41 ms·

I searched this article for specific evidence of PFAS-related harms. What I found was - PFAS increases liver and kidney weight of rats (in unspecified conditio

I searched this article for specific evidence of PFAS-related harms. What I found was - PFAS increases liver and kidney weight of rats (in unspecified conditions) - PFAS can kill monkeys (in some unspecified large dose) - A baby was born with birth defects near a DuPont plant manufacturing PFAS (no further information, just this n=1 coincidence) - PFAS was associated with a decrease in post-vaccination immune response to certain vaccines (in one small observational study? how did they come up with this, I thought it was disrupting the liver? smells of HARK-ing and p-hacking.) All the rest of the article's words are devoted to theoretical speculation and background, much of it entirely unrelated (e.g. the Faroe Islands mercury studies, which seem to have provided much stronger evidence of harm than they have for PFAS). The article suggests that, if you believed all the research about the harms of PFAS, you would think they were a sort of all-powerful super-contaminant. This sounds suspicious to me rather than credible. Clearly we need more research, and I'm philosophically opposed to contaminating the environment with weird forever chemicals as much as anyone else. But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Could PFAS concerns be partly some kind of enviro-moral panic?

slowmovintarget 3y ago
The "killing monkeys" is at least mildly relevant. How does this happen? I say interesting, based solely on your bullets and not having read the article, because monkeys are similar enough primates to humans that when something affects them like that, we likely should be worried. We can't make ethical studies that result in death in humans (let alone debate the ethics on killing monkeys), so what's the scoop?
- lionkor 3y ago
  A high enough dose of pretty much anything could kill a monkey
  - eggy 3y ago
    Six liters of water consumed within three hours killed a human among other notable water intoxication deaths, so most anything in large enough quantities will kill you.Toxicity levels need to be confirmed and established [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication From the Wikipedia link: 1097: During the First Crusade, according to at least one chronicle, many crusaders died after drinking too much from a river while marching to Antioch.[16] 1991, Andy Warhol: Five years after his death, Warhol's family publicly accused the hospital where he had his gallbladder removed of causing his death by water intoxication administered post-operatively. A claimed autopsy weight of 68 kg (150 lb), with his weight being 58 kg (128 lb) when admitted, was cited as evidence that too much fluid had been given.[17] November 16, 1995: Leah Betts, a British schoolgirl, died as the result of drinking too much water, though in the media her death was mistakenly attributed to taking an ecstasy tablet at her 18th birthday party.[18] 2003: British actor Anthony Andrews survived a case of water intoxication. He was performing as Henry Higgins in a revival of the musical My Fair Lady at the time, and consumed up to eight litres of water a day. He was unconscious and in intensive care for three days.[19][20] February 2, 2005: Matthew Carrington, a student at Chico State University in Chico, California, died as a direct result of a fraternity hazing ritual involving forced water intoxication. January 12, 2007: Jennifer Strange died after drinking nearly 2 gallons (7.6 liters) of water in an attempt to win a Nintendo Wii.[21] The KDND radio station's morning show, the Morning Rave, held an on-air contest entitled "Hold Your Wee for a Wii," in which contestants were asked to drink as much water as they could without urinating. The DJs were made aware of the dangers but did not inform the contestants. KDND's parent company, Entercom Sacramento LLC, was subsequently ordered to pay $16,577,118 in damages to Strange's family.[22][23] March 11, 2020: Zachary Sabin, an 11-year-old child, died after being forced to drink almost three liters of water in just four hours by his parents. They thought his urine was too dark, so they made him drink water until he threw up.[24] July 4, 2023: A 35 year old Indiana woman died after consuming too much water while on vacation with her family. [25]
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  The shimmery residue on coffee surfaces apparently causes cancer if you concentrate it 10000x and inject it into mice. https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/health-and-safety/does-coffee-need-a-cancer-warning-label-in-california/ https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/health-and-safety/does-c...
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    This is why I switched from french press to pour overs, it reduces the amount of the shimmery film that ends up in the cup. In my mind if it kills monkey at high dose it has a likelihood of being bad for humans at a low (but daily) dose. The problem is that our scientific tools for studying human toxins are not very good. If it increases the chance of some disease by 1% we probably will never know.
    - huthuthike 3y ago
      I think that film is just oils from the coffee beans. Acrylamide is soluble in water, so why would it float on top? Anyway, a single coffee bean is probably enough to kill someone if you grind it up and inject it into the wrong part of them.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      The risk reduction of your actions might be more like putting a helmet on while driving and less like checking your straps before BASE jumping.
