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

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#161

Post by groundzeros2015 »

OutOfHere wrote: post #154
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What? How can it possibly talk about the decision without the risks? It doesn’t even refer to a source where I can learn more.

Did you ask the LLM about your claim that no level was safe?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#162

Post by bumby »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #142
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out it's easier to make conspiracies than effective policy. Who knew?

The moment MTG was elected and I realized that the “true believers” were getting into Congress I knew it was going to get rough.

Competence and conscientiousness are the ideal traits but I think I’d tend to prefer “true believers” over “inauthentic charlatans”.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#163

Post by BenjiWiebe »

maxweylandt wrote: post #8
seethishat wrote: post #4

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.

Do blook banks have a way of filtering out PFAS? Or are we giving each other forever chemicals through blood donations?

I think people getting blood usually have lost a bunch of their own first. And blood isn't usually given just for fun, it's to save their lives, i.e. PFAS isn't a huge concern at that point.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#164

Post by haussman »

dang wrote: post #146
haussman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're getting flagged (at least in part) because your comments are breaking the site guidelines. For example: > You got tricked [...] You need to do deeper research and not get manipulated by the first article you read. That crosses into personal attack and flamewar. Since you thought you were posting respectfully, I assume that is your intention, but there's a big gap here between intention and effect. The burden i…

Ah I see, so you support when minority opinions are flagged and silenced. Good job creating an echo chamber that supports your own ideology dang.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#165

Post by DANmode »

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_...

So get routine bloodwork done?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#166

Post by dang »

haussman wrote: post #164
dang wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting flagged (at least in part) because your comments are breaking the site guidelines. For example: > You got tricked [...] You need to do deeper research and not get manipulated by the first article you read. That crosses into personal attack and flamewar. Since you thought you were posting respectfully, I assume that is your intention, but there's a big gap here between intention and effect. The burden i…

Ah I see, so you support when minority opinions are flagged and silenced. Good job creating an echo chamber that supports your own ideology dang.

Quite the opposite - I've been trying for years to help users with minority views get a fair hearing on this site. The reason they get flagged is because they tend to break the site guidelines, often very badly. I can understand the reasons for this and sympathize, but we can't exempt them from the rules when they do that.

Speaking of the site guidelines, "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#167

Post by maerF0x0 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #68
maerF0x0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have more unprotected, regrettable sex during travel and vacations, so maybe they're on to something?

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

should test? As in test the blood? Or test the hypothesis?

if the latter I'm not sure it's enough of a stretch to say unprotected, hi-risk, promiscuity is a risk factor for blood borne illness like HIV? (Such that we need to research it separately)

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#168

Post by Ferret7446 »

jolmg wrote: post #151
tristor wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

Reality is discriminatory. Discriminating between blood containing disease vs blood that doesn't is, quite literally, discriminatory.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#169

Post by tristor »

OutOfHere wrote: post #157
tristor wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 kn…

> 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.

I never made any such assertion. I left out the word "my" to make the fact that I was only referring to my own knowledge explicit, which should have been implicitly understood as we /all/ operate from the limits of our own knowledge, all of the time. Once again, you are taking an uncharitable read of my comments even after I've explicitly clarified my intent to be helpful to others. You should disengage from this comment thread and I think it's impossible for us to have a productive conversation if your prior is that I'm an arrogant asshole, despite the fact I'm freely giving of what I do know to help other people. Be better.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#170

Post by [deleted] »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #168
jolmg wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

Reality is discriminatory. Discriminating between blood containing disease vs blood that doesn't is, quite literally, discriminatory.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN