4 ms·

"The only reason the world knows anything about this today is because, in 1998, Earl Tennant, a courageous farmer from West Virginia, came to me demanding answe

"The only reason the world knows anything about this today is because, in 1998, Earl Tennant, a courageous farmer from West Virginia, came to me demanding answers." Which is, of course, complete bullshit. I'm not dismissing the toxicity and persistence of fluorocarbons, but this article is too grandstanding and fearmongering for my likes. You're better off just reading the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

narrator 6y ago
The guy who found out BPA was an endocrine disruptors was a scientist who was studying breast cancer and kept finding that his breast cancer cells were getting activated when put in plastic test tubes. He called up the test tube manufacturer and they refused to tell him the material that composed the test tubes. When he did his own investigation this is what led to the BPA / Endocrine link being discovered.
- jey 6y ago
  That’s a great story and I want to believe it; do you have a citation to back it up?
  - petepete 6y ago
    Sounds like a few of the finer details were mixed up. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-... > A maintenance worker had used an abrasive floor cleaner, instead of the usual mild detergent, to wash out cages and water bottles. The acidic solution scarred the hard, polycarbonate surface of the plastic and enabled a single chemical culprit to leach out—bisphenol A (BPA).
    - hanniabu 6y ago
      What's special about the surface that doesn't let BPA to leech out? Is it a different composite used on the inner surface or does it have to do with something like how water is strong until the surface tension is broken?
      - ISL 6y ago
        At a minimum, roughing up the surface of a material will substantially increase its surface area.
      - labawi 6y ago
        > But during the manufacturing process, not all BPA gets locked into chemical bonds Quote from the article. The plastics are polymers - monomers linked into chains, but the linking is random and this would be a plausible explanation.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Or this 2016 NYT piece https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
smt88 6y ago
> Which is, of course, complete bullshit. How so? Your own link seems to support that reading. The Wikipedia page says: > "The chemical has received attention due to litigation from the PFOA-contaminated community around DuPont's Washington Works facility in Washington, West Virginia, along with EPA focus." That litigation was handled by Robert Bilott, the author of the article and subject of the NYT piece[1] that confirms the story of Tennant bringing up the issue. Perhaps you thought the article was saying that the harm of fluorocarbons is known at all because of Tennant, when it instead seems to say that it is widely known because of him. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
- isoprophlex 6y ago
  It is what you say. I object to the absolute certainty of the writing. The use of language in a piece of journalistic writing colors my perception of it. Saying that the only reason the world knows anything comes off as grandstanding. That said... I think the author is fighting a good fight. Maybe this kind of reporting eventually helps the cause. I just don't like all the emotional strings being pulled. Finally, unrelated... Every organic chemist should understand intuitively how dumb it is to let undegradable shit loose in the environment. This is polychlorinated biphenyls all over again, without the chloracne.
  - smt88 6y ago
    > I object to the absolute certainty of the writing. That's a better way to phrase it than "complete bullshit", which suggests you object to more than just the certainty. I'm not really sure what your nitpick is here, anyway. Because <100% of people found out about this harmful pollution from that lawsuit, it's unfair to say that most people did? Do you just believe that you can't credit anyone for popularizing anything, because some niche of people already knew?

narrator 6y ago

The guy who found out BPA was an endocrine disruptors was a scientist who was studying breast cancer and kept finding that his breast cancer cells were getting activated when put in plastic test tubes. He called up the test tube manufacturer and they refused to tell him the material that composed the test tubes. When he did his own investigation this is what led to the BPA / Endocrine link being discovered.

jey 6y ago
That’s a great story and I want to believe it; do you have a citation to back it up?
- petepete 6y ago
  Sounds like a few of the finer details were mixed up. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-... > A maintenance worker had used an abrasive floor cleaner, instead of the usual mild detergent, to wash out cages and water bottles. The acidic solution scarred the hard, polycarbonate surface of the plastic and enabled a single chemical culprit to leach out—bisphenol A (BPA).
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    What's special about the surface that doesn't let BPA to leech out? Is it a different composite used on the inner surface or does it have to do with something like how water is strong until the surface tension is broken?
    - ISL 6y ago
      At a minimum, roughing up the surface of a material will substantially increase its surface area.
    - labawi 6y ago
      > But during the manufacturing process, not all BPA gets locked into chemical bonds Quote from the article. The plastics are polymers - monomers linked into chains, but the linking is random and this would be a plausible explanation.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

Or this 2016 NYT piece https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...

smt88 6y ago

> Which is, of course, complete bullshit. How so? Your own link seems to support that reading. The Wikipedia page says: > "The chemical has received attention due to litigation from the PFOA-contaminated community around DuPont's Washington Works facility in Washington, West Virginia, along with EPA focus." That litigation was handled by Robert Bilott, the author of the article and subject of the NYT piece[1] that confirms the story of Tennant bringing up the issue. Perhaps you thought the article was saying that the harm of fluorocarbons is known at all because of Tennant, when it instead seems to say that it is widely known because of him. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...

isoprophlex 6y ago
It is what you say. I object to the absolute certainty of the writing. The use of language in a piece of journalistic writing colors my perception of it. Saying that the only reason the world knows anything comes off as grandstanding. That said... I think the author is fighting a good fight. Maybe this kind of reporting eventually helps the cause. I just don't like all the emotional strings being pulled. Finally, unrelated... Every organic chemist should understand intuitively how dumb it is to let undegradable shit loose in the environment. This is polychlorinated biphenyls all over again, without the chloracne.
- smt88 6y ago
  > I object to the absolute certainty of the writing. That's a better way to phrase it than "complete bullshit", which suggests you object to more than just the certainty. I'm not really sure what your nitpick is here, anyway. Because <100% of people found out about this harmful pollution from that lawsuit, it's unfair to say that most people did? Do you just believe that you can't credit anyone for popularizing anything, because some niche of people already knew?