4 ms·

Why do you think that is any better?

by theNJR 3y ago

oblio 3y ago
The cynic in me says: because it's not a visible corporate target unlike Oral-B so nobody bothered to test it, but it's likely to have the same problems unless they explicitly say they don't and had an independent party validate the claim and possibly an auditor confirming.
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  It seems to be made of polyester, charcoal and wax, explicitly no PFAs, so what would be the reason to assume "it's likely to have the same problems" if the problem is the PFOA coating?
  - flanbiscuit 3y ago
    I found it annoying that I had to go searching through multiple pages to get the full list of things that this is made of. On the product page[1] I had to scroll all the way to the bottom and expand 2 of the "Got Questions" sections to get info: > Our BURST Floss is beautifully packaged in an eco-friendly sustainable case, the textured filament has expanding technology for a deep clean. Charcoal coated for adsorption and anti-microbial for healthy white teeth, the unique black coloring of the floss exposes plaque lurking in the mouth. > Yes The BURST Floss uses Microcrystalline wax, there are No PFAs. Then I had to search through multiple questions on their FAQ page to finally find this[2]: > Is the BURST Floss biodegradable? > No. The BURST Floss is comprised of Polyester so is not biodegradable. So we have: - Polyester - Microcrystalline wax - Charcoal - an eco-friendly sustainable case I can't tell if the Microcrystalline wax _is_ the Charcoal or is something separate. No explanation on what the case is made of. "Eco-friendly" is vague, I'm guessing this is because it's re-usable, not because it's biodegradable. 1. https://www.burstoralcare.com/product/floss?color=black# https://www.burstoralcare.com/product/floss?color=black# 2. https://burstusa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360053208094-Is-the-BURST-Floss-biodegradable- https://burstusa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360053208094-... I also want to add that Burst was listed in one of the parent links on flosses that failed the test for PFAS. (if you trust that site) > According to our EPA-certified laboratory, these products contain detections of organic fluorine, which is a chemical marker for PFAS “forever chemicals.” This section represents some products that have levels that are clearly intentionally added, while other brands have levels that are more “unintentionally added” from contamination somewhere. Brands with jaw-dropping amounts of organic fluorine we marked with *. > Burst Refillable Dental Floss Juniper & Berry — 208 parts per million (ppm) organic fluorine https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-floss-tooth-floss.html#Mamavation%E2%80%99s_Investigation_of_Dental_Floss_and_Indications_of_PFAS_%E2%80%9CForever_Chemicals%E2%80%9D https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-floss-to...
    - monetus 3y ago
      I really wish mamavation would link the study they are citing... Did I just miss it? They have numbers, but don't give you access outside of the article or elaborate on the responses of the companies. I'm going ask burst about this, because the polyester or wax should have no flourine as far as I can tell. I have a pfas testing center near me - If I test this soon I'll make a show hn or something.
      - flanbiscuit 3y ago
        I don't think they were citing anything. They supposedly performed their own tests. The very first sentence of the first paragraph says: > Mamavation sent 39 different dental floss products off to an EPA-certified laboratory to look for indications of PFAS “forever chemicals.” and there's also this: > Disclosure: This consumer study is released in partnership with Environmental Health News. Scientific reviews were performed by (1) Terrence Collins, Teresa Heinz Professor of Green Chemistry & Director of Institute for Green Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, (2) Linda Birnbaum, Scientist Emeritus and Former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, & (3) Pete Myers, Chief Scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, Adjunct Professor of Chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University, and Co-Author of Our Stolen Future. This post was medically reviewed by Sondra Strand, RN, BSN, PHN. Donations were provided by Environmental Health News and Mamavation community members. This post contains affiliate links. Well, they actually do mention an existing study and link to it: > In a study published in 2019 in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, researchers found that women who flossed with tooth floss product Oral-B Glide dental floss had higher levels of PFAS in their blood than those women who didn’t. After marker testing was run on Oral-B Glide, it was confirmed that this product had indications of PFAS “forever chemicals” intentionally added to the product. which had a link to this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y All that being said, almost all of this site's articles are either "This is bad, buy this instead" or "Best and Worst X", all with affiliate links.
        monetus 3y ago
monetus 3y ago
Well, no Teflon-type chemicals are coating it and it has just worked better being a larger floss - Teflon floss will feel easier between teeth that are very, very close together, but this scrubs more, faster than those types. The word they use, expanding, might be a little bit much, but the way the fiber rolls to the right thickness makes things easier comparatively. Nice taste too I guess; I've tried both. The color being black does kind of help too. My dentist told me about them and gave me a discount... so I was definitely lured in, but the floss is good. I haven't found another to replace it with. It boggles the mind that shreddable Teflon seemed like a good idea to anyone.

