[HN Gopher] Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson's ...
___________________________________________________________________
Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson's disease
Author : lonelyasacloud
Score : 649 points
Date : 2023-05-16 10:52 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| marvel_boy wrote:
| "But that "really means nothing for what's already in the
| environment," De Miranda says. Mitigating against exposure is
| tricky, she adds, because, unlike with pesticides, underground
| TCE locations aren't always documented."
|
| Really disturbing.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Started gabapentin, couple weeks later I had Parkinson's Took
| awhile to clear up. Had a few rounds of this before I figured out
| that gabapentin induced Parkinson's was a thing.
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31633228/
| titzer wrote:
| Did you mean Parkinson _ism_ , because that is an umbrella term
| for symptoms, not necessarily the disease. It's an important
| distinction, because Parkinson's is degenerative.
|
| https://www.parkinson.org/library/fact-sheets/parkinsonism
| jxramos wrote:
| Isn't this the same stuff found in Mountain View by Google? Ah
| yah it is.
| https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fus...
|
| So is this chemical very stable and folks just dumped it into
| pits or something and it seeped into the groundwater? How did it
| get deep into the earth like that without being degraded or
| reacting with other stuff down there etc?
| ur-whale wrote:
| God forbid they would use the actual name of the chemical in the
| title.
|
| Journalists and their tricks are so tiresome.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| What would happen that was bad if we banned this until we had
| more safety evidence?
| coldtea wrote:
| Some companies would lose money. We can't allow that.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| This is Hacker News, so you should probably include a "/s" to
| indicate sarcasm, because otherwise you'll get a lot of
| people agreeing with you.
| p0pcult wrote:
| if one includes the "/s" then they get a lot of people
| arguing that profit is why companies exist.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| The whole point of sarcasm is that people misunderstand
| causing funny situations. If you are going to signal it
| with eg. /s you may as well just say what you mean.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I've just started reading Flowers for Algernon, highly
| recommended.
| objektif wrote:
| I would say yes few would agree but fortunately HN is still
| not filled with late stage capitalist idiots.
| Forbo wrote:
| People get buttmad and downvote you for pointing out
| manmade global extinction events and daily death tolls
| from pollution. HN isn't immune from these shitbags. This
| site has a lot more capitalists than environmentalists.
| jjkaczor wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| Asbestos has been banned for most usage in Canada since the
| early 1990's.
|
| However... Canada continues to be one of the biggest exporter
| of Asbestos in global-trade.
|
| Can't allow multi-national - and national corporations with
| local holdings to not turn a profit, right? After all - there
| are local jobs that are more important... (well, until the
| taxes collected on those activities are outweighed by the
| healthcare costs of the local population as they age...)
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| That's why cyanide is allowed in adult fruit and smoothie
| drinks without safety thresholds while it was only recently
| banned via pressure for children's products. Setting a
| maximum amount of cyanide cuts into profits so there's a
| lobby against it.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Does it come from apple seeds?
|
| I found a paper about it: Cyanide Toxicity of Freshly
| Prepared Smoothies and Juices Frequently Consumed:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7731941/
| herculity275 wrote:
| These are the kind of well-sourced comments I come to Hacker
| News for
| coldtea wrote:
| Ah, the kind of zero-content, off topic, smug meta-comments
| I come to Hacker News for!
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Ah, the kind of stupid chain comments i come to Reddit
| for...
|
| Oh wait
| c0balt wrote:
| That would be selfish, think of the profits /s
| refurb wrote:
| We'd still be using carbon tetrachloride which is even more
| toxic?
|
| TCE was a safer alternative.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| Safer? CC4 decomposes into phosgene at high (about 250
| Celcius) temperature, which is why using it in fire
| extinguishers was a bad idea but TCE does that when simply
| exposed to light, at room temperature. And if those LD/LC
| numbers that I'm looking at are correct, TCE is actually
| slightly more toxic.
| refurb wrote:
| Carbon tetrachloride is used in research to reliably create
| liver damage. It's very toxic.
|
| "Carbon tetrachloride is one of the most potent
| hepatotoxins (toxic to the liver), so much so that it is
| widely used in scientific research to evaluate
| hepatoprotective agents."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tetrachloride
| [deleted]
| DrBazza wrote:
| It's been known for quite some time that trichloroethylene is
| linked to Parkinsons. In fact the doctor that assessed my father
| a few years ago asked him "what was your job?", "engineer," "you
| used degreaser didn't you? Did you know that .... ".
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Also, infertility[0].
|
| [0] https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/82/2/590/1656962
| ekianjo wrote:
| 70% higher risk is meaningless if you don't give the absolute
| risk. Common issue with this kind of reporting...
|
| EDIT: my bad, they did talk about the absolute risk later on.
| Should have been the first thing they mention, though, to avoid
| looking sensationalist.
|
| > The researchers calculated the rate of Parkinson's disease in
| the veterans and compared it with the rate in more than 72,000
| veterans who lived at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, a similar
| training ground in California where there were not high levels of
| TCE. By 2021, 279 of the Camp Lejeune veterans, or 0.33%, had
| developed Parkinson's versus 151 of those at Camp Pendleton, or
| 0.21%.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| > Should have been the first thing they mention, though, to
| avoid looking sensationalist.
|
| There isn't a whole lot they can do if you don't actually read
| the article. I always try to read the article before I pass
| judgement on whether it's sensationalized or not.
| [deleted]
| q1w2 wrote:
| Is that the only data sets they looked at? Comparing only two
| locations means that there could be any number of site
| differences that account for the difference in the rate of
| Parkinson's disease, other than the studied chemical.
| rippercushions wrote:
| Pendleton seems to be a reasonable control, since the
| reported prevalence of 0.21% in patients under 60 matches
| other large data sets like the UK (0.25%).
|
| https://www.parkinsons.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-01/Pr.
| ..
| rdl wrote:
| This is to some degree reassuring; as the chemical was phased out
| in the 1970s, maybe it means Parkinson's rates among people who
| are middle aged or younger today, and thus much less likely to
| have been exposed, will be lower than boomer+ rates.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| These kind of Mitochondrial Complex 1 inhibitor induced
| Parkinson's are like 1% of cases. Granted these cases are
| probably highly underdiagnosed, but even if they really make up
| 10% of cases that probably doesn't change your overall risk
| that much. C.f.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9
| 496895/#:~:tex....
|
| Alternatively, the idea that you can get actual Parkinson's
| (not PSP) from mitochondrial complex 1 inhibitors might be new
| and noteworthy on its own, because I'm not aware of other
| research showing this.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| It was phased out of _wider_ non industrial uses like
| anesthesia(!) and decaffeinating coffee. It is still used as
| degreaser.
| dwighttk wrote:
| What is the difference between linked and strongly linked?
| hgsgm wrote:
| Higher correlation
| nickdothutton wrote:
| IANAC (I am not a chemist, and certainly not an organic chemist
| <shudder>) but I know that contamination by former dry cleaning
| sites (almost always near built up areas, in small parades of
| shops, often near schools, gardens, etc) is a very serious
| problem. In the past, such businesses frequently dumped waste
| into drains, soak-always, pits, or in fact anywhere other than
| paying to have it treated properly. Probably the only other thing
| I'm aware of that you might possibly encounter is the site of a
| former leather tannery, although these were not generally sited
| near houses due to the overpowering smell and obvious
| unsightlyness.
| masfuerte wrote:
| In the UK the soil around old petrol stations is usually highly
| contaminated and they are often found near houses.
| anaisbetts wrote:
| Widely used chemical *(that was generally phased out in the 70s)
| linked to Parkinson's. Still important, but you don't need to
| start searching product labels in 2023 for it.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| TCE is present at Lowry in Denver, an old air force base that
| is now a huge development of multi-million dollar homes and
| townhomes.
|
| This article is from 2000, before the housing development
| began. People knew TCE was there but the housing development
| happened anyway
|
| https://extras.denverpost.com/news/news1126.htm
|
| It's also at Stapleton, another huge residential area, and
| previously Denver's primary airport:
|
| "At the former Stapleton Airport, which is also being
| redeveloped, the TCE is 35 to 40 feet deep, according to Tom
| Gleason, spokesman for Forest City Stapleton Inc., the private
| developer overseeing the building.
|
| He said it won't have any effect on the redevelopment, which
| will include homes and commercial areas."
|
| Indeed, it didn't. The redevelopment happened anyway. And now
| I'd guess it's in the air, water, and of course the soil.
| gr1zzlybe4r wrote:
| There seems to be a crazy amount of chemical waste all over
| the metro Denver area. I don't live in Lowry, but I play
| hockey maybe once every 1 to 2 months at Big Bear Ice Arena,
| which is in that neighborhood.
|
| There's also the Rocky Flats nuclear site, the chemical plant
| in Lakewood, and also the wildlife "refuge" north of the
| city.
|
| Seems somewhat ironic given Colorado's reputation for
| pristine natural beauty.
| swasheck wrote:
| the 40s and 50s were unkind to the american west and to
| denver, in particular. a lot of the natural beauty is
| actually west of denver in the places that couldnt be
| exploited by rockwell, lockheed, and other participants in
| that military/industrial complex.
|
| i also wonder how much of the environmental focus that
| denver-boulder is known for is something of a reaction to
| that exploitation.
| coldfoundry wrote:
| Just another thing on the list of reasons I'm moving far
| away!
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Its certainly in the soil and groundwater - but why would it
| be in the air?
| runjake wrote:
| Because water evaporates and TCE is particularly good at
| transmission through water vapor. That's my guess.
| aurizon wrote:
| Water vapor is co-distilled with water vapor in room
| temperature evaporation. Humid air a 70F has a partial
| pressure of about 0.2 PSI - a substantial amount. I would
| have to look into tabular data on the H2O TCE system to
| see, but it is substantial = the smell you get. It also
| has it's own presence on dry air, but it is higher if
| water present due to low temperature co-distillation.
| These soils need to be dug up -washed with super-critical
| CO2 ($$$), then baked dry with the vapor condensed. This
| has been done in Toronto at a few old factories. Later
| they started to create a large underwater landfill area -
| the 'spit' and created a number of clay and membrane
| lined lagoons(embayments) where they buried it and
| covered it with clean fill to make a wild life area.
| Started about 50-75 years ago and it was well built and
| monitored since then and has stayed
| sealed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Street_Spit
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| If you read the TFA it says, "TCE is highly persistent in
| soil and groundwater; inhalation through vapor from these
| hidden sources is likely the prime route of exposure
| today."
| ta988 wrote:
| Because it is volatile.
| anjel wrote:
| It's no longer uncommon to (carbon) filter drinking water
| at the tap or in your fridge, which then makes a hot shower
| likely a major avenue into your body by way of your lungs
| unless you filter water for the whole house plumbing
| system.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| These developments are not pulling local groundwater.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Doesn't matter - it's in the air, too. Read the article.
| [deleted]
| explorer83 wrote:
| There are shower heads that can be installed with carbon
| filters. Can be done with a wrench. No plumber required.
| CapstanRoller wrote:
| [dead]
| lisasays wrote:
| _Still important, but you don 't need to start searching
| product labels in 2023 for it._
|
| Was this meant to be reassuring?
|
| Per the article, you won't find in retail products; but rather,
| in the soil and groundwater -- where it is "highly persistent".
