7 ms·

Has anyone made an attempt at accounting for all the harms and benefits of PFAS? Something I feel is often missed in reporting about similar issues is that the

Has anyone made an attempt at accounting for all the harms and benefits of PFAS? Something I feel is often missed in reporting about similar issues is that the products in question have tremendous benefits. Yes, they have caused significant harm. But so have fire, the wheel, and the automobile. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to forget that we used these things in so many places for good reasons.

mcmoor 3y ago
Same with microplastics. With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful.
- Affric 3y ago
  Which studies are you reading? Every PFAS study I read seems to be pointing to ever increasing accumulation and harm. It's not hard to imagine a phase shift to a PFAS effect pandemic if we don't seriously consider PFAS curtailment as a regulatory priority.
- hedora 3y ago
  There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems.
  - refurb 3y ago
    Please provide some links to the studies.
    - latexr 3y ago
      It’s a good thing that claims be sourced, but we should put in a minimum of effort to a conversation. Especially one with a large body of evidence. If person A claims “the earth is round”, person B can find sources to prove it faster than it takes to write a comment. If person B did search and found the studies lacking, they should open with that and ask for clarification. Otherwise it looks like they’re waiting for person A to do all the work so they can nitpick every source and derail the conversation away from the broader, productive, important points. I searched for “microplastics marine ecosystems” (taken directly from your parent post) and my engine returned more studies than I know what to do with. The first five links: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/ https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257 https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-020-00405-4 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186... https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1
      - refurb 3y ago
        That's not how sources work. You can't just google a few and copy/paste. I can tell you didn't even read your "sources" since the one I randomly picked, the 2nd one, has the conclusion "Bioavailability and the efficiency of transfer of the ingested POPs across trophic levels are not known and the potential damage posed by these to the marine ecosystem has yet to be quantified and modelled." It basically says the harm is unknown.
        latexr 3y ago
        I didn’t claim these were sources of either point, I said these were the first five links. Not even the first five studies, but the first five results. Thus illustrating how a minimum of effort can be employed to engage in good faith with another’s point. It was a deliberate choice to not editorialise what was returned. Rest assured I am aware of the conclusion of each, just as I am aware of which ones are the best choices to nitpick.
        refurb 3y ago
        But you said "There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems." "Destroying". So clearly your position is based on studies. Why would you just share search results and not the studies that prove microplastics are "destroying" ecosystems.
        latexr 3y ago
        Reread the usernames and you’ll see you’re misquoting me. I’m not the person you asked for the studies.
        refurb 3y ago
        My mistake!
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Depends on which compounds you're talking about, but yeah they might just cause reproductive collapse of our species... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob... Probably not a huge problem based on the fact that I don't like thinking about it.
  - gruez 3y ago
    From your article: >Meanwhile, the total fertility rate worldwide has dropped by nearly 1 percent per year from 1960 to 2018. That can't possibly be also due to demographic changes[1]? Fertility in the west started to drop way before the invention of PFAS compounds, and the worldwide rate dropping can easily be explained by the rest of the world experiencing the same demographic transition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes. Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count? We don't need to be looking for a singular answer here. Yes there are obviously demographic, cultural, and economic components. But we also know that PFAS are hormone-disrupting and they're all over our food, water, and material supply.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count? About that... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936 tl;dr the data does show a vague decline, but it's also very noisy so it's hard to know whether it's really happening. Also, it's not clear that "plummeting" sperm count would lead to "plummeting" fertility. A 50% drop in sperm count doesn't equate to a 50% drop in fertility, as long as there's "enough" sperm. So far even with the drop it looks like there's "enough". > Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes. From the GP: >With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful. The claim that isn't that there's zero harm from PFAS, it's that the harm is negligible. However, the article you linked seems to suggest that PFAS is single handledly cutting the world fertility rate by half.
Ygg2 3y ago
Pfas are non-stick coatings? I'm going to say it's not on same level of utility as fire, wheel or internal combustion engines.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- profile53 3y ago
  They’re used for: - lab equipment since they’re extremely non reactive - semiconductor manufacturing for the same reason as above - coatings inside engines/hot, high wear areas, far prolonging their lives - rubber seals preventing chemical leaks (oil, gas, antifreeze, etc) … the list goes on. Yeah they’re a non stick coating for pans but they’re also used in an incredible number of other places.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives. Some industries really dont have alternatives. How about we get rid of nonstick pans, gore Tex jackets and significantly reduce fluorine chemisty?
    - Vecr 3y ago
      > Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives. Like what? I don't think you can turn PEEK or UHWMPE into a rubber like substance...
      - thsksbd 3y ago
        None of the materials you listed are fluorinated polymers. EDIT: If you meant that I cant turn PEEK into a plastic (as in having plasticity) - sure. But read my comment carefully. Im not saying fluorinated polymers don't have their use cases. Im just saying that for many (but not all!) applications of perfluorinated polymers, there are alternative ways of doing things. For example wool and stainless steel make excellent alternatives for jackets and frying pans. Should nuclear (re)processing plants ditch teflon when dealing with UF6? Probably not. Should my gas fittings need teflon tape? No, alternatives exist.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
[flagged]
- 0dayz 3y ago
  This makes no sense with LGBT, since: 1. We still don't know why people are LGBT. 2. If everyone is feminized then there should be a clear decline in lesbians, transmen and bisexuality in women. Are there hormone disruption sue to pfas? Yes 100%. Does that make people gay probably not.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
