4 ms·
Above 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 qu
by alwayslikethis 3y ago
Above 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.
- lazide 3y agoOr your original point was half assed and you’re just angry you can’t actually make a better one? I don’t think PFAs are some essential vitamin or minerals. But some quantifiable risk information is essential to actually making a useful analysis. Like other types of substances we’ve done nearly the same thing to ourselves over, like dioxins, PCBs, etc. Most if them might just be as bad as silicones, some of them might be worse, some of them better. And it’s weird that none of that is allowed to be discussed. You’re the one being performative here.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- therealdrag0 3y agoI think you have an overly broad or ungenerous (is this what the cranky kids call “bad faith”?) definition of “performative”? “Bullshit minutia” is pretty subjective. If my hippy friend says “the govment should ban chemicals in foods”, arguing about what “chemicals” mean is not bullshit it’s critical information for a fact based argument. If anything ignoring facts and logical minutia could be called performative, since then your words matter less than your saying <anything> that tickles feelings.