying this stuff into the air as an aerosol.
PFAS components do end up in the atmosphere from the manufacturing process, which is how it precipitates (droplets nucleate around the airborne particles).
Same story with any particulate emissions, like soot, dust, tires, etc.
Same story with any particulate emissions, like soot, dust, tires, etc.
I'm sorry, I had it wrong. I've checked my facts. It works. This is actually a relief for me.
Most of the PFAS do break down -- a half life of a few years. It's mostly PFOA that's of grave concern.
Citation? I tried googling and couldn't find anything to confirm that.
When I searched on half-life, the results that came up mostly seemed to discuss the half-life in the body, not the half-life in an environmental sink such as the ocean.
When I searched on half-life, the results that came up mostly seemed to discuss the half-life in the body, not the half-life in an environmental sink such as the ocean.
> the results that came up mostly seemed to discuss the half-life in the body
Yah, there's a lot of data on "serum" or "elimination" half lives.
What you care about is "atmospheric", "aqueous abiotic", and "aqueous biotic" half lives.
So, e.g. for PFOA, atmospheric half lives are about 130 days... https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jp036343b
I can't come up with a link to share for PFOA in aqueous solutions, but it looks like 90-150 years.
Yah, there's a lot of data on "serum" or "elimination" half lives.
What you care about is "atmospheric", "aqueous abiotic", and "aqueous biotic" half lives.
So, e.g. for PFOA, atmospheric half lives are about 130 days... https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jp036343b
I can't come up with a link to share for PFOA in aqueous solutions, but it looks like 90-150 years.
It's an interesting article from 2004; might not be reading it right but seems like this one from 2020 is less optimistic about hydroxyl radicals (OH) breaking down PFOA in the atmosphere. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31978654/
Your same link notes that the majority of PFOA is not broken down in the atmosphere and points to "wet and dry deposition" mostly, which sounds like it's being dropped down to Earth remaining as PFOA.
Your same link notes that the majority of PFOA is not broken down in the atmosphere and points to "wet and dry deposition" mostly, which sounds like it's being dropped down to Earth remaining as PFOA.
> It's an interesting article from 2004; might not be reading it right but seems like this one from 2020 is less optimistic about hydroxyl radicals (OH) breaking down PFOA in the atmosphere. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31978654/
That's an interesting paper. If so, multiply the atmospheric time by 2-4.
> Your same link notes that the majority of PFOA is not broken down in the atmosphere and points to "wet and dry deposition" mostly, which sounds like it's being dropped down to Earth remaining as PFOA.
Yes. That doesn't affect the "half life" here.
In the end, not much PFOA ends up in the atmosphere in the first place, and most precipitates out to less convenient places where it lives longer. Of the stuff resident in the atmosphere, it does break down on human timescales, at least...
That's an interesting paper. If so, multiply the atmospheric time by 2-4.
> Your same link notes that the majority of PFOA is not broken down in the atmosphere and points to "wet and dry deposition" mostly, which sounds like it's being dropped down to Earth remaining as PFOA.
Yes. That doesn't affect the "half life" here.
In the end, not much PFOA ends up in the atmosphere in the first place, and most precipitates out to less convenient places where it lives longer. Of the stuff resident in the atmosphere, it does break down on human timescales, at least...
[deleted]
Guidelines for all of these things individually seem to ignore the likely unstudied possibility that they have synergistic effects. Or even just additive effects because many of them are so similar to each other.
What short term exposure? if it's in the rain in Antarctica then you can bet it's in your water, vegetables: it's likely a lifelong exposure.
Research suggests even the EPA recommendation is too high.
How can we have a guideline for ALL PFAS? They are all completely different molecules with different Hazzard levels - likely many safe.
These generalizations make conversations about them useless.
These generalizations make conversations about them useless.
There is insufficient evidence for "likely many safe". You can't just start throwing that around.
The burden of evidence is demonstrating that they are each unsafe.
Lumping a hundred chemicals under a label and then claiming that any time ANY of them are found that they are harmful, is dishonest.
Lumping a hundred chemicals under a label and then claiming that any time ANY of them are found that they are harmful, is dishonest.
Which generalization should we change ? The "they aren't safe" or the "likely many safe" one?
The guideline is 0.02 ppt for PFOS and 0.004 ppt for PFOA.
I think you have the units, the number of the zeroes, and and the actual figures wrong. Each µg/L is 1,000 ppt (part per trillion, i.e. ng/L).
No.
1 µg/L = 1,000,000 ppt
1 ng/L = 1,000 ppt
You can find the figures here:
https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/questions-and-answers-drinking-wate...
