6 ms·

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 i

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
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      not sure why you need to be paid to drink water that we allegedly don't know is harmful, but go ahead and price your ask per concentration feel free to develop a formula, if you so desire
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        My point is the highlight that harm, concentration, risk, and damage or not binary but magnitudes. One molecule for glass is negligible and a Pure Glass would be suicide.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        correct, and you should price the different concentrations you're willing to imbibe, so communities already ingesting them can apply the same pricing structure to calculate damages for unwilling exposure
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
    If I believe the headlines, that’s all the water we are drinking.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    Levels experienced in the real world by real people, or a contrived example?
  - vel0city 3y ago
    We agree table salt (sodium chloride) is generally safe to eat, right? Like, you probably sprinkle it on your food and what not? If I asked you to chug a gallon of water that was 26% salt by weight, you're going to drink it without care? No? I guess you should stop eating foods with sodium chloride! There's loads of things I use in every day life that I wouldn't want to ingest in odd quantities. I handle gasoline and paint thinner and dishwashing detergents and hand soap every now and then but if you tried to get me to even drink a teaspoon of it I'd probably turn you down. Is the rule now if you wouldn't drink a glass of it you should never handle it in any way? By the way, please do not drink that 26% salt brine. It will do very terrible things to your body and probably significantly hurt you.
    - henry_bone 3y ago
      It's one thing to make an academic case in an online forum, that PFAS are not detrimental (at low levels) to human health. But when it gets down to it, would you rather avoid PFAS, or you just don't think they're a problem? > Is the rule now if you wouldn't drink a glass of it you should never handle it in any way? Some things are not safe at any level. Lead (Pb) for example. So what about PFAS? Does it accumulate in the body? What are the effects of long-term ingestion? My question was intended to see just how serious people were, who were making the argument that PFAS weren't a thing to be concerned about.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        Sure, I would like to avoid PFAS on things that I regularly eat like takeout containers and the like. I'd probably not go for the Scotchgard coating on my next couch as fibers from the couch's fabric usually get flung into the air and I end up breathing in small tiny amounts and it's a high contact thing overall. But if PFAS improved engine seals means my car will last longer, then sure that sounds great. I'd avoid drinking a glass of motor oil as well, but I still prefer having my car lubricated at the end of the day.
- aydyn 3y ago
  > Yes you can, because they're all small effects, "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) These are NOT small effects. These are strong p-values with large hazard ratios over and over again throughout the entire review.
  - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
    > A study of heavily exposed workers Those are a very small part of the affected ones, probably firefighters or 3M production workers. Remember that the dosage makes the poison.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    They're not small values, but where are the real-life effects? Last I checked diphtheria levels in Western world remain at single digits per year levels, and the rare exceptions are almost invariably antivaxxers, not because the DPT vaccine has stopped working.
    - aydyn 3y ago
      …Exactly because we put a stop to it, before higher levels became more prevalent. Or are you going to argue about how antibodies work?
      - resolutebat 3y ago
        We've been using PFAS for 80 years now. Are the children of heavily exposed people actually contracting diphtheria or tetanus at measurably higher rates? Again, the headline figure you're quoting sounds alarming, but if it's accurate and applicable to the broader population, then we should be seeing that effect outside the lab as well.

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
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    not sure why you need to be paid to drink water that we allegedly don't know is harmful, but go ahead and price your ask per concentration feel free to develop a formula, if you so desire
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      My point is the highlight that harm, concentration, risk, and damage or not binary but magnitudes. One molecule for glass is negligible and a Pure Glass would be suicide.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        correct, and you should price the different concentrations you're willing to imbibe, so communities already ingesting them can apply the same pricing structure to calculate damages for unwilling exposure
- fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
  If I believe the headlines, that’s all the water we are drinking.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Levels experienced in the real world by real people, or a contrived example?
- vel0city 3y ago
  We agree table salt (sodium chloride) is generally safe to eat, right? Like, you probably sprinkle it on your food and what not? If I asked you to chug a gallon of water that was 26% salt by weight, you're going to drink it without care? No? I guess you should stop eating foods with sodium chloride! There's loads of things I use in every day life that I wouldn't want to ingest in odd quantities. I handle gasoline and paint thinner and dishwashing detergents and hand soap every now and then but if you tried to get me to even drink a teaspoon of it I'd probably turn you down. Is the rule now if you wouldn't drink a glass of it you should never handle it in any way? By the way, please do not drink that 26% salt brine. It will do very terrible things to your body and probably significantly hurt you.
  - henry_bone 3y ago
    It's one thing to make an academic case in an online forum, that PFAS are not detrimental (at low levels) to human health. But when it gets down to it, would you rather avoid PFAS, or you just don't think they're a problem? > Is the rule now if you wouldn't drink a glass of it you should never handle it in any way? Some things are not safe at any level. Lead (Pb) for example. So what about PFAS? Does it accumulate in the body? What are the effects of long-term ingestion? My question was intended to see just how serious people were, who were making the argument that PFAS weren't a thing to be concerned about.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      Sure, I would like to avoid PFAS on things that I regularly eat like takeout containers and the like. I'd probably not go for the Scotchgard coating on my next couch as fibers from the couch's fabric usually get flung into the air and I end up breathing in small tiny amounts and it's a high contact thing overall. But if PFAS improved engine seals means my car will last longer, then sure that sounds great. I'd avoid drinking a glass of motor oil as well, but I still prefer having my car lubricated at the end of the day.
aydyn 3y ago
> Yes you can, because they're all small effects, "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) These are NOT small effects. These are strong p-values with large hazard ratios over and over again throughout the entire review.
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  > A study of heavily exposed workers Those are a very small part of the affected ones, probably firefighters or 3M production workers. Remember that the dosage makes the poison.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  They're not small values, but where are the real-life effects? Last I checked diphtheria levels in Western world remain at single digits per year levels, and the rare exceptions are almost invariably antivaxxers, not because the DPT vaccine has stopped working.
  - aydyn 3y ago
    …Exactly because we put a stop to it, before higher levels became more prevalent. Or are you going to argue about how antibodies work?
    - resolutebat 3y ago
      We've been using PFAS for 80 years now. Are the children of heavily exposed people actually contracting diphtheria or tetanus at measurably higher rates? Again, the headline figure you're quoting sounds alarming, but if it's accurate and applicable to the broader population, then we should be seeing that effect outside the lab as well.