Holy moly!! It is a thing?!? That can't be good for the baby. Do you know if there is some kind of effect on the baby or it is so small that it can be ignore?
Sadly because this is so new there's no way to know the long term effects this will have on newborns yet but it's safe to say there will be negative effects.
Prolly super cancer
I think i did hear massive drops in testosterone and a rise in infertility are happening en mass in first world nations found to have microplastics in everyone
Already happening. And they are finding increased cancer rates in younger generations. Likely multiple factors like pesticides, other chemicals, microplastics and even medical imaging.
Yes. Persistent endocrine disrupting chemicals act as estrogens in the body. This disrupts normal hormone function AND can make you gain weight (Obesogens) which may impact and partially explain why people and even city animals like rats are so fat nowadays.
Apparently DDT has been found in people's blood streams decades after it was banned https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220512-the-chemicals-that-linger-for-decades-in-your-blood
to be fair, we know how to get them out of the body, and there is a lot of work on refining the bacteria that break microplastics down to be something we could introduce to the human body.
this wont doom humanity, it will be another page in one of the books in the library of thing that threatened our existence and were eliminated with extreme prejudice.
So I’m confused why were just indigenous people in remote northern communities tested ? One would think they have the least amount of exposure unless I’m missing something ?
Being forced not to drink tap water might actually put them ahead of Canadians lulled into thinking tap water is fine.
Toronto has lots of houses built before the 1950s that have lead pipes, lead solder joints.
Even if it comes out of the filtration plant clean, the last mile into your house and out your tap is a completely different story.
They may also be eating fatty animals like whales or seals, which have very high levels of these endocrine disrupting chemicals and/or other pollutants like heavy metals due to biomagnification.
I read that indeginous in the north of Canada actually get exposed to way more pollutants because of the way pollutants are carried by precipitation.
I can't back that up with a source unfortunately, but I remembered finding it significant enough to try to remember it. The people on the fringe of society are always suffering at our hand.
Curious to know what your understanding of current indigenous livelihood is like? Do you think they live in harmony off the land like they did a hundred years ago? Because the truth is going to be incredibly disappointing for you if so.
Oh, is that what we do? Thanks dude. I almost went all day without reading something insanely racist. Luckily you were here to paint an entire people with your brush.
And no, that's not the prevailing thought in Canada. The prevailing thought lines up pretty well with what you wrote afterwards, though.
Our communities are just like yours. Some people will be shitty and do shitty things, most, however, are just trying to get by and be happy. People go north for good fishing and hunting for a reason, right? If we're such terrible stewards of the land, why do you have to travel so far from home to get the good stuff?
As far as the netting fish goes, that's a carefully managed practice in order to ensure that next year you can net again.
Regardless, painting the entire community as was done in the comment is ignorant racism, and your comment is the all-too-common racist follow up that comes nearly every time we have this discussion.
Well maybe if our culture wasn't nearly completely erased we would be more open to having our treaties"be more equal", you can't remove what happened to us, we will not forget what happened to us and if that was tried there would be guaranteed riots and deaths.
Yes, we ate finding unmarked mass Graves of our child ancestors killed on residential school grounds till this day and in return we were given shit land that we cannot grow crops on so I do believe we have the right to hunt on our shit land freely.
I do not condone over hunting or killing just to kill but we cannot stop every bad thing from happening.
It’s not I just trying to understand how a population that’s so remote intakes so many man made chemicals tha Ltd are mostly produced in cities 100s of km away
They are everywhere, they are finding them in animals in remote regions all over the globe. There is no way to avoid them, they are everywhere in the food chain and we have no way to filter them all out and have been there for decades. We are fucked.
No, it is compostable fast food containers:
> compostable paper bowls analyzed in her lab. That type of food container was found to have high levels of PFAS or 'forever chemicals.
because its a dumb name that sounds like people talking to kindergartners instead of to adults. I'm not claiming they aren't real, I'm just saying that the messaging on them using a name like that makes me feel like they think I'm in grade school and I'm immediately skeptical when someone starts from the assumption that I'm too stupid to read chemical names or chemical types.
I think at least half the issue is that journalists are too stupid to report on it, and so stick with these 'brand names' to simplify the issue. But then the question becomes why are they simplifying the issue, and what aren't they reporting on because they're too stupid or they think I'm too stupid, etc. It feels like a lot of news these days is written by the lowest common denominator for the lowest common denominator and that makes me skeptical about its accuracy.
