8 ms·

This article really hams up the language -- but that makes sense, given its author is a lawyer who's spent most of his adult life trying to get PFOA banned. He

This article really hams up the language -- but that makes sense, given its author is a lawyer who's spent most of his adult life trying to get PFOA banned. He is not a neutral actor. That said, the pervasiveness and harmfulness of PFOA (and some of its newer replacements) is a real and significant issue that needs to be publicized. I personally prefer this article from NYT: 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... (Note that the author of the OP Guardian article is actually the subject of this NYT article!)

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Yes. The author is also from the movie Dark Waters. Yea: I have to agree. The 2016 NYT piece you linked is a better read. Thanks.
- Centigonal 6y ago
  Oh, I didn't know someone made a film about this story! I'll have to give it a watch sometime. Maybe I can recommend it to people to raise awareness. PFOA is very scary, but I'm also very concerned by some of the replacements[1] that DuPont is using now. What if they're just as dangerous? Heck, we've know PFOS is dangerous for over a decade now, but we're still using it in industry and to fight fires. [1] like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    Makes you wonder about the role of E.P.A.
    - taurath 6y ago
      You mean the chemical industry lobbyists?
    - buran77 6y ago
      It's to deal with the actions that have a good cost/benefit ratio for everyone, citizens and companies. If something dramatically puts companies (the offenders) at a disadvantage they will fight against that with anything they have. Hence the EPA is more like a pebble under a steamroller fueled by billions of dollars obtained by not actually caring what the EPA or people want. It's hard to move an opponent who has more money and power (of every kind) than you.
  - dharma1 6y ago
    It’s worth watching. Made me replace all our non-stick cookware with stainless steel
    - rkagerer 6y ago
      Are you happy with how it performs by comparison?
      - dmix 6y ago
        Curious if they use even more dangerous replacements to keep stuff off the pan. Possibly dangerous to the person in the long run like plenty of oil. At this sort of global scale these decisions really matter. What are the replacements?
      - violetgarden 6y ago
        Not the person you’re replying to, but I just got stainless steel cookware this year. Covid got me cooking much more, and I actually started liking it, so I thought I’d invest in some decent pans as my non stick ones were wearing down. I am not a natural in the kitchen, and the learning curve for stainless has been huge for me. The heat is different and the pans get much much hotter at a lower heat. When you throw things in the pan, it sticks for a moment. This can make things yummy but is unsettling after a life of non stick. You can season stainless like a cast iron pan to get it non stick. I was really frustrated after making the switch. Non stick pans are so forgiving. However, now that I’m over the hump, I really love these pans. They are so sturdy and will last my whole life. I’ve learned how to control heat much better, and they’re quite satisfying to cook with. There’s something so quality feeling about them.
        nv-vn 6y ago
        After I stopped using non-stick, I realized it was kind of a cheat method for cooking. Non-stick is super forgiving because you can cook anything too hot/too cold with too much/too little oil and get approximately the same result. With stainless, cast iron, etc. it actually takes some thought to make sure you have adequate time to preheat and are actually using the right heat in the first place, but by the end of it you end up being a lot more precise in the kitchen. Once you get the hang of proper temperature control it seems like your results get way more consistent. Plus you're spot on with the satisfaction thing, it's definitely more work to cook without non-stick but it just feels better for some reason.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gmac 6y ago
> its author is a lawyer who's spent most of his adult life trying to get PFOA banned. He is not a neutral actor. I dislike this logic: it penalises expertise and commitment. It’s similar to the way broadcasters frequently dismiss people as “activists”. As far as I’m aware, he is only not neutral because he has learned a lot about the problem and found it serious enough to devote himself to doing something about it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- manquer 6y ago
  There is difference between journalist talking to such an expert and writing the article, than the expert writing himself.experise does not mean he will be unbiased. You need a neutral perspective, same reason dev should be his own qa, or lawyer should not represent himself or a doctor not operate on family. While they can be objective and unbiased, it is right to question that, when the author has a vested interest in the matter as it easy to loose perspective.
  - fsloth 6y ago
    Bias is not bad in sciences. It means the person is dedicated to his/her cause. For example, if you read through nobel price winners you find one very strong common factor. They were always emotionally involved in their work. Humans are emotional beings, not robots. If you want to have high performance, you want the performer to care deeply about his work. Biases should not be hidden though! I think that is the pathology people generally confuse with bias. Bias is a positive thing, hiding it is not. This does not contradict the above examples (lawyer, doctor, dev) but rather highlights there are different situations and no single approach to bias suffices. Besides, journalism is almost never unbiased. If you don't know the bias of the writer, it means the writer has a hidden agenda. Much better to flaunt the agenda, then.
    - 7952 6y ago
      And our reaction is entirely coloured by bias and our own baseline understanding of the world. We expect higher quality argument from the side we are less comfortable with. And happily accept less proof on concepts that we are already familiar with. No one worries about bias when you are talking about pistgres.
rkagerer 6y ago
Thanks, that article is a great read. This was news to me: Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, the E.P.A. can test chemicals only when it has been provided evidence of harm. This arrangement, which largely allows chemical companies to regulate themselves, is the reason that the E.P.A. has restricted only five chemicals, out of tens of thousands on the market, in the last 40 years.
Barrin92 6y ago
>He is not a neutral actor Given that we're talking about something that's practically harming the entire population of this planet there are only two groups of people. The one's that get sick from it and get rich, and the one's that just get sick, so I think it's fair to say the number of people who have any reason to be neutral actors is 0.
- Guthur 6y ago
  No, there is a third, that oh so great government that everyone seems so keen to give more power and money too. This is exactly where they are suppose to do their job yet they're so woefully bad at it. If they can't even get this sort of shit right why trust them to do anything properly.
  - Joeri 6y ago
    Government is just people.
    - cmoscoso 6y ago
      And guns.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

Yes. The author is also from the movie Dark Waters. Yea: I have to agree. The 2016 NYT piece you linked is a better read. Thanks.

