6 ms·

More generally there is way too much crap in the environment and it is past time for people to start protesting this. We are likely paying a price for this in r

More generally there is way too much crap in the environment and it is past time for people to start protesting this. We are likely paying a price for this in rising rates of obesity and deteriorating mental health. It's time for cleaner outdoor air, better indoor air quality and ventilation and a tighter rein on the proliferating number of chemicals that surround us. As the item notes, Parkinson's rates have been increasing for some time and are expected to continue to increase in the coming decades.

angst_ridden 4y ago
People are expendable. There's a new crop every year. Corporate profits, on the other hand ...
algoatecorn 4y ago
[Environmental contamination] is way less of an explanatory variable of obesity and mental health than [dietary choice and activity level]. Its effect resides in the error term.
- pjc50 4y ago
  The (extremely long) blog argues otherwise: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p... I don't entirely agree with what they have to say, especially when they search for a possible target chemical, but they provide a whole bunch of contradictory evidence against the naive laziness hypothesis. Of which the most convincing argument is lab animals: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010.1890 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010... Lab animals do not have control over their diet and activity level, and yet are becoming more obese.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    There are a couple of issues drawing too much from this study. 1. They haven't found any mechanistic evidence to support this. 2. All of these populations had access to manufactured food. (Either human or pet food) 3. This is really only one study, not really a field of research. IT seems like the theory manufactured food has gotten tasty since the 80's would also explain this data.
- outworlder 4y ago
  > dietary choice Is it really a choice when 75% of all food found in the supermarket has been spiked with sugar and 88% of the US population is suffering from metabolic issues? And sugar has been linked to a host of degenerative neurological conditions. > activity level We can't outrun a bad diet.
  - algoatecorn 4y ago
    >Is it really a choice when 75% of all food found in the supermarket has been spiked with sugar and 88% of the US population is suffering from metabolic issues? And sugar has been linked to a host of degenerative neurological conditions. Yes, it is. If you walk into the store, pick up the item, pay for it, take it home, and eat it, then it was 100% your choice. Just because a decision is difficult doesn't absolve an individual of responsibility. >We can't outrun a bad diet. You can, but it's not easy. However, what tends to happen is when you increase you activity level your body will auto-regulate cravings for better food. High performance athletes can get by on mostly fast food if they need. Most don't because they know it's not optimal. Both of your notions are currently popular but that doesn't make them right. Emotional reasoning has taken over diet, fitness, and health and caused millions of people to give up their personal responsibility and sense of control. It's harmful thinking.
  - neuralRiot 4y ago
    Somehow you have to pay for the convenience of having quick food 24/7. To really asses if air pollutants play a role in weight gain subjects under test should eat the same calories and breathe the same (or different) air, still it would be difficult as not all metabolisms are the same. As a totally anecdotal note, i’ve never met an obese person who doesn’t overeat.
CuriouslyC 4y ago
Good luck getting any laws on this passed if Republicans control any branch of congress, or not struck down if they continue to leverage their judiciary control for blatantly political ends.
- tohnjitor 4y ago
  Good luck heating your house or feeding your family if the Democrats continue their blatant political goals of depopulation.
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    Depopulation? You mean stepping back from overpopulation? Do you want to live in a world where everyone lives in a 200sqft box and eats manufactured sludge because we don't have resources for people to live like actual humans unless they're from an oligarch family? I can feed my family with a small permaculture farm, some chickens and goats, without relying on anyone else. I can heat my house with wood and solar energy retained in water, again without relying on anyone else. If my farm is surrounded by polluters and thus the ground is so tainted that nothing grows without buying Monsanto's entire catalog, that would be the fault of Republicans who've blocked environmental regulation.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - tohnjitor 4y ago
      Overpopulation is a myth best left behind in the 1970s.
      - CuriouslyC 4y ago
        You should try living in Hong Kong and see how you feel about overpopulation. As climate change makes huge swathes of land unlivable and population continues to grow that will be your future.
outworlder 4y ago
> More generally there is way too much crap in the environment and it is past time for people to start protesting this. Some of this crap is worse than others. Some we can destroy and maybe make our food supply and water safe. But others are really hardy, by design (Teflon!). There's no good way to get rid of them and this should have been treated as an emergency ages ago. In a sense they are worse than radioactive waste because they don't even decay.
- s0rce 4y ago
  If teflon didn't decay it would be fine as it doesn't pose a health risk, its basically inert. Its the manufacturing chemicals and degradants (PFAS/PFOA) that are the problem and represent persistent contamination.

