28 ms·
The Teflon Toxin
- greenyoda 11y agoMore on C8, the chemical discussed in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
- azinman2 11y agoHorrible. This is what's so scary about the free market and our current chemical regulations of innocent until proved guilty. People cover up, even the biggest most "professional" here (DuPont), and the public gets decades of abuse. Why is it that medication requires FDA approval with lots of animal/human tests before you can sell it, but chemicals do not? Here the tests internally done showed prove of issue year after year, and would have been a big red flag.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- makomk 11y agoApparently it was also sold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Applica...
- icebraining 11y agoSorry, I deleted my post when I re-read the story. Still, it's not clear that the levels in the products were enough to have harmful effects, the problem was really the lack of care handling it in the plant, and the unsafe disposal.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- VMG 11y ago> This is what's so scary about the free market and our current chemical regulations of innocent until proved guilty. I get your point, but the situation is not much better in non-free markets as well. Regulators have a price for which they can be captured.
- juliangregorian 11y agoYou are correct, but "regulatory capture" refers to a different form of corruption than what you are talking about.
- Schwoisser 11y agoIt is worse. Look at the Soviet Union or China.
- azinman2 11y agoThe solution IMHO to have a climate of non-corruption (US) generally combined with enough pay already for regulators to not be easily swayed, and hopefully hire people who have different motivators than money in life, and actually jail for real people who violate this (too many abuses, particularly on Wall Street, go by without the true punishment it deserves). Despite existing corruption, I do believe the FDA is less corrupt than it is corrupt, and for the most part they do have the public good as their primary interest. My free market comment was more about this theory of self-regulation and trust. Clearly that gets violated time and time again, and here is yet another case to the point of knowingly harming their own employees for decades! The bigger issue is this non-regulatory environment for so many chemicals. Innocent until proven guilty, especially for thousands of drugs already popular when regulations were enacted (in the 60s?), is just irresponsible. The list of drugs in the blood of the entire pollution just keeps growing... How long before we realize the permanent harm potential?
- ekianjo 11y agoChemistry is far from being a free market. There are tons of regulations before you can produce anything in developed countries. The issue is rather that fines are too small and regulators can be easily bribed. You need an independent justice system more than anything else.
- 13years 11y agoFree markets when supported by strong property rights can have strong protections to prevent harm or pollution. Non free markets, although regulated, don't necessarily perform better and can even perform worse in this regard. The FDA is a great example of an agency which often can be seen to work harder to protect the industry than the individual. For example, look up the story of Vioxx. A drug which killed 50k people, passed all FDA processes and when the manufacturer was caught hiding data showing this would happen the product was not even removed from the market as that would have opened the door for lawsuits against the manufacturer.
- rayiner 11y agoProving causation in toxic torts make it pretty much impossible to hold companies accountable. Moreover, both judges and juries strongly side with companies, who create jobs. At best these cases settle for 5-10% of the damage caused, which make them a small tax on this destructive conduct.
- makomk 11y agoI think this article demonstrates why that doesn't actually work in practice. DuPont contaminated several counties with a toxic chemical over the course of a decade, affecting many people's property, yet because the owners didn't even know to test for it and weren't in a position to prove that it was dangerous, let alone prove that it had harmed them specifically, DuPont got away with this.
- 13years 11y agoPossibly, but it would seem to nonetheless also demonstrate why regulation also doesn't work in practice. From the article. "...THE FEDERAL TOXIC SUBSTANCES Control Act requires companies that work with chemicals to report to the Environmental Protection Agency any evidence they find that shows or even suggests that they are harmful..." What many people don't realize, is that EPA and FDA rely on the trust of the private industry to submit accurate test data. This was the same issue with Vioxx. People don't know to test also because they assume these agencies are protecting them. If property rights had more of a role, then there would be a greater call for testing and likely there would be more testing services available due to demand. From article. "... If these polluters were ever forced to clean up the chemical, which has been detected by the EPA 716 times across water systems in 29 states, and in some areas may be present at dangerous levels, the costs could be astronomical..." I doubt this will happen, since the regulatory agencies attempt to prevent harm to the industry. A proponent of property rights would have no issue with the companies paying for every bit of damages and cleanup no matter how much damage is done to the business even if it must be shutdown. Another example of EPA being aware of a problem and siding with industry against the individual http://www.ewg.org/research/free-pass-oil-and-gas/oil-and-gas-industry-exemptions http://www.ewg.org/research/free-pass-oil-and-gas/oil-and-ga... An example case in Canada where property rights did work http://environment.probeinternational.org/1993/07/17/how-they-killed-our-rights-clean-water/ http://environment.probeinternational.org/1993/07/17/how-the... This is a good reference on the history of environmental policy. In an interesting section here, the book states how property rights in the US were purposely weakened to allow for pollution. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqRjI6JcgrMC&lpg=PA127&pg=PA126&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqRjI6JcgrMC&lpg=PA127&pg=... What I would like to see is a return to stronger enforcement of property rights by default and supplemented as necessary by agency regulation.
