Live data from Hacker News

Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

science.org

231–239 of 239 posts

Re: Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 40 years ago I boarded my horse with an old cowboy who used DMSO as a horse liniment. He had been using it for years any time one of his mounts was worked pretty hard or when someone brought a lame horse to him. He would rub the joints, calves, and thighs of the horse down good with DMSO for a few days and then they were good to go again. He also used it on his wife. He told me that she had type I diabetes and…

Are you certain it was DMSO and not DMSO2? I ask because quite a few ointments for horses have DMSO2/MSM. I use it on horses with horse specific formulas and on myself in a cream designed for humans called Penetrex .

I can not be 100% certain this far down the road what he used on his horses or his wife but at the time, he told me that it was DMSO. I don't know where he got it but he was well-connected in the horse world.

He had a long career as a wrangler for Hollywood westerns after setting several records himself as a young cowboy in rodeo events as a bronc-buster, calf roper, header/heeler even setting one record in a rodeo at Madison Square Garden. He participated in founding the American Quarter Horse Association. He told me he had trained several actors over the years including a couple from the old TV series Rawhide who had never ridden a horse before that show. He knew Gene Autry, Tom Mix, Roy Rogers and Dale Evans, and worked with them and other western movie stars at one time or another. He knew horses, mules, saddles and tack like the back of his hand and he understood cigars, whiskey, and women intimately as any real man did back then.

My wife uses Penetrex here at home for sore muscles. She claims to get some benefit from it. I was not aware that there were two compounds, DMSO and DMSO2 but we definitely have Penetrex here at home.

It is possible that the product he used back then was DMSO2 if it was widely used in the 60's through 80's in horse liniment. I actually had to look them up to get a feel for the differences between them.

Thanks for asking.

Re: Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why.

Well, if one really wants to taste the subtle tastes of an egg, cooking sans oil does that. By subtle, I mean similar to the difference between veggie oil and olive or canola oil. These all have a distinct taste to me, and I dislike canola enough to notice when it's been used. The egg by itself has flavors that get dominated by the oil flavors. To some people it matters. Simple as that.

Many people abhor chicken fried in canola oil.

Re: Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if one really wants to taste the subtle tastes of an egg, cooking sans oil does that. By subtle, I mean similar to the difference between veggie oil and olive or canola oil. These all have a distinct taste to me, and I dislike canola enough to notice when it's been used. The egg by itself has flavors that get dominated by the oil flavors. To some people it matters. Simple as that.

Many people abhor chicken fried in canola oil.

Great! I can't blame them. It is terrible.

Re: Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

#234
post #224
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's truly such a well established claim it should be trivial to find and link a study actually demonstrating its safety when ingesting small amounts over a large period of time. No such study was linked. Probably because longitudinal studies are extremely rare. It's not a rejection of all research to say that some questions remain unanswered. In fact, I'd say it is the foundation of good science to understand whi…

There are half a dozen studies per year, going back decades, assessing the safety of PTFE in implants. Many of them are longitudinal. Chemists routinely boil PTFE in acids such as hydrochloric and sulfuric for hours without degrading it even slightly; such degradation would contaminate their reactions. I bet you can't find a study demonstrating natural selection in the split-leaf philodendron, either, but that isn't…

The two comment threads are the same discussion so I'm merging my responses.

> I bet you can't find a study demonstrating natural selection in the split-leaf philodendron, either, but that isn't a good reason to go around saying "some questions remain unanswered"

It absolutely is! The criterion for whether a question has been answered is whether that question has actually been asked, studied, and answered. In cases where there is no specific evidence, you attempt to make assumptions that extend existing evidence into spaces that it does not explicitly cover. But these aren't answers; they are educated guesses. Some guesses are better than others, and really the fundemental act of science is feeling out these hypotheses and deciding which ones are sturdy and which are shaky.

So for example consider the claim 'PTFE doesn't affect human health when ingested, because there is strong evidence that is safe in implants and is chemically inert in acids.' This claim relies on two assumptions in the absence of quality direct supporting evidence: (1) Safety in one biological context directly transfers to other biological contexts and (2) Chemically inert compounds cannot affect human health. There is mounting evidence against ~both~ of these assumptions, and so claims based on them should be treated with caution, and probably as warranting further study. This is no witch-hunt, this is simply using critical thinking and available evidence to gauge the validity of assumptions, and updating the validity of claims based on changes in the validity of underlying assumptions. This process ~is~ the scientific method.

> Nanometer-sized pores matter enormously, (...) but not in ways that make other forms of amorphous silica more toxic than silica gel.

Try replacing your morning cheerios with silica gel and let me know the results. The pores in silica gel are specifically interesting because they allow silica to readily form hydrates. The human body has a lot of water in it. There are absolutely health effects that depend on the physical shape of silica in addition to its chemistry compared to say, consuming an equal mass of fully dense quartz particles.

You'd probably have to eat a lot of silica gel to really feel the effects, but there are other more accessible and serious health concerns that are driven by nanometer or smaller physical effects. The reaction between diet coke and mentos is primarily physical, driven by nanometer-scale surface roughness on the candy. Proteins sometimes fold in abnormal shapes, and in the right circumstances, the presence of a chemically identical but differently-shaped protein can induce other proteins to change shape as well, leading to prion diseases such as Mad Cow and CJD, both of which can be acquired via ingestion of the trigger protein shapes.

