14 ms·
PFAS can suppress white blood cells’ ability to destroy invaders
- mo_42 4y ago> The researchers caution that while the results of this preliminary study are interesting, they raise more questions than they answer. This is true for many studies I see here. So always read carefully.
- melling 4y agoWell, we do have this: “It’s pretty well-established that PFAS are toxic to the adaptive immune system” Certainly the idea of “forever chemicals” seems like a bad idea. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/forever-chemicals-found-animals-world-rcna71044 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/forever-chemica...
- tristor 4y agoCaution aside, speculatively this could mean that the serious issue of PFAS contamination in American water supplies made the pandemic worse than it would have been otherwise. Obviously, even if the effect size is relatively large, this would be smaller than more obvious and direct contributors, but it's not nothing at population scale. It's really disconcerting to me that we spent decades using chemicals in everyday household products that are extremely unsafe in a myriad of ways, without even a warning, and we've effectively semi-permanently poisoned all of the major city water supplies in the US.
- alex_duf 4y agoWe seem to have the same attitude with all technologies. Be it a social network, a new type of AI, chemicals, fossil fuels or anything else really. First we release the product because we can make money, then problems appear as adoption ramps up. I find it wonderful we're still around to be honest. Now balancing progress with safety is something we're going to be debating for a few more centuries because no company can afford a thirty year study on a product to understand its long term effects on a population before production. So we're all the experiment.
- korroziya 4y agoFossil fuels provide us with cheap energy and the drawback (C02 emmissions) can be dealt with via carbon sequestration. Social media is alcohol for narcissists. It provides very little utility or value, and the drawbacks (depression, FOMO, etc) far outweigh any "benefit". Don't compare apples and oranges.
- neuronic 4y agoAh yes, the famous carbon sequestration technologies we are efficiently applying all over the world right now which have entirely prevented any effects of climate change. Amazing job everyone! /s
- prottog 4y agoLiterally billions of lives have been lifted out of poverty due to fossil fuels providing cheap energy. As long as we continue to have an abundance of energy, the effects of climate change will be successfully mitigated. People love to harp on fossil fuels but don't seem to want to admit that without it, everyone on the planet would still be suffering pre-industrial living standards and there would be vastly fewer of us.
- korroziya 4y agoI love how as soon as a technology appears which will allow us to keep using a cheap, dense, portable, reliable form of energy, the left-wing zealots come out of the woodwork to bitch and moan because it goes against their narrative and special interests.
- ericd 4y agoIf you study sequestration at all, you’ll find that it’s not going to be a silver bullet. It’ll be a small contributor, but reduction to zero is going to have to do most of the heavy lifting.
- korroziya 4y agoIf you study renewables at all, you’ll find that it’s not going to be a silver bullet.
- goalieca 4y agoEveryone wanted a pill to take but the proven answers to reducing adverse outcomes is to reduce air pollution, lose weight, do everything you can to get your heart into shape by sleeping well, eating well, reducing stress, and exercising.
- brodouevencode 4y ago*wants
- terminal_d 4y ago"The best nootropic is getting up in the morning and getting sunlight. Then you sleep at a reasonable hour and wake up fully rested."
- arcticbull 4y agoDiet and exercise do not produce sustained long term weight loss for basically anyone. They fail anywhere from 80-99% of the time. That part is unfortunately bad advice. The only thing that’s been shown to do that is fasting, surgery or GLP-1 drugs.
- jagraff 4y agoIs fasting not a type of diet?
- arcticbull 4y agoDiet generally implies caloric restriction whereas fasting is complete abstention. There are significant biological differences - for instance, when you restrict calories your metabolism slows down as much as 15-25% over the first three weeks (hence the plateau many dieters experience). Fasting on the other hand raises your metabolic rate up to ~15% for the first 5 days of a water fast. Further, production of HGH is inhibited by consuming any food and while fasting it can increase 3-12X. Autophagy is inhibited by the consumption of any protein (via mTOR). If you want to treat fasting as the special case diet where input=0, I certainly understand that. However, the physiological processes of caloric restriction are quite different than total abstention.
- mschuster91 4y ago> Caution aside, speculatively this could mean that the serious issue of PFAS contamination in American water supplies made the pandemic worse than it would have been otherwise. There's no evidence to support that link - what is provable though is the fierce opposition of the GQP, the far-right and conspiracy preachers to mask mandates and even stuff as basic as vaccines.
- tristor 4y agoThe article, cautiously, provides some of that evidence. Anything that suppresses the capabilities of the immune system can be deductively reasoned to make pandemics worse. If you read what I wrote though, you'd realize I'm acknowledging very clearly that other factors played a larger part, without trying to make this a pointlessly political conversation. So, please don't do that, it does not improve the discourse on HN.