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Was it? Read about its use in industry in 90s including a story
| about someone who got brain damaged by it.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| This paragraph from the article explains the significance of
| the reported result (and the motivation behind the study):
|
| >> About 90% of Parkinson's cases can't be explained by
| genetics, but there have been hints that exposure to TCE may
| trigger it. The new study, led by researchers at the University
| of California, San Francisco (UCSF), represents by far the
| strongest environmental link between TCE and the disease. Until
| now, the entire epidemiological literature included fewer than
| 20 people who developed Parkinson's after TCE exposure.
|
| That is to say, the relation between TCE and Parkinsons had,
| until now, no strong evidence to support it. It seems (not
| sure, not my field) that now it does.
|
| Also note, from the article:
|
| >> "Alarmingly, TCE vapor intrusion is widespread today and
| ranges from an elementary school situated on top of a former
| chemical facility in Shanghai, China, to multimillion-dollar
| homes built on a previous aerospace plant in Newport Beach,
| California," the authors of an accompanying editorial in JAMA
| Neurology write.
| q1w2 wrote:
| I don't see this study as strong evidence.
|
| They only studied TWO military bases and compared the rate of
| Parkinson's. There could be any number of environmental
| differences between these two locations besides the TCE
| levels in the water.
|
| The other issue is that there is an active class action
| lawsuit about this exact military base. When a study is
| published that directly reinforces the claims of one side of
| an active lawsuit, you always need to be cautious about
| taking it at face value. There could be some conflict of
| interest or even just sympathy from the scientists that
| introduces bias in their research methodology.
| gabaix wrote:
| Some of the most populated zones of the Bay Area are built on
| top of superfund sites, which have high concentration of TCE
| underground.
|
| https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment/superfund-sites-...
| jeffbee wrote:
| There are small TCE plumes virtually everywhere in urbanized
| California. Every dry cleaner in history was just dumping
| waste TCE and PCE into holes in the ground. If you click
| around on this map, half of these sites are TCE/PCE (the
| other half are usually gas, diesel, and MTBE).
|
| https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?global_id=SL60019.
| ..
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Well one problem is that "Some of the most populated zones
| of" _everywhere_ are superfund sites. Another, I learned long
| ago in the real estate business, is that superfund sites are
| just the sites they 've taken the trouble to bother "cleaning
| up". As the article alludes to, it's not the documented TCE
| sites we need to worry about, it's the undocumented TCE sites
| that will likely get the average person. This same rule
| applies to real estate development.
|
| One of the dirty secrets of development is that we really
| have just poisoned a lot of our environment. Now you can work
| around that in real estate dev because there are creative
| ways to interpret disclosure regulations. But Mother Nature
| doesn't care about such tricks. She has a set of, (in this
| case chemical), rules and if they're broken, she'll happily
| punish you without a second thought.
|
| I'm not sure how we solve the issue of toxins in our
| environment? It gets complex not only because of the
| competing interests, but also because research like this will
| continue to come out, and something we didn't think was a
| problem, will turn out to have been a problem. So you're in a
| situation where you know a lot. You even learn more everyday.
| But you don't know what you don't know.
| walleeee wrote:
| I can't help but think we've gone too far in limiting
| liability
|
| Doing so may be an effective way to catalyze invention and
| economic activity but ignoring externalities becomes
| existentially risky as our capacities develop
|
| If we prefer human arbitration to nature's blind and brutal
| judgment, we had better put toothy disincentives in place
|
| Is it possible that occasionally punishing an honest
| mistake or absence of forethought may be the price we have
| to pay to prevent poisoning by diffusion of sociopathy?
|
| It feels wrong, but so does perishing because the species
| can't deploy technology in the long term interest
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > Is it possible that occasionally punishing an honest
| mistake or absence of forethought may be the price we
| have to pay to prevent poisoning by diffusion of
| sociopathy?
|
| It's not even about punishing. If you cause a car or home
| accident because of a mistake, your insurance rates will
| go up, and if the damage exceeds your coverage, you'll
| pay out of pocket. There's nothing punitive about it,
| you're just responsible because of fault.
|
| That shouldn't feel wrong. It should evoke pity, but not
| a feeling of wrongness.
|
| For the heirs of the stockholders of these polluting
| companies we need a special tax to clean up the
| "accidents" of those companies. These taxes could be
| limited to the maximum value of the company, or better
| yet the proportion of the total wealth of the heirs that
| the company stock represented at the time they sold or
| dissolved the company. That's still limiting liability,
| but in the original sense of the term (clawback of sold
| and wipeout of retained shares).
|
| For the heirs of anyone who made a purposeful decision to
| pollute despite knowing the harms, then the limited
| liability should be pierced to allow taxation of the
| fraction of the total wealth of the heirs that derive
| from the polluter.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Really well said, gets to the heart of the issue truly.
| culi wrote:
| This map (from 2015) shows sites with the most TCE
| groundwater contamination. Bay Area is actually quite clean.
| LA is completely fucked though
|
| https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2018-tce/
| xeromal wrote:
| Thanks for this. Kind of happy my state of GA has none!
| johnmaguire wrote:
| It's not clear to me where this data comes from - do
| spots that are unmarked have none, or are they
| unmeasured?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| The data says it comes from public water systems. The EPA
| requires testing and reporting of water supplies for lots
| of things.
|
| That being said, if you run your own private well, you're
| not subject to this.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| https://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/35/7/4009
|
| http://www.l-a-k-e.org/blog/2013/10/csx-groundwater-
| contamin...
| athoun wrote:
| This is incorrect, or misleading at best. The map that you
| linked contains data about TCE levels in public water
| systems. It does not imply anything about the contamination
| of the _groundwater_ supply which exists below many homes
| and workplaces in throughout the Bay Area. Contaminated
| soil and groundwater allows VOCs, such as TCE, to enter
| homes via a process called "vapor intrusion" and which can
| lead to negative health outcomes for the inhabitants even
| without ever drinking the groundwater [1].
|
| The vast majority of the Bay Area population gets its water
| either from the Hetch Hetchy (SF, South Bay, Peninsula) or
| the Mokelumne River watershed (East Bay). This is surface
| water that is mostly clear of VOCs which is why nothing
| shows up on the map for the Bay Area that you shared.
|
| For a more accurate representation of the state of the
| _groundwater_ in the Bay Area, see this map of chemical
| plumes (hint they 're everywhere) [2].
|
| [1] https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/what-vapor-intrusion
|
| [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20141120123953/http://www.n
| bcbay...
| uoaei wrote:
| https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/toxic-chemical-
| fou...
|
| > The Oakland Unified School district announced the
| temporary closure of the McClymonds to test for the
| chemical tricloroethylene (TCE), which was found in
| groundwater under the campus.
|
| > "This is West Oakland and so there is a history of
| environmental injustice, of racial injustice that happens
| in this community. So these are places where there are
| leaks, there are dumps, there are things like that that are
| not healthy for our community," said Jumoke Hinton Hodge,
| Oakland Board of Education District 3 Director.
|
| > McClymonds has recently seen a handful of students and
| former students develop cancer, including the high-profile
| cases Darryl Aikens, a McClymonds football player who died
| of leukemia a month after graduating in 2017, as well as
| 2018 graduate Ramone Sanders, who died of cancer last fall.
| Sanders was playing football at Laney College when he broke
| his leg and it was discovered he had bone cancer that
| spread to his lungs.
| jpmattia wrote:
| > _This map (from 2015) shows sites with the most TCE
| groundwater contamination._
|
| But note there was more than TCE at those superfund sites.
| baremetal wrote:
| I lived near the Fairchild superfund site for many years. I
| remember when it was a hollow husk of a concrete building.
| And then the paved it over and put a supermarket and whatnot
| there.
|
| Growing up I knew a lot of kids that were affected by it,
| they were called "fairchildren" or a "fairchild".
|
| I was born elsewhere and my family moved to the area, the
| kids that were born there weren't so lucky.
| [deleted]
| causi wrote:
| Anytime you see something unnecessarily and deliberately non-
| specific in a headline it's always some alarmist bullshit.
| "Famous actor is arrested for drunk driving" and they had one
| role in TV twenty years ago. "This everyday snack leads to
| kidney stones" and it's fish-butthole-flavored chips that were
| produced in Japan for six weeks in 1998.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Trichloroethylene is still used but less than before.
|
| ~20 000 tonnes today vs. 250 000 tonnes in 1970.
| j45 wrote:
| It might still be used in other countries.
|
| Might even be unknowingly imported into other countries
| quaintdev wrote:
| I wonder what chemicals from today we are going to declare
| toxic in next 20 years
| quijoteuniv wrote:
| You can look into how many studies are done in currently used
| chemicals, spoiler is about 10%, when the chemical is
| declared unsafe like biphenol, they come up with a a non
| studied version. Ie: biphenol b and so the games goes
| rpvnwnkl wrote:
| Still in use at screen-printing shops. Check out 'Plastisol
| Remover': https://sourceone.nazdar.com/P/4377/Triple-Blend-
| Liquid-Cure...
| rlt wrote:
| > But in the 20th century, TCE was used for many purposes,
| including making decaffeinated coffee, dry cleaning, carpet
| cleaning, and as an inhaled surgical anesthetic for children
| and women in labor.
|
| The things we did with (now known) hazardous chemicals in the
| 20th century are really disturbing. My question is are there
| now enough safeguards in place that we're unlikely to be
| repeating the same mistakes?
|
| My guess is no, certainly not with every product imported from
| other countries. We joke about sketchy smelling products from
| China, and you occasionally hear about imports being recalled
| or blocked. How much of it are we missing, both known and
| unknown chemicals?
|
| On the other hand, it's also easy for people disposed to
| anxiety to go down a rabbit hole where the only conclusion is
| you should go live off the land in the middle of nowhere...
| logicchains wrote:
| >My question is are there now enough safeguards in place that
| we're unlikely to be repeating the same mistakes?
|
| Nope. For instance some of the chemicals in sun screen never
| had to pass rigorous safety testing because it was assumed
| they couldn't enter the blood, but in fact that's not the
| case, and already at least one is known to have negative
| effects on reproductive health:
| https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2733085 .
| Who knows what other chemicals are floating about in various
| cosmetics entering the bloodstream through the skin without
| ever being safety tested for that.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Not to mention that many kinds of sunscreen have chemicals
| in them that kill Coral reefs. It's becoming fairly common
| for ocean tourist communities to pay attention to, but that
| won't really stop whatever washes down the rivers.
