4 ms·
That Netflix link is not available everywhere and also quite time-consuming to review. Obviously it is also a dramatic piece rather than a (semi-)scientific. I
by dxuh 4y ago
That Netflix link is not available everywhere and also quite time-consuming to review. Obviously it is also a dramatic piece rather than a (semi-)scientific. I had a brief look at the PFAS wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...), which is what that Netflix movie seems to be about, but it's also quite wordy and the claims you make can not be found on there as-is. Maybe you want to consider adding a better source.
- markdown 4y agohttps://www.popsci.com/story/environment/dark-waters-chemicals-pfas/ https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/dark-waters-chemica... Basically, the US government allows companies to sell new chemicals they invent, completely unregulated. You could make a toxin today that kills everyone who touches it 10 years after they ingest it, and you would be free to market and sell this product. The chemical is presumed safe until evidence to the contrary comes to the knowledge of the govt. That's how Dupont poisoned people all over the world. They sold unregulated chemicals they invented that nobody but them knew about. One report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found PFAS in the blood of 97% of Americans... The number of new PFAS chemicals appear to be increasing, and exposure is difficult to assess. - https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm
- Gravityloss 4y agoThere is now REACH in EU.
- Gravityloss 4y agohttps://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach
- bialpio 4y agoNot sure if you'll consider this a more scientific source, but John Oliver also did a piece about PFAS: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9W74aeuqsiU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9W74aeuqsiU. The list of issues that the wiki article claims are "high certainty" is also quite concerning to me: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#Human_health_concerns_associated_with_PFASs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_sub... At the very least, seems that the production is being ramped down - quick skim of the article yielded this quote: "Their [PFASs'] production has been regulated or phased out by manufacturers, such as 3M, DuPont, Daikin, and Miteni in the US, Japan, and Europe."
- mlindner 4y agoJohn Oliver is a comedian, so also not a very good source. It's written for entertainment rather than being informative.
- bialpio 4y agoI think it can be both entertaining and informative, but it definitely feels like they try too hard to be funny at times. Do you have an example where the information they stated in the show was factually incorrect about PFAS?
- mlindner 4y agoOliver is often correct at some core level but wrong on the details to play to the audience. Or "lies by omission" where a false narrative is produced without actually saying anything false.
- Sporktacular 4y agoThat's not true, John Olivers show is extremely well researched. Sometimes his lack of references make it hard to use him as a source, but you can use the show as a starting point and validate his claims from there. They hold up very well.
- Sporktacular 4y agoThe intercept brought a lot of this to light: https://theintercept.com/search/?s=pfas https://theintercept.com/search/?s=pfas