14 ms·

Scientists are only beginning to understand how PFAS impacting our health

168 points by ianrahman 3y ago

civilized 3y ago
I searched this article for specific evidence of PFAS-related harms. What I found was - PFAS increases liver and kidney weight of rats (in unspecified conditions) - PFAS can kill monkeys (in some unspecified large dose) - A baby was born with birth defects near a DuPont plant manufacturing PFAS (no further information, just this n=1 coincidence) - PFAS was associated with a decrease in post-vaccination immune response to certain vaccines (in one small observational study? how did they come up with this, I thought it was disrupting the liver? smells of HARK-ing and p-hacking.) All the rest of the article's words are devoted to theoretical speculation and background, much of it entirely unrelated (e.g. the Faroe Islands mercury studies, which seem to have provided much stronger evidence of harm than they have for PFAS). The article suggests that, if you believed all the research about the harms of PFAS, you would think they were a sort of all-powerful super-contaminant. This sounds suspicious to me rather than credible. Clearly we need more research, and I'm philosophically opposed to contaminating the environment with weird forever chemicals as much as anyone else. But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Could PFAS concerns be partly some kind of enviro-moral panic?
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  The "killing monkeys" is at least mildly relevant. How does this happen? I say interesting, based solely on your bullets and not having read the article, because monkeys are similar enough primates to humans that when something affects them like that, we likely should be worried. We can't make ethical studies that result in death in humans (let alone debate the ethics on killing monkeys), so what's the scoop?
  - lionkor 3y ago
    A high enough dose of pretty much anything could kill a monkey
    - eggy 3y ago
      Six liters of water consumed within three hours killed a human among other notable water intoxication deaths, so most anything in large enough quantities will kill you.Toxicity levels need to be confirmed and established [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication From the Wikipedia link: 1097: During the First Crusade, according to at least one chronicle, many crusaders died after drinking too much from a river while marching to Antioch.[16] 1991, Andy Warhol: Five years after his death, Warhol's family publicly accused the hospital where he had his gallbladder removed of causing his death by water intoxication administered post-operatively. A claimed autopsy weight of 68 kg (150 lb), with his weight being 58 kg (128 lb) when admitted, was cited as evidence that too much fluid had been given.[17] November 16, 1995: Leah Betts, a British schoolgirl, died as the result of drinking too much water, though in the media her death was mistakenly attributed to taking an ecstasy tablet at her 18th birthday party.[18] 2003: British actor Anthony Andrews survived a case of water intoxication. He was performing as Henry Higgins in a revival of the musical My Fair Lady at the time, and consumed up to eight litres of water a day. He was unconscious and in intensive care for three days.[19][20] February 2, 2005: Matthew Carrington, a student at Chico State University in Chico, California, died as a direct result of a fraternity hazing ritual involving forced water intoxication. January 12, 2007: Jennifer Strange died after drinking nearly 2 gallons (7.6 liters) of water in an attempt to win a Nintendo Wii.[21] The KDND radio station's morning show, the Morning Rave, held an on-air contest entitled "Hold Your Wee for a Wii," in which contestants were asked to drink as much water as they could without urinating. The DJs were made aware of the dangers but did not inform the contestants. KDND's parent company, Entercom Sacramento LLC, was subsequently ordered to pay $16,577,118 in damages to Strange's family.[22][23] March 11, 2020: Zachary Sabin, an 11-year-old child, died after being forced to drink almost three liters of water in just four hours by his parents. They thought his urine was too dark, so they made him drink water until he threw up.[24] July 4, 2023: A 35 year old Indiana woman died after consuming too much water while on vacation with her family. [25]
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    The shimmery residue on coffee surfaces apparently causes cancer if you concentrate it 10000x and inject it into mice. https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/health-and-safety/does-coffee-need-a-cancer-warning-label-in-california/ https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/health-and-safety/does-c...
    - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
      This is why I switched from french press to pour overs, it reduces the amount of the shimmery film that ends up in the cup. In my mind if it kills monkey at high dose it has a likelihood of being bad for humans at a low (but daily) dose. The problem is that our scientific tools for studying human toxins are not very good. If it increases the chance of some disease by 1% we probably will never know.
      - huthuthike 3y ago
        I think that film is just oils from the coffee beans. Acrylamide is soluble in water, so why would it float on top? Anyway, a single coffee bean is probably enough to kill someone if you grind it up and inject it into the wrong part of them.
