4 ms·

Surely, lot of words about how these chemicals don't degrade naturally, but none about the actual impact. Same like microplastics. Not denying that PFAS can't b

Surely, lot of words about how these chemicals don't degrade naturally, but none about the actual impact. Same like microplastics. Not denying that PFAS can't be harmful, but how can we prosecute just on the basis of the fact that these chemicals exist, when the evidence of harm is inconclusive? Stuart Ritchie is my favorite health journalist to refer to whenever it comes to things like these [1]: > Some of the evidence comes from animal studies: studies have claimed that exposing rats and mice to the chemicals has negative effects on their ability to reproduce. The problem—aside from the inherent problem with comparing non-human animals to human ones—is that the concentrations of the chemicals are normally far, far higher in the animal studies than they are for humans in everyday life. As with all “toxins”, the dose makes the poison: something that is harmful to health at high levels could be entirely safe if the average person never has very much of it in their system. > The Guardian – which has published dozens of articles about these “dangerous”, “potentially toxic” chemicals in the last few years – called the new research “the first known study on the effects of PFAS on female fertility”. That’s a little odd, since earlier this year a review study put together 13 previous such studies, drawing the conclusion that “increased levels of PFAS exposure are associated with reduced fertility in women”. > As with all such reviews, that conclusion is dependent on the quality and consistency of the underlying 13 studies. Unfortunately, the studies we have are all over the place: even though on average they point to an association of PFAS with lower fertility, the estimate of the size of the association varies a great deal from study to study. [1]: https://inews.co.uk/news/forever-chemicals-fertility-study-linking-flawed-2267026 https://inews.co.uk/news/forever-chemicals-fertility-study-l...