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| For chemicals that cause illnesses that take decades to show
| up, it's my guess that we will never find all of them, and
| there are likely a lot of them out there. It's a hard
| problem. Maybe it can be helped by using modelling techniques
| to extrapolate effects over time.
| bruckie wrote:
| > are there now enough safeguards in place that we're
| unlikely to be repeating the same mistakes?
|
| I doubt it. One obvious example is plasticizers: there was a
| big ruckus about BPA a few years ago, so manufacturers phased
| it out and switched to different plasticizers, many of which
| are incredibly chemically similar to BPA. It's seems very
| plausible that they have similar negative health effects, but
| there's no regulation (or even disclosure, in most cases) of
| which plasticizers are being used.
|
| https://www.science.org/content/article/bpa-substitutes-
| may-...
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| TCE was originally conceived as a replacement for chemicals
| such as chloroform and ether, which were deemed to be too
| toxic to the liver for anesthesia. Once the toxicity of TCE
| was discovered, it started being phased out in various
| industries.
|
| For degreasers, it was replaced by 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, a
| chloroalkane later banned by the Montreal Protocol. It's use
| in refrigeration was replaced by 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, a
| hydrofluorocarbon banned in the EU today for global warming
| potential. And finally, its use as a general anaesthetic was
| succeeded by Halothane, which doesn't seem to have any major
| health affects (beyond those coming from being an
| anaesthetic). However, that too was later replaced by
| Sevoflurane, which is suspected to accelerate Alzheimers.
|
| Also both those anaesthetisc are greenhouse gases.
|
| So no, we are definitely going to have more problem chemicals
| in the future, because chemistry is complicated.
| misja111 wrote:
| I remember my chemistry teacher in high school telling how they
| used to use 'tri' (that's how they called it) a lot to wash
| their hands in. Until they discovered that it was highly
| carcinogenic. But yeah, that chemistry class was in the early
| 80's, so it is now ages ago that tri was still widely used.
| [deleted]
| nabilhat wrote:
| It's used in dry cleaning in the USA, and their suppliers will
| deliver it to you by the gallon [0]. MSDS of course [1]. If
| you're in Australia and go to the dentist, there's this as well
| [2] although surely that container with its death's head and
| POISON label are kept well out of sight. Of course there's the
| lab supply chain, but that's usually more expensive. It's
| really easy and legal to get if you want it. I've known many
| mechanics and similar, professional and otherwise who use
| workaround sources like these to get the "good stuff"
| degreaser.
|
| [0] https://garmentcleaningsupply.com/picrin-1-gal-streets.html
|
| [1]
| http://www.cleanairsupply.com/CleanAir_Web_Image/Chemical/MS...
|
| [2] https://henryschein.com.au/impression/accessories/finale-
| sol...
| hatsunearu wrote:
| Yeah, automotive brake cleaner comes to mind.
|
| Proven to cause neurological damage, horrifically acutely
| toxic and chronically toxic, causes colorblindness of all
| things...
|
| Oh yeah, when it thermally decomposes into phosgene, a WWI-
| era chemical weapon. Spray brake cleaner on hot brakes and
| you're pretty much instantly dead.
| serf wrote:
| >Spray brake cleaner on hot brakes and you're pretty much
| instantly dead.
|
| brake cleaner is _bad_ -- i 'm not here to dispute that --
| but i've witnessed quick-lube/inspection mechanics spraying
| brake cleaner onto hot brakes for 20+ years, both in shops
| i've worked in personally and in shops i've witnessed as a
| customer.
|
| Oil-lube guys routinely work on _very hot_ just-off-the-
| highway cars. Brake inspections are often a required
| element of such jobs, and there are few better ways to
| spray the brake dust off of calipers /drums/disc-
| hats/suspension components in a hurry than sprayable brake
| cleaners, as horrible as they are. Not only is the solvent
| and kinetic action of the spray itself useful, but the
| wetting action towards the brake dust prevents aerosolizing
| the brake dust for everyone in the shop.
|
| I have never witnessed a death on-site.
|
| I have no doubts that what you say about instant death is
| true in some laboratory environment or closed conditions,
| but it doesn't really correspond to practical reality.
|
| The reality is that these folks go home, create a family,
| live their life , and then die at an early age from a
| chronic illness that is brought about by the conditions.
|
| That's why these practices continue unabated; people _aren
| 't_ dying instantaneously from exposure, they're dying from
| the pernicious long term exposure effects.
| RankingMember wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if the wanton use of brake
| cleaner you describe was using the non-chlorinated
| variety. Both exist, e.g.:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/CRC-05089-BRAKLEEN-Brake-
| Cleaner/dp/B... vs
| https://www.amazon.com/CRC-05089-BRAKLEEN-Brake-
| Cleaner/dp/B...
| LazyMans wrote:
| That stuff is real good for getting stains out of clothes
| [deleted]
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > It's used in dry cleaning in the USA
|
| Does it remain in the fabric after use? Is there danger to
| the wearer of dry-cleaned clothes or only to the people
| working at dry cleaner businesses?
| 1attice wrote:
| Yes. This is why most dry cleaners won't accept bedding.
| It's considered too high-contact. (If they do accept it,
| they wash it with something other than TCE)
|
| Source: a college friend of mine, years ago, who worked as
| a dry cleaner. After talking to her, I've never used one
| since.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| > After talking to her, I've never used one since.
|
| What do we do about our formal wear then?
| sn0wf1re wrote:
| Hand wash gently?
| version_five wrote:
| Don't wash (dryclean) it or at least do it super
| infrequently.
|
| I find the jacket and pants of a suit don't get very
| dirty if you just wear them at work, and dry cleaning
| ruins them anyway. I've gone many months of regular wear,
| probably more than a year in some cases without washing.
| You can spot-clean if you spill something on it.
| deshpand wrote:
| I used to wear cotton long pants (thermals) all year,
| under the suit pant. Not letting the suit pant touch the
| skin made it easier to wear it for a very long time
| (multiple months) before dry-cleaning.
|
| Don't miss those days of mandatory suit-wear.
| wil421 wrote:
| It was 98% humidity and 70 degrees at 7:30 this morning.
| I broke into sweat watering plants with athletic clothes
| on. It's now 86 degrees and 65% humidity. Spring has only
| started.
|
| For me it's not an option. I have to dry clean. It is
| easier to find alternative materials to cotton for the
| office but they don't replace button downs and jeans.
| They can't replace a suit, linen is still much too
| casual.
| 1attice wrote:
| Well, fingers crossed about the Parkinson's, then!
| dehrmann wrote:
| Liquid CO2 dry cleaning?
|
| Supposedly wool doesn't shrink in cold water on gentle
| and air-dried.
| aurizon wrote:
| Yes, this is good and effective. The oils dissolve and
| you spin dry, rinse in new liquid CO2 and repeat if
| needed, just like washing clothes. The CO2 is evaporated
| and back into the tank - the oil remains and is disposed.
|
| https://blancliving.co/pages/liquid-co2-dry-cleaning
| mgkimsal wrote:
| go casual? (not entirely /s)
| 1attice wrote:
| That's a great question that is entirely fabric-
| dependent.
|
| If your formalwear is wool (for example, a tuxedo or
| blazer) you'd probably want to swap it out for a version
| of the garment which is made from Superwash wool, which
| is machine-washable. (Or your choice of alternative
| fabric.) Creating superwash wool is still a pretty
| chemically-intensive process, but that might not be
| forever:
| https://www.moderndailyknitting.com/community/superwash-
| part... It should at least cut down on your TCE exposure.
|
| Silk is trickier -- if you wet it, you have to take great
| care to dry it _without overheating it_ , while at the
| same time getting it to dry evenly, so you don't get
| watermarks on the fabric. It's doable, but it's a total
| PITA. The best strategy here, for me, has been to wash my
| silk blouses very rarely, and with a great deal of care,
| and tumble-dry low. I also use the 'vodka trick' I picked
| up working in the backroom of a theatrical costume
| company, many years ago -- get a bottle of cheap vodka,
| pour it into spritz bottle (one with a fine-mist setting
| -- the kind at beauty stores work great) and turn the
| garment inside-out; hit the pits, etc. It's safe for
| silk, fur, and other delicate fabrics.
|
| If you're going to be wearing silk, do it in winter or in
| air conditioning :)
|
| Fur -- well, you wouldn't have been dry-cleaning fur
| anyway, right? right?? This is a whole chapter on its
| own. (The vodka trick works tho)
|
| Finally, there are also lots of wonderful new machine-
| washable fibres on the market -- tencel, etc. -- that may
| be suitable for formalwear.
|
| But putting formalwear aside, the biggest problem I see
| is down-filled jackets and duvets. I have literally no
| good ideas here, other than 'wash very rarely and tumble
| dry low, low low'
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Duvets at least you can buy machine washable covers for.
| 1attice wrote:
| yes! But I've also embarrassed myself more than once by
| spilling coffee (or, ahem, some other liquid) on my
| eider-down duvet. Moreover, the properties of a duvet
| cover that could keep the duvet safe from such insults --
| namely, a tight weave, and water resistance -- also make
| it sweaty at night.
|
| While highly prized, I've decided that eider down is
| simply not a practical material for either my jackets nor
| my bedding. There are plenty of suitable alternatives on
| the market these days, and no geese are harmed in their
| making.
|
| I confess though that I have yet to bear to throw out
| either my eider down duvet (or, for that matter, my
| luscious fur coat, guiltily secreted for special
| occasions in the back closet). Perhaps I should hold my
| tongue until I can do as I say.
| joe5150 wrote:
| No geese are harmed in the making of eiderdown either
| (eiders are ducks and the down is collected from their
| nests, not from animals.)
| 1attice wrote:
| ...in factory settings. Confinement is a harm.
|
| Yet I say this as a lover of fur and rabbit felt hats
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| I have silk liner socks for hiking (wool over silk is the
| best combination for avoiding blisters), they're tumble
| dry low but that's what we always use anyway--I don't
| treat them any differently than anything else. (Yes,
| appearance doesn't matter one bit--nobody's ever going to
| see them. However, they have no marks despite the fact
| they obviously get a lot of sweat.)
|
| My wife also has some silk that likewise is done tumble
| dry low without being an issue.
| hammock wrote:
| Don't dry cleaners launder most things - as in, they use
| clothes soap not TCE? I'm under the impression that this
| is what happens when I drop shirts off to be cleaned and
| pressed
| TylerE wrote:
| The whole point of dry cleaning is not to use water.
|
| Now, sure many dry cleaners will offer laundry services,
| but that isn't dry cleaning.
| StillBored wrote:
| They do both, for cotton shirts they will just launder
| and press it, which is why its frequently $1-$2 a shirt.
| For many other fabrics they run it through the dry
| cleaning process, which is why its $5-7 a shirt.
