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

FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 175 posts

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#151

Post by jolmg »

tristor wrote: post #106
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like something you should test rather that just rely on heuristics

Heuristics work, why would you not rely on heuristics?

Generally, because they're discriminatory. It's like how racial profiling in law enforcement can be a heuristic that can work. Though, in the case of blood donations, it seems that tests aren't accurate enough to be able to rely solely on them. Also, being discriminated against on being able to donate blood is not as big of a deal. Though in some places with public health systems, stuff like getting a surgery may somewhat depend on you and family/friends donating a certain amount of blood.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#152

Post by maerF0x0 »

llm_nerd wrote: post #117
maerF0x0 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on his push ups and chinups, i hoped there would be a national mandate of exercise for children aka recess and gym class. I'm not usually classified as "incredibly stupid" so your comment is off tone and not aligned with HN's standards of conversation.

I made an objective statement of fact. RFK Jr. has clearly been a dangerously misinformed clown for years, loosely holding a plethora of opinions straight from the dumbest parts of YouTube/Twitter. I cannot fathom the thought process of someone who would think "oh he is a nutritional nightmare, sounds like the high-school dropout uncle who gets all of his information from chiropractors on YouTube, but he does a coupl…

calling people you do not know anything about "incredibly stupid" is not objective fact, and the reason your post was flagged.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#153

Post by andrekandre »

bijection wrote: post #103

Short of frequent blood donation, is there any reasonably adoptable life change a person can make to meaningfully reduce expected PFAS intake, or is it best to try not to think about it?

i've heard some water filters can take out pfass, and a lot of it comes from food containers (i guess takeout items etc) and non-stick cookware, water-proof clothes [0] so probably good idea to avoid those...

[0] https://www.greenmatters.com/living/list-of-products-with-pf...

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#154

Post by OutOfHere »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #149
OutOfHere wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it is scary and harmful. Since it accumulates in the body, the safe level is zero. Do you work for the chemical industry?

> the safe level is zero. This is not true of any substance. > Well it is scary and harmful Well that narrative certainly came through. The facts supporting it did not. > Do you work for the chemical industry? No. Do you? Does this invalidate that the article did not use the opportunity to inform me?

The article has no responsibility of explaining to you why PFAS is harmful, considering its harms are well established in science over many years. Your denialism and ignorance of the harms of PFAS is a malicious attempt to discredit the article. I suggest asking your preferred LLM service with access to the web to find you the necessary evidence.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#155

Post by OutOfHere »

mech998877 wrote: post #132

I wonder how much teflon wears off the die into the spaghetti on pasta extrusion machines.

I don't know why people eat pasta, considering bulgur wheat is pretty good, is easy to cook, also cooks in the microwave, and is much less processed. I like bulgur wheat a fair bit.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#157

Post by OutOfHere »

tristor wrote: post #134
OutOfHere wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yep, I didn't mention that regarding RO, but any properly designed system will include remineralization as a final filtration stage to buffer the water. 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 d…

> I pointed out the limits of current knowledge.

No, you painted your knowledge as being comprehensive, which is absurd for anyone to claim. The arrogance is in asserting one’s personal knowledge as being absolute and complete. It is exactly such arrogance that has brought us to where we are. You obviously mean well for yourself and others, but understand that basic humility of knowledge is more important than the knowledge.

> any properly designed system will include remineralization

The quality of the remineralization can be quite poor. It may raise the pH without adding much minerals or even buffering capacity. Let me distinctly quantify the residual concerns of the RO output as: pH, bicarbonate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, and silica. All six are important. One has to be savvy enough to take steps to address each, failing which the RO water is not healthful.

> It ballpark costs me somewhere around $40k/yr to minimize exposure

Why so much? Where is the money going? Is it going on exclusively Organic food for a family of three?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#158

Post by 486sx33 »

Duwensatzaj wrote: post #131
smcg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

m-m sex is still disqualifying even if all parties are completely clean and safe. it's discriminatory.

0.4% of the US population has HIV. 12-15% of gay men in the US have HIV. The rules exist for a very real reason.

[dead]

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#159

Post by fragmede »

vablings wrote: post #57
seethishat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes... travel, tattoos, drug use and sexual behavior can and should disqualify a person from donating blood.

All of these things can mostly be tested. When I donated regularly in the UK after being in the southern US, they screen me for west nile virus but still take my blood and use it.

The UK had mad cow eons ago, and that's still a risk factor for giving blood in some places.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#160

Post by dumbmrblah »

lesuorac wrote: post #61
SoftTalker wrote: post #47

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_...

I really love the pedantry, thanks for the laugh
Post reply on HN