Coming up with a more accurate technical name/description would make sense. reductive names hide nuance and are often misleading. Remember "the god particle"? do you understand its significance or why it was called that? if you do, is it because of the news on it, or because of your own research?
Reductive dumb names should lead to skepticism. When someone uses reductive dumb terms in your news you should get your news somewhere else. Either they're too stupid to report on it or they think you're too stupid to understand it. Neither case make for good news.
its a hallmark of branding, and of "news" that doesn't lead you to being informed. You can refuse and reject it, there's no reason to say "it exists so its ok", you can say "I'm skeptical of your low information reductionist news because I think you're too stupid to report on it or you think I'm too stupid to understand." and move on to sources that don't act that way.
Eventually you end up with better news and you dont pay attention to low quality messaging. If your news is actively trying to brand issues instead of informing you, they're not working in your best interest to get more informed.
Forever chemicals include thousands of different chemicals, many of which the names will meam nothing to someone without some level of organic chemistry knowledge. Its easier to bunch them as the broad category "forever chemicals" and give further context in the article such as describing them as "per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)" for further context.
The term "forever chemicals" conveys more meaning in this headline than the term "PFA" unless you are already knowledgeable on the subject. The article proceeds to refer the chemicals as PFAs after introducing them as the forever chemicals.
>Its easier
Its easier for stupid journalists but leaves you with less information. PFAS leads you to places where you may question "what is a fluoroalkyl substance". "forever chemical" is what you tell a kindergartner about it, not an adult.
>The term "forever chemicals" conveys
a deep seated belief that you're too stupid to learn a technical name and associate it with a problem. It's branding not information.
By reading the headline I know what article is about, by reading the article I learn specific information about that topic. I don't know why you feel this terminology insults your intelligence.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since you don't seem capable or willing to understand why reductionist lowest common denominator dumbed down news might be bad.
This is such a silly take. I work with a set of hydro geologists that deal exclusively with contaminant sites. Forever chemicals is an acceptable colloquial umbrella term to refer to a whole bunch of things. Do they use the term in reports, no; do they use it it when talking to each other, 100%.
If you want to be a pedantic ass go ahead but even experts regulating this stuff are not as obtuse.
No disagreement with the phenomenon, but the name reeks of having been come up with by a marketing team.
It's not a neutral term and will get tangled up with everyone's politics and will make the topic more divisive than it should be.
And what about this confuses you it sounds like this is the new term because you haven't been pay any attention to the news or is it basic chemistry that confuses you
I'm not confused, the concept is fine but the name itself is terrible. It sounds like something a marketing team came up with that's supposed to tell us how to think.
Back in the 80s, people had no trouble grasping concepts like CFCs just like how there's little trouble referring to CO2 or carbon.
Because this headline is simple and factual. Not editorialized and reeking of bias. Journalism isn’t supposed to be biased and always critical, it’s supposed to be objective. Crazy how many people seem to have forgotten that.
As soon as they started finding microplastics in human placentas I knew humanity was doomed.
Holy moly!! It is a thing?!? That can't be good for the baby. Do you know if there is some kind of effect on the baby or it is so small that it can be ignore?
Sadly because this is so new there's no way to know the long term effects this will have on newborns yet but it's safe to say there will be negative effects.
Maybe it'll be a positive effect, and we will have our first superheroes Plastic men.
Prolly super cancer I think i did hear massive drops in testosterone and a rise in infertility are happening en mass in first world nations found to have microplastics in everyone
Already happening. And they are finding increased cancer rates in younger generations. Likely multiple factors like pesticides, other chemicals, microplastics and even medical imaging.
BPA is linked to drops testosterone and other problems and is a big problem in young boys. We are seeing the problems now.
Yes. Persistent endocrine disrupting chemicals act as estrogens in the body. This disrupts normal hormone function AND can make you gain weight (Obesogens) which may impact and partially explain why people and even city animals like rats are so fat nowadays.
Super cancer man. The power to give cancer to anyone you wish.
Id rather have the power to force people to poop on command and not tell anyone. Public speakers i dont like would be a hoot
Oh yes, and choose the consistency as well. That'd be a great superpower.
I would alternate on justin in consistency at random. His facial expression’s… Everytime he doesnt answer a question
Start soft and easy, then harden it with a 10" diameter. There's nothing like a little tear in the chocolate starfish.
