20 ms·

Chemicals called PFAS and PFOS are in the blood of virtually every person

404 points by jelliclesfarm 6y ago

vlovich123 6y ago
Is it just me or is this article heavy on fear and devoid of any actual information?
- x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
  It's not just you. I find this to be a typical writing style in the Guardian.
- scotty79 6y ago
  I had the same feeling. No info except 8 letters of chemical names and their relative longevity. The rest of article is just random pick from chest of horrors with awkward focus of recently fashionable scares (covid, vaccine efficacy).
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    It should..from the excellent 2016 NYT link by fellow HN’er (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...) [..] But if you are a sentient being reading this article in 2016, you already have PFOA in your blood. It is in your parents’ blood, your children’s blood, your lover’s blood. How did it get there? Through the air, through your diet, through your use of nonstick cookware, through your umbilical cord. Or you might have drunk tainted water. The Environmental Working Group has found manufactured fluorochemicals present in 94 water districts across 27 states (see sidebar beginning on Page 38). Residents of Issaquah, Wash.; Wilmington, Del.; Colorado Springs; and Nassau County on Long Island are among those whose water has a higher concentration of fluorochemicals than that in some of the districts included in Rob Bilott’s class-action suit. The drinking water in Parkersburg itself, whose water district was not included in the original class-action suit and has failed to compel DuPont to pay for a filtration system, is currently tainted with high levels of PFOA. Most residents appear not to know this. Where scientists have tested for the presence of PFOA in the world, they have found it. PFOA is in the blood or vital organs of Atlantic salmon, swordfish, striped mullet, gray seals, common cormorants, Alaskan polar bears, brown pelicans, sea turtles, sea eagles, Midwestern bald eagles, California sea lions and Laysan albatrosses on Sand Island, a wildlife refuge on Midway Atoll, in the middle of the North Pacific Ocean, about halfway between North America and Asia.[..]
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Well. It’s a guardian opinion piece. While I often find guardian language stilted, I find that there is value in reading it. DuPont is one of the big daddies of the chemical industry. The few who control the poisons of the world also control our seeds. Having said that, learning about the author is also important to understand the motivation : [..] Rob Bilott is a partner at the law firm of Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP and author of Exposure: Poisoned Water, Corporate Greed, and One Lawyer’s Twenty-Year Battle Against DuPont. His book was the story behind the film, Dark Waters and the documentary, The Devil We Know. Rob is also a 2017 recipient of the 2017 Right Livelihood Award, also known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize,” for his work on Forever Chemicals. On Thursday, Rob Bilott is participating in an online discussion on the need to regulate PFAS titled Dark Waters no more! Is it time for a global agreement on toxic chemicals?[..]
- vixen99 6y ago
  It's just you. "Scientists have confirmed links between PFOA exposure and a variety of serious diseases, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. And more recent studies are now raising concerns that some of these forever chemicals may negatively impact our endocrine system, our fertility, and our immune system – and possibly even the efficacy of vaccines." A few moments spent checking out links to some of the issues mentioned above reveals enough 'actual information' to sink a boat. We can then make up our own minds as to whether the author is exaggerating. I vote for 'not'.
  - saiya-jin 6y ago
    If you are smart, dry facts are enough to persuade you and this kind of emotional 'manipulation' might actually deter you (it did me a bit). If you are on opposite spectrum, this might help to get story through. Obvious on whom it was aimed at
  - HPsquared 6y ago
    Almost any chemical you can think of has been linked to some type of cancer or other disease. The important question is, how much? If they don't estimate the level of risk, the claim is fairly worthless - indistinguishable from all those other low dose chemicals we're exposed to on a daily basis.
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      That is indeed a good question, and the answer (like many chemicals) is “extremely toxic at high concentrations and nobody really knows the long-term effects at smaller ones because this would require enormous scientific investments that nobody will pay for.” But PFOA/PFOS is different from other chemicals in that it’s extremely long-lived and so it doesn’t break down rapidly the way many other chemicals do. Putting something like this into the environment should demand the reverse of the evidentiary standard you’re describing: we should know exactly how safe it is before you dump it into the environment like DuPont did.
      - 6y ago
- collyw 6y ago
  I would expect nothing less from the Guardian these days.
underseacables 6y ago
Glyphosate. Monsanto
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- parineum 6y ago
  Prove it.
  - anon321321323 6y ago
    Drink it. Or eat food with it sprayed on. I'll even let you wait awhile from spraying before eating. Still happy to do so?
    - shawnz 6y ago
      Would you be happy to eat any product designed for your lawn regardless of toxicity?
      - anon321321323 6y ago
        Probably not. The parent comment was "prove it". My point was, if you're willing to drink it then its likely you don't think its that toxic. Its a test of sorts. But people happily drink all sorts of toxins. My answer still works for low values of idiocy. People are usually more protective of children than themselves, so perhaps a better question for them is: would you let your children or grandchildren drink it knowing what it can do? A good question for various politicians and officials around Flint, Michigan perhaps.
    - driverdan 6y ago
      Nearly everyone eats food it has been sprayed on. There is no evidence it causes problems in humans. And no, a court case is not scientific evidence.
isoprophlex 6y ago
"The only reason the world knows anything about this today is because, in 1998, Earl Tennant, a courageous farmer from West Virginia, came to me demanding answers." Which is, of course, complete bullshit. I'm not dismissing the toxicity and persistence of fluorocarbons, but this article is too grandstanding and fearmongering for my likes. You're better off just reading the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
- narrator 6y ago