| cobertos wrote:
| It depends on the fabric/you can ask. I brought in one
| delicate item to be washed (a cosplay) and they said
| they'd wash it in cold and not dry clean it.
| zzzeek wrote:
| from the article:
|
| > TCE is highly persistent in soil and groundwater; inhalation
| through vapor from these hidden sources is likely the prime
| route of exposure today. However, it's detectable in many
| foods, in up to one-third of U.S. drinking water, and in breast
| milk, blood, and urine.
|
| the groundwater route still seems pretty troubling
| frankus wrote:
| It's also denser than water and somewhat hydrophobic so if I
| understand correctly it tends to settle at the bottom of
| aquifers.
| zzzeek wrote:
| somehow still in 1/3rd of drinking water tho
| photochemsyn wrote:
| TCE is widely used in industry (and was introduced as a
| replacement for more toxic and persistent solvents like
| chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, etc.). Such non-polar
| solvents remain critically important for a wide variety of
| manufacturing processes, e.g.
|
| > "TCE the solvent ENTEK uses is essential to ENTEK's separator
| manufacturing process TCE has a unique combination of chemical
| properties that , together , facilitate the controlled removal
| of process oil while allowing ENTEK to efficiently recover and
| recycle previously used TCE for reuse in both the lead- acid
| and lithium separator production processes in a manner that
| minimizes worker exposure while resulting in a product with the
| characteristics demanded by the battery customers . TCE
| possesses the following properties critical to ENTEK's use and
| reuse" (ENTEK TCE rulemaking report to EPA, July 14 2021)
|
| The fundamental issue (that led to widespread contamination in
| the past) is that capturing and recycling TCE after use is
| fairly expensive, and since it was cheaper to buy new TCE,
| manufacturers would just dump their dirty used TCE, creating
| superfund sites etc.
|
| There are some approaches to replacing organic solvents
| entirely (supercritical CO2 for example) but they're often
| quite expensive.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > capturing and recycling TCE after use is fairly expensive,
| and since it was cheaper to buy new TCE, manufacturers would
| just dump their dirty used TCE, creating superfund sites etc.
|
| This isn't a problem, us future generations can just engineer
| our way out of it at a cheaper cost than it would have been
| to deal with it in the first place.
|
| /s - For sarcasm, and sorry.
| titzer wrote:
| Ha. "Let's break all these cups and throw em in a hole!
| Future people will use _something something something tech_
| and put them back together good as new. "
|
| People are constantly assuming magical future entropy-
| undoers to justify their breaking and ruining things today.
| explorer83 wrote:
| I had a family member who used to educate people on
| recycling. Growing up it was a major fact that styrofoam
| was a forever material that would never biodegrade and
| couldn't be recycled. Today there are methods to recycle
| styrofoam (albeit just like all recycling it takes people
| and resources to take the effort to do it, which is the
| real barrier). I don't think being reckless with our
| future is a good idea. But history is full of past norms
| being changed by new scientific discoveries.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| I've read that McDonald's phase out of its styrofoam
| containers in 1990 ironically prevented the recycling of
| a lot of styrofoam. Businesses were in the process of
| setting up to recycle styrofoam but the removal of such a
| huge source of used styrofoam eliminated their potential
| profitability.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yes, they replaced food packaging that was recyclable
| with paper-based packaging that is not recyclable. I
| worked there before the transition, occasionaly we'd get
| an irate customer complaining about the styrofoam and
| we'd try to explain that it was more recyclable than
| using paper but most would refuse to hear it.
|
| That said, at the store I worked at, the only things that
| actually got recycled were the cardboard boxes from the
| stockroom, and the oil from the fryers. Everything else
| went into the dumpster.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| If I remember right, the phase-out happened in the 1990s, just
| when a lot of manufacturing was leaving the U.S.
|
| A few years back I found an internet search for "United States
| TCE" would turn up articles about Camp Jejune. A search for
| "China TCE" would turn up a picture of a truck with a bunch of
| barrels and an offer to buy it on Alibaba.
| qart wrote:
| It's still available in India for about 1$ per kg, MOQ 100kg.
| https://dir.indiamart.com/search.mp?ss=Trichloroethylene
|
| If it's so cheap, and available in such large quantities, it's
| definitely getting used today, in massive quantities, in some
| parts of the world.
| DemocracyFTW2 wrote:
| I'm not for panicked reporting, but in the face of the stated
| facts (as far as true) your comment is overly dismissive:
|
| _the chemical solvent trichloroethylene (TCE)--common in soil
| and groundwater--increases the risk of developing Parkinson's
| disease. The movement disorder afflicts about 1 million
| Americans, and is likely the fastest growing neurodegenerative
| disease in the world; its global prevalence has doubled in the
| past 25 years._
|
| _It's used today mainly in producing refrigerants and as a
| degreaser in heavy industry._
|
| _But in the 20th century, TCE was used for many purposes,
| including making decaffeinated coffee, dry cleaning, carpet
| cleaning, and as an inhaled surgical anesthetic for children
| and women in labor. TCE is highly persistent in soil and
| groundwater; inhalation through vapor from these hidden sources
| is likely the prime route of exposure today. However, it's
| detectable in many foods, in up to one-third of U.S. drinking
| water, and in breast milk, blood, and urine._
| Zenst wrote:
| > including making decaffeinated coffee
|
| Whilst there are many who call decaffeinated coffee a crime
| against humanity, it is somewhat disconcerting that at one
| stage, it actually was just that.
| [deleted]
| mikestew wrote:
| _...and as an inhaled surgical anesthetic for children_
|
| As one who went under inhaled anesthesia a dozen times or
| more as a child in the 70s, I can only say, "WTF?" It makes a
| great solvent, so let's put in anesthesia?
| kens wrote:
| > It makes a great solvent, so let's put in anesthesia?
|
| Literally, yes. The potency of an inhalation anesthetic is
| usually directly proportional to its lipid solubility.
| (Known as the Meyer-Overton correlation.) This is why
| solvents such as ether and chloroform were used as
| anesthetics and why N2O is both an anesthetic and is
| dissolved in cream to form whipped cream.
|
| The mechanism of inhalation anesthetics is not completely
| understood but it's thought that they interact with lipids
| in cell membranes and disrupt stuff. The better they
| dissolve in lipids, the lower the concentration that is
| needed for anesthesia.
|
| There's a nice graph on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org
| /wiki/Theories_of_general_anaestheti...
| mikestew wrote:
| Well, when you put it that way...yeah, with some thought
| it begins to make a little sense. Because my
| observational evidence says that solvents in general seem
| to soak into human skin pretty well, so the same would
| easily get absorbed by whatever it is that turns the
| lights out. Thanks for the explanation.
| DemocracyFTW2 wrote:
| _as an inhaled surgical anesthetic for children and women
| in labor_
|
| To be fair though, the restricted audience for the
| administration of this particular chemical would seem to
| indicate considerations of safety have been applied,
| otherwise one would expect a more general pattern. One must
| suspect there are many more chemicals with similarly hard-
| to-test-for longterm effects in daily use, note especially
| the so-called 'forever chemicals' (PFAS).
|
| What's more, dose / length of exposition makes a poison, so
| it's not possible to say in the abstract how a short but
| intense exposition of TCE stacks up against 24/7 exposition
| of low levels over the entire childhood. Meaning there's
| hope here.
|
| Also can you be sure it was TCE you received? I remember
| one general anesthesia when I was maybe 9 or so and that
| was pretty definitely laughing gas. It might have been the
| same in (some of) your case(s), too.
| clort wrote:
| I had a couple of operations as a youngster, and from my
| memory (could be faulty) they would speak to you while
| you were still on the trolley then waft some gas in front
| of you as you needed to breathe in. Then, when you were
| sedated they would get on with the business. I guess they
| would be able to inject you with something a bit more
| serious without you squirming, and transfer you to the
| table etc..
| mikestew wrote:
| LOL, that's the exact opposite of the majority of my
| experience in the 70s. In your case, you got the gas,
| then the shot. I'd get the "pre-op" shot for the mild
| sedation, then the gas for the main event. "Count
| backward from ten.", and I'd make it to about seven.
| virtualwhys wrote:
| Likewise, hernia operation as a small child.
|
| I remember feeling like a peanut butter and jelly
| sandwich being folded in half, and then the lights went
| out.
|
| Hopefully one-off cases don't significantly affect the
| chances of getting a serious neurological disorder later
| in life -- it seems we'll find out in the coming years...
| KMag wrote:
| > Hopefully one-off cases don't significantly affect the
| chances of getting a serious neurological disorder later
| in life -- it seems we'll find out in the coming years...
|
| My father and grandfather were anesthesiologists. We kind
| of adopted an older nurse anesthetist as a surrogate
| grandmother when I was a kid. She told us stories of back
| in the old days, sitting there with a stopwatch with one
| hand on the patient's wrist taking their pulse, and a
| dropper full of chloroform in the other hand, placing
| drops on a gauze mask over the patient's mouth when the
| pulse rate started going up. She always got significant
| amounts of second-hand anesthetic exposure.
|
| She said it was pretty common after a long day of work to
| drive home quite high from all of the chloroform
| exposure. I presume TCE anesthesia was similar, and nurse
| anesthetists likely got at least 10,000 times the
| lifetime exposure that you got. Granted, there can be
| differences due to age of exposure, and often non-
| linearities of exposure. However, if the risks of a
| single surgery under TCE anesthesia were significant, I'm
| pretty sure someone would have noted absurd rates of
| parkinson's in nurse anesthetists.
|
| Certainly, read up on the early signs of Parkinson's, and
| talk to your doctor if you think you might start showing
| symptoms, but don't get hypochondria over it.
|
| Cyclopropane as an anesthetic on the other hand...
| particularly with electrocautery pens... I have no idea
| how they were ever allowed in the same operating room, at
| least not without some kind of fume hood around the
| patient's head pulling air rapidly out of the room using
| a non-arcing fan.
| mikestew wrote:
| _Also can you be sure it was TCE you received? I remember
| one general anesthesia when I was maybe 9 or so and that
| was pretty definitely laughing gas._
|
| I'm pretty sure they don't cut you open on nitrous oxide
| (that and...that stuff just wasn't nitrous). Was it TCE?
| I don't know, nor do I really care. What's done is done,
| and worrying about it isn't going to change anything. My
| reaction is more to the fact that there were just not a
| lot of fucks given back then. Rivers were open sewers,
| lead was in gasoline even when it was known to be a bad
| idea, and we put solvents in children's anesthesia.
| justin66 wrote:
| > that was generally phased out in the 70s
|
| Untrue.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| I too was skeptical of the original post without any
| references. However, your post also did not provide
| references.
|
| Wiki isn't great, but here is what I found:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene
| Fetal toxicity and concerns for carcinogenic potential of TCE
| led to its abandonment in developed countries by the 1980s.
