-
28 votes
-
When the Swedish town of Kallinge discovered their drinking water contained extremely high levels of PFAS, they had no idea what it would mean for their health and their children's future
21 votes -
Outsourcing responsibility: explosion at Optima Belle
11 votes -
Outsourcing responsibility: Explosion at Optima Belle
13 votes -
Ship carrying highly toxic chemical hit tanker transporting jet fuel for US military
26 votes -
Fire from the storm: Chemical release at bio-lab
8 votes -
How to judge relative dangers of chemicals for someone too busy (or lazy) to keep up with the science?
I do hope one of you thinks of a better title or a more coherent structure for the overall post. This question was inspired by a comment chain about PFAS in Gore-Tex jackets under a different post...
I do hope one of you thinks of a better title or a more coherent structure for the overall post.
This question was inspired by a comment chain about PFAS in Gore-Tex jackets under a different post here, but it's been a bit of a simmering question for me.
When reading through that thread, my immediate reaction was something along the lines of the following.
Unless you're directing traffic in Seattle or Scotland, wouldn't the amount of time you'd wear the jacket be too little to have meaningful exposure? It's not like you're walking into an oven where the polymers would break down from heat. Further, if it's GoreTex-appropriate weather, you'll near-certainly have additional clothing between your skin and the GoreTex.
I was bored at work today, so I had plenty of time for rumination and introspection. What I found so far is that my instinctive skepticism toward health-conscious rhetoric has these primary sources:
- I listened to Stronger by Science's six-hour deep dive on aspartame. Their eventual conclusion is that aspartame does cause bladder cancer in rats & mice, but the equivalent doses for humans make fears over its use into a major nothingburger. A human would need to spend a year chugging down five gallons of Diet Coke each day for the elevated cancer risk to be statistically meaningful.
- When I catch someone trying to be convincing in an area where I lack domain expertise, I judge them by their overall demeanor and (if I can catch on) general rhetorical logic [in that order] long before I consider the truth of their specific claims. The IRL people I've met who are most stridently into wholesome natural living have fervency and lack of appreciation that it's the dose that makes the poison to the degree that it makes RFK discussing vaccine policy sound grounded in reality by comparison. Perhaps if they were born in a different society, they'd make excellent temple priests who ensure no lazy shortcuts or "it's all we have available" excuses are made when it's time to ensure a full harvest. Instead, they're the kinds who play 50 million questions and have genuine concerns that the radio waves that connect my wireless headphones are giving me brain damage or control. [To be fair, there is some large selection effects here. My hobbies have a habit of attracting those who are so open-minded that their brains fell out. Since online interactions strip the majority of demeanor and previous interactions, I judge online strangers with strange opinions way less harshly than IRL contacts unless they've gone out of their way to be obnoxious. IRL, I'm exposed to a lot more generic chemicals bad rhetoric than in my usual online bubbles. ]
- Based on 1, unless I have preexisting trust with a particular journalist, layman's science journalism—when it's performed by journalists dabbling in science rather than scientists trying their hands at public communication—is far too likely to overblow a headline or misrepresent the research conclusions. "Here are 30 links to news articles" doesn't appeal to me because 25 of them are probably copying each other (that's just how internet journalism works). It's highly unlikely that all 5 of the remaining links misread the original paper, but I'm not reading through all those (perhaps AI summarization could help here—at the very least it could identify commonalities and outliers for manual examination later).
- Related to 2, two additional SMBC comics that share my attitude: Vitamin Water v. Butter and Pronounceable Ingredients Only
That said, sometimes the health nuts are correct. As it turns out, all the coughing smokers do is a strong sign that smoking is bad for your lungs.
What are some heuristics to sort health tips that get passed around without citation into one of the following buckets?
- You'll notice the improvement
within a weekonce you've finished withdrawal. Smoking, boozing, eating meat or alliums at dinnertime, and heroin are in this bucket. - The effect is real and significant, but you may not notice the impact until at least a year has gone by, if ever. Seatbelts and bike/horse helmets are the two examples that immediately pop to mind.
- Technically non-zero, but ultimately trivial. The opening aspartame example would fit. In a similar line to doctors who recommend against treating prostate cancer because the treatments would shorten your lifespan by more than letting that cancer run its course and waiting for a heart attack or totally unrelated cancer to do you in, these interventions are meaningless to anyone who uses motor vehicles regularly.
- Playground rumors or outright disinformation. Vaccines causing autism and yellow 5 as an HRT supplement b/c it shrinks your testicles belong in this wastebin.
Circling back to the impact of PFAS in Gore-Tex that inspired today's thinking, my layman's estimate that the effects on the factory workers who make a career out of working with the stuff is a low 2 when following proper safety procedures. Without them, a definite 1. For wearers of the stuff, a solid 3.
One final reason I may have been so fired up on this topic is that I listened to a highlight reel from a Congressional
hearinground table on food & pharmaceutical safety last week. During the testimony, I had a nagging feeling that at least half of what they said was true, but the truth percent is below 75, and I had no idea which was which because all claims were presented with the same urgency.31 votes -
What chemicals/substances do you keep at home? And what do you do with them?