- stretchwithme 11y agoAll that teflon is going somewhere when it falls off the pan. Its going in the food and into your body. I'd rather not run that experiment. So many years ago I started using a glass frying pan.
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoThe alternate answer is that it goes out in the usual fashion with little no digestion at all. Or put more bluntly, if you eat a brick of Teflon, then you shit a block of Teflon.
- onewaystreet 11y agoYou're not going to get sick from the tiny amount of Teflon that might fall off during repeated cooking. This article is about workers exposed to large amounts over years.
- ars 11y agoYou wouldn't get sick if you ate lots of it all the time. The article is about PFOA which is not the same thing as teflon.
- rcthompson 11y agoTeflon itself is pretty much inert. That's the whole point - nothing reacts with it, nothing sticks to it. The worry is about the chemicals used to manufacture it.
- johnm1019 11y agoCan you elaborate on this for me, I found the article confusing in its usage of C8 and Teflon (which seemed interchangeable as written?). What chemicals are used to produce Teflon which are harmful?
- jacobolus 11y agoTeflon is the trade name for PTFE, a polymer (long skinny molecule made of a chain of identical parts) with extremely low friction which is strong, has a high melting point compared to other polymers, and doesn’t react with most chemicals, making it useful as a lubricant, non-stick coating, and electrical insulator for aerospace circuitry, with a long list of other niche uses. PTFE is stable and nontoxic at temperatures below about 250° celsius. PFOA, a.k.a. C8, is a surfactant (“soap”) which was used in the polymerization of PTFE. (But also used for many other purposes, e.g. as an ingredient in carpet cleaners and fire-fighting foam.) PFOA is a toxin and carcinogen which bioaccumulates and causes nasty problems for people exposed to large amounts of it.
- im3w1l 11y agoTl;dr? How badly am I destroying my health by using a Teflon pan?
- fabian2k 11y agoTeflon pans are not a significant source of the perfluorooctanoic acid mentioned in the article. See https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1539-6924.2008.01017.x https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1539-6924.2008.01017.x for a bit more information, I quoted the relevant part here: Besides the pathways presented above, the following pathways have also been modeled: oral exposure from hand-to-mouth contact with clothes and upholstery, from mouthing of clothes, carpet, and upholstery (only infants and toddlers), from migration into food prepared with PTFE-coated cookware, dermal exposure from wearing of treated clothes, from deposition of spray droplets on skin while impregnating, from skin contact with treated carpet and with upholstery, and from deposition of dust on skin. Detailed analysis of these pathways showed that none of them causes significant exposure to PFOS or PFOA under the assumption of reasonable conditions during exposure, that is, the contribution of each pathway to the total uptake dose is less than 1% in any of the scenarios.
- abandonliberty 11y agoThey did cover ingestion, but what about the fumes released while cooking that are apparently capable of killing birds? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10050903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10050903 Also: Is there any way to identify where the funding came for this study - or studies in general?
- Htsthbjig 11y agoNow Teflon has not C8 on it as it is manufactured. You will create dangerous compounds though if your pan goes over high temperature. This could happen if for example there is no oil in the pan. I have seen housewives and cookers heat the Teflon pan without oil for evaporating the water. Big no no with Teflon. I have seen metal scrappers burning teflon pans to use the pan for something else and painting it!(with teflon you can't paint it) The big problems with exotic chemicals is that people could do extremely stupid stuff without them realizing they had done anything wrong. It is not like red alarms will start ringing or something. It is just silent, and two years later you will have cancer.