| The use of trichloroethylene in the food and pharmaceutical
| industries has been banned in much of the world since the
| 1970s due to concerns about its toxicity.
|
| However, I can still find some pages about "TCE Vapor
| Degreasing", so it is still in use today:
| https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-
| under-t...
|
| The saddest one I found: https://www.cancer.gov/about-
| cancer/causes-prevention/risk/s...
| Historically, TCE was used as a surgical anesthetic and
| inhaled analgesic. The Food and Drug Administration banned
| such use in the United States in 1977.
|
| Woah.
| justin66 wrote:
| > However, your post also did not provide references.
|
| I was calling out the lies, not doing other people's
| research for them.
|
| People ought to understand that this stuff stays in the
| industrial pipeline for years (I'm avoiding the tangent
| that was brought to mind by another poster's mention of
| carbon tetrachloride...) and _we are still in the process
| of simply classifying it according to its dangerousness._
| It 's not close to being gone yet.
|
| (it's not even banned in the EU yet, and I just assume that
| will happen well before it's banned here)
| dcow wrote:
| Yes but it's not a lie to say it was phased out in the
| 70s. Your comment would be more substantial and useful if
| you made whatever nuance you're trying to highlight
| clear.
| justin66 wrote:
| > Yes but it's not a lie to say it was phased out in the
| 70s
|
| I don't understand why you would write that, particularly
| after having read my comments and throwaway2037's comment
| on this thread. "This is a chemical that is currently
| produced in various forms by companies and used by people
| in 2023" and "it was phased out in the 1970s" would seem
| to be mutually contradictory facts. There's no "nuance"
| involved. I get that we're not giving you essay-length
| analysis here, but... I give up.
|
| edit: the LMGTFY for "who makes trichloroethylene": https
| ://www.thomasnet.com/products/trichloroethylene-8767360..
| .
| sophacles wrote:
| You're ignoring the modifier - "generally phased out" is
| not the same statement as "completely phased out".
|
| For example: Generally people don't make their own
| clothes, is a true statement even though there's still
| plenty of people who make their own clothes.
| justin66 wrote:
| Indeed. Reading these replies I can see that the _real_
| issue is one of adverbs.
| dcow wrote:
| Mass, widespread, unchecked use and subsequent dumping of
| the chemical was phased out because that practice was
| understood to be harmful to people and the environment.
| The fact that it is now used in a controlled and
| regulated manner is entirely different. You either missed
| this nuance, or you are deliberately being obtuse to make
| a point that "it's technically still used" which,
| obviously, is true, and also doesn't contradict the fact
| that it was phased out in the 70s once found to be
| poisonous.
| [deleted]
| krageon wrote:
| If the poster you responded to is right, it is in fact a
| lie to say it was phased out in any meaningful manner. I
| don't see this comment as unhelpful - if the use just
| didn't stop, that's that. What is there to discuss? It
| was poison, it's still poison.
|
| it's in picrin [1], which is a spot cleaning solvent. You
| can buy that today.
|
| A paper from 2020 indicates that it is still used and not
| banned [2]
|
| [1] https://www.a-1products.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2016/06/Picri...
|
| [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7941732/
| justin66 wrote:
| It's a component in some solvents a consumer might use,
| as you noted, but it's also used in manufacturing, in
| areas where a trace amount might end up in a consumer
| product but the major problem is for the people who are
| exposed to it during that item's manufacture. (or for the
| people who have to deal with the manufacturer's waste)
| quijoteuniv wrote:
| <<However, it's detectable in many foods, in up to one-third of
| U.S. drinking water>>
| s3p wrote:
| Can you put the chemical name in your title?
| version_five wrote:
| That chemical is trichloroethylene. Even Science does clickbait
| now.
| voisin wrote:
| If memory serves me this is the chemical at the basis of the
| John Travolta movie A Civil Action, which is based on the true
| story covered in the excellent book of the same title.
| tartrate wrote:
| Not sure I'd call it clickbait, and they do mention it right
| away. It'd be like putting a mathematical expression in the
| headline of an article about neural networks.
| SnowHill9902 wrote:
| "Tricholoroethylene strongly linked to Parkinson"
| CodeAndCuffs wrote:
| My first thought would be, "What is this? Is it a common
| chemical?". Then I'd probably call the article click bait
| even though it says it's common early in the article.
| swarnie wrote:
| What is Tricholoroethylene?
|
| "A widely used chemical"
|
| ....
| hinkley wrote:
| Which automobile manufacturer do you work for?
|
| A major one.
| croes wrote:
| Imagine this headline
|
| A widely known basketball team wins NBA finals
|
| Clickbait?
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Not to ruffle any feathers, but I notice this trend on HN
| also. People will post something the city they live in
| and drop all kinds of hints... except the name. Same for
| employers. Strange. It's like we need to play the old
| boardgame "Guess Who?"!
| sidpatil wrote:
| They don't want to deanonymize themselves.
| brewdad wrote:
| Yes, but too often the vagueness is just silly.
|
| "I work for a major search engine (rhymes with Scroogle)
| and...blah"
|
| Just come out and say it at that point.
| trgn wrote:
| This is very common in regional newspapers, especially
| online. Even for "real" stories. "This local team is
| advancing to ..." Garbage.
| swarnie wrote:
| Depends on the audience i guess, im not sure i can name a
| basketball team.
|
| Does the average reader of science.org know what
| trichloroethylene is without a prompt?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| >> _A widely known basketball team wins NBA finals_
|
| > _Depends on the audience i guess, im not sure i can
| name a basketball team._
|
| It's bordering on tautology. After all, who else would
| win _National Basketball Association_ finals - a soccer
| team? A more astute reader will also observe that NBA
| finals aren 't something casually won by random teams
| nobody heard of - by the time they get to the finals, the
| team _is already widely-known_.
|
| Equally informative, but non-clickbait version of the
| headline, would be "NBA finals complete" - or, for
| basketball fans, "Today is 18th of June, 2023".
| doctor_eval wrote:
| I read science.org, I'm pretty average, and I don't know
| what it is.
| rdl wrote:
| I know of it as "dry cleaning chemical and why you don't
| want to buy a building which used to contain a dry
| cleaning shop with on-premises processing".
| seanhunter wrote:
| Yes and a straw man also. Widely known and widely used
| are definitely not the same.
|
| More people know the names of basketball teams than know
| the significance of TCE.
| [deleted]
| rob74 wrote:
| "Widely used chemical Tricholoroethylene strongly linked
| to Parkinson"
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Renowned author Meredith Wadman
| xenonite wrote:
| "Parkinson links strongly from widely used chemical
| Tricholoroethylene"
| baq wrote:
| Funny how making an informative title for a piece of text
| is on the curriculum but good-for-readers titles don't
| earn money... so writers have to learn good-for-ARR
| titles instead
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Upvote here. Good suggestion. This would be more accurate
| and less click bait-y.
| visarga wrote:
| a colorless, volatile liquid that is primarily used as a
| solvent
| el_benhameen wrote:
| This would give me less personal context than the original.
| hackernewds wrote:
| And also be less clickbait-y
| riceart wrote:
| Widely known ambiguity with verb tense in English used to
| write clickbait.
|
| "Once widely used chemical in the 70s..." or a "Formerly
| widely used chemical" - was that so hard?
| q1w2 wrote:
| There are two other issues with this...
|
| 1. The authors only studied two military camps. One with high
| TCE levels, and one with low TCE levels. But, obviously, there
| might be any number of other factors that are different between
| the two camps with a causal relationship to Parkinson's
| Disease.
|
| 2. There is an active class action lawsuit from this military
| camp. Doing a limited study that benefits one side of a class
| action lawsuit should always be taken with some extra
| skepticism and evaluated for conflicts of interest.
| dandy23 wrote:
| They should have done it with dry cleaners instead. Selected
| from 100s or 1000s of shops.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I think the phrase "linked to" should be banned in science-
| adjacent journalism. It's too vague. "Antibiotics are linked
| to disease", just negatively. Any correlation can be called a
| "link". Far too vague.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Not that it proves anything but one of my uncles was a marine
| who spent a lot of time at Camp Jejune. He died of ALS,
| another neurodegenerative condition, and he got care for it
| through the VA as the marines thought it was a service-
| related condition.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| Not clickbait when they tell you right away and give you a
| detailed story of the context and evidence behind what they
| learned
| croes wrote:
| Of course clickbait because you need to click to get the
| name.
| kadoban wrote:
| Yeah, because if you had the name you'd have no further
| questions.
|
| There's just no way to condense enough important
| information into the headline, and the chemical name would
| mean nothing for 99% of people.
| whoopdedo wrote:
| So instead they use wording that means nothing to 100% of
| people and require anyone to click through to the article
| to discover what they're talking about.
| croes wrote:
| If I already know TCE is dangerous and need to be avoided
| I might not need to read the article or I could if I need
| further information.
|
| But if I need to click to get the basic information it's
| clickbait.
| j45 wrote:
| Could the article be primarily written for people who
| don't know about TCE?
| croes wrote:
| They would read it if TCE is in the title.
|
| But so all are forced to read it because Parkinson
| concerns everybody.
|
| Why not simply "Widely used TCE strongly linked to
| Parkinson's disease"
|
| Key message in the title, further information in the
| article.
| bumby wrote:
| But it's not written for _you_ specifically.
|
| Since this is related to a Marine base, I'll give you an
| example. What if the headline was "2/4 gets new Bradleys"
|
| To a Marine, it's a clear headline: 2nd Battalion 4th
| Marine Regiment gets new armored personnel carriers". But
| to a laymen a better headline would be "Marine unit gets
| new Tanks." The former would be almost deliberately
| meaningless to a casual reader.
| kadoban wrote:
| > If I already know TCE is dangerous and need to be
| avoided I might not need to read the article or I could
| if I need further information.
|
| But, you don't know that, right? How many people would?
| 1% has to be a vast overestimate. What exactly are we
| optimizing for, saving a tiny minority from having to
| click once and read a single sentence?
|
| It seems like "clickbait" has morphed into "any headline
| that does not make its associated article completely
| redundant".
| is_true wrote:
| If you have the name you can start searching for things
| that has it right away.
| bumby wrote:
| Wouldn't the logical place to start your research be the
| article itself so you know the context?
| is_true wrote:
| Not for me.
| [deleted]
| j45 wrote:
| If an article has context and substance to understand the
| impact, is the name that important in the title?
|
| Could it be that upon learning the name, the reader would
| want to determine context and applicability to their life?
|
| There's a subtle line between a hook and bait. Maybe this
| type of a title makes. A scientific topic more
| approachable.
|
| I'm not sure I'd title it the same way, but it is
| generating discussion and awareness :)
| rightbyte wrote:
| I have no clue what trichloroethylene is so I think the title
| is fair. It could be a stone for all I know.
