Studies show that
rainwater, everywhere
on Earth, is now poisoned. This includes
remote
places, such as Antarctica.
The levels of man-made hazardous chemicals in water, known as (per|poly)-fluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) or, "forever chemicals", are now so high that they're starting to exceed levels
considered safe for consumption.
The chemicals have been found everywhere - in surface waters, wells (low-depth rainwater aquifers) and
even
tap
water.
Probably the only freshwater that doesn't contain these chemicals is water in some deeper aquifers and water frozen in glaciers long time ago. On surface, the
water from natural springs should be the safest to drink.
These chemicals are similar to plastic in a way they don't decay easily. They're also resistant
to high and low temperatures so boiling and freezing water doesn't help.
Regarding health effects however, they're much worse than plastic. The chemicals have been linked to
fertility issues, cancer and negative effects on cardiovascular and immune systems. The effect on
immune system is particularly interesting - suppression of vaccine response (
the
immune system is producing less antibodies).
Difference between plastic and these chemicals is also in visibility - plastic is commonly
visible to the naked eye, these chemicals are not. It is then unlikely that those concerned with
short-term interests will act on suppressing the production of these chemicals before they
accumulate enough that effects very apparently form strongly conclusive evidence.
I'm beginning to think that, if there's polarized people removing plastic from the environment, it's
only because they want the land and ocean to look nice on the surface where they reside.
That's why one popular solution is just to bury it in the ground (certainly more
popular than reducing the production of plastic). So why care about invisible chemicals?
Such people care about the invisible (like invisible viruses) only when industry and leaders
they trust tell them the invisible is bad for their health.
In this case, however, the invisible virus may be less dangerous than the invisible chemical.
But the question is will the industry prioritize inducing fear of the relatively benevolent
virus or the relatively dangerous chemical? If profit is above everything else, it's a
no-brainer of course.
Thus, on one hand there's industry urging people to increase vaccination, on the
other, there's industry making the immune systems of people lethargic.
The former is, by my hypotheses, confusing the immune system, the latter is making the immune
system blind. With increasing pollution, is increasing frequency of vaccination the solution?
The solution it is, but
not for your immune system recovery.
By my hypotheses, increasing vaccination with no associated damage is also increasing lethargy of
the system. I find it likely that PFAS is only helping to make your immune system defunct.
It certainly sounds like industrial conspiracy - your ill health is in the interest of pharmacy
so it is not in its interest to decrease pollution. In fact, if they're prioritizing
profit, increasing pollution is in their interest. I, however, do not believe there's conscious
conspiracy here - people who are acting in good faith are often unconsciously evil (and even
that evil is relative).
I wouldn't be surprised if frequency of vaccination against common flu soon becomes highly
recommended by the industry of health.
In any case, this fits nicely with my hypothesis on accelerated evolution. Silenced immune
systems = increase in
horizontal
gene transfer and mutation.