News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by wjnc on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @02:25AM (#34077667)
Dehydration is more of a risk to you than the environmental risks you marginally save on others. Still I applaud the effort since the economists view is too restricted.

Get a stainless steel container and hydrate for a lifetime.

Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by SoftTalker on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @03:04AM (#34077924)
Stainless steel containers are often lined with plastic, since people don't like the metallic taste that the steel imparts.
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by Reason077 on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @03:23AM (#34078064)
In general there is nothing wrong with long-life plastic products. Plastic is a really useful and important material when used appropriately!

It's the insane amount waste and environmental pollution that single-use plastic generates that is the problem.

Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by jraby3 on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @03:44AM (#34078167)
Exactly. What I always tell vendors when I get a strange look after refusing their plastic bag is that we use it for 5 minutes but it stays in the environment for 1000 years.
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by bluGill on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @09:18AM (#34080993)
They make plastics that biodegrade in a few years. Supposedly even in a landfill they degrade (I've seen this debated, I'm not qualified to figure out who is right). However they are more expensive and so rarely used except when someone wants to make a point about being green.
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by citrin_ru on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @04:53AM (#34078628)
Nothing wrong unless it is used to store food or water and contains some BPA-like compound (AFAIK it includes most plastic produces nowadays even so called BPA-free).
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by guelo on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @08:25AM (#34080404)
The BPA replacements are probably just as toxic as BPA but it will take 20 years of science to prove it conclusively enough to get them banned.
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by dublin on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @09:41AM (#34081285)
^^^^THIS!^^^^ There is early evidence that most BPA and pthlalate replacements may be considerably worse for you than the things they are replacing. (At least, worse in the sense that they are possibly more dangerous as endocrine disruptors and hormone mimics, and also possibly harder to remove from the body...)

Best choice is to insist on glass packaging wherever you can. It's inert and infinitely recyclable.

Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by wjnc on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @07:16AM (#34079663)
Do you know if that metallic taste is considered (in-)healthy? I have no clue and actually like that taste and must admit that in the steel for everything department I’m following the trends as well (steel for cooking - no PFAS; steel for drink containers - no plastics).
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by Eisenstein on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @08:32AM (#34080485)
Stainless steel has nickel and chromium in it which can leach out, but I don't think incredibly tiny amounts have been shown to be bad.
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by lapsis_beeftech on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @03:01PM (#34085654)
It's harmless. The sensation is electrolytic in origin rather than caused by taste receptor activation; it's like when you put a 9 V battery to your tongue except much less potential and therefore weaker feeling.
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by roflyear on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @10:11AM (#34081643)
Reusable plastic is fine....
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by jraby3 on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @03:38AM (#34078152)
The risks of dehydration are way overstated imo. And I live in a warm weather country.

Whole being thirsty isn’t optimal the actual risk of something serious happening is negligible. Especially since I monitor my urine color and other signs. It’s more convenience and the habit of convenience we’re all so used to these days.

Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by sammalloy on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @03:57AM (#34078244)
> The risks of dehydration are way overstated imo

I’m not so sure about that. Some people are more susceptible to it than others. There’s also some weird trait that makes some people drink less water than others. Both my father and myself seem to share this trait. We have to force ourselves to drink water. For whatever reason, I could go an entire day without drinking water. Not sure why it is, but it causes problems. I was on vacation with my father and he collapsed in literally the middle of nowhere because of dehydration. It was pretty scary and he almost didn’t survive.

Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by spockz on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @05:28AM (#34078890)
I have the same thing. I have to “force” myself to drink. Especially in Warmer weather. My daughters have the same. I’m not sure whether it is genetic or nurture.
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by tartoran on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @08:21AM (#34080362)
I do too and have to remind myself to drink water otherwise I find myself in a lethargic state.
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by overtonwhy on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @03:57AM (#34078245)
What about the benefits of high levels of hydration?
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by Eisenstein on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @08:00AM (#34080135)
What are the benefits of high levels of hydration?
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by wjnc on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @07:20AM (#34079706)
The thing is that if you monitor your urine color (and act upon it) you are already managing hydration?

My mother in law was hospitalized twice for dehydration. She is mindful of it and still some days she doesn’t drink enough. Drinking is hard for her as other commenters mention here too. After that I just started drinking an extra liter of tea by just carrying the bottle around. Even the extra peeing stopped after a few weeks.

Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by int0x2e on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @01:12PM (#34084239)
Most people are constantly dehydrated. The fact lots of people drink sugary drinks makes it even worse. As someone dealing with a 3rd round of kidney stones - please stay hydrated! You don't want this pain, trust me...
Re:3M to end 'forever chemicals' output at cost of up to $2.3B by Eisenstein on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @04:00PM (#34086321)
> Most people are constantly dehydrated.

This strikes me as something constantly asserted but never proven. It should be pretty trivial to find out if this is the case, medically, so there should be data. I went ahead and searched around and although I see a lot of headlines about it, there is a lack of definitive corroboration. I found these sources:

"According to the lay press, 75% of Americans are chronically dehydrated. While this is not supported by medical literature, dehydration is common in elderly patients."[0]

" In fact, scientific studies suggest that you already get enough liquid from what you're drinking and eating on a daily basis. We are not all walking around in a state of dehydration."[1]

"The notion that there is widespread dehydration has no basis in medical fact"[1]

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555956/ [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/water-works-2/