Actually I wasn't even advocating for a particular definition, merely providing a point of correction about what the current definition says (a definition which is, after all, the main topic of the article under discussion).
However I quite agree that when it comes to regulation, what matters is the danger that it presents as opposed to any structural classification.
Apologies for the mistaken identity, but why inject yourself into the conversation if you don't care about the point I was trying to make?
I'm not unsympathetic to your position, but the post I was responding to was doing it no favours by opening the argument with an obviously incorrect statement. If you think politics is more important than factual accuracy then I disagree profoundly.
The point is that PTFE does not have the toxic record of PFOA, its precursor and degradation byproduct. You could consider it as a safe PFAS, but unfortunately when you have PTFE, you probably also have trace of PFOA.
No, that's absolutely not the point. You claimed that PTFE is not a PFAS, and that's a matter of chemical structure, not toxicity.
(Which is not to say your conclusion is wrong, only that there's at least one weak link in your argument.)
Teflon is inert and stable. It's not a PFAS.
This might be a silly question, but isn't having a perfluorinated methylene group sufficient to qualify as a PFAS (at least according to the definition we are talking about changing here)? And doesn't PTFE have rather a lot of these?
Wikipedia certainly seems to think so: it gives a list of common PFAS chemicals, and PTFE is top of that list.
The lab theory people were treated as kooks and cranks for a long time because the theory was spread without proof by kooks and cranks.
The zoonosis theory was similarly spread without proof. What's wrong with that?
Not going to argue that many of the lab-leak proponents were cranks, but its equally clear that many on the other side were either apologists for the Chinese government or improperly influenced by their own research interests. Neither of these is an excuse for pursuing ad-hominum attacks in place of evidence.
Of course it matters where it came form, in trying to stop the next pandemic.
Not greatly. We know that zoonosis happens and we know that lab leaks happen, both with non-negligible frequency. Knowing the specific cause in this instance is unlikely to make much difference to the calculus of risk.
What does matter is attempts to obscure facts and suppress reasoned discussion, something which has been attempted on both sides.
The bigger picture is easy: in the end, it doesn't really matter where it came from.
I can half agree with this. If the line had been that the cause is unproven, that we can't fight natural risks without doing research, and that lab leaks aren't unique to China then that would have been fair enough.
What does matter is the campaign of academic intimidation, led in part by people with an obvious conflict of interest. We shouldn't let that pass, because it is harmful to the core principles of scientific enquiry.
ARM isn't exactly a new processor architecture (was using it for my desktop in 1987), and these days x86 is a rounding error by comparison. The idea of x86 compatibility being essential is a battle that was fought and lost many years ago.
Granted there might be good reasons for not running Windows on it, but some would argue there are good reasons for not running Windows on anything.
Not only that, there is abundant evidence of a cover-up. The only question is whether it was a cover-up because there was something to hide, or just routine operating procedure for the authorities in that country.
If they had claimed that a lab leak was unproven, or that another explanation was more likely, then that would have been a respectable opinion. Claiming that evidence is non-existant makes them look just as unhinged as the conspiracy theorists on the other side, and does a huge disservice to honest enquiry by providing an easy target to disprove.
The post you replied to was referring to the ability of water to moderate (reduce the energy of) neutron radiation, which can potentially increase the rate of a fission reaction (by increasing the effective cross-section).
It's a valid concern, but such an obvious one that it is hard to imagine that it would not have been considered.
France has a long maritime coastline. If push comes to shove, it has access to as much uranium as it wants or needs.
True, seawater extraction will never be the preferred option while cheaper methods are available, but it's very reassuring to have this available as a backstop.
Coming from a regular politician or diplomat that would (sadly) be fair comment. Coming from an organisation with a scientific or medical mission is rather different.
Partly for ethical reasons (although I'm unsure whether the WHO really do the concept of ethics: these are the people who tried to appoint Robert Mugabe as a goodwill ambassador).
Mostly, though, because it is very difficult to achieve a mission of that nature if people don't trust what you say. That's important enough at the best of times, but these are not the best of times, and what the WHO have done here is an absolute gift to the conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers because of how clearly it shows them to be untrustworthy.
Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer
