It's because this reporting is nonsense. It comes from a health influence with "mama" in the name, always a good indicator of scientific rigor.

They say they tested for "organic fluorine", and when it predictably came back positive they crowed that the floss contains the kind of PFAS that has been loosely correlated with health effects (such as the small-molecule chemicals PFOA, PFOS, or Gen-X). But if they had any familiarity with chemistry or the products they were testing, they'd have known that what they actually found is plain old Teflon, which is the most biologically inert substance in common use, does not emit volatile PFAS, and is not (yet) under regulatory scrutiny.

Your floss is perfectly safe.

No, they tested for organic fluorine, and then acted surprised when they predictably realized that many floss products contain PTFE, widely known as Teflon, which we've already known for decades. It's not a secret, and it is in fact the only floss that I can use on my tightly arranged teeth.

PTFE is not a PFAS in the sense used in health research. Teflon is a hard, waxy plastic which is among the most inert, biologically inactive substances known. It is used everywhere from medical implants, Gore-Tex, and other clothing, teflon tape used to seal plumbing joints in your house, and many other other common uses. There is no evidence (that is, evidence from scientifically solid studies-- there are a couple poor ones), that any dental floss raises physiologic levels of PFAS.

The reason you know this reporting is bullshit is that nobody is proposing that we outlaw teflon tape in drinking water plumbing, even though it's made from the same plastic as the best floss products.

And not just genetic luck, but luck of childhood circumstances. Lots of people were given a deranged relationship to food as a child by their parents, leading in many cases to actual metabolic derangement as well.

Echoing the other reply, there is a raging scientific debate between the energy balance model and the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity and diabetes. There are large cohorts of very smart scientists on both sides of this debate.

No there isn't. There's no serious debate and no evidence for the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity.

It seems you're unable to add something to debate, rather than shallow dismissals.

FYI, per HN guidelines, so you can reflect on your future contributions:

- Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

- Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

There absolutely is not. There is raging internet debate, not scientific debate.

In every public place I visited during the pandemic, the official rules stated you could leave your mask down if you were eating or drinking. This included two of the largest hospitals in Colorado. In bars and restaurants you only had to wear a mask if you were standing up, and at all other times you were allowed to eat, drink, laugh and talk unmasked. On airplanes everyone unmasked while eating meals.

If masking was truly primarily about stopping the spread of a highly contagious airborne virus, why were the rules designed and applied to allow people to spend so much time in confined spaces unmasked?

The original comment claimed that the suggestion to wear a mask was "all theater" during a pandemic, because masks don't actually protect people.

The proposition was "wearing a mask is all theater", but your comment is explaining how not wearing a mask in particular situations was theater.

Wearing the mask is not theater, it's an effective mitigation.

Taking the mask off in an enclosed space and pretending you're safe is the theater part, but that isn't what OP was talking about.

Like the OP, I'm just pointing out that the masking requirements set out by governments and institutions at all levels were highly theatrical in nature, and I gave some concrete examples. Do you disagree? For example, the requirement by local governments to wear masks in restaurants only while standing... Do you think that had any practical "non-theatric" value?

I use a lot of turmeric, and I buy it whole from an Asian grocery store. Large Asian grocers will always have whole turmeric root. It's just like any other ginger root. I chop it up and puree it in a blender, and the puree can be used anywhere you'd otherwise use the powder.

Your own citation contradicts you.

Nalgene bottles are now made exclusively from polyester, which is not subject to post-process fluorination, and even if it were, there would be no reason for a company to spend the money to fluorinate consumer water bottles.

Kinda hard to do when your ceiling is covered in delicate popcorn asbestos that showers down on you every time it gets touched. This is very common.

If they're crumbling or damaged they should be abated, but if they're in good condition they don't pose a risk.

There is no such thing as a popcorn ceiling that doesn't crumble every time you so much as change a lighting fixture.

It would be extremely difficult to cause water hammer with a ball valve. They're just too difficult to close quickly.

Water hammer is a huge issue with faucets, which can be closed quickly, and with electrically actuated valves such as in washing machines, which close very quickly.

If you're in the U.S., Home Depot sells Giancomini ball valves (branded "Everbilt") that are lead free. They're rated for water and gas.

If you're looking for stops for faucet and toilet supply risers, then they're pretty much all lead free now. SharkBite and BrassCraft, for example, only make lead-free stops.