7 ms·

Is this going to be like the micro-plastics-are-actually-contamination-from-lab-gloves news all over again? I'm all for removing PFAS and similar chemicals fro

Is this going to be like the micro-plastics-are-actually-contamination-from-lab-gloves news all over again? I'm all for removing PFAS and similar chemicals from the many places and uses they aren't needed, but if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water, they certainly aren't going to care about penguin PFAS.

nslsm 7mo ago
[flagged]
giuliomagnifico 7mo ago
Yes, it could be (I posted the article about the gloves), but PFAS are different from microplastics, and not all the studies are contaminated by gloves. The interesting part here is using the animals as “scientists” to collect samples in their habitats for years (2022-2024) instead of sending humans to collect samples. This is far more reliable in my opinion
- alex43578 7mo ago
  The animal angle is fun and interesting, and my quip about the gloves is mostly a joke. My frustration comes from the fact that we don't (or shouldn't) need to know that PFAS is in Patagonia to care about it. 45% of US households contain PFAS, apparently, but no mitigation or even manufacturing bans are required for years. In the US, one side cries about regular flouride in the water, but is meh to PFAS. Meanwhile, the other side is supposedly pro-environment, but can't even get the fortitude to ban PFAS ski wax.
  - littlexsparkee 7mo ago
    The point for the lay reader is that the pollution has reached extremely remote places, so the stuff is absolutely pervasive and/or the method of travel should concern us.
    - alex43578 7mo ago
      And my point still remains that people don’t even care that it’s in their tap water, to-go food containers, and dental floss. The research is academically interesting, but immaterial to actually doing anything about the issue of PFAS.
hvb2 7mo ago
> if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water People don't? Sounds to me like they need to look at history a bit more. To me, this looks very much like some of the other magical materials... Lead in gasoline, asbestos as building material, tobacco etc
- alex43578 7mo ago
  Most people don't care. PFAS is only voluntarily being phased out in food packaging, rather than being banned. People cook with teflon-coated pans for the tiny convenience over a nitrided, ceramic, or seasoned cast iron pan. Outdoors enthusiasts want PFAS rain jackets and PFAS ski waxes, rather than the alternatives. I definitely agree they need to look at history, consider what they're being exposed to, and understand how simple and easy some of the substitutions/mitigations could be. There's 0 reason why manufacturers are getting 5+ years to phase out a forever chemical in something like ski wax or dental floss.
  - _zpvl 7mo ago
    I don't think it's that people don't care, I think it's that people are ignorant. I also don't think that's an accident, I think we're in the midst of a multi-decade project to create a populace that's as dumb as possible, because the more aware and educated people are, the less likely they are to allow the kinds of behaviour that are destroying the health of people, animals and the environment. The ideal societal conditions for, say, a petrochemical company that is creating toxins that are genuinely "forever" for all intents and purposes, is a society where people are exhausted from their terrible job (or two jobs, or job + gig economy side hustle) and spend their leisure time glued to their phones, scrolling AI slop on instagram and gambling away their meagre savings on sports betting and prediction markets. These are not people who are going to get educated about chemistry. Scientific expertise is derided as elitism. The president lies constantly by issuing "truths" on his social media platform. Public education gets defunded and IQ scores are declining. Either this is just random societal decay, or this is serving the interests of the rich and powerful. I know where I stand on it. And yes, I'm cranky.
    - 7mo ago
progbits 7mo ago
No, they-are-not-actually-contamination. Some studies might have inaccurate numbers due to contamination. That's all. Important to correct for, but doesn't invalidate the whole microplastics concern.
MisterTea 7mo ago
Just like how people never cared about lead in their tap water.
- mistrial9 7mo ago
  you missed the full jab -- "most people" did not care about lead pipes for drinking water. It does not take much effort to blankly state that the public "does not care" and proceed to spend less than one minute of thinking capacity to self-confirm and move on. IMHO That is what you see in some of the comments here -- "ignorance" in true form, on display here in a erudite and modern forum. Functional definition of "ignorance" for this topic? I do not know that and I do not care, end of discussion.
  - lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
    > on display here in a erudite and modern forum. I wouldn't overestimate the quality of this forum. It certainly has its uses, but I wouldn't overstate the quality of discourse here. It's not that great.
  - tempaccount5050 7mo ago
    Because lead doesn't readily leach into water. Your water supply has to be real fucked up for that to happen.
    - ricardobayes 7mo ago
      Anectodal but my tap water in downtown Budapest, in an old house, had lead. I had the tap water tested and lead levels were multiple times the limit.
      - tempaccount5050 6mo ago
        That's from the source then. Drinkable water does not dissolve lead.

