Bento Thug Life

The kid was picked up by an ambulance 30 minutes later.

Now as an adult working in security I get SO MANY folks- upper-middle aged mostly- coming to me to 'rat out' people they think are faking it.

I was once sent into a bathroom because a client demanded that the "fucker won't get out, so go drag them out"- I was NEVER going to do that, so I did a wellness check instead. You know who it was? A person recently released from the hospital after a car accident. They had a hole in their skull and major hearing loss. They couldn't answer the owner because they couldn't HEAR the owner.

Another time about a homeless man who got around town by kicking the ground from his wheelchair. "You know he doesn't actually need that thing, his legs work fine, it's just for pity points"- Oh, so he's not paralyzed, his wheelchair is performative? Funny story Dale, I actually know that guy, he was backed over by a truck and has chronic pain from his shattered pelvis. But sure, let's make him stand up and walk everywhere so nobody feels too bad for him and tries to help him or something.

"She doesn't need that scooter, I've seen her get out of it."

"Look how fat he is, because he just rides around and refuses to get up."

"She doesn't really need that cane- she comes here without it all the time"

I say this as someone who sells pottery, and many people who see my art assume I am using art as an outlet to “express myself.”

I am not.

I use art to challenge myself. A lot of what I do is the equivalent of doing a hard sudoko or a half marathon, answering the question of “can I do this?”

I use art to question things and explore ideas. Finding physical synthesis between concepts and working out a design to its end state.

I use art to make money. I make some things just because I suspect they’ll sell well, and I keep making them when they do.

This idea that an artist is “putting themselves out there” every time they create is not only stupid, but harmful, and it kills critique and analysis.

Yes every creative work is influenced by its creator, but the most preliminary step of analysis is to define the purpose of a work of art (functional, narrative, entertainment, persuasive, decorative, ceremonial, etc.) and a vanishingly small percentage of that is self-expression. Even then, it’s generally tied to the self’s relationship with something else—perception, society, etc.

It’s very tiresome to have people assume they know you because they like (or dislike) your art, to make assumptions about who you are and how you approach the world. It’s nothing new— people called the Impressionists insane and the Fauvists degenerate. And now people are expected to hand out their identities and traumas to prove they have the right to explore certain subjects.

Over fifty years of data show a peak in PFAS (also known as "forever chemicals") content in seabird eggs in the 90s, followed by a decrease as regulations went into effect. The most recent findings show a 70% decrease of most common PFAS.

We are making genuine progress! Producers are dramatically altering how much they use PFAS and how much gets released in effluent, but also there's a lot better understanding of how to remove PFAS from the environment!

you can think of this sort of like how water wicks into a paper towel. the water gets stuck to the paper because it's attracted to it via capillary forces, even though there's no chemical reaction going on.

the two main methods used are granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption and ion exchange (IX).

activated carbon is already pretty familiar to a lot of us; it's the stuff in a lot of replaceable water filters. the activated carbon has a huge internal surface area, and that allows for the fairly weak intermolecular forces to add up and allow contaminants to get "stuck" onto the surface of the activated carbon. over time, the activated carbon gets filled with junk, and you have to replace it.

GAC is essentially this, except that the activated carbon is granularized and produced in specific ways to maximize how much it attracts certain chemicals. this can be tuned because activated carbon gets its massive surface area from internal "pores", and various processes will change how large and frequent those pores are.

It's essentially a Russian nesting doll of pores, and controlling the size of the larger pores influences the permeability of the activated carbon and controlling the size of the smaller pores (micropores) influences what exactly is most attracted to the activated carbon.

However, GAC has a few major downsides:

It is not specific to PFAS. This is more of a mixed blessing because it was already frequently used and well understood, and the infrastructure for producing and distributing it already existed. However,

It loses effectiveness over time and must be replaced. This is a continued cost, albeit a low one, but this has one final major issue

As time goes on, the PFAS previously adsorbed to the activated carbon is desorbed and replaced by other things that have a higher affinity for the activated carbon.

As such, ion exchange (IX) was always very compelling. The whole point of it relies on the fact that PFAS molecules are predominantly made of two parts: An acid head group (either a carboxylic or sulfonic acid group) and a perfluorinated tail.

The head groups on the right are what become ionized—or specifically, deprotonated. A hydrogen leaves and is replaced with a metal cation (usually sodium), forming a PFAS salt (chemical meaning of salt!). These are much more soluble in water because of polarity reasons, and so the mobile PFAS molecules are almost always in that salt form.

By passing through these PFAS salts through a permeable polymer matrix that has (1) numerous positively charged groups like quaternary amines and (2) highly mobile negative ions loosely attached to those stationary positive groups (most often chlorides), you can actually get the PFAS to be "stuck" inside the polymer matrix and what comes out is just good ol' sodium chloride, or salt (culinary meaning of salt!).

This shows a version with hydroxide (OH-) ions as the mobile anion, but it's the same idea. The +NR3 in yellow are stuck to the polymer matrix, but the OH- can freely move around. However, without another anion to replace the OH-, the ionic attraction prevents the hydroxides from leaving.

In comes the PFAS. Despite being slightly soluble in water, the anionic PFAS aren't really that mobile, and when they pass through, it's much easier for the hydroxide ions to leave. Another very important effect is that the long perfluorinated tail of the PFAS is attracted to the polymer matrix, whilst the counterions are ONLY attracted via the ionic force. Thus, PFAS would much rather hang out in the polymer matrix.

Of course, IX has its own downsides

These resins are much more expensive, both to manufacture and to transport.

While they can be "regenerated", it's a tricky process that currently requires the use of nearly anhydrous methanol, which is both poisonous and extremely flammable, increasing the operating costs.

As the hydrophobic tail is a key part of allowing the PFAS to stick to the matrix, short-chain PFAS are very poorly dealt with by this system. This is exacerbated by competition between different PFAS molecules, as long-chain ones will cause short-chain ones to desorb.

Overall, the best method appears to be using a series of ion exchange resins followed by an activated carbon filter. The ion exchange will capture the bulk of the PFAS molecules, and the activated carbon will grab any stragglers. Effective filtering of other contaminants prior to the PFAS removal system will also ensure minimal competition in the activated carbon.