Centigonal 6y ago
Oh, I didn't know someone made a film about this story! I'll have to give it a watch sometime. Maybe I can recommend it to people to raise awareness. PFOA is very scary, but I'm also very concerned by some of the replacements[1] that DuPont is using now. What if they're just as dangerous? Heck, we've know PFOS is dangerous for over a decade now, but we're still using it in industry and to fight fires. [1] like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Makes you wonder about the role of E.P.A.
  - taurath 6y ago
    You mean the chemical industry lobbyists?
  - buran77 6y ago
    It's to deal with the actions that have a good cost/benefit ratio for everyone, citizens and companies. If something dramatically puts companies (the offenders) at a disadvantage they will fight against that with anything they have. Hence the EPA is more like a pebble under a steamroller fueled by billions of dollars obtained by not actually caring what the EPA or people want. It's hard to move an opponent who has more money and power (of every kind) than you.
- dharma1 6y ago
  It’s worth watching. Made me replace all our non-stick cookware with stainless steel
  - rkagerer 6y ago
    Are you happy with how it performs by comparison?
    - dmix 6y ago
      Curious if they use even more dangerous replacements to keep stuff off the pan. Possibly dangerous to the person in the long run like plenty of oil. At this sort of global scale these decisions really matter. What are the replacements?
    - violetgarden 6y ago
      Not the person you’re replying to, but I just got stainless steel cookware this year. Covid got me cooking much more, and I actually started liking it, so I thought I’d invest in some decent pans as my non stick ones were wearing down. I am not a natural in the kitchen, and the learning curve for stainless has been huge for me. The heat is different and the pans get much much hotter at a lower heat. When you throw things in the pan, it sticks for a moment. This can make things yummy but is unsettling after a life of non stick. You can season stainless like a cast iron pan to get it non stick. I was really frustrated after making the switch. Non stick pans are so forgiving. However, now that I’m over the hump, I really love these pans. They are so sturdy and will last my whole life. I’ve learned how to control heat much better, and they’re quite satisfying to cook with. There’s something so quality feeling about them.
      - nv-vn 6y ago
        After I stopped using non-stick, I realized it was kind of a cheat method for cooking. Non-stick is super forgiving because you can cook anything too hot/too cold with too much/too little oil and get approximately the same result. With stainless, cast iron, etc. it actually takes some thought to make sure you have adequate time to preheat and are actually using the right heat in the first place, but by the end of it you end up being a lot more precise in the kitchen. Once you get the hang of proper temperature control it seems like your results get way more consistent. Plus you're spot on with the satisfaction thing, it's definitely more work to cook without non-stick but it just feels better for some reason.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gmac 6y ago

> its author is a lawyer who's spent most of his adult life trying to get PFOA banned. He is not a neutral actor. I dislike this logic: it penalises expertise and commitment. It’s similar to the way broadcasters frequently dismiss people as “activists”. As far as I’m aware, he is only not neutral because he has learned a lot about the problem and found it serious enough to devote himself to doing something about it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
manquer 6y ago
There is difference between journalist talking to such an expert and writing the article, than the expert writing himself.experise does not mean he will be unbiased. You need a neutral perspective, same reason dev should be his own qa, or lawyer should not represent himself or a doctor not operate on family. While they can be objective and unbiased, it is right to question that, when the author has a vested interest in the matter as it easy to loose perspective.
- fsloth 6y ago
  Bias is not bad in sciences. It means the person is dedicated to his/her cause. For example, if you read through nobel price winners you find one very strong common factor. They were always emotionally involved in their work. Humans are emotional beings, not robots. If you want to have high performance, you want the performer to care deeply about his work. Biases should not be hidden though! I think that is the pathology people generally confuse with bias. Bias is a positive thing, hiding it is not. This does not contradict the above examples (lawyer, doctor, dev) but rather highlights there are different situations and no single approach to bias suffices. Besides, journalism is almost never unbiased. If you don't know the bias of the writer, it means the writer has a hidden agenda. Much better to flaunt the agenda, then.
  - 7952 6y ago
    And our reaction is entirely coloured by bias and our own baseline understanding of the world. We expect higher quality argument from the side we are less comfortable with. And happily accept less proof on concepts that we are already familiar with. No one worries about bias when you are talking about pistgres.

rkagerer 6y ago

Thanks, that article is a great read. This was news to me: Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, the E.P.A. can test chemicals only when it has been provided evidence of harm. This arrangement, which largely allows chemical companies to regulate themselves, is the reason that the E.P.A. has restricted only five chemicals, out of tens of thousands on the market, in the last 40 years.

Barrin92 6y ago

>He is not a neutral actor Given that we're talking about something that's practically harming the entire population of this planet there are only two groups of people. The one's that get sick from it and get rich, and the one's that just get sick, so I think it's fair to say the number of people who have any reason to be neutral actors is 0.

Guthur 6y ago
No, there is a third, that oh so great government that everyone seems so keen to give more power and money too. This is exactly where they are suppose to do their job yet they're so woefully bad at it. If they can't even get this sort of shit right why trust them to do anything properly.
- Joeri 6y ago
  Government is just people.
  - cmoscoso 6y ago
    And guns.