  The guy who found out BPA was an endocrine disruptors was a scientist who was studying breast cancer and kept finding that his breast cancer cells were getting activated when put in plastic test tubes. He called up the test tube manufacturer and they refused to tell him the material that composed the test tubes. When he did his own investigation this is what led to the BPA / Endocrine link being discovered.
  - jey 6y ago
    That’s a great story and I want to believe it; do you have a citation to back it up?
    - petepete 6y ago
      Sounds like a few of the finer details were mixed up. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-... > A maintenance worker had used an abrasive floor cleaner, instead of the usual mild detergent, to wash out cages and water bottles. The acidic solution scarred the hard, polycarbonate surface of the plastic and enabled a single chemical culprit to leach out—bisphenol A (BPA).
      - hanniabu 6y ago
        What's special about the surface that doesn't let BPA to leech out? Is it a different composite used on the inner surface or does it have to do with something like how water is strong until the surface tension is broken?
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
(Stupid post deleted.)
- narrator 6y ago
  This isn't about glyphosphate. It's about the chemicals that make up fire retardants in furniture and non-stick cookware.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  I mean, at a certain point in development you do have an unborn baby.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rebuilder 6y ago
  This is an opinion piece.
Centigonal 6y ago
This article really hams up the language -- but that makes sense, given its author is a lawyer who's spent most of his adult life trying to get PFOA banned. He is not a neutral actor. That said, the pervasiveness and harmfulness of PFOA (and some of its newer replacements) is a real and significant issue that needs to be publicized. I personally prefer this article from NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b... (Note that the author of the OP Guardian article is actually the subject of this NYT article!)
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Yes. The author is also from the movie Dark Waters. Yea: I have to agree. The 2016 NYT piece you linked is a better read. Thanks.
  - Centigonal 6y ago
    Oh, I didn't know someone made a film about this story! I'll have to give it a watch sometime. Maybe I can recommend it to people to raise awareness. PFOA is very scary, but I'm also very concerned by some of the replacements[1] that DuPont is using now. What if they're just as dangerous? Heck, we've know PFOS is dangerous for over a decade now, but we're still using it in industry and to fight fires. [1] like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      Makes you wonder about the role of E.P.A.
      - taurath 6y ago
        You mean the chemical industry lobbyists?
      - buran77 6y ago
        It's to deal with the actions that have a good cost/benefit ratio for everyone, citizens and companies. If something dramatically puts companies (the offenders) at a disadvantage they will fight against that with anything they have. Hence the EPA is more like a pebble under a steamroller fueled by billions of dollars obtained by not actually caring what the EPA or people want. It's hard to move an opponent who has more money and power (of every kind) than you.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> The poison found in everyone, even unborn babies – and who is responsible for it One of the things about poison is that the more poisonous it is, the fewer living people it will be found in. Unless you can show a dos exposure curve of some symptom getting worse with dose, something that is ubiquitous would likely be relatively harmless. Remember dihydrogen monoxide with is also in everyone and results in quite a few fatalities every year in both its solid and liquid form and in its gaseous form is a very potent green house gas.
- ehvatum 6y ago
  > One of the things about poison is that the more poisonous it is, the fewer living people it will be found in. Haha, that’s excellent!! PFOAs do have various impacts on mice, at high dosages: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryId=158773 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHE... The question at hand is: How much ubiquitous, world-wide PFOA presence is too much ubiquitous, world-wide PFOA presence? Related question: is it physically possible for DuPont to synthesize and release an amount of persistent environmental toxin sufficient to end all higher life on the planet within 500 years?
  - gala8y 6y ago
    > Related question: is it physically possible for DuPont to synthesize and release an amount of persistent environmental toxin sufficient to end all higher life on the planet within 500 years? Never thought about it this way. Scary interesting.
- _hl_ 6y ago
  As far as chemicals that don't directly kill you go, PFOA is probably one of the most harmful/poisonous chemicals you could think of.
- toper-centage 6y ago
  If it was very deadly, it would be an obvious problem. The worst poisons are the ones that are deadly after decades, cause a broad range of diseases, and cause problems when the perpetrators are no longer around.
erostrate 6y ago
This article is not great, it reads too much like scaremongering. But the underlying problem of PFOA/PFOS is real. The article fails to mention that most chemical companies have been phasing out these chemicals for several years. There is a pretty good movie about this topic, Dark Waters. The movie is well informed, largely accurate, and more factual than this article. The main protagonist of the movie is actually Robert Billott, the author of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Scaremongering?! How much fucking scarier can it get than carcinogens, mutagens, and birth defect causing chemicals being spread througout our entire food and water supply while any attempts to inform about it are systematically supressed? If you are not scared, you must be blessed with not having seen anyone in your life get cancer.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    It was definitely scaremongering, not to be confused with informing the public. The article lacked all of the basic information that would be of use to the reader. E.g What is the primary route of ingestion? Is it more or less dangerous than eating BBQ? Is usage already being curtailed?
  - wolfretcrap 6y ago
    I used to be bothered by it too, now I grow my own food so I don't care what rest of the world is adding to their food.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      Unless you happen to live in an off-world colony, growing your own food will not protect you.
    - irjustin 6y ago
      Feels like you didn't read the article (the NYTimes one is way better). This is Teflon before 2016. If you were close enough, it was in drinking water... water you would have used for growing your own food. Organics would have provided zero protection.
