2 ms·

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

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).

2 ms·

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

by matthewdgreen 6y ago

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).