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

Post by adamsea » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

rjf72 wrote: post #84

caseymarquis wrote: post #10

I wonder if there's a way to democratize inexpensive health testing and see these trends faster? Imagine a world where you're testing your blood/sweat/saliva/vitals daily and semi-anonymously sending the results to be analysed using statistical methods. A doctor can give you a one time use current diagnoses voucher to add into the system for serious diseases. The whole thing is voluntary. There's definitely some dyst…

There's one general point that has to always be considered in these sort of ideas. Resources are not infinite. Of course you realize this, but I think we who come from the software world can fail to appreciate how severely restricting a problem this actually is. There are 325 million people in the US. Let's imagine a very high participation rate and just exclude infants and some outliers, just so see what would happe…

Post by JohnJamesRambo » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 9:36 PM UTC

gorilla_fight wrote: post #37

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that is a common myth. Food has plenty of minerals etc compared to what you get via tap water. https://www.healthline.com/health/can-you-drink-distilled-wa...

From the very article you linked to: "Because it doesn’t contain its own minerals, distilled water has a tendency to pull them from whatever it touches to maintain a balance. So when you drink distilled water, _it may pull small amounts of minerals from your body, including from your teeth._" How does this contradict lr4444lr's claim "drinking distilled water in significant quantities remove important minerals from y…

Post by Para2016 » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #18

I was a military wife for a lot of years. I have very serious health problems. Doctors officially blame that on my genes, which can't be changed, so it's a de facto means to throw their hands in the air and call me unfixable. I think environmental factors are a big part of the problem and that those can be addressed. I lived on a military base for 2.75 years where there was one tap in the house labeled "potable water…

Post by roywiggins » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #89

amelius wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It doesn't react chemically but is useful for its physical properties, which means it does influence the environment it's in in that manner. I wouldn't rule it out as carcinogenic because it's mostly chemically inert because of the same reasoning, namely that there are other ways it may change the environment than chemically.

Post by riahi » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #97

kbenson wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't react chemically but is useful for its physical properties, which means it does influence the environment it's in in that manner. I wouldn't rule it out as carcinogenic because it's mostly chemically inert because of the same reasoning, namely that there are other ways it may change the environment than chemically.

Asbestos causes cancer like this, more or less, I think. It's not like silica is inherently toxic.