      - riversflow 3y ago
        I haven’t checked lately, as cars have become better at crashing, but it was my understanding that putting on a helmet while driving/riding in a car is actually a really good idea, as car accidents are a leading(#2 in the below report, after falling) cause of head trauma. Here is a link supporting that idea: https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/motor-vehicle-accident/ https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/motor-vehicle-accident/
    - 3y ago
myshpa 3y ago
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/995593 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/995593 Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized ... significant links between PFAS exposure and risks of preterm birth, ovarian and breast cancers, osteoporosis, and gestational diabetes ... https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/02/pfas-can-suppress-white-blood-cells-ability-to-destroy-invaders/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/02/pfas-can-suppress-white-blood-... PFAS Can Suppress White Blood Cells’ Ability to Destroy Invaders https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) https://phys.org/news/2023-05-secret-industry-documents-reveal-makers.html https://phys.org/news/2023-05-secret-industry-documents-reve... Secret industry documents reveal that makers of PFAS 'forever chemicals' covered up their health dangers https://apnews.com/article/science-climate-and-environment-government-politics-1997041096d6fc84edde97cf16f72bce https://apnews.com/article/science-climate-and-environment-g... EPA: ‘Forever chemicals’ pose risk even at very low levels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/12/pfas-forever-chemicals-societal-cost-new-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/12/pfas-for... Societal cost of ‘forever chemicals’ about $17.5tn across global economy – report
- inciampati 3y ago
  What about scientific studies? These are all from the press.
  - chaosite 3y ago
    The first 3 links are press releases by an academic PR office publicizing a recently published paper. They literally link to the scientific paper they reference, and being the second step in the science news cycle (https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174), their representation of the contents of the paper is usually fairly accurate. This is not a valid criticism of the GP. Edit: The second link is actually a paper.
    - inciampati 3y ago
suby 3y ago
It's a panic because we have blanketed the world and exposed the entire population to synthetic chemicals which we do not understand the effects of. It could be fine, but it could be the cause of a large increase in terrible diseases and suffering in the future. It's the not knowing which makes things worse.
- polski-g 3y ago
  It's probably the cause of the fertility crash. Even theocratic Iran is now below replacement.
- civilized 3y ago
  I think we should try to believe things because they are true, not because they reinforce our sense of feeling bad about ourselves for contaminating the environment with industrial processes.
  - suby 3y ago
    Here is something that I believe to be true -- it is bad to contaminate the environment with industrial processes when we do not understand the consequences of said contamination. It isn't about feeling, it is about rolling the dice with the future of everyone's health, and inadequate steps being taken to stop this process.
    - civilized 3y ago
      I agree, like I said I am philosophically opposed to this contamination as much as anyone else.
      - matthewdgreen 3y ago
        It's not about philosophical opposition. It's about applying correct cost-benefit analysis in the face of uncertainty. When the harms of a substance are uncertain, the rational analysis actually requires you to assume a wider distribution of risk, and thus calculate a higher potential cost. That's why insurance companies can charge lower premiums when they have lots of data about a particular form of payout, and higher premiums when they have less data: uncertainty adds cost. For some reason humans have a weird, irrational quirk where they miscalculate uncertain risks by assuming that the outcomes will fall on one side of the distribution until it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that they won't. It's a reflection of the same miscalculation that makes running a casino extremely profitable.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Fear about health (read: self-preservation) is a basic instinct. That aside, it's not fear of the known, it's fear of the unknown. Again, pretty natural. Unknown and fear go hand in hand. The sad fact is, we willingly introduced "variables" into the environment without having a clue about the impact any of them might have. Worse, is what happens when they mix in the wild. Given the track record of Big Chem, there's no reasonable reason to remain calm. Big Chem is a known, and fear is not inappropriate when profits come before all else.
pizza234 3y ago
In term of specific PFAS, the film Dark Waters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)) dramatizes DuPont's legal battle over PFOA/C8. In the legal cases, it came to light that chemical companies had themselves documented a wide and significant amount of damages to humans and animals, including a large amount of assembly line workers involved in the production of Teflon, who died or suffered significant illnesses.
