You seem to have no direct experience with science, given how misinformed you sound.
Just ignore the lemmy.ml users. It's a very convenient self filter.
Thank you. not all *@lemmy.ml users are ignorant science deniers.
Lol groupthinking bubble boy
Not his fault yinz always resort to insults.
He was not deserving of respect
It's intentional
This article is about PFOS so why are you bringing up another chemical discontinued 20 years ago ? I mean, other than fanning the flames of the FOREVER CHEMICALS moral panic ?
Probably not yet...at least, not good, solid numbers. There's a study out of the University of Michigan that claimed to find that certain PFAS chemicals could double the risk for certain cancers in women with previous cancer diagnoses. Sounds from the abstract that it was just a correlational study (meaning it just shows a relationship between exposure and risk, but doesn't show that PFAS caused the increased risk...if you're interested in why a correlation doesn't establish causation, this site is a fun way to learn more https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)
There's a lot of different PFAS chemicals and a lot of different cancers, so there's gonna be a lot of work required to nail it all down.
It’s in the article. They typed it up all nice with good words and a nice font and everything.
The article is several thousand words...none of which talk about a causal link or dose response in humans, which is the demographic I assumed the person I was replying to was curious about. It took me less time to find primary sources and link them than to read the biography of Ms. Hanson.
Cool, cool. So what’s the verdict? What’d you find?
It’s in the link I posted. They typed it up all nice with good words and a nice font and everything.
Thanks ! That's a way better answer than the other guy who recommended blocking all lemmy.ml users, instead of answering.
Still the previous comment has 10x more negative votes so any dissenting voices are already silenced by the cultists even before we get deamplified, blocked, deleted and banned.
Can we get some numbers on those "likely to cause cancer" claims ?
It sounds like when the cops get a new toy that can detect drugs with 10x sensitivity and they then start blabbing that everyone is on drugs now.
Combine that with the science grants system perverse incentives and you've got a recipe for making mountains out of mole hills.
PFOA is considered a known human carcinogen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
You seem to have no direct experience with science, given how misinformed you sound.
Just ignore the lemmy.ml users. It's a very convenient self filter.
Thank you. not all *@lemmy.ml users are ignorant science deniers.
Lol groupthinking bubble boy
Not his fault yinz always resort to insults.
He was not deserving of respect
It's intentional
This article is about PFOS so why are you bringing up another chemical discontinued 20 years ago ? I mean, other than fanning the flames of the FOREVER CHEMICALS moral panic ?
Probably not yet...at least, not good, solid numbers. There's a study out of the University of Michigan that claimed to find that certain PFAS chemicals could double the risk for certain cancers in women with previous cancer diagnoses. Sounds from the abstract that it was just a correlational study (meaning it just shows a relationship between exposure and risk, but doesn't show that PFAS caused the increased risk...if you're interested in why a correlation doesn't establish causation, this site is a fun way to learn more https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)
There's a lot of different PFAS chemicals and a lot of different cancers, so there's gonna be a lot of work required to nail it all down.
https://dceg.cancer.gov/research/what-we-study/pfas https://sph.umich.edu/news/2023posts/exposure-to-pfas-chemicals-doubles-the-odds-of-a-prior-cancer-diagnosis-in-women.html#:~:text=Exposure%20to%20PFAS%20chemicals%20doubles,prior%20cancer%20diagnosis%20in%20women
It’s in the article. They typed it up all nice with good words and a nice font and everything.
The article is several thousand words...none of which talk about a causal link or dose response in humans, which is the demographic I assumed the person I was replying to was curious about. It took me less time to find primary sources and link them than to read the biography of Ms. Hanson.
Cool, cool. So what’s the verdict? What’d you find?
It’s in the link I posted. They typed it up all nice with good words and a nice font and everything.
Thanks ! That's a way better answer than the other guy who recommended blocking all lemmy.ml users, instead of answering. Still the previous comment has 10x more negative votes so any dissenting voices are already silenced by the cultists even before we get deamplified, blocked, deleted and banned.