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

61–70 of 120 posts

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

#61

Post by fomine3 »

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.

Also adopting asbestos were somewhat reasonable at that time (from thousands years ago to hundred year ago). Leaded gasoline was terrible from the beginning. They don't adopt ethanol for profit.

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

#63

Post by BobTheDestroyer »

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]

[flagged]

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

#65

Post by 29athrowaway »

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.

DDT was probably worse than all.

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

#66

Post by hammyhavoc »

loeg wrote: post #49
hammyhavoc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your glasses fall off then it sounds like a fit or material issue. Rimless titanium wire (hingeless) with polycarb lenses and they'll stay put in the most extreme of conditions with a sensible arm design.

Or you just aren't doing sports / physical activities.

"the most extreme of conditions", so I'm not sure why you wouldn't think this includes sports or physical activities.

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

#67

Post by TylerE »

fomine3 wrote: post #61
voldacar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Also adopting asbestos were somewhat reasonable at that time (from thousands years ago to hundred year ago). Leaded gasoline was terrible from the beginning. They don't adopt ethanol for profit.

You’re confusing quite a few things here. Ethanol wasn’t put in gasoline until decades after the lead came out.

Ethanol was absolutely added for profit… but much like HFCS, it was about propping up big agribusiness.

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

#68

Post by Am4TIfIsER0ppos »

derefr wrote: post #41
voz_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not need to convince me that industrialization is good. I agree. What troubles me is the irresponsible approach.

What's "responsible" about putting the breaks on technological progress, when that technological progress has statistically-positive net QALY effects? Let me give a concrete example: what would be "responsible" about doing a 10-year FDA trial to approve a novel anti-cancer therapy, for a cancer that currently has no existing treatment? Even if this novel cancer treatment killed 50% of the people treated, if the rest…

Those people saved by cancer treatments or IV drips should die, for the environment of course(!) This is what they really believe so you can be damn sure they will make you poorer by denying you the luxury of contact lenses. And they'd have a more acceptable excuse of "wear glasses".

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

#69

Post by sn0wf1re »

slily wrote: post #46
gus_massa wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Last I heard they were supposed to be gone by the year 2000. Edit: nevermind, it was actually just 10 years ago that Antarctica was supposed to be entirely ice-free in the summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI I'm sure today's models and predictions are 100% accurate and undeniable, though. "Bruh."

> 75% chance that within 5 to 7 years there could be a period of no ice cap [paraphrasing]

If you look at the trend line between 1995 and 2010 in the NASA data this was a reasonable prediction. The Northwest passage is now open for the first time in recorded history, things are melting fast.

> ...Bob used the figure of 2030...

Last I checked it wasn't 2030 yet.

NASA has a nice* video of the North polar ice cap. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/155/video-annual-...

* It's okay, the graph doesn't have a zero-indexed base which it should.

Edit: Also Antarctica is the South ice cap, not the North, which is the video clip you linked.

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

#70

Post by failuser »

29athrowaway wrote: post #65
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.

DDT was probably worse than all.

What it proven to be dangerous for people? It caused ecological problems, but direct harm for people was suggested, not proven as far as I know.
Post reply on HN