lettergram 3y ago
The issue with this topic largely has to do with political & financial interest. (1) who benefits financially? (2) who benefits politically from the finances & who’s potentially at legal risk? (3) who’s career is advanced / harmed? Ultimately, with this topic (as with many others), there are no neutral observers. There are multiple camps competing for influence - which these studies benefit. Recall doctors and studies were supporting tobacco and cocaine as good for you. They even had doctors / PhDs advertising and publishing it as such. Many argue the same with climate change (lots of political & financial interest), Covid, etc. Study of PFAs have a similar challenge because it was heavily & widely used. Similar to DDT, it takes time for these things to roll through and change. PFAs are generally understood to be toxic & lead to endocrine disruption. Most of the papers I’ve read conclude as much
CraftingLinks 3y ago
These chemicals accumulate over long periods of time in you body, reaching ever higher levels. They are silent killers. But, isn't a large part of the scandal that these companies knew for decades from their own studies there was a huge concern about health safety for employees and the environment? They never shared the alarming results to any authorities. So, they themselves knew very well about detrimental effects decades before they were discovered independently by academic research leading to revised standards and law.
- seizethecheese 3y ago
  > They are silent killers. Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence.
  - CraftingLinks 3y ago
    By which I merely meant, "you don't drop dead, like arsenic poisoning". But that makes them even more dangerous imo. All seems fine, while they accumulate in the evenvironment, foods, people, their offspring,... And when the disastrous effects slowly manifest themselves we already have epidemic levels of impact radious. But, I accept you point.
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      Water is a forever chemical.
      - CraftingLinks 3y ago
        Not in the sense that it accumulates in your body (concentration keeps increasing over time). Water is in steady state with your body, its concentration over time is practically constant.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
    You think that ''chemicals that your body cant dispose of is a bad thing'' is an extraordinarily claim? Do you also still drink water from lead pipes, and huff a piece of asbestos every day?
chaorace 3y ago
Surprisingly, some of the most convincing studies indicating the dangers of PFAS come from 3M themselves[1][2]. These studies were of course never intended for public release: > In 1961, company lab tests linked C8 exposure to enlarged livers in rats and rabbits. DuPont scientists then conducted tests on humans, asking a group of volunteers to smoke cigarettes laced with C8. “Nine out of 10 people in the highest-dosed group were noticeably ill for an average of nine hours with flu-like symptoms that included chills, backache, fever and coughing,” the researchers noted. “Concerns about the potential toxicity of C8 had been raised internally within DuPont by at least 1954, leading DuPont’s own researchers to conclude by at least 1961 that C8 was toxic and, according to DuPont’s own Toxicology Section Chief, should be ‘handled with extreme care,'” Bartlett’s February 2013 suit against DuPont alleged. > In one study, for instance, Olsen looked at blood tests of 3M employees at the company’s plants in Antwerp, Belgium, and Decatur, Alabama, both of which made PFOA and PFOS, among other products. By the late 1990s when Olsen was embarking on this research, these chemicals were known within the company to accumulate in humans and alter cholesterol levels in lab animals. Because the workers had undergone three separate rounds of blood tests, Olsen was able to trace the levels of the chemicals in workers’ blood over time. And by combining his results with various clinical measures the company had been tracking in its workers, he was able to see whether there was a relationship between the chemical and these health outcomes. Olsen’s findings, written up in an draft report in October 2001, were clear. There was a positive association between the amount of PFOA in workers’ blood and their levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, states the report, on which Olsen is listed as the principal investigator. They've also taken some... drastic measures regarding which factory workers are allowed to be exposed to certain PFAS despite publicly denying any connection with birth defects[3]: > In a November 1982 memo, DuPont's chief medical director, Dr. Bruce Karrh, expressed concern over employee exposure to C8. The company then barred women of child-bearing age from working around C8. Far be it from me to condemn an abundance of caution, but the timing seems odd when you consider what happened a year prior[3]: > When Bailey returned to work in 1981, she discovered a memo on a bench in the women's locker room. It detailed a study by 3M, which sold C8 to DuPont, that detailed eye deformities in lab animals whose mothers were fed C8 during pregnancy. Bailey went to the plant's medical doctor and asked if this is what happened to [her child born with an eye deformity]. The doctor denied a connection, according to Bailey, but arranged an appointment at Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p... [2]: https://www.ecowatch.com/teflons-toxic-legacy-dupont-knew-for-decades-it-was-contaminating-wate-1882142514.html https://www.ecowatch.com/teflons-toxic-legacy-dupont-knew-fo... [3]: https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/02/c8-suspected-birth-defects-one-womans-story/81473242/ https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/02/c8-susp...
abeppu 3y ago
I cannot claim to understand the state of research ... But I think we _can't_ wait for the harms to be fully measured if we're to compensate those impacted. Suppose that drinking PFAS contaminated water decreased your life expectancy -- but to measure that effect with certainty, a meaningful number of people who were impacted would necessarily already be dead and therefore unable to be compensated for the harm done to them. Suppose a fetus whose mother drinks contaminated water has a higher risk of some form of dementia late in life -- only many decades later would the harm be fully understood and the company might no longer even exist (and IANAL but perhaps there are also statutes of limitation?) Waiting to _fully_ characterize the harm seems like a recipe for injustice. In the mean time, "the water in my district has an extra chemical in it, which doesn't need to exist in any amount, and no one's sure whether or not it's dangerous at this concentration" seems like it's already a form of damage. No one wants to drink it, the land is less valuable, etc etc. Similarly, if sewage contaminated your water, you'd be rightly upset even if that particular sewage doesn't cause a cholera outbreak.
- ImaCake 3y ago
  I would go further and argue the parent comment is being deliberately disingenuous. Medical statistics are always circumstantial and clouded by uncertainty. That’s why we have rigorous study designs in people and a shit load of mice studies. There is a lot of money that is interested in making PFAS look not bad (for very obvious reasons if someone gets sued $10B) so its not unreasonable to assume they would pay people to post disinformation on hacker news.
  - shubhamjain 3y ago
    Yeah, sure! Someone bribed a 11y old account, from India, risked everything just to post on a forum no one in the general public cares about. Typical HN brains! When you can't fight with facts, just paint it with an idiotic conspiracy.

lettergram 3y ago

The issue with this topic largely has to do with political & financial interest. (1) who benefits financially? (2) who benefits politically from the finances & who’s potentially at legal risk? (3) who’s career is advanced / harmed? Ultimately, with this topic (as with many others), there are no neutral observers. There are multiple camps competing for influence - which these studies benefit. Recall doctors and studies were supporting tobacco and cocaine as good for you. They even had doctors / PhDs advertising and publishing it as such. Many argue the same with climate change (lots of political & financial interest), Covid, etc. Study of PFAs have a similar challenge because it was heavily & widely used. Similar to DDT, it takes time for these things to roll through and change. PFAs are generally understood to be toxic & lead to endocrine disruption. Most of the papers I’ve read conclude as much

CraftingLinks 3y ago

These chemicals accumulate over long periods of time in you body, reaching ever higher levels. They are silent killers. But, isn't a large part of the scandal that these companies knew for decades from their own studies there was a huge concern about health safety for employees and the environment? They never shared the alarming results to any authorities. So, they themselves knew very well about detrimental effects decades before they were discovered independently by academic research leading to revised standards and law.

seizethecheese 3y ago
> They are silent killers. Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence.
- CraftingLinks 3y ago
  By which I merely meant, "you don't drop dead, like arsenic poisoning". But that makes them even more dangerous imo. All seems fine, while they accumulate in the evenvironment, foods, people, their offspring,... And when the disastrous effects slowly manifest themselves we already have epidemic levels of impact radious. But, I accept you point.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    Water is a forever chemical.
    - CraftingLinks 3y ago
      Not in the sense that it accumulates in your body (concentration keeps increasing over time). Water is in steady state with your body, its concentration over time is practically constant.
- FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
  You think that ''chemicals that your body cant dispose of is a bad thing'' is an extraordinarily claim? Do you also still drink water from lead pipes, and huff a piece of asbestos every day?