I've always found this to be a fun conversation topic among geeky, mechanically-inclined, or DIY-enthusiast friends, and it might be interesting to what see bubbles up from the Tildes crowd: Other...
I've always found this to be a fun conversation topic among geeky, mechanically-inclined, or DIY-enthusiast friends, and it might be interesting to what see bubbles up from the Tildes crowd:
Other than standard things like dishwasher detergent or window cleaning spray, what chemicals or other substances do you keep at home? And what do you do with them? And if you need to take any special precautions for storage, use or disposal, what are those precautions?
Mine are not actually all that interesting, but I'll start:
- Powdered citric acid - for descaling plumbing or kitchen appliances
- Acetone - cleaning gunk off of all sorts of tools, labels off glass items, etc.
- WD40 - cleaning greasy car or bicycle parts
- Glycerin - making "fog juice" for a fog machine
30 votes -
More US states ban PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals,’ in more products
38 votes -
New filtration material could remove long-lasting chemicals from water
6 votes -
Bat loss linked to death of human infants
27 votes -
Heat-treated seeds could offer farmers a chemical-free solution for pest control – following success in Sweden and Norway, ThermoSeed looks to expansion into Asia
14 votes -
Report reveals how workers got sick while cleaning up East Palestine derailment site
14 votes -
East Palestine Ohio after the derailment- reports of hair loss, seizures, residents to decide whether to accept negotiated settlement
42 votes -
Designed to fail: Chemical release at LyondellBasell
8 votes -
US lawyers warned plastics makers to prepare for a wave of litigation over "forever chemicals" that could dwarf asbestos
27 votes -
Potential ties between quaternary ammonia and brain cell damage
6 votes -
California sets nation-leading limit for carcinogenic chromium-6 in drinking water
17 votes -
Joe Biden administration sets first-ever limits on ‘forever chemicals’ in US drinking water
26 votes -
Norfolk Southern agrees to pay $600M in settlement related to train derailment in eastern Ohio
21 votes -
Iowa fertilizer spill kills nearly all fish across sixty mile stretch of rivers
47 votes -
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in food packaging: Migration, toxicity, and management strategies
5 votes -
Athletes likely to have higher levels of PFAS after play on artificial turf – study
9 votes -
The plastic chemicals hiding in your food. Test results for bisphenols/phthalates.
14 votes -
Silent Spring (Rachel Carson, 1962)
8 votes -
Companies knew the dangers of PFAS 'forever chemicals'—and kept them secret
58 votes -
Monsanto hit with $175m verdict against Roundup – a string of nine- and ten-figure losses for the popular herbicide
27 votes -
Green hydrogen could reach economic viability through the co-production of valuable chemicals
3 votes -
A Washington state based startup called Aquagga has successfully deployed a PFAS destruction unit nicknamed “Eleanor”
31 votes -
PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ harming wildlife the world over: Study
23 votes -
Road hazard: Evidence mounts on toxic pollution from tires
30 votes -
Union Pacific still says a leak caused thirty tons of explosives ingredient ammonium nitrate to go missing
15 votes -
The ultrawealthy family of WV Gov. Jim Justice wants to reopen an industrial plant that for decades emitted chemicals in Birmingham. A new EPA proposal might block this.
13 votes -
Bisphenol A: Health experts drastically reduce safe intake limits of widespread plastic
13 votes -
Chemical companies’ PFAS payouts are huge – but the problem is even bigger
11 votes -
US conservationists push Environmental Protection Agency to add 1,000+ pollutants to 'outdated' list of toxic chemicals
20 votes -
The danger of popcorn polymer: Incident at the TPC Group chemical plant
13 votes -
Study says drinking water from nearly half of US faucets contains potentially harmful chemicals
49 votes -
How plastics are poisoning us
35 votes -
The hidden toll of military labor on noncitizen soldiers. For immigrants, linking citizenship to using up one’s body and mind exerts an additional pressure to downplay damage and push through pain.
1 vote -
Danish study exposes links between toxic PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, and weight loss relapse
3 votes -
There were more toxic chemicals on train that derailed in Ohio than originally reported, data shows
18 votes -
Oxford University-led study detects twenty-six types of PFAS compounds in ice around Svalbard, threatening downstream ecosystems
6 votes -
The world’s farms are hooked on phosphorus. It’s a problem.
10 votes -
A day in the life of India’s e-waste workers
5 votes -
Poland: ‘Huge’ amounts of chemical waste dumped into river
8 votes -
Maine’s disaster from PFAS-contaminated produce is causing farms to close and farmers to face the loss of their livelihoods
6 votes -
We still haven’t properly reckoned with Monsanto’s destruction
13 votes -
Climate tech’s newest unicorn makes chemicals from sugar, not fossil fuels
11 votes -
Scientists are concerned by falling sperm counts and declining egg quality. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals may be the problem.
12 votes