4 ms·
Very different. The evidence was much stronger there. The correlations were so high as to be impossible to ignore. (It also helped that smoking was so prevalent
by mattmaroon 3y ago
Very different. The evidence was much stronger there. The correlations were so high as to be impossible to ignore. (It also helped that smoking was so prevalent across race/class/age etc that it practically controlled for all the other variables inherently, which is true of drinking water exposure to PFAs too.)
There were conditions like emphysema that were basically unheard of in non-smokers (or people who worked in certain occupations that involved a lot of combustion byproducts) and common in smokers.
The correlations here (at the levels most of us are exposed to) are incredibly weak. Don’t take my word for them, look them up.
This is more like the link between aspartame and cancer. There’s no smoking gun, no high correlations. If you look up the symptoms “linked” to it, there are hundreds at least.
Not all correlations are equal.
But, I install R/O filters in my house because I am not certain it is not harmful and why take the chance? I’m just not certain it is harmful and I would need to be to support jailing people or banning the chemicals immediately and entirely.
- alwayslikethis 3y agoAbove all, you should not be able to dump things in the environment which doesn't break down. They also accumulate in your body and is not possible to remove quickly. Moreover, they knew since the 70s [1] that it was probably harmful, but kept making it anyways pretending it was safe. There needs to be corporate responsibility for the cleanup, which may well bankrupt the compnay, and personal criminal responsibility for those who made the decision. 1. https://qz.com/1643554/3m-knew-pfas-was-contaminating-us-food-supply https://qz.com/1643554/3m-knew-pfas-was-contaminating-us-foo...
- lazide 3y agoA bit of a straw man here - but water doesn’t meaningfully break down. Sodium chloride (salt) also doesn’t meaningfully break down. It’s not that simple.
- alwayslikethis 3y agoWell, just the things that do not exist naturally in that location then.
- lazide 3y agoSo no concrete? Stainless steel? Glass? No silicates?
- forgetfreeman 3y agoIs there a particular purpose you're pursuing with this obvious pedantry or is it merely performative?
- therealdrag0 3y agoIf a lay man’s vague proscription is so easily counter acted perhaps one should reconsider its meaningfulness.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoSo performative then, gotcha.
- therealdrag0 3y agoWhat does that even mean in the context of a discussion like this? Doesn’t make any sense lol.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoDoesn't it? I think we all agree performative behaviors have taken center stage over the last couple decades (see also: online influencers, prepper culture, and the shitstorm over "woke" culture). Quibbling over bullshit minutia with no specific larger goal in mind, especially in public forums, is just another manifestation.