- thezilch 11y agoI've never understood the gravity of Teflon pans. I can never seem to keep them non-stick, whether it be because of using too high of heat or somehow scratch the damn thing. So, I got cast irons. It's trivial to keep them seasoned and thus non-stick, and they can take the beating of very high heat -- searing meats -- and any metal utensils or rough substances.
- sanoli 11y agoHow do you keep them seasoned? I tried a couple of times, but couldn't get it right. Could you give me some tips?
- manachar 11y agoCook with oil and real fats. Avoid soap. If you're having issues consider getting the pre-seasoned from Lodge. It's a few buck more and they've already got a dang fine seasoning backed on. Here's a decent article on seasoning: http://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/5820-the-ultimate-way-to-season-cast-iron http://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/5820-the-ultimate-wa...
- blevs 11y agoSerious Eats has a very comprehensive guide [1]. The short version is rub lightly with canola oil, put in hot oven for about 30 minutes. Take it out and oil again. Repeat 3-5 times. The only thing you need to avoid while cooking is overly acidic foods. If you try to make a tomato sauce in it you will see the seasoning flake off. That's not good, but is very easily fixed by repeating the above steps. To clean it, scour the plan with kosher salt and a paper towel. Once clean, coat lightly in canola oil. [1]: http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/how-to-buy-season-clean-maintain-cast-iron-pans.html http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/how-to-buy-season-clean-m...
- LukeB_UK 11y agoOnce it's seasoned well, it doesn't seem to flake. I've done tomato based sauces in my cast iron a few times and the seasoning hasn't flaked.
- NhanH 11y agoOn the topic of chemical, how do you know if something is dangerous -- in the context of household item? Even with the MSDS and/or knowledge of the compositions, layman doesn't really have any sense on how dangerous something is (as it's all missing dosage). I'm a bit on the paranoid side (mostly because I think my roommate/ housemate has always been too liberal with spraying chemicals crap everywhere), and most of the time, even if I wanted to I have no idea if I want to use something in my house.
- kanusterkund 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol
- notbingo 11y ago>even if I wanted to I have no idea if I want to use something in my house. Everything in your house is toxic. Pick up anything with the ingredients on the label and google a random one that has a funny name. Then read about it on wikipedia and you can go further from there if you want and see the studies. Chances are it is very toxic but it's used in small ammounts so you shouldn't worry about it because the effects only show up after years and years of use. Then look at the unlabeled stuff and food packaging. What's it made of? What is it coloured with? What's in the glue that holds it together? What does the paper have in it? Checkout the uses for isothiazolinone and related compounds like methylchloroisothiazolinone if you are curious about something that's in practically everything.
- NhanH 11y agoI think that's exactly the point I was trying to make. I know that whether something is dangerous or not depends entirely on the concentration, and/or the form of it (ie solid metal lead isn't too scary, any type of its compound is). Unfortunately, I can't know the concentration(since packaging obviously doesn't mention it), and I don't know what's the threshold I should be careful about either.
- csours 11y agoSome knowledge of organic chemistry helps a lot. Organometalic compounds, Organic compounds with fluorine, and heavy metals are all scary.
- 1arity 11y agoStick with cast iron ( or even aluminium ) chef's skillets. Season them with oil or lard and build up that patina. No need for any teflon or manufacturing. Plus the heft and look is way cooler. If you want to cook on plastic, do it in a microwave. :)
- raverbashing 11y agoOh I love the crybaby mentality of wanting the government to regulate everything Like the government has the power or time to regulate the huge amounts of "chemicals" (which is usually a term used by people that failed Chemistry 101) both natural and artificial But hey, let's start banning Dihydrogen Monoxide!
- m_eiman 11y agoLike the government has the power or time to regulate the huge amounts of "chemicals" How about instead of having "government" do the testing, we instead require that anyone creating a new chemical needs to test it for safety and publish the results (and raw data) before allowing it to be sold? Seems reasonable to me that you verify that whatever you're selling isn't dangerous (or if it turns out to be dangerous, inform the buyers so that they can act accordingly). Should be the same with any product too, not just chemicals.