- SpikyBlackHard 3y ago
  I don't try to decrease the necessary reaction to the PFAS themselves but I understand that their production involves more and more dangerous chemical compounds. What kills a worker in that plant or a cow where dupont dumps the waste, is not the same chemical as I am eating right?
  - pizza234 3y ago
    It's easier to watch the movie :). The specific chemical has been connected to several classes of diseases (if memory serves me well, 6), in a very large research that was part of the legal case(s).
  - j33zusjuice 3y ago
    I think it’s the state of the chemical that’s the biggest issue. I know for sure that PTFE is highly toxic to basically all life when it’s airborne, which happens when you heat your non-stick pans to over 450°F/233°C. There usually is not enough chemical in the air to kill humans, but it’s absolutely releasing toxic fumes, and I don’t know that we heal from the damage they inflict. Maybe if you burned enough pans, it’d be deadly to you. I stopped using them because an overheated pan will kill our birds in seconds, and they’re really not needed. I cook eggs in cast iron all the time. I’ve read about concerns of PTFE poisoning from flakes, too, which are super common because some people fucking love to use metal utensils on their non-stick cookware. Long story short, you’re definitely getting toxic chemicals sent to your home. The level of exposure seems variable based on your use.
- moffkalast 3y ago
coffeefirst 3y ago
The problem is there's a historical record of the companies withholding or burying evidence when they find it. It's happened enough times that it's entirely understandable for the public to be a little jumpy.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
loupol 3y ago
PFAS non-sticking cookware is quite deadly for pet birds[0]. Teflon themselves have an article acknowledging it[1]. Now I know that our respiratory systems are much more resilient than those of birds, but out of precaution I'd still rather not be the one to test the long-term effects of cooking with those on humans. [0] https://www.allaboutparrots.com/cookware-parrot-safe/ https://www.allaboutparrots.com/cookware-parrot-safe/ [1] https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware-bakeware/safety/bird-safety https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware...
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  Chocolate (Theobromine), Coffee (caffeine) and Candies (Xylitol) can kill a dog [0]. That doesn't indicate that they are bad for humans, so I would be careful to draw conclusions. It is called "canary in the coal mine" because birds are extremely sensitive to gases, luckily we aren't. [0] https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/ss/slideshow-foods-your-dog-should-never-eat https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/ss/slideshow-foods-your-dog-...
  - betenoire 3y ago
    Don't forget that the canary in the coal mine is signal that you are about to get it, too.
    - edejong 3y ago
      On point
    - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
      How often did you have chocolate poisoning? The point is to have an early warning in a situation where gas concentration potentially increases from harmless to dangerous levels, as in a mine shaft, where ventilation is limited. Something that is harmful in low doses to a bird isn't necessarily so to us, until it is too late, which makes the bird useful as an early warning signaller so people can get out early when the dose is still harmless and thus not easily detectable. Thus the saying "the dose makes the poison".
HPsquared 3y ago
Ironic that there are a lot of criticisms of PFAS, but they don't seem to stick.
sophacles 3y ago
Perhaps after decades of being told "trust us, these random concoctions we whipped up in the lab are perfectly safe, we spent 30s thinking of how this might instantly kill you and didn't come up with anything, therefore they are harmless" only to find out later that they cause major problems, people are finally starting to do the sane thing and not trust the shockingly stupid position of "prove harm or we'll permeate the world with it, actual consequences be damned". It's less some new finding about the specific compounds and more a shift in default position.
frognumber 3y ago
> But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Could PFAS concerns be partly some kind of enviro-moral panic? I will tell you what scares me: - I think covid has maybe a 10-20% chance of leaving a large portion of the population partially disabled (with small but significant effects like lead) - We have new diseases coming out all the time. This is pretty new, and specific to humans living with the density and travel we have today. Most serious human diseases are <10,000 years old. I think this is >20% risk. - I think PFAS are also in a 10-20% chance range. - I think there are a half-dozen similar things currently in the environment. - Toss in some reasonable probability for biological superweapons (which can now be made at many university labs by a clever undergrade). - Add in thermonuclear war, which was very possible during the cold war, and seems increasingly possible now. - Global warming. I think it's overblown, and I'd also toss it in the same 10-20% range of being a civilization-ending crisis. - AI apocalypse ... and so on. Modern humans have been around for (big-O) 100,000 years. Prior to 200 years, we had zero ways