61–70 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven safe" That’s about how the EU does it.
How can you prove anything safe without data on its use? Isn't that sort of a chicken and egg problem?
A quick solution is to crack the windows, or if you live in a non-temperate climate, install an energy recovery ventilating system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven safe" That’s about how the EU does it.
Which isn't without issues of its own of course, for example the EU is notoriously backwards on the issue of genetically modified crops which may turn out to be a vital lifeline if climate change causes agricultural collapse. Another example I can think of off the top of my head is the atrociously bad legislation to what was then the new technology of vaping, it came in pre-Brexit just when I was considering quitting…
I don't know if they test for this, but GMOs do run the risk of become invasive or destructive species which could potentially tilt things towards the "devastating famine" side of the equation.
I don't think the ecological concern is what most people worry about when they think GMOs, and I'm not of the mind that GMOs = Bad, but I think we owe it to ourselves to study the ecological impact of GMOs we plan to grow widely.
The problem is not PFAS. It is extreme regulatory capture that got us to the this point. Even if we ban PFAS tomorrow, there are other alternatives that will be used and another 2 decades of lies and cover ups before we find out what harm those chemicals have. Example: look at what happened when BPAs harms became known. Manufacturers switched to using any of the other 40 chemicals in the same bisphenol family (BPS, e…
> from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven safe" That’s about how the EU does it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfluorex
A drug that was highly suspected of killing several hundred to several thousand people stayed on the market for decades.
A similar drug with similar risks was pulled from the US market 24 years earlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have in furnance airflow and also one in bedroom.
I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of filter I can use for my furnace. I've read a little bit about it and it seems that a residential furnace might not be able to handle the HEPA filter due to the higher airflow resistance. Even MERV 13 might already be too high.
If you get a MERV 12 filter with LOTS of filter material, it may flow more air at a lower pressure drop than a MERV 6 filter with minimal filter material. Look for more pleats in the filter or modify (or hire an HVAC contractor to modify) your furnace filter cabinet to accept a thicker filter cartridge.
For reference, in my furnace during an HVAC consultation, we saw the same 0.5 inches of water pressure drop from a cheap 3M Filtrete MERV 7 filter as with a K&N reusable MERV 12 filter. The K&N has MUCH more filter material.
You don't want to restrict the airflow to your furnace any more than is necessary. Most furnaces will have their required maximum pressure drop from the duct work and filter printed on a label inside. You can get a differential pressure meter to measure the actual pressure drops yourself, or hire an HVAC technician to do an audit of your furnace (often they'll do lots of other neat tests and give you lots of data and reports and info, too).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those uninterested in digesting these details, the upshot of this seems to be: Yes. HEPA filters should capture these. Edit: Though perhaps inefficiently. See the replies below.
Hold on, that is very much the opposite of my interpretation. HEPA filters are typically designed with 0.3μm pores this is mostly a legacy of medical applications (i.e. to guarantee they catch bacteria). Submicron performance ( The PFAS is a group of substances, the article is specifically talking about 6:2 FTOH (one of many PFAS substances) that is found in carpets etc. 6:2 FTOH specifically is a sub-micron compound…
HEPA is actually twice as efficient at removing <0.01 micron particles than 0.3 micron.
California law TB117 required fire retardant foam until 2015 so a lot of couches have PFAS. This is an example of creating a problem by trying to avoiding another. Of course, this is not to single out CA as this is a global problem. Could be wrong but it seems like the general rule is that manufacturers are allowed to "experiment in public" when it comes to chemical science. PFAS alternatives are already in the wild…
I don't want flame retardants in my products. I suspect most of these requirements came from the era when a lot more people smoked. Sure, put flame retardants in oven mitts and things that will reasonably catch fire, rather than things like pillowcases. Even still, how common were couch fires 20+ years ago when flame based (non-vaping) smoking was so much more common?
Or make them from densely woven wool. The ignition temperature is higher than all of the common textiles and it does not melt.
See https://iwto.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IWTO_Wool-Fire.p...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven safe" That’s about how the EU does it.
Which isn't without issues of its own of course, for example the EU is notoriously backwards on the issue of genetically modified crops which may turn out to be a vital lifeline if climate change causes agricultural collapse. Another example I can think of off the top of my head is the atrociously bad legislation to what was then the new technology of vaping, it came in pre-Brexit just when I was considering quitting…
The problem is not PFAS. It is extreme regulatory capture that got us to the this point. Even if we ban PFAS tomorrow, there are other alternatives that will be used and another 2 decades of lies and cover ups before we find out what harm those chemicals have. Example: look at what happened when BPAs harms became known. Manufacturers switched to using any of the other 40 chemicals in the same bisphenol family (BPS, e…
Totally agree in principle.
There is one fly in the ointment - it is impossible to prove a negative, such as "X does not exist" or "there is no possible harm from this to any person ever" (water would not meet that standard).
So, this needs to be implemented in such a way as to not completely halt progress.
Should be straightforward to require testing to reasonable standards levels of biological harm to humans and ecology, persistence/degradability, etc. the levels need to be set by NEITHER the industry NOR the perfectionist eco-activists. Finding such a panel will be tricky.
This contributes to the theory that PFAS is affecting ambient obesity rates in the modern world: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/26/a-chemical-hunger-p...
As someone who immigrated from France to the US, it’s pretty obvious why people in the US are obese: people don’t know / don’t have the time to know how to eat properly and eat junk food, all the time, at any hour, and don’t move around. It’s pretty obvious when you realize that there is a lot less overweight people in upper middle class areas.
The upper middle class in USA is fatter than it used to be. Very few people actually lean as opposed to having much less fat. The class disparity is real but not the only explanation.