10 ms·

> I think what's changed most is our standards. PFAS didn't exist 75 years ago. Now we've almost permanently contaminated our environment and atmosphere with i

by tomxor 3y ago

> I think what's changed most is our standards. PFAS didn't exist 75 years ago. Now we've almost permanently contaminated our environment and atmosphere with it, that's quite a big change.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I feel like that's taking the commenter's quote out of context, or at least missing the point. They aren't arguing that PFAS aren't everywhere, or even that they aren't harmful. They're arguing that, in the grand scheme of things, the harm produced by PFAS to humans is relatively inconsequential, especially when you consider all the improvements that technology, broadly, has brought to the human condition. To emphasize, I think that point is very debatable, but I don't know enough about the real harms of PFAS to comment. But I do think it's valid to have a substantive debate on the true harms of PFAS, even if the other side of that debate is that comparing ourselves now to a time when the majority of kids died is the wrong yardstick.
- nostrademons 3y ago
  I went and did some research, and have a friend who's a material scientist. The harms of PFAS are pretty substantial. Teflon is nasty; if you can do without it in your cookware, you probably should. However, statistically the things that are most likely to prevent you from passing on your genes are: 1. Not making enough money. 2. Anxiety/depression 3. Drug overdoses 4. Car accidents 5. An unhappy family life 6. Swimming pools And on that list of offspring averted, PFAS basically don't register. You are much better off making sure you get into a good career, talking to your kids about drugs, being very careful when you drive, and otherwise not sweating the small things than obsessing about forever-chemicals in the atmosphere.
  - timeon 3y ago
    > being very careful when you drive That helps, but there are more participants in traffic than just you.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    What is remarkable here is that every single thing you say is correct. Everything on your statistical list looks right, and can probably be proven by a stack of peer-reviewed scientific studies from medicine, sociology, psychology... And yet as an argument, it's worthless. Worse... it's dangerous. Because in your schema, the impact of climate change, pollution and other threats that will end this species each rank as zero! You get to "pass on your genes" merely to consign a few hundred of your descendents to a miserable death. This is the tyranny of instrumental reason that you so cleverly use against the goal (reproduction of genes) that you purport to champion.
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      1, 2, 5 is my best guess.
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      Wait, neither climate change nor pollution are in the category of threats that are expected to literally end this species.
      - cj 3y ago
        Within our lifetime we’re safe. I think the point is 100-300 years (maybe longer?) from now things might reach a tipping point.
        scarby2 3y ago
        None of the above are actually expected to end the species. Not in anyone's lifetime, given the range of climates humans survive in. We might end up with a 90% reduction in population but Short of a massive asteroid impact or massive solar event it's pretty hard to imagine wiping out the entirety of humanity.
        cj 3y ago
        I agree. But anything causing even a 10% population decline over a short period of time would have insane second order effects (e.g. nuclear war) as we fight over control of resources.
  - joe8756438 3y ago
    Swimming pools because of drowning or chemical exposure?
    - ativzzz 3y ago
      Drowning is the leading cause of death for 1-4 year olds and 2nd after car accidents for 5-14 year olds https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nulld3v 3y ago
    Are actually there any studies that say Teflon is harmful? Not the fumes when it is heated, I mean Teflon itself.
pookha 3y ago
I'll go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people buying "Glide" dental floss at COSTCO have NO IDEA that they're coated in toxins (PFAS) and if they pick up a gargantium bag of Cheerios for their kids they also probably aren't aware that those too are coated in Chlormequat chloride. Modern living.
- wodenokoto 3y ago
  > Cheerios for their kids they also probably aren't aware that those too are coated in Chlormequat chloride. From Wikipedia: > Chlormequat has not previously been registered for use on food crops in the United States. In April 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed allowing the use of the chemical on food crops such as barley, oat, triticale, and wheat. The EPA’s human health risk assessment indicated "no dietary, residential, or aggregate (i.e., combined dietary and residential exposures) risks of concern." No risks were identified by EPA to aquatic species of invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants in addition to terrestrial plants. So probably not coated in it.
  - demondemidi 3y ago
    I don’t know about you but that doesn’t make me feel any better.
    - doo_daa 3y ago
      This might make you feel better... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pesticide-in-oat-products-should-you-worry/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pesticide-in-oat-products-s... ... unless you regularly eat more than 85,000 tons of oats.
      - demondemidi 3y ago
        > unless you regularly eat more than 85,000 tons of oats. Between muesli in the summer and oatmeal in the winter I'm averaging close to that, but I exercise a lot so I got that going for me.
  - 3y ago