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
        The risk reduction of your actions might be more like putting a helmet on while driving and less like checking your straps before BASE jumping.
        riversflow 3y ago
        I haven’t checked lately, as cars have become better at crashing, but it was my understanding that putting on a helmet while driving/riding in a car is actually a really good idea, as car accidents are a leading(#2 in the below report, after falling) cause of head trauma. Here is a link supporting that idea: https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/motor-vehicle-accident/ https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/motor-vehicle-accident/
      - 3y ago
- myshpa 3y ago
  https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/995593 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/995593 Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized ... significant links between PFAS exposure and risks of preterm birth, ovarian and breast cancers, osteoporosis, and gestational diabetes ... https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/02/pfas-can-suppress-white-blood-cells-ability-to-destroy-invaders/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/02/pfas-can-suppress-white-blood-... PFAS Can Suppress White Blood Cells’ Ability to Destroy Invaders https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) https://phys.org/news/2023-05-secret-industry-documents-reveal-makers.html https://phys.org/news/2023-05-secret-industry-documents-reve... Secret industry documents reveal that makers of PFAS 'forever chemicals' covered up their health dangers https://apnews.com/article/science-climate-and-environment-government-politics-1997041096d6fc84edde97cf16f72bce https://apnews.com/article/science-climate-and-environment-g... EPA: ‘Forever chemicals’ pose risk even at very low levels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/12/pfas-forever-chemicals-societal-cost-new-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/12/pfas-for... Societal cost of ‘forever chemicals’ about $17.5tn across global economy – report
  - inciampati 3y ago
    What about scientific studies? These are all from the press.
    - chaosite 3y ago
      The first 3 links are press releases by an academic PR office publicizing a recently published paper. They literally link to the scientific paper they reference, and being the second step in the science news cycle (https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174), their representation of the contents of the paper is usually fairly accurate. This is not a valid criticism of the GP. Edit: The second link is actually a paper.
      - inciampati 3y ago
- suby 3y ago
  It's a panic because we have blanketed the world and exposed the entire population to synthetic chemicals which we do not understand the effects of. It could be fine, but it could be the cause of a large increase in terrible diseases and suffering in the future. It's the not knowing which makes things worse.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    It's probably the cause of the fertility crash. Even theocratic Iran is now below replacement.
  - civilized 3y ago
    I think we should try to believe things because they are true, not because they reinforce our sense of feeling bad about ourselves for contaminating the environment with industrial processes.
    - suby 3y ago
      Here is something that I believe to be true -- it is bad to contaminate the environment with industrial processes when we do not understand the consequences of said contamination. It isn't about feeling, it is about rolling the dice with the future of everyone's health, and inadequate steps being taken to stop this process.
      - civilized 3y ago
        I agree, like I said I am philosophically opposed to this contamination as much as anyone else.
        matthewdgreen 3y ago
        It's not about philosophical opposition. It's about applying correct cost-benefit analysis in the face of uncertainty. When the harms of a substance are uncertain, the rational analysis actually requires you to assume a wider distribution of risk, and thus calculate a higher potential cost. That's why insurance companies can charge lower premiums when they have lots of data about a particular form of payout, and higher premiums when they have less data: uncertainty adds cost. For some reason humans have a weird, irrational quirk where they miscalculate uncertain risks by assuming that the outcomes will fall on one side of the distribution until it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that they won't. It's a reflection of the same miscalculation that makes running a casino extremely profitable.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  > But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Fear about health (read: self-preservation) is a basic instinct. That aside, it's not fear of the known, it's fear of the unknown. Again, pretty natural. Unknown and fear go hand in hand. The sad fact is, we willingly introduced "variables" into the environment without having a clue about the impact any of them might have. Worse, is what happens when they mix in the wild. Given the track record of Big Chem, there's no reasonable reason to remain calm. Big Chem is a known, and fear is not inappropriate when profits come before all else.
- pizza234 3y ago
  In term of specific PFAS, the film Dark Waters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)) dramatizes DuPont's legal battle over PFOA/C8. In the legal cases, it came to light that chemical companies had themselves documented a wide and significant amount of damages to humans and animals, including a large amount of assembly line workers involved in the production of Teflon, who died or suffered significant illnesses.
  - SpikyBlackHard 3y ago
    I don't try to decrease the necessary reaction to the PFAS themselves but I understand that their production involves more and more dangerous chemical compounds. What kills a worker in that plant or a cow where dupont dumps the waste, is not the same chemical as I am eating right?
    - pizza234 3y ago
      It's easier to watch the movie :). The specific chemical has been connected to several classes of diseases (if memory serves me well, 6), in a very large research that was part of the legal case(s).
