top 91 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 87 points 7 months ago (17 children)
  • [+] [S] 11 points 7 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    That's the problem, the main people who do are the companies profiting. Something something conflict of interest

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Teflon, see my other comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The sources are more understood than the consequences.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Consequences are well understood in that they are bad and have long term effects on your hormone regulation.

    One study showed teen girls in Copenhagen develop breasts a whole year earlier than during the 80s-90s, and it was directly shown to be the effect of PFAS in our consumer environment for lack of a better word.

    It was a big thing, EU made lots of regulations about it. I know in an adjacent country they banned use of thermal receipts (normal receipts you get in the store) and some other measures. Don't know what came of it long term but I stay very aware about what I touch in stores and stuff I buy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFAS

    TL;DR - Teflon, plus other chemicals, but particularly Teflon

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Isn't Teflon itself fine though? My understanding was it was the chemicals used during manufacturing of Teflon that were the problem.

    You can also get some ill effects if you exceed temp limits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    Teflon itself is technically "fine" if you ignore that it's a forever chemical on its own. The chemicals used in the manufacturing, and the chemicals used to make a notoriously non-stick material stick to things are the big issues.

    But like the other commenter said, even Teflon, despite its hydrophobic and non-stick properties, eventually wears out and spreads micro particles everywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Everything wears out, regardless of temperature. Sure Teflon lasts a good long time as long as certain temperatures aren't exceeded, but even at room temperature/dishwashing temperature, particles of those molecules are still gonna wear off, and they don't just randomly vanish.

    What's that stink you smell out of your vacuum cleaner? Well yeah, lots of dust and dead skin cells and such, but also all the other toxic debris gradually wearing away from our household items and whatnot..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    And teflon scratches easy, and then you eat all the tiny little flakes every time you cook. Teflon is especially super bad, very carcinogenic.

    I hate it, I don't use it unless absolutely necessary. I make do with steel and cast iron. Nothing is worth having permanently contaminated food, day in day out, over years and decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    This is about right. Teflon (PTFE) itself is mostly harmless to humans because you aren't likely to consume large enough amounts or small enough particles of Teflon for it to enter your bloodstream.

    Other PFAS like PFOA, PFOS, PFHXS, and PFNA, which are the kind you would find used to coat the inside of a popcorn bag to keep the butter off the bag, are commonly found in human blood and have been linked to negative health outcomes in humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Except there is literally not a single unscratched and unchipped teflon pan in existence in any household kitchen.

    You will consume those flakes and particles and the wear and tear in your food over years, and it certainly adds up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    Here's a Veritasium deep dive (54min) on PFAS and their history. I thought I knew about PFAS, then this video taught me more:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2eSujzrUY

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    It's bad. It gets easily absorbed by the skin and fucks with your hormone system. It's in all kinds of stuff- non stick pans, can linings, receipts you get at the supermarket, consumer electronics, earbuds (bad to have stuck straight into your brain in the fine membranes and capillaries of the ear canal), LOTS of clothes (basically all plastic derivatives they mix in).

    With clothes or shoes and so on, if you go to an outlet and touch a PFAS coated fabric, you'll get this thin sickly little film of oil on your fingers. That gets absorbed straight through the skin, and also now it gets on everything you touch, your face, the food you eat...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 144 points 7 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 26 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    I think so too. We don't really have conclusive studies yet on what microplastics do to our health, but we do know we have quite a lot of them inside our bodies. At the same time certain types of cancers are getting ever more common, and amongst younger people as well. Might not be connected, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Aren't at least some of those cancers thought to be from processed food and low fibre diets?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    If you're referring to the study blaming colon cancer on processed meats, it's a major reach.

    It was an epidemiological study, which are notorious for poor controlling of variables. If the effect has a relative risk increase greater than 100% (i.e. doubles risk or more), then you can use the results of an epidemiologal study, but results less than that should be treated with a lot of skepticism. This particular study was only 18%, well within the error bounds of this type of study.

    For contrast, the epidemiological studies used to establish a causal link between smoking and lung cancer had a risk increase in the ballpark of 10,000%

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    You’re totally on the money with your core thesis about epidemiological studies here, and I agree processed meats as a standalone variable are likely a massively overplayed factor in CRC research.

    When it comes to the more general claims in the GP comment though, re: processed food and low fiber, there are literally hundreds of independent studies at different levels all pointing in similar directions. It’s pretty incontrovertible at this point.

    See any recent review on CRC etiology for reference, e.g.: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elroy-Weledji/publication/377724506_Clinics_in_Oncology_The_Etiology_and_Pathogenesis_of_Colorectal_Cancer_OPEN_ACCESS/links/65b3f83e79007454973be66e/Clinics-in-Oncology-The-Etiology-and-Pathogenesis-of-Colorectal-Cancer-OPEN-ACCESS.pdf

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I legitimately think it'll be what kills humans off.

    We can survive climate change, albeit at a greatly reduced population, but microplastics are already impacting fertility rates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Are fertility rates really a problem caused by microplastics? There are people who want to have kids who can't, but the ones who are young are a small percentage of people.

