Ahhh, but it’s basic chemistry…..
If you take just 7 1gram nails and attach a salt and 3 water molecules to each iron atom (Fe(OH)3 + NaCl = FeCl3 + NaOH) you could easily increase the mass enough to make an average 22 gram frog…no biggie.

The EPA just today announced plans to set actual enforceable limits for drinking water contamination by the two most common variants, hopefully well below the 70/1000000 unenforceable recomendation they previously issued, before the 2023 deadline, and to study the health effects of other variants and regulate them.
They also announced plans to force polluters to clean up the places where they dumped, which seems to be impossible considering the size and mobility of these molecules, and the fact that they've already migrated everywhere so can't possibly be fully removed.

Howdy - I don't know if "addressed" is the right word. Commented on, but not given sufficient perspective. Having said that, the problem is incredibly complex, so there should be no expectation that Mr. Oliver's video or any other single thesis on the topic could possibly suffice.

Your "one chemical bond difference" is an appropriate consideration, but with recognition that once we reach on the order of C20-C40 length dispersable or emulsifiable molecules as surfactants / surface energy modifiers, the insoluble polymers come into play, with not 30'ish bonds growing one at a time, but leaping to 20,000 or more. No doubt the pool has already been irreversibly pissed into by the irresponsible producers that convert small molecules into very, very large ones, but with some control, responsibility, and integrity in our industrial process owners (yes, hell just froze over) there is no reason why we could not safely continue to produce the polymeric forms of PFAS. We do so for substantially more toxic chemical conversion processes today.

It's interesting to note the (usual) examples brought forward by others in this post (Teflon cookware), just waiting for someone to mention Gore-Tex, but by far the biggest impact won't be on consumer goods that we all touch regularly and recognize the name brands of, but will be on the industrial / commercial uses of these polymeric families that are pervasive in the systems / processes that we all derive benefit from every day. Ironies exist, that perhaps confuse the "all PFAS are bad" premise ... consider - effectively every seal, gasket and control valve in a water purification plant is most commonly made of a PFAS polymeric compound, PTFE included, all tested to rigorous specifications and compliance by specific agencies that do nothing other than deal with potable water (thankfully not the EPA - it's National Sanitation Foundation (the other NSF), or Water Research Advisory Scheme (WRAS) in the UK etc.) .

So my contention and the view of many in the end user community is that it's not the final form of some of these compounds that are bad, it's the horrendous messes we leave producing them. We can't unwind our Clock of Dumb, but killing the entire crop just to get rid of the long ago seeded weeds doesn't solve the actual problem, it makes it much, much larger.

Thanks for your comments.

I hate it when the uneducated try to explain a complex issue and do a piss poor job of it. Is PFAS a problem? Sure. Are ALL PFAS compounds a problem with regards to their toxicity? No. The small molecule species are problematic because of mobility. The polymeric species are stable as fuck, that's why they were invented and why we use them as seals and barrier layers to isolate corrosive liquids and gases, and why we use them in such things as medical implants. The polymers excel because they are inert and largely unreactive. So - are they all bad? No. Are they all good? No. But it's too late - the fuckwits like Oliver have fueled the Emotional Response bus, and society won't stand for outdated concepts like scientific investigation or rational thought. Eight member countries of the EU are presently on track to restrict or ban all PFAS in any form, sweeping all compounds into the same category with no differentiation between a water soluble perfluorinated molecule like perfluorinated PVME and a one million molecular weight PTFE polymer. If it has a -CF2- moiety in it, it's subject to being banned. Good science doesn't matter any more, the knee-jerk fear mongerers are now making the decisions.

