9 ms·

Meanwhile, these same PFAS chemicals are sprayed liberally onto the surface of clothing that we all wear, and increasingly furniture as well, and this may accou

Meanwhile, these same PFAS chemicals are sprayed liberally onto the surface of clothing that we all wear, and increasingly furniture as well, and this may account for far more human PFAS consumption than drinking water. PFAS chemicals are widely used for waterproofing fabrics. The industry term is DWR -- Durable Water Repellent. The chemicals are sprayed onto the surface and simply left there to rub off on your hands and face every time you touch them. The chemicals are ubiquitous; nearly every garment marketed as "water resistant" will be covered with them. As of 2019, only one large outdoor clothing company has abandoned PFC-based DWR finishes. I've also noticed more and more furniture advertised with DWR recently. All of this concern over parts-per-trillion levels in drinking water is like panicking over an untended candle when your house is already on fire. EDIT: Also note that the U.S. military regularly dumps tremendous quantities of PFAS chemicals on the ground around dozens of military bases around the country [1]. They use it in fire suppression foam, of which they spray thousands of gallons during regular fire fighting exercises. There are low-cost and low-toxicity alternatives to PFAS that are fairly well proven to be just as effective in fire suppression foams, but the U.S. military continues to ignore them steadfastly. 1 - https://theintercept.com/2018/02/10/firefighting-foam-afff-pfos-pfoa-epa/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/10/firefighting-foam-afff-p... EDIT 2: Don't forget carpeting! For decades, rugs and carpeting advertised as "stain repellent" have been coated with PFCs. One prominent brand is 3M's Scotchgard, which is also sold as a liquid for people to spray on all their shit. Until 2003, liquid Scotchgard contained PFOS, a C8-class PFC that is now banned. Even today, Scotchgard and other similar products still contain PFCs -- merely shorter-chain versions that have been surmised (but not proven) to be safer.

