4 ms·
> and at that level, no health impacts have been demonstrated. Right, but since it bio-accumulates even if your exposure is low over the decades you may accumu
by armada651 3y ago
> and at that level, no health impacts have been demonstrated.
Right, but since it bio-accumulates even if your exposure is low over the decades you may accumulate enough of it for it to affect your health. If your body can't get rid of it then it's not the dosage that counts anymore, it's the total exposure over your lifetime that matters.
- csmpltn 3y agoYour argument about "total exposure over a lifetime" can be applied to literally every single thing people ingest or do.
- morelisp 3y agoNo, we shit, piss, and/or otherwise emit most things back out. Chemicals which genuinely bioaccumulate are naturally rare and we should be careful with them.
- red-iron-pine 3y agothe point of PFAS and the related fear is that 1) they are NOT rare and are everywhere, and 2) we don't piss them out
- Vicinity9635 3y ago[dead]
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoCan be, but the ones that we know are harmful, like lead, have or are being removed from the cycle. I'm sure you're doing a logical fallacy of sorts here, appeal to tradition or something - just because it happens with something else, doesn't make it right.
- dylan604 3y agoHi! I'm Clippy. It looks like you are trying to make a point. Maybe I can help? Because you definitely need it if you thought your comment did anything.
- readams 3y agoIf they were measuring dangerous levels of bioaccumulation then you can be sure we'd hear about it. You'd need to live 1000 years though given the levels we're talking about.
- morelisp 3y agoThere's lots of evidence that long-chain PFAS can bioaccumulate across generations. You don't need to live a millennium personally. (Also the effects are disproportionately bad on infants, so you don't need 1000 years of generations either.) Also we didn't really stop putting them in the water yet...
- cyanydeez 3y agoOr you just need to be a fetus. Yes, did you know, fetuses start as single cells?
- npunt 3y agoThis is not self-evident. Biology is extremely complex and we have a lot left to learn before we can make definitive statements about safety. This idea of 'you can be sure we'd hear about it' places too much of the burden on journalists, random medical researchers, and eventually regulators to suss out what is going on. As it stands in our system today any awareness we may have about dangers will come far after the danger to us, and then we'll all say a collective 'oops' as we've had to do the last hundred times. Look no further than all the 'I [live near the plant/play on the field/drink the water] and have [cancer/autoimmune/rare disease/etc]' stories that keep coming out year after year.
- aziaziazi 3y ago> you can be sure we’d hear from it If it’s widely used and profitable to many, you can be sure you won’t hear from it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
- soulofmischief 3y agoWe are in the stone ages of medicinal and biological understanding. We have no idea what levels or forms of exposure are "safe", not only for humans but the ecosystem as a whole.