Comment on We poisoned the whole planet so our eggs wouldn't stick to the pan đ
pixxelkick@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨days⊠agoit 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 Carcinoma Actually 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¨2⊠â¨days⊠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.
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¨1⊠â¨day⊠ago
Crazy as it sounds but living next to a firefighting training station still biases you towards certain living conditions
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
pulsewidth@lemmy.world â¨19⊠â¨hours⊠ago
You mean like someone going uhmm acktually itâs not technically a poison, I wish people wouldnât complain about a substance poisoning people when thereâs no evidence itâs poison attempting to make a fairly pointless pedandic statement, while also being confidently incorrect?