    So does it "make no sense" or is it just "probably not" true? e-EDCs are a known but not yet well studied issue. How can you claim that increased estrogen does not have any effect on sexuality? To your point about the lack of feminization in women, I think that just shows your lack of knowledge of endocrinology. Men and women both have estrogen receptors; one aspect of sexual dimorphism in humans, however, is that females produce more estrogen than males. Female estrogen receptors are therefore usually activated while estrogen receptors in men are less activated (to simplify). Increasing estrogen in females whose estrogen receptors are largely already activated will have no effect. In fact, estrogen-like endocrine disrupting chemicals are less potent than say 17β-estradiol. So increased faux estrogen may predict decreased net "femininity," for lack of a better term, in females, as their estrogen receptors are then bound to weaker e-EEDCs, and this is supported by the literature[0]. This is also why soy products may increase breast size in men but not in women. But your conclusion that the whole discussion "makes no sense" is forgone, and not based on an analysis of any data. [0] Colon I, Caro D, Bourdony CJ, Rosario O: Identification of phthalate esters in the serum of young Puerto Rican girls with premature breast development. Environ Health Perspect, 2000; 108: 895–900
    - 0dayz 3y ago
      Their reasoning makes no sense, because they assume LGBT = gay men & trans women. The probably not is in reference to PFAS making people LGBT not to people being feminized. Thanks for the very basic explanation of endocrinology, unfortunately it does not support the OPs claim, you're at worst arguing with an invisible post or at best, stating something that doesn't disprove anything in my claim. And I'll reiterate the claim is not that PFAS does not feminized people, the claim is that if we were to see it affecting our sexuality, SPECIFICALLY making us move from being straight to LGBT then we should see be able to see clear data showcasing how females produce more testosterone & having more male-align brains which would make them more likely to become Lesbian, Trans or Bisexual against control - which to my knowledge no study have shown. >This is also why soy products may increase breast size in men but not in women If you mean breast size as in they work out and get bigger muscles in the chest area because of protein that came from soy-based products, then yes I agree. If you're making the argument that it increases estrogen because soy contains "plant estrogen" then no afaik you're wrong.[1][2] [1]https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(09)00966-2/pdf https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(09)00966-2/pdf [2]https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(10)00368-7/pdf https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(10)00368-7/pdf
thsksbd 3y ago
Perfluorinated chemistry is very nasty and not benign at all. The issue is not teflon, or similar plastics, but byproducts and precursors of their manufacture. They're chemically super-stable (since, like teflon, they are perflorinated) and super unreactive. That means that they persist for a very long time (until enough UV deteriorates them). However unreactive doesnt mean harmless. Sure, they have very low acute toxicity, but they still take up volume. Therefore, they interfere with the chemical reaction rates and pathways in your body. Its called steric interference, which is a fancy way of saying "something is in the way". Think of a very busy line kitchen and some guy is randomly and blindly walking into things and people.
ysavir 3y ago
> But so have fire, the wheel, and the automobile Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel, but the harms of fire and combustion engines are currently world-class problems, such as the climate. Very much "if we knew then what we know now" situations, and with PFAS and the like, we have the opportunity to act before it becomes an issue.
- scotty79 3y ago
  > Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel Many people in history has been crushed, sometimes lethally, under various wheels.
  - ysavir 3y ago
    That seems a big stretch, especially for the purposes of lumping it in with fire and combustion engines. Being crushed under a wheel has more to do with circumstance than the wheel itself, whereas fire and combustion engines (though the more I say that, the more I realize they're both the same thing) are a negative impact by their very usage. If we go by circumstance, anything can be a danger, or a non-danger. And the solution is to be more mindful of our circumstances. What we're trying to identify in this thread are the practices that, while being immediately beneficial, are also immediately negatively impactful, even if it took us years (dozens, hundreds, or thousands thereof) to learn about the negative impacts. And following that, to be more mindful of which practices may have similar negative impacts, and be forward thinking about that possibility rather than reflectively regretful.
  - ourmandave 3y ago
    That's the price you pay for having giant stone coins like Yap island.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  Problem here is not a product, but ammount of it. Corporate greed and obsession of maximalisation of income, driven by whole ad industry needs to be addressed. We certainty all do not need teflon pans. Or cars. Without massive production, such problems would be "just" local anomaly.
hwillis 3y ago
That's not the issue. These chemicals -they're not just teflon- were put into basically everything, like asbestos was. Cleaning products, spray grease, fabrics, paper, shampoo and cosmetics, stain-resistant coatings. They've already been phased out but the damage is done. https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  > They've already been phased out but the damage is done. Have they really been phased out in food packaging (say, in Europe)? I thought PFAS is what is used to give grease and water resistance to food packaging (boxes, wrappers, bags, cups, etc). If so, what have they been replaced with?
  - hedora 3y ago
    3M will stop manufacturing them in 2025, but others currently manufacture them, and I assume they will continue for many more years. Historically they were replaced with other, poorly understood, but similarly bad materials. For instance, PFAS replaced PFOA’s, and now they are considering replacing PFAS with PFAS [not a typo]: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/new-chemicals-program-review-alternatives-pfoa-and https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-t...
    - vel0city 3y ago
      PFOAs are a type of PFAS in the same way as squares are rectangles. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS). PFAS is a higher level category of chemical compounds of which perfluorooctanoic acid is a member of. Like a mouse is a mammal.
  - Tempest1981 3y ago
    Time for a "California-Prop-65"-like warning on those products?
mihaaly 3y ago
Fire and wheel has a 'little' more benefit than an artificial, proprietary, lied to be unharmful, avoidable substence manufactured for huge profit and not for an overwhelming benefit and demand from the society. It could have been substituted with something else perhaps, with clearly know risks like fire or automobiles, in all or in almost all use cases, and in many many cases in marginally important use cases (cookware, packaging, water repellence, etc.). Not the same. Really not the same, overwhelmingly not the same.

