4 ms·
> I know nothing about PFAS but the above comment reads like a lobbying screed. If you knew nothing about smoking and read a long rant on smoking's health effe
by GeoAtreides 4y ago
> I know nothing about PFAS but the above comment reads like a lobbying screed.
If you knew nothing about smoking and read a long rant on smoking's health effects, would you dismiss it as easily as you dismissed this one? Probably yes -- but you would be deadly wrong.
It's interesting to me how people, although saying they know nothing about a subject, they still have opinions about what's true or false on that subject. What can one say about something they know nothing about except: I don't know. Maybe: "this opinion (GP's) seems aggressive, is it warranted? I don't know". Just say: I don't know.
> The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely.
Smoking was dropping people like flies left and right. And indeed there was a reason why it was still on the market and used widely.
- sam345 4y agoYou must have misread my comment.I gave no opinion because as I said I know nothing about PFAS. I certainly didn't say my mind was made up and I wasn't going to do any further research. To the contrary I was asking for facts and cost benefit analysis. For instance what are the alternatives and what are their environmental and health costs? OG did not address any of that.
- hammock 4y agoPFAS are used in so many different applications it would be difficult to list the alternatives comprehensively. But it can be confidently said that, health and environmental costs aside, there are no better alternatives for their current use. Which is a huge part of the problem (similar to the BPA/BPS issue). PFAS in DWR / water resistant applications is being replaced with silicone-based tech and some other novelties. PFAS in coated paper goods can be replaced with silicones, sulfuric acid baths, etc. PFAS in machinery could be replaced with food-grade lubricants like mineral oil, etc. (or just more frequent cleaning) Give me some other common applications and I'll help think about the alternatives
- GeoAtreides 4y ago>the above comment reads like a lobbying screed This is an opinion. "screed" and "lobbying" are not neutral words, they have negative connotations. >The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely. This is also an opinion. It uses hyperbole to cast shade on GP's original words, to imply a dreadful scenario that should be happening if those words are true; you then say, paraphrasing: this scenario is not happening, so then it follows GP's assertions are not true (to be clear: this is your inference, implied, not mine). This is how I read your comment; I admit, I might've gotten wrong and I apologize if that's the case.
- Alex3917 4y ago> Probably yes -- but you would be deadly wrong. Sort of. Smoking was initially only modestly dangerous, but became vastly more dangerous over time. So the situation isn't entirely analogous.
- arcticbull 4y agoNo? Putting tobacco smoke in your lungs was always dangerous, it didn’t suddenly become that way.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- raman325 4y agoI don't think this comment is in conflict with its parent. Danger isn't binary.
- majkinetor 4y agoBut suddently you started to inhale smoke of numerious other additivies they put into it in the meantime.