The crucial part of this research that is omitted is that the type of PFAS that contact lenses contain are “fluoropolymers”, a subcategory of PFAS that is considered to be less dangerous, and is not the subject of most PFAS regulation. Still potentially harmful, of course, I don’t claim to be an expert on this stuff, but it’s an important point that was left out of the article.
Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
91–100 of 120 posts
Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
#92Earlier 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…
or you could wear glasses
Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
No one believes this.
Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
#94Earlier 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.
They adopted ethanol because of the farm lobby
Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
[deleted]
Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
#96PFAS 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.
How do you mine, manufacture, install, or remove it without physically disturbing it?
Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were really pretty close. Leaded gas was banned for new model cars in 1985 but didn't stop being used until 1996 - the year of XML! - and asbestos was and is everywhere, the gift that keeps on giving. Popcorn ceiling in a house built in 1980 CA? Probably full of asbestos because grandfathered in. And so on. Just kind of amazing.
But when will be ban XML?
Asbestos--spiky things in the lungs.
XML: lots of sticky typing of tags.
We don't yet know what we have wrought with XML, what insidious harms shall come from squished fingers upon rubber-domed keys.
Over and over, the tags!
Opening and closing, the tags!
Verbose yet incomplete,
Wayward schemas in attr equals,
Transforms atop loops and ifs,
Ending yet starting yet ending Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you link to some examples of such frames?
Google "rimless titanium wire hingeless frame polycarb". You'll find plenty. As they're hingeless, you get far superior fit. They weigh much less than standard glasses, as such, they don't slip.
I google those and the ones I see do not look like they would stay on your face if you were upside down, for example (and less extreme positions, of course, but that's easiest to describe).
I wear glasses and contacts, and do sports, and contacts just work a lot better for sports. Glasses are totally fine for sitting at a computer or walking around or driving.
Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
No one believes this.
This guy in an adjacent comment seems to think we should stop wearing contacts for the environment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35957473
Re: Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
or you could wear glasses
"The constant pressure from the nosepads and arms of glasses on your face, has potentially deleterious long-term consequences to the lymphatic channels of the face, resulting in increased incidence of sinus pressure headaches, fibromyalgia, middle-ear infections leading to tinnitus, and potentially even blockages of glymphatic drainage leading to increased likelihood of brain aneurism in old age."
...is the sort of thing the FDA would say, if you had just invented glasses today; before then demanding a 20-year longitudinal cohort study to disprove those possible risks. (They might also list all those same risk factors for wearing a hat.)
My point being — we can come up with all sorts of plausible potential risks of literally any technology, new or old. There are plenty of subtle long-term consequences of our interactions with everyday objects that nobody has ever stopped to consider; anything can potentially be doing esoteric bad things to us.
But if we invented prescription glasses today, and everyone until now had been just walking around nearsighted — bumping into things, unable to legally drive, etc — for lack of them; then should we hold off on allowing them to be sold, until we do such a study? Or should we accept that being able to see outweighs a bunch of entirely-hypothetical risks?
Or, on a related note, how about this: would it have been "responsible" to prevent people from getting laser eye surgery, out of concern that it might make their night vision worse?