alacombe 6y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotchgard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotchgard PFOS has a half-life of ~5.4 years in people.
frongpik 6y ago
I've just watched a movie with him, about that PFOA stuff. If he's aiming at a class action lawsuits, I'd sign up.
abridgett 6y ago
This won't change until companies are fined sufficiently to prevent this. More importantly, those responsible must retrospectively face prosecution and jail time. A CEO will only care when it's their money and their life that's on the line - they won't care about a large fine 10 years after they've left.
- Bellamy 6y ago
  Or people stop buying the products.
  - vehementi 6y ago
    Systemic solutions are needed. Placing the onus on individuals will fail and this very argument is a distraction injected by the abusers because it will fail.
    - spodek 6y ago
      Systemic change begins with personal transformation. Individuals acting doesn't replace systemic change, it helps create it. You and I acting here and now helps us develop the skills to lead others, including corporations and governments. I agree the person you responded to shouldn't have written "Or", but that doesn't change that individual actions and systemic change aren't exclusive but additive.
  - StanislavPetrov 6y ago
    It should be a crime to saturate the environment and everyone in it with poisons - not something decided by "markets".
    - AntiImperialis2 6y ago
      Except everything is "poison" in a big enough dose if ingested.
- sooheon 6y ago
  The problem statement is simple: there needs to be lawful accounting for negative externalities, even when discovered after the fact. And the price to pay should be roughly equal to the damage caused by the externality. Solve these two problems and you solve governance and capitalism. As for the implementation...
protoman3000 6y ago
How on earth would anybody find it in their heart to deliberately destroy the beautiful countryside of the US, or even the world? In the past my impression was that only the corporatism and boundless greed of the people from the US yields such environmental catastrophes, which fill the pockets of executives while harming entire generations with massive pollution. But the Corona catastrophe shows that too many people from all cultures and countries have the same disease of ignorance, rot, shortsightedness and stupidity. And once they fear to be picked out for it, all they try to do is to save their skin from prosecution. This is not American, this is Human.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
strstr 6y ago
Fluorocarbons are ubiquitous. Fluorocarbons are basically magic when it comes to repelling water. Nordic skiing (and to a lesser extent, downhill skiing) have been going through a bit of a reckoning trying to remove them from competitions. Fluorowaxes are very effective for gliding quickly in wet conditions. The fact that they are melted during application makes them particularly pernicious. Fluorocarbons are also ubiquitous in water repelling in clothing. Some of the more expensive brands of outdoor wear have moved to shorter chain fluorocarbons, but they haven't eliminated their use. From Arcteryx: "... non-PFC [water repellant] treatments... have fallen short of the level of performance and durability we deem imperative". It's likely less urgent with clothing, since these compounds are quite stable when left alone at normal temperatures.
- mellavora 6y ago
  Does 'left alone at normal temperatures' include the inside of a washing machine? Probably not a big issue, if the care instructions say 'cold water wash only' and if people read/follow the care instructions.
  - strstr 6y ago
    Most people avoid washing waterproof gear often (and particularly not at high temps), since it’s believed to damage the waterproofing. It’s particularly bad if you use normal detergent. That, indirectly, answers your question: it must leech in any conditions that damage its effectiveness.
    - sedachv 6y ago
      > Most people avoid washing waterproof gear often (and particularly not at high temps), since it’s believed to damage the waterproofing. Which is completely wrong. The PTFE pores will get clogged with skin oil, leading to more internal condensation, and the wax (the part referred to as "Durably Water Repellent," which is a hugely fraudulent marketing claim, as there is nothing durable about it) impregnated into the outer woven textile layer is less effective if there is moisture-wicking dirt on the outer layer, or the wax has rubbed off. In fact the wax is melted into the yarns of the outer woven fabric at about 40°C. To "re-activate" the DWR, most manufacturers recommend putting the garment in the dryer at 40°C for about half an hour. This re-melts the wax and wicks it into the parts of the yarn where it has rubbed off. Incidentally, Arc'Teryx recommends washing PTFE garments at 40°C as well. The biggest scam in the waterproof-breathable garment industry (and that is saying a lot) are the so-called "2.5 layer" garments. Instead of being sandwiched between two woven textile layers, the PTFE film is coated directly on the inside of the outer layer, then some kind of ink or paint (yes, really) is printed over the PTFE layer for "durability." In 2.5 layer garments, the PTFE will start to flake off in a couple of years at most from abrasion with the clothes you wear underneath and bending and flexing of the outer textile layer (this has nothing to do with the acidity of skin oil - another completely fraudulent marketing claim I have seen as an attempt by retailers/manufacturers to deny warranty claims for "improper care"). These flakes (which is where all the PTFE is) will end up going down the drain, and you will have a ruined garment that is impossible to repair. 2.5 layer garments continue to be sold, because the manufacturing process is so cheap. I do not understand how there has not been a class-action lawsuit about this yet.
maddyboo 6y ago
I came across an interactive map [1] of contamination in the US. Unfortunately it seems there isn’t much data for a lot of states, including mine. 1: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/
jgilias 6y ago
Does anyone know if there is anything one can do to reduce exposure and/or mitigate the risk? I couldn't gather this from the article.
- strstr 6y ago
  Don’t eat microwave popcorn (PFOAs have been replaced there with other PFCs, which might not be an improvement). Avoid other similarly non-stick heated disposable packaging. Avoid overheating non-stick pans (or don’t use them at all). Use a filter if it’s appreciably in the groundwater.
  - LeifCarrotson 6y ago