to cripple or end or all human life (or all life) on the planet. Today, we have literally dozens. I don't think any individual one is that likely, but I am increasingly concerned that we might have reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter I'd like for us to invest the resources to take each of these seriously and address them. That's really where I'd like a big chunk of my tax dollars spent. Right now, we're spending big-O zero resources on serious crisis mitigation. FEMA is maybe 0.01% of our GDP. That's not really a fair way of looking at it, since military, CDC, etc. aren't part of FEMA, and play similar roles, but the point is that I'd like us to have a holistic infrastructure for: - understanding risks - mitigating them - having big projects to eliminate them (like we had with getting rid of many diseases like smallbox a half-century ago) - leading and coordinating globally - having food stores, medical supplies, shelters, and access local manufacturing capacity - having emergency capacity (e.g. producing all the artillery shells Ukraine needs, or all the respirators we thought we needed during the acute phase of covid). ... and so on. If that takes up 10-30% of our GDP, I think that's money well-spent. I actually don't think that would take that big of an increase in spending, since a lot of our existing capacity could be generalized. For example, the military could train for a lot of domestic disaster relief and coordination as well. We could give small subsidies to e.g. manufacturing plants if they maintain more general capacity and excess capacity. Etc.
throwpfas 3y ago
My sister's kids both have birth defects on the eyes - my father worked at Dupont in research at the time (n=3? Or just coincidence?) Sorry, but it's quite obvious that data has been thrown under the rug systematically.
samstave 3y ago
Watch the documentary The Devil We Know about TEFLON and DUPONT/DOW. Its disturbing to say the least. - Here is my own personal theory based on observations through travelling a lot in South East Asia ; There are a lot of pesticides and fertilizers that are over-used in rural famring areas of the china, philippines, malasia, thailand, laos, myanmar etc... These chemicals "turn the frogs gay" - while seen as a 'conspiracy' trope - the fact is that the endocrine systems of mammals amphibians and (perhaps) reptiles are impacted heavily due to these chemicals. The reason why we see a f-ton of "lady-boys" in places like thailand, philippines and other rural asian communities where rice is the staple of not only the diet - but a large part of the economy (the philippines has a national rice management department as they state that its the right of every family to have rice on the table (source, my ex-brother-in-law worked for this department)... we see that in the rice paddies they advertise which pesticides/fertilizers they are using, and they are coaxed into over-use of the chemicals... These leech into the aqua-sphere and it affects the endocrine systems of the pregnant, young and developing people... It results in a switch from high testosterone to higher estrogenic development, which results in more femininely expression in males...
- BaculumMeumEst 3y ago
  I see that over the course of your travels, you developed quite an interest in southeast Asian ladyboys. Would you say you’re now an authority on the matter? Do you plan to continue your research?
  - samstave 3y ago
    My interest on chemicals and how they affect the human endocrine systems is important, so rather than being a flippant ass - GFYS.
- rdedev 3y ago
  So there are a lot of Asian countries that eat rice everyday. Including india. I can't even try to come up with anything in those countries that comes close to what's there in Thailand or Philippines. Assuming everything you said is true your last sentence about how hormone production somehow switches. That needs to be backed up by some source. It's a big leap in conclusion if those fertilizers you talk about does not mimic estrogen
jvans 3y ago
Besides being false, the problem with making the scientific certainty the bar for whether to ban these chemicals is that the default action is to keep them, harming people for decades before science catches up. The bar should be for proving safety, not proving harm
cykotic 3y ago
Wouldn't it be better from a public policy point of view to ban the use of PFAS (and other such chemicals) until they demonstrate that it is safe?
autokad 3y ago
yeah, I grown immune to media's "this thing is secretly killing you! and we dont know much about it!" We are stressing over so much crap that may have some impact on our lives, but there are huge 'low hanging fruit' that make it inconsequential. like inactivity and too much sugar.
hedora 3y ago
> Clearly we need more research This phrase sets of the same alarm bells for me as “think of the children”. It was the main argument made by proponents of tobacco, climate change, asbestos, artificial sweeteners, trans fats, HFCS, DDT, etc, etc. There has been strong evidence that PFAS causes severe health issues since at least the mid 1990’s. People can always use weasel words like “some studies show there may be a correlation” (and leave out the p=99.99999 from the cited studies). Here’s a present-day example for DDT, over 50 years after it was banned: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-...
emeril 3y ago
I'm more concerned re: chemical sunscreens entering the bloodstream I get the impression this hasn't been studied enough and likely won't be anytime soon

