6 ms·
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 h
by 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 agoDid 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 agoExposure to water is also associated with a variety of health effects. He asked about concentrations.
- dataflow 3y agoExcuse my apparently elementary school reading level but where does that passage say anything about concentrations?
- hedora 3y agoThe last sentence says the necessary concentrations vary wildly, and no one understands why.
- dataflow 3y agoIf it does, it certainly isn't obvious to me. Which part of it concerns concentration? E.g. Is concentration a "toxicokinetic property"?
- aydyn 3y agoYes, it's that: "Toxicokinetics describes how the body handles a chemical, as a function of dose and time"
- dataflow 3y agoIf 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 agoIts the same thing. scientists in all fields like to use big technical sounding words. Dont read too muchinto it.
- gostsamo 3y agoIf I'm not mistaken, it says it in the part with "epidemiological". It means that the study is made by observing real life developments instead of poisoning people in the name of science.
- dataflow 3y agoInteresting. Does that imply a study of the "average person", so to speak? Or might it be a study of people whose (say) PFAS exposures were suspected to be high, for whatever reason?
- gostsamo 3y agoso much time passed and you haven't read it yet?! Are you actually interested in the answers?
- dataflow 3y ago"So much time" has been like half a day, much of which is in the middle of a work day? No, I genuinely haven't had the time to sit down and read this in detail. Do I need to detail what's going on in my life here?
- Dah00n 3y agoaydyn posted this in the above thread: "A doubling of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in maternal serum was associated with a 39% (p < 0.001) reduction in diphtheria antibody concentration in children (age 5 yr), with increased odds of falling below clinically protective values against diphtheria and tetanus at age 7 yr." > A study of heavily exposed workers (n = 462, geometric mean serum PFOA of 4048 ng/mL) detected significantly increased incident mortality for cirrhosis (relative risk = 3.87, 95% CI 1.18–12.7) and liver cancer (relative risk = 6.69, 95% CI 1.71–26.2)
- dataflow 3y agoI saw that but doubling from what concentration to what, though? Are they the same concentration normal people are exposed to?
- lazide 3y agoLiterally none of that answers the questions posed - which is actual risks based on actual concentrations (and how likely those concentrations are to occur).
- refurb 3y ago"Associations", with a bunch of P<0.05 for the data (no statistical significance). That paper is nowhere near as conclusive as you're painting it.
- xbar 3y agoMaybe you should tell 3M not to settle.