ip26 7y ago
It's even in those "compostable" curiously-grease-proof bowls you see at Qdoba, Chipotle, etc. https://grist.org/article/chipotle-sweetgreen-bowl-compost-pfas-fast-food-trash/ https://grist.org/article/chipotle-sweetgreen-bowl-compost-p...
- hnick 7y ago
  I recently learned a lot of 'compostable' plasticky items are not bio-degradable. They rely on a technicality to say they can be composted after being pre-treated or broken down with another chemical or process. Or something ridiculous of the sort.
  - kikoreis 7y ago
    As long as there is a process in place to ensure that is done post collection, why is that a problem?
    - kohtatsu 7y ago
      As long as there is a process in place to ensure that is done post collection, there isn't a problem. Ensuring that process is in place is the hard part. My city doesn't do commercial composting, so partially composted cups are ending up in gardens that were labelled "compostable", but had fine-print on the bottom explaining that it's only compostable in a commercial process.
    - tlavoie 7y ago
      Quite a few things are compostable in industrial scale municipal compost systems, where there are higher temperatures then the bin in the back yard. We compost food scraps to use in the garden, and it generally works great. What we found was that certain items just never broke down, like certain tea bags that have what looks like a plastic tetrahedron instead of a filter-paper bag. The bags end up getting scattered about by our chickens, and eventually picked up and thrown away by ourselves. So, we don't buy those any more.
    - hnick 7y ago
      Well I threw one in my own compost bin in my backyard before learning, since the bag didn't include fine print. I thought it was bio-degradable but apparently I need to do my research on each individual item. That's my problem.
troyvit 7y ago
Wow I had no idea. Here's a link that talks about makers of outdoor gear and their relationship with DWR. http://www.detox-outdoor.org/ http://www.detox-outdoor.org/ It doesn't look like there is a lot of choice. Maybe I'll just stay wet :)
- abandonliberty 7y ago
  That site isn't loading for me. I would hope that vapor-permeable membranes work (e.g. gore-tex). The only problem is that the outside of the garment gets wet, and they're not very breathable
  - smitty1110 7y ago
    Gore-tex is PTFE, also known as Teflon, which is a flurocarbon. Several of the waste products or reactants for making Teflon are in the same category as DWR products, and are basically toxic forever. There's not much you can do if you need fabrics with these properties, you just need to pick you poison.
    - thewebcount 7y ago
      But Teflon doesn't react with anything. That's its purpose. So even though it's a fluorocarbon, it's unlikely to cause health problem because it just won't react with your body. Or is there some other mechanism through which it causes damage, such as blocking something by physically being in the way?
      - mark-r 7y ago
        Consider what happens to your immune system when it detects a foreign particle that it can't get rid of because there's no way to interact with it.
        XMPPwocky 7y ago
        What happens? I'm not an immunologist, and "common sense" certainly doesn't seem like the way to think about the behavior of something as complex as the human immune system.
clumsysmurf 7y ago
From what I read, ingestion accounts for greater absorption than dermal exposure in populations. If your water has high levels of PFAS its best to shower in lower temperatures so you don't inhale the steam. Yes, it would be nice if REI and other companies that sells lots of these garments could apply pressure with "PFC free" filters / sections.
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  That may well be true, but I'm not sure it matters when your carpets, furniture, and clothing are covered with it. Eventually it will end up in your mouth and lungs, no way around it. I have a little theory that a significant portion of our physiologic PFC burden is acquired when we're babies. Babies positively swim in whatever substances are on the ground and furnishings. My other pet theory is that PFCs are contributing to the decline in sperm counts that we're seeing across the developed world: https://web.archive.org/web/20191221153531/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-counts-continue-to-fall/572794/ https://web.archive.org/web/20191221153531/https://www.theat...
Marsymars 7y ago
> As of 2019, only one large outdoor clothing company has abandoned PFC-based DWR finishes. Which one?
- jhloa2 7y ago
  I was under the assumption that Patagonia was PFC free but according to their website: "Patagonia has long relied on a DWR with perfluorinated compound (PFC) but we have been searching diligently for an alternative because of its harmful environmental impacts."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  Paramo. There may a couple other smaller ones too. I haven't looked in a while.
  - germinalphrase 7y ago
    Isn’t Paramo unique in that their garments are intended to keep you comfortable (while damp) rather than a typical DWR costed shell that is intended to keep you dry?
    - nate_meurer 7y ago
      That's their reputation for sure, and their marketing plays up the whole "vapor transport" thing, but make no mistake, Paramo is in pursuit of the same holy grail as everyone else: a fabric that's both breathable and completely waterproof in all conditions. Like a duck.
- rndstr 7y ago
  https://sectionhiker.com/why-does-dwr-suck/ https://sectionhiker.com/why-does-dwr-suck/ mentions - Nikwax (all products) - Sciessent Curb
- DenisM 7y ago
shmerl 7y ago
Why can't they be made illegal to use?
- rayiner 7y ago
  Because we have no idea whether the benefit from doing so would outweigh the loss of non-stick and stain-free products?
  - shmerl 7y ago
    That's supposed to be a joke?
    - pw 7y ago
      No, it’s not. He’s pointing out that there are legitimate trade offs here.
    - thewebcount 7y ago
      No, it's a legitimate question. Think of it this way. If we stop using Teflon coatings on pots and pans, will that, for example, increase the amount of cooking oil used in cooking? And if so, will that cause other health effects such as more oil being aerosolized and getting in people's lungs more? Will it cause more oil to clog up pipes (think London's "fatbergs" for example)? Will it cause more oil to go into landfills, etc.? There are frequently unintended consequences to these sorts of changes and you may just be trading one poison for another one or a worse one.
      - shmerl 7y ago
        I think oil concerns are much less problematic since you can decide what oil to use (or use no oil altogether) than ones that come from the chemicals you can't control because they are already in the water or your frying pan. You can simply cook, not fry if you worry about oil. On the other hand you can't avoid poisoned water unless you filter it. So it's a false argument here.
samstave 7y ago
If this is a topic that concerns you, I recommend you should watch the documentary "The Devil We Know"[0] -- About DuPont's Teflon production and how its literally in the bloodstreams of all. I recall growing up in Tahoe, we would spray the heck out of all our winter wear with Scotch Guard (Teflon) and even breath in its fumes... [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7689910/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7689910/ [1] https://www.netflix.com/search?q=the%20devil%20we%20know&jbv=80997719&jbp=0&jbr=0 https://www.netflix.com/search?q=the%20devil%20we%20know&jbv... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Bucky-Bailey/dp/B07H7XJTX3/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+devil+we+know&qid=1579722179&s=instant-video&sr=1-1 https://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Bucky-Bailey/dp/B07H7XJ...
munk-a 7y ago
> surmised (but not proven) to be safer. In the US legal system we follow innocent until proven guilty for some very valid reasons - but at some point the public consciousness accepted this for regulations as well and harmless until proven harmful is extremely dangerous. New chemical products shouldn't be shrugged off until studies have proven them harmless, instead the onus should be on them to proven themselves harmless before being usable - especially chemicals that can be ingested indirectly by being included in things like pipe liners, shower products, utensil and cookware coatings, jars, adulterated cans and drinking vessels.
sizzle 7y ago
What do these chemicals do to humans?
cosmodisk 7y ago
Wasn't aware of any of this.It looks like it's as bad as fire retardants used in furniture ( California,if I recall correctly, alows selling furniture without them). In the UK, about 30 or so deaths a year happen because furniture gets set on fire( I suppose drinking + smoking is the main reason).Because of this, everything,from chairs all the way to sofas are soaked in chemicals that cause cancer and many other issues to humans.I'm sure chemical industry is lobbying as hell for this to continue, however the bastards themselves end up using the same harmful products.
strainer 7y ago
A very valid comment but I think it should be seen in addition to the issue of PFAs from manufacture and mil/industrial uses which are polluting the wider environment and drinking water to a significant but unclear extent. I think it is fair to expect that PFCs most commonly employed in everyday materials are better researched for safety than those polluting the wider environment, at least it is not fair to assume equivalence just because they are PFCs. The following conversation on useful materials which I also found diverting rather focuses the issue on risk and utility to self, while persistent pollution has the potential to affect all for a very long time regardless of whether they are users, children, even human or animal.