    The two things with the most overwhelming influence on fertility rates is the willingness of people to have children and their access to birth control.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Nah, we’ll adapt. There are already bacteria that can break down and eat plastic. At some point, someone will have a genetic mutation in their gut bacteria that also causes it to breakdown and consume plastic and then the probiotic industry will be tripping all over itself to patent and sell it to us.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    There's no replacing plastic like we could do with asbestos. We're screwed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago

    There are bioplastics that are actually compostable and biodegradable, and I'm sure with enough research we could develop others with better properties.

    But why would we research a way to make the world a better place when we can just pull oil out of the ground and burn it and make forever chemicals out of it instead?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 48 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (10 children)

    For all the panicky people:

    Microplastics are bad, but they're not remotely close to asbestos bad. Nobody is dying horribly from emphysema because they accidentally contacted microplastics two decades ago. The effects absolutely exist, but they're quite subtle and do not involve suffocating while you cough your lungs out in small pieces.

    Gylphosate is bad, but it's mostly bad for the people working directly with it and ignoring every safety precaution (the Venn diagram of those two groups is pretty much a circle). Eating food that was once treated with gylphosate will not be remotely bad for you on any measurable scale.

    Source: am chemist, work as a safety professional (independent, no large company is paying me for anything but an occasional audit that is mostly unrelated to chemistry)

    But, I'll happily add something that's bad, but not on the level of asbestos. Indoor cooking on fire and/or with poor ventilation. It creates combustion products, releases particulate and smoke and many complex volatiles that are just drifting around in your house for pretty much the entire evening.

    Edit: and growing your own food on local soil in a city. That dirt has been collecting pollution for a century, and the odds are pretty decent that it might actually qualify for remediation if you live near anywhere industrial or a big road that's been there for a while. Get your soil tested, or use raised beds if you're growing food.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Microplastics get smaller and likely more dangerous every year. We don't know how much present day cancer can be attributed to microplastics, there is no control group.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    I feel bad for the poor humans on Sentinel Island that, despite being completely isolated from industrial society, still have our microplastics in them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Nobody is dying horribly from emphysema because they accidentally contacted microplastics two decades ago.

    Aren't the vast majority of people suffering cancer from asbestos exposure the people that worked with asbestos for years? From what I understand, you're very unlikely to suffer from a single exposure.

    That being said, asbestos is fucking everywhere. Veritasium recently did a video on it, and a lot of the soil around Las Vegas just naturally contains it, and gets kicked up by vehicles, construction, wind, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    Aren’t the vast majority of people suffering cancer from asbestos exposure the people that worked with asbestos for years?

    Sorta kinda. It was much easier to get prolonged asbestos exposure than repeated glyphosate exposure. We used it in everything, including carpets and roofs. The asbestos fibers in those roofs are fine, but the glue holding them together isn't. It's been falling on the ground since forever, but it's accelerating more and more.

    Meanwhile, the only people working unsafely with glyphosate are basically a subset of farmers. Now, I've basically NEVER seen a farmer handle chemicals according to the instructions, so within that group unsafe exposure is basically 100%, but it's a much smaller fraction of the population.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    the natural stuff is in clumps that your not able to breathe, and yeah asbestos is natural and almost everywhere there's rocks. it's usually in long fiber like strings. even when it's broken up, it's not particle size and airborne. it's usually bonded together.

    it's that stuff that was industrialized and refined. that stuff that can become airborne and inhaled. One particle that gets absorbed might stay with you forever but it's usually the build up of many exposures that causes the problem.

    so many older houses have it in the attic and siding. it's not going anywhere

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not panicking, I just had my daily inhaled dose of asbestos dust today, doing a front end alignment. What do you think most brake pads are made with?

    Source: Am mechanic, and know what the smell of freshly wet road consists of, which is all sorts of toxic substances, including asbestos dust. And we've all smelled freshly wet pavement before...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 33 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    If you want a more literal, chemist answer: carbon fiber. Carbon fiber's chemical structure is surprisingly similar to Asbestos. Even though we barely use it for anything due to the difficulty in producing it, it's most likely just as harmful to us as asbestos.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    How do you inhale carbon fiber? Are there friable forms?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    Most carbon fiber you might see in the world is sealed with resin. But under that resin, it's just sheets of woven or non-carbon fiber fabric. And those fibers are just nanometers thick and can easily puncture cell walls the same way as asbestos.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    That's the other thing, too. It's rare to be in a situation where you could inhale it. The only example I can think, which is also a rare situation, is if a vehicle that uses it is involved in some kind of accident and breaks the piece of carbon fiber. That could release it into the air causing you to breathe it in.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 31 points 7 months ago

    Micro plastics

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago

    Microplastics is the obvious one. High fructose corn syrup. Palm oil is used in so many things (even juices and biscuits/cookies). Billionaires. Politicians.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago

    Got to say the obvious: sugar.

    Industry sugar is just very bad for us for multiple reasons but it's used everywhere because of addictive properties.

