I havenât actually yet seen any conclusive proof that PFAS are poisonous to ingest
That happens when you bury your head in the sand and refuse to learn anything.
Comment on We poisoned the whole planet so our eggs wouldn't stick to the pan đ
pixxelkick@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
I havenât actually yet seen any conclusive proof that PFAS are poisonous to ingest, however
Sure, itâs present everywhere, and I wouldnât be shocked if we found out itâs bad for us.
But it has to actually be a poison to call it poison.
Pollutant? For sure. Poison? No proof of that yet. Just very annoying but the very principle that makes it hard to scrub out of water (very non reactive and tiny) is also what makes it seem to, so far, show no negative side effects on stuff.
Itâs there but kinda just, doing nothing as far as we can see⌠so far
We need more funding into studies on it.
Coreidan@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
pixxelkick@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
⌠No? I consider myself pretty well read.
If you have any conclusive peer reviewed papers that prove PFAS are poisonous if ingested at such microscopic scales, please by all means⌠link them
I have been keeping an eye on the progression of study on PFAS for nearly 6 years now since they started finding it all over the world. Im not gonna claim it isnt poisonous, but I certainly am gonna say despite all the studying, no actual issues have been found with them yet that have been repeatable in peer reviewed studies.
Everything seems to still be quite a bit inconclusive so far. Albeit I also chalk a lot of that up to a pretty heavy amount of muzzling on actually researching the impact of PFAS. If you have anything that proves otherwise though, by all means share it with the rest of the class.
Now, if you wanna talk about inhaling vapors from burnt PFAS, now we are talking about potential poisons that can really fuck you up.
But the quantity of PFAS in things like drinking water seems to be so incredibly low and some studies have shown that boiling water actually helps remove many different types of microplastics, including PFAS, due to interesting effects of sodium deposits in the water forming that bind to them sorta Katamari Damacy style.
But other than that, no, I havent seen anything else, just a loooot of âinconclusive, needs further studyâ stuff published time and time again.
Coreidan@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
It took me 5 minutes to find this.
www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/4/573
pixxelkick@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
You clearly didnât read it, itâs just a giant metastudy gathering up tonnes of research but itâs basically just a shotgun paper covering all the âmaybesâ that have been highlighted
It cites dozens and dozens of papers, most of which highlight âmaybe possibly potentially PFAS levels corrolate with (insert health effect here)â
However it also glosses over tonnes of other studies that havent found links to be statistically significant.
I want you to read this XKCD comic and try and understand how it relates to the discussion
meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
There is (according to the video) concrete evidence for both acute toxicity as well as causal carcinogenic effects when it comes to PFOA.
The distinction here is between lpng-chained Fluoropolymers like Teflon, which are completely benign as far as evidence suggests; and fluoroalkyl acids (like PFOA), that are short-chained, can enter the bloodstream, and mimic the structure of fatty acids thus being able to bond to stuff in our body.
pixxelkick@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
No, thereâs a very minor causational link that has been classified as âneeds further studyâ
cancer.org/âŚ/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfâŚ.
Its extremely far away from âconcrete evidenceâ, thatâs what Im talking about when saying this video was hypebole.
Many places are classifying it as potentially hazardous to be safe, because:
- Theres safer alternatives anyways
- Better safe than sorry, its not a missions critical option
pulsewidth@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
âTo poisonâ just means to make people ill by ingesting it. PFOAs are quite well studied and are known carcinogens, and definitely toxic according to multiple studies, this is trivial to find on Wikipedia, etc so⌠I dunno - seems like a contrarian take?
PFOA studies linking exposure to a number of health conditions, including thyroid disorders, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, testicular cancer, infertility and low birth weight. The list goes on, those are just some.
pixxelkick@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
it states that the indirect genotoxic (and thus carcinogenic) potential of PFOA cannot be dismissed
Its important to understand that âcannot be dismissedâ is not the same as âwe think it does do thisâ
Itâs a double negative, its âwe dont not think it causes itâ, but waaaaay more study is needed.
Serum Concentrations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Risk of Renal Cell CarcinomaActually is a new one for me, I havent seen this one, and it does look much more compelling than the other smaller studies, this one is more concerning than the others.The Panel determined in 2012 there was a âprobable linkâ (i.e., more probable than not based on the weight of the available scientific evidence)
Fourth link is a lot of nothing, why did you bother linking it? It just discusses other studies but doesnt add anything new of substance.