chaorace 3y ago

Surprisingly, some of the most convincing studies indicating the dangers of PFAS come from 3M themselves[1][2]. These studies were of course never intended for public release: > In 1961, company lab tests linked C8 exposure to enlarged livers in rats and rabbits. DuPont scientists then conducted tests on humans, asking a group of volunteers to smoke cigarettes laced with C8. “Nine out of 10 people in the highest-dosed group were noticeably ill for an average of nine hours with flu-like symptoms that included chills, backache, fever and coughing,” the researchers noted. “Concerns about the potential toxicity of C8 had been raised internally within DuPont by at least 1954, leading DuPont’s own researchers to conclude by at least 1961 that C8 was toxic and, according to DuPont’s own Toxicology Section Chief, should be ‘handled with extreme care,'” Bartlett’s February 2013 suit against DuPont alleged. > In one study, for instance, Olsen looked at blood tests of 3M employees at the company’s plants in Antwerp, Belgium, and Decatur, Alabama, both of which made PFOA and PFOS, among other products. By the late 1990s when Olsen was embarking on this research, these chemicals were known within the company to accumulate in humans and alter cholesterol levels in lab animals. Because the workers had undergone three separate rounds of blood tests, Olsen was able to trace the levels of the chemicals in workers’ blood over time. And by combining his results with various clinical measures the company had been tracking in its workers, he was able to see whether there was a relationship between the chemical and these health outcomes. Olsen’s findings, written up in an draft report in October 2001, were clear. There was a positive association between the amount of PFOA in workers’ blood and their levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, states the report, on which Olsen is listed as the principal investigator. They've also taken some... drastic measures regarding which factory workers are allowed to be exposed to certain PFAS despite publicly denying any connection with birth defects[3]: > In a November 1982 memo, DuPont's chief medical director, Dr. Bruce Karrh, expressed concern over employee exposure to C8. The company then barred women of child-bearing age from working around C8. Far be it from me to condemn an abundance of caution, but the timing seems odd when you consider what happened a year prior[3]: > When Bailey returned to work in 1981, she discovered a memo on a bench in the women's locker room. It detailed a study by 3M, which sold C8 to DuPont, that detailed eye deformities in lab animals whose mothers were fed C8 during pregnancy. Bailey went to the plant's medical doctor and asked if this is what happened to [her child born with an eye deformity]. The doctor denied a connection, according to Bailey, but arranged an appointment at Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p... [2]: https://www.ecowatch.com/teflons-toxic-legacy-dupont-knew-for-decades-it-was-contaminating-wate-1882142514.html https://www.ecowatch.com/teflons-toxic-legacy-dupont-knew-fo... [3]: https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/02/c8-suspected-birth-defects-one-womans-story/81473242/ https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/02/c8-susp...

abeppu 3y ago

I cannot claim to understand the state of research ... But I think we _can't_ wait for the harms to be fully measured if we're to compensate those impacted. Suppose that drinking PFAS contaminated water decreased your life expectancy -- but to measure that effect with certainty, a meaningful number of people who were impacted would necessarily already be dead and therefore unable to be compensated for the harm done to them. Suppose a fetus whose mother drinks contaminated water has a higher risk of some form of dementia late in life -- only many decades later would the harm be fully understood and the company might no longer even exist (and IANAL but perhaps there are also statutes of limitation?) Waiting to _fully_ characterize the harm seems like a recipe for injustice. In the mean time, "the water in my district has an extra chemical in it, which doesn't need to exist in any amount, and no one's sure whether or not it's dangerous at this concentration" seems like it's already a form of damage. No one wants to drink it, the land is less valuable, etc etc. Similarly, if sewage contaminated your water, you'd be rightly upset even if that particular sewage doesn't cause a cholera outbreak.

ImaCake 3y ago
I would go further and argue the parent comment is being deliberately disingenuous. Medical statistics are always circumstantial and clouded by uncertainty. That’s why we have rigorous study designs in people and a shit load of mice studies. There is a lot of money that is interested in making PFAS look not bad (for very obvious reasons if someone gets sued $10B) so its not unreasonable to assume they would pay people to post disinformation on hacker news.
- shubhamjain 3y ago
  Yeah, sure! Someone bribed a 11y old account, from India, risked everything just to post on a forum no one in the general public cares about. Typical HN brains! When you can't fight with facts, just paint it with an idiotic conspiracy.