Such nonsense.
Biden did not approve, nor is he helping build this pipeline. He chose to not sanction one Swiss company helping build the last 90 miles, but is still sanctioning Russian companies involved, and is likely to block it's certification and insurance (by banning any insurer from using international or US banking) without guarantees the Ukrainian pipeline won't be abandoned.
He decided not making Germany go dark was a better plan, not alienating a long term ally and strategic partner that we are trying to repair our severely damaged relationship with.
He also decided putting Russia in bed with the Chinese, their other option for selling their gas, was not a smart move.
He is clear, he is against this pipeline and is still sanctioning many Russian companies involved in it's construction.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/18/politics/us-nord-stream-decision/index.html

Those grapes must be really sour today @bobknight33, they've got your yummy tears flowing like a firehose....keep em coming. So yummy, you guys.

Edit: I'm curious why America SHOULD hold veto power over international projects approved by all involved countries on other continents. Should we stop pipelines because Putin says so? He could stop hacking them and just tell us to quit. It seems ridiculous that we are telling Germany they can't have more natural gas, and telling Russia they can't sell it.
For clarification, I'm against it for ecological reasons, yes gas produces less CO2 than coal and oil, but produces way more methane which is >25 times more destructive per molecule in the short term. 11 billion could have built any number of wave/tidal generation facilities that run 24/7 without a new source of greenhouse gases.

Capsaicin ---from no less than Cook's Illustrated

"Milk had only a slight impact. What worked on both the skin and the mouth? Hydrogen peroxide.

It turns out that peroxide reacts with capsaicin molecules, changing their structure and rendering them incapable of bonding with our receptors. Peroxide works even better in the presence of a base like baking soda:

We found that a solution of 1/8 teaspoon of baking soda, 1 tablespoon of water, and 1 tablespoon of hydrogen peroxide could be used to wash the affected area or as a mouthwash (swish vigorously for 30 seconds) to tone down a chile’s stinging burn to a mild warmth. (Toothpaste containing peroxide and baking soda is a somewhat less effective remedy.) Always keep peroxide, baking soda, and toothpaste away from your eyes."

relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2359/
"There is growing evidence that the atmosphere of venus contains... molecules"

Diatoms, and other phytoplankton, are incredibly sensitive to ocean PH and CO2 levels. This can be another feedback loop already in action.
As fewer diatoms photosynthesize, more CO2 goes unused, raising the concentration, lowering the numbers and health of phytoplankton, allowing more CO2 to go unused, raising the concentration, .....
Every molecule of CO2 added to ocean systems removes one molecule of carbonate, which is necessary for the uptake of iron among other processes. By 2100, surface carbonate is expected to decrease by up to 50%. That may well be below the levels diatoms can tolerate.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/key-biological-mechanism-disrupted-ocean-acidification

If phytoplankton goes, so does the food web. They are the base. If the ocean food web collapses, eventually the bacteria that eat dead sea life will create huge clouds of hydrogen sulfide that cover the land, poisoning any still living organisms there. This has happened before, but on a much longer timescale, with near life ending results for earth.

Hydrogen Sulfide, Not Carbon Dioxide, May Have Caused Largest Mass Extinction. ... "During the end-Permian extinction 95 percent of all species (and >98% of all biomass) on Earth became extinct, compared to only 75 percent during the KT when the dinosaurs disappeared,"

A better title might be "diatoms, the tiny glass shards that support all life on earth, are struggling".

"Just filtered blood" is misleading. It's filtered, PROCESSED, blood.

This is like saying plants are just dirt, air, and water. While technically true, the biological processes in plant growth (as with milk production) create complex nutritive molecules out of simple constituents.

The core idea behind homeopathy is that water has memory.

So if you put Caffeine in water it "remembers" the Caffeine and when you reduce the amount enough, that causes it to become "negative" which means it'll put you to sleep.

So since all water on Earth has been exposed to other water that was once in contact with every conceivable medication, perhaps we should just drink water instead of paying for some magic water? After all, every bit of water you drink has some molecules that were dinosaur piss once upon a time.