- pjc50 11y agoThis is the EU approach (REACH: http://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach http://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach ). It's pretty burdensome, and somewhat unevenly applied (lead has been phased out of solder, but not of batteries). The "verify your product is not dangerous" has had strange effects, as people selling hand-knitted stuffed toys in tiny quantities have to work out how to handle CE marking requirements. This kind of regulation sets an effective minimum size on businesses.
- raverbashing 11y ago> This kind of regulation sets an effective minimum size on businesses. Exactly. I find it funny how the biggest proponents of regulation are also those who oppose big companies as well Because regulations are a very nice way of eliminating the (smaller) competition
- ectoplasm 11y agoThere's no reason the government can't level the playing field by subsidizing the fixed overhead portion of meeting the regulations. They don't, and it's stupid - ever tried to buy or sell farm fresh eggs? - but there's no reason they can't.
- suprgeek 11y agoTake the number of vehicles in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failure, (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of- court settlement, (C). A times B times C equals X...If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. What applies to the Car Industry (via Dialogue from Fight Club) applies to the Chemical Industry in Spades. DuPont Knew (or strongly suspected) that C8 & (Teflon) were causing Cancers, Birth Defects etc. But the cost was going to be too high to move away so they all "kicked the can down the road". Time to sock them with a multi-billion dollar verdict after some of these people are locked up for long periods.
- baseballmerpeak 11y agoFord Motor Company Management 101
- MoOmer 11y agoActually, if we go by recent claims, GM is the winner (loser) here
- mikeash 11y agoGM didn't even make that calculation, did they? I thought they just sort of covered it up and hoped nobody would notice. Say what you will about cold-blooded calculations, but at least Ford analyzed the situation.
- csours 11y agoGM had a bad engineer, as well as poor engineering practice (not properly tracking Engineering Work Orders and part changes), along with poor understanding of the ignition/electronic system. Source - Valukas Report Disclaimer - I work for GM
- rhino369 11y agoThe crazier thing is that for negligence torts (cars would be products liability, which is different), that's exactly how the law works. It's called the "Hand Formula" and you are only liable for negligence when PL > B, where P is the probability of loss, L is the gravity of loss, and B is the cost of avoiding the risk. In practice though, it can be hard to argue that sort of thing. It's a little academic.
- lumberjack 11y agoAnd the settlement reached was around 0.0086 DuPont's yearly revenue to be provided for education, water treatment facilities and medical expenses of the class action members. Is that really going to deter them from doing it again? Where is the real penalty? http://www.hpcbd.com/Personal-Injury/DuPont-C8/C8-Class-Action-Settlement.shtml http://www.hpcbd.com/Personal-Injury/DuPont-C8/C8-Class-Acti...
- gioele 11y ago> And the settlement reached was around 0.0086 DuPont's yearly revenue to be provided for education, water treatment facilities and medical expenses of the class action members. > Is that really going to deter them from doing it again? Where is the real penalty? Stefano Quintarelli, an Italian ISP-owner-turned-ITC-journalist has the nice habit of converting those "huge" fines ("millions of euros!") into equivalent fines for people with normal incomes. In this case he would write "The equivalent fine for a person with an average income of € 30k per year would had been € 258."
- anentropic 11y agothis is great, I'd like to see this in every news article!
- rayiner 11y agoIt's a settlement, not a fine. The value is a function of damages, discounted by litigation risk and time. Revenues has nothing to do with it. If I negligently burn down your shed, what I owe you in a tort action has nothing to do with how much money I make.
- eevilspock 11y agoAnd what if you made all of that money precisely because you were burning down sheds? Granted, the more just and commensurate judgement that lumberjack rightly seeks must be paid to the world as a whole, with the workers' share being a function of their damages, as you said. My point is you are focusing on the technical and completely ignoring the moral cry for justice expressed by lumberjack.
- avirambm 11y agoI highly recommend watching The Human Experiment documentary about chemicals, toxins and the chemical industry strong lobby. It's available on Netflix.
