3 ms·

Same with microplastics. With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful.

by mcmoor 3y ago

Affric 3y ago
Which studies are you reading? Every PFAS study I read seems to be pointing to ever increasing accumulation and harm. It's not hard to imagine a phase shift to a PFAS effect pandemic if we don't seriously consider PFAS curtailment as a regulatory priority.
hedora 3y ago
There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems.
- refurb 3y ago
  Please provide some links to the studies.
  - latexr 3y ago
    It’s a good thing that claims be sourced, but we should put in a minimum of effort to a conversation. Especially one with a large body of evidence. If person A claims “the earth is round”, person B can find sources to prove it faster than it takes to write a comment. If person B did search and found the studies lacking, they should open with that and ask for clarification. Otherwise it looks like they’re waiting for person A to do all the work so they can nitpick every source and derail the conversation away from the broader, productive, important points. I searched for “microplastics marine ecosystems” (taken directly from your parent post) and my engine returned more studies than I know what to do with. The first five links: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/ https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257 https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-020-00405-4 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186... https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1
    - refurb 3y ago
      That's not how sources work. You can't just google a few and copy/paste. I can tell you didn't even read your "sources" since the one I randomly picked, the 2nd one, has the conclusion "Bioavailability and the efficiency of transfer of the ingested POPs across trophic levels are not known and the potential damage posed by these to the marine ecosystem has yet to be quantified and modelled." It basically says the harm is unknown.
      - latexr 3y ago
        I didn’t claim these were sources of either point, I said these were the first five links. Not even the first five studies, but the first five results. Thus illustrating how a minimum of effort can be employed to engage in good faith with another’s point. It was a deliberate choice to not editorialise what was returned. Rest assured I am aware of the conclusion of each, just as I am aware of which ones are the best choices to nitpick.
        refurb 3y ago
        But you said "There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems." "Destroying". So clearly your position is based on studies. Why would you just share search results and not the studies that prove microplastics are "destroying" ecosystems.
        latexr 3y ago
        Reread the usernames and you’ll see you’re misquoting me. I’m not the person you asked for the studies.
        refurb 3y ago
        My mistake!
ethanbond 3y ago
Depends on which compounds you're talking about, but yeah they might just cause reproductive collapse of our species... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob... Probably not a huge problem based on the fact that I don't like thinking about it.
- gruez 3y ago
  From your article: >Meanwhile, the total fertility rate worldwide has dropped by nearly 1 percent per year from 1960 to 2018. That can't possibly be also due to demographic changes[1]? Fertility in the west started to drop way before the invention of PFAS compounds, and the worldwide rate dropping can easily be explained by the rest of the world experiencing the same demographic transition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes. Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count? We don't need to be looking for a singular answer here. Yes there are obviously demographic, cultural, and economic components. But we also know that PFAS are hormone-disrupting and they're all over our food, water, and material supply.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count? About that... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936 tl;dr the data does show a vague decline, but it's also very noisy so it's hard to know whether it's really happening. Also, it's not clear that "plummeting" sperm count would lead to "plummeting" fertility. A 50% drop in sperm count doesn't equate to a 50% drop in fertility, as long as there's "enough" sperm. So far even with the drop it looks like there's "enough". > Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes. From the GP: >With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful. The claim that isn't that there's zero harm from PFAS, it's that the harm is negligible. However, the article you linked seems to suggest that PFAS is single handledly cutting the world fertility rate by half.

Same with microplastics. With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful.

by mcmoor 3y ago

Same with microplastics. With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful.

Affric 3y ago

Which studies are you reading? Every PFAS study I read seems to be pointing to ever increasing accumulation and harm. It's not hard to imagine a phase shift to a PFAS effect pandemic if we don't seriously consider PFAS curtailment as a regulatory priority.

hedora 3y ago

There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems.

refurb 3y ago
Please provide some links to the studies.
- latexr 3y ago
  It’s a good thing that claims be sourced, but we should put in a minimum of effort to a conversation. Especially one with a large body of evidence. If person A claims “the earth is round”, person B can find sources to prove it faster than it takes to write a comment. If person B did search and found the studies lacking, they should open with that and ask for clarification. Otherwise it looks like they’re waiting for person A to do all the work so they can nitpick every source and derail the conversation away from the broader, productive, important points. I searched for “microplastics marine ecosystems” (taken directly from your parent post) and my engine returned more studies than I know what to do with. The first five links: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/ https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257 https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-020-00405-4 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186... https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1
  - refurb 3y ago
    That's not how sources work. You can't just google a few and copy/paste. I can tell you didn't even read your "sources" since the one I randomly picked, the 2nd one, has the conclusion "Bioavailability and the efficiency of transfer of the ingested POPs across trophic levels are not known and the potential damage posed by these to the marine ecosystem has yet to be quantified and modelled." It basically says the harm is unknown.
    - latexr 3y ago
      I didn’t claim these were sources of either point, I said these were the first five links. Not even the first five studies, but the first five results. Thus illustrating how a minimum of effort can be employed to engage in good faith with another’s point. It was a deliberate choice to not editorialise what was returned. Rest assured I am aware of the conclusion of each, just as I am aware of which ones are the best choices to nitpick.
      - refurb 3y ago
        But you said "There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems." "Destroying". So clearly your position is based on studies. Why would you just share search results and not the studies that prove microplastics are "destroying" ecosystems.
        latexr 3y ago
        Reread the usernames and you’ll see you’re misquoting me. I’m not the person you asked for the studies.
        refurb 3y ago
        My mistake!

ethanbond 3y ago

Depends on which compounds you're talking about, but yeah they might just cause reproductive collapse of our species... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob... Probably not a huge problem based on the fact that I don't like thinking about it.

gruez 3y ago
From your article: >Meanwhile, the total fertility rate worldwide has dropped by nearly 1 percent per year from 1960 to 2018. That can't possibly be also due to demographic changes[1]? Fertility in the west started to drop way before the invention of PFAS compounds, and the worldwide rate dropping can easily be explained by the rest of the world experiencing the same demographic transition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes. Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count? We don't need to be looking for a singular answer here. Yes there are obviously demographic, cultural, and economic components. But we also know that PFAS are hormone-disrupting and they're all over our food, water, and material supply.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count? About that... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936 tl;dr the data does show a vague decline, but it's also very noisy so it's hard to know whether it's really happening. Also, it's not clear that "plummeting" sperm count would lead to "plummeting" fertility. A 50% drop in sperm count doesn't equate to a 50% drop in fertility, as long as there's "enough" sperm. So far even with the drop it looks like there's "enough". > Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes. From the GP: >With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful. The claim that isn't that there's zero harm from PFAS, it's that the harm is negligible. However, the article you linked seems to suggest that PFAS is single handledly cutting the world fertility rate by half.