| wiredfool wrote:
| A very effective organic solvent. Used in dry cleaning and
| formerly in chip making in SV.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| It's also highly toxic, works as an anaesthetic (i.e.,
| knocks you out); it also decomposes into phosgene and
| hydrochloride when exposed to light and air. But on the
| other hand, it _is_ a great organic solvent.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| And in Tipp-ex/liquid paper/white out. The smell was quite
| interesting. They switched to a replacement solvent that
| wasn't nearly as good.
| mock-possum wrote:
| "Scientists discover common chemical strongly linked to
| Parkinson... and you'll ever believe what it is!"
| [deleted]
| vrglvrglvrgl wrote:
| [dead]
| horeszko wrote:
| >"But in the 20th century, TCE was used for many purposes,
| including making decaffeinated coffee" ...
|
| This is exactly the reason I never touched decaf coffee until I
| found Swiss water process (SWP) decaf. It never made sense to me
| to use hydrocarbon solvents in a food application
| userbinator wrote:
| It's volatile enough that it won't be present in the final
| product.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Volatile doesn't mean harmful byproducts can't be left
| behind, though.
| Solvate8441 wrote:
| Halogenated solvents should definitely be avoided at all costs
| but I'm generally not too concerned about how hexanes are used
| to extract cooking oil, for example.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Why not? I don't know much about the topic, but I've wondered
| about it.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Thank you to share abuot SWP. I didn't know about it. This page
| explains how it works:
| https://www.haymancoffee.com/blogs/coffee-blog/how-is-coffee...
|
| At this point, it looks like the solvent thing is probably
| overstated (in highly developed/regulated countries)). This
| page has info about the history of different solvents:
| https://www.coffeereview.com/coffee-reference/coffee-categor...
| hinkley wrote:
| I thought the SWP involved supercritical carbon dioxide, but
| apparently it just involves solubility tricks and sacrificial
| beans, and CO2 is the new, new method.
| scythe wrote:
| Coffee can also be decaffeinated by supercritical carbon
| dioxide, which was the first process I learned about (as an
| intro to supercritical fluids in a thermodynamics course).
| sidpatil wrote:
| > It never made sense to me to use hydrocarbon solvents in a
| food application
|
| I get your point, but isn't this kind of a broad statement?
| After all, ethanol is a hydrocarbon solvent, and it's been used
| in food applications for a long time.
| scythe wrote:
| Ethanol is not a hydrocarbon, nor is TCE. By definition, a
| hydrocarbon is composed of carbon and hydrogen. Ethanol
| contains oxygen, while TCE contains chlorine.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| Ethanol is technically an alcohol hydrocarbon, if we're
| getting into the weeds on semantics.
| mulmen wrote:
| What is an "alcohol hydrocarbon"? Alcohol isn't a
| hydrocarbon. As already pointed out a hydrocarbon is
| comprised _entirely_ of hydrogen and carbon.
| mouse_ wrote:
| Ethanol is also a horrible toxin, it just happens to be
| common enough in nature that our bodies, and animal bodies as
| well, have had hundreds of thousands of years to evolve some
| mitigations against.
| scythe wrote:
| Ethanol is only a "horrible toxin" if it's consumed in
| amounts that would be nearly or certainly lethal for any
| other solvent (save water). Human gut bacteria do not
| produce trichloroethylene.
|
| As organic solvents go, ethanol is one of the safest -- but
| it's too flammable for dry cleaners.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| Interestingly -- when it comes to toxicology it is not the
| substance that determines the poison but the dose. Water is
| still a toxin, we just have evolved ways to handle up to a
| certain amount of water per day before water poisoning
| takes hold. Everything is a toxin, we just have it in our
| bodies to handle some of it.
| fosk wrote:
| Wouldn't there be another word for this effect? It's not
| that water per se is toxic, is that eventually if you
| have a lot, your body "overflows". Being toxic is not an
| intrinsic property of the element, but is being derived
| by its quantity.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I would say water is a solvent rather than a toxin. The
| water we consume is just not pure water and has lots of
| minerals in it already diluting the solvency (?is this a
| real word) of the water. Truly pure water will strip the
| minerals right out of your hair:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/super-kamiokande-
| neutrino-de...
| gnramires wrote:
| I would say that's not completely accurate either at a
| biological level. For example, if a neurotoxin merely
| disables sodium channels temporarily, that's different
| from a neurotoxin that somehow permanently disrupts or
| damages neurons (I believe some heavy metals work that
| way?). In the case of permanent damage, there is
| essentially almost no "safe dose", although I guess very
| small amounts will be negligible compared to background
| cell death. But you essentially want as little as
| possible, which is different from water, that goes from
| therapeutic to toxic at extreme amounts. (Not sure how
| TCE toxicity works)
| tcoop25 wrote:
| You can also look for Mountain Water Process (MWP), which is
| basically the exact same process, but from coffee sourced in
| South America.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Chlorinated hydrocarbons are generally the ones you want to
| really watch out for.
| paulrouget wrote:
| I'm very curious about SWP. How does it taste compared to good
| light roasted single origins?
| hwbehrens wrote:
| In practice, it's far easier to find good single-origin
| roasts than to find good _decaf_ options. I 've actually
| never been able to find anything lighter than medium roast in
| SWP -- not sure if that's for some functional or taste
| reason, or just because it's a sliver of a sliver of the
| market.
| noah_buddy wrote:
| Based on some light reading just now:
|
| - SWP is a means of treating green coffee beans pre-roast.
| They can be roasted any which way afterwards.
|
| - Any type of bean can be treated this way.
|
| - The process is pretty specific in targeting just caffeine.
| In removing caffeine though, the total dissolved solubles in
| the end coffee will be lower for the same amount of beans.
| Probably a lessor body unless you use more.
|
| Interested to hear from someone who has tried it.
| rripken wrote:
| I roast my own coffee beans. I usually get decaf SWP beans
| from Sweet Marias. https://www.sweetmarias.com/green-
| coffee/decaf.html The decaf SWP beans start out a different
| color of green bordering on tan compared to the light green
| of regular "green" coffee beans. Its not just the starting
| color, they roast differently too. Coffee beans crack
| during roasting - there is a first crack and then if you
| want it dark there is a second crack. The sound is usually
| pronounced. With the SWP beans the crack sound is more of a
| poof. Apparently SWP changes the structure of the beans,
| possibly introducing cracks or holes. The roasted beans
| seem drier and duller brown in color, less mahogany, less
| shiny. Its hard to know what the flavor impact of SWP was
| b/c I haven't tried the same beans before they were made
| decaf. It could just be my own prejudice or lack of skill
| in roasting but I would say on average the decaf coffee
| turns out 5-10% worse in quality.
| tcoop25 wrote:
| I am very sensitive to caffeine and recently switched to
| decaf only after drinking coffee daily for 20+ years. I drink
| mainly Mountain Water Processed coffee, which is the same
| thing but from coffee sourced in South America. It is roasted
| by a local roaster in Minneapolis. I honestly can't tell the
| difference between the decaf and regular (except for the lack
| of caffeine).
|
| Also, SWP or MWP coffee removes nearly all caffeine unlike
| the more heavily processed versions.
| jwineinger wrote:
| Which Minneapolis roaster? I'm local
| tcoop25 wrote:
| UP Coffee Roasters / UP Cafe
| blevin wrote:
| Would hexane be another example?
| eimrine wrote:
| When you drink your coffee without caffeine in your 30 for
| escaping a harm from caffeine, but end up with Parkinson in your
| 60+.
| criddell wrote:
| It's worth noting that almost all decaffeinated coffee is made
| using water as the solvent. Even 30 years ago this was true.
| kranke155 wrote:
| So what decaf isn't ?
| dontwearitout wrote:
| Citation needed, swiss water decaf isn't the only type of
| decaf on the shelves at my local grocery store.
| nicksergeant wrote:
| This isn't really true, there are a few different methods to
| decaffeinating coffee beans:
|
| "Like regular coffee, decaf coffee begins as green, unroasted
| beans. The hard beans are warmed and soaked in liquid to
| dissolve and remove the caffeine in one of four ways: using
| water alone, using a mixture of water and solvents (most
| commonly methylene chloride or ethyl acetate) applied either
| directly or indirectly, or using water and "supercritical
| carbon dioxide.""
|
| -> https://www.ncausa.org/Decaffeinated-Coffee
| nicksergeant wrote:
| We drink a lot of decaf and I email roasters before
| ordering to see what method they use (even though it's
| stated that methylene chloride is "totally safe"). It seems
| most commercially available beans are processed via this
| company: https://en.descamex.com.mx/ (which does both:
| https://en.descamex.com.mx/mountainwaterprocess)
|
| Even our local coffee roaster replied and said they only
| use Swiss water process on their more expensive organic
| beans - the rest of their lineup uses MC.
| coldtea wrote:
| Never exchange the "devil you know", especially if it's natural
| and has been used for centuries by billions, for some novel
| lab-made crap, proprietary owned, and marketed to death.
|
| Not to mention when getting it has been the whole point of
| drinking coffee in the first place.
| criley2 wrote:
| This is a rather explicit use of the Naturalistic Fallacy.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
| bronson wrote:
| "The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the
| appeal to nature..." (3rd paragraph in your link)
| criley2 wrote:
| Further down the article it explains that the terms have
| been used interchangeable for a long time. Language is a
| funny thing.
| JoeyPriceless wrote:
| The more relevant article for those who are curious.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
| coldtea wrote:
| Note how there is no actual substance to the
| classification as "fallacy". In general, it only makes
| sense if it condemned some absolute claim that "anything
| natural is better than anything man made". But people
| appealing to nature rarely if ever claim that - even when
| they appear to be making that argument, it's because they
| use loose language.
|
| What they actually mean is that something natural will
| tend to be better - and there's nuance about why that
| might be so (having benefitted from evolutionary pressure
| and adaptation, a thing empirically tested and shown
| working, more effortessly fitting to our biology, and so
| on). Of course we're talking of man-made stuff thus-far,
| not some futuristic utopia where we know how to make
| everything better.
|
| So unless the claim is "all natural things are always
| better", it's doubtful how the "fallacy" accusation
| actually applies in real life arguments. Does it address
| the claim that "X is better _because_ it is natural"?
| Well, doesn't that being the case or not, depend on the
| quality of the specific non-natural alternatives to X?
|
| If those aren't any good, then X is indeed better not by
| chance, but precisely because it's natural. That is,
| because it had millions of years to evolve, millenia to
| be used and tested by humans, and so on, and it had all
| sort of evolutionary pressures to improve it.
| coldtea wrote:
| It's rather good advice, based on massive real-world
| empirical testing by billions for centuries (which would
| have uncovered statistically significant adverse issues way
| sooner), the Lindy effect, plus a basic understanding of
| profit motives and of the fast-track cavalier way lab-made
| substitutes get into the market.
|
| Not to mention that the use of fallacy listings is the
| lowest form of argumentation (or, in any case, close).
