5 ms·

I'm not saying PFAS' aren't an issue, but I am saying this article is written by a special interest group (ironically enough it's a press release issued by them

I'm not saying PFAS' aren't an issue, but I am saying this article is written by a special interest group (ironically enough it's a press release issued by themselves, quoting themselves as though it's a news article) who have an obvious agenda. I prefer to get my data about such things from cold research, not from "scientists" whose salaries come from fighting a cause.

rgavuliak 4y ago
If their agenda is for people to live in a better environment than it's bad by default? I would understand your approach, if you'd be able to find the bias in the study or proof of them lying/manipulating facts, but isn't this just a bit too contrarian of an approach?
- tptacek 4y ago
  I think the issue is, when you take that tack, you're not doing science anymore; it's just bare advocacy. And, indeed, if you look at EWG resources like their "tap water database" (super popular, punch in your zip code and they'll do their level best to terrify you), you've got something that is very much pretending to be a scientific resource while very much deliberately not being used that way.
michaelteter 4y ago
The way this is delivered and presented is normal for organizations. They have a website for press releases, and the content of a press release would be a summary and reference to something apropos. In this case it happens to be their own research. But it's still normal and reasonable for them to make a press release about it, even if it's their own study. I think the issue here, or your complaint rather, is based on the expectation that HN items would be more independent. Of course it's often not this way, as we see plenty of promotional pieces from tech companies posted here.
DoingIsLearning 4y ago
Not sure if you are just skimming along? The actual paper is legit: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115165 The first author is from Duke University, the paper is peer-reviewed, and the journal 'Environmental Research' has an impact factor of 8.4 which is quite fair. Also even if I look at the group who participated in the study, EWG, their mission seems to be focused on empowering consumers with information on environmental choices, which for an NGO seems fairly apolitical to me.
- tptacek 4y ago
  EWG is an incredibly political organization that is not at all about empowering consumers, but rather in marshaling them for a cause, usually by convincing them that their local tap water is full of two-headed nuclear reactor fish. For all I know, they're right, but nobody should extend them the benefit of doubt about their neutrality.
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    I haven't looked into this but do you have any evidence that the tap water information they provide is fraudulent? Otherwise it seems to me that they are fulfilling their mission in informing consumers, no?
    - tptacek 4y ago
      I didn't use the word "fraudulent", and so I decline to continue this discussion with you.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    Sounds like what they said when people questioned lead paint, or asbestos. PFAS are, in all likelihood, the lead paint of this generation. Furthermore you did nothing to impeach the credibility of their study.
    - tptacek 4y ago
lettergram 4y ago
Ideologically driven scientists are worse imo. Regardless, all “scientists” are paid for results. Look at any research grant. The vast majority make several major assumptions. Anything environment related even more so. Good luck getting a grant proving prior climate science papers are bunk (most are). The established scientists are those giving out the grants, they won’t let you disprove their work.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > Good luck getting a grant proving prior climate science papers are bunk (most are). Citation needed.

rgavuliak 4y ago

If their agenda is for people to live in a better environment than it's bad by default? I would understand your approach, if you'd be able to find the bias in the study or proof of them lying/manipulating facts, but isn't this just a bit too contrarian of an approach?

tptacek 4y ago
I think the issue is, when you take that tack, you're not doing science anymore; it's just bare advocacy. And, indeed, if you look at EWG resources like their "tap water database" (super popular, punch in your zip code and they'll do their level best to terrify you), you've got something that is very much pretending to be a scientific resource while very much deliberately not being used that way.

michaelteter 4y ago

The way this is delivered and presented is normal for organizations. They have a website for press releases, and the content of a press release would be a summary and reference to something apropos. In this case it happens to be their own research. But it's still normal and reasonable for them to make a press release about it, even if it's their own study. I think the issue here, or your complaint rather, is based on the expectation that HN items would be more independent. Of course it's often not this way, as we see plenty of promotional pieces from tech companies posted here.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago

Not sure if you are just skimming along? The actual paper is legit: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115165 The first author is from Duke University, the paper is peer-reviewed, and the journal 'Environmental Research' has an impact factor of 8.4 which is quite fair. Also even if I look at the group who participated in the study, EWG, their mission seems to be focused on empowering consumers with information on environmental choices, which for an NGO seems fairly apolitical to me.

tptacek 4y ago
EWG is an incredibly political organization that is not at all about empowering consumers, but rather in marshaling them for a cause, usually by convincing them that their local tap water is full of two-headed nuclear reactor fish. For all I know, they're right, but nobody should extend them the benefit of doubt about their neutrality.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  I haven't looked into this but do you have any evidence that the tap water information they provide is fraudulent? Otherwise it seems to me that they are fulfilling their mission in informing consumers, no?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I didn't use the word "fraudulent", and so I decline to continue this discussion with you.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  Sounds like what they said when people questioned lead paint, or asbestos. PFAS are, in all likelihood, the lead paint of this generation. Furthermore you did nothing to impeach the credibility of their study.
  - tptacek 4y ago

lettergram 4y ago

Ideologically driven scientists are worse imo. Regardless, all “scientists” are paid for results. Look at any research grant. The vast majority make several major assumptions. Anything environment related even more so. Good luck getting a grant proving prior climate science papers are bunk (most are). The established scientists are those giving out the grants, they won’t let you disprove their work.

robertlagrant 4y ago
> Good luck getting a grant proving prior climate science papers are bunk (most are). Citation needed.