6 ms·

You could make the argument that we really need better methods and technology for determining the health impact of what we put into our environment. The problem

You could make the argument that we really need better methods and technology for determining the health impact of what we put into our environment. The problem as I see it (as a total layman) is that the health sciences are not good at determining the effects of almost anything in the future. The best we can do is wide-scale studies that try to control for different variables (and largely fail, because the set of variables is incredibly large). I have a feeling we aren’t going to solve this problem anytime soon, as the simulations required appear to be so large they are beyond our reach. I am optimistic that we can massively increase the data collected as time goes on, and that will increase our accuracy of studies of things that occurred in the past.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> is that the health sciences are not good at determining the effects of almost anything in the future For this particular case I think the real problem is that no one really spent much effort seeing the effects of particular PFOAs in cell culture prior to marketing it. We've had cell culture for over 100 years, so this lack is basically because people either didn't even think about it, or didn't care thanks to dollar signs or greater fear of another threat (household fires).
- mandmandam 3y ago
  I've been hearing about the dangers of Teflon for at least a quarter century. Lawsuits were being settled in the 9-figure range as far back as 2001 - they kept making it, and actively covered up what they knew, tobacco firm style. I haven't watched it yet, but 'The Devil We Know' apparently goes in depth on this, with very highly rated reviews. I don't need to be that angry right now though; I know enough about Du Pont for "strong opinions" as it is.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    I certainly wouldn't have bought that bottle of Scotchguard for my shoes in the late 2000s if it had had a warning label on it.
    - Axien 3y ago
      Or scotchguard my entire car.
      - myshpa 3y ago
        Or outdoor textiles, or toilet paper, or paper food boxes, or furniture with stain repelents, or cosmetics, or school uniforms, or breast milk, or microwave popcorn bags, or carpet cleaners, or candy wrappers, or pizza boxes, or cattle, or agricultural fields and products, or houshold dust, or water, or firefighting foams, or dental floss, or air ... better to stay away from it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        jeff_carr 3y ago
        Also every stain resistant material. Clothes, carpet, etc. I'm not sure, but I suspect even bubbles. Like when we were kids.
  - stephen_g 3y ago
    Teflon itself is safe to use as long as you don’t heat it too much (stay well clear of 260°C/500°F) - it’s technically a PFAS but polymerised into to molecules that have a high molecular weight so have no biological activity and it is chemically inert. It’s the shorter chain PFAS chemicals used in the production process that has caused the huge problems - especially to workers and to people living near the plants (due to groundwater contamination and other environmental release of PFAS)
    - b112 3y ago
      Teflon itself is safe to use as long as you don’t heat it too much The problem is, people make mistakes. All it takes is a crying child, a burned pot, a mistake in cooking (not thinking about it), and you've hit the wrong temp. And then the pan is dangerous, leeching, trouble. The whole thought about the approval was "Well, people can be trusted to not let a pot get too hot! And to know 100% to throw it away if it does!". Right. Trusted. In a country with warning labels like 'coffee is hot' and 'water is wet'. Edit: my point is, the above means "teflon isn't safe for home use". Engineers know, also, to have safety tolerances. For something like this, I'd expect the 'danger zone' to be 2x the max possible heat a consumer could apply by accident. As burners can get crazy hot, that probably means I'd call teflon unsafe, unless it broke down at 2000F. This is how we can approve things safe or not. Not "trust people will constantly monitor how hot their pan got". Just as an aside, I was at a hotel the other day, and someone was trying to put buttered toast in the hotel toaster!
      - akiselev 3y ago
        > As burners can get crazy hot, that probably means I'd call teflon unsafe, unless it broke down at 2000F. That seems a bit... unrealistic. Not even cast iron is usable at 2000F.
        CapstanRoller 3y ago
        The only danger from 2000F iron is that it's hot, and that is very temporary.
        3y ago
  - clnq 3y ago
    When you're in the mood for some anger towards DuPont, check out "Dark Waters" (2019) too. The cinematography, acting, and pacing are great — my favourite DuPont rager so far.
    - Maursault 3y ago
      A Civil Action, 1998, is not directly about DuPont, though DuPont did manufacture the same chemical that the film concerns itself with, trichloroethylene. Duvall was nominated for best supporting actor for his role in this, and the film was nominated for best cinematography.
johnchristopher 3y ago
Now replace health science with climate science and see how it reads. https://www.tellerreport.com/life/2021-02-23-%0A---%22the-factory-of-ignorance%22--arte-tells-about-these-industrialists-who-manipulate-science%0A--.SJbWVIfG_.html https://www.tellerreport.com/life/2021-02-23-%0A---%22the-fa... edit: documentary might come back on ARTE in the future but in the meantime, if you understand french: https://video.ploud.fr/w/4d35ad9a-6eac-4708-aa62-3b7540574071 https://video.ploud.fr/w/4d35ad9a-6eac-4708-aa62-3b754057407... and https://archive.org/details/la-fabrique-de-lignorance-documentaire-qui-denonce-le-passe-pour-mentir-sur-le-present https://archive.org/details/la-fabrique-de-lignorance-docume... It's usually subbed/dubbed in French and German.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- specialist 3y ago
  Cites the documentary "La fabrique de l'ignorance". I could only find a trailer. https://boutique.arte.tv/detail/la-fabrique-de-lignorance https://boutique.arte.tv/detail/la-fabrique-de-lignorance Please share if you can find the full video. TIA.
thephyber 3y ago
I would argue there are enough companies that have continued creating these cash cow chemicals even after there was sufficient evidence of substantial harm that additional testing would be useless, except to class action lawsuit plaintiffs to prove what the defendants already know. Movies that cover this topic: Erin Brockovich, A Civil Action, Dark Waters. More recently the talc powder lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. Hell, the Bay Area is littered with EPA Superfund Sites where all of the old chipmakers and their suppliers were. Good luck to Chandler, AZ (where the new American chip fans are being built). I hope you learn at least a little something from the SF peninsula’s mistakes of the 1960s-1990s. A former naval base in my area has been decommissioned for years but still hasn’t cleaned up the firefighting chemical runoff that has seeped into the ground. Sometimes there simply isn’t a healthier substitute for a chemical or there is no legal method to prevent an organization from screwing up the environment (good luck suing the Navy for something they did 50 years ago before the harm was known). I would agree that better testing and health trials could have identified these health risks before the companies started using these chemicals, but companies don’t have emotions or ethics. They are sociopaths seeking maximum returns and will turn a blind eye (or worse) if their profits are threatened. There is a ton of motivated reasoning within and around companies that produce and use harmful chemicals, especially if they are the only industry in a region.
- scruple 3y ago
  There are multi-million dollar homes and a school facility built on top of (parts of) the EPA Superfund site near the old El Toro MCAS in Irvine. Another set of million dollar homes nearby was built on top of a nursery that was founded in the early 1900s. In both cases, residents are warned not to plant edible fruits or vegetables directly into the soil.
GuB-42 3y ago
> I have a feeling we aren’t going to solve this problem anytime soon, as the simulations required appear to be so large they are beyond our reach. That's what we need quantum computers for! Seriously, crypto breaking problems tend to get all the attention when we are talking about quantum computing, but one of the most promising application of quantum computers is modeling quantum systems. Studying the health impact of substances involves a lot of chemistry, which is a quantum process. A quantum computer could help with modeling the interactions between artificial substances and biomolecules.
- peteradio 3y ago
  Maybe, but isn't it an intrinsically hard problem to model? How close are we to growing organ tissues at scale? Can we dose these things and correctly ascertain an expected outcome?