    - j33zusjuice 3y ago
      I think it’s the state of the chemical that’s the biggest issue. I know for sure that PTFE is highly toxic to basically all life when it’s airborne, which happens when you heat your non-stick pans to over 450°F/233°C. There usually is not enough chemical in the air to kill humans, but it’s absolutely releasing toxic fumes, and I don’t know that we heal from the damage they inflict. Maybe if you burned enough pans, it’d be deadly to you. I stopped using them because an overheated pan will kill our birds in seconds, and they’re really not needed. I cook eggs in cast iron all the time. I’ve read about concerns of PTFE poisoning from flakes, too, which are super common because some people fucking love to use metal utensils on their non-stick cookware. Long story short, you’re definitely getting toxic chemicals sent to your home. The level of exposure seems variable based on your use.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
- coffeefirst 3y ago
  The problem is there's a historical record of the companies withholding or burying evidence when they find it. It's happened enough times that it's entirely understandable for the public to be a little jumpy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- loupol 3y ago
  PFAS non-sticking cookware is quite deadly for pet birds[0]. Teflon themselves have an article acknowledging it[1]. Now I know that our respiratory systems are much more resilient than those of birds, but out of precaution I'd still rather not be the one to test the long-term effects of cooking with those on humans. [0] https://www.allaboutparrots.com/cookware-parrot-safe/ https://www.allaboutparrots.com/cookware-parrot-safe/ [1] https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware-bakeware/safety/bird-safety https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware...
  - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
    Chocolate (Theobromine), Coffee (caffeine) and Candies (Xylitol) can kill a dog [0]. That doesn't indicate that they are bad for humans, so I would be careful to draw conclusions. It is called "canary in the coal mine" because birds are extremely sensitive to gases, luckily we aren't. [0] https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/ss/slideshow-foods-your-dog-should-never-eat https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/ss/slideshow-foods-your-dog-...
    - betenoire 3y ago
      Don't forget that the canary in the coal mine is signal that you are about to get it, too.
      - edejong 3y ago
        On point
      - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
        How often did you have chocolate poisoning? The point is to have an early warning in a situation where gas concentration potentially increases from harmless to dangerous levels, as in a mine shaft, where ventilation is limited. Something that is harmful in low doses to a bird isn't necessarily so to us, until it is too late, which makes the bird useful as an early warning signaller so people can get out early when the dose is still harmless and thus not easily detectable. Thus the saying "the dose makes the poison".
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Ironic that there are a lot of criticisms of PFAS, but they don't seem to stick.
- sophacles 3y ago
  Perhaps after decades of being told "trust us, these random concoctions we whipped up in the lab are perfectly safe, we spent 30s thinking of how this might instantly kill you and didn't come up with anything, therefore they are harmless" only to find out later that they cause major problems, people are finally starting to do the sane thing and not trust the shockingly stupid position of "prove harm or we'll permeate the world with it, actual consequences be damned". It's less some new finding about the specific compounds and more a shift in default position.
- frognumber 3y ago
  > But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Could PFAS concerns be partly some kind of enviro-moral panic? I will tell you what scares me: - I think covid has maybe a 10-20% chance of leaving a large portion of the population partially disabled (with small but significant effects like lead) - We have new diseases coming out all the time. This is pretty new, and specific to humans living with the density and travel we have today. Most serious human diseases are <10,000 years old. I think this is >20% risk. - I think PFAS are also in a 10-20% chance range. - I think there are a half-dozen similar things currently in the environment. - Toss in some reasonable probability for biological superweapons (which can now be made at many university labs by a clever undergrade). - Add in thermonuclear war, which was very possible during the cold war, and seems increasingly possible now. - Global warming. I think it's overblown, and I'd also toss it in the same 10-20% range of being a civilization-ending crisis. - AI apocalypse ... and so on. Modern humans have been around for (big-O) 100,000 years. Prior to 200 years, we had zero ways to cripple or end or all human life (or all life) on the planet. Today, we have literally dozens. I don't think any individual one is that likely, but I am increasingly concerned that we might have reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter I'd like for us to invest the resources to take each of these seriously and address them. That's really where I'd like a big chunk of my tax dollars spent. Right now, we're spending big-O zero resources on serious crisis mitigation. FEMA is maybe 0.01% of our GDP. That's not really a fair way of looking at it, since military, CDC, etc. aren't part of FEMA, and play similar roles, but the point is that I'd like us to have a holistic infrastructure for: - understanding risks - mitigating them - having big projects to eliminate them (like we had with getting rid of many diseases like smallbox a half-century ago) - leading and coordinating globally - having food stores, medical supplies, shelters, and access local manufacturing capacity - having emergency capacity (e.g. producing all the artillery shells Ukraine needs, or all the respirators we thought we needed during the acute phase of covid). ... and so on. If that takes up 10-30% of our GDP, I think that's money well-spent. I actually don't think that would take that big of an increase in spending, since a lot of our existing capacity could be generalized. For example, the military could train for a lot of domestic disaster relief and coordination as well. We could give small subsidies to e.g. manufacturing plants if they maintain more general capacity and excess capacity. Etc.
- throwpfas 3y ago
  My sister's kids both have birth defects on the eyes - my father worked at Dupont in research at the time (n=3? Or just coincidence?) Sorry, but it's quite obvious that data has been thrown under the rug systematically.
