7 ms·
EPA: 'Forever chemicals' pose risk even at low levels
- Teever 4y agoYou may be as surprised as I was to learn that paper drinking straws contain these forever chemicals. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33770693/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33770693/
- jabl 4y agoMany paper/cardboard food containers (like coffee cups) contain a thin plastic liner to water/grease proof them. There's a Finnish company that has developed a plastic-free coating: https://kotkamills.com/products/isla/ https://kotkamills.com/products/isla/
- DoingIsLearning 4y agoA bit more generic actionable advice, it is pretty much garanteed that something will contained PFAS if : - It is _waterproof_ and not made from animal/vegetable fat. - It is _lubricant_ and not made from animal/vegetable fat. Waterproof jackets, bicycle gear lubricants, waterproof coatings in food containers, etc. etc.
- prox 4y agoHow do you spot waterproof coating in a food container?
- DoingIsLearning 4y agoThinking of cardboard/paper containers, if you take normal cardboard and put water in it, it will be a very short time before it seeps through and gets soggy. Take your container and do the same? If there is a significant difference it has been waterproofed. Now specifically on coatings there are beeswax coatings and silicone coatings which judging from other food grade/medical grade applications would be fairly safe. The snag is that on a visual inspection (at least for me) I have no way of telling if a coating is just silicone or contains PFAS. So in general I would apply a cautionary principle and just stay away from them at takeout joints.
- forum_ghost 4y agoSilicone (siloxane) coatings isn't that big of a deal. It's just a different type of glass, fairly inert, fairly safe. It's also extremely unlikely that takeout joints have silicone-coated paper, as it is fairly expensive. "Parchment" paper you buy today is actually coated with Teflon-related fluoridated compounds. Just burn some of the paper, and see if the smell resembles the smell of an empty teflon pan that's overheated until it's giving off scent/smoke.
- hgomersall 4y agoLots of paper packaging of this sort claims to be biodegradable. Lack of PFAS seems to me to be a necessary condition for something to be biodegradable, but I've been wondering... As an aside, Nikwax (https://www.nikwax.com/ https://www.nikwax.com/) make excellent waterproofing products for outdoor equipment and have been PFC free as long as I can remember (probably since inception).
- forum_ghost 4y ago>Lack of PFAS seems to me to be a necessary condition for something to be biodegradable That's not the case at all. PLA doesn't even decompose much in normal conditions, outside of 60C+ compost piles. It is sold as a bio-degradable plastic.
- Teever 4y agoat what temperature do organisms break down these PFAS chemicals?
- forum_ghost 4y agolithium grease is PFAS?
- elevaet 4y ago> not made from animal/vegetable fat. Hmm off the top of my head there are many lubricants that are neither PFAS nor animal/vegetable fat, made out of petrochemicals/hydrocarbons: engine oil, petroleum jelly, mineral oil...
- elevaet 4y ago..also graphite based lubricants
- adrianN 4y agoPerhaps we should ban the production of "forever" chemicals in general and not wait until they've accumulated enough in the environment to warrant a study as to whether they are harmful or not. If you can't show plausible mechanisms of degradation to naturally occurring, reasonably safe compounds in the environment in a couple of decades, look for a different way to solve your problem.
- chmod600 4y agoThere are a lot of things that won't degrade in decades under normal natural conditions. Probably a lot of metal alloys, ceramics, glasses. There are also a lot of polymers and plastics we wouldn't call "forever chemicals" but still last quite a while. So is it really the "forever-ness" of these chemicals that's so bad? Maybe it's how they seem to spread everywhere and potentially mess with certain biological systems (e.g. endocrine disruption)?
- adrianN 4y agoMetals, ceramics and glasses also exist naturally and we have thousands of years of evidence that they are okay (heavy metals excluded of course). Polymers and plastics, well, evidence is mounting that microplastics are not particularly healthy and it would be better if we hadn't spent a century producing literal mountains of plastic. It is my understanding that currently you're allowed to manufacture a completely new chemical and put it into your product with essentially no testing of the long term effect of that compound. That doesn't seem very wise to me, but maybe I'm misinformed about this topic.