by tomxor 3y ago

> I think what's changed most is our standards. PFAS didn't exist 75 years ago. Now we've almost permanently contaminated our environment and atmosphere with it, that's quite a big change.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I feel like that's taking the commenter's quote out of context, or at least missing the point. They aren't arguing that PFAS aren't everywhere, or even that they aren't harmful. They're arguing that, in the grand scheme of things, the harm produced by PFAS to humans is relatively inconsequential, especially when you consider all the improvements that technology, broadly, has brought to the human condition. To emphasize, I think that point is very debatable, but I don't know enough about the real harms of PFAS to comment. But I do think it's valid to have a substantive debate on the true harms of PFAS, even if the other side of that debate is that comparing ourselves now to a time when the majority of kids died is the wrong yardstick.

nostrademons 3y ago
I went and did some research, and have a friend who's a material scientist. The harms of PFAS are pretty substantial. Teflon is nasty; if you can do without it in your cookware, you probably should. However, statistically the things that are most likely to prevent you from passing on your genes are: 1. Not making enough money. 2. Anxiety/depression 3. Drug overdoses 4. Car accidents 5. An unhappy family life 6. Swimming pools And on that list of offspring averted, PFAS basically don't register. You are much better off making sure you get into a good career, talking to your kids about drugs, being very careful when you drive, and otherwise not sweating the small things than obsessing about forever-chemicals in the atmosphere.
- timeon 3y ago
  > being very careful when you drive That helps, but there are more participants in traffic than just you.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  What is remarkable here is that every single thing you say is correct. Everything on your statistical list looks right, and can probably be proven by a stack of peer-reviewed scientific studies from medicine, sociology, psychology... And yet as an argument, it's worthless. Worse... it's dangerous. Because in your schema, the impact of climate change, pollution and other threats that will end this species each rank as zero! You get to "pass on your genes" merely to consign a few hundred of your descendents to a miserable death. This is the tyranny of instrumental reason that you so cleverly use against the goal (reproduction of genes) that you purport to champion.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    1, 2, 5 is my best guess.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    Wait, neither climate change nor pollution are in the category of threats that are expected to literally end this species.
    - cj 3y ago
      Within our lifetime we’re safe. I think the point is 100-300 years (maybe longer?) from now things might reach a tipping point.
      - scarby2 3y ago
        None of the above are actually expected to end the species. Not in anyone's lifetime, given the range of climates humans survive in. We might end up with a 90% reduction in population but Short of a massive asteroid impact or massive solar event it's pretty hard to imagine wiping out the entirety of humanity.
        cj 3y ago
        I agree. But anything causing even a 10% population decline over a short period of time would have insane second order effects (e.g. nuclear war) as we fight over control of resources.
- joe8756438 3y ago
  Swimming pools because of drowning or chemical exposure?
  - ativzzz 3y ago
    Drowning is the leading cause of death for 1-4 year olds and 2nd after car accidents for 5-14 year olds https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nulld3v 3y ago
  Are actually there any studies that say Teflon is harmful? Not the fumes when it is heated, I mean Teflon itself.

pookha 3y ago

I'll go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people buying "Glide" dental floss at COSTCO have NO IDEA that they're coated in toxins (PFAS) and if they pick up a gargantium bag of Cheerios for their kids they also probably aren't aware that those too are coated in Chlormequat chloride. Modern living.

wodenokoto 3y ago
> Cheerios for their kids they also probably aren't aware that those too are coated in Chlormequat chloride. From Wikipedia: > Chlormequat has not previously been registered for use on food crops in the United States. In April 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed allowing the use of the chemical on food crops such as barley, oat, triticale, and wheat. The EPA’s human health risk assessment indicated "no dietary, residential, or aggregate (i.e., combined dietary and residential exposures) risks of concern." No risks were identified by EPA to aquatic species of invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants in addition to terrestrial plants. So probably not coated in it.
- demondemidi 3y ago
  I don’t know about you but that doesn’t make me feel any better.
  - doo_daa 3y ago
    This might make you feel better... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pesticide-in-oat-products-should-you-worry/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pesticide-in-oat-products-s... ... unless you regularly eat more than 85,000 tons of oats.
    - demondemidi 3y ago
      > unless you regularly eat more than 85,000 tons of oats. Between muesli in the summer and oatmeal in the winter I'm averaging close to that, but I exercise a lot so I got that going for me.
- 3y ago