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

Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

#51

Post by justinator »

gus_massa wrote: post #42
justinator wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Bruh we're not going to have glaciers in like 5 years. Do you have a source for that? The predictions I remember are much longer.

The source is me: I go outside where glaciers were and they're not there anymore. This is not something that's been up to debate. What do you think is causing the sea levels around the world to rise? Have you seen the news about Greenland, Antarctica, and the North Pole, recently?

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-finds-some-iconic-...

Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

#52

Post by tylerhou »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #47
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just cleaning my shop and was constantly between fogged glasses behind eye protection and tons of dust accumulating on the lenses. I’ve worn glasses for 30 years and that aspect of wearing them is vastly inferior to corrective procedures or contacts. I would stick with contacts but, like this topic suggests, there are legitimate health concerns, and I can’t justify how disposable they are with no consideration…

I'm pretty sure that I could package up all of my used contact lenses over the past decade into a single jam jar. If we consider the cases as well, I might need to go up to say, a gallon bottle of milk. I'm deliberately overestimating here by the way. What is the waste problem here?

They might be referring to single-use lenses.

Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

#54

Post by TaylorAlexander »

fsckboy wrote: post #18
voz_ wrote: post #14

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.

we used to live malnourished, with stunted growth, women dying in childbirth to bring 8 kids into the world half of whom would die in childhood, with large numbers of men dying before they couldn't afford reading glasses they would need. (my gf was 1 of 5 surviving from 10 born, with horsedrawn transportation and starvation) all that industrialization brought us to much healthier longer lives filled with amenities un…

> we used to live malnourished, with stunted growth, women dying in childbirth to bring 8 kids into the world half of whom would die in childhood...

> We're doing pretty well.

You know it's interesting to think about who is doing well and who is not thanks to global industrialization. In the last 50 years "we" in the OECD countries simply moved our polluting industry to poor countries, where people have had their ancestral farm land taken by governments and replaced with polluting factories. This has left many of them with few opportunities other than to work in dangerous factories while living and raising their children in toxic wastelands.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...

Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

#55

Post by merlincorey »

nawgz wrote: post #38
pensatoio wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you really have the procedure done a second time?

It just re-shapes your lens via subtraction. you can have it done as many times as your lens has enough material to be molded into the required geometry via removing material.

So how many times is that on average?

Naively searching seems to mostly get well SEO'd results from LASIK related companies making claims like "In general, there is no limit on how many LASIK procedures you can get in your lifetime"[0]. Though that is followed by "The thickness of the cornea is one of the main determinations regarding the safety of multiple LASIK surgeries" in the same article which seems to contradict the previous statement as there is clearly a limit before it becomes unsafe to perform another procedure.

Meanwhile on a very short search, I cannot seem to find any study or report about literally anyone having more than two laser eye surgeries.

I did find an FDA guideline from 2022 that lists a surprising number of risks for laser eye surgeries[1].

[0] https://vson.com.au/how-many-times-can-you-have-lasik-eye-su...

[1] Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) Lasers - Patient Labeling Recommendations (https://www.fda.gov/media/160239/download)

Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

#56

Post by willtemperley »

This is a scare story - the original "research" The Guardian have linked to is an article by Mamavation which is the blog of Leah Segedie who "has a Masters degree from the University of Southern California in Communication Management".

Leah found "Indications of PFAS", organic Fluorine, which may or may not be PFAS. Whilst she may not be wrong, as a wearer of contact lenses myself I would like to know the truth.

Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

#57

Post by willtemperley »

willtemperley wrote: post #56

This is a scare story - the original "research" The Guardian have linked to is an article by Mamavation which is the blog of Leah Segedie who "has a Masters degree from the University of Southern California in Communication Management". Leah found "Indications of PFAS", organic Fluorine, which may or may not be PFAS. Whilst she may not be wrong, as a wearer of contact lenses myself I would like to know the truth.

By the way, Leah (@bookieboo on twitter) is an affiliate marketer of many non-toxic products.

Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

#58

Post by enslavedrobot »

bhaney wrote: post #3

So is there a health concern with having PFAS in contact with your eyes, or is this an environmental issue because they don't degrade? It sounds like there's something here meant to get upset about, but I don't know what it's supposed to be.

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.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing...

Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

#59

Post by seiferteric »

voldacar wrote: post #48
voz_ wrote: post #14

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.

Asbestos shouldn't be compared to leaded gasoline imo. It's quite safe and inert if you don't physically disturb it.

Well so is leaded gas, the problem is people kept burning it!

Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests

#60

Post by JumpCrisscross »

justinator wrote: post #27
fsckboy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we used to live malnourished, with stunted growth, women dying in childbirth to bring 8 kids into the world half of whom would die in childhood, with large numbers of men dying before they couldn't afford reading glasses they would need. (my gf was 1 of 5 surviving from 10 born, with horsedrawn transportation and starvation) all that industrialization brought us to much healthier longer lives filled with amenities un…

[flagged]

> we're not going to have glaciers in like 5 years

This isn't a good-faith reading of the comment. Would most people give up the myriad of benefits of industrialization to reverse our impact on the climate?

> Fix that

People are trying. If there's one thing that doesn't help them, it's folks suggesting progress on climate change requires de-industrialisation or permanently and drastically reduced standards of living.

Post reply on HN