- jabl 4y ago> It is my understanding that currently you're allowed to manufacture a completely new chemical and put it into your product with essentially no testing of the long term effect of that compound. Pretty much. There's also a fairly long history of a compound being found to be harmful and banned, only for industry to come up with a very similar compound to replace it, but since it's not the same compound the previous ban doesn't affect it. Then after some time the new compound is found to be harmful as well, rinse and repeat. The counter-argument is that requiring each chemical to be extensively studied before it can be taken into use would drastically slow down the rate of innovation. So to an extent there's a conflict between safety and innovation. But of course it's not black and white, and I think there's good reasons to turn the lever more towards the safety end.
- chmod600 4y agoI found the following context helpful: https://chemtrust.org/pfas/ https://chemtrust.org/pfas/
- noduerme 4y agoWhen I was a kid, I remember my dad throwing out teflon pans once they'd chipped. He believed it caused cancer if the coating got into your food. I mostly cook on iron. But these chemicals are in almost all food packaging, too. The thing is, they have been for almost 50 years. The trouble is that the damage they're doing is not noticeable on the scale of a few years, fast enough to force a change in policy, the way it was with saccharine or Thalidomide or DDT. So this may be one of those things people look back at in 2,000 years and say "this is what was in their water that brought down their civilization". But on the scale of one or two generations, it's going to be hard to prove what portion of the increase in cancers and birth defects these chemicals actually caused. I'd support a total ban, but it seems that governments are just chipping away around the edges of the problem.
- bsder 4y ago> But these chemicals are in almost all food packaging, too. Can we please just go back to paper bags, wax paper and aluminum foil, thanks? The whole reason we moved to these chemicals is that we needed to move away from the "chloro-" carbons which were ozone layer hazards precisely because they decomposed. Although, as I understand it, the vast majority of the problems come from 1) the factories that make them simply dumping the waste products into the environment and 2) all the military installations that spray this garbage as fire suppression foam and just let it run into the soil. Outlawing this stuff won't do jack if the military keeps spraying it around. And the laws were already supposed to stop the factory just dumping their crap but didn't (see: https://www.startribune.com/rare-pfas-factory-shutdown-in-belgium-costs-3m/600164617/ https://www.startribune.com/rare-pfas-factory-shutdown-in-be...).
- kube-system 4y agoOlder packaging like paper poses less of a chemical concern than plastic packaging, but it poses more of a risk of food borne illness. Plastic have their downsides but they also are very good at keeping food safe.
- hgomersall 4y ago
- potiuper 4y agoAntwerp has spots with 257 PFAS m(not μ)g per L: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-3m-pfas-toxic-forever-chemicals-europe https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-3m-pfas-toxic-foreve... vs US: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-3M-groundwater-pollution-problem/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-3M-groundwater-pollu...
- DoingIsLearning 4y agoYou have exactly the same kind of factory from 3M Chemours in Dordrecht in the Netherlands. I wonder how many more sites are there like this. It seems to be the pattern with these companies looking at the Virginia scandal and the Zwijndrecht site in Belgium. Pollute as much as you can for as long as you can and then contain the damage once the litigation starts coming in.
- synaesthesisx 4y agoAnother example is tetrachloroethylene (also known as PCE or PERC) - a commonly used solvent in dry cleaning. It’s absurdly toxic and can contaminate water, soil & air for decades following a “minor” spill. https://twitter.com/realestatetrent/status/1437802803313922051 https://twitter.com/realestatetrent/status/14378028033139220...
- sva_ 4y agoMan, I really want to buy a Soil Vapor Extraction system now.
- lizardactivist 4y agoPro tip: don't use teflon or other coated pots and pans. They're full of this poison, and the coating turns the pan into a consumption item that has to be replaced frequently -- something Monsanto and other inventors of these coatings were very well aware of.
