...I mean, the entire point is that there's no observed adverse effects in humans from continual minimal exposure. Only in very high occupational exposure. And the calculated NOEL based on animal models is hundreds of times above double the DoH reference range
-
-
-
Replying to @tissa38 @carriefellner and
According to the EPA it is. Check up the thread
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @carriefellner and
Look at the latest literature. Anyway, I’ll keep advocating and fighting for the victims of these insidious chemicals, who never chose to be continually exposed and you can keep advocating for whoever it is you’re advocating for. Have a great day.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tissa38 @carriefellner and
Lol. The EPA calculations were done in 2016. If you've got anything more recent happy to take a look
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @carriefellner and
Also check out the submissions to the Australian Federal Govt expert panel on PFOS from 2018
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tissa38 @carriefellner and
You mean the 2017 Italian ecological study that specifically and explicitly says that it's not evidence of a causal link? Or the other two sources that use the EPA reference RfD or similar? I mean...it seems that they agree with my argument
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @carriefellner and
I’ll tell you what, you start giving your kids water laced with PFAS at the same levels as what’s been detected in Bundaberg’s drinking water, and in 5 years time I’ll ask you again if you still have the same lack of concern
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tissa38 @carriefellner and
Every child in Australia is likely drinking similar levels of PFAS this is actually explicitly recognized in the 2018 consultation panel so...sure? I guess?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @carriefellner and
Bullshit, 70ppt is the current Australian Drinking water guideline. And as an epidemiologist I’d expect more from you, instead I get “likely drinking similar levels.” I’ve actually had the Melbourne drinking independently tested and every sample showed below 70ppt
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Eh, I'm being glib. Somewhat like certain asbestos cracks
Let's agree to disagree on whether "double the reference range" is a health emergency, because clearly we aren't reading the same evidence
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.