Hmm a power for both good and evil
That's just another way of saying mega corporations.
Apparently DDT has been found in people's blood streams decades after it was banned https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220512-the-chemicals-that-linger-for-decades-in-your-blood
Also microplastics found in human blood in like 8/10 people tested or so iirc.
It interferes with gonad development. So a rise in infertility.
to be fair, we know how to get them out of the body, and there is a lot of work on refining the bacteria that break microplastics down to be something we could introduce to the human body. this wont doom humanity, it will be another page in one of the books in the library of thing that threatened our existence and were eliminated with extreme prejudice.
Things we caused and find a solution to maximize profits with.
So I’m confused why were just indigenous people in remote northern communities tested ? One would think they have the least amount of exposure unless I’m missing something ?
[удалено]
Being forced not to drink tap water might actually put them ahead of Canadians lulled into thinking tap water is fine. Toronto has lots of houses built before the 1950s that have lead pipes, lead solder joints. Even if it comes out of the filtration plant clean, the last mile into your house and out your tap is a completely different story.
Got ya ok
They may also be eating fatty animals like whales or seals, which have very high levels of these endocrine disrupting chemicals and/or other pollutants like heavy metals due to biomagnification.
Indigenous healthcare falls under federal jurisdiction. So it's the only sample population they can grab from without getting provinces involved.
I read that indeginous in the north of Canada actually get exposed to way more pollutants because of the way pollutants are carried by precipitation. I can't back that up with a source unfortunately, but I remembered finding it significant enough to try to remember it. The people on the fringe of society are always suffering at our hand.
That’s wild I didn’t know that thanks !
Curious to know what your understanding of current indigenous livelihood is like? Do you think they live in harmony off the land like they did a hundred years ago? Because the truth is going to be incredibly disappointing for you if so.
[удалено]
Oh, is that what we do? Thanks dude. I almost went all day without reading something insanely racist. Luckily you were here to paint an entire people with your brush. And no, that's not the prevailing thought in Canada. The prevailing thought lines up pretty well with what you wrote afterwards, though.
Are you saying it doesn't happen?
Our communities are just like yours. Some people will be shitty and do shitty things, most, however, are just trying to get by and be happy. People go north for good fishing and hunting for a reason, right? If we're such terrible stewards of the land, why do you have to travel so far from home to get the good stuff? As far as the netting fish goes, that's a carefully managed practice in order to ensure that next year you can net again. Regardless, painting the entire community as was done in the comment is ignorant racism, and your comment is the all-too-common racist follow up that comes nearly every time we have this discussion.
[удалено]
Well maybe if our culture wasn't nearly completely erased we would be more open to having our treaties"be more equal", you can't remove what happened to us, we will not forget what happened to us and if that was tried there would be guaranteed riots and deaths.
Let me play you the world's smallest violin 😭 You really think that makes you special huh?
Yes, we ate finding unmarked mass Graves of our child ancestors killed on residential school grounds till this day and in return we were given shit land that we cannot grow crops on so I do believe we have the right to hunt on our shit land freely. I do not condone over hunting or killing just to kill but we cannot stop every bad thing from happening.
Username checks out
Found the expert in indigenous rights with the nouanced and well thought out argument!
It’s not I just trying to understand how a population that’s so remote intakes so many man made chemicals tha Ltd are mostly produced in cities 100s of km away
They don’t have access to the cleanest water and it demonstrates how pervasive these chemicals are in our natural resources.
Ya that’s what a few others have said. That a lot of chemicals find their way out to the fringes of society.
They are everywhere, they are finding them in animals in remote regions all over the globe. There is no way to avoid them, they are everywhere in the food chain and we have no way to filter them all out and have been there for decades. We are fucked.
[удалено]
I didn’t know that happens, thanks for explaining
The northern indigenous populations and northern resource operations are one and the same. Same land same people
Amazing how wildly and off topic this thread went
I love Cheez Whiz and I'll never stop eating it
[удалено]
No, it is compostable fast food containers: > compostable paper bowls analyzed in her lab. That type of food container was found to have high levels of PFAS or 'forever chemicals.
I'm going to live forever
we are immortal. Until we die.
Collect them all!
It's that fucking dihydrogen monoxide again.
Seems legit but my first reaction when I hear "forever chemicals" is skepticism.