- brodouevencode 4y agoThis is a good site cataloging companies and products that have PFAS-free policies: https://pfascentral.org/pfas-free-products/ https://pfascentral.org/pfas-free-products/
- germinalphrase 4y agoA lot of caveats on that list.
- tristor 4y agoUnfortunately, some of the candidate replacement chemicals are very likely to be as bad or worse, but because they haven't yet existed long enough for us to see population effects, we seem to be treating them as better until proven otherwise. PFBS and GenX were touted as being better than PFAS and PFOAS, and in fact now have been proven to be as toxic or worse, and the next generation of replacements now being touted are likely as bad (but yet to be studied sufficiently to state this conclusively). Instead of looking for products that have certain modern conveniences that require these types of chemicals to manufacturer, I think a better path for people who want to avoid exposure is avoiding these types of unnecessary modern conveniences. There's nearly no reason to use a non-stick pan when cooking, there are many techniques to get nearly as effective cleaning and release from pans which are made from cast iron, carbon steel, and stainless steel without the health risks. There's nearly no reason to use spray waterproof coatings on clothing, when you can instead use inherently waterproof layers or buy clothing from natural fibers with tight weaves, or use traditional methods of waterproofing like wax treatments. There's nearly no reason to use almost any product you find in a cosmetic store because you can choose to simply wash your face regularly, use simple moisturizers and sunscreens (although sunscreen is its own chemical minefield), and go through the necessary mental conditioning to accept yourself as you are (which is generally healthy anyway). I appreciate the link, but I wish people would do a better cost/benefit analysis when weighing modern conveniences that are enabled by disastrous population level and environmental consequences.
- lumb63 4y agoIf you’ve not read it, you might be interested in The Technological Society. The author says, we ought not ask only “what’s the benefit?”, but also “at what cost?” In the past three years or so, I’ve been making more and more conscious decisions to avoid conveniences and do things a more traditional way, because they work, and with more known side effects.
- matt123456789 4y agoPFAS is nasty, nasty, nasty stuff. There is no safe level in the human body. It is toxic in the single-digit parts per trillion. And yet, we allow them to be added in massive quantities to our cookware, dental floss, and clothing. EPA is currently in the process of collecting feedback for its PFAS regulation. Attend a meeting and tell them to ban this nasty toxic garbage. https://www.epa.gov/pfas https://www.epa.gov/pfas “Oh boo hoo I have to scrub my stainless steel pan a little harder cause I don’t have a Teflon pan any more.” You know what, when you don’t die of cancer at 60 due to lifelong PFAS exposure, you’ll thank me. PFAS is the tobacco of our time, with deep-pocketed industry interests lobbying hard and spreading FUD about the risks. Let me be extremely clear on this point: It is toxic as hell and it will kill you dead in horrible, horrible ways.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- aintgonnatakeit 4y agoThink about all the couches and carpets sprayed with scotchguard some people have spent their entire lives exposed to. It’s terrible.
- amluto 4y agoI’d be more concerned about exposure while applying the scotchgard.
- bioemerl 4y ago> Oh boo hoo I have to scrub my stainless steel pan a little harder cause I don’t have a Teflon pan any more Please, everyone, try cast iron. It's amazing.
- LeifCarrotson 4y agoThe full text of the study is available here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1547691X.2023.2176953 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1547691X.2023.21...
- TZVdosOWs3kZHus 4y agoInterestingly today there was the PFAS pollution project [0] present in nationwide news [1] in Germany trying to give an extensive map of polluted spots. Many municipalities, and thus also the population, are unaware of the extent of pollution and its consequences. [0] https://pfasproject.com/ https://pfasproject.com/ [1] https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr-wdr/pfas-chemikalien-deutschland-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr-wdr/pfas-chemikal...
- Mistletoe 4y ago80 micromolar is a ridiculously high level to test at. I’m really tired of studies doing this. The public doesn’t understand molarity and that the concentration of almost anything is toxic at 80 uM. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463920300584 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846392... The highest concentration of PFOS type substances we could expect in blood is 6 ng/mL. The molecular weight of PFOS is 538 g/mol. Use the molarity calculator at https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/molarityform/ https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/molarityform/ to see that that is 11 nanomolar. The 80 uM amount used in this study is 7272x higher than the highest amount we would expect in the blood. This isn’t to say that PFOS isn’t bad, it is bad but this looks like the standard university PR department nonsense and researchers using ultra high concentrations looking for a positive result. Honestly this looks like something I would expect an undergrad to do that doesn’t understand concentration.
- refurb 4y agoGlad to see this comment here. You see that a lot in studies - models that bear no resemblance to actual exposure. All you can say is “at levels that will never occur in the human body, X happens” Ok?
