131–140 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's the having of an infectious blood borne thing that disqualifies you.
m-m sex is still disqualifying even if all parties are completely clean and safe. it's discriminatory.
12-15% of gay men in the US have HIV.
The rules exist for a very real reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
whataboutism is a tiresome argument. Lets agree that these folks are wrong and ideally they should have petitioned 12 years ago. The question to ask is - for an admin which loudly claims to make America healthy again and talk about making everything chemical free etc - why can't they pass this? Is it because they can't score brownie points with base or they are overtly corrupt and do the same thing they accuse others…
In any economy, there is a slider you can move to make tradeoffs between environmental protection and ease of doing business. The parties openly campaign on moving the slider in one direction or the other. Regulating PFAS would have a major economic impact, because they're in everything. So it's not a surprise that the folks who favor moving the slider more to the ease-of-business side would be opposed to stringent r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there are a few things you can do. In rough priority / proven benefit order: 1. Eliminate as many items as possible from your diet that make use of PFAS based components, such as plastic linings. This means don't buy groceries packaged in lined packaging, this means don't cook with Teflon pans, and it means don't drink water from plastic bottles or bottles lines with plastic. 2. Get a whole-home water filtration…
You missed a few: 1. Don't eat out where they might have used PFAS coated nonstick cookware such as Teflon. It is not sufficient to avoid it at home. 2. Don't use conventional dental floss as it's made of PFAS. Find ones that aren't. 3. Intake substantial supplemental fiber daily, e.g. psyllium, as it binds to bile which binds and excretes a subset of PFAS. 4. Strongly prefer certified Organic foods as these don't us…
Definitely switch to waxed string floss vs plastic floss made from Teflon. I wasn't aware of the fiber connection, would love to see a study here.
> You completely confuse plastics and linings with PFAS. They're not the same. Linings can contain bisphenols but that doesn't imply PFAS.
I don't confuse anything. Tin cans, soda cans, and other non-plastic packaging is lined with PTFE (e.g. Teflon, made from PFAS) and contains residual PFAS that leach into the food products. One of the most common non-metallic, non-traditional plastic food packaging is Tetra Pak which is entirely constructed from PTFE. Many paper packaging products are coated with an aerosol applied DWR coating which is entirely made from PFAS, which is even worse than DWR coatings on clothing for exposure. This is especially common in paper take-out containers. Microplastics and plasticizer leaching are a separate but also problematic issue, and luckily you can kinda kill two birds with one stone by making these lifestyle changes. Due to the water propellant and flow properties and easy aerosolization of PFAS derived coatings and liners they have quietly pervaded nearly every aspect of the product packaging industry, so it's not just "plastics", it /is/ PFAS.
> What's up with the haughty arrogance? It is both unjustified and wrong.
I don't know what you mean? I provided a helpful reply to the GPs question, and I pointed out the limits of current knowledge. There's no arrogance or haughtiness here. What's with the overly defensive and uncharitable response?
I'm not an expert here, but I care about this issue deeply and I track what I've spent to try to reduce my own family's exposure, and it's not insignificant. Beyond the up front and ongoing costs of things like filtration systems, there's a cost difference today between products which are packaged cleanly and those that are packaged in a way which cause exposure. It ballpark costs me somewhere around $40k/yr to minimize exposure, and I'm absolutely certain that the steps we've taken are still insufficient. I can't even imagine how the average person is supposed to avoid the health implications of exposure. We've allowed some of the largest corporations to poison our water and food supply with no repercussions and the full complicity of our own government. We're "cooked" in the terms kids use these days. Good luck to you all.
Doing whole blood donations seems to significantly reduce PFAS in the blood. Here's one paper: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... Edit: This also helps others who are in accidents, car wrecks, have Cancer, etc. Yes, we pass on the PFAS to others, but the immediate need for blood is more urgent than the potential long term impacts of PFAS.
Bloodletting making a comeback? And having actual benefits this time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bloodletting making a comeback? And having actual benefits this time?
There's kinda a significant difference between bloodletting and blood donation. For starters, you're not supposed to donate blood when you're sick. The other being the quantity. A donation is 1-2 pints. Wikipedia lists bloodletting as easily 3 pints [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting#Use_in_the_1600s_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In any economy, there is a slider you can move to make tradeoffs between environmental protection and ease of doing business. The parties openly campaign on moving the slider in one direction or the other. Regulating PFAS would have a major economic impact, because they're in everything. So it's not a surprise that the folks who favor moving the slider more to the ease-of-business side would be opposed to stringent r…
Congress mandated the FDA for a particular mission and the president is obligated to execute on that mission. He clearly failed, so there needs to be a way to recall the president.
Doing whole blood donations seems to significantly reduce PFAS in the blood. Here's one paper: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... Edit: This also helps others who are in accidents, car wrecks, have Cancer, etc. Yes, we pass on the PFAS to others, but the immediate need for blood is more urgent than the potential long term impacts of PFAS.
My girlfriend accidentally told the donation center she went to Mexico, and they banned her from donating for four years. Apparently you'd only go to Mexico to eat brain tacos and share needles with cows. Surely there's a better way to filter out risky blood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In any economy, there is a slider you can move to make tradeoffs between environmental protection and ease of doing business. The parties openly campaign on moving the slider in one direction or the other. Regulating PFAS would have a major economic impact, because they're in everything. So it's not a surprise that the folks who favor moving the slider more to the ease-of-business side would be opposed to stringent r…
Congress mandated the FDA for a particular mission and the president is obligated to execute on that mission. He clearly failed, so there needs to be a way to recall the president.
Like, Richard Nixon didn’t create an EPA that was going to pursue maximalist environmentalist goals no matter who was elected President. Nobody thought that when the EPA was created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A life saving blood transfusion or avoid forever chemicals likely already in my body, hmmm what to choose...
But does it have to be one or the other? Or is there some possibility of somehow removing the PFAS from donated blood?