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> is that the health sciences are not good at determining the effects of almost anything in the future For this particular case I think the real problem is that no one really spent much effort seeing the effects of particular PFOAs in cell culture prior to marketing it. We've had cell culture for over 100 years, so this lack is basically because people either didn't even think about it, or didn't care thanks to dollar signs or greater fear of another threat (household fires).

mandmandam 3y ago
I've been hearing about the dangers of Teflon for at least a quarter century. Lawsuits were being settled in the 9-figure range as far back as 2001 - they kept making it, and actively covered up what they knew, tobacco firm style. I haven't watched it yet, but 'The Devil We Know' apparently goes in depth on this, with very highly rated reviews. I don't need to be that angry right now though; I know enough about Du Pont for "strong opinions" as it is.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I certainly wouldn't have bought that bottle of Scotchguard for my shoes in the late 2000s if it had had a warning label on it.
  - Axien 3y ago
    Or scotchguard my entire car.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      Or outdoor textiles, or toilet paper, or paper food boxes, or furniture with stain repelents, or cosmetics, or school uniforms, or breast milk, or microwave popcorn bags, or carpet cleaners, or candy wrappers, or pizza boxes, or cattle, or agricultural fields and products, or houshold dust, or water, or firefighting foams, or dental floss, or air ... better to stay away from it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jeff_carr 3y ago
        Also every stain resistant material. Clothes, carpet, etc. I'm not sure, but I suspect even bubbles. Like when we were kids.
- stephen_g 3y ago
  Teflon itself is safe to use as long as you don’t heat it too much (stay well clear of 260°C/500°F) - it’s technically a PFAS but polymerised into to molecules that have a high molecular weight so have no biological activity and it is chemically inert. It’s the shorter chain PFAS chemicals used in the production process that has caused the huge problems - especially to workers and to people living near the plants (due to groundwater contamination and other environmental release of PFAS)
  - b112 3y ago
    Teflon itself is safe to use as long as you don’t heat it too much The problem is, people make mistakes. All it takes is a crying child, a burned pot, a mistake in cooking (not thinking about it), and you've hit the wrong temp. And then the pan is dangerous, leeching, trouble. The whole thought about the approval was "Well, people can be trusted to not let a pot get too hot! And to know 100% to throw it away if it does!". Right. Trusted. In a country with warning labels like 'coffee is hot' and 'water is wet'. Edit: my point is, the above means "teflon isn't safe for home use". Engineers know, also, to have safety tolerances. For something like this, I'd expect the 'danger zone' to be 2x the max possible heat a consumer could apply by accident. As burners can get crazy hot, that probably means I'd call teflon unsafe, unless it broke down at 2000F. This is how we can approve things safe or not. Not "trust people will constantly monitor how hot their pan got". Just as an aside, I was at a hotel the other day, and someone was trying to put buttered toast in the hotel toaster!
    - akiselev 3y ago
      > As burners can get crazy hot, that probably means I'd call teflon unsafe, unless it broke down at 2000F. That seems a bit... unrealistic. Not even cast iron is usable at 2000F.
      - CapstanRoller 3y ago
        The only danger from 2000F iron is that it's hot, and that is very temporary.
      - 3y ago
- clnq 3y ago
  When you're in the mood for some anger towards DuPont, check out "Dark Waters" (2019) too. The cinematography, acting, and pacing are great — my favourite DuPont rager so far.
  - Maursault 3y ago
    A Civil Action, 1998, is not directly about DuPont, though DuPont did manufacture the same chemical that the film concerns itself with, trichloroethylene. Duvall was nominated for best supporting actor for his role in this, and the film was nominated for best cinematography.

