6 ms·

The negative effects of PFAS on animals and humans is widely studied and reported. There is no confusion on this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7

The negative effects of PFAS on animals and humans is widely studied and reported. There is no confusion on this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/ is one starting point.

dataflow 3y ago
[flagged]
- nitwit005 3y ago
  You're acknowledging you won't do a detailed read of links people give you, but demanding detailed answers.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    Yes, it's a heavy paper for a layman and I neither have the expertise to read it nor the opportunity to read it right now. The reading I have done in the past hasn't been clear that problems occur at real-world concentrations, so I was hoping you could clarify if that's the case or not.
    - hedora 3y ago
      Did you read the abstract? It uses longer words than necessary, but I’d guess it is still written at an 11-12th grade reading level: > Epidemiological studies have revealed associations between exposure to specific PFAS and a variety of health effects, including altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes, and cancer. Concordance with experimental animal data exists for many of these effects. However, information on modes of action and adverse outcome pathways must be expanded, and profound differences in PFAS toxicokinetic properties must be considered in understanding differences in responses between the sexes and among species and life stages.
      - dpe82 3y ago
        Exposure to water is also associated with a variety of health effects. He asked about concentrations.
      - dataflow 3y ago
        Excuse my apparently elementary school reading level but where does that passage say anything about concentrations?
        hedora 3y ago
        The last sentence says the necessary concentrations vary wildly, and no one understands why.
        dataflow 3y ago
        If it does, it certainly isn't obvious to me. Which part of it concerns concentration? E.g. Is concentration a "toxicokinetic property"?
        aydyn 3y ago
        Yes, it's that: "Toxicokinetics describes how the body handles a chemical, as a function of dose and time"
        dataflow 3y ago
        If I understand that correctly, is that not a different thing? It sounds like that's a derivative (the rate of absorption/metabolism/etc.), rather than the concentration at which the chemical become harmful? Or is the concentration itself also included in the "kinetics"?
        aydyn 3y ago
        Its the same thing. scientists in all fields like to use big technical sounding words. Dont read too muchinto it.
    - xbar 3y ago
      Maybe you should tell 3M not to settle.
- wiz21c 3y ago
  ahhh ok, it's just a matter of concentration. So let's fill up the earth and oceans until we reach the safe concentration level and see what happens. (and let the future generations clean the mess if it turns out we missed a few factor in the computation of the "safe" level). come on. At some point we will have to understand that, no, we can not accept an hypothetical risk because the objective gains are bigger. Hypothetical risk should be made objective before starting any kind of production of chemicals at any large scale. The world is already filled with dangersous stuff. Enough is enough. The big issue is that usually the balance is: "a bit of a health concern" versus "huge economical benefits". We're comparing apples and oranges.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    I said nothing about accepting any risk. You read far more into my comment than I ever intended.
jlmorton 3y ago
I also feel like it's difficult to discuss on boards like this one the uncertainty in studies and meta studies, such as the linked meta study. Your impression from the linked study should be that there is a large amount of uncertainty, not that there is a clear-cut link.
- soligern 3y ago
  You may have a leg to stand on if these were small groups being studied. Those underlying studies have ns of between 5000-100,000 with significant concurrency in results. You can’t just hand wave that away.
  - jlmorton 3y ago
    Yes you can, because they're all small effects, and we are unsure what other confounding, or correlated factors may occur with the studied chemicals. It is _not_ the tobacco story all over again, because the health effect of long-term tobacco use "as directed," and as occurs normally in real-life, results in an extremely massive increase in the risk of death from lung cancer, with a staggering 1 out of 4 long-term smokers (using more than 5 cigarettes a day) dying of lung cancer - something like a 5000% increase. The health linkage between regular tobbaco use and negative health outcomes is overwhelming. It is not the same thing here. These are small effects and difficult to notice, and there could be other confounding factors. (Maybe people in environments with lots of PFAS chemicals are exposed to other chemicals common in polluted water sources).
    - henry_bone 3y ago
      So if you're handed a pint of water laced with PFAS, you're going to drink it without a care?
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Well that depends on the concentration and how much you're willing to pay me
refurb 3y ago
Did you read your review? There is an awful lot of "probable" sprinkled in there along with p<0.05.