Rain water and ocean spray already exceed these limits by hundreds of thousands to several million times.
1 µg/L = 1,000,000 ppt
1 ng/L = 1,000 ppt
You can find the figures here:
https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/questions-and-answers-drinking-wate...
Rain water and ocean spray already exceed these limits by hundreds of thousands to several million times.
> 1 ng/L = 1,000 ppt
I don't think so. See here (the green box in the upper right corner of page 2): https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/ep...
> nanograms per liter (ng/L) = parts per trillion (ppt)
Or alternatively: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1133/conversion-factors.html
I don't think so. See here (the green box in the upper right corner of page 2): https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/ep...
> nanograms per liter (ng/L) = parts per trillion (ppt)
Or alternatively: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1133/conversion-factors.html
I don’t know what to tell you. Is this one of those billion/trillion differences again? In that case the EPA values are definitely off by a factor of 1000 when compared to SI units, so maybe rainwater is then only some hundreds to some thousands of times over the limit.
https://www.google.com/search?q=1+ng%2FL+in+parts+per+trilli...
https://www.google.com/search?q=1+ng%2FL+in+parts+per+trilli...
I think it's just that Google's instant answer is scraped from endmemo.com, and that website has it wrong.
If you check the second search result (https://www.llojibwe.org/drm/environmental/content/concentra...), it also corroborates what I'm saying:
> 1 nanogram/liter (ng/l) = 1 ppt
Technically speaking, ppt/ppb/ppm should be used for dimensionless quantities, but the convention used here is kinda contrary to that. The argument for the convention is something like this: 1 L ~= 1kg of water, so 10^-12kg of something per 1 L of water can be considered as dimensionless, since the kg and the L cancel out.
If you check the second search result (https://www.llojibwe.org/drm/environmental/content/concentra...), it also corroborates what I'm saying:
> 1 nanogram/liter (ng/l) = 1 ppt
Technically speaking, ppt/ppb/ppm should be used for dimensionless quantities, but the convention used here is kinda contrary to that. The argument for the convention is something like this: 1 L ~= 1kg of water, so 10^-12kg of something per 1 L of water can be considered as dimensionless, since the kg and the L cancel out.
It doesn’t have it wrong, it just uses long scale trillions and the US EPA uses short scale trillions.
Oh, interesting! I'd never heard of the short/long scale thing before.
You could argue that it's still wrong though, in the sense that the website is in English, and currently the short scale is used in all main Anglosphere countries. [1]
P.S. I just realized that even the short/long scale thing doesn't explain the endmemo.com claim. It's probably just a mistake. In the short scale, a trillion is 10^12, while in the long scale it's 10^18. So, if we were to use the long scale, 1 ppt would a smaller unit by a a factor of 10^-6 (not 10^-3), and equal to 1 fg/L (femto is the SI prefix for 10^-15, while nano is for 10^-9).
In other words, 1 ng/L = 1,000,000 part per long scale trillion.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Short_...
You could argue that it's still wrong though, in the sense that the website is in English, and currently the short scale is used in all main Anglosphere countries. [1]
P.S. I just realized that even the short/long scale thing doesn't explain the endmemo.com claim. It's probably just a mistake. In the short scale, a trillion is 10^12, while in the long scale it's 10^18. So, if we were to use the long scale, 1 ppt would a smaller unit by a a factor of 10^-6 (not 10^-3), and equal to 1 fg/L (femto is the SI prefix for 10^-15, while nano is for 10^-9).
In other words, 1 ng/L = 1,000,000 part per long scale trillion.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Short_...
I'd settle for 0 ppt.
I'd settle for what's already here and it's too late, but stop this industrial madness right now without further delay.
The world is being destroyed, but at least for a few beautiful moments our nonstick pans were a few cents cheaper
Please don't take HN in high-indignation/low-information directions, or post snarky one-liners.
It dumbs down discussion, as well taking it off topic and turning it nasty. Important topics deserve better than that. Unimportant topics too, actually.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It dumbs down discussion, as well taking it off topic and turning it nasty. Important topics deserve better than that. Unimportant topics too, actually.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Funny as stainless/high carbon steel with butter is perfectly 'non stick' and way healthier. The war on fats caused substantial damage to the health and environment
> stainless/high carbon steel with butter is perfectly 'non stick'
Except it isn’t. Try letting melted cheese, or pretty much any starch (pasta, rice, oatmeal, etc) sit in stainless for a while and then see how non-stick it is. It will glue itself to stainless but on non-stick it will slide right off.
