By Douglas Main New research suggests that fluorinated pharmaceuticals — a category that includes well-known medications such as Prozac and Flonase — are showing up in the water supply of millions of people. These drugs and their breakdown products are technically classified as being per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals,” which as a chemical class is the subject of worldwide health concern. A study published January 6 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the bulk of PFAS entering and exiting wastewater treatment plants is made up of these fluorinated drugs. Notably, the researchers determined that the pharmaceuticals were largely not removed from the water by conventional wastewater treatment practices. This pharmaceutical material “doesn’t get treated in the wastewater treatment plant, and it doesn’t break down,” said Bridger Ruyle, study co-author and researcher at New York University. “And we know can be re-entering drinking water supplies.” The study estimates that this material contaminates the water supply of around 23 million Americans, Ruyle said. These drugs enter wastewater after being excreted by people. About 50% of drinking water utilities are located downstream of a wastewater outflow plant and regularly use varying amounts of this water. A slight majority of this material was made up of only four drugs and one of their metabolites: the arthritis medication Celecoxib (Celebrex); flecainide (Tambocor), prescribed for arrhythmia; maraviroc (Selzentry), and one of its metabolites, used to treat HIV; and sitaglipt (Januvia), a diabetes drug. “We don’t know that much about what the exposures or health risks are” for those drinking small concentrations of this material, Ruyle said.
  • Garibaldee@lemm.eeOPEnglish
    1·
    2 days ago

    Failed Fact Checks Done in the last 5 years Overall, we rate the Environmental Working Group Left Biased as a strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of ideas and claims that oppose scientific consensus. (D. Van Zandt 5/10/2017) Updated (05/07/2024)

    You know D. Van Zandt, is one guy and it is just this one guy’s personal opinion on the website, with no examples, if you are basing anything off of the ravings of D. Van Zandt you are deeply unserious, find actual things you disagree with the publication, don’t take this random guy’s (who is not even a fucking journalist) word for it.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

    Dave Van Zandt is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence-based reporting. Since High School (a long time ago), Dave has been interested in politics and noticed as a kid the same newspaper report in two different papers was very different in their tone. This curiosity led him to pursue a Communications Degree in college; however, like most 20-year-olds, he didn’t know what he wanted and changed to a Physiology major midstream. Dave has worked in the healthcare industry (Occupational Rehabilitation) since graduating from college but never lost the desire to learn more about bias and its impacts.

    www.cjr.org/innovations/measure-media-bias-partisan.php

    The armchair academics

    Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation.

    A similar effort is “The Media Bias Chart,” or simply, “The Chart.” Created by Colorado patent attorney Vanessa Otero, the chart has gone through several methodological iterations, but currently is based on her evaluation of outlets’ stories on dimensions of veracity, fairness, and expression.

    Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production.