mcmoor 3y ago

Same with microplastics. With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful.

Affric 3y ago
Which studies are you reading? Every PFAS study I read seems to be pointing to ever increasing accumulation and harm. It's not hard to imagine a phase shift to a PFAS effect pandemic if we don't seriously consider PFAS curtailment as a regulatory priority.
hedora 3y ago
There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems.
- refurb 3y ago
  Please provide some links to the studies.
  - latexr 3y ago
    It’s a good thing that claims be sourced, but we should put in a minimum of effort to a conversation. Especially one with a large body of evidence. If person A claims “the earth is round”, person B can find sources to prove it faster than it takes to write a comment. If person B did search and found the studies lacking, they should open with that and ask for clarification. Otherwise it looks like they’re waiting for person A to do all the work so they can nitpick every source and derail the conversation away from the broader, productive, important points. I searched for “microplastics marine ecosystems” (taken directly from your parent post) and my engine returned more studies than I know what to do with. The first five links: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/ https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257 https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-020-00405-4 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186... https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1
    - refurb 3y ago
      That's not how sources work. You can't just google a few and copy/paste. I can tell you didn't even read your "sources" since the one I randomly picked, the 2nd one, has the conclusion "Bioavailability and the efficiency of transfer of the ingested POPs across trophic levels are not known and the potential damage posed by these to the marine ecosystem has yet to be quantified and modelled." It basically says the harm is unknown.
      - latexr 3y ago
        I didn’t claim these were sources of either point, I said these were the first five links. Not even the first five studies, but the first five results. Thus illustrating how a minimum of effort can be employed to engage in good faith with another’s point. It was a deliberate choice to not editorialise what was returned. Rest assured I am aware of the conclusion of each, just as I am aware of which ones are the best choices to nitpick.
        refurb 3y ago
        But you said "There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems." "Destroying". So clearly your position is based on studies. Why would you just share search results and not the studies that prove microplastics are "destroying" ecosystems.
        latexr 3y ago
        Reread the usernames and you’ll see you’re misquoting me. I’m not the person you asked for the studies.
        refurb 3y ago
        My mistake!
ethanbond 3y ago
Depends on which compounds you're talking about, but yeah they might just cause reproductive collapse of our species... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob... Probably not a huge problem based on the fact that I don't like thinking about it.
- gruez 3y ago
  From your article: >Meanwhile, the total fertility rate worldwide has dropped by nearly 1 percent per year from 1960 to 2018. That can't possibly be also due to demographic changes[1]? Fertility in the west started to drop way before the invention of PFAS compounds, and the worldwide rate dropping can easily be explained by the rest of the world experiencing the same demographic transition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes. Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count? We don't need to be looking for a singular answer here. Yes there are obviously demographic, cultural, and economic components. But we also know that PFAS are hormone-disrupting and they're all over our food, water, and material supply.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count? About that... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936 tl;dr the data does show a vague decline, but it's also very noisy so it's hard to know whether it's really happening. Also, it's not clear that "plummeting" sperm count would lead to "plummeting" fertility. A 50% drop in sperm count doesn't equate to a 50% drop in fertility, as long as there's "enough" sperm. So far even with the drop it looks like there's "enough". > Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes. From the GP: >With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful. The claim that isn't that there's zero harm from PFAS, it's that the harm is negligible. However, the article you linked seems to suggest that PFAS is single handledly cutting the world fertility rate by half.