- gambiting 11y agoQuestion - I use these pans: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Circulon-Infinite-Hard-Anodised-Skillet/dp/B003ZYERM0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1439371445&sr=8-1&keywords=circulon+infinite+30cm http://www.amazon.co.uk/Circulon-Infinite-Hard-Anodised-Skil... They are non-stick. But are they covered with Teflon? I honestly don't know. They are oven safe up to 240C, I can put them in the dishwasher...they are seriously the most durable pans I've ever used, unlike normal Tefal Teflon covered pans which scratch easily. Does anyone know?
- aembleton 11y agoThese are Hard Anodized pans, and they don't use Teflon. I've got this set of Circulon pans from Costco [1]; absolutely no problems and my friends have been equally impressed with the non-stick properties. You can especially see it when making something like scrambled eggs where the egg just doesn't stick. [1]: http://www.costco.com/Circulon%C2%AE-Premier-Professional-Hard-Anodized-Nonstick-13-Piece-Cookware-Set.product.100104723.html http://www.costco.com/Circulon%C2%AE-Premier-Professional-Ha...
- increduloushulk 11y agoThe pans you linked to do have a Teflon coating. Look at the fourth bullet point under "Features," where it says it uses DuPont Autograph. Autograph is a product within the Teflon line.
- acd 11y agoYou can make superhydrophobic surfaces with laser etching that affects the nano structure of the metal. Thus if you take a strong metal and laser etch it there is no need for potentially dangerous Teflon coating. https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/superhydrophobic-metals-85592/ https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/superhydrophobic-metals...
- LukeB_UK 11y agoExcept doing that on a large scale would be super expensive.
- dekhn 11y agoWhy? Typically, whenever you do something in the large scale, you can amortize the capital cost of the equipment to zero (economy of scale) and if the product is popular, inventors will come up with cheaper ways to run the manufacturing facility. That said, lasers do use lots of power so it will probably be marginally more expensive.
- lfowles 11y agoIt's not just capital cost for equipment that needs to be considered at this stage, but also the research needed to make suitable equipment for large scale production. Per the article, a 1"x1" section of metal takes an hour. Maybe some day, but then "there is no need for potentially dangerous Teflon coating in 10-15 years" would be more appropriate.
- gruez 11y agoHow well does that surface withstand wear? If the property is dependent on "micro- and nanoscale structures" as claimed in the article, then surely a few months of use will destroy those structures.
- smoyer 11y agoWhat struck me most about this article is how much rationalization occurred. I'm amazed that a (presumably licensed) doctor can in one breath say they have a moral responsibility to safeguard the public, their workers and the environment, then in the next breath describe why the results of their own study didn't apply. But looking inward, I wonder if our industry doesn't do the same thing in many cases - what about: - Eye strain caused by lack of contrast due to our favorite color palette. - Stress induced by unintelligible workflows. - Failure to protect a user's privacy. - Programs that induce RSI. I realize this is a far cry from polluting the environment with toxins, but shouldn't we at least think about these factors more often?
- allencoin 11y ago>- Eye strain caused by lack of contrast due to our favorite color palette. An anecdote: A couple of years ago during a stressful time at work I was fitted for prescription lenses. While being indecisive about choosing frames, I installed f.lux and reduced brightness of my monitors. Never ended up buying glasses, and in a couple of weeks my vision was back to normal. It was just eye strain, and I saved about $300. Edit: changed "Flux" to "f.lux"
- eevilspock 11y ago> - Failure to protect a user's privacy. Advertising is our C8. It pollutes nearly every corner of the web with deception and manipulation. It is the cause of the cancer called click-bait. It is so profitable it has given rise to factories that pump out cheap junk "content", overwhelming anything of merit on the web[1][2]. Then, to extract even more from the devil in this Faustian bargain, we invade our very customer's privacy, selling our soul twice over. Most of us avert our eyes from this moral abdication because it funds our high salaries and our get-rich-quick startup schemes[3]. Everyone seems happy with their "free" non-stick pans and waterproof boots, so why spoil the party? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair If you agree with me, send me an email. I'm starting a project to whistle blow, to raise awareness, to inspire change. [1] Most people will miss this article about C8 because it doesn't stand a chance against all the ad-supported garbage. The Intercept doesn't do click-bait. Journalism, a cornerstone of democracy, is dying. This toxin analogy is sadly too accurate. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961761 - > I realize this is a far cry from polluting the environment with toxins, but shouldn't we at least think about these factors more often? Yes, demand a better work environment, but please don't compare "eye strain caused by lack of contrast due to our favorite color palette" and "Stress induced by unintelligible workflows" with an environmental toxin that never existed until we created it, is now "in the blood of 99.7 percent of Americans", causes cancer and birth defects, and may outlive humanity. Many jobs have some stress on the body or mind or risks to life and limb (manual labor, fire fighting). It is called "work" after all. The fire department is not being evil. Dupont and 3M are. I hope you can see the difference.