The claim that nanometer-sized structural changes in a compound can have no effect on human health when ingested is demonstrably false. Obviously, this calls directly into question the dependent claim that chemically inert compounds can have no possible impact on human health when ingested.

Re: Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DMSO also makes your breath smell like garlic after you’ve had it on your skin. I wouldn’t want to be around a horse that’s had a healthy dose, and I certainly wouldn’t love if my wife had to use it every day.

To fix such a serious issue OP is mentioning for your life companion? WTF is wrong with people? If you are married and will stay together till end, worse things will come along from both sides. Will you just ignore her then or tell her to not ruin your day with her petty issues? Btw garlic consumption and subsequent breath is fairly common in many cultures for millennia due to its very positive health effects, just n…

Oh come on - obviously I would deal with it if it was necessary for my wife's health/happiness. Don't jump to judgy conclusions over what was primarily a joke.

Re: Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

#236
post #234
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are half a dozen studies per year, going back decades, assessing the safety of PTFE in implants. Many of them are longitudinal. Chemists routinely boil PTFE in acids such as hydrochloric and sulfuric for hours without degrading it even slightly; such degradation would contaminate their reactions. I bet you can't find a study demonstrating natural selection in the split-leaf philodendron, either, but that isn't…

The two comment threads are the same discussion so I'm merging my responses. > I bet you can't find a study demonstrating natural selection in the split-leaf philodendron, either, but that isn't a good reason to go around saying "some questions remain unanswered" It absolutely is! The criterion for whether a question has been answered is whether that question has actually been asked, studied, and answered. In cases w…

Yes, you can dehydrate your tissues by eating dehydrated silica gel. But when hydrated it's a Generally Recognized As Safe food additive in quantities up to 3% (5% in the EU). You can probably eat a lot more than that but it will grind up your teeth. (By the same token, someone could strangle you with a PTFE cord, a fact that has no bearing on its toxicity.)

Quartz is not amorphous silica, and unlike amorphous silica, it's carcinogenic if you inhale it.

You don't get nanometer-sized structural changes in teflon by scraping it off your skillet with a spatula. You're being ridiculous.

I'm interested to hear what response you get from biologists when you propose to them that natural selection might be inoperative in the split-leaf philodendron. I imagine they'll wish they had a PTFE cord handy.

Re: Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

#237
post #236
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two comment threads are the same discussion so I'm merging my responses. > I bet you can't find a study demonstrating natural selection in the split-leaf philodendron, either, but that isn't a good reason to go around saying "some questions remain unanswered" It absolutely is! The criterion for whether a question has been answered is whether that question has actually been asked, studied, and answered. In cases w…

Yes, you can dehydrate your tissues by eating dehydrated silica gel. But when hydrated it's a Generally Recognized As Safe food additive in quantities up to 3% (5% in the EU). You can probably eat a lot more than that but it will grind up your teeth. (By the same token, someone could strangle you with a PTFE cord, a fact that has no bearing on its toxicity.) Quartz is not amorphous silica, and unlike amorphous silica…

> Quartz is not amorphous silica, and unlike amorphous silica, it's carcinogenic if you inhale it.

Crystalline silica is still silica.

> You don't get nanometer-sized structural changes in teflon by scraping it off your skillet with a spatula. You're being ridiculous.

The words of someone who has not spent time analyzing electron microscopy of fracture surfaces :) It absolutely does without any possible shred of doubt. But that's not even the point; the point is that the fine physical structure of compounds can matter in biological systems. If you accept this, that it is plainly obvious that chemical inertness of a compounds is an obviously insufficent condition for safety.

> I'm interested to hear what response you get from biologists when you propose to them that natural selection might be inoperative in the split-leaf philodendron. I imagine they'll wish they had a PTFE cord handy.

If you spend a lot of time around people with science PhDs, you will quickly learn that most of us are keenly aware of how little we actually know and how much of it is guessing. Murdering people over disagreements is the domain of religions, not science. Sadly for many these two are interchangable.

Re: Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

#238
post #237
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can dehydrate your tissues by eating dehydrated silica gel. But when hydrated it's a Generally Recognized As Safe food additive in quantities up to 3% (5% in the EU). You can probably eat a lot more than that but it will grind up your teeth. (By the same token, someone could strangle you with a PTFE cord, a fact that has no bearing on its toxicity.) Quartz is not amorphous silica, and unlike amorphous silica…

> Quartz is not amorphous silica, and unlike amorphous silica, it's carcinogenic if you inhale it. Crystalline silica is still silica. > You don't get nanometer-sized structural changes in teflon by scraping it off your skillet with a spatula. You're being ridiculous. The words of someone who has not spent time analyzing electron microscopy of fracture surfaces :) It absolutely does without any possible shred of doub…

Conceded. I guess I was wrong. Too bad I was so arrogant about it!

Re: Simple mix of soap and solvent could help destroy ‘forever chemicals’

#239
post #161
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried many different methods and nothing really worked, then I finally came across this: - heat it up so it's warm in the oven - coat it generously with vegetable oil (it's what I had, but basically any oil will do) - wipe the excess with a paper towel so it's still shiny but not runny - put it in the oven for an hour just above the smoke point of the oil (I'm not really a fan of cast iron, as they are too heavy fo…

How do you get it to be just above the smoke point of the oil without a thermostat or a suitable thermometer? The knob on my oven just varies the amount of gas going to the burner.

In my country everyone has an electric oven, so you can set an exact temperature.
Post reply on HN