slowmovintarget 3y ago

The "killing monkeys" is at least mildly relevant. How does this happen? I say interesting, based solely on your bullets and not having read the article, because monkeys are similar enough primates to humans that when something affects them like that, we likely should be worried. We can't make ethical studies that result in death in humans (let alone debate the ethics on killing monkeys), so what's the scoop?

lionkor 3y ago
A high enough dose of pretty much anything could kill a monkey
- eggy 3y ago
  Six liters of water consumed within three hours killed a human among other notable water intoxication deaths, so most anything in large enough quantities will kill you.Toxicity levels need to be confirmed and established [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication From the Wikipedia link: 1097: During the First Crusade, according to at least one chronicle, many crusaders died after drinking too much from a river while marching to Antioch.[16] 1991, Andy Warhol: Five years after his death, Warhol's family publicly accused the hospital where he had his gallbladder removed of causing his death by water intoxication administered post-operatively. A claimed autopsy weight of 68 kg (150 lb), with his weight being 58 kg (128 lb) when admitted, was cited as evidence that too much fluid had been given.[17] November 16, 1995: Leah Betts, a British schoolgirl, died as the result of drinking too much water, though in the media her death was mistakenly attributed to taking an ecstasy tablet at her 18th birthday party.[18] 2003: British actor Anthony Andrews survived a case of water intoxication. He was performing as Henry Higgins in a revival of the musical My Fair Lady at the time, and consumed up to eight litres of water a day. He was unconscious and in intensive care for three days.[19][20] February 2, 2005: Matthew Carrington, a student at Chico State University in Chico, California, died as a direct result of a fraternity hazing ritual involving forced water intoxication. January 12, 2007: Jennifer Strange died after drinking nearly 2 gallons (7.6 liters) of water in an attempt to win a Nintendo Wii.[21] The KDND radio station's morning show, the Morning Rave, held an on-air contest entitled "Hold Your Wee for a Wii," in which contestants were asked to drink as much water as they could without urinating. The DJs were made aware of the dangers but did not inform the contestants. KDND's parent company, Entercom Sacramento LLC, was subsequently ordered to pay $16,577,118 in damages to Strange's family.[22][23] March 11, 2020: Zachary Sabin, an 11-year-old child, died after being forced to drink almost three liters of water in just four hours by his parents. They thought his urine was too dark, so they made him drink water until he threw up.[24] July 4, 2023: A 35 year old Indiana woman died after consuming too much water while on vacation with her family. [25]
mensetmanusman 3y ago
The shimmery residue on coffee surfaces apparently causes cancer if you concentrate it 10000x and inject it into mice. https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/health-and-safety/does-coffee-need-a-cancer-warning-label-in-california/ https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/health-and-safety/does-c...
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  This is why I switched from french press to pour overs, it reduces the amount of the shimmery film that ends up in the cup. In my mind if it kills monkey at high dose it has a likelihood of being bad for humans at a low (but daily) dose. The problem is that our scientific tools for studying human toxins are not very good. If it increases the chance of some disease by 1% we probably will never know.
  - huthuthike 3y ago
    I think that film is just oils from the coffee beans. Acrylamide is soluble in water, so why would it float on top? Anyway, a single coffee bean is probably enough to kill someone if you grind it up and inject it into the wrong part of them.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    The risk reduction of your actions might be more like putting a helmet on while driving and less like checking your straps before BASE jumping.
    - riversflow 3y ago
      I haven’t checked lately, as cars have become better at crashing, but it was my understanding that putting on a helmet while driving/riding in a car is actually a really good idea, as car accidents are a leading(#2 in the below report, after falling) cause of head trauma. Here is a link supporting that idea: https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/motor-vehicle-accident/ https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/motor-vehicle-accident/
  - 3y ago