    Not just a sediment filter, you need activated charcoal. I live (and grew up) drinking groundwater downstream of a plume of PFOAs. Wolverine Worldwide (of Cat/HD/Hush Puppies/Merrell footwear brands) made waterproof leather goods in my hometown of Rockford, MI. In the 60s and 70s, they dumped barrels of leather scraps and excess 3M Scotchgard in woods and swamps in the area. They knew it was dangerous (they used PPE when handling it), but when it was phased out in the 90s they forgot about all the old dump sites until someone sued them in the last few years. Now they've been forced to install thousands of carbon filters in homes across the area, and most of us who have been on well water will eventually be moved to city water. Fortunately, the testing has proven that the carbon canisters are highly effective - my well went from 80ppt to non-detectable - but they're expensive to maintain, and I spent 30 years drinking the stuff...
    - jgilias 6y ago
      Damn... Thanks for sharing the story. I hope you're doing well! And if that's the case, may that remains so indefinitely.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
anon321321323 6y ago
ok. lets run this: assume its the year 2000 with a 20 year old having some level of PFOS in blood & cells etc and the half-life of that PFOS is 5 years* 2000 100% of accumulated measured concentration in blood & cells by some measure 2005 50% 2010 25% 2015 13% 2020 6% 2025 3% 2030 2% 2035 1% 2040 <1% So our fictional 20 year old is 60-70* by the time the stuff has "fully" degraded. This doesn't mean they are now healthy. It just means the toxic stuff is now no longer at the original level. Impact on organs? Not a great picture. A "Forever chemical" indeed. * Assumptions just to make things easier to see. PFOS half-life is actually 5.4 years. So the table above is too short. Assume nothing gets stuck where it can't decay. What is toxic for this? What is typical buildup for a 20 year old for various locations/contexts?
- shawnz 6y ago
  > So our fictional 20 year old is 60-70* by the time the stuff has "fully" degraded. This doesn't mean they are now healthy. Without knowing the initial concentration, it doesn't really mean they are still unhealthy either
  - anonymouse008 6y ago
    This also assumes no biological ability to remove the chemical, relying only on the half life. If our systems are not able to do so, I missed that point in the article. Edit: thank you, I see that now here too - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964923/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964923/
    - shawnz 6y ago
      The biological half-life actually does refer to the ability of the body to metabolize the chemical
- benmccann 6y ago
  They are called "forever chemicals" because they don't naturally degrade in the environment. That term does not refer to how long they stay in your body. Because they are don't degrade in the environment, the amount found in the environment is continuing to increase: http://marinespecies.org/introduced/wiki/Polyfluorinated_compounds_-_a_new_class_of_global_pollutants_in_the_coastal_environment#Temporal_trend_of_PFC_contamination http://marinespecies.org/introduced/wiki/Polyfluorinated_com...
refurb 6y ago
Ok. How much? And is it toxic at that level? I mean, I could take blood sample from any, any, HN reader and find arsenic. No problem. But it’s natural right. So no big deal. And at levels that aren’t toxic.
tylerjwilk00 6y ago
Serious topic but article is a bit overly mysterious. Never goes on to explain the mechanism by which the "poison" leches into the creek and kills the cattle? Where it originated?
- philips 6y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  A nearby Teflon production plant that dumped at least 1.7 million pounds of, PFOA into the environment over the past fifty years.
aazaa 6y ago
The Intercept did an in-depth series on this: https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/ https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-decepti... Truly despicable behavior from one of the world's largest and oldest companies.
- xyst 6y ago
  I still see many houses and new construction wrapped in Tyvek material. We are fucked.
  - redprince 6y ago
    Tyvek is made from polyethylene. No fluorocarbons in there.
  - sgerenser 6y ago
    There’s nothing wrong/concerning with Tyvek housewrap, unless you just don’t like the idea of using DuPont products in general.
- gurrone 6y ago
  The original video footage which belongs to the article series is frightening https://vimeo.com/136529193 https://vimeo.com/136529193
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  It's there a reason you don't mention the company, which I assume is DuPont, by name. So often I see comments "this company is awful", or whatever, which don't even refer to the name of the company; which I find most strange.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    I assume it's because they said that immediately after a link featuring "dupont-chemistry-deception" making it seem like the previous sentence called them out by name. The link then got shortened when posted, and whether it says "dupont" depends on how you view the post.
nevinera 6y ago
I mean.. so is uranium. When you don't specify amounts, you can say this about nearly anything that can be found outside a lab setting at all. I'm not saying there's no threat here, just that this headline is worthless.
- ISL 6y ago
  Unlike uranium, which is naturally present in garden-variety dirt, chemicals like PFAS and PFOS are almost certainly made by humans.
  - nevinera 6y ago
    I picked uranium because it's sufficiently scary to most people, not because it's special - you can say the same thing about any (stable) artificial particle too. My point was that without talking numerically about real-world impacts, this article has no meaningful content. To clarify, you should absolutely be concerned about this particular category of particles - the impacts are not fully understood, but they are substantial and meaningful. I'm just railing against the consistent failures of modern scientific 'journalism'.
xyst 6y ago
How does DuPont get away with claiming they "never" manufactured PFAS, PFOS, or GenX? https://www.dupont.com/pfas.html https://www.dupont.com/pfas.html
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jvanderbot 6y ago
  Because "Across our portfolio, DuPont’s use of other PFAS is a small fraction of the total PFAS used in the world." Meaning, they admit they use it in many of their products, but insist they aren't a major contributor without providing numbers. Legally defensible. They even have a "current use" button on that page. Lo and behold the information is right before your very eyes.
- lief79 6y ago
  Where do they claim that? They never made fire fighting foam, and currently don't manufacture those chemicals. https://www.dupont.com/pfas/historical-use.html https://www.dupont.com/pfas/historical-use.html
dwaltrip 6y ago
This looks like a major environmental concern near manufacturing plants. However, as for myself, are things like teflon non-stick pans a serious concern? Do we have good data of the risk? I tried to quickly research this, and this cancer.org article leads me to believe I shouldn't be too worried: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-perfl...

