3 ms·

> Why would PFASs be any different? Aren't PFAS actually dangerous on their own, regardless of their persistence in the environment? Far more so than plastics.

> Why would PFASs be any different? Aren't PFAS actually dangerous on their own, regardless of their persistence in the environment? Far more so than plastics. I can't speak for others, but when I avoid PFAS, it's entirely due to the dangers; I don't think about the persistence at all when I'm trying to avoid PFAS (though this isn't to say I don't care about it).

dtech 4y ago
That is not the scientific consensus, although a position taken by some. Much more people agree that bio-accumilation is dangerous to health and nature, also because that ends up in humans when they eat things.
- dataflow 4y ago
  The lack of "scientific consensus" on proven dangers is borderline irrelevant to me. There've been enough indications of their likely dangers already. If science ever comes to the consensus that it's safe, then it might mean something to me. Not the other way around. The apparent effects on cattle are worth reading: 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...
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    Agreed. We need to assume negative rather than positive with new stuff that is going to be produced at such a large scale.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    Unfortunately, then it comes to these industrial chemicals it's "innocent until proven guilty", at least in the USA. Untested compounds are constantly being introduced with no awareness of their safety, with no awareness of how they might react with other compounds in the wild (and in the body).
    - datavirtue 4y ago
      Then it gets a pat on the head and a pass.
  - civeng 4y ago
    I highly recommend the documentary Dark Waters and more so Rob Bilot's well written book, Exposure. It might make the greatest skeptics a little less confident.
  - datavirtue 4y ago
    Same here. Science takes too long and has a burden of proof that is far too high to establish fact. Corporations use "science" to cement their bad practices and pollution. If it looks like something is toxic...stop it. The people don't have to wait for science to regulate something.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
The (mis) perception of plastic recycling and its effect on production + consumption is point I'm trying to make. I'm not speaking to the dangers of plastic itself. Only the the problem takes a back seat if most believe we recycle most plastic. We do not recycle much at all. From Big Plastic's POV it's a case of "problem solved". https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry-insiders-reveal-the-truth-about-recycling/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry...
- dataflow 4y ago
  I understood what you were saying; I was trying to answer your question. What I was saying was that the answer to your question of "why might the situation turn out any different with PFAS than plastics" is that one of them appears far more dangerous than the other. i.e. With PFAS the question for consumers is no longer "how do I (re?)use it efficiently" (as with plastics and recycling), but rather "how do I not use it at all".
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    And ironically, the more dangerous one...most people - including elected officials and other regulators - know nothing about. Plastic isn't regulated because we have recycling. I fear PFASs - to your point, far more dangerous - will enjoy the same ignorance is bliss freedom.
contravariant 4y ago
If I understood correctly PFAS is not usually harmful in the concentrations released by 1 or 2 products. The problem is that it bioaccumulates to a concentration that is harmful. The persistence and the toxicity are not unrelated.
- dataflow 4y ago
  I'm neither convinced that's true (I'm not aware of scientific consensus on it) or would it matter if it was. So sure, let's say the persistence is what makes it toxic. The conclusion is the same: it still ends up being toxic. And the situation still ends up being very different from that if plastics.
  - contravariant 4y ago
    I'm not too sure it is that different. If a sufficient amount of microplastics is harmful to humans then it's a similar threat to our wellbeing when it bioaccumulates. It's the dose that makes the poison, and if the dose is increasing over time it's going to become a problem if we don't stop it in time.
    - dataflow 4y ago
      > If a sufficient amount of microplastics is harmful to humans The "sufficient amount" you're referring to for plastics so far appear to be of very different orders of magnitude than with PFAS. In fact, I don't recall seeing a single report indicating visible toxicity to large organisms (be they humans, cattle, or other large animals) from the amount of microplastics in our environment right now. Certainly nothing even remotely similar to what I've seen about PFAS, which includes e.g. cows getting organ defects. Sure, if you eat rubber every day then presumably you'll die a painful death (and I'm not going to wait for a double-blinded RCT on humans to prove I shouldn't eat rubber for lunch before I believe it), so you could also call plastics toxic if you really insist on "p > 0" defining what a toxin is. Dose makes the poison and all that. But we're not proving math theorems here so that's not interesting as a definition or discussion.