angst_ridden 4y ago

People are expendable. There's a new crop every year. Corporate profits, on the other hand ...

algoatecorn 4y ago

[Environmental contamination] is way less of an explanatory variable of obesity and mental health than [dietary choice and activity level]. Its effect resides in the error term.

pjc50 4y ago
The (extremely long) blog argues otherwise: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p... I don't entirely agree with what they have to say, especially when they search for a possible target chemical, but they provide a whole bunch of contradictory evidence against the naive laziness hypothesis. Of which the most convincing argument is lab animals: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010.1890 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010... Lab animals do not have control over their diet and activity level, and yet are becoming more obese.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  There are a couple of issues drawing too much from this study. 1. They haven't found any mechanistic evidence to support this. 2. All of these populations had access to manufactured food. (Either human or pet food) 3. This is really only one study, not really a field of research. IT seems like the theory manufactured food has gotten tasty since the 80's would also explain this data.
outworlder 4y ago
> dietary choice Is it really a choice when 75% of all food found in the supermarket has been spiked with sugar and 88% of the US population is suffering from metabolic issues? And sugar has been linked to a host of degenerative neurological conditions. > activity level We can't outrun a bad diet.
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  >Is it really a choice when 75% of all food found in the supermarket has been spiked with sugar and 88% of the US population is suffering from metabolic issues? And sugar has been linked to a host of degenerative neurological conditions. Yes, it is. If you walk into the store, pick up the item, pay for it, take it home, and eat it, then it was 100% your choice. Just because a decision is difficult doesn't absolve an individual of responsibility. >We can't outrun a bad diet. You can, but it's not easy. However, what tends to happen is when you increase you activity level your body will auto-regulate cravings for better food. High performance athletes can get by on mostly fast food if they need. Most don't because they know it's not optimal. Both of your notions are currently popular but that doesn't make them right. Emotional reasoning has taken over diet, fitness, and health and caused millions of people to give up their personal responsibility and sense of control. It's harmful thinking.
- neuralRiot 4y ago
  Somehow you have to pay for the convenience of having quick food 24/7. To really asses if air pollutants play a role in weight gain subjects under test should eat the same calories and breathe the same (or different) air, still it would be difficult as not all metabolisms are the same. As a totally anecdotal note, i’ve never met an obese person who doesn’t overeat.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

Good luck getting any laws on this passed if Republicans control any branch of congress, or not struck down if they continue to leverage their judiciary control for blatantly political ends.

tohnjitor 4y ago
Good luck heating your house or feeding your family if the Democrats continue their blatant political goals of depopulation.
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  Depopulation? You mean stepping back from overpopulation? Do you want to live in a world where everyone lives in a 200sqft box and eats manufactured sludge because we don't have resources for people to live like actual humans unless they're from an oligarch family? I can feed my family with a small permaculture farm, some chickens and goats, without relying on anyone else. I can heat my house with wood and solar energy retained in water, again without relying on anyone else. If my farm is surrounded by polluters and thus the ground is so tainted that nothing grows without buying Monsanto's entire catalog, that would be the fault of Republicans who've blocked environmental regulation.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tohnjitor 4y ago
    Overpopulation is a myth best left behind in the 1970s.
    - CuriouslyC 4y ago
      You should try living in Hong Kong and see how you feel about overpopulation. As climate change makes huge swathes of land unlivable and population continues to grow that will be your future.

outworlder 4y ago

> More generally there is way too much crap in the environment and it is past time for people to start protesting this. Some of this crap is worse than others. Some we can destroy and maybe make our food supply and water safe. But others are really hardy, by design (Teflon!). There's no good way to get rid of them and this should have been treated as an emergency ages ago. In a sense they are worse than radioactive waste because they don't even decay.

s0rce 4y ago
If teflon didn't decay it would be fine as it doesn't pose a health risk, its basically inert. Its the manufacturing chemicals and degradants (PFAS/PFOA) that are the problem and represent persistent contamination.