this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
495 points (97.7% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

12190 readers
489 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
495
We poisoned the whole planet so our eggs wouldn't stick to the pan πŸ™ƒ (youtu.be)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It seems I shouldn't have posted this without context

TL;DW

  • yes the video is (at least partially) about Teflon, hence the cynical title

  • no, Teflon (or generally big Fluoropolymers) are not the problem. Ingesting them does nothing to you, because as long, chemically inert polymers they just pass through you from one end to the other

  • The problem are perfluoroalkyl acids: C8 (PFOA) and later substitutes such as C6/GenX, PFOS, PFHA, PFHxS which are chemicals used to start the Teflon polymerization. They are short-chained carbon-fluorine molecules that coincidentally mimic the structure of fatty acids, thus can accumulate in our bodies without a way for our bodies to break them down.

  • These chemicals leach into the environment from factories and accumulate in everything, to the point that the whole water cycle has been contaminated (yes that shit comes down everywhere with the rain)

  • There is conclusive proof that PFOA exposure is linked to a number of organ damage and cancers, particularly testicular cancer and kidney cancer, with likely links to lung and pancreatic cancer not reflected in the study due to survivor bias (they died before the study was concluded)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

it states that the indirect genotoxic (and thus carcinogenic) potential of PFOA cannot be dismissed

Its important to understand that "cannot be dismissed" is not the same as "we think it does do this"

It's a double negative, its "we dont not think it causes it", 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 'probable link' (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

It's 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 "may contribute" or "requires further study" or "associated with"

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Your comment cherry picks the weakest language of the Wikipedia article and studies and ignores the rest. You'll struggle to find any reputable study anywhere that says "our study proves that X does Y" like you're 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 "we have shown a strong correlation between cigarette consumption and cancer of the throat, mouth, and lungs" then you will hear scientists say "the link between cancer and cigarettes is known, and well studied" and news articles will say "cigarettes cause cancer".

Your suggestion that the only way we'd know for sure is human trials of intentional PFOA exposure is.. I'm gonna be generous and say.. naieve. Scientists are perfectly fine with using lab, mouse, and emprical cross-sectional studies - that's all valid scientific evidence. They don't actually need to take the final Dr Mengele step of subjecting people directly to suspected toxins before they can 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.

It's 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.

It's fine though - if you wanna sprikle PFOA on your cereal or something until 100 more studies are done, I can't 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 -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 - that’s all valid scientific evidence.

Yeah obviously, but that's still evidence, not proof, I used the word proce there intentionally.

I'm not suggesting they actually do it, I'm calling out people that take a bunch of very good evidence and then treat it like it's proof. That's all

And I've been using the words proof/prove this whole time.

There's lots of evidence, but there's not enough yet to do more than draw an interesting corollation.

But there's 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.

I'm not sitting here saying PFAS dont cause issues

I'm 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 won't even read what you write properly just so they can find things to pick a fight over. Fuck off lol

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

God fucking damnit I hate how much people on the internet are so focused on bring right they won't even read what you write properly just so they can find things to pick a fight over. Fuck off lol

You mean like someone going uhmm acktually it's not technically a poison, I wish people wouldn't complain about a substance poisoning people when there's no evidence it's poison attempting to make a fairly pointless pedandic statement, while also being confidently incorrect?