Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling

#71

Post by potiuper »

sigzero wrote: post #50

I am affected by the Camp LeJeune water issue. I have cancer because of it. I am on my appeal process with the VA over it. It sucks and it's still going to be a long fight.

Camp Lejeune is more known for cheap dry cleaners using PERC and dumping it rather than perfluorinated contaminants https://psmag.com/environment/what-happened-at-camp-lejeune. https://www.popsci.com/dry-cleaning-chemicals points out newer water-detergent machines, but states they cost $40~80k. Best cheap solution has been to use hydrocarbon solvents and incinerate the waste. I do not know of any list of dry cleaners that do so.

Re: Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling

#74

Post by mindslight »

orf wrote: post #69
mindslight wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you're responding to is a decade-long HN commenter. Currently, her comment is sitting at [dead]. I myself don't necessarily agree with her chain of implications, but it was her journey. This isn't directly solely at your comment (but I can't respond to the top one directly, as it's dead) - When you latch on to it simply to beat the anti-anti-vax dead horse, you're doing everyone a disservice. IMHO if you w…

The fact it is sitting at [dead] has nothing to do with my comment and the length of her time here on HN bears no relevance to this discussion. I fail to see why you can latch onto that fallacy and try to beat me with it as if it is my fault that her comment has been flagged. If it helps you sleep at night I have vouched for her comment as I don't think it should be flagged. If you would take the time to re-read my o…

> the length of her time here on HN bears no relevance to this discussion

It's directly germane to my larger point about the results of eschewing personal standing.

> lambaste me for the ills you perceive, which is a bit ironic given the content of your message

From your earlier comment:

> So yes, we can absolutely be happy they are being demonitized

The difference is that you are starting to go on the group-offensive, celebrating the winning against one flavor of Youtube nutter.

The original comment did tangentially bring up anti-vax, yes. But my point is we should aim to tolerate that, as it's tangential. Focusing on that single aspect then either results into re-arguing whether the censorship is good (which can only go more meta, because obviously the immediate anti-vax phenomenon itself is bad), or simply left to sit and form a tacit consensus that censorship is worthwhile.

(I apologize for having focused on you by virtue of you being the only commenter, and good on you for vouching - directly opposing the main symptom).

Re: Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling

#75

Post by DoreenMichele »

orf wrote: post #69
mindslight wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you're responding to is a decade-long HN commenter. Currently, her comment is sitting at [dead]. I myself don't necessarily agree with her chain of implications, but it was her journey. This isn't directly solely at your comment (but I can't respond to the top one directly, as it's dead) - When you latch on to it simply to beat the anti-anti-vax dead horse, you're doing everyone a disservice. IMHO if you w…

The fact it is sitting at [dead] has nothing to do with my comment and the length of her time here on HN bears no relevance to this discussion. I fail to see why you can latch onto that fallacy and try to beat me with it as if it is my fault that her comment has been flagged. If it helps you sleep at night I have vouched for her comment as I don't think it should be flagged. If you would take the time to re-read my o…

I didn't bother to reply to your original comment because I agree with mindslight's criticisms of it. I will reply here. Thank you for vouching for my comment.

Seems your condition is very different from that of a newborn baby with an under developed and fragile immune system

I'm going to guess you have no idea what my condition is, or didn't when you left that remark. I'm quite open about my diagnosis, while trying to not state the diagnosis too frequently because that tends to be drama, yet it is easily found if one wishes to find it.

The assumption that my condition is very different from that of a newborn baby with an under developed and fragile immune system is very much in error. I have a genetic disorder that causes me to have a permanently impaired immune system. Standard treatment for it involves lots of vaccines and other strong drugs.

I have gradually gotten better in part because I concluded that such a harsh approach may win the battle, but lose the war because the body is the battlefield. So when you bombard it perpetually with strong medications, you leave it a shelled out husk.

Then doctors take credit for winning the latest battle against your latest infection by prescribing you such harsh drugs. When you die young, they don't take the blame for that (never mind the multi-page foldout warning you of possible harmful side effects for such drugs, especially when used frequently over a long period of time). Instead, they blame it on your genes when it comes to people like me.

I fundamentally disagree with this current foundational tenet of Western medicine.

Re: Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling

#76

Post by coryrc »

amelius wrote: post #68
apo wrote: post #40

Blood testing has emerged as a sticking point. Specifically, a growing movement of veterans and others, united in advocacy groups with names like Fountain Valley Clean Water Coalition and Need Our Water, are asking the military test their blood for the chemicals, hoping to bring results to their doctors or use them in lawsuits. Strange that the article is being so cagey about why this might be the case. Every human b…

That's a nice explanation. But what I don't get is: if the chemical is highly inert that means it doesn't react easily with other substances, so how then can it be carcinogenic?

Something doesn't need to react to influence the environment; it can act as a catalyst, cause damage physically, or bring smaller things with it pass defenses.

Re: Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling

#77

Post by potiuper »

gumby wrote: post #65

Are US military bases overseas doing the same to other countries?

If jet fuel is stored on base, then it is part of the standard fire suppression operating procedure. https://www.afcec.af.mil/WhatWeDo/Environment/Perfluorinated... I cannot fault that given the cost of the jets, but if they use any fire retardants and a good job of cleaning any mess up is not done, then the users need to be given a stern talking to as everyone will be drinking the stuff in a few years.

Re: Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling

#78

Post by alexandercrohde »

sigzero wrote: post #50

I am affected by the Camp LeJeune water issue. I have cancer because of it. I am on my appeal process with the VA over it. It sucks and it's still going to be a long fight.

Sorry, to hear that, good luck, and I'm very glad you're sharing your story. It makes things more real for people and matters a lot.

Re: Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling

#79

Post by cell_death »

amelius wrote: post #68
apo wrote: post #40

Blood testing has emerged as a sticking point. Specifically, a growing movement of veterans and others, united in advocacy groups with names like Fountain Valley Clean Water Coalition and Need Our Water, are asking the military test their blood for the chemicals, hoping to bring results to their doctors or use them in lawsuits. Strange that the article is being so cagey about why this might be the case. Every human b…

That's a nice explanation. But what I don't get is: if the chemical is highly inert that means it doesn't react easily with other substances, so how then can it be carcinogenic?

Anything that promotes cell death, and/or division it probably carcinogenic.

Figure cellular membranes are sensitive to intracellular volume, ergo, pack a cell with inert space filling molecules that never leave, and are not evacuated, and the cell splits more readily, faster than usual.

Also, because it doesn't react, it probably creates obstacles and cytoplasmic traffic jams, as objects traverse the endoplasmic reticulum, if timing is thrown off for critical functions, the cell probably dies, due to improperly tuned pathways that don't signal each other properly, leading to flame-outs, stalls and caustic burns or wasted energy inside the cell.

Re: Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling

#80

Post by Spooky23 »

apo wrote: post #40

Blood testing has emerged as a sticking point. Specifically, a growing movement of veterans and others, united in advocacy groups with names like Fountain Valley Clean Water Coalition and Need Our Water, are asking the military test their blood for the chemicals, hoping to bring results to their doctors or use them in lawsuits. Strange that the article is being so cagey about why this might be the case. Every human b…

The military has a long history of dumping toxic crap and handling substances with at best negligence.
Post reply on HN