See also: https://videosift.com/video/Homeopathic-A-E-Mitchell-Webb

In terms of exploding or burning, probably not nearly as dangerous as gasoline. The biggest problem with it is that, since the molecules are so tiny, it's very hard to store and transport without it leaking away. Also, the standard procedure for getting hydrogen from water (electrolysis) requires considerably more energy than you get out of the hydrogen, so that's a problem. Still all that aside, if you use power from a nuclear reactor to crack the water to make the hydrogen, you have a nearly unlimited supply of a portable, energy-dense, very clean fuel. Researching and refining its use as a fuel is a Good Thing.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Evo-Devo-Despacito-Biology-Parody-A-Capella-Science (about the atoms, molecules, and cells making up creatures or people)
*doublepromote

Actually, matter does appear and disappear from and to nothing. There are energy fields that permeate space, and when their potential gets too high, they collapse and eject a particle. Similarly, particles can be destroyed or decay and upon that event they cause a spike in the background energy fields.

One of the essential functions of a collier is to compress a bunch of crap into a tiny spot, so that when enough decays in that specific spot it will cause such a local spike in energy that new particles must subsequently be ejected (particles that are produced at some calculated energy level - different energy levels producing different ejections).

*This is at the subatomic level. Large collections of matter don't just convert to energy.

I know plenty of people roll eyes at that, but the math upon which those machines are built are using the same math that makes things like modern lithography machines work (they manipulate tiny patterns of molecules). You basically prove the math every time you use a cell phone (thing with modern micro chips).

...

But that's beside the point. If there ever was 'nothing', the question isn't "whether or not god exists to have made things" - it's "why do things exist". God could be an answer. As could infinite other possibilities.

...

Personally, eternity is the answer I assume is most likely to be correct. Because you don't have to prove anything. The universe need not be static - but if something was always there (even just energy fields), then there is an eternity in one form or anther.

Background energy and quantum tunneling are a neat concept (referring to metastability). Because you can have a big-bang like event if the background energy level tunnels to a lower state, expanding a new space starting at that point, re-writing the laws of physics in its area of existence. Meaning that our universe as we know it can simply be one of many bubbles of expanding tunneling events - created at the time of the event, and due to be overwritten by another at some point. Essentially a non-permanent local what-we-percieve-as-a-universe, among many. (I'm avoiding the concept that time and space are relative to each bubble, and there is no concept of an overarching time and place outside of any one event).

(All this comes from taking formulas that model measurements of reality, globing them into larger models, and then exploring the limits of those models at extreme values/limits. ... with a much lagging experimental base slowly proving and disproving elements of the model (and forcing model refinement upon a disproval, so that the model encompasses the new test data))

-scheherazade

I'm confused. They imply a 3 day trip to mars is possible, but is that at the maximum speed photonic propulsion can deliver, or do they include the acceleration and deceleration times? As I understood it, photonic propulsion can deliver extreme speeds, but only at a minimal acceleration. That means that maximum speed is much faster, but accelerating to that speed takes immensely longer, and the same goes for deceleration. Maybe they've invented a new method I've not heard of with much higher acceleration, but that's not really mentioned in the video.
They actually seem to imply they plan to use the same tech as cyclotrons, which means essentially a huge rail gun (and that's not photonic propulsion BTW, it's magnetic). Again, the amount of propulsion is miniscule, but the top speed is high with that method. Yes, you can expel matter at near speed of light, but only in tiny amounts and using huge amounts of energy.
Yes, it may take 10 minutes to achieve 30% the speed of light....with single molecules or atoms.
There are MANY reasons why we can't do this at macro sizes. Just look at the size of a cyclotron needed to accelerate an atom to those relativistic speeds. Now think about sizing that up to accelerate enough matter to move a spaceship instead of a single atom and it's likely near the size of the entire planet. We won't be building a cyclotron that size ever, nor will we likely ever shrink the accelerators to a size where they can fit inside a spaceship to shoot trillions of atoms out like a light speed gun. They are just too big and use too much power. Maybe once fusion is perfected and miniaturization also perfected it could work for interstellar travel, but never for local space travel, the acceleration levels are just too small.
Also, it seems solar sails give the same or better acceleration to the same top speeds without the impossible technology....but they don't work too well for stopping except at other stars.

Don't be silly.


"Molecule I'd Like to Fuse"