ip26 7y ago

It's even in those "compostable" curiously-grease-proof bowls you see at Qdoba, Chipotle, etc. https://grist.org/article/chipotle-sweetgreen-bowl-compost-pfas-fast-food-trash/ https://grist.org/article/chipotle-sweetgreen-bowl-compost-p...

hnick 7y ago
I recently learned a lot of 'compostable' plasticky items are not bio-degradable. They rely on a technicality to say they can be composted after being pre-treated or broken down with another chemical or process. Or something ridiculous of the sort.
- kikoreis 7y ago
  As long as there is a process in place to ensure that is done post collection, why is that a problem?
  - kohtatsu 7y ago
    As long as there is a process in place to ensure that is done post collection, there isn't a problem. Ensuring that process is in place is the hard part. My city doesn't do commercial composting, so partially composted cups are ending up in gardens that were labelled "compostable", but had fine-print on the bottom explaining that it's only compostable in a commercial process.
  - tlavoie 7y ago
    Quite a few things are compostable in industrial scale municipal compost systems, where there are higher temperatures then the bin in the back yard. We compost food scraps to use in the garden, and it generally works great. What we found was that certain items just never broke down, like certain tea bags that have what looks like a plastic tetrahedron instead of a filter-paper bag. The bags end up getting scattered about by our chickens, and eventually picked up and thrown away by ourselves. So, we don't buy those any more.
  - hnick 7y ago
    Well I threw one in my own compost bin in my backyard before learning, since the bag didn't include fine print. I thought it was bio-degradable but apparently I need to do my research on each individual item. That's my problem.

troyvit 7y ago

Wow I had no idea. Here's a link that talks about makers of outdoor gear and their relationship with DWR. http://www.detox-outdoor.org/ http://www.detox-outdoor.org/ It doesn't look like there is a lot of choice. Maybe I'll just stay wet :)

abandonliberty 7y ago
That site isn't loading for me. I would hope that vapor-permeable membranes work (e.g. gore-tex). The only problem is that the outside of the garment gets wet, and they're not very breathable
- smitty1110 7y ago
  Gore-tex is PTFE, also known as Teflon, which is a flurocarbon. Several of the waste products or reactants for making Teflon are in the same category as DWR products, and are basically toxic forever. There's not much you can do if you need fabrics with these properties, you just need to pick you poison.
  - thewebcount 7y ago
    But Teflon doesn't react with anything. That's its purpose. So even though it's a fluorocarbon, it's unlikely to cause health problem because it just won't react with your body. Or is there some other mechanism through which it causes damage, such as blocking something by physically being in the way?
    - mark-r 7y ago
      Consider what happens to your immune system when it detects a foreign particle that it can't get rid of because there's no way to interact with it.
      - XMPPwocky 7y ago
        What happens? I'm not an immunologist, and "common sense" certainly doesn't seem like the way to think about the behavior of something as complex as the human immune system.

clumsysmurf 7y ago

From what I read, ingestion accounts for greater absorption than dermal exposure in populations. If your water has high levels of PFAS its best to shower in lower temperatures so you don't inhale the steam. Yes, it would be nice if REI and other companies that sells lots of these garments could apply pressure with "PFC free" filters / sections.

nate_meurer 7y ago
That may well be true, but I'm not sure it matters when your carpets, furniture, and clothing are covered with it. Eventually it will end up in your mouth and lungs, no way around it. I have a little theory that a significant portion of our physiologic PFC burden is acquired when we're babies. Babies positively swim in whatever substances are on the ground and furnishings. My other pet theory is that PFCs are contributing to the decline in sperm counts that we're seeing across the developed world: https://web.archive.org/web/20191221153531/https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-counts-continue-to-fall/572794/ https://web.archive.org/web/20191221153531/https://www.theat...