I’m not arguing in favor of non-stick, and avoid it when possible, but we can’t also be making inaccurate claims either.
Except it isn’t. Try letting melted cheese, or pretty much any starch (pasta, rice, oatmeal, etc) sit in stainless for a while and then see how non-stick it is. It will glue itself to stainless but on non-stick it will slide right off.
I’m not arguing in favor of non-stick, and avoid it when possible, but we can’t also be making inaccurate claims either.
Well, there is also the method of seasoning cast iron cookware.
Cast iron and stainless are so completely different that this comment doesn’t belong in this thread.
Also, cast iron, even when seasoned, would still stick quite a bit in the above scenario (and I can’t imagine any scenario where I’d want to cook starches like that in cast iron).
Also, cast iron, even when seasoned, would still stick quite a bit in the above scenario (and I can’t imagine any scenario where I’d want to cook starches like that in cast iron).
I don't think "the war on fats" is to blame for the rise of PFAS-based nonstick pans. Have you actually tried using both? A world of a difference
Also, vegetable oils are incredibly high in omega-6's which compete with omega-3's for the same enzymes. In general the literature suggests we should be consuming about a 4:1 ratio for Omega-3's to Omega-6 fatty acids. Corn-based oil, for example, has a 1:60 ratio
I think avoiding excessive vegetable oil intake is still a good idea
Also, vegetable oils are incredibly high in omega-6's which compete with omega-3's for the same enzymes. In general the literature suggests we should be consuming about a 4:1 ratio for Omega-3's to Omega-6 fatty acids. Corn-based oil, for example, has a 1:60 ratio
I think avoiding excessive vegetable oil intake is still a good idea
[deleted]
> Funny as stainless/high carbon steel with butter is perfectly 'non stick' and way healthier.
I bet that the butter itself is worse for your health than the minuscule PFAS you are getting from your pan.
I bet that the butter itself is worse for your health than the minuscule PFAS you are getting from your pan.
The nonstick pans today still have PFAS. They removed PFOA but there are hundreds of similar chemicals that they can use instead, which reason would dictate are just as toxic but which so happen to have not been safety tested yet
what do you think the feasibility of making the laws a whitelist rather than a blacklist would be? they did it with drugs in the UK
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make things cheap —- Leonard Cohen
Nonstick pans are a negligible source of PFAS compared to various plastic products. For example some paper bowls are 25% PFAS.
Think my unrealized stock gains are safe to drink?
Maybe capitalism has some serious side effects
Thank god my preferred economic model doesn't use chemicals
It's not about the use of chemicals as such but the necessity of consumption for the sake of consumption.
Thanks, Monsanto!
Lets stop using PFAS if its raining down on us.
It's very hard for me to reconcile scary headlines like this with the fact that living conditions for many people now are definitely far better than they were 1000 or even 100 years ago. The relative risks of different things may change over time but ultimately I think we are better off for all the positives these chemicals have given our lives. If anything, this sort of environmental alarmism is going to just increase the anti-science sentiment, the effects of which are already saw some effects of in the pandemic. After all, it's not a huge leap from "these chemicals are bad" to "these vaccines are bad".
Yeah, and that’s why you should drink commercially packaged water instead.
Why not use the real title? Your title indicates a meaning that is not there in the original.
The exact title is “It’s raining PFAS: even in Antarctica and on the Tibetan plateau rainwater is unsafe to drink”.
How is the meaning different? The plateau bit?
How is the meaning different? The plateau bit?
Indeed and look above many just believe the catchy and misleading headline as truth. If it's not catchy the public doesn't care much for it yet when it is they do and are more then not they're being misled even lied too.
We are fucking us sideways and have no plans to stop doing so.
I'm just over 3000 miles from Antarctica, and I've been living off rainwater for the past 10 months. No ill-effects so far.
About fifty years ago I stayed in an old hotel called the Compleat Angler [0] on the desert island of Bimini, where the indoor plumbing was fed by collected rainwater. The Bahamas was still a British Crown colony at the time.
I'll never forget washing my hair in the water closet, and with a rainwater rinse, having a better hair day than I ever had on the mainland.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compleat_Angler_Hotel
I'll never forget washing my hair in the water closet, and with a rainwater rinse, having a better hair day than I ever had on the mainland.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compleat_Angler_Hotel
We need to do a better job of regulating what is allowed to be sold to consumers. We're likely going to see a a whole host of rare medical conditions become common when my generation gets older. Not to mention that on top of destroying human health we're destroying the planet too. I don't know what to do about any of this but I feel powerless to make an impact.