dtech 4y ago

That is not the scientific consensus, although a position taken by some. Much more people agree that bio-accumilation is dangerous to health and nature, also because that ends up in humans when they eat things.

dataflow 4y ago
The lack of "scientific consensus" on proven dangers is borderline irrelevant to me. There've been enough indications of their likely dangers already. If science ever comes to the consensus that it's safe, then it might mean something to me. Not the other way around. The apparent effects on cattle are worth reading: 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...
- aaomidi 4y ago
  Agreed. We need to assume negative rather than positive with new stuff that is going to be produced at such a large scale.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Unfortunately, then it comes to these industrial chemicals it's "innocent until proven guilty", at least in the USA. Untested compounds are constantly being introduced with no awareness of their safety, with no awareness of how they might react with other compounds in the wild (and in the body).
  - datavirtue 4y ago
    Then it gets a pat on the head and a pass.
- civeng 4y ago
  I highly recommend the documentary Dark Waters and more so Rob Bilot's well written book, Exposure. It might make the greatest skeptics a little less confident.
- datavirtue 4y ago
  Same here. Science takes too long and has a burden of proof that is far too high to establish fact. Corporations use "science" to cement their bad practices and pollution. If it looks like something is toxic...stop it. The people don't have to wait for science to regulate something.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

The (mis) perception of plastic recycling and its effect on production + consumption is point I'm trying to make. I'm not speaking to the dangers of plastic itself. Only the the problem takes a back seat if most believe we recycle most plastic. We do not recycle much at all. From Big Plastic's POV it's a case of "problem solved". https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry-insiders-reveal-the-truth-about-recycling/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry...

dataflow 4y ago
I understood what you were saying; I was trying to answer your question. What I was saying was that the answer to your question of "why might the situation turn out any different with PFAS than plastics" is that one of them appears far more dangerous than the other. i.e. With PFAS the question for consumers is no longer "how do I (re?)use it efficiently" (as with plastics and recycling), but rather "how do I not use it at all".
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  And ironically, the more dangerous one...most people - including elected officials and other regulators - know nothing about. Plastic isn't regulated because we have recycling. I fear PFASs - to your point, far more dangerous - will enjoy the same ignorance is bliss freedom.

contravariant 4y ago

If I understood correctly PFAS is not usually harmful in the concentrations released by 1 or 2 products. The problem is that it bioaccumulates to a concentration that is harmful. The persistence and the toxicity are not unrelated.

dataflow 4y ago
I'm neither convinced that's true (I'm not aware of scientific consensus on it) or would it matter if it was. So sure, let's say the persistence is what makes it toxic. The conclusion is the same: it still ends up being toxic. And the situation still ends up being very different from that if plastics.
- contravariant 4y ago
  I'm not too sure it is that different. If a sufficient amount of microplastics is harmful to humans then it's a similar threat to our wellbeing when it bioaccumulates. It's the dose that makes the poison, and if the dose is increasing over time it's going to become a problem if we don't stop it in time.
  - dataflow 4y ago
    > If a sufficient amount of microplastics is harmful to humans The "sufficient amount" you're referring to for plastics so far appear to be of very different orders of magnitude than with PFAS. In fact, I don't recall seeing a single report indicating visible toxicity to large organisms (be they humans, cattle, or other large animals) from the amount of microplastics in our environment right now. Certainly nothing even remotely similar to what I've seen about PFAS, which includes e.g. cows getting organ defects. Sure, if you eat rubber every day then presumably you'll die a painful death (and I'm not going to wait for a double-blinded RCT on humans to prove I shouldn't eat rubber for lunch before I believe it), so you could also call plastics toxic if you really insist on "p > 0" defining what a toxin is. Dose makes the poison and all that. But we're not proving math theorems here so that's not interesting as a definition or discussion.