404 points by jelliclesfarm 6y ago

vlovich123 6y ago

Is it just me or is this article heavy on fear and devoid of any actual information?

x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
It's not just you. I find this to be a typical writing style in the Guardian.
scotty79 6y ago
I had the same feeling. No info except 8 letters of chemical names and their relative longevity. The rest of article is just random pick from chest of horrors with awkward focus of recently fashionable scares (covid, vaccine efficacy).
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  It should..from the excellent 2016 NYT link by fellow HN’er (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...) [..] But if you are a sentient being reading this article in 2016, you already have PFOA in your blood. It is in your parents’ blood, your children’s blood, your lover’s blood. How did it get there? Through the air, through your diet, through your use of nonstick cookware, through your umbilical cord. Or you might have drunk tainted water. The Environmental Working Group has found manufactured fluorochemicals present in 94 water districts across 27 states (see sidebar beginning on Page 38). Residents of Issaquah, Wash.; Wilmington, Del.; Colorado Springs; and Nassau County on Long Island are among those whose water has a higher concentration of fluorochemicals than that in some of the districts included in Rob Bilott’s class-action suit. The drinking water in Parkersburg itself, whose water district was not included in the original class-action suit and has failed to compel DuPont to pay for a filtration system, is currently tainted with high levels of PFOA. Most residents appear not to know this. Where scientists have tested for the presence of PFOA in the world, they have found it. PFOA is in the blood or vital organs of Atlantic salmon, swordfish, striped mullet, gray seals, common cormorants, Alaskan polar bears, brown pelicans, sea turtles, sea eagles, Midwestern bald eagles, California sea lions and Laysan albatrosses on Sand Island, a wildlife refuge on Midway Atoll, in the middle of the North Pacific Ocean, about halfway between North America and Asia.[..]
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Well. It’s a guardian opinion piece. While I often find guardian language stilted, I find that there is value in reading it. DuPont is one of the big daddies of the chemical industry. The few who control the poisons of the world also control our seeds. Having said that, learning about the author is also important to understand the motivation : [..] Rob Bilott is a partner at the law firm of Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP and author of Exposure: Poisoned Water, Corporate Greed, and One Lawyer’s Twenty-Year Battle Against DuPont. His book was the story behind the film, Dark Waters and the documentary, The Devil We Know. Rob is also a 2017 recipient of the 2017 Right Livelihood Award, also known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize,” for his work on Forever Chemicals. On Thursday, Rob Bilott is participating in an online discussion on the need to regulate PFAS titled Dark Waters no more! Is it time for a global agreement on toxic chemicals?[..]
vixen99 6y ago
It's just you. "Scientists have confirmed links between PFOA exposure and a variety of serious diseases, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. And more recent studies are now raising concerns that some of these forever chemicals may negatively impact our endocrine system, our fertility, and our immune system – and possibly even the efficacy of vaccines." A few moments spent checking out links to some of the issues mentioned above reveals enough 'actual information' to sink a boat. We can then make up our own minds as to whether the author is exaggerating. I vote for 'not'.
- saiya-jin 6y ago
  If you are smart, dry facts are enough to persuade you and this kind of emotional 'manipulation' might actually deter you (it did me a bit). If you are on opposite spectrum, this might help to get story through. Obvious on whom it was aimed at
- HPsquared 6y ago
  Almost any chemical you can think of has been linked to some type of cancer or other disease. The important question is, how much? If they don't estimate the level of risk, the claim is fairly worthless - indistinguishable from all those other low dose chemicals we're exposed to on a daily basis.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    That is indeed a good question, and the answer (like many chemicals) is “extremely toxic at high concentrations and nobody really knows the long-term effects at smaller ones because this would require enormous scientific investments that nobody will pay for.” But PFOA/PFOS is different from other chemicals in that it’s extremely long-lived and so it doesn’t break down rapidly the way many other chemicals do. Putting something like this into the environment should demand the reverse of the evidentiary standard you’re describing: we should know exactly how safe it is before you dump it into the environment like DuPont did.
    - 6y ago
collyw 6y ago
I would expect nothing less from the Guardian these days.

underseacables 6y ago

Glyphosate. Monsanto

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
parineum 6y ago
Prove it.
- anon321321323 6y ago
  Drink it. Or eat food with it sprayed on. I'll even let you wait awhile from spraying before eating. Still happy to do so?
  - shawnz 6y ago
    Would you be happy to eat any product designed for your lawn regardless of toxicity?
    - anon321321323 6y ago
      Probably not. The parent comment was "prove it". My point was, if you're willing to drink it then its likely you don't think its that toxic. Its a test of sorts. But people happily drink all sorts of toxins. My answer still works for low values of idiocy. People are usually more protective of children than themselves, so perhaps a better question for them is: would you let your children or grandchildren drink it knowing what it can do? A good question for various politicians and officials around Flint, Michigan perhaps.
  - driverdan 6y ago
    Nearly everyone eats food it has been sprayed on. There is no evidence it causes problems in humans. And no, a court case is not scientific evidence.

isoprophlex 6y ago

"The only reason the world knows anything about this today is because, in 1998, Earl Tennant, a courageous farmer from West Virginia, came to me demanding answers." Which is, of course, complete bullshit. I'm not dismissing the toxicity and persistence of fluorocarbons, but this article is too grandstanding and fearmongering for my likes. You're better off just reading the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

narrator 6y ago
The guy who found out BPA was an endocrine disruptors was a scientist who was studying breast cancer and kept finding that his breast cancer cells were getting activated when put in plastic test tubes. He called up the test tube manufacturer and they refused to tell him the material that composed the test tubes. When he did his own investigation this is what led to the BPA / Endocrine link being discovered.
- jey 6y ago
  That’s a great story and I want to believe it; do you have a citation to back it up?
  - petepete 6y ago
    Sounds like a few of the finer details were mixed up. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-... > A maintenance worker had used an abrasive floor cleaner, instead of the usual mild detergent, to wash out cages and water bottles. The acidic solution scarred the hard, polycarbonate surface of the plastic and enabled a single chemical culprit to leach out—bisphenol A (BPA).
    - hanniabu 6y ago
      What's special about the surface that doesn't let BPA to leech out? Is it a different composite used on the inner surface or does it have to do with something like how water is strong until the surface tension is broken?