nslsm 7mo ago

[flagged]

giuliomagnifico 7mo ago

Yes, it could be (I posted the article about the gloves), but PFAS are different from microplastics, and not all the studies are contaminated by gloves. The interesting part here is using the animals as “scientists” to collect samples in their habitats for years (2022-2024) instead of sending humans to collect samples. This is far more reliable in my opinion

alex43578 7mo ago
The animal angle is fun and interesting, and my quip about the gloves is mostly a joke. My frustration comes from the fact that we don't (or shouldn't) need to know that PFAS is in Patagonia to care about it. 45% of US households contain PFAS, apparently, but no mitigation or even manufacturing bans are required for years. In the US, one side cries about regular flouride in the water, but is meh to PFAS. Meanwhile, the other side is supposedly pro-environment, but can't even get the fortitude to ban PFAS ski wax.
- littlexsparkee 7mo ago
  The point for the lay reader is that the pollution has reached extremely remote places, so the stuff is absolutely pervasive and/or the method of travel should concern us.
  - alex43578 7mo ago
    And my point still remains that people don’t even care that it’s in their tap water, to-go food containers, and dental floss. The research is academically interesting, but immaterial to actually doing anything about the issue of PFAS.

hvb2 7mo ago

> if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water People don't? Sounds to me like they need to look at history a bit more. To me, this looks very much like some of the other magical materials... Lead in gasoline, asbestos as building material, tobacco etc

alex43578 7mo ago
Most people don't care. PFAS is only voluntarily being phased out in food packaging, rather than being banned. People cook with teflon-coated pans for the tiny convenience over a nitrided, ceramic, or seasoned cast iron pan. Outdoors enthusiasts want PFAS rain jackets and PFAS ski waxes, rather than the alternatives. I definitely agree they need to look at history, consider what they're being exposed to, and understand how simple and easy some of the substitutions/mitigations could be. There's 0 reason why manufacturers are getting 5+ years to phase out a forever chemical in something like ski wax or dental floss.
- _zpvl 7mo ago
  I don't think it's that people don't care, I think it's that people are ignorant. I also don't think that's an accident, I think we're in the midst of a multi-decade project to create a populace that's as dumb as possible, because the more aware and educated people are, the less likely they are to allow the kinds of behaviour that are destroying the health of people, animals and the environment. The ideal societal conditions for, say, a petrochemical company that is creating toxins that are genuinely "forever" for all intents and purposes, is a society where people are exhausted from their terrible job (or two jobs, or job + gig economy side hustle) and spend their leisure time glued to their phones, scrolling AI slop on instagram and gambling away their meagre savings on sports betting and prediction markets. These are not people who are going to get educated about chemistry. Scientific expertise is derided as elitism. The president lies constantly by issuing "truths" on his social media platform. Public education gets defunded and IQ scores are declining. Either this is just random societal decay, or this is serving the interests of the rich and powerful. I know where I stand on it. And yes, I'm cranky.
  - 7mo ago

progbits 7mo ago

No, they-are-not-actually-contamination. Some studies might have inaccurate numbers due to contamination. That's all. Important to correct for, but doesn't invalidate the whole microplastics concern.

MisterTea 7mo ago

Just like how people never cared about lead in their tap water.

mistrial9 7mo ago
you missed the full jab -- "most people" did not care about lead pipes for drinking water. It does not take much effort to blankly state that the public "does not care" and proceed to spend less than one minute of thinking capacity to self-confirm and move on. IMHO That is what you see in some of the comments here -- "ignorance" in true form, on display here in a erudite and modern forum. Functional definition of "ignorance" for this topic? I do not know that and I do not care, end of discussion.
- lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
  > on display here in a erudite and modern forum. I wouldn't overestimate the quality of this forum. It certainly has its uses, but I wouldn't overstate the quality of discourse here. It's not that great.
- tempaccount5050 7mo ago
  Because lead doesn't readily leach into water. Your water supply has to be real fucked up for that to happen.
  - ricardobayes 7mo ago
    Anectodal but my tap water in downtown Budapest, in an old house, had lead. I had the tap water tested and lead levels were multiple times the limit.
    - tempaccount5050 6mo ago
      That's from the source then. Drinkable water does not dissolve lead.