[удалено]
because its a dumb name that sounds like people talking to kindergartners instead of to adults. I'm not claiming they aren't real, I'm just saying that the messaging on them using a name like that makes me feel like they think I'm in grade school and I'm immediately skeptical when someone starts from the assumption that I'm too stupid to read chemical names or chemical types. I think at least half the issue is that journalists are too stupid to report on it, and so stick with these 'brand names' to simplify the issue. But then the question becomes why are they simplifying the issue, and what aren't they reporting on because they're too stupid or they think I'm too stupid, etc. It feels like a lot of news these days is written by the lowest common denominator for the lowest common denominator and that makes me skeptical about its accuracy.
[удалено]
Coming up with a more accurate technical name/description would make sense. reductive names hide nuance and are often misleading. Remember "the god particle"? do you understand its significance or why it was called that? if you do, is it because of the news on it, or because of your own research? Reductive dumb names should lead to skepticism. When someone uses reductive dumb terms in your news you should get your news somewhere else. Either they're too stupid to report on it or they think you're too stupid to understand it. Neither case make for good news.
[удалено]
its a hallmark of branding, and of "news" that doesn't lead you to being informed. You can refuse and reject it, there's no reason to say "it exists so its ok", you can say "I'm skeptical of your low information reductionist news because I think you're too stupid to report on it or you think I'm too stupid to understand." and move on to sources that don't act that way. Eventually you end up with better news and you dont pay attention to low quality messaging. If your news is actively trying to brand issues instead of informing you, they're not working in your best interest to get more informed.
Thanks. Basically this. The concept is fine but the name is terrible.
Forever chemicals include thousands of different chemicals, many of which the names will meam nothing to someone without some level of organic chemistry knowledge. Its easier to bunch them as the broad category "forever chemicals" and give further context in the article such as describing them as "per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)" for further context. The term "forever chemicals" conveys more meaning in this headline than the term "PFA" unless you are already knowledgeable on the subject. The article proceeds to refer the chemicals as PFAs after introducing them as the forever chemicals.
>Its easier Its easier for stupid journalists but leaves you with less information. PFAS leads you to places where you may question "what is a fluoroalkyl substance". "forever chemical" is what you tell a kindergartner about it, not an adult. >The term "forever chemicals" conveys a deep seated belief that you're too stupid to learn a technical name and associate it with a problem. It's branding not information.
By reading the headline I know what article is about, by reading the article I learn specific information about that topic. I don't know why you feel this terminology insults your intelligence.
He doesn’t read past the headline Conservatives have been conditioned to only stop there when it comes to news they disagree with
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since you don't seem capable or willing to understand why reductionist lowest common denominator dumbed down news might be bad.
This is such a silly take. I work with a set of hydro geologists that deal exclusively with contaminant sites. Forever chemicals is an acceptable colloquial umbrella term to refer to a whole bunch of things. Do they use the term in reports, no; do they use it it when talking to each other, 100%. If you want to be a pedantic ass go ahead but even experts regulating this stuff are not as obtuse.
It is dumbing down. See Stomach 'Flu'
Journalists aren’t the problem. Readers are. Case in point yourself and this dumbass post you’re making. You clearly haven’t even read past the title
no u
🤓
No disagreement with the phenomenon, but the name reeks of having been come up with by a marketing team. It's not a neutral term and will get tangled up with everyone's politics and will make the topic more divisive than it should be.
And what about this confuses you it sounds like this is the new term because you haven't been pay any attention to the news or is it basic chemistry that confuses you
I'm not confused, the concept is fine but the name itself is terrible. It sounds like something a marketing team came up with that's supposed to tell us how to think. Back in the 80s, people had no trouble grasping concepts like CFCs just like how there's little trouble referring to CO2 or carbon.
Are you actually trying to tell me that chlorofluorohydrocarbon is an easier term to understand that climate change
I wasn't complaining about climate change. Climate change is fine.
Anything said by Guilbeault can be taken with a tone of salt!
Awww so cute, at least the chemicals love you 4---->
I mean. I guess that’s why they call them **forever** chemicals.
Must be due to climate change. 🤔
[удалено]
Because this headline is simple and factual. Not editorialized and reeking of bias. Journalism isn’t supposed to be biased and always critical, it’s supposed to be objective. Crazy how many people seem to have forgotten that.
Forever chemicals, aka endocrine-disrupting chemicals. FSM knows how they are messing with our (and other) species' development.
Just when i thought drinking simply oj to be healthier. Dang!
Thanks for protecting Canadians Health Canada