Fifth link is pretty sketchy, theres many other variables that also associate, and they didnt even find a link between specifically PFOS anyways
while no significant association was observed for PFOS (OR = 1.14; 95% CI 0.98-1.34; P = 0.09)
Its important to note that every single one of these studies is empirical post exposure which means many other associated variables can also contribute.
People with low PFAS vs high PFAS exposure almost undoubtedly are also exposed to many other things⌠like pollution in general
Itâs borderline impossible to actually separate out PFAS levels from these other entangled variables, people who are heavily exposed to 1 type of pollution will also be exposed to many others, and theres a heavy association between living situation and PFAS exposure.
That is why its so damn hard to get any conclusive proof on this, the only way to truly figure it out would be to purposefully administer PFAS to people intentionally in a controlled environment, to try and separate out variables.
The relationships that do show up are all very tenuous, and could easily be also explained by the dozens of other variables, so thats why you keep seeing the wording of âmay contributeâ or ârequires further studyâ or âassociated withâ
pulsewidth@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
Your comment cherry picks the weakest language of the Wikipedia article and studies and ignores the rest. Youâll struggle to find any reputable study anywhere that says âour study proves that X does Yâ like youâre asking, because thats not how studies language is conveyed and would be incorrect language to use in a medical study. When 20 studies all say âwe have shown a strong correlation between cigarette consumption and cancer of the throat, mouth, and lungsâ then you will hear scientists say âthe link between cancer and cigarettes is known, and well studiedâ and news articles will say âcigarettes cause cancerâ.
Your suggestion that the only way weâd know for sure is human trials of intentional PFOA exposure is⌠Iâm gonna be generous and say⌠naieve. Scientists are perfectly fine with using lab, mouse, and emprical cross-sectional studies - thatâs all valid scientific evidence. They donât actually need to take the final Dr Mengele step of subjecting people directly to suspected toxins before they can already draw highly accurate conclusions, especially for something like PFOA that has large sections of the population with high dosages that they can compare against those with low dosages already.
Itâs borderline impossible to actually separate out PFAS levels from these other entangled variables, people who are heavily exposed to 1 type of pollution will also be exposed to many others, and theres a heavy association between living situation and PFAS exposure.
Not true. Just one example, we have many population groups that live in areas where groundwater is used for drinking that also live near a firefighting training base/station that has released huge amounts of PFOAs into the aquifers. These populations are otherwise quite normally distributed for age/weight/health/occupation and exposure to other chemicals and perfect for study of PFOAs and have been shown in studies to have much higher levels in their blood serum.
Itâs fine though - if you wanna sprikle PFOA on your cereal or something until 100 more studies are done, I canât stop you. But just know that your tendency to cherry pick data and your unconventional assessment methods of studies is giving you a very poorly informed choice.
pixxelkick@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
Just one example, we have many population groups that live in areas where groundwater is used for drinking that also live near a firefighting training base/station that has released huge amounts of PFOAs into the aquifers
Crazy as it sounds but living next to a firefighting training station still biases you towards certain living conditions
Scientists are perfectly fine with using lab, mouse, and emprical cross-sectional studies - thatâs all valid scientific evidence.
Yeah obviously, but thatâs still evidence, not proof, I used the word proce there intentionally.
Iâm not suggesting they actually do it, Iâm calling out people that take a bunch of very good evidence and then treat it like itâs proof. Thatâs all
And Iâve been using the words proof/prove this whole time.
Thereâs lots of evidence, but thereâs not enough yet to do more than draw an interesting corollation.
But thereâs definitely no proof and click bait videos that word it as such are trash
Thats what I am addressing, numties taking this evidence and running off with it to spread disinformation framing it as proof via their choice of words.
Jesus. Fucking. Christ. People need to learn to read.
Iâm not sitting here saying PFAS dont cause issues
Iâm sitting here calling out clickbait youtubers who frame evidence as proof via poor wording to incite people
God fucking damnit I hate how much people on the internet are so focused on bring right they wonât even read what you write properly just so they can find things to pick a fight over. Fuck off lol
arin@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
Even watching a video is too hard for you, poor baby
pixxelkick@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
No, I watched it, and the end result is a lot of hyperbole.