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago

(Stupid post deleted.)

narrator 6y ago
This isn't about glyphosphate. It's about the chemicals that make up fire retardants in furniture and non-stick cookware.
Dylan16807 6y ago
I mean, at a certain point in development you do have an unborn baby.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rebuilder 6y ago
This is an opinion piece.

Centigonal 6y ago

This article really hams up the language -- but that makes sense, given its author is a lawyer who's spent most of his adult life trying to get PFOA banned. He is not a neutral actor. That said, the pervasiveness and harmfulness of PFOA (and some of its newer replacements) is a real and significant issue that needs to be publicized. I personally prefer this article from NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b... (Note that the author of the OP Guardian article is actually the subject of this NYT article!)

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Yes. The author is also from the movie Dark Waters. Yea: I have to agree. The 2016 NYT piece you linked is a better read. Thanks.
- Centigonal 6y ago
  Oh, I didn't know someone made a film about this story! I'll have to give it a watch sometime. Maybe I can recommend it to people to raise awareness. PFOA is very scary, but I'm also very concerned by some of the replacements[1] that DuPont is using now. What if they're just as dangerous? Heck, we've know PFOS is dangerous for over a decade now, but we're still using it in industry and to fight fires. [1] like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    Makes you wonder about the role of E.P.A.
    - taurath 6y ago
      You mean the chemical industry lobbyists?
    - buran77 6y ago
      It's to deal with the actions that have a good cost/benefit ratio for everyone, citizens and companies. If something dramatically puts companies (the offenders) at a disadvantage they will fight against that with anything they have. Hence the EPA is more like a pebble under a steamroller fueled by billions of dollars obtained by not actually caring what the EPA or people want. It's hard to move an opponent who has more money and power (of every kind) than you.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> The poison found in everyone, even unborn babies – and who is responsible for it One of the things about poison is that the more poisonous it is, the fewer living people it will be found in. Unless you can show a dos exposure curve of some symptom getting worse with dose, something that is ubiquitous would likely be relatively harmless. Remember dihydrogen monoxide with is also in everyone and results in quite a few fatalities every year in both its solid and liquid form and in its gaseous form is a very potent green house gas.

ehvatum 6y ago
> One of the things about poison is that the more poisonous it is, the fewer living people it will be found in. Haha, that’s excellent!! PFOAs do have various impacts on mice, at high dosages: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryId=158773 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHE... The question at hand is: How much ubiquitous, world-wide PFOA presence is too much ubiquitous, world-wide PFOA presence? Related question: is it physically possible for DuPont to synthesize and release an amount of persistent environmental toxin sufficient to end all higher life on the planet within 500 years?
- gala8y 6y ago
  > Related question: is it physically possible for DuPont to synthesize and release an amount of persistent environmental toxin sufficient to end all higher life on the planet within 500 years? Never thought about it this way. Scary interesting.
_hl_ 6y ago
As far as chemicals that don't directly kill you go, PFOA is probably one of the most harmful/poisonous chemicals you could think of.
toper-centage 6y ago
If it was very deadly, it would be an obvious problem. The worst poisons are the ones that are deadly after decades, cause a broad range of diseases, and cause problems when the perpetrators are no longer around.

erostrate 6y ago

This article is not great, it reads too much like scaremongering. But the underlying problem of PFOA/PFOS is real. The article fails to mention that most chemical companies have been phasing out these chemicals for several years. There is a pretty good movie about this topic, Dark Waters. The movie is well informed, largely accurate, and more factual than this article. The main protagonist of the movie is actually Robert Billott, the author of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Scaremongering?! How much fucking scarier can it get than carcinogens, mutagens, and birth defect causing chemicals being spread througout our entire food and water supply while any attempts to inform about it are systematically supressed? If you are not scared, you must be blessed with not having seen anyone in your life get cancer.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  It was definitely scaremongering, not to be confused with informing the public. The article lacked all of the basic information that would be of use to the reader. E.g What is the primary route of ingestion? Is it more or less dangerous than eating BBQ? Is usage already being curtailed?
- wolfretcrap 6y ago
  I used to be bothered by it too, now I grow my own food so I don't care what rest of the world is adding to their food.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Unless you happen to live in an off-world colony, growing your own food will not protect you.
  - irjustin 6y ago
    Feels like you didn't read the article (the NYTimes one is way better). This is Teflon before 2016. If you were close enough, it was in drinking water... water you would have used for growing your own food. Organics would have provided zero protection.

alacombe 6y ago

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotchgard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotchgard PFOS has a half-life of ~5.4 years in people.

frongpik 6y ago

I've just watched a movie with him, about that PFOA stuff. If he's aiming at a class action lawsuits, I'd sign up.

abridgett 6y ago

This won't change until companies are fined sufficiently to prevent this. More importantly, those responsible must retrospectively face prosecution and jail time. A CEO will only care when it's their money and their life that's on the line - they won't care about a large fine 10 years after they've left.

