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

Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 344 posts

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#291

Post by tomatotomato37 »

rlt wrote: post #181
anaisbetts wrote: post #24

Widely used chemical *(that was generally phased out in the 70s) linked to Parkinson's. Still important, but you don't need to start searching product labels in 2023 for it.

> But in the 20th century, TCE was used for many purposes, including making decaffeinated coffee, dry cleaning, carpet cleaning, and as an inhaled surgical anesthetic for children and women in labor. The things we did with (now known) hazardous chemicals in the 20th century are really disturbing. My question is are there now enough safeguards in place that we're unlikely to be repeating the same mistakes? My guess is…

TCE was originally conceived as a replacement for chemicals such as chloroform and ether, which were deemed to be too toxic to the liver for anesthesia. Once the toxicity of TCE was discovered, it started being phased out in various industries.

For degreasers, it was replaced by 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, a chloroalkane later banned by the Montreal Protocol. It's use in refrigeration was replaced by 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, a hydrofluorocarbon banned in the EU today for global warming potential. And finally, its use as a general anaesthetic was succeeded by Halothane, which doesn't seem to have any major health affects (beyond those coming from being an anaesthetic). However, that too was later replaced by Sevoflurane, which is suspected to accelerate Alzheimers.

Also both those anaesthetisc are greenhouse gases.

So no, we are definitely going to have more problem chemicals in the future, because chemistry is complicated.

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#292

Post by gnramires »

fosk wrote: post #207
galleywest200 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly -- when it comes to toxicology it is not the substance that determines the poison but the dose. Water is still a toxin, we just have evolved ways to handle up to a certain amount of water per day before water poisoning takes hold. Everything is a toxin, we just have it in our bodies to handle some of it.

Wouldn't there be another word for this effect? It's not that water per se is toxic, is that eventually if you have a lot, your body "overflows". Being toxic is not an intrinsic property of the element, but is being derived by its quantity.

I would say that's not completely accurate either at a biological level. For example, if a neurotoxin merely disables sodium channels temporarily, that's different from a neurotoxin that somehow permanently disrupts or damages neurons (I believe some heavy metals work that way?). In the case of permanent damage, there is essentially almost no "safe dose", although I guess very small amounts will be negligible compared to background cell death. But you essentially want as little as possible, which is different from water, that goes from therapeutic to toxic at extreme amounts. (Not sure how TCE toxicity works)

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#293

Post by StillBored »

hammock wrote: post #275
1attice wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This is why most dry cleaners won't accept bedding. It's considered too high-contact. (If they do accept it, they wash it with something other than TCE) Source: a college friend of mine, years ago, who worked as a dry cleaner. After talking to her, I've never used one since.

Don't dry cleaners launder most things - as in, they use clothes soap not TCE? I'm under the impression that this is what happens when I drop shirts off to be cleaned and pressed

They do both, for cotton shirts they will just launder and press it, which is why its frequently $1-$2 a shirt. For many other fabrics they run it through the dry cleaning process, which is why its $5-7 a shirt.

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#294

Post by brewdad »

sidpatil wrote: post #170
throwaway2037 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to ruffle any feathers, but I notice this trend on HN also. People will post something the city they live in and drop all kinds of hints... except the name. Same for employers. Strange. It's like we need to play the old boardgame "Guess Who?"!

They don't want to deanonymize themselves.

Yes, but too often the vagueness is just silly.

"I work for a major search engine (rhymes with Scroogle) and...blah"

Just come out and say it at that point.

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#295

Post by LorenPechtel »

1attice wrote: post #261
anonymouse008 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After talking to her, I've never used one since. What do we do about our formal wear then?