- armada651 4y agoOr if you really want to have a non-stick coating there's also ceramic coatings. They don't have PFAS, but of course it degrades much faster than teflon so it still very much turns the pan into a consumption item.
- defterGoose 4y agoI dunno, I've had my 8" ceramic nonstick for years now and it's almost like new. If you treat them right (no utensils harder than plastic), and wait to wash until they are cool, they are very durable.
- askvictor 4y agoCast iron is effectively non stick if you put in a small amount of effort. Can last for generations too. Problem is, we've become too lazy to put in that small amount of effort.
- sneak 4y agoThe first statement isn't really true. Even a perfectly seasoned pan seasoned with high sulphur drying oil will still stick a little, even when greased up when cooking, depending on the food. Teflon is magic.
- askvictor 4y agoWorks for me; for frying things, as long as it's heated up first, it doesn't stick. Sauces are another thing, but they don't tend to stick anyway, but can strip the seasoning. Yes, Teflon _is_ magic, but might cause cancer etc.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoJohn Oliver (I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, but he does his homework) did an episode on these, last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W74aeuqsiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W74aeuqsiU
- ackbar03 4y agoI've read a few HN comments before regarding this that blood donation actually helps you get rid of some of these chemicals since the body is forced to regenerate new blood or something like that (i'm not saying its a good idea to donate for the sake of getting rid of chemicals and i'm not even sure if this is medically correct in the first place). But does the donated blood get cleaned or something of these things before it goes to the new patient? I'd hate for it to get transferred to the other poor guy who already suffers from some condition.
- aesh2Xa1 4y agoThe donated blood does not get cleaned. There is a screening step that looks to throw out blood with (some) infections. There is also a separation step to split red blood cells, platelets, and plasma (recipients have variable needs) before storage and eventually use. EDIT: it’s worth mentioning that the screening step does include some filtration. White blood cells do get pulled out of the blood, but I’m not sure how common it is for a lab to do that. Here are some interesting links: https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20010126/blood-filtration-debate-highlights-cost-vs-care-dilemma https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20010126/blood-filt... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS42C1GOyvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS42C1GOyvM
- autoexec 4y agoNever mind just filtering the blood supply, if there's some kind of filtering/dialysis that removes chemicals and micro plastics sign me up! Let everybody go in once a year and get their blood cleaned. Maybe send the bill to DuPont
- chiefalchemist 4y ago> “EPA had the courage to follow the science. This is a step in the right direction,″ said Stel Bailey, co-facilitator of the National PFAS Contamination Coalition. The EPA (finally) fulfilled their duty to the American people. Calling that courage is a (sad) overstatement. Courage would be the EPA championing better chemical control and approval. Want to introduce a new chemical to the body (i.e., drug)? The FDA will have you jump through gazillion dollar hoops. On the other hand, want to introduce a new chemical to a product that will eventually end up in the body? The EPA effectively operates on the assumption of innoscent until proven guilty. We too little understanding of the effects of these chemicals, and approximately zero understanding of any combination of them. Finally, it's difficult to imagine that Flint MI wasn't a wake up call. But here we are over 8 years later reacting? By the time that money gets from Fed to state to local and used, we're looking at 15 to 20 yrs for a solution. That's a long time to implementing common sense, if not a basic human right (i.e., safe water).
- mensetmanusman 4y agoForever chemicals mean those with half lives over ~100 years. PFAS potential chemistries number in the >quadrillions (because of the unbounded nature of molecular arrangements/variations). PFAS half-lives also can range from seconds to centuries. PFAS chemistries with greater than 100 year half lives (those developed during ww2) can be broken down quickly with catalysis such as Pt nanoparticle driven catalysis. Recent research on PFAS in blood has found that blood donation is one way to reduce levels. (Tech could be implored to scrub said blood in principal).