3 ms·

It's just you. "Scientists have confirmed links between PFOA exposure and a variety of serious diseases, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative

It's just you. "Scientists have confirmed links between PFOA exposure and a variety of serious diseases, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. And more recent studies are now raising concerns that some of these forever chemicals may negatively impact our endocrine system, our fertility, and our immune system – and possibly even the efficacy of vaccines." A few moments spent checking out links to some of the issues mentioned above reveals enough 'actual information' to sink a boat. We can then make up our own minds as to whether the author is exaggerating. I vote for 'not'.

saiya-jin 6y ago
If you are smart, dry facts are enough to persuade you and this kind of emotional 'manipulation' might actually deter you (it did me a bit). If you are on opposite spectrum, this might help to get story through. Obvious on whom it was aimed at
HPsquared 6y ago
Almost any chemical you can think of has been linked to some type of cancer or other disease. The important question is, how much? If they don't estimate the level of risk, the claim is fairly worthless - indistinguishable from all those other low dose chemicals we're exposed to on a daily basis.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  That is indeed a good question, and the answer (like many chemicals) is “extremely toxic at high concentrations and nobody really knows the long-term effects at smaller ones because this would require enormous scientific investments that nobody will pay for.” But PFOA/PFOS is different from other chemicals in that it’s extremely long-lived and so it doesn’t break down rapidly the way many other chemicals do. Putting something like this into the environment should demand the reverse of the evidentiary standard you’re describing: we should know exactly how safe it is before you dump it into the environment like DuPont did.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    And that’s a valid position to take. However the tone of the article is extremely alarmist painting it as “this is the biggest problem ever” vs “this is an area of concern that I think requires immediate investigation”. The same line of FUD is used all the time with tech. See all the BS about 5G and even Berkeley’s general attempt to spread non-scientific FUD about RF. Now obviously this is a bit different because RF has far more research behind it and the lack of research here is the problem. All the appeals of “this causes cancer” is used to cloud the fact that the position taken in this opinion article is one of ignorance and encouraging decisions to be made as a result of said ignorance. A valid position is one you’ve taken that the onus should be on the manufacturer to prove safety. However, it’s intentionally not the position of the government. Not just the US as I believe many/most/all countries err on the side of “it’s safe” without actually requiring evidence to that effect except for drugs and maybe some food production (such studies take a long time, are expensive, and often inconclusive).

saiya-jin 6y ago

If you are smart, dry facts are enough to persuade you and this kind of emotional 'manipulation' might actually deter you (it did me a bit). If you are on opposite spectrum, this might help to get story through. Obvious on whom it was aimed at

HPsquared 6y ago

Almost any chemical you can think of has been linked to some type of cancer or other disease. The important question is, how much? If they don't estimate the level of risk, the claim is fairly worthless - indistinguishable from all those other low dose chemicals we're exposed to on a daily basis.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
That is indeed a good question, and the answer (like many chemicals) is “extremely toxic at high concentrations and nobody really knows the long-term effects at smaller ones because this would require enormous scientific investments that nobody will pay for.” But PFOA/PFOS is different from other chemicals in that it’s extremely long-lived and so it doesn’t break down rapidly the way many other chemicals do. Putting something like this into the environment should demand the reverse of the evidentiary standard you’re describing: we should know exactly how safe it is before you dump it into the environment like DuPont did.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  And that’s a valid position to take. However the tone of the article is extremely alarmist painting it as “this is the biggest problem ever” vs “this is an area of concern that I think requires immediate investigation”. The same line of FUD is used all the time with tech. See all the BS about 5G and even Berkeley’s general attempt to spread non-scientific FUD about RF. Now obviously this is a bit different because RF has far more research behind it and the lack of research here is the problem. All the appeals of “this causes cancer” is used to cloud the fact that the position taken in this opinion article is one of ignorance and encouraging decisions to be made as a result of said ignorance. A valid position is one you’ve taken that the onus should be on the manufacturer to prove safety. However, it’s intentionally not the position of the government. Not just the US as I believe many/most/all countries err on the side of “it’s safe” without actually requiring evidence to that effect except for drugs and maybe some food production (such studies take a long time, are expensive, and often inconclusive).