The crucial part of this research that is omitted is that the type of PFAS that contact lenses contain are “fluoropolymers”, a subcategory of PFAS that is considered to be less dangerous, and is not the subject of most PFAS regulation. Still potentially harmful, of course, I don’t claim to be an expert on this stuff, but it’s an important point that was left out of the article.
This nuance will never reach public consciousness. Decisions will be made that are a net negative for global health, as the west will scare manufacturing of such materials to unregulated markets.
PFAS is to my generation as leaded gasoline is to the prior generation(s), and asbestos to the ones before them, and so forth from when the first chimneys were put up to spew toxic sludge into our air and rivers at the start of the industrial revolution. There is something so sad, so unworkable, and so deeply troubling about how this kind of thing keeps happening.
I think we're gonna have several asbestos/lead moments in our lifetimes. PFAS, micro plastics, endocrine disruption, I'd also wager marijuana is likely to have its own big tobacco moment eventually, I've heard fruits and vegetables have slowly been losing nutrient density over generations but I have not looked into that yet. There's more nebulous things like the impact of AI or the way we now communicate (or don't co…
Nutrient density in food has decreased due to the switch to synthetic fertilizers used by intensive farming practices. Man-made fertilizers contain only the big three (phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen) nutrients, leading to the slow depletion of micronutrients in the soil. Without an abundance of those other elements, plants cannot incorporate them and the resulting crops will lack them. As a result, modern industrial food contains a fraction of the micronutrients as compared to the same food from a century past, and there has not been a widespread effort to fix the problem.
The level of waste from monthly contact lenses is surely less than a grocery trip where you forget your reusable bags. I wouldn't even consider that aspect personally, they're tiny.
I suppose the way I look at it is that any practical option I have to reduce waste is likely worthwhile, and contacts falls square in that category.
I find that a ridiculous viewpoint.
Contacts are, as addressed, tiny. The amount of waste you generate from these things is almost nothing. I compared to a plastic bag earlier, but just imagine how much shit is wasted on a single private jet flight. Don't torture yourself when the people in position to enact change don't.
Contacts also have an insane value prop. Vision assistance is more of a need than a want in a modern society where one has to work for money.
There's also a risk every time you go outside. Without actual odds of the risk occurring to you, it's a meaningless point. I looked into this 12 years ago when I was debating whether I should get LASIK, and the risk seemed minuscule. I'm sure odds of a bad outcome have gone down even more in that time.
If you already waited 12 years, might as well wait more. What they don’t tell you is your eyes will continue to deteriorate after lasik. You might as well wait for the contact lens with stem cells sewn into it
There might have been a misunderstanding. I meant I got mine done 12 years ago and that's when I was researching the risks. I'm fine with getting them done again after another 15-20 years from now - well worth the money.
"The constant pressure from the nosepads and arms of glasses on your face, has potentially deleterious long-term consequences to the lymphatic channels of the face, resulting in increased incidence of sinus pressure headaches, fibromyalgia, middle-ear infections leading to tinnitus, and potentially even blockages of glymphatic drainage leading to increased likelihood of brain aneurism in old age." ...is the sort of t…
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You can get glasses now and not put PFAS in your eye and have improved vision. Some people don't like wearing glasses and would prefer contacts. Maybe they can make an informed decision between long term discomfort and the very low increased possibility of a future eye disease? People aren't good at long term thinking though.
re laser eye surgery, there was a story pretty recently about the number of post surgery issues being downplayed and under-represented. If you had a full and true picture of the risks then you might avoid laser eye surgery, but people running laser eye surgery clinics don't want you to have all the information.
Many PFAS compounds are toxic at parts per trillion levels. As a chemist I can tell you that it's a big deal, but there is also no way you can avoid exposure. The fact that 3M is exiting their 1.3 billion fluorinated molecule business of their own accord, should give you a flavour of the shitstorm of litigation that will result when the full implications of PFAS contamination are understood more broadly. https://news…
It's also logical to exit the business even if it isn't harmful due to litigation risk and perception. All of that business will be taken up by other manufacturers in APEC and in aggregate the world will be unhealthier due to less regulation.
The legal limit for PFAS in drinking water is 0.07 PPB. But that hides the fact that not all PFAS chemicals are created equal. The EPA limit for PFOS and PFOA and GENx varieties are 1000x lower. I pretty much guarantee you and your family have been massively over exposed to a large number of PFAS and PFAS intermediate degradation products well above the EPA limit.
Almost all not American. Thalidomide was never approved for general use in the United States -- in fact, the FDA rejected it six times. As a result only 17 thalidomide babies were born here. Today, it is used for several conditions, but never in pregnant women, or women who might become pregnant.
Yes. One of the Wikipedia articles I linked above, talks about and has a photo of an official receiving an award from the then US president, from preventing thalidomide from being approved for use in the US (early on).
And yet there were deaths.
So, not only American.
Plus, the article itself says many non-American deaths happened.