No.

There’s a huge difference between rejecting data and just pointing out that nearly every single study is too small and underfunded and nearly every one of them is preliminary.

There’s a reason all these papers are careful to say stuff like “more research is needed”

The goal of science is to try and prove the negative

You never actually can sufficiently prove your goal, but you can disprove other possibilities to narrow alternative reasons down until you get as close as possible to your outcome being the only remaining reason left.

This has not been achieved with PFAS studies yet simply due to a lack of time and quantity. Most of these studies are either too small, or too specific to do anything more than conclude “well, this definitely is interesting and should be investigated more”

Because proving it actually for sure does something is incredibly challenging, because there’s thousands of other variables at play, and many of the studied symptoms don’t display massive magnitudes in change.

Not enough to be very certain that they aren’t being caused by some other factor that pairs up with PFAS exposure.

For example, PFAS exposure also will correlate with other possible exposures to pollutants simultaneously for the same reason you got exposed to PFAS.

Air pollution levels also correlate, once again, same reason.

It’s devilishly challenging when the people with above average PFAS exposure also are getting exposed to other pollutants to then narrow down to just PFAS being the cause. It could be the wrong chemical causing issues… or ot could be 100% the cause.

It’s not like Asbestos where we could find villages with clean drinking water and air quality with zero other concerns that had huge issues due to being downwind of a mine.

If they managed to find a large group of people downstream of a plant that only dumped PFAS in the water and not other pollutants too, you’d be in business.

But that isn’t a thing, they dump all manner of shit in there with the PFAS, so can you see how that fucks up the numbers?

You clearly didn’t read it, it’s just a giant metastudy gathering up tonnes of research but it’s basically just a shotgun paper covering all the “maybes” that have been highlighted

It cites dozens and dozens of papers, most of which highlight “maybe possibly potentially PFAS levels corrolate with (insert health effect here)”

However it also glosses over tonnes of other studies that havent found links to be statistically significant.

I want you to read this XKCD comic and try and understand how it relates to the discussion

https://xkcd.com/882/

it states that the indirect genotoxic (and thus carcinogenic) potential of PFOA cannot be dismissed

Its important to understand that “cannot be dismissed” is not the same as “we think it does do this”

It’s a double negative, its “we dont not think it causes it”, but waaaaay more study is needed.

Serum Concentrations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma Actually is a new one for me, I havent seen this one, and it does look much more compelling than the other smaller studies, this one is more concerning than the others.

The Panel determined in 2012 there was a ‘probable link’ (i.e., more probable than not based on the weight of the available scientific evidence)

Fourth link is a lot of nothing, why did you bother linking it? It just discusses other studies but doesnt add anything new of substance.

Fifth link is pretty sketchy, theres many other variables that also associate, and they didnt even find a link between specifically PFOS anyways

while no significant association was observed for PFOS (OR = 1.14; 95% CI 0.98-1.34; P = 0.09)

Its important to note that every single one of these studies is empirical post exposure which means many other associated variables can also contribute.

People with low PFAS vs high PFAS exposure almost undoubtedly are also exposed to many other things… like pollution in general

It’s borderline impossible to actually separate out PFAS levels from these other entangled variables, people who are heavily exposed to 1 type of pollution will also be exposed to many others, and theres a heavy association between living situation and PFAS exposure.

That is why its so damn hard to get any conclusive proof on this, the only way to truly figure it out would be to purposefully administer PFAS to people intentionally in a controlled environment, to try and separate out variables.

The relationships that do show up are all very tenuous, and could easily be also explained by the dozens of other variables, so thats why you keep seeing the wording of “may contribute” or “requires further study” or “associated with”

No, there’s a very minor causational link that has been classified as “needs further study”

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html#%3A~%3Atext=Studies+in+humans%2Cneeded+to+clarify+these+findings.

Its extremely far away from “concrete evidence”, that’s what Im talking about when saying this video was hypebole.

Many places are classifying it as potentially hazardous to be safe, because:

1. Theres safer alternatives anyways
2. Better safe than sorry, its not a missions critical option

No, I watched it, and the end result is a lot of hyperbole.

… No? I consider myself pretty well read.

If you have any conclusive peer reviewed papers that prove PFAS are poisonous if ingested at such microscopic scales, please by all means… link them

I have been keeping an eye on the progression of study on PFAS for nearly 6 years now since they started finding it all over the world. Im not gonna claim it isnt poisonous, but I certainly am gonna say despite all the studying, no actual issues have been found with them yet that have been repeatable in peer reviewed studies.