myshpa 3y ago

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/995593 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/995593 Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized ... significant links between PFAS exposure and risks of preterm birth, ovarian and breast cancers, osteoporosis, and gestational diabetes ... https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/02/pfas-can-suppress-white-blood-cells-ability-to-destroy-invaders/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/02/pfas-can-suppress-white-blood-... PFAS Can Suppress White Blood Cells’ Ability to Destroy Invaders https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) https://phys.org/news/2023-05-secret-industry-documents-reveal-makers.html https://phys.org/news/2023-05-secret-industry-documents-reve... Secret industry documents reveal that makers of PFAS 'forever chemicals' covered up their health dangers https://apnews.com/article/science-climate-and-environment-government-politics-1997041096d6fc84edde97cf16f72bce https://apnews.com/article/science-climate-and-environment-g... EPA: ‘Forever chemicals’ pose risk even at very low levels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/12/pfas-forever-chemicals-societal-cost-new-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/12/pfas-for... Societal cost of ‘forever chemicals’ about $17.5tn across global economy – report

inciampati 3y ago
What about scientific studies? These are all from the press.
- chaosite 3y ago
  The first 3 links are press releases by an academic PR office publicizing a recently published paper. They literally link to the scientific paper they reference, and being the second step in the science news cycle (https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174), their representation of the contents of the paper is usually fairly accurate. This is not a valid criticism of the GP. Edit: The second link is actually a paper.
  - inciampati 3y ago

suby 3y ago

It's a panic because we have blanketed the world and exposed the entire population to synthetic chemicals which we do not understand the effects of. It could be fine, but it could be the cause of a large increase in terrible diseases and suffering in the future. It's the not knowing which makes things worse.

polski-g 3y ago
It's probably the cause of the fertility crash. Even theocratic Iran is now below replacement.
civilized 3y ago
I think we should try to believe things because they are true, not because they reinforce our sense of feeling bad about ourselves for contaminating the environment with industrial processes.
- suby 3y ago
  Here is something that I believe to be true -- it is bad to contaminate the environment with industrial processes when we do not understand the consequences of said contamination. It isn't about feeling, it is about rolling the dice with the future of everyone's health, and inadequate steps being taken to stop this process.
  - civilized 3y ago
    I agree, like I said I am philosophically opposed to this contamination as much as anyone else.
    - matthewdgreen 3y ago
      It's not about philosophical opposition. It's about applying correct cost-benefit analysis in the face of uncertainty. When the harms of a substance are uncertain, the rational analysis actually requires you to assume a wider distribution of risk, and thus calculate a higher potential cost. That's why insurance companies can charge lower premiums when they have lots of data about a particular form of payout, and higher premiums when they have less data: uncertainty adds cost. For some reason humans have a weird, irrational quirk where they miscalculate uncertain risks by assuming that the outcomes will fall on one side of the distribution until it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that they won't. It's a reflection of the same miscalculation that makes running a casino extremely profitable.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

> But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Fear about health (read: self-preservation) is a basic instinct. That aside, it's not fear of the known, it's fear of the unknown. Again, pretty natural. Unknown and fear go hand in hand. The sad fact is, we willingly introduced "variables" into the environment without having a clue about the impact any of them might have. Worse, is what happens when they mix in the wild. Given the track record of Big Chem, there's no reasonable reason to remain calm. Big Chem is a known, and fear is not inappropriate when profits come before all else.

pizza234 3y ago

In term of specific PFAS, the film Dark Waters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)) dramatizes DuPont's legal battle over PFOA/C8. In the legal cases, it came to light that chemical companies had themselves documented a wide and significant amount of damages to humans and animals, including a large amount of assembly line workers involved in the production of Teflon, who died or suffered significant illnesses.

