I'm not saying PFAS' aren't an issue, but I am saying this article is written by a special interest group (ironically enough it's a press release issued by themselves, quoting themselves as though it's a news article) who have an obvious agenda.
I prefer to get my data about such things from cold research, not from "scientists" whose salaries come from fighting a cause.
If their agenda is for people to live in a better environment than it's bad by default? I would understand your approach, if you'd be able to find the bias in the study or proof of them lying/manipulating facts, but isn't this just a bit too contrarian of an approach?
I think the issue is, when you take that tack, you're not doing science anymore; it's just bare advocacy. And, indeed, if you look at EWG resources like their "tap water database" (super popular, punch in your zip code and they'll do their level best to terrify you), you've got something that is very much pretending to be a scientific resource while very much deliberately not being used that way.
The way this is delivered and presented is normal for organizations. They have a website for press releases, and the content of a press release would be a summary and reference to something apropos.
In this case it happens to be their own research. But it's still normal and reasonable for them to make a press release about it, even if it's their own study.
I think the issue here, or your complaint rather, is based on the expectation that HN items would be more independent. Of course it's often not this way, as we see plenty of promotional pieces from tech companies posted here.
The first author is from Duke University, the paper is peer-reviewed, and the journal 'Environmental Research' has an impact factor of 8.4 which is quite fair.
Also even if I look at the group who participated in the study, EWG, their mission seems to be focused on empowering consumers with information on environmental choices, which for an NGO seems fairly apolitical to me.
EWG is an incredibly political organization that is not at all about empowering consumers, but rather in marshaling them for a cause, usually by convincing them that their local tap water is full of two-headed nuclear reactor fish. For all I know, they're right, but nobody should extend them the benefit of doubt about their neutrality.
I haven't looked into this but do you have any evidence that the tap water information they provide is fraudulent? Otherwise it seems to me that they are fulfilling their mission in informing consumers, no?
> I just know I can't rely on EWG for an objective take on it.
You haven't really clarified why this is though. You've stated without backing it up with anything that
> EWG is an incredibly political organization that is not at all about empowering consumers, but rather in marshaling them for a cause, usually by convincing them that their local tap water is full of two-headed nuclear reactor fish.
Regardless, all “scientists” are paid for results. Look at any research grant. The vast majority make several major assumptions. Anything environment related even more so. Good luck getting a grant proving prior climate science papers are bunk (most are). The established scientists are those giving out the grants, they won’t let you disprove their work.
So, what does the risk/benefit equation look like now?
A JAMA article [1] from 2006 concluded that:
Overall, the health benefits of eating fish greatly outweigh the potential risks—especially when guidelines are used to reduce the small chance of being affected by these risks.
But I guess the effect and pervasiveness of PFAS were not as much on the radar back then as they are now..
Yes indeed, but I was more thinking of this as a general consideration as I'd imagine non-negligible PFAS concentrations may occur in store-bought fish too. It'd be good to see more studies on this.
> EWG found the median amounts of PFAS in freshwater fish were an astounding 280 times greater than forever chemicals detected in some commercially caught and sold fish.
This report looks like it is about fish caught and prepared by individual fisherman, not what you’d get in a grocery.
Another part to that point is that the PFAS levels will vary wildly depending on the specific body of water, the species of fish, the size of the fish, and potentially even the different parts of the fish (fat, belly, etc).
Most states test the larger bodies of water for contaminates. I'm not sure that PFAS is included in all of the tests. But that could be a good place to start.
I think the real impact of PFAS on humans (and biology in general) will take decades to realize. By then, we may be in a very difficult situation or reverse or recover from.
Imagine if PFAS accumulation negatively impacted reproduction in humans, such that after enough generations of PFAS-laden humans reproduction were nearly impossible. That's just a dark fantasy, but we don't really know yet.
Given the unknowns, I would avoid consuming things with concentrations of known unnatural substances when (if) there are other food alternatives.
I am very worried about the impact of PFOS. On every walk or run I take, I make a point to pick up at least one piece of plastic.
But the thesis (below) is pure fearmongering. There are so many wiggle words that it’s meaningless. Further, I don’t know what the impact of drinking 1 month of PFOS “laced” water is, so how is this helpful?
> a single serving of freshwater fish per year could be equal to a month of drinking water laced with the “forever chemical” PFOS at high levels that may be harmful.
It would be interesting to know what these levels would be (likely lower) in fish that are closer to the bottom of the food chain, such as Krill, Sardines, etc.
26 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 60.1 ms ] threadI prefer to get my data about such things from cold research, not from "scientists" whose salaries come from fighting a cause.
In this case it happens to be their own research. But it's still normal and reasonable for them to make a press release about it, even if it's their own study.
I think the issue here, or your complaint rather, is based on the expectation that HN items would be more independent. Of course it's often not this way, as we see plenty of promotional pieces from tech companies posted here.
The actual paper is legit:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115165
The first author is from Duke University, the paper is peer-reviewed, and the journal 'Environmental Research' has an impact factor of 8.4 which is quite fair.
Also even if I look at the group who participated in the study, EWG, their mission seems to be focused on empowering consumers with information on environmental choices, which for an NGO seems fairly apolitical to me.
Furthermore you did nothing to impeach the credibility of their study.
You haven't really clarified why this is though. You've stated without backing it up with anything that
> EWG is an incredibly political organization that is not at all about empowering consumers, but rather in marshaling them for a cause, usually by convincing them that their local tap water is full of two-headed nuclear reactor fish.
Regardless, all “scientists” are paid for results. Look at any research grant. The vast majority make several major assumptions. Anything environment related even more so. Good luck getting a grant proving prior climate science papers are bunk (most are). The established scientists are those giving out the grants, they won’t let you disprove their work.
Citation needed.
A JAMA article [1] from 2006 concluded that:
But I guess the effect and pervasiveness of PFAS were not as much on the radar back then as they are now..[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/203693
> Compared with store-bought fish, locally caught freshwater fish may have higher chemical levels, so local advisories should be consulted.
This report looks like it is about fish caught and prepared by individual fisherman, not what you’d get in a grocery.
Most states test the larger bodies of water for contaminates. I'm not sure that PFAS is included in all of the tests. But that could be a good place to start.
Imagine if PFAS accumulation negatively impacted reproduction in humans, such that after enough generations of PFAS-laden humans reproduction were nearly impossible. That's just a dark fantasy, but we don't really know yet.
Given the unknowns, I would avoid consuming things with concentrations of known unnatural substances when (if) there are other food alternatives.
But the thesis (below) is pure fearmongering. There are so many wiggle words that it’s meaningless. Further, I don’t know what the impact of drinking 1 month of PFOS “laced” water is, so how is this helpful? > a single serving of freshwater fish per year could be equal to a month of drinking water laced with the “forever chemical” PFOS at high levels that may be harmful.