That's a great question that is entirely fabric-dependent. If your formalwear is wool (for example, a tuxedo or blazer) you'd probably want to swap it out for a version of the garment which is made from Superwash wool, which is machine-washable. (Or your choice of alternative fabric.) Creating superwash wool is still a pretty chemically-intensive process, but that might not be forever: https://www.moderndailyknitting…

I have silk liner socks for hiking (wool over silk is the best combination for avoiding blisters), they're tumble dry low but that's what we always use anyway--I don't treat them any differently than anything else. (Yes, appearance doesn't matter one bit--nobody's ever going to see them. However, they have no marks despite the fact they obviously get a lot of sweat.)

My wife also has some silk that likewise is done tumble dry low without being an issue.

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#296

Post by tcoop25 »

jwineinger wrote: post #195
tcoop25 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very sensitive to caffeine and recently switched to decaf only after drinking coffee daily for 20+ years. I drink mainly Mountain Water Processed coffee, which is the same thing but from coffee sourced in South America. It is roasted by a local roaster in Minneapolis. I honestly can't tell the difference between the decaf and regular (except for the lack of caffeine). Also, SWP or MWP coffee removes nearly all c…

Which Minneapolis roaster? I'm local

UP Coffee Roasters / UP Cafe

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#297

Post by wil421 »

deshpand wrote: post #273
version_five wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't wash (dryclean) it or at least do it super infrequently. I find the jacket and pants of a suit don't get very dirty if you just wear them at work, and dry cleaning ruins them anyway. I've gone many months of regular wear, probably more than a year in some cases without washing. You can spot-clean if you spill something on it.

I used to wear cotton long pants (thermals) all year, under the suit pant. Not letting the suit pant touch the skin made it easier to wear it for a very long time (multiple months) before dry-cleaning. Don't miss those days of mandatory suit-wear.

It was 98% humidity and 70 degrees at 7:30 this morning. I broke into sweat watering plants with athletic clothes on. It’s now 86 degrees and 65% humidity. Spring has only started.

For me it’s not an option. I have to dry clean. It is easier to find alternative materials to cotton for the office but they don’t replace button downs and jeans. They can’t replace a suit, linen is still much too casual.

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#298

Post by CapstanRoller »

explorer83 wrote: post #266
anjel wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no longer uncommon to (carbon) filter drinking water at the tap or in your fridge, which then makes a hot shower likely a major avenue into your body by way of your lungs unless you filter water for the whole house plumbing system.

There are shower heads that can be installed with carbon filters. Can be done with a wrench. No plumber required.

There are bubble domes you can live in, too, but that doesn't really address the underlying problem.

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#299

Post by SoftTalker »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #267
explorer83 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a family member who used to educate people on recycling. Growing up it was a major fact that styrofoam was a forever material that would never biodegrade and couldn't be recycled. Today there are methods to recycle styrofoam (albeit just like all recycling it takes people and resources to take the effort to do it, which is the real barrier). I don't think being reckless with our future is a good idea. But histo…

I've read that McDonald's phase out of its styrofoam containers in 1990 ironically prevented the recycling of a lot of styrofoam. Businesses were in the process of setting up to recycle styrofoam but the removal of such a huge source of used styrofoam eliminated their potential profitability.

Yes, they replaced food packaging that was recyclable with paper-based packaging that is not recyclable. I worked there before the transition, occasionaly we'd get an irate customer complaining about the styrofoam and we'd try to explain that it was more recyclable than using paper but most would refuse to hear it.

That said, at the store I worked at, the only things that actually got recycled were the cardboard boxes from the stockroom, and the oil from the fryers. Everything else went into the dumpster.

Re: Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

#300

Post by zzzeek »

frankus wrote: post #171
zzzeek wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from the article: > TCE is highly persistent in soil and groundwater; inhalation through vapor from these hidden sources is likely the prime route of exposure today. However, it’s detectable in many foods, in up to one-third of U.S. drinking water, and in breast milk, blood, and urine. the groundwater route still seems pretty troubling

It’s also denser than water and somewhat hydrophobic so if I understand correctly it tends to settle at the bottom of aquifers.

somehow still in 1/3rd of drinking water tho
Post reply on HN