johnchristopher 3y ago

Now replace health science with climate science and see how it reads. https://www.tellerreport.com/life/2021-02-23-%0A---%22the-factory-of-ignorance%22--arte-tells-about-these-industrialists-who-manipulate-science%0A--.SJbWVIfG_.html https://www.tellerreport.com/life/2021-02-23-%0A---%22the-fa... edit: documentary might come back on ARTE in the future but in the meantime, if you understand french: https://video.ploud.fr/w/4d35ad9a-6eac-4708-aa62-3b7540574071 https://video.ploud.fr/w/4d35ad9a-6eac-4708-aa62-3b754057407... and https://archive.org/details/la-fabrique-de-lignorance-documentaire-qui-denonce-le-passe-pour-mentir-sur-le-present https://archive.org/details/la-fabrique-de-lignorance-docume... It's usually subbed/dubbed in French and German.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
specialist 3y ago
Cites the documentary "La fabrique de l'ignorance". I could only find a trailer. https://boutique.arte.tv/detail/la-fabrique-de-lignorance https://boutique.arte.tv/detail/la-fabrique-de-lignorance Please share if you can find the full video. TIA.

thephyber 3y ago

I would argue there are enough companies that have continued creating these cash cow chemicals even after there was sufficient evidence of substantial harm that additional testing would be useless, except to class action lawsuit plaintiffs to prove what the defendants already know. Movies that cover this topic: Erin Brockovich, A Civil Action, Dark Waters. More recently the talc powder lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. Hell, the Bay Area is littered with EPA Superfund Sites where all of the old chipmakers and their suppliers were. Good luck to Chandler, AZ (where the new American chip fans are being built). I hope you learn at least a little something from the SF peninsula’s mistakes of the 1960s-1990s. A former naval base in my area has been decommissioned for years but still hasn’t cleaned up the firefighting chemical runoff that has seeped into the ground. Sometimes there simply isn’t a healthier substitute for a chemical or there is no legal method to prevent an organization from screwing up the environment (good luck suing the Navy for something they did 50 years ago before the harm was known). I would agree that better testing and health trials could have identified these health risks before the companies started using these chemicals, but companies don’t have emotions or ethics. They are sociopaths seeking maximum returns and will turn a blind eye (or worse) if their profits are threatened. There is a ton of motivated reasoning within and around companies that produce and use harmful chemicals, especially if they are the only industry in a region.

scruple 3y ago
There are multi-million dollar homes and a school facility built on top of (parts of) the EPA Superfund site near the old El Toro MCAS in Irvine. Another set of million dollar homes nearby was built on top of a nursery that was founded in the early 1900s. In both cases, residents are warned not to plant edible fruits or vegetables directly into the soil.

GuB-42 3y ago

> I have a feeling we aren’t going to solve this problem anytime soon, as the simulations required appear to be so large they are beyond our reach. That's what we need quantum computers for! Seriously, crypto breaking problems tend to get all the attention when we are talking about quantum computing, but one of the most promising application of quantum computers is modeling quantum systems. Studying the health impact of substances involves a lot of chemistry, which is a quantum process. A quantum computer could help with modeling the interactions between artificial substances and biomolecules.

peteradio 3y ago
Maybe, but isn't it an intrinsically hard problem to model? How close are we to growing organ tissues at scale? Can we dose these things and correctly ascertain an expected outcome?