- merrywhether 4y agoNot exactly the same, but reminds me of the saccharin rat studies. Massive dosing (the human equivalent of ~800 diet sodas per day!) plus a physiology that highly concentrates urine led to bladder cancer in rats. Turned out to be completely irrelevant to humans (and now ironically saccharin may be somewhat cancer fighting?). For expedience many of these studies are done at the Maximum Tolerated Dose, which is the amount that does not otherwise outright kill the subjects. It’s understandable that this is useful for magnifying sensitivity but it also leaves them with a tinge of doubt. That compounds with the career benefit for publishing sensational results to generate some bad science (especially frustrating when there are tinfoilers looking to distrust science as it is).
- Midfit 4y agoI believe that the concentration of the solution they were suspended in was 80 uM, but the concentration in their blood isn't mentioned (and probably wasn't measured) in their work. I'm not a zebrafish expert so I have no idea how much PFAS would a zebrafish absorb from its surrounding solution into its bloodstream.
- amluto 4y agoThere’s a problematic trend of picking a chemical or two to complain about and having the industry make an effort to avoid that particular chemical, even if there is no reason to expect that its replacement is better. For example, BPA in polycarbonate is being replaced with very closely related compounds that could be worse. And companies are apparently replacing PFOA and PFOS with “GenX”, the compound found to be problematic here. Every time I see something “BPA-free” or “PFOS-free” I shudder a bit. It’s a worse-than-useless statement.
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y agoNon-stick cookware can kill pet birds even in other rooms of a house, at normal cooking temperatures. That should have been the canary in the coal mine that they aren't safe, but everyone except bird owners kept using non-stick cookware.
- myth_drannon 4y agoWTF, first time I read about it! I had no idea that's an issue.
- ChickenNugger 4y agoThe first thing any responsible bird owner will do is get rid of all teflon pans. Even a self cleaning oven will kill them. This has been well known in the bird community for years. It's the very first thing we'll tell a new/prospective bird owner. It's really as bad as "Cook a meal, all the birds in the house die."
- htamas 4y agoIs there any source on this? There’s an other commenter saying non-stick cookware is actually safe unless you use metal on it or use it on high temperature. I don’t know what to believe anymore.
- FooBarWidget 4y agohttps://www.ad.nl/binnenland/cynthia-verloor-vogels-door-pan-albert-heijn-mijn-kindjes-zijn-dood~aa6e47ce/ https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/cynthia-verloor-vogels-door-pan...
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y agohttps://birdvibes.com/what-kind-of-cookware-is-safe-for-birds/ https://birdvibes.com/what-kind-of-cookware-is-safe-for-bird... https://www.thespruceeats.com/is-nonstick-cookware-safe-2246164 https://www.thespruceeats.com/is-nonstick-cookware-safe-2246... https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/20434/how-why-is-non-stick-cookware-fatal-to-birds https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/20434/how-why-is-no... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276392/ https://www.liquidimageco.com/is-any-non-stick-cookware-safe-for-birds/ https://www.liquidimageco.com/is-any-non-stick-cookware-safe...
- codeisawesome 4y agoJumping on this thread! Does Cordura fabric contain PFAS? It’s the stuff a lot of tech backpacks are made of!
- mint2 4y agoIf it has a water repellent coating, probably. If it’s part of a gortex thing, yes.
- snowwrestler 4y agoCordura is a brand name for a way of texturing nylon thread. Nylon is not made from PFAS. Cordura often has a coating on the back to make it waterproof, usually polyurethane that is sprayed on—also not PFAS. It may have a DWR treatment on the outside, which makes water bead up and run off. Many DWR treatments are made from, or break down into, PFAS. DWR coatings are far more common on clothes than backpacks, though. You can test by spraying water on the fabric. If it immediately forms round little drops that roll off, like it can’t “touch” the fabric, you’ve got a DWR treatment. If the water sits flat or starts to soak in a bit, you don’t.
- codeisawesome 4y agoThanks a lot for clarifying!