Why do you think that is any better?

by theNJR 3y ago

Why do you think that is any better?

The cynic in me says: because it's not a visible corporate target unlike Oral-B so nobody bothered to test it, but it's likely to have the same problems unless they explicitly say they don't and had an independent party validate the claim and possibly an auditor confirming.

ricardobeat 3y ago
It seems to be made of polyester, charcoal and wax, explicitly no PFAs, so what would be the reason to assume "it's likely to have the same problems" if the problem is the PFOA coating?
- flanbiscuit 3y ago
  I found it annoying that I had to go searching through multiple pages to get the full list of things that this is made of. On the product page[1] I had to scroll all the way to the bottom and expand 2 of the "Got Questions" sections to get info: > Our BURST Floss is beautifully packaged in an eco-friendly sustainable case, the textured filament has expanding technology for a deep clean. Charcoal coated for adsorption and anti-microbial for healthy white teeth, the unique black coloring of the floss exposes plaque lurking in the mouth. > Yes The BURST Floss uses Microcrystalline wax, there are No PFAs. Then I had to search through multiple questions on their FAQ page to finally find this[2]: > Is the BURST Floss biodegradable? > No. The BURST Floss is comprised of Polyester so is not biodegradable. So we have: - Polyester - Microcrystalline wax - Charcoal - an eco-friendly sustainable case I can't tell if the Microcrystalline wax _is_ the Charcoal or is something separate. No explanation on what the case is made of. "Eco-friendly" is vague, I'm guessing this is because it's re-usable, not because it's biodegradable. 1. https://www.burstoralcare.com/product/floss?color=black# https://www.burstoralcare.com/product/floss?color=black# 2. https://burstusa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360053208094-Is-the-BURST-Floss-biodegradable- https://burstusa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360053208094-... I also want to add that Burst was listed in one of the parent links on flosses that failed the test for PFAS. (if you trust that site) > According to our EPA-certified laboratory, these products contain detections of organic fluorine, which is a chemical marker for PFAS “forever chemicals.” This section represents some products that have levels that are clearly intentionally added, while other brands have levels that are more “unintentionally added” from contamination somewhere. Brands with jaw-dropping amounts of organic fluorine we marked with *. > Burst Refillable Dental Floss Juniper & Berry — 208 parts per million (ppm) organic fluorine https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-floss-tooth-floss.html#Mamavation%E2%80%99s_Investigation_of_Dental_Floss_and_Indications_of_PFAS_%E2%80%9CForever_Chemicals%E2%80%9D https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-floss-to...
  - monetus 3y ago
    I really wish mamavation would link the study they are citing... Did I just miss it? They have numbers, but don't give you access outside of the article or elaborate on the responses of the companies. I'm going ask burst about this, because the polyester or wax should have no flourine as far as I can tell. I have a pfas testing center near me - If I test this soon I'll make a show hn or something.
    - flanbiscuit 3y ago
      I don't think they were citing anything. They supposedly performed their own tests. The very first sentence of the first paragraph says: > Mamavation sent 39 different dental floss products off to an EPA-certified laboratory to look for indications of PFAS “forever chemicals.” and there's also this: > Disclosure: This consumer study is released in partnership with Environmental Health News. Scientific reviews were performed by (1) Terrence Collins, Teresa Heinz Professor of Green Chemistry & Director of Institute for Green Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, (2) Linda Birnbaum, Scientist Emeritus and Former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, & (3) Pete Myers, Chief Scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, Adjunct Professor of Chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University, and Co-Author of Our Stolen Future. This post was medically reviewed by Sondra Strand, RN, BSN, PHN. Donations were provided by Environmental Health News and Mamavation community members. This post contains affiliate links. Well, they actually do mention an existing study and link to it: > In a study published in 2019 in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, researchers found that women who flossed with tooth floss product Oral-B Glide dental floss had higher levels of PFAS in their blood than those women who didn’t. After marker testing was run on Oral-B Glide, it was confirmed that this product had indications of PFAS “forever chemicals” intentionally added to the product. which had a link to this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y All that being said, almost all of this site's articles are either "This is bad, buy this instead" or "Best and Worst X", all with affiliate links.
      - monetus 3y ago

monetus 3y ago

Well, no Teflon-type chemicals are coating it and it has just worked better being a larger floss - Teflon floss will feel easier between teeth that are very, very close together, but this scrubs more, faster than those types. The word they use, expanding, might be a little bit much, but the way the fiber rolls to the right thickness makes things easier comparatively. Nice taste too I guess; I've tried both. The color being black does kind of help too. My dentist told me about them and gave me a discount... so I was definitely lured in, but the floss is good. I haven't found another to replace it with. It boggles the mind that shreddable Teflon seemed like a good idea to anyone.