Ygg2 3y ago

Pfas are non-stick coatings? I'm going to say it's not on same level of utility as fire, wheel or internal combustion engines.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
profile53 3y ago
They’re used for: - lab equipment since they’re extremely non reactive - semiconductor manufacturing for the same reason as above - coatings inside engines/hot, high wear areas, far prolonging their lives - rubber seals preventing chemical leaks (oil, gas, antifreeze, etc) … the list goes on. Yeah they’re a non stick coating for pans but they’re also used in an incredible number of other places.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives. Some industries really dont have alternatives. How about we get rid of nonstick pans, gore Tex jackets and significantly reduce fluorine chemisty?
  - Vecr 3y ago
    > Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives. Like what? I don't think you can turn PEEK or UHWMPE into a rubber like substance...
    - thsksbd 3y ago
      None of the materials you listed are fluorinated polymers. EDIT: If you meant that I cant turn PEEK into a plastic (as in having plasticity) - sure. But read my comment carefully. Im not saying fluorinated polymers don't have their use cases. Im just saying that for many (but not all!) applications of perfluorinated polymers, there are alternative ways of doing things. For example wool and stainless steel make excellent alternatives for jackets and frying pans. Should nuclear (re)processing plants ditch teflon when dealing with UF6? Probably not. Should my gas fittings need teflon tape? No, alternatives exist.

Der_Einzige 3y ago

[flagged]

0dayz 3y ago
This makes no sense with LGBT, since: 1. We still don't know why people are LGBT. 2. If everyone is feminized then there should be a clear decline in lesbians, transmen and bisexuality in women. Are there hormone disruption sue to pfas? Yes 100%. Does that make people gay probably not.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
  So does it "make no sense" or is it just "probably not" true? e-EDCs are a known but not yet well studied issue. How can you claim that increased estrogen does not have any effect on sexuality? To your point about the lack of feminization in women, I think that just shows your lack of knowledge of endocrinology. Men and women both have estrogen receptors; one aspect of sexual dimorphism in humans, however, is that females produce more estrogen than males. Female estrogen receptors are therefore usually activated while estrogen receptors in men are less activated (to simplify). Increasing estrogen in females whose estrogen receptors are largely already activated will have no effect. In fact, estrogen-like endocrine disrupting chemicals are less potent than say 17β-estradiol. So increased faux estrogen may predict decreased net "femininity," for lack of a better term, in females, as their estrogen receptors are then bound to weaker e-EEDCs, and this is supported by the literature[0]. This is also why soy products may increase breast size in men but not in women. But your conclusion that the whole discussion "makes no sense" is forgone, and not based on an analysis of any data. [0] Colon I, Caro D, Bourdony CJ, Rosario O: Identification of phthalate esters in the serum of young Puerto Rican girls with premature breast development. Environ Health Perspect, 2000; 108: 895–900
  - 0dayz 3y ago
    Their reasoning makes no sense, because they assume LGBT = gay men & trans women. The probably not is in reference to PFAS making people LGBT not to people being feminized. Thanks for the very basic explanation of endocrinology, unfortunately it does not support the OPs claim, you're at worst arguing with an invisible post or at best, stating something that doesn't disprove anything in my claim. And I'll reiterate the claim is not that PFAS does not feminized people, the claim is that if we were to see it affecting our sexuality, SPECIFICALLY making us move from being straight to LGBT then we should see be able to see clear data showcasing how females produce more testosterone & having more male-align brains which would make them more likely to become Lesbian, Trans or Bisexual against control - which to my knowledge no study have shown. >This is also why soy products may increase breast size in men but not in women If you mean breast size as in they work out and get bigger muscles in the chest area because of protein that came from soy-based products, then yes I agree. If you're making the argument that it increases estrogen because soy contains "plant estrogen" then no afaik you're wrong.[1][2] [1]https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(09)00966-2/pdf https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(09)00966-2/pdf [2]https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(10)00368-7/pdf https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(10)00368-7/pdf

