3 ms·

Knowing something is "toxic" is not the same as knowing we should not use it, or that it's particularly dangerous. Tylenol is very toxic to ingest. So is gaso

Knowing something is "toxic" is not the same as knowing we should not use it, or that it's particularly dangerous. Tylenol is very toxic to ingest. So is gasoline. Yet we use both every day. Caffeine is pretty toxic as well. Not only do you need to know a product's toxicity, but also the expected dose, and exposure over time. PFAS may very well be dangerous -- I haven't looked at it closely -- but the reporting has all been a mess. Even the linked article here doesn't tell us much. In the first bullet, the quote of a quote with excerpts out of context is telling. The second bullet about toxicity when ingested -- again, that's true of lots of products. At what dose, over what period of time? The third bullet about birth defects -- that happens. The question is whether they had reason to believe it was related to exposure to C-8. As a modern society, it would be extremely expensive to have a zero tolerance position for toxics. Many every-day products that produce a great deal of value in our lives are toxic. The question is one of whether the toxicity is material or likely to affect people, and whether the risks outweigh the benefits. None of this reporting grapples with those issues.

_justinfunk 3y ago
The point is that industry knew that there were dangers associated with the use of PFAS, not that it was toxic but still used safely. 3M's website lists their uses of PFAS, including cookware. We probably would be upset if they coated paper plates with Tylenol and hid the effect that could have on people. https://pfas.3m.com/pfas_uses https://pfas.3m.com/pfas_uses
tremon 3y ago
Nobody's arguing for a zero-tolerance policy, that feels like a strawman. Most of the toxic products we use have very strict usage guides and/or regulations attached. There's two issues, and you're glossing over both: 1) purposefully hiding the negative effects of your products 2) the lack of meaningful accountability for those doing 1 Not only do you need to know a product's toxicity, but also the expected dose, and exposure over time Exactly. And it seems that people knew about those, yet chose to hide these things from the public. The question is whether they had reason to believe it was related to exposure to C-8 No, the question is whether they had a moral obligation to research that and publicize it, given what else they knew and didn't tell. If they had shared the rest of their knowledge, maybe they could be absolved from this particular point if nobody else in society thought it worthwhile to look into. But given that they didn't, this obligation falls only on them.
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  > Nobody's arguing for a zero-tolerance policy Well, what level do you find acceptable? It seems even very, very low exposures to toxic products are objectionable. > it seems that people knew about those, yet chose to hide these things from the public. Did they? They saw some data -- but data are just data. I haven't seen anything indicating they deliberately hid "unacceptable risk." > the question is whether they had a moral obligation to research that and publicize it But that is, in fact, a question in dispute. Not everyone agrees with the extremely precautionary position commenters here are taking.
Puts 3y ago
One thing to keep in mind and that also calls for the the precautionary principle – it's not only does and exposure over time that determines toxicity. Different substances can cause damage during different times of development in humans. There are for example substances that can cause fetal damage if the mother is exposed to it during a specific week during pregnancy.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
I don't believe the U.S. has the institutions in place to have sophisticated conversations around this. We will just let China make it and wonder why only their weapon systems are operating under high pressure and temperature in twenty years. I also find it interesting every article doesn't mention that many of the readers are eating or injecting pfas medicines daily: Cipro, Prozac, and Flonase, among hundreds ...
SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
I think the distinction is that those chemicals you mentioned (Tylenol/Acetaminophen, Caffeine) are not "forever chemicals" and, to my knowledge, there's no evidence of long term negative health effects of either within reasonable dosages (well, Tylenol has some restrictions, but there are directions and warnings on the package). Also, saying that caffeine is "pretty toxic" seems like an exhageration to me. Can you elaborate on that?
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  This page has a helpful graphic showing the reference dose for several chemicals, including caffiene: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/04/18/caffeine-40-times-toxic-glyphosate-herbicide/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/04/18/caffeine-40-ti...

_justinfunk 3y ago

The point is that industry knew that there were dangers associated with the use of PFAS, not that it was toxic but still used safely. 3M's website lists their uses of PFAS, including cookware. We probably would be upset if they coated paper plates with Tylenol and hid the effect that could have on people. https://pfas.3m.com/pfas_uses https://pfas.3m.com/pfas_uses

tremon 3y ago

Nobody's arguing for a zero-tolerance policy, that feels like a strawman. Most of the toxic products we use have very strict usage guides and/or regulations attached. There's two issues, and you're glossing over both: 1) purposefully hiding the negative effects of your products 2) the lack of meaningful accountability for those doing 1 Not only do you need to know a product's toxicity, but also the expected dose, and exposure over time Exactly. And it seems that people knew about those, yet chose to hide these things from the public. The question is whether they had reason to believe it was related to exposure to C-8 No, the question is whether they had a moral obligation to research that and publicize it, given what else they knew and didn't tell. If they had shared the rest of their knowledge, maybe they could be absolved from this particular point if nobody else in society thought it worthwhile to look into. But given that they didn't, this obligation falls only on them.

hcurtiss 3y ago
> Nobody's arguing for a zero-tolerance policy Well, what level do you find acceptable? It seems even very, very low exposures to toxic products are objectionable. > it seems that people knew about those, yet chose to hide these things from the public. Did they? They saw some data -- but data are just data. I haven't seen anything indicating they deliberately hid "unacceptable risk." > the question is whether they had a moral obligation to research that and publicize it But that is, in fact, a question in dispute. Not everyone agrees with the extremely precautionary position commenters here are taking.

Puts 3y ago

One thing to keep in mind and that also calls for the the precautionary principle – it's not only does and exposure over time that determines toxicity. Different substances can cause damage during different times of development in humans. There are for example substances that can cause fetal damage if the mother is exposed to it during a specific week during pregnancy.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

I don't believe the U.S. has the institutions in place to have sophisticated conversations around this. We will just let China make it and wonder why only their weapon systems are operating under high pressure and temperature in twenty years. I also find it interesting every article doesn't mention that many of the readers are eating or injecting pfas medicines daily: Cipro, Prozac, and Flonase, among hundreds ...

SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago

I think the distinction is that those chemicals you mentioned (Tylenol/Acetaminophen, Caffeine) are not "forever chemicals" and, to my knowledge, there's no evidence of long term negative health effects of either within reasonable dosages (well, Tylenol has some restrictions, but there are directions and warnings on the package). Also, saying that caffeine is "pretty toxic" seems like an exhageration to me. Can you elaborate on that?

hcurtiss 3y ago
This page has a helpful graphic showing the reference dose for several chemicals, including caffiene: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/04/18/caffeine-40-times-toxic-glyphosate-herbicide/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/04/18/caffeine-40-ti...