Living With the Forever Chemicals - Dr Ian Mudway

[@hasato-e1]

I made some investigation on chemicals during passing my major as environmentalist. My uni professor blamed me for the lack of details. Now i am mature and it seems even more magnificent to rediscover hitherto unknown in ecology. Gresham college provides surplus free education for those who care.

[@JJONNYREPP]

Living With the Forever Chemicals 12.12.23 1918pm they do seem like old lectures dished out to fit the alleged novel news stories of the era - rendered here or there to allow you to feel it's relevent... or is that just me sick of the, seeming, repetitive nature of history or people's perceptions?......read the tome dirty old london.....i even surmise his nibs, here, will have done just that...(?)

[@pobrien864]

It seems so backward that we should allow introduction of chemicals because their is a lack of evidence that they cause harm, as opposed to requiring them to provide scientific evidence that they are safe and cause no harm to humans, animals and the environment.

[@MrsJedmo]

Yes it's totally bass-akwards

[@tuckerbugeater]

One word: plastics. Yes, the government knew about the potential dangers of PFAS to animals as early as the 1960s. This is based on internal studies conducted by these companies, which revealed that PFAS could accumulate in animal tissues and cause health problems, such as liver damage, testicular atrophy, and birth defects.

[@JJONNYREPP]

13.12.23 0250am Living With the Forever Chemicals even baking soda has plastic within it... so the ingredients of cheap chinese noodles would suggest. it's far too late to wash these toxins out of the food chain, i surmise.... unless we stop using them and instigate a mass clean up. allegedly that means you need to heat up the waste produce of whatever industrial manufacture by-product you are dealing with... whatever that means. and seeing as such by-products are allegedly heat resistant, it would seem they are nigh-on impossible to eradicate... my chatbot suggests this: "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of about 9,000 compounds used to make products heat-, water- or stain-resistant. They are also widely used in industrial applications and for firefighting. PFAS can enter the environment through production or waste streams and are very persistent in the environment and the human body. There is toxicological evidence that some PFAS have adverse reproductive, developmental and immunological effects in animals and humans 1. PFAS are stable and resistant to natural destruction in the environment, leading to their pervasive presence in groundwater, surface waters, drinking water and other environmental media (e.g., soil) in some localities. Certain PFAS are also bioaccumulative, and the blood of most U.S. citizens contains detectable levels of several PFAS 2. The use of PFAS-tainted sewage sludge, or “biosolids”, as fertilizer on farms has led to toxic chemical contamination of crops, soil, drinking water, irrigation water, and even livestock. This has caused farmers to face the loss of their livelihoods and property values 3. 3: The Guardian 1: US EPA 2: US EPA"

[@myparceltape1169]

Which government and how did you find out?

[@oliveleaf7376]

@@myparceltape1169 honest question, no judgement: did you watch the video before commenting?

[@myparceltape1169]

@@oliveleaf7376 Probably but I can't be sure now. It is a question aimed at the first sentence of a comment above and so it at second hand to the contents of the video. A video with worldwide distribution. Correction. Second sentence.

[@iancormie9916]

According to some, supermarket counts are dropping at an alarming rate. Wonder if the authorities have identified what is causing this so the elimination of PfAS may not be the solution.

[@iancormie9916]

Orca are not listed. These are apex preditors and populations are under stress largely due to low birth rates.

[@myparceltape1169]

Around the end of the 1960's the chairman/president of the Union intending to represent lab workers said it was a dangerous career. I went into that work soon after and realised that it could be dangerous. Now I am wondering if I should avoid certain cuts of meat.

[@lb9147]

So is the half life 100,000 or 6 years?

[@oglordbrandon]

Yes

[@kp6215]

Six years

[@GrahamCLester]

The half life of the chemicals is thousands of years. The half life in the body is just a few years. That is, they stay in the human body for several years and then they are passed into the environment, where they do not actually break down until thousands of years later.

[@Suburp212]

We will all die from cancer.

[@MrsJedmo]

Truth

[@BobJohnson648]

If you want to find these chemicals...check the mud.

[@rdallas81]

Check the blood.

[@scottmcgee6154]

Parkersburg West Virginia Great presentation

[@TinaFrancis-c7d]

It's not all true about plastic recycling

[@McbrideStudios]

Why does it all go back to WWII.

[@MrsJedmo]

Because that's when it was first created.

[@MrsJedmo]

The first pfas chemical was invented for tanks to make them heat and water resistant

[@peterkerruish8136]

I can cop a advert that goes for 10seconds + then reverts to doco I am watching but when you hit me with adverts that go on + on unless I hit skip ad (which is extremely hard to do when I'm in the shower) then I say to you - Stick your adverts + your doco up there where the sun don't shine!!!.

[@danielmartini3229]

I'm in PTFE, and the examples the Prof provides, that contain PFAS, are just the absolute most banal end user products. Most, if not all, manufacturing-, energy-, medical/chemical industries rely heavily on these materials and as of today there are no substitutes for a lot of them (e.g. PTFE). Sure, we can all live w/o waterproof jacket or makeup, but there will be no wind-turbines, no, cars, no batteries etc, etc, etc, UNLESS we exchange these materials for petrochemical lubricants, short lived seals and isolation in other material generating huge waste and the need for upscaling production of these materials. Processes will need to run at much lower energy efficiency as worse materials can't handle chemicals solutions or temperatures as well. We'd exchange one theoretical problem for another verified, arguably worse, one. This is potentially a HUGELY disruptive initiative.

[@MrsJedmo]

I'm sorry but please let them disrupt. I do not want to suffer for consumer products. I'll give up whatever to avoid cancer...

[@MouldyMilo]

I think you fail to understand what people fundamentally want. We do not want a world that focuses on corporations making profits while the public deals with the health and environmental fall out of their products. We do not care for a world of convenience and consumption if it is harming us, our children and future generations. To put is simply, we want a world that focuses on human flourishment, not a world focused on profit maximisation. This is one of the essential issue of capitalism, it enables and generates things like PFAS, tetra lead and wars, because they are all profitable. They benefit the rich few, while costing the rest of us enormously. As the saying goes "it (capitalism) privatises the gains and socialises the loses".

[@kp6215]

This lecture is why I refused to procreate from 1970 to 1998.