- amluto 4y agoI would like to see regulation that continues to allow more beneficial uses of PFAS while restricting the high-exposure, low-benefit uses. For example, your phone screen is likely coated in a very very thin, factory applied coating of large molecules that are perfluorinated at one end and covalently bonded to the glass at the other end. It might even be applied by a CVD or similar machine without the use of solvents. It makes the screen easy to swipe and much less smudge-prone. And there is very little of it, and only the tiniest amount is likely to come off in your fingers. Compare to essentially any anti-fog goggle spray. You spray it and probably inhale it. And it is made out of soluble PFAS [0] that don’t stick very well to your goggles, and you put those goggles on your face, and probably get some of the chemicals in your eye and nose, and then you do it again and again. (Seriously, what’s wrong with gel toothpaste for this application? Good old sodium lauryl sulfate is an excellent defogger, and any gelled version sticks to glass or plastic well enough for a long swim, and the entire formulation is extremely non-toxic. And in the tiny amounts needed for goggles, it doesn’t even irritate eyes.) PFAS are everywhere, and it’s uses really do vary widely in how problematic they are and how useful they are! [0] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c06990 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c06990
- zackmorris 4y agoSince there's nothing we can do at the moment to stop money-grubbing companies from profiting from microplastics at our expense, it looks like donating plasma may reduce PFAS levels in blood by 30% per year: https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-shows-blood-or-plasma-donations-can-reduce-the-pfas-forever-chemicals-in-our-bodies-178771 https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-shows-blood-or-plas... It also lowers bad cholesterol levels (no affiliation): https://www.joinparachute.com/blog/benefits-of-donating-plasma/ https://www.joinparachute.com/blog/benefits-of-donating-plas... The local plasma center in my city pays $800/mo ($9600/yr) for donating twice per week.
- oramit 4y agoHealth benefits and it pays pretty well. This is the sort of side hustle that used to be popular on this site :)
- frontman1988 4y agoBlood transfusions from younger people in remote countries where seafood consumption is low can also be a good option. Nepal seems to be a viable choice for anyone considering it.
- canadiantim 4y agoThe fact that PFAS is in floss is so messed up.
- arcticgeek 4y agoI loved „Glide“ floss for years because it worked so well. Was totally dismayed when I finally put together why it did. I‘ve switched to Dr. Tung‘s now which is made of natural plant-based materials and works even better than traditional flosses.
- siftrics 4y agoWhen are you gonna take the blinders off and stop flossing altogether?
- esaym 4y agoFrom https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-floss-tooth-floss.html#Best_Tooth_Floss_Brands https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-floss-to... "Dr Tungs Smart Floss: 48 parts per million (ppm) organic fluorine"
- boringg 4y agoWhats the word on PFAS in Pizza Boxs and Microwave popcorn? Is that still a concern / presence or has that been resolved?
- yamtaddle 4y agoIf it's like similar cases recently (e.g. BPA) they're either still there, or have been replaced with some other less-studied product that may well be worse—not trading known-bad for known-good, but known-bad for... who knows. [EDIT] Incidentally, there's nothing at all magic about microwave popcorn bags. You can just put popcorn kernels and a little oil in a paper bag, fold it closed tightly, and put it in the microwave. Stick a plate under it if you're worried about the oil getting on your microwave. Obviously don't fill it too full or it'll unfold and popcorn will get everywhere. Or use a wok with some oil (I like coconut oil—doesn't make it taste like coconut, mostly imparts a slightly buttery flavor) and cook it on the stovetop. You can use a regular pan but the wok is way better because it tends to keep the popped corn away from the heat while letting the unpopped kernels settle down where it's oily and hot.
- joxel 4y ago[dead]
- 29athrowaway 4y agoStop eating microwave popcorn immediately.
- m463 4y agoIt is SO hard to figure out if these "forever chemicals" are in your cookware, because companies actively hide information about their cookware. (It's especially troublesome if you have parrots, because one overheated pan will kill any and all parrots in the house - and it's non-toxic for humans?? lol) As one example, I bought some hexclad pans. They had very strong wording about their use of teflon: https://hexclad.com/blogs/posts/pfoa-free https://hexclad.com/blogs/posts/pfoa-free when you try to figure out what their coating is, you are told: "We’ve used a high-grade non-toxic Japanese coating infused with diamond dust for extra toughness." (https://hexclad.com/pages/hexclad-science https://hexclad.com/pages/hexclad-science) and... well keep digging. Finally you can find this: Q: Are your pans free of PTFE? A: Our pans are PFOA free but contain some PTFE. PTFE is in over 95% of all nonstick cookware including our ceramic-based nonstick. PTFE is safe and inert. In fact, it is used in surgical matches meshes, dental implants and heart stents which are all implanted in the body. We do not use PFOA chemicals and other chemicals that gave many other nonstick pans a bad name. Why do we use some PTFE? Sadly, non-PTFE nonstick cookware does not work well for long periods of time. In fact, in our tests, the largest non-PTFE nonstick in the world only held up for 45 minutes of consecutive use. https://hexcladcommercial.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions https://hexcladcommercial.com/pages/frequently-asked-questio... What's especially ridiculous is that the "good" hexclad sets you can get at costco also put this coating on the BOTTOM of the pan, against the flame or burner! High temperature is the achilles heel for these chemicals. took them back.
- pfdietz 4y agoExposure in the experiment was at the 80 micromolar level, which is about 2 grams of GenX in a typical person. That's a lot.