Comment

Comment on We poisoned the whole planet so our eggs wouldn't stick to the pan 🙃

… 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 “inconclusive, needs further study” stuff published time and time again.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Coreidan@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
It took me 5 minutes to find this.

www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/4/573

source
- pixxelkick@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  You clearly didn’t read it, it’s just a giant metastudy gathering up tonnes of research but it’s basically just a shotgun paper covering all the “maybes” that have been highlighted
  
  It cites dozens and dozens of papers, most of which highlight “maybe possibly potentially PFAS levels corrolate with (insert health effect here)”
  
  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
  
  xkcd.com/882/
  
  source
  - Coreidan@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    You sound like the people that will argue that climate change is made up by China or some silly bullshit like that. Rejecting all data with claims that it’s fake.
    
    People like you aren’t worth the time.
    
    source
    pixxelkick@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    No.
    
    There’s a huge difference between rejecting data and just pointing out that nearly every single study is too small and underfunded and nearly every one of them is preliminary.
    
    There’s a reason all these papers are careful to say stuff like “more research is needed”
    
    The goal of science is to try and prove the negative
    
    You never actually can sufficiently prove your goal, but you can disprove other possibilities to narrow alternative reasons down until you get as close as possible to your outcome being the only remaining reason left.
    
    This has not been achieved with PFAS studies yet simply due to a lack of time and quantity. Most of these studies are either too small, or too specific to do anything more than conclude “well, this definitely is interesting and should be investigated more”
    
    Because proving it actually for sure does something is incredibly challenging, because there’s thousands of other variables at play, and many of the studied symptoms don’t display massive magnitudes in change.
    
    Not enough to be very certain that they aren’t being caused by some other factor that pairs up with PFAS exposure.
    
    For example, PFAS exposure also will correlate with other possible exposures to pollutants simultaneously for the same reason you got exposed to PFAS.
    
    Air pollution levels also correlate, once again, same reason.
    
    It’s devilishly challenging when the people with above average PFAS exposure also are getting exposed to other pollutants to then narrow down to just PFAS being the cause. It could be the wrong chemical causing issues… or ot could be 100% the cause.
    
    It’s not like Asbestos where we could find villages with clean drinking water and air quality with zero other concerns that had huge issues due to being downwind of a mine.
    
    If they managed to find a large group of people downstream of a plant that only dumped PFAS in the water and not other pollutants too, you’d be in business.
    
    But that isn’t a thing, they dump all manner of shit in there with the PFAS, so can you see how that fucks up the numbers?
    
    source