3 ms·

>The only downside for me Not to mention the main downside of getting cancer

Etheryte 4y ago
A small downside of a few fun options [0]: > As a result of a class-action lawsuit and community settlement with DuPont, three epidemiologists conducted studies on the population surrounding a chemical plant that was exposed to PFOA at levels greater than in the general population. Studies have found correlation between high PFOA exposure and six health outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
wernercd 4y ago
[citation needed]
- takeda 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Health_... Why do you think they are discontinuing it if it is so amazing in what it does?
  - JamisonM 4y ago
    I am a disinterested observer in all this but the issues seem to be in the concentrations involved in the production of the materials, not in the wearing of them. The grandparent comment seems to imply that wearing these materials is a cancer risk but it really doesn't seem like that is the case. Am I wrong? I can't find anything that indicates it is an issue. (I live in an old house with some asbestos-wrapped ducts, I think asbestos is bad and should not be produced anymore but I also think that the duct wrap in my house is not endangering my family.. this seems like that sort of a situation to me.)
    - KSteffensen 4y ago
      The people wearing these things are probably not at any risk, but producing these chemicals means that they eventually end up in nature, which means in ground water, farmland, etc. These flourinated organics don't break down in nature, they are known as 'forever chemicals'. They just stick around and get concentrated as they climb up the food chain. Like dioxins, the best way to get rid of them is burning them at sufficiently high temperatures, which apparently not all industrial incinerators reach. I guess if enough of this stuff is pumped into the environment eventually some fungus or something will learn how to decompose it, but there will be a lot of cancer case before we get there.
- wgjordan 4y ago
  The CDC's ToxFAQs page on Perfluoroalkyls [1] is one starting point, refer to the full 993-page report [2] for all the gritty details. Here's a high-level summary of the evidence on cancer risks: > The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2017) concluded that PFOA is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), and EPA (2016e, 2016f) concluded that there was suggestive evidence of the carcinogenic potential of PFOA and PFOS in humans. Increases in testicular and kidney cancer have been observed in highly exposed humans. Less research on PFOS that aren't PFOA though, so there's room for dismissing the available evidence if you're so inclined. [1] https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=1116&toxid=237 https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=1... [2] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    My question for things like this is how do you get exposed? Does it absorb through the skin from a garment under normal conditions?
  - concordDance 4y ago
    So just some suggestive evidence and confounders could exist.
frereubu 4y ago
Are you saying that's the case for exposure to it when wearing clothing with it on? To be clear I'm not diminishing the experience of the people who live around the plant where it was produced if that's what you're referring to, where clearly it had a terrible effect, but my understanding of that was DuPont dumped thousands of tonnes of toxic waste in the ground near the plant that went into the groundwater, which is very different from wearing the product.

A small downside of a few fun options [0]: > As a result of a class-action lawsuit and community settlement with DuPont, three epidemiologists conducted studies on the population surrounding a chemical plant that was exposed to PFOA at levels greater than in the general population. Studies have found correlation between high PFOA exposure and six health outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

wernercd 4y ago

[citation needed]

takeda 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Health_... Why do you think they are discontinuing it if it is so amazing in what it does?
- JamisonM 4y ago
  I am a disinterested observer in all this but the issues seem to be in the concentrations involved in the production of the materials, not in the wearing of them. The grandparent comment seems to imply that wearing these materials is a cancer risk but it really doesn't seem like that is the case. Am I wrong? I can't find anything that indicates it is an issue. (I live in an old house with some asbestos-wrapped ducts, I think asbestos is bad and should not be produced anymore but I also think that the duct wrap in my house is not endangering my family.. this seems like that sort of a situation to me.)
  - KSteffensen 4y ago
    The people wearing these things are probably not at any risk, but producing these chemicals means that they eventually end up in nature, which means in ground water, farmland, etc. These flourinated organics don't break down in nature, they are known as 'forever chemicals'. They just stick around and get concentrated as they climb up the food chain. Like dioxins, the best way to get rid of them is burning them at sufficiently high temperatures, which apparently not all industrial incinerators reach. I guess if enough of this stuff is pumped into the environment eventually some fungus or something will learn how to decompose it, but there will be a lot of cancer case before we get there.
wgjordan 4y ago
The CDC's ToxFAQs page on Perfluoroalkyls [1] is one starting point, refer to the full 993-page report [2] for all the gritty details. Here's a high-level summary of the evidence on cancer risks: > The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2017) concluded that PFOA is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), and EPA (2016e, 2016f) concluded that there was suggestive evidence of the carcinogenic potential of PFOA and PFOS in humans. Increases in testicular and kidney cancer have been observed in highly exposed humans. Less research on PFOS that aren't PFOA though, so there's room for dismissing the available evidence if you're so inclined. [1] https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=1116&toxid=237 https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=1... [2] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf
- ch4s3 4y ago
  My question for things like this is how do you get exposed? Does it absorb through the skin from a garment under normal conditions?
- concordDance 4y ago
  So just some suggestive evidence and confounders could exist.

frereubu 4y ago

Are you saying that's the case for exposure to it when wearing clothing with it on? To be clear I'm not diminishing the experience of the people who live around the plant where it was produced if that's what you're referring to, where clearly it had a terrible effect, but my understanding of that was DuPont dumped thousands of tonnes of toxic waste in the ground near the plant that went into the groundwater, which is very different from wearing the product.