thsksbd 3y ago

Perfluorinated chemistry is very nasty and not benign at all. The issue is not teflon, or similar plastics, but byproducts and precursors of their manufacture. They're chemically super-stable (since, like teflon, they are perflorinated) and super unreactive. That means that they persist for a very long time (until enough UV deteriorates them). However unreactive doesnt mean harmless. Sure, they have very low acute toxicity, but they still take up volume. Therefore, they interfere with the chemical reaction rates and pathways in your body. Its called steric interference, which is a fancy way of saying "something is in the way". Think of a very busy line kitchen and some guy is randomly and blindly walking into things and people.

ysavir 3y ago

> But so have fire, the wheel, and the automobile Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel, but the harms of fire and combustion engines are currently world-class problems, such as the climate. Very much "if we knew then what we know now" situations, and with PFAS and the like, we have the opportunity to act before it becomes an issue.

scotty79 3y ago
> Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel Many people in history has been crushed, sometimes lethally, under various wheels.
- ysavir 3y ago
  That seems a big stretch, especially for the purposes of lumping it in with fire and combustion engines. Being crushed under a wheel has more to do with circumstance than the wheel itself, whereas fire and combustion engines (though the more I say that, the more I realize they're both the same thing) are a negative impact by their very usage. If we go by circumstance, anything can be a danger, or a non-danger. And the solution is to be more mindful of our circumstances. What we're trying to identify in this thread are the practices that, while being immediately beneficial, are also immediately negatively impactful, even if it took us years (dozens, hundreds, or thousands thereof) to learn about the negative impacts. And following that, to be more mindful of which practices may have similar negative impacts, and be forward thinking about that possibility rather than reflectively regretful.
- ourmandave 3y ago
  That's the price you pay for having giant stone coins like Yap island.
t0bia_s 3y ago
Problem here is not a product, but ammount of it. Corporate greed and obsession of maximalisation of income, driven by whole ad industry needs to be addressed. We certainty all do not need teflon pans. Or cars. Without massive production, such problems would be "just" local anomaly.

hwillis 3y ago

That's not the issue. These chemicals -they're not just teflon- were put into basically everything, like asbestos was. Cleaning products, spray grease, fabrics, paper, shampoo and cosmetics, stain-resistant coatings. They've already been phased out but the damage is done. https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm

someplaceguy 3y ago
> They've already been phased out but the damage is done. Have they really been phased out in food packaging (say, in Europe)? I thought PFAS is what is used to give grease and water resistance to food packaging (boxes, wrappers, bags, cups, etc). If so, what have they been replaced with?
- hedora 3y ago
  3M will stop manufacturing them in 2025, but others currently manufacture them, and I assume they will continue for many more years. Historically they were replaced with other, poorly understood, but similarly bad materials. For instance, PFAS replaced PFOA’s, and now they are considering replacing PFAS with PFAS [not a typo]: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/new-chemicals-program-review-alternatives-pfoa-and https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-t...
  - vel0city 3y ago
    PFOAs are a type of PFAS in the same way as squares are rectangles. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS). PFAS is a higher level category of chemical compounds of which perfluorooctanoic acid is a member of. Like a mouse is a mammal.
- Tempest1981 3y ago
  Time for a "California-Prop-65"-like warning on those products?

mihaaly 3y ago

Fire and wheel has a 'little' more benefit than an artificial, proprietary, lied to be unharmful, avoidable substence manufactured for huge profit and not for an overwhelming benefit and demand from the society. It could have been substituted with something else perhaps, with clearly know risks like fire or automobiles, in all or in almost all use cases, and in many many cases in marginally important use cases (cookware, packaging, water repellence, etc.). Not the same. Really not the same, overwhelmingly not the same.