Live data from Hacker News

U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

reuters.com

311–320 of 413 posts

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#311
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Democracy is mostly a facade in the US anyway. But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or exi…

> But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' I disagree, and I think you need to take a look at three sets of poll results to understand why. (For all the poll results, keep in mind that voters skew more conservative than the overall population.) 1) A recent Gallup poll shows that the vast majority of Americans prefer…

Related podcast on free market healthcare in the US (Oklahoma Surgical Center) - which publishes prices online and hasn't raised them in 20 years:

http://www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-ca...

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#312

Meanwhile, these same PFAS chemicals are sprayed liberally onto the surface of clothing that we all wear, and increasingly furniture as well, and this may account for far more human PFAS consumption than drinking water. PFAS chemicals are widely used for waterproofing fabrics. The industry term is DWR -- Durable Water Repellent. The chemicals are sprayed onto the surface and simply left there to rub off on your hands…

> As of 2019, only one large outdoor clothing company has abandoned PFC-based DWR finishes. Which one?

https://sectionhiker.com/why-does-dwr-suck/ mentions

- Nikwax (all products) - Sciessent Curb

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gore-tex is PTFE, also known as Teflon, which is a flurocarbon. Several of the waste products or reactants for making Teflon are in the same category as DWR products, and are basically toxic forever. There's not much you can do if you need fabrics with these properties, you just need to pick you poison.

Add for clarity: Goretex (like all modern waterproof-breathable products) is a system, which includes a PTFE membrane, as well as a DWR coating. The fabric is not breathable without the DWR coating, as it will "wet out."

Breathability is as much a marketing feature as it is a useful property of these garments/fabrics. Do they work well in cold/dry conditions? Yes! Do they work well in warm humid conditions (i.e. your average North America. Rainy day)? Not so much.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As of 2019, only one large outdoor clothing company has abandoned PFC-based DWR finishes. Which one?

Paramo. There may a couple other smaller ones too. I haven't looked in a while.

Isn’t Paramo unique in that their garments are intended to keep you comfortable (while damp) rather than a typical DWR costed shell that is intended to keep you dry?

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow I had no idea. Here's a link that talks about makers of outdoor gear and their relationship with DWR. http://www.detox-outdoor.org/ It doesn't look like there is a lot of choice. Maybe I'll just stay wet :)

The whole breathable/gore-tex thing is overrated as they all rely on liberal use of DWR chemicals that tend to be waterproof only for a while. So regular retreatment, which never seems to be as good, or acceptance of wetness is needed. :) I'm surprised to see Patagonia in the worst of that site's categories, considering their stance on sustainability.

Gore-tex (at least the heavy 'classic' kind) doesn't have any refreshable coating. Its an inner layer of moisture wicking mesh, stuck to a thin rubbery ptfe membrane of some sort and an outer very abrasion resistant layer which is hydrophobic when clean. It can be boil washed and special treatments are advised against. It is very waterproof while surprisingly breathable.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the Jews have something valuable to say about tyranny of the masses.

Exactly the opposite! For one, Germany too had a representative system and elites governing. So what happened there wasn't some issue with "direct democracy" and tyrannical masses that a representative democracy would stop. Second, even within Germany's non-direct-democracy system, the masses last voted for the various parties in 1933 in iirc, the Holocaust started much later, almost 8 years later. In fact, masses wi…

You're right, that was a bad example.

So let's look at Athenian-style direct democracy. You have the ecclesia, an assembly where any male citizen can vote on proposals and elections (like a more ad-hoc city council meeting and election in one). You have a bureaucracy of 500 randomly selected men who run the city government. Once a year, you can vote to exile any leader for 10 years. Slavery was big business and women had no rights. There were very few elected officials and they were chosen randomly for the highest offices. Think of random people with conflicting, crazy ideas being voted in and out regularly, as judges, as bureaucrats, as heads of state. There was uneven representation because you had to show up regularly to voice your concern, only about a quarter of the people had this time/convenience luxury, and of course most people weren't very educated, so their opinions and positions were often.... dumb. But anyone who was a male citizen could show up and vote on just about anything, and simple majority was the winnter. The assemblies weren't held accountable to themselves, and could vote to break their own laws. Trials lasted one day; arguments were given, and then an immediate vote by the jurors. Out of 1100 citizens chosen by lot to (effectively) govern, 100 were elected. There were age restrictions and short term limits.

It changed over time. Over 300 years they went from having a king to having 3 Presidents who were aristocrats elected every 10 years, to elected every 1 year, to literally assigning the Presidency to a random citizen by lot, with the military overseen by 10 elected generals with varying degrees of social/political power in addition to total military command. If the people didn't like the job they were doing, they'd be voted out, fined, possibly executed. Originally the 500 civil servants were chosen by class, with the highest class (richest) getting the top positions, and the poorest class couldn't be selected; but later they could be selected and even got paid (partly because the "random selection" just happened to represent a lot of rich dudes). Eventually laws were not just things decided by assemblies, but small pools of lot-assigned citizens who decided what the law would be.

Some researchers have suggested that direct democracy like this wouldn't work over a very large area. It can work in towns and cities, and small city-states, but there's just too many factors for it to be practical in a large scale diverse modern nation.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#319

Meanwhile, these same PFAS chemicals are sprayed liberally onto the surface of clothing that we all wear, and increasingly furniture as well, and this may account for far more human PFAS consumption than drinking water. PFAS chemicals are widely used for waterproofing fabrics. The industry term is DWR -- Durable Water Repellent. The chemicals are sprayed onto the surface and simply left there to rub off on your hands…

> surmised (but not proven) to be safer.

In the US legal system we follow innocent until proven guilty for some very valid reasons - but at some point the public consciousness accepted this for regulations as well and harmless until proven harmful is extremely dangerous. New chemical products shouldn't be shrugged off until studies have proven them harmless, instead the onus should be on them to proven themselves harmless before being usable - especially chemicals that can be ingested indirectly by being included in things like pipe liners, shower products, utensil and cookware coatings, jars, adulterated cans and drinking vessels.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#320
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider what happens to your immune system when it detects a foreign particle that it can't get rid of because there's no way to interact with it.

For the most part, what happens is nothing. PTFE is completely biologically inert, which is why it's commonly used in surgical implants and prosthetics. Only the finest particles ( Ingested PTFE passes right through the digestive system unaltered. You can scrape the non-stick coating off of all your pans and eat it, and there will no detectable fluorinated chemicals in your blood. However, if you heat that nonstick p…

Just to clarify, if a large quantity of PTFE particles was introduced into your blood stream are you stating that wouldn't deprive your cells of oxygen? I think you're making some health related claims and assumptions that may be correct in limited circumstances but haven't been sufficiently studied to come to a good conclusion on.
Post reply on HN