Marsymars 7y ago

> As of 2019, only one large outdoor clothing company has abandoned PFC-based DWR finishes. Which one?

jhloa2 7y ago
I was under the assumption that Patagonia was PFC free but according to their website: "Patagonia has long relied on a DWR with perfluorinated compound (PFC) but we have been searching diligently for an alternative because of its harmful environmental impacts."
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nate_meurer 7y ago
Paramo. There may a couple other smaller ones too. I haven't looked in a while.
- germinalphrase 7y ago
  Isn’t Paramo unique in that their garments are intended to keep you comfortable (while damp) rather than a typical DWR costed shell that is intended to keep you dry?
  - nate_meurer 7y ago
    That's their reputation for sure, and their marketing plays up the whole "vapor transport" thing, but make no mistake, Paramo is in pursuit of the same holy grail as everyone else: a fabric that's both breathable and completely waterproof in all conditions. Like a duck.
rndstr 7y ago
https://sectionhiker.com/why-does-dwr-suck/ https://sectionhiker.com/why-does-dwr-suck/ mentions - Nikwax (all products) - Sciessent Curb
DenisM 7y ago

shmerl 7y ago

Why can't they be made illegal to use?

rayiner 7y ago
Because we have no idea whether the benefit from doing so would outweigh the loss of non-stick and stain-free products?
- shmerl 7y ago
  That's supposed to be a joke?
  - pw 7y ago
    No, it’s not. He’s pointing out that there are legitimate trade offs here.
  - thewebcount 7y ago
    No, it's a legitimate question. Think of it this way. If we stop using Teflon coatings on pots and pans, will that, for example, increase the amount of cooking oil used in cooking? And if so, will that cause other health effects such as more oil being aerosolized and getting in people's lungs more? Will it cause more oil to clog up pipes (think London's "fatbergs" for example)? Will it cause more oil to go into landfills, etc.? There are frequently unintended consequences to these sorts of changes and you may just be trading one poison for another one or a worse one.
    - shmerl 7y ago
      I think oil concerns are much less problematic since you can decide what oil to use (or use no oil altogether) than ones that come from the chemicals you can't control because they are already in the water or your frying pan. You can simply cook, not fry if you worry about oil. On the other hand you can't avoid poisoned water unless you filter it. So it's a false argument here.

samstave 7y ago

If this is a topic that concerns you, I recommend you should watch the documentary "The Devil We Know"[0] -- About DuPont's Teflon production and how its literally in the bloodstreams of all. I recall growing up in Tahoe, we would spray the heck out of all our winter wear with Scotch Guard (Teflon) and even breath in its fumes... [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7689910/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7689910/ [1] https://www.netflix.com/search?q=the%20devil%20we%20know&jbv=80997719&jbp=0&jbr=0 https://www.netflix.com/search?q=the%20devil%20we%20know&jbv... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Bucky-Bailey/dp/B07H7XJTX3/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+devil+we+know&qid=1579722179&s=instant-video&sr=1-1 https://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Bucky-Bailey/dp/B07H7XJ...

munk-a 7y ago

> surmised (but not proven) to be safer. In the US legal system we follow innocent until proven guilty for some very valid reasons - but at some point the public consciousness accepted this for regulations as well and harmless until proven harmful is extremely dangerous. New chemical products shouldn't be shrugged off until studies have proven them harmless, instead the onus should be on them to proven themselves harmless before being usable - especially chemicals that can be ingested indirectly by being included in things like pipe liners, shower products, utensil and cookware coatings, jars, adulterated cans and drinking vessels.

sizzle 7y ago

What do these chemicals do to humans?

cosmodisk 7y ago

Wasn't aware of any of this.It looks like it's as bad as fire retardants used in furniture ( California,if I recall correctly, alows selling furniture without them). In the UK, about 30 or so deaths a year happen because furniture gets set on fire( I suppose drinking + smoking is the main reason).Because of this, everything,from chairs all the way to sofas are soaked in chemicals that cause cancer and many other issues to humans.I'm sure chemical industry is lobbying as hell for this to continue, however the bastards themselves end up using the same harmful products.

strainer 7y ago

A very valid comment but I think it should be seen in addition to the issue of PFAs from manufacture and mil/industrial uses which are polluting the wider environment and drinking water to a significant but unclear extent. I think it is fair to expect that PFCs most commonly employed in everyday materials are better researched for safety than those polluting the wider environment, at least it is not fair to assume equivalence just because they are PFCs. The following conversation on useful materials which I also found diverting rather focuses the issue on risk and utility to self, while persistent pollution has the potential to affect all for a very long time regardless of whether they are users, children, even human or animal.