"Why not require companies that use fluorinated plastic containers to print a large warning label on them informing consumers of the danger like we do with cigarettes/tobacco? If the EPA can't force their hand, maybe we can try to change consumer behavior."
and i have to admit, that was my very own reaction when i saw this press release
Inhance claims their containers are recyclable, so a number of them probably do get recycled into new HDPE containers. How do you warn consumers about this without turning them off of all recycled plastics?
It's plausible that broad concern about recycled plastics would be valid.
This study[1] found that the recycled plastics analyzed were fairly toxic. I recall another that found the same for recycled synthetic clothing, but I was unable to find a reference.
that's a fair point, but if it was up to me i'd be happy to see labeling on the specifically fluorinated containers. or maybe it's not even necessary to worry about because the containers are just as unhealthy as all the other containers?
I wonder what % of content is generated by old.reddit.com users, and what % from third party apps too. Figures not mentioned by Reddit mgmt so I'm assuming they don't favor their desires to end them.
I've participated in several assessments of a companies and departments. An inevitable question in the interview process for department heads is: "tell me about your Excel addiction". This is a sign that their BI tools have failed them and frequently that they have neglected to invest in reporting. The next level down is that they are performing operations necessities with Excel. The last level is that they have no operations software and it's all done in Excel.
And the desire to continue studying until "we're sure" is what leads to the current obesity epidemic and kids still being taught the ridiculous food pyramid in 2015.
So since we all develop cancer cells at some point doesn't this same logic hold to not "feed" them? And we might not be able to starve constantly but we can avoid producing insulin. I hope more studies can prove the links between dietary choices and cancer.
From the abstract posted by Junto, it looks like the idea isn't to starve the cancer cells, it's to starve the healthy cells. The point being that when starving, healthy cells stop growing and become less susceptible to chemo drugs, while the cancer cells ignore the starvation and keep growing, so do not get the same protection.
Imagine a TV scene where the hero starts yelling 'get down' in a crowded area before a gunfight breaks out. The 'bad guys' stay upright and the confused civilians duck, so fewer civilians get shot.
It is an interesting theory, that does make sense... not that "making sense" means that the theory is true!
It may be worthwhile to conduct more studies in this direction. I'd be interested to know how soon after the patient stops eating will be the maximum difference in response between normal and cancer cells. And if this is more effective for short chemo treatments, or for the longer ones.
A biology student told me that Cancer cells are "running" in a partial state and don't require the same amount of nutrients that normally functioning cells do, therefore if you stop feeding cells altogether, the healthy ones will die first.
The idea behind this article is that the normal cells will slow down in response to starvation, while the cancer cells will keep going at full tilt because their regulatory mechanisms are shot.
Because I have not seen them.