Bellamy 6y ago
Or people stop buying the products.
- vehementi 6y ago
  Systemic solutions are needed. Placing the onus on individuals will fail and this very argument is a distraction injected by the abusers because it will fail.
  - spodek 6y ago
    Systemic change begins with personal transformation. Individuals acting doesn't replace systemic change, it helps create it. You and I acting here and now helps us develop the skills to lead others, including corporations and governments. I agree the person you responded to shouldn't have written "Or", but that doesn't change that individual actions and systemic change aren't exclusive but additive.
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  It should be a crime to saturate the environment and everyone in it with poisons - not something decided by "markets".
  - AntiImperialis2 6y ago
    Except everything is "poison" in a big enough dose if ingested.
sooheon 6y ago
The problem statement is simple: there needs to be lawful accounting for negative externalities, even when discovered after the fact. And the price to pay should be roughly equal to the damage caused by the externality. Solve these two problems and you solve governance and capitalism. As for the implementation...

protoman3000 6y ago

How on earth would anybody find it in their heart to deliberately destroy the beautiful countryside of the US, or even the world? In the past my impression was that only the corporatism and boundless greed of the people from the US yields such environmental catastrophes, which fill the pockets of executives while harming entire generations with massive pollution. But the Corona catastrophe shows that too many people from all cultures and countries have the same disease of ignorance, rot, shortsightedness and stupidity. And once they fear to be picked out for it, all they try to do is to save their skin from prosecution. This is not American, this is Human.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

strstr 6y ago

Fluorocarbons are ubiquitous. Fluorocarbons are basically magic when it comes to repelling water. Nordic skiing (and to a lesser extent, downhill skiing) have been going through a bit of a reckoning trying to remove them from competitions. Fluorowaxes are very effective for gliding quickly in wet conditions. The fact that they are melted during application makes them particularly pernicious. Fluorocarbons are also ubiquitous in water repelling in clothing. Some of the more expensive brands of outdoor wear have moved to shorter chain fluorocarbons, but they haven't eliminated their use. From Arcteryx: "... non-PFC [water repellant] treatments... have fallen short of the level of performance and durability we deem imperative". It's likely less urgent with clothing, since these compounds are quite stable when left alone at normal temperatures.

mellavora 6y ago
Does 'left alone at normal temperatures' include the inside of a washing machine? Probably not a big issue, if the care instructions say 'cold water wash only' and if people read/follow the care instructions.
- strstr 6y ago
  Most people avoid washing waterproof gear often (and particularly not at high temps), since it’s believed to damage the waterproofing. It’s particularly bad if you use normal detergent. That, indirectly, answers your question: it must leech in any conditions that damage its effectiveness.
  - sedachv 6y ago
    > Most people avoid washing waterproof gear often (and particularly not at high temps), since it’s believed to damage the waterproofing. Which is completely wrong. The PTFE pores will get clogged with skin oil, leading to more internal condensation, and the wax (the part referred to as "Durably Water Repellent," which is a hugely fraudulent marketing claim, as there is nothing durable about it) impregnated into the outer woven textile layer is less effective if there is moisture-wicking dirt on the outer layer, or the wax has rubbed off. In fact the wax is melted into the yarns of the outer woven fabric at about 40°C. To "re-activate" the DWR, most manufacturers recommend putting the garment in the dryer at 40°C for about half an hour. This re-melts the wax and wicks it into the parts of the yarn where it has rubbed off. Incidentally, Arc'Teryx recommends washing PTFE garments at 40°C as well. The biggest scam in the waterproof-breathable garment industry (and that is saying a lot) are the so-called "2.5 layer" garments. Instead of being sandwiched between two woven textile layers, the PTFE film is coated directly on the inside of the outer layer, then some kind of ink or paint (yes, really) is printed over the PTFE layer for "durability." In 2.5 layer garments, the PTFE will start to flake off in a couple of years at most from abrasion with the clothes you wear underneath and bending and flexing of the outer textile layer (this has nothing to do with the acidity of skin oil - another completely fraudulent marketing claim I have seen as an attempt by retailers/manufacturers to deny warranty claims for "improper care"). These flakes (which is where all the PTFE is) will end up going down the drain, and you will have a ruined garment that is impossible to repair. 2.5 layer garments continue to be sold, because the manufacturing process is so cheap. I do not understand how there has not been a class-action lawsuit about this yet.

maddyboo 6y ago

I came across an interactive map [1] of contamination in the US. Unfortunately it seems there isn’t much data for a lot of states, including mine. 1: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/

jgilias 6y ago

Does anyone know if there is anything one can do to reduce exposure and/or mitigate the risk? I couldn't gather this from the article.