dataflow 3y ago

[flagged]

nitwit005 3y ago
You're acknowledging you won't do a detailed read of links people give you, but demanding detailed answers.
- dataflow 3y ago
  Yes, it's a heavy paper for a layman and I neither have the expertise to read it nor the opportunity to read it right now. The reading I have done in the past hasn't been clear that problems occur at real-world concentrations, so I was hoping you could clarify if that's the case or not.
  - hedora 3y ago
    Did you read the abstract? It uses longer words than necessary, but I’d guess it is still written at an 11-12th grade reading level: > Epidemiological studies have revealed associations between exposure to specific PFAS and a variety of health effects, including altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes, and cancer. Concordance with experimental animal data exists for many of these effects. However, information on modes of action and adverse outcome pathways must be expanded, and profound differences in PFAS toxicokinetic properties must be considered in understanding differences in responses between the sexes and among species and life stages.
    - dpe82 3y ago
      Exposure to water is also associated with a variety of health effects. He asked about concentrations.
    - dataflow 3y ago
      Excuse my apparently elementary school reading level but where does that passage say anything about concentrations?
      - hedora 3y ago
        The last sentence says the necessary concentrations vary wildly, and no one understands why.
        dataflow 3y ago
        If it does, it certainly isn't obvious to me. Which part of it concerns concentration? E.g. Is concentration a "toxicokinetic property"?
        aydyn 3y ago
        Yes, it's that: "Toxicokinetics describes how the body handles a chemical, as a function of dose and time"
        dataflow 3y ago
        If I understand that correctly, is that not a different thing? It sounds like that's a derivative (the rate of absorption/metabolism/etc.), rather than the concentration at which the chemical become harmful? Or is the concentration itself also included in the "kinetics"?
        aydyn 3y ago
        Its the same thing. scientists in all fields like to use big technical sounding words. Dont read too muchinto it.
  - xbar 3y ago
    Maybe you should tell 3M not to settle.
wiz21c 3y ago
ahhh ok, it's just a matter of concentration. So let's fill up the earth and oceans until we reach the safe concentration level and see what happens. (and let the future generations clean the mess if it turns out we missed a few factor in the computation of the "safe" level). come on. At some point we will have to understand that, no, we can not accept an hypothetical risk because the objective gains are bigger. Hypothetical risk should be made objective before starting any kind of production of chemicals at any large scale. The world is already filled with dangersous stuff. Enough is enough. The big issue is that usually the balance is: "a bit of a health concern" versus "huge economical benefits". We're comparing apples and oranges.
- dataflow 3y ago
  I said nothing about accepting any risk. You read far more into my comment than I ever intended.

jlmorton 3y ago

I also feel like it's difficult to discuss on boards like this one the uncertainty in studies and meta studies, such as the linked meta study. Your impression from the linked study should be that there is a large amount of uncertainty, not that there is a clear-cut link.

soligern 3y ago
You may have a leg to stand on if these were small groups being studied. Those underlying studies have ns of between 5000-100,000 with significant concurrency in results. You can’t just hand wave that away.
- jlmorton 3y ago
  Yes you can, because they're all small effects, and we are unsure what other confounding, or correlated factors may occur with the studied chemicals. It is _not_ the tobacco story all over again, because the health effect of long-term tobacco use "as directed," and as occurs normally in real-life, results in an extremely massive increase in the risk of death from lung cancer, with a staggering 1 out of 4 long-term smokers (using more than 5 cigarettes a day) dying of lung cancer - something like a 5000% increase. The health linkage between regular tobbaco use and negative health outcomes is overwhelming. It is not the same thing here. These are small effects and difficult to notice, and there could be other confounding factors. (Maybe people in environments with lots of PFAS chemicals are exposed to other chemicals common in polluted water sources).
  - henry_bone 3y ago
    So if you're handed a pint of water laced with PFAS, you're going to drink it without a care?
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Well that depends on the concentration and how much you're willing to pay me

refurb 3y ago

Did you read your review? There is an awful lot of "probable" sprinkled in there along with p<0.05.