4 ms·
Not 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.yout
by bialpio 4y ago
Not 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.