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| I don't think GP is making a moral argument. It seems more
| they are arguing that novel techniques lead to novel
| consequences, which could be harmful. GP assesses the
| potential risks outweigh the benefits of a new process when
| a process with known consequences exists.
|
| If their argument is not about morality but instead about
| risk avoidance, would it still be fallacious reasoning?
| They could even still be wrong (because they incorrectly
| calculated the risks) without suffering a fallacy, right?
|
| I am genuinely asking. I don't know the answer.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| According to Bing Chat they stopped using TCE for decaf back in
| the 70s, at least in the US.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| Given that drinking coffee lowers your risk of getting
| Parkinson's by up to 80%, the lack of caffeine is probably
| doing more for your Parkinson's risk than whatever chemicals
| were used to decaffeinate it.
| [deleted]
| maxerickson wrote:
| Fortunately it's a big increase in relative risk and not
| absolute risk:
|
| _By 2021, 279 of the Camp Lejeune veterans, or 0.33%, had
| developed Parkinson's versus 151 of those at Camp Pendleton, or
| 0.21%. After adjusting for differences in age, sex, race, and
| ethnicity, the scientists found veterans from Camp Lejeune had
| a 70% higher rate of Parkinson's disease than the Camp
| Pendleton group._
|
| I guess it can be encouraging news for some people. My mom died
| with Parkinson's and I've almost certainly had less exposure to
| TCE than she did. I'm aware that there isn't really a known
| genetic link, it's just nice to occasionally see evidence that
| it can be exposure related. The increase in prevalence
| mentioned in the article isn't good, but that can be due to
| better techniques for diagnosing it.
| hgsgm wrote:
| 1 in 1000 increase in lifetime risk of something horrible,
| from one source, is pretty bad, if there are many similarly
| dangerous sources.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Why would you drink coffee if not for the caffeine.
|
| It's not exactly the most delicious drink.
| [deleted]
| NegativeK wrote:
| It's clearly a matter of opinion.
|
| I've dropped caffeine but still really like good coffee, so
| I'll occasionally go out and get a cup of decaf.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Have you not had coffee with fresh ground beans less than 4
| weeks after roast? If not get to your nearest real coffee
| shop pronto!
| prepend wrote:
| I have and it's nice.
|
| Would not drink it if not for the caffeine.
|
| The history of coffee is interesting to me. Although I
| don't have a link, coffee was introduced to addict
| populations to facilitate trade. It's funny that trading
| companies were key to the adoption of tea and coffee
| consumptions so they had a commodity that they could trade
| across the world. It's kind of like oil in that the world
| needs lots of it and there's money to be made in production
| and transport.
|
| Or it could be that people just really like tea and coffee
| and the trading companies just met the unrealized need.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| > addict populations to facilitate trade
|
| That's a bit of a stretch. You could say that about any
| popular products - smartphones, soap, ...
|
| Some say the industrial revolution was facilitated by the
| switch of Western people from alcohol based drinks to
| caffeine based ones.
|
| > Those who drank coffee instead of alcohol began the day
| alert and stimulated, rather than relaxed and mildly
| inebriated, and the quality and quantity of their work
| improved ... Western Europe began to emerge from an
| alcoholic haze that had lasted for centuries."
| asah wrote:
| can confirm. Decent fresh beans are the key.
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| I drink decaf, and I mostly agree with you.
|
| I drink it because when I need caffeine, decaf has enough for
| me. When younger, I drank it to fit in.
|
| With enough sugar and milk, it tastes great, but so would
| anything. I am sure high-end coffee is great, but it's never
| worth the effort to me, so I don't know about that.
| astura wrote:
| I don't understand this - If you don't enjoy the experience
| of drinking coffee, and just want the caffeine, then why not
| just take a caffeine pill?
| mchannon wrote:
| It's the reverse. People wanted decaffeinated coffee and
| the TCE stayed for the ride.
| kadoban wrote:
| Caffeine pills it's a bit easy to unconciously take too
| much and get all jittery, and it's not really spread out
| enough.
|
| Optimal consumption of caffeine seems to be a decent-sized
| initial intake, then smaller doses over time to maintain
| (eg take a few more sips). There's no good way to do that
| with pills.
| bumby wrote:
| How confident are you in the dosage in each cup of
| coffee?
| kadoban wrote:
| Fairly confident, within 2x or so.
|
| But it barely matters, it's not like I'd inject the whole
| cup into my veins and then see what happens.
|
| If the caffeine was too high (within reasonable
| variations), you'd notice and slow down consumption
| before it mattered. If it's too low, you can just drink
| more. You can do it by feel, which is I think what just
| about everyone does.
|
| Some of it might be placebo, but if so I'm not sure it
| changes anything really, since the goal is just to feel a
| certain way anyway.
| mrob wrote:
| Whole coffee has a well established safety record for long
| term use. Pure caffeine at the doses coffee drinkers use,
| less so. There might be other unidentified chemicals in
| whole coffee that interact with the caffeine in some way to
| modify its safety.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Or you could drink an energy drink/sugar free cola instead.
| xenonite wrote:
| No, the chemical compounds of those can have quite
| adverse effects. Sweeteners are linked with insuline
| problems.
| dontwearitout wrote:
| "Pesticides such as paraquat and rotenone that have been
| associated with Parkinson's disease also leave that pathological
| signature in rodents." - oh good, it looks like these are still
| widely in use.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Ah, yes. Good ol' trichlor.
|
| Here's my experience with it:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34887615
| [deleted]
| buildsjets wrote:
| My father worked as a mechanic as a teen in the early 1960s. He
| tells stories of loading air hoses up with trike and hosing the
| other mechanics down with it. 78 years old and no neurological
| issues so far. But he is one of those people who seems to
| completely ignore his physical condition and yet has minimal
| health issues despite his obesity. Mom has had a daily 6AM
| workout routine for decades, is at a stable healthy weight, and
| has no end of health issues.
| heywhatupboys wrote:
| sample size of two,
| [deleted]
| zwieback wrote:
| When I was an intern in the 80s TCE was very popular as a
| degreaser. We were supposed to wear gloves when dipping our hands
| in there but often didn't.
| hgsgm wrote:
| TCE has been banned for human consumption for decades, as it is a
| known poison. Percentage change increase in a certain disease
| isn't interesting except as a rule-lawyering way to force
| polluters to pay for blatantly obvious pollution.
|
| This study is like saying subdermal exposure to lead bullets
| increasea chance of premature death.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene
| faxmeyourcode wrote:
| This title is click bait. You could easily just include the name
| of the "widely used chemical" in the title.
| cwbrandsma wrote:
| Sure, it is trichloroethylene, but that would lose 99% of the
| audience as soon as they see a word that they can't pronounce.
| Widely used is accurate, it is everywhere.
| godshatter wrote:
| They'll see it right away once they get into the article, and
| will presumably nope out of there anyway. So why not put it
| in the headline? Oh, yeah, advertising. Thus, clickbait.
| permo-w wrote:
| "TCE - a widely used chemical - found to ..." would do the
| job
| desro wrote:
| To save a click: it's trichloroethylene (TCE)
| leejo wrote:
| Any chemists here know if use of TCE has been phased out in
| school and graduate labs? When I was doing my degree I recall
| benzene was out in favour of toluene - which adds a methyl group
| to the ring, massively reducing toxicity.
|
| I'm pretty sure we used TCE however, its distinct smell still
| lives in my memory, and the fact if you got any on your fingers
| you could taste/smell it within seconds. Butanoic acid was the
| other one you didn't want to get on your fingers.
|
| All this was 25 years ago, I assume things have changed since
| then. I'm surprised I remember _any_ of this.
| ta988 wrote:
| It is deep in your brain now.
| dcahill-ieee wrote:
| I had read of a bacterial cause only recently.
|
| https://yle.fi/a/74-20030498
| [deleted]
| dcahill-ieee wrote:
| I had read of a bacterial cause only just recently
|
| https://yle.fi/a/74-20030498
| broguinn wrote:
| I thought of this exactly. Is the Desulfovibrio bacterium's
| presence correlative with TCE exposure?
| aurizon wrote:
| There was a spate of recreational sniffing of trichlorethylene
| when it was a common industrial solvent -later it was banned, but
| persists in use under well controlled industrial uses - removing
| caffeine was one, there were many other?. A meta data study might
| show an 'echo' as people age due to later effects.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=sniffing+trichloroethylene&r...
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| It was heavily contaminated water that they all consumed, of the
| 279 veterans there were 0.33% cases vs the statistically expected
| 0.21%. Which means they found 9 people with Parkinson, instead of
| the expected 6.
|
| [edit] ignore the comment, read it wrong, its 279 cases
| maxerickson wrote:
| The 279 is identified cases of Parkinson's, the study included
| tens of thousands of people.
| tuukkah wrote:
| Different order of magnitude too: 0.33% of 279 people would be
| 0.92 people, not 9 people.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" After adjusting for differences in age, sex, race, and
| ethnicity, the scientists found veterans from Camp Lejeune had a
| 70% higher rate of Parkinson's disease than the Camp Pendleton
| group."_
|
| Why didn't they adjust for socioeconomic status? Wealthier people
| tend to be able to afford better medical care, live in healthier
| environments, eat healthier foods, etc.
|
| These could all be confounding factors, and a study like this
| should take them in to account.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Yeah and as well as soldiers being exposed to different
| chemicals & other circumstances then the general population.
| Would be great if they would compare it with other army base
| around the same time.
| alistairSH wrote:
| They did... the control was Camp Pendleton.
| AdamN wrote:
| Alot of socioeconomic factors are baked into the above co-
| morbidities but anyway, is there a reason to think that
| veterans of two different marine camps have significantly
| different socioeconomic profiles from eachother?
| notakio wrote:
| In this case (Lejeune vs Pendleton), there would likely not
| be a substantial socioeconomic difference between the
| collective backgrounds of Marines who did basic training at
| either one. But comparing either camp to OCS at Quantico
| would, in fact, show a pretty stark delineation between the
| socioeconomic backgrounds.
| alistairSH wrote:
| They looked at officer vs enlisted, which would cover any
| socioeconomic difference between basic vs OCS, no?
| pmoriarty wrote:
| There might not have been much difference between them at
| the time, but who knows how their lives went after their
| time there?
|
| Some might have wound up being relatively wealthy compared
| to the rest, and that could have influenced their long-term
| health.
|
| We won't know until we check.
| hgsgm wrote:
| What happens when you end up accidentally controlling for
| exposure to the chemical?
| bumby wrote:
| They were all active duty military and largely the same socio-
| economic cohort, and use the same medical system. _Maybe_ they
| could draw a distinction between enlisted and commissioned, but
| my hunch is the disparity between raw numbers would lead to low
| statistical power.
