4 ms·

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

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
    Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I don't know. I just know I can't rely on EWG for an objective take on it.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > I just know I can't rely on EWG for an objective take on it. You haven't really clarified why this is though. You've stated without backing it up with anything that > 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.

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
  Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I don't know. I just know I can't rely on EWG for an objective take on it.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > I just know I can't rely on EWG for an objective take on it. You haven't really clarified why this is though. You've stated without backing it up with anything that > 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.