SpikyBlackHard 3y ago
I don't try to decrease the necessary reaction to the PFAS themselves but I understand that their production involves more and more dangerous chemical compounds. What kills a worker in that plant or a cow where dupont dumps the waste, is not the same chemical as I am eating right?
- pizza234 3y ago
  It's easier to watch the movie :). The specific chemical has been connected to several classes of diseases (if memory serves me well, 6), in a very large research that was part of the legal case(s).
- j33zusjuice 3y ago
  I think it’s the state of the chemical that’s the biggest issue. I know for sure that PTFE is highly toxic to basically all life when it’s airborne, which happens when you heat your non-stick pans to over 450°F/233°C. There usually is not enough chemical in the air to kill humans, but it’s absolutely releasing toxic fumes, and I don’t know that we heal from the damage they inflict. Maybe if you burned enough pans, it’d be deadly to you. I stopped using them because an overheated pan will kill our birds in seconds, and they’re really not needed. I cook eggs in cast iron all the time. I’ve read about concerns of PTFE poisoning from flakes, too, which are super common because some people fucking love to use metal utensils on their non-stick cookware. Long story short, you’re definitely getting toxic chemicals sent to your home. The level of exposure seems variable based on your use.
moffkalast 3y ago

coffeefirst 3y ago

The problem is there's a historical record of the companies withholding or burying evidence when they find it. It's happened enough times that it's entirely understandable for the public to be a little jumpy.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

loupol 3y ago

PFAS non-sticking cookware is quite deadly for pet birds[0]. Teflon themselves have an article acknowledging it[1]. Now I know that our respiratory systems are much more resilient than those of birds, but out of precaution I'd still rather not be the one to test the long-term effects of cooking with those on humans. [0] https://www.allaboutparrots.com/cookware-parrot-safe/ https://www.allaboutparrots.com/cookware-parrot-safe/ [1] https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware-bakeware/safety/bird-safety https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware...

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
Chocolate (Theobromine), Coffee (caffeine) and Candies (Xylitol) can kill a dog [0]. That doesn't indicate that they are bad for humans, so I would be careful to draw conclusions. It is called "canary in the coal mine" because birds are extremely sensitive to gases, luckily we aren't. [0] https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/ss/slideshow-foods-your-dog-should-never-eat https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/ss/slideshow-foods-your-dog-...
- betenoire 3y ago
  Don't forget that the canary in the coal mine is signal that you are about to get it, too.
  - edejong 3y ago
    On point
  - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
    How often did you have chocolate poisoning? The point is to have an early warning in a situation where gas concentration potentially increases from harmless to dangerous levels, as in a mine shaft, where ventilation is limited. Something that is harmful in low doses to a bird isn't necessarily so to us, until it is too late, which makes the bird useful as an early warning signaller so people can get out early when the dose is still harmless and thus not easily detectable. Thus the saying "the dose makes the poison".

HPsquared 3y ago

Ironic that there are a lot of criticisms of PFAS, but they don't seem to stick.

sophacles 3y ago

Perhaps after decades of being told "trust us, these random concoctions we whipped up in the lab are perfectly safe, we spent 30s thinking of how this might instantly kill you and didn't come up with anything, therefore they are harmless" only to find out later that they cause major problems, people are finally starting to do the sane thing and not trust the shockingly stupid position of "prove harm or we'll permeate the world with it, actual consequences be damned". It's less some new finding about the specific compounds and more a shift in default position.

frognumber 3y ago

> But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Could PFAS concerns be partly some kind of enviro-moral panic? I will tell you what scares me: - I think covid has maybe a 10-20% chance of leaving a large portion of the population partially disabled (with small but significant effects like lead) - We have new diseases coming out all the time. This is pretty new, and specific to humans living with the density and travel we have today. Most serious human diseases are <10,000 years old. I think this is >20% risk. - I think PFAS are also in a 10-20% chance range. - I think there are a half-dozen similar things currently in the environment. - Toss in some reasonable probability for biological superweapons (which can now be made at many university labs by a clever undergrade). - Add in thermonuclear war, which was very possible during the cold war, and seems increasingly possible now. - Global warming. I think it's overblown, and I'd also toss it in the same 10-20% range of being a civilization-ending crisis. - AI apocalypse ... and so on. Modern humans have been around for (big-O) 100,000 years. Prior to 200 years, we had zero ways to cripple or end or all human life (or all life) on the planet. Today, we have literally dozens. I don't think any individual one is that likely, but I am increasingly concerned that we might have reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter I'd like for us to invest the resources to take each of these seriously and address them. That's really where I'd like a big chunk of my tax dollars spent. Right now, we're spending big-O zero resources on serious crisis mitigation. FEMA is maybe 0.01% of our GDP. That's not really a fair way of looking at it, since military, CDC, etc. aren't part of FEMA, and play similar roles, but the point is that I'd like us to have a holistic infrastructure for: - understanding risks - mitigating them - having big projects to eliminate them (like we had with getting rid of many diseases like smallbox a half-century ago) - leading and coordinating globally - having food stores, medical supplies, shelters, and access local manufacturing capacity - having emergency capacity (e.g. producing all the artillery shells Ukraine needs, or all the respirators we thought we needed during the acute phase of covid). ... and so on. If that takes up 10-30% of our GDP, I think that's money well-spent. I actually don't think that would take that big of an increase in spending, since a lot of our existing capacity could be generalized. For example, the military could train for a lot of domestic disaster relief and coordination as well. We could give small subsidies to e.g. manufacturing plants if they maintain more general capacity and excess capacity. Etc.