|
| (This isn't to say they originally came from the same socio-
| economic group, but that isn't the type of distinction usually
| made in these kinds of studies.)
| jameshart wrote:
| Scientists have heard that correlation is not causation too.
|
| From the paper (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/
| fullarticle/2...):
|
| > To control for potential confounding, we included age, sex,
| race (Black, White, other), and ethnicity (Hispanic, non-
| Hispanic) in all models. We also tested models that included
| rank (officer, enlisted) and smoking status (ever, never),
| though smoking status was unknown for a substantial proportion
| of the cohort. We repeated analyses in subgroups defined by sex
| and by race and ethnicity. We conducted several analyses to
| explore possible biased ascertainment of PD in Camp Lejeune
| veterans due to potential awareness of the contamination and
| presumptive service connection that entitles them to VA
| benefits.
|
| ...
|
| > We additionally tested associations in men and women
| separately and conducted sensitivity analyses that adjusted for
| total number of years of VHA health care usage.
|
| These analyses were evidently deemed adequate by peer
| reviewers. If anyone thinks there are other confounding factors
| they can go ahead and do that analysis and publish as well.
| Sciencing continues.
| q1w2 wrote:
| The problem with this study is even more profound.
|
| They only looked at two military bases. One with high TCE, and
| one with low TCE.
|
| ...but there could be thousands of causal differences between
| two locations. They should have looked at dozens of military
| bases across the country/world.
| jameshart wrote:
| Why?
|
| This wasn't a fishing expedition where they took two cohorts
| of marines and looked down a list of 20 diseases to find one
| with p<0.05 distribution between the two cohorts.
|
| > Occupational exposure to the industrial solvent
| trichloroethylene (TCE) was previously associated with a
| 6-fold increased risk of Parkinson disease (PD) in a small
| study of twin pairs discordant for PD.1 Animal studies
| provide biological plausibility for this association by
| recapitulating key pathologic characteristics of PD
|
| Given this - a previous finding, a plausible mechanism - they
| went and found two good existing cohorts who had different
| exposure to the compound of interest and for whom they could
| access medical records.
|
| That is good study design. Which is probably why it got
| published.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Presumably there's already known risk factors studied
| thoroughly for race, age, and sex. So they adjusted the numbers
| to account for that and their focus was on locality.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > It inhibits complex 1, the leading enzyme in a chain of
| reactions that convert food to energy in cellular organelles
| called mitochondria.
|
| So they upside is that it probably significantly reduces your
| risk of both cancer and type 2 diabetes, which you're >100x more
| likely to die from than Parkinson's.
|
| There are even longevity bloggers, like Peter Attia, who advocate
| that everyone should be taking mitochondrial complex 1
| inhibitors.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| > everyone should be taking mitochondrial complex 1 inhibitors
|
| These processes have billions of years of evolution behind them
| and are highly conserved.
|
| People shouldn't mess with them until there are huge studies,
| and not in the context of cancer therapy. Just because
| something helps with cancer, like mitochondrial complex 1
| inhibitors (or radiation) doesn't mean we should all do it.
|
| Remember all the talk about how we should all eat lots of anti-
| oxidants to prevent cancer? It turns out it's more complicated
| than that, and an anti-oxidant rich diet can actually increase
| cancer risk.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > Remember all the talk about how we should all eat lots of
| anti-oxidants to prevent cancer? It turns out it's more
| complicated than that, and an anti-oxidant rich diet can
| actually increase cancer risk.
|
| Which is probably because Mitochondrial Complex 1 inhibitors
| work by producing radical oxides in the mitochondria.
|
| I definitely agree with you that it's inherently very risky
| to mess around with them, but I also don't think it's at all
| obvious that being exposed to them will increase your all-
| cause mortality. It may even reduce it. We just don't know.
| lazide wrote:
| I think their point was - don't do something daily with
| potentially powerful but unclear effects until we have some
| evidence on it's long term safety. Unless there is a
| pressing, specific need (like cancer that may be worth the
| risk).
|
| Which seems reasonable?
| Alex3917 wrote:
| Which I agree with. I'm definitely not advocating that
| people take this stuff. Only pointing out that it's not
| completely obvious that it's harmful.
| lazide wrote:
| Sure, but no one will take cyanide every day (they
| can't). Folks were around Asbestos for decades before we
| figured out it was cancer causing.
|
| There are some areas where being conservative can be a
| wise decision. It could pay off though. That's always the
| gamble, right?
| dist-epoch wrote:
| The explanation I saw was that radical oxides do a bit of
| damage to the cell and this triggers alarms which cause the
| cell to initiate repair mechanisms or kill itself. By
| taking anti-oxidants you are messing around with this alarm
| system, and basically make the cell live longer than
| expected, which increases cancer risk.
| enkid wrote:
| Is there any evidence it actually reduces those risks, or is it
| speculation?
| voisin wrote:
| Mitochondrial disfunction is the basis for a huge number of
| cancers. See "Tripping over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory
| of Cancer"[0] for a good history of it.
|
| [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23496164
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Ray Peat liked this comment.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| Go on Google Scholar and read through the research on
| Metformin. Metformin has a complex mechanism of action,
| acting is as a Mitochondrial Complex 1 inhibitor in some
| cases but not others. But the consensus seems to be that it
| reduces cancer risk by about 30%, relating to its capacity as
| a Mitochondrial Complex 1 inhibitor.
|
| Also, if watch Jerry McLaughlin's YouTube talks about pawpaws
| and cancer, he summarizes the research that mainly focuses on
| the mechanisms of action of annonaceous acetogenins in
| fighting cancer -- these are also Mitochondrial Complex 1
| inhbitors, similar to Metformin but much stronger.
|
| Basically these chemicals cause a buildup of radical oxides
| in your mitochondria, which reduce their efficiency. If your
| mitochondria have too many radical oxides, or have them for
| two long, then your mitochondria will die. And if enough
| mitochondria in any given cell die, their host cells will
| also obviously die. This is what causes progressive
| supranuclear palsy, which is what this article is probably
| (incorrectly) referring to as Parkinson's.
|
| But because the metabolic needs of cancer cells are higher
| than the metabolic needs of non-cancer cells, there may be a
| certain dose of these chemicals that is high enough to
| inhibit cancer but low enough that it doesn't cause palsy.
| Further, the way that cancer cells often develop resistance
| to chemotherapy drugs is by using ATP to pump out the drugs
| once they have entered the cells. These mitochondrial complex
| 1 inhibitors can prevent these protein pumps from working by
| making the mitochondria less efficient, and therefor
| effectively prevent cancer cells from developing certain
| types of resistance to chemotherapy drugs.
|
| Basically if you go through Google Scholar and read the
| research on pawpaws, rotenone, graviola, and Metformin, it's
| all more or less the same stuff. John Clifton's book Your
| Fourth Choice is also a fun book you can get on Amazon and
| read in an hour or two. It does a good job summarizing the
| academic research on annonaceous acetogenins. (I bought it
| because I collect books on North American Pawpaws, not
| because I was in the market for an experimental cancer
| treatment.)
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| As I understand, Parkinson's does not kill you. NHS UK says:
| <<Parkinson's disease does not directly cause people to die>>
| Also: <<But with advances in treatment, most people with
| Parkinson's disease now have a normal or near-normal life
| expectancy.>>
|
| Ref: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/parkinsons-disease/
| Alex3917 wrote:
| The form of atypical Parkinson's caused by mitochondrial
| complex 1 inhibitors (progresessive supranuclear palsy) is
| not treatable, at least with normal Parkinson's drugs. My
| wild speculative guess is that many of the soldiers in this
| article have a mild-enough form of PSP that it's being
| misdiagnosed as Parkinson's.
| exchemist wrote:
| This is often said, but I don't think it should paint too
| rosy a picture, it's still a massively debilitating disease.
| My father (diagnosed just after 50) lived nearly 30 years
| with it (died 78 - I guess that's normal life expectancy, but
| the last decade of his life he had a pretty bad quality of
| life). He is unusual in that his death cert just says
| Parkinson's Disease as cause of death, and I wondered at the
| time whether the consultant was making a point that PD can be
| the thing that kills you after all. He really didn't have
| much else wrong with him except that, once the drugs stopped
| working he couldn't swallow, talk or walk - he lost a ton of
| weight and the dementia side of it (which is far less
| discussed) meant any kind of communication was basically
| impossible. Not sure what my point is - but "you don't die of
| it" is a bit of an oversimplification.
| Tade0 wrote:
| The chemical in question was originally banned due to its
| carcinogenic properties.
| airstrike wrote:
| Michael J Fox in his wikipedia said
|
| _> I used to go fishing in a river near paper mills and eat the
| salmon I caught; I 've been to a lot of farms; I smoked a lot of
| pot in high school when the government was poisoning the crops.
| But you can drive yourself crazy trying to figure it out_
|
| There's TCE in paper mill wastewater...
| jl2718 wrote:
| Smells like fodder for a lawsuit that benefits nobody but lawyers
| and bureaucrats. Frankly, there's nobody in the system who has
| any incentive to defend the taxpayers against these things.
| Imagine what it would be like if they could sue any organization
| for any disease prevalence that popped hot on a t-test for any
| period of time. And they had access to everybody's medical
| records to do that. And the organization doesn't even have to
| pay. It's a nonprofit, and the people that have to pay are the
| original donors, again. But these weren't willing donors; they
| were forced to 'donate' by people with guns. Oh, and they were
| also forced to pay for the study that is now forcing them to pay
| again for the result and of course more studies.
|
| Torts against the government are a funny thing. It requires anti-
| government attitude to suggest that the government is
| incompetent, harmful, or criminal, but the solution is always
| more programs, more taxes, more laws, more bureaucracy. Oh and
| the 'victims'? They will sign on expecting a huge payout, claim
| all kinds of problems, and end up with $0 and a weekly
| appointment with a VA occupational therapist. If they happen to
| have a problem that can actually be solved, too bad, no funding.
| JadeNB wrote:
| I know it's the fault of the journal, but I thought we edited
| here to remove clickbait. Can we put at least the name of the
| chemical (trichloroethylene) in the title?
| roland_nilsson wrote:
| Just a reminder that "70% higher risk" is a relative value
| describing the _fractional_ increase in risk. In absolute terms,
| the probability of developing Parkinson's (prevalence) was 0.33%
| in group exposed to TCE and 0.21% in the non-exposed group. So
| you might also say TCE increases the risk of Parkinson by 0.12
| percentage points.
| russellbeattie wrote:
| Whenever I see articles like this, I think of Piled Higher and
| Deeper's "Science News Cycle" cartoon.
|
| https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive_print.php?comicid=1174
| broguinn wrote:
| Filter your drinking water. From the Minnesota Dept. of Health:
|
| "Activated carbon filtration can remove TCE from drinking water
| effectively."[1]
|
| [1]
| https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/hazar...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-16 23:01 UTC)