Love the Academy's statement: "The Academy does not condone violence of any form", and yet they just did. Here's your trophy, congratulations. Pretty gutless. Can't wait for the first angry dad punching out a ref or umpire at his kid's game, and uses the Will Smith defense... "It was a bad joke so I broke his jaw". What an excellent role model.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjROVrTeAtU

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.

Mesmerizing. Thoroughly enjoyed that, thanks for posting.

Suggests a new survival skills lesson: How to speed-walk backwards with a load in your pants.

Interesting, sure, but I want to know where to buy those awesome suits they're wearing. Bee keepers meet Star Wars.

"Friendly humpback whale gives woman the experience of a lifetime". This is not the video I expected.

Total N2 build up in the bloodstream is time dependent. If they're flitting about, zooming to the bottom and back to the top with very low Bottom Time, then the risk is (relatively) lower. But (IMO) not worth screwing with, as the downside (getting bent) is no picnic. Whether in a hole in Dubai or out on the reef, plan the dive and dive the plan.

Hmm... wire nuts not reusable? Well, that's just BS. And you don't cut the wire when you're adding a new junction, you just turn the nut off and re-use it. Decades of electrical code would tend to disagree with pretty much every point made here.

It's considered to be a very reliable and long lasting action. The fit and design keep the action "tight" through repeated use and reduces wear on mating surfaces. A larger-than-most extractor claw reduces the possibility of stuck rounds from breaking the claw or slipping out during extraction. A noticeably smoother action when chambering or extracting a round. I don't know that it contributes to the accuracy of the rifle, would say not in my experience, but opinions vary.

Confusing as hell if you ask me. I don't know where they're going, but they're making great time.

Fenton!

OK, since there's a bunch of experts on this thread, when did the Tie fighters first show that they had folding "wings" (solar array panels) as @ the 1:13 mark. I ain't no Star Wars expert, but this is the first time I've seen this. Help?

Kudos to you for keeping up the fight against Bob's crap. You must feel like Sisyphus sometimes.