- joeyspn 11y agoAs the article says: this is another tobacco case, so they'll deny everything even with fake/bought peer-reviewed studies. Just look how they treat their own workers... My family already moved from non-stick cookware to stainless steel. Consider doing the same in the mean time. As with the tobacco this will be a marathon, and hopefully common sense will win.
- vladsanchez 11y agoThis was one of the best investigative reports I've read. Thanks for sharing this cover-up.
- codexjourneys 11y agoTeflon has been known to be toxic for years. I'm not sure why "default trust" is a good position when dealing with companies like DuPont and Monsanto that have been caught lying to the public before. "Default suspicion" seems like the more cautious and logical approach here. It's been more than a decade since I cooked with Teflon. I use glass, stainless steel, cast iron, or ceramic/enamel (love that old original Corningware from eBay!). Much like eating real food, it's not hard to switch and the result tastes better.
- trebor 11y agoAnother good alternative cookware is Le Creuset. They make nice enameled cast-iron products, and they work well. I think Costco carries them as a white-label now and then.
- api 11y agoI get irritated at the "but science!" crowd on these issues... Not because they are always wrong but because they don't get the social undercurrents at work here. People preemptively reject GMOs for a fairly rational reason: they come from industries and an establishment with a hard documented history of lying and covering up problems. If a confirmed pathological liar comes to you with a new product and tells you it's safe... I asked someone I knew who was very anti-GMO once if shs would consider them if they were being designed and tested by open non-profit agencies with a dedication to the public interest. She said yes. For quite a few people, perhaps most, it's not some superstitious fear of the technology per se but a very rational distrust of the people who are wielding it.
- scott_karana 11y ago> and the result tastes better I don't doubt all your other points, but why did you include this one? Are you claiming that teflon-coated surfaces somehow add a taste, or demonstrably change the texture of the food cooked on it?
- codexjourneys 11y agoI've tried both and like the result from stainless steel and Corningware better. Granted, I was using older-style pans made a decade or so ago. YMMV, though the Teflon is not healthy for high-heat cooking. I avoid it, why bother?
- egypturnash 11y ago> A DuPont lawyer referred to C8 as “the material 3M sells us that we poop to the river and into drinking water along the Ohio River.” Yet another lovely thing I'm sure I ingested when I grew up drinking tap water in New Orleans what with the Ohio being the biggest tributary to the Mississippi.
- Nano2rad 11y agoTeflon is an insulator compare to iron. Thermal conductivity W/(m K) Teflon 0.25, Iron 80[1]. So Teflon coating reduces cooking, heating efficiency. [1]engineeringtoolbox.com
- jjw1414 11y agoIt may seem nit-picky, but the word "toxin" refers to a harmful substance produced by a living organism (e.g. snake venom). For a synthesized or manufactured chemical that is harmful, "toxicant" or simply toxic chemical is the correct term.
- kragen 11y agoI guessed this might be about PFOA when I saw the headline! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid has the whole story, minus the anecdotes. Apparently a few parts per billion of PFOA in your drinking water is enough to detectably raise your risk of some cancers. Most environmental regulatory agencies propose 0.5 to 1 ppb as a safe limit for drinking water, while 4–5 ppb blood serum levels of PFOA are currently common among "unexposed Germans". I was pleased to see that they aren't hyping the risk of cooking on Teflon.
- nnq 11y agoWait... so nobody even got life-in-prison for this shit??!! My gut reaction is the we should seriously consider resurrecting worse-than-death-penalty sanctions for the executives and scientists involved. I'd propose something like this for the fully-informed company executives and free acting scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_familial_exterminations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_familial_exterminations