throwpfas 3y ago

My sister's kids both have birth defects on the eyes - my father worked at Dupont in research at the time (n=3? Or just coincidence?) Sorry, but it's quite obvious that data has been thrown under the rug systematically.

samstave 3y ago

Watch the documentary The Devil We Know about TEFLON and DUPONT/DOW. Its disturbing to say the least. - Here is my own personal theory based on observations through travelling a lot in South East Asia ; There are a lot of pesticides and fertilizers that are over-used in rural famring areas of the china, philippines, malasia, thailand, laos, myanmar etc... These chemicals "turn the frogs gay" - while seen as a 'conspiracy' trope - the fact is that the endocrine systems of mammals amphibians and (perhaps) reptiles are impacted heavily due to these chemicals. The reason why we see a f-ton of "lady-boys" in places like thailand, philippines and other rural asian communities where rice is the staple of not only the diet - but a large part of the economy (the philippines has a national rice management department as they state that its the right of every family to have rice on the table (source, my ex-brother-in-law worked for this department)... we see that in the rice paddies they advertise which pesticides/fertilizers they are using, and they are coaxed into over-use of the chemicals... These leech into the aqua-sphere and it affects the endocrine systems of the pregnant, young and developing people... It results in a switch from high testosterone to higher estrogenic development, which results in more femininely expression in males...

BaculumMeumEst 3y ago
I see that over the course of your travels, you developed quite an interest in southeast Asian ladyboys. Would you say you’re now an authority on the matter? Do you plan to continue your research?
- samstave 3y ago
  My interest on chemicals and how they affect the human endocrine systems is important, so rather than being a flippant ass - GFYS.
rdedev 3y ago
So there are a lot of Asian countries that eat rice everyday. Including india. I can't even try to come up with anything in those countries that comes close to what's there in Thailand or Philippines. Assuming everything you said is true your last sentence about how hormone production somehow switches. That needs to be backed up by some source. It's a big leap in conclusion if those fertilizers you talk about does not mimic estrogen

jvans 3y ago

Besides being false, the problem with making the scientific certainty the bar for whether to ban these chemicals is that the default action is to keep them, harming people for decades before science catches up. The bar should be for proving safety, not proving harm

cykotic 3y ago

Wouldn't it be better from a public policy point of view to ban the use of PFAS (and other such chemicals) until they demonstrate that it is safe?

autokad 3y ago

yeah, I grown immune to media's "this thing is secretly killing you! and we dont know much about it!" We are stressing over so much crap that may have some impact on our lives, but there are huge 'low hanging fruit' that make it inconsequential. like inactivity and too much sugar.

hedora 3y ago

> Clearly we need more research This phrase sets of the same alarm bells for me as “think of the children”. It was the main argument made by proponents of tobacco, climate change, asbestos, artificial sweeteners, trans fats, HFCS, DDT, etc, etc. There has been strong evidence that PFAS causes severe health issues since at least the mid 1990’s. People can always use weasel words like “some studies show there may be a correlation” (and leave out the p=99.99999 from the cited studies). Here’s a present-day example for DDT, over 50 years after it was banned: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-...

emeril 3y ago

I'm more concerned re: chemical sunscreens entering the bloodstream I get the impression this hasn't been studied enough and likely won't be anytime soon