4 ms·

Wtf are you supposed to do about it if you are not “oblivious”?

by idontwantthis 3y ago

pyrale 3y ago
Avoid buying products using them, for instance.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  Honestly, I'm pretty picky about the food at buy at the store, and even I can't tell anymore if something is safe appart from raw fruits and vegetables I buy from a local old man I've known for years. And I live in France, with very protective laws, and parents that educated me to choose wisely. How the average American, with the worst consumer protection laws and a terrible food culture, is supposed to find a way?
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    > How the average American, with the worst consumer protection laws ... Surely there's some hyperbole there. For example, the US doesn't have a problem with lead chromate in their turmeric.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Exceptions don't disprove rules. Exceptions don't disprove rules. Exceptions don't disprove rules.
      - CoastalCoder 3y ago
        The GP stated that the US has the worst protections. So a single counterexample suffices.
        uoaei 3y ago
        No it doesn't. Statistics is robust to outliers compared to logic, and GP was making a statistical claim.
      - billyjmc 3y ago
        It’s not intended to be an exception disproving the rules. It’s a trigger to induce the rational reader to recognize the obviously fallacious hyperbole of accusing the US of having the worst consumer protection law.
    - morsch 3y ago
      > For example, the US doesn't have a problem with lead chromate in their turmeric. https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/six-brands-of-turmeric-added-to-recall-for-excessive-lead/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/six-brands-of-turmeri... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415259/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415259/ What changed?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pyrale 3y ago
    > Honestly, I'm pretty picky about the food at buy at the store Forever chemicals, like PFAs can end up in food, but it is not made to be in food. The nature of this pollution means that trying to prevent environmental pollution to end up in your food is a fool's errand. The solution is to avoid releasing more of the substance in the environment. For instance, PFAs see a lot of use in water-repellent clothing and material. As these products take rain, some of the repellent is shed in the environment, and contaminate stuff we consume. Awareness about it in the population and people looking to buy something else can lead manufacturers to look for alternatives and develop new lines of clothing.
kergonath 3y ago
Push your representatives to pass regulations, for once. And don’t buy things with these compounds, and apply pressure on companies that use them. But mostly despair, considering the current state of affairs.
dontlaugh 3y ago
Labour organising would work, like what Swedish workers are doing to Tesla. A general strike would work even better.
jdietrich 3y ago
Mostly nothing. The vast majority of PFAS contamination comes from industrial effluent, not consumer goods. This should be a good thing, because it makes it logistically easier to prevent and mitigate. Unfortunately, manufacturers can get away with flagrant negligence because the EPA is a total mess. The EPA are failing to deal with dozens of types of chemical pollution that most people are already well aware of; the only meaningful solution is to reform or replace the EPA. That's unlikely to happen soon, partly because of longstanding structural issues with federal agencies and partly because "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  The political establishment has a pretty foolproof system for shit like this, which it has been using for decades if not centuries. Step 1: Get Trump and his ilk to make moves toward disbanding the EPA. There is no step 2. Democrat voters now throw their support to the EPA, forgetting all the stories about its dysfunction, because the threatened alternative is no EPA at all. "The lesser evil" will be the rally cry as smart, kind people beg you to vote for the corporate-funded Democrat who wants to "preserve" the EPA and its funding as is. > "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position. Has been for a long time - ask Erin Brockovich, or the Superfund victims, or Donziger.
mint2 3y ago
You can do three things. Avoid buying them where possible to reduce your exposure. I.e don’t buy the dental floss that is literally strands of Teflon. Give blood. Not only is it a good deed, it reduces the amounts of these chemicals. Contact your reps and vote with the need for actual regulation in mind.

Wtf are you supposed to do about it if you are not “oblivious”?

pyrale 3y ago

Avoid buying products using them, for instance.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago
Honestly, I'm pretty picky about the food at buy at the store, and even I can't tell anymore if something is safe appart from raw fruits and vegetables I buy from a local old man I've known for years. And I live in France, with very protective laws, and parents that educated me to choose wisely. How the average American, with the worst consumer protection laws and a terrible food culture, is supposed to find a way?
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > How the average American, with the worst consumer protection laws ... Surely there's some hyperbole there. For example, the US doesn't have a problem with lead chromate in their turmeric.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Exceptions don't disprove rules. Exceptions don't disprove rules. Exceptions don't disprove rules.
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      The GP stated that the US has the worst protections. So a single counterexample suffices.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        No it doesn't. Statistics is robust to outliers compared to logic, and GP was making a statistical claim.
    - billyjmc 3y ago
      It’s not intended to be an exception disproving the rules. It’s a trigger to induce the rational reader to recognize the obviously fallacious hyperbole of accusing the US of having the worst consumer protection law.
  - morsch 3y ago
    > For example, the US doesn't have a problem with lead chromate in their turmeric. https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/six-brands-of-turmeric-added-to-recall-for-excessive-lead/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/six-brands-of-turmeri... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415259/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415259/ What changed?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pyrale 3y ago
  > Honestly, I'm pretty picky about the food at buy at the store Forever chemicals, like PFAs can end up in food, but it is not made to be in food. The nature of this pollution means that trying to prevent environmental pollution to end up in your food is a fool's errand. The solution is to avoid releasing more of the substance in the environment. For instance, PFAs see a lot of use in water-repellent clothing and material. As these products take rain, some of the repellent is shed in the environment, and contaminate stuff we consume. Awareness about it in the population and people looking to buy something else can lead manufacturers to look for alternatives and develop new lines of clothing.

kergonath 3y ago

Push your representatives to pass regulations, for once. And don’t buy things with these compounds, and apply pressure on companies that use them. But mostly despair, considering the current state of affairs.

dontlaugh 3y ago

Labour organising would work, like what Swedish workers are doing to Tesla. A general strike would work even better.

jdietrich 3y ago

Mostly nothing. The vast majority of PFAS contamination comes from industrial effluent, not consumer goods. This should be a good thing, because it makes it logistically easier to prevent and mitigate. Unfortunately, manufacturers can get away with flagrant negligence because the EPA is a total mess. The EPA are failing to deal with dozens of types of chemical pollution that most people are already well aware of; the only meaningful solution is to reform or replace the EPA. That's unlikely to happen soon, partly because of longstanding structural issues with federal agencies and partly because "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position.

mandmandam 3y ago
The political establishment has a pretty foolproof system for shit like this, which it has been using for decades if not centuries. Step 1: Get Trump and his ilk to make moves toward disbanding the EPA. There is no step 2. Democrat voters now throw their support to the EPA, forgetting all the stories about its dysfunction, because the threatened alternative is no EPA at all. "The lesser evil" will be the rally cry as smart, kind people beg you to vote for the corporate-funded Democrat who wants to "preserve" the EPA and its funding as is. > "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position. Has been for a long time - ask Erin Brockovich, or the Superfund victims, or Donziger.

mint2 3y ago

You can do three things. Avoid buying them where possible to reduce your exposure. I.e don’t buy the dental floss that is literally strands of Teflon. Give blood. Not only is it a good deed, it reduces the amounts of these chemicals. Contact your reps and vote with the need for actual regulation in mind.