    Go research the sugar cartel and the sugar Vs fat thing which brought the US to fat free stuff which massively raised obesity.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Look at the silicosis litigation that has started. Everyone wanted granite and quartz countertops, 30 years later, people cutting all that now have lung disease

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    Well, they literally tried to (partially) deregulate asbestos, as fucking obviously asinine and corrupt of a move as that would be, so...asbestos might end up being your answer. How fucked is that?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    You know that stinky smell on the streets and roads just after it starts raining? Yeah, that's a combination of asphalt, tire rubber dust, and asbestos brake pad dust.. What a lovely smell!

    Asbestos never disappeared, it's still used in most brake pads to this day, though there is at least some recent motivation for vehicle manufacturers to switch to other materials.

    A day late and a dollar short if you ask me, cuz I bet that unless you live under a rock, you've inhaled asbestos before. ☹️

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Asbestos isn't used in brake pads anymore, we've gone to organo metallic mixtures. So mostly carbon with some iron, manganese, and nickel thrown in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Meanwhile, while I service vehicles over 30 years old, and new old stock still sits on the shelves and they ain't making new parts for old vehicles anymore..

    Yeah, please, please tell me that everyone's brake pads were manufactured within the last two years, I'll laugh you right out of the shop. 😂🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    So you swapped out a few pairs of NOS parts on a couple classics. I worked as an engineer for akebono, one of the biggest brake manufacturers in the world. Almost every European and American manufacturer ditched asbestos around 1990. Some imported "value" pads may contain asbestos, and some classic cars are still gonna have asbestos pads. But the vast majority of cars on the road do not.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Honestly? Oil usage. Everyone knows it's bad, and the only people really in a position to do anything about have a vested interest in leaving things as is.

    This sounds exactly like Asbestos.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Hottest take and speculative: Covid.

    And it kind of depends on how you think about the scale of impacts. Aspestos is horribly damaging for a few people directly exposed. The rate of exposure to covid is orders of magnitude higher.

    I think we've really only begun to see the long term impacts, and we know already of many of the long term issues related to decline in cognitive abilities, heart issues, all kinds of other stuff. But we right now, only know the small "near tail" behavior of those issues. It will take decades to find the "long tail" behavior of the disease.

    So if asbestos exposure is 100x as damaging as covid exposure, say.. but 10,000x as many are exposed to covid... its overall impact is 100x that of asbestos.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah. I mean, I think we'll see a global drop in total average intelligence equivalent to wide-scale exposure to an environmental toxin like lead.

    Asbestos is bad.

    But how do you quantify the impacts of a global average decline in IQ of 1-2%?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago
    • The American industrialized food chain
    • Glyphosate
    • Modern technology-centric lifestyles
    • Dark patterns
    • Most social media
  • source
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    3/4 of politicians will say porn. 1/4 will say marijuana. Gotta protect the children /s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    To be fair, asbestos is still all over the place. They did this fun thing where they just reclassified different asbestos structures into different categories and banned some of them.

    My guess for another substance that isn't asbestos will be either PFAS or we'll finally find out what all these micro/nanoplastics are doing to us.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago
    [–] 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    My guess would be screen time.

    You guess is in the wrong ballpark. It's unlikely that "screen time" will be found to cause cancer and kill people in painful ways years after they were exposed to it.

    I'd bet on PFAS.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    Crude oil and fossil fuel?
    They harm the environment.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    Oil extracted from the ground. That takes the trophy for the whole century.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    My likely candidates: Fossil fuels. Rising CO2 levels can lead to brain fog, right now indoor CO2 levels due to bad ventilation already lead to imaired cognivity. With rising atmospheric CO2 levels this will become more common. Nano particles, different materials are being used today with dimensions similar to those of asbestos particles, and it turns out they have the same effect. It's not the asbestos, it's how the body handles these particles. Think of stuff like mineral wool, carbon nanotubes, silica. Sitting. More and more people are sitting down (inside, so they also lack vitamin D) for long parts of the day, and it leads to all kinds of medical problems.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Second for screen time.

    When they made 'The Net' in 1995 audiences gasped when Sandra Bullock admitted she had to order food online because she couldn't handle talking to a person.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    In terms of materials, plastic food packaging maybe?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 6 points 7 months ago*

    LLMs.

    I'm sure the “AI” companies have plenty of studies proving they cause addiction, brain damage (probably irreversible), and psychosis, but they're keeping them to themselves, much like cigarette cartels did with studies proving their shit caused cancer.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    Cars. I hope vroomers rots in hell

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    I really think it's artificial sweeteners but I also think they just taste horrible.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] [S] 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Mostly feeling the vibes given the recent Australian report linking nicotine vapes to cancer and the anecdotal evidence I have for these strong vapes causing all sorts of negative mental outcomes or dependency for people I know who use them heavily. We still have a lot of space to learn about unintended consequences here and I'm pessimistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Someone mentioned PFAS, I would add regular old exhaust fumes. Terribly bad for you, terribly bad for the brain, effects linger and compound.

    China did studies on it back before they went hard core renewables and electrical, turns out breathing fumes drops your IQ by so many points, and it takes more than 24 hours to kind of get back to normal, but if you whiff it again before that the timer resets.

    I'm summarizing from memory, but that's the gist of it.

    Fuck cars, fuck fossil fuels.

  • source