"3M" in the title stands for "3 million", not the company 3M.

I read it as 3M the company. The title should probably be fixed.

"3M" is the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company. "3 M" is 3 million. Typography can be meaningful.

If you are using floss, it is likely PFAS coated. Also lipitor, prozac, cipro, flonase and nearly a majority of new pharmaceuticals in development.

'PFAS bad' is about as sophisticated a viewpoint as 'nuclear bad'.

Also, 3M is exiting PFAS tech since it only accounts for a few % of their business: https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing...

This viewpoint seems short-sighted. In the 1940s and 1950s, if somebody were skeptic of lead, you could've replied "Do you paint your home? Get your water from pipes in your house? What about having gas in your car?"

One wears a lead vest when getting x-rays at the hospital or as protective equipment when operating on nuclear reactors.

Moving beyond eating lead doesn't mean not using it intelligently when the risk profile is low. Also, lead-based glass is also an important component of the world's high-efficiency perovskite solar cells.

Many of the industrial products materials we wouldn't want to eat, this just means we have to be better about recycling.

Not sure why x-rays are still being used when there appears to be better and safer alternatives... Specially at the dentist where an inexperienced person shoots them at your head... Thank God they cover your chest with lead though....

> Not sure why x-rays are still being used when there appears to be better and safer alternatives

It all has to do with how medical billing is structured. Xrays were already cheap before the current model was put in place so they are the go to method for diagnostic. Even though there are better ubiquitous options available, price fixing keeps those out of reach for triage and simple diagnostics.

The standard dentist X-ray does you with about as much exposure as you get on a flight from the UK to Spain, I believe

But I have no faith that they know how to adjust the machine....

> 'PFAS bad' is about as sophisticated a viewpoint as 'nuclear bad'.

Is PFAS denialism going to be as bad as climate change denialism is today, or tobacco disease denialism used to be? I'm tired of all these people refusing to acknowledge widespread scientific consensus. (Assuming you're not a 3M or DuPont astroturfer, of course.)