4 ms·

Isn't this a false equivelance fallacy? Genuine question, I am not an expert on fallacies. In any case, would it not be safer to assume the possibility of harm

by 0xEF 3y ago

Isn't this a false equivelance fallacy? Genuine question, I am not an expert on fallacies. In any case, would it not be safer to assume the possibility of harmful impact of Chemical X until more concrete data is gathered? Granted, the fear mongering in the media needs to pump the brakes, but err on the side of caution, and all that. Then again, where does the burden of proof lie; on PFAS not being harmful? That doesn't sound right either. Bit of a headache, I guess.

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
Thinking of poisons in binaries is false - the dose makes the poison. You are eating "poisons" every day, and it is impossible not to. Plants create poisons to defend their seeds against herbivores, but you don't die when eating nuts or grains, because your body has adapted. Water will kill you if you drink too much of it. So the question is not "is this a poison", but "at what dose is this a poison". You could argue that with food, there is a necessary trade-off, but with PFAS there isn't, because we don't need it to survive. But that is true for most of modern civilisation, and what you then end up with is the "this substance is known to the state of California to cause cancer" on basically everything. You are right that this becomes a difficult problem of epistemology. Basically, it is impossible to prove "this is safe", only the opposite, and often it is not easy to prove conclusively. I'm not sure where the right balance lies, either.
- ramblenode 3y ago
  > Thinking of poisons in binaries is false - the dose makes the poison. This is true, but by itself this model presents an incomplete picture for assessing the risk of PFAS. Two additional models are important: bioaccumulation and half-life. PFAS stick around (pardon the pun) in the environment. They are biomagnified upwards through the food chain. If we are releasing them into the environment at a greater rate than they are degrading, then the biosphere is building up a reservoir of PFAS whose acute effects in humans will lag their release into the environment. Additionally, it is hard to assess the lethal dose of something over a lifespan vs. an acute exposure. This is because slow poisons tend to pick up correlations and interactions with other illnesses as they progress over time (e.g. someone who struggles to get out of bed because of a persistent infection will also get less exercise and sunlight). So the long-term effects of things on the body tend to be less tractable research questions and thus have a negative bias in the scientific literature, which can easily be mistaken for "evidence of absence". This is why the precautionary principle is important for anything that is as pervasive as PFAS.
  - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
    Bioaccumulation is a good point, but then its just the question of dosage viewed over time. Agree with long-term effects - this is really hard. The precautionary principle is dangerous in that you could justify the most draconian COVID measures like lockdowns with them, which in hindsight were unwarranted and unprecedented over-reach, having no positive effect at all. I don’t think there is a recipe that can be easily followed, you have to have very good people, both intellectually and ethically, and even then its still hard.

by 0xEF 3y ago

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago

Thinking of poisons in binaries is false - the dose makes the poison. You are eating "poisons" every day, and it is impossible not to. Plants create poisons to defend their seeds against herbivores, but you don't die when eating nuts or grains, because your body has adapted. Water will kill you if you drink too much of it. So the question is not "is this a poison", but "at what dose is this a poison". You could argue that with food, there is a necessary trade-off, but with PFAS there isn't, because we don't need it to survive. But that is true for most of modern civilisation, and what you then end up with is the "this substance is known to the state of California to cause cancer" on basically everything. You are right that this becomes a difficult problem of epistemology. Basically, it is impossible to prove "this is safe", only the opposite, and often it is not easy to prove conclusively. I'm not sure where the right balance lies, either.

ramblenode 3y ago
> Thinking of poisons in binaries is false - the dose makes the poison. This is true, but by itself this model presents an incomplete picture for assessing the risk of PFAS. Two additional models are important: bioaccumulation and half-life. PFAS stick around (pardon the pun) in the environment. They are biomagnified upwards through the food chain. If we are releasing them into the environment at a greater rate than they are degrading, then the biosphere is building up a reservoir of PFAS whose acute effects in humans will lag their release into the environment. Additionally, it is hard to assess the lethal dose of something over a lifespan vs. an acute exposure. This is because slow poisons tend to pick up correlations and interactions with other illnesses as they progress over time (e.g. someone who struggles to get out of bed because of a persistent infection will also get less exercise and sunlight). So the long-term effects of things on the body tend to be less tractable research questions and thus have a negative bias in the scientific literature, which can easily be mistaken for "evidence of absence". This is why the precautionary principle is important for anything that is as pervasive as PFAS.
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  Bioaccumulation is a good point, but then its just the question of dosage viewed over time. Agree with long-term effects - this is really hard. The precautionary principle is dangerous in that you could justify the most draconian COVID measures like lockdowns with them, which in hindsight were unwarranted and unprecedented over-reach, having no positive effect at all. I don’t think there is a recipe that can be easily followed, you have to have very good people, both intellectually and ethically, and even then its still hard.