Everything seems to still be quite a bit inconclusive so far. Albeit I also chalk a lot of that up to a pretty heavy amount of muzzling on actually researching the impact of PFAS. If you have anything that proves otherwise though, by all means share it with the rest of the class.

Now, if you wanna talk about inhaling vapors from burnt PFAS, now we are talking about potential poisons that can really fuck you up.

But the quantity of PFAS in things like drinking water seems to be so incredibly low and some studies have shown that boiling water actually helps remove many different types of microplastics, including PFAS, due to interesting effects of sodium deposits in the water forming that bind to them sorta Katamari Damacy style.

But other than that, no, I havent seen anything else, just a loooot of “inconclusive, needs further study” stuff published time and time again.

I haven’t actually yet seen any conclusive proof that PFAS are poisonous to ingest, however

Sure, it’s present everywhere, and I wouldn’t be shocked if we found out it’s bad for us.

But it has to actually be a poison to call it poison.

Pollutant? For sure. Poison? No proof of that yet. Just very annoying but the very principle that makes it hard to scrub out of water (very non reactive and tiny) is also what makes it seem to, so far, show no negative side effects on stuff.

It’s there but kinda just, doing nothing as far as we can see… so far

We need more funding into studies on it.

I have my full setup in github with details of all my various plugins I use here!

https://github.com/SteffenBlake/pixxel-nvim

Then I’ll just assume they’re bullshitting. Even San Francisco has a couple houses I found listed for 500k. And no, its not an apartment, it was a detached home.

What city

3 seconds of looking and I found five houses under 500k. Two of them genuinely look pretty decent too tbh, not even rough looking homes.

“When I eliminate all the homes that normal people would classify as a starter home, I can’t find any starter homes!”

“Wait to buy a starter homes you are telling me I can’t live in a rich gentrified white neighborhood, I might have a black guy for a neighbour? That just won’t do!”

“Sorry anything not within 5 blocks of a Starbucks can’t possibly count as a starter home”

This is what people sound like when they talk about “safety” and “crime rates” and “starter homes” in the same sentence.

(X) Doubt

It literally sounds super fake.

I can’t find a single major city without 200k to 350k homes lol

It takes like 30 seconds to check what starter homes cost in any city, yet people will believe this shit instead of just go look.

Edit: this is the “source” https://www.zillow.com/research/million-dollar-start-home-2025-35100/

Just 1 chart with literally zero further info, no published actual data of where these numbers came from, how they calculated them, how they gathered the data.

Why do people fall for empty garbage articles like this so easy. I wish we collectively called this out more.

If a person posts an article citing another article, instead of just the original article, they should get fuckin blasted for it and downvoted to hell.

Post. Original. Sources.

Once I got so used to all my custom keybinds in neovim, it became hard to use anything else.

I’m used to tools like Harpoon for fast jumping around “bookmarked” spots in my code, once i started using the same technique for my writing it’s like something clicked for me, I was like “holy shit I can arbitrarily jump to spots so fast now…”

I use neovim a lot for coding.

Over time though I discovered it had tonnes of amazing features as a prose editor too, so many powerful plugins for editing prose that blew me away.

Stuff like “warn me if I use tthe same word too much” and whatnot.

And of course telescopes fuzzy find made jumping around to edit my text way faster, and being able to bulk change stuff with a simple :%s/.../.../g feels real good.

I highly recommend folks try out nvim for this use case :3

The 1 seat they got was in the green party stronghold (co leaders home town)

I have zero clue what her platform is, prolly environmentalist tho.

If any vote ever fails in our government, it triggers an instant re-election. It’s called the Vote of Non Confidence

It’s probably one of the most key parts of why our government is a little bit more resistant to clown-showing, because even a small crack in the parliament triggers a new election.

So bills can only be tabled if the gov is 100% confident it will have the votes.

Which means the conservatives could table a bill if they knew the NDP + Bloc would side with them on it, as then they have the votes to pass it.

But since it’s the NDP, a very progressive party, it means they actually hold that fine balance of mediating power between liberals and conservatives.

It’s pretty solid actually, and makes it so everyone the entire term could pass a reasonable bill.

Pretty sure this last term the conservatives and liberals did agree on some stuff and some bills passed with both approving it, iirc.

I think forcing them to occasionally work together like that helps temper the fascism lol.

Bloc have endorsed the liberals already, Quebec is extremely anti trump.

Bloc aligning with conservatives would be political suicide lol.

Atm we got it, this is the magic sweet spot where we want to be

172 seats exactly with lib+ndp+green

and conservatives can’t even threaten a vote of non confidence with bloc’s help. (1 vote short)

But they could trigger it with that 1 green seat’s help, which means liberals have to stay on the good side of that 1 green seat XD