groundzeros2015 a day ago

The article fails to mention risk and the amounts that create those. In typical journalist fashion it just emphasizes the word “chemical” and other scary framings.

▲

cluckindan a day ago | parent | next [-]

True. The risk is heavily downplayed, since the health effects manifest in decades and can be blamed on lifestyle factors, while the amounts causing health issues are in the order of parts per trillion.

▲

OutOfHere a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Well it is scary and harmful. Since it accumulates in the body, the safe level is zero. Do you work for the chemical industry?

▲

groundzeros2015 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> the safe level is zero.

This is not true of any substance.

> Well it is scary and harmful

Well that narrative certainly came through. The facts supporting it did not.

> Do you work for the chemical industry?

No. Do you? Does this invalidate that the article did not use the opportunity to inform me?

▲

OutOfHere 17 hours ago | parent [-]

The article has no responsibility of explaining to you why PFAS is harmful, considering its harms are well established in science over many years. Your denialism and ignorance of the harms of PFAS is a malicious attempt to discredit the article. I suggest asking your preferred LLM service with access to the web to find you the necessary evidence.

	▲	groundzeros2015 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What? How can it possibly talk about the decision without the risks? It doesn’t even refer to a source where I can learn more. Did you ask the LLM about your claim that no level was safe?