strstr 6y ago
Don’t eat microwave popcorn (PFOAs have been replaced there with other PFCs, which might not be an improvement). Avoid other similarly non-stick heated disposable packaging. Avoid overheating non-stick pans (or don’t use them at all). Use a filter if it’s appreciably in the groundwater.
- LeifCarrotson 6y ago
  Not just a sediment filter, you need activated charcoal. I live (and grew up) drinking groundwater downstream of a plume of PFOAs. Wolverine Worldwide (of Cat/HD/Hush Puppies/Merrell footwear brands) made waterproof leather goods in my hometown of Rockford, MI. In the 60s and 70s, they dumped barrels of leather scraps and excess 3M Scotchgard in woods and swamps in the area. They knew it was dangerous (they used PPE when handling it), but when it was phased out in the 90s they forgot about all the old dump sites until someone sued them in the last few years. Now they've been forced to install thousands of carbon filters in homes across the area, and most of us who have been on well water will eventually be moved to city water. Fortunately, the testing has proven that the carbon canisters are highly effective - my well went from 80ppt to non-detectable - but they're expensive to maintain, and I spent 30 years drinking the stuff...
  - jgilias 6y ago
    Damn... Thanks for sharing the story. I hope you're doing well! And if that's the case, may that remains so indefinitely.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

anon321321323 6y ago

ok. lets run this: assume its the year 2000 with a 20 year old having some level of PFOS in blood & cells etc and the half-life of that PFOS is 5 years* 2000 100% of accumulated measured concentration in blood & cells by some measure 2005 50% 2010 25% 2015 13% 2020 6% 2025 3% 2030 2% 2035 1% 2040 <1% So our fictional 20 year old is 60-70* by the time the stuff has "fully" degraded. This doesn't mean they are now healthy. It just means the toxic stuff is now no longer at the original level. Impact on organs? Not a great picture. A "Forever chemical" indeed. * Assumptions just to make things easier to see. PFOS half-life is actually 5.4 years. So the table above is too short. Assume nothing gets stuck where it can't decay. What is toxic for this? What is typical buildup for a 20 year old for various locations/contexts?

shawnz 6y ago
> So our fictional 20 year old is 60-70* by the time the stuff has "fully" degraded. This doesn't mean they are now healthy. Without knowing the initial concentration, it doesn't really mean they are still unhealthy either
- anonymouse008 6y ago
  This also assumes no biological ability to remove the chemical, relying only on the half life. If our systems are not able to do so, I missed that point in the article. Edit: thank you, I see that now here too - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964923/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964923/
  - shawnz 6y ago
    The biological half-life actually does refer to the ability of the body to metabolize the chemical
benmccann 6y ago
They are called "forever chemicals" because they don't naturally degrade in the environment. That term does not refer to how long they stay in your body. Because they are don't degrade in the environment, the amount found in the environment is continuing to increase: http://marinespecies.org/introduced/wiki/Polyfluorinated_compounds_-_a_new_class_of_global_pollutants_in_the_coastal_environment#Temporal_trend_of_PFC_contamination http://marinespecies.org/introduced/wiki/Polyfluorinated_com...

refurb 6y ago

Ok. How much? And is it toxic at that level? I mean, I could take blood sample from any, any, HN reader and find arsenic. No problem. But it’s natural right. So no big deal. And at levels that aren’t toxic.

tylerjwilk00 6y ago

Serious topic but article is a bit overly mysterious. Never goes on to explain the mechanism by which the "poison" leches into the creek and kills the cattle? Where it originated?

philips 6y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
boomboomsubban 6y ago
A nearby Teflon production plant that dumped at least 1.7 million pounds of, PFOA into the environment over the past fifty years.

aazaa 6y ago

The Intercept did an in-depth series on this: https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/ https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-decepti... Truly despicable behavior from one of the world's largest and oldest companies.

xyst 6y ago
I still see many houses and new construction wrapped in Tyvek material. We are fucked.
- redprince 6y ago
  Tyvek is made from polyethylene. No fluorocarbons in there.
- sgerenser 6y ago
  There’s nothing wrong/concerning with Tyvek housewrap, unless you just don’t like the idea of using DuPont products in general.
gurrone 6y ago
The original video footage which belongs to the article series is frightening https://vimeo.com/136529193 https://vimeo.com/136529193
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
It's there a reason you don't mention the company, which I assume is DuPont, by name. So often I see comments "this company is awful", or whatever, which don't even refer to the name of the company; which I find most strange.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  I assume it's because they said that immediately after a link featuring "dupont-chemistry-deception" making it seem like the previous sentence called them out by name. The link then got shortened when posted, and whether it says "dupont" depends on how you view the post.

nevinera 6y ago

I mean.. so is uranium. When you don't specify amounts, you can say this about nearly anything that can be found outside a lab setting at all. I'm not saying there's no threat here, just that this headline is worthless.

ISL 6y ago
Unlike uranium, which is naturally present in garden-variety dirt, chemicals like PFAS and PFOS are almost certainly made by humans.
- nevinera 6y ago
  I picked uranium because it's sufficiently scary to most people, not because it's special - you can say the same thing about any (stable) artificial particle too. My point was that without talking numerically about real-world impacts, this article has no meaningful content. To clarify, you should absolutely be concerned about this particular category of particles - the impacts are not fully understood, but they are substantial and meaningful. I'm just railing against the consistent failures of modern scientific 'journalism'.

xyst 6y ago

How does DuPont get away with claiming they "never" manufactured PFAS, PFOS, or GenX? https://www.dupont.com/pfas.html https://www.dupont.com/pfas.html

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jvanderbot 6y ago
Because "Across our portfolio, DuPont’s use of other PFAS is a small fraction of the total PFAS used in the world." Meaning, they admit they use it in many of their products, but insist they aren't a major contributor without providing numbers. Legally defensible. They even have a "current use" button on that page. Lo and behold the information is right before your very eyes.
lief79 6y ago
Where do they claim that? They never made fire fighting foam, and currently don't manufacture those chemicals. https://www.dupont.com/pfas/historical-use.html https://www.dupont.com/pfas/historical-use.html

dwaltrip 6y ago

This looks like a major environmental concern near manufacturing plants. However, as for myself, are things like teflon non-stick pans a serious concern? Do we have good data of the risk? I tried to quickly research this, and this cancer.org article leads me to believe I shouldn't be too worried: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-perfl...