- samstave 3y ago
  Watch the documentary The Devil We Know about TEFLON and DUPONT/DOW. Its disturbing to say the least. - Here is my own personal theory based on observations through travelling a lot in South East Asia ; There are a lot of pesticides and fertilizers that are over-used in rural famring areas of the china, philippines, malasia, thailand, laos, myanmar etc... These chemicals "turn the frogs gay" - while seen as a 'conspiracy' trope - the fact is that the endocrine systems of mammals amphibians and (perhaps) reptiles are impacted heavily due to these chemicals. The reason why we see a f-ton of "lady-boys" in places like thailand, philippines and other rural asian communities where rice is the staple of not only the diet - but a large part of the economy (the philippines has a national rice management department as they state that its the right of every family to have rice on the table (source, my ex-brother-in-law worked for this department)... we see that in the rice paddies they advertise which pesticides/fertilizers they are using, and they are coaxed into over-use of the chemicals... These leech into the aqua-sphere and it affects the endocrine systems of the pregnant, young and developing people... It results in a switch from high testosterone to higher estrogenic development, which results in more femininely expression in males...
  - BaculumMeumEst 3y ago
    I see that over the course of your travels, you developed quite an interest in southeast Asian ladyboys. Would you say you’re now an authority on the matter? Do you plan to continue your research?
    - samstave 3y ago
      My interest on chemicals and how they affect the human endocrine systems is important, so rather than being a flippant ass - GFYS.
  - rdedev 3y ago
    So there are a lot of Asian countries that eat rice everyday. Including india. I can't even try to come up with anything in those countries that comes close to what's there in Thailand or Philippines. Assuming everything you said is true your last sentence about how hormone production somehow switches. That needs to be backed up by some source. It's a big leap in conclusion if those fertilizers you talk about does not mimic estrogen
- jvans 3y ago
  Besides being false, the problem with making the scientific certainty the bar for whether to ban these chemicals is that the default action is to keep them, harming people for decades before science catches up. The bar should be for proving safety, not proving harm
- cykotic 3y ago
  Wouldn't it be better from a public policy point of view to ban the use of PFAS (and other such chemicals) until they demonstrate that it is safe?
- autokad 3y ago
  yeah, I grown immune to media's "this thing is secretly killing you! and we dont know much about it!" We are stressing over so much crap that may have some impact on our lives, but there are huge 'low hanging fruit' that make it inconsequential. like inactivity and too much sugar.
- hedora 3y ago
  > Clearly we need more research This phrase sets of the same alarm bells for me as “think of the children”. It was the main argument made by proponents of tobacco, climate change, asbestos, artificial sweeteners, trans fats, HFCS, DDT, etc, etc. There has been strong evidence that PFAS causes severe health issues since at least the mid 1990’s. People can always use weasel words like “some studies show there may be a correlation” (and leave out the p=99.99999 from the cited studies). Here’s a present-day example for DDT, over 50 years after it was banned: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-...
- emeril 3y ago
  I'm more concerned re: chemical sunscreens entering the bloodstream I get the impression this hasn't been studied enough and likely won't be anytime soon
myshpa 3y ago
The ceaseless proliferation of polluting substances like forever chemicals, plastics, and pesticides stands as an unequivocal testament to humanity's reckless disregard for the wellbeing of our planet and its inhabitants.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  The ceaseless increased economic output of the world has lifted billions out of poverty and allowed us to sustain the current world population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File%3AWorld_Population_Prospects.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File... Are there consequences? Absolutely! Were the benefits or costs greater? Now that's a more interesting question.
  - okeuro49 3y ago
    Can I have the growth please without chemists putting microplastic beads in my toothpaste.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      No. Would you prefer less growth or fewer microplastics?
      - edgyquant 3y ago
        I would prefer you stop equating the two.
      - okeuro49 3y ago
        Is that the same growth that was contingent on lead in paint and CFCs in the atmosphere?
        ethbr1 3y ago
        Are you saying lead paint doesn't have economic and material advantages over non-lead paint? Hint: it does. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/why-use-lead-in-paint/3004319.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/why-use-lead-in-paint/30... Or CFCs over replacement fluoropolymers? Replacements which, circling back to the OP, may be decomposing into persistent organic chemicals. https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/CFC-replacements-source-persistent-organic/98/web/2020/05 https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/CFC-re... Sometimes you get something for free, but more often you're trading something in exchange for it (at minimum, cost). Maybe it's a valid trade-off, maybe not. But ignoring the consequences on both options is an incomplete comparison.
cph123 3y ago
https://archive.ph/Yn2K1 https://archive.ph/Yn2K1
ycombinete 3y ago
Just try to buy an electric kettle that doesn't have plastic, or silicon, in contact with the boiling water. They are few and far between!
- jes 3y ago
  Can you say a little bit about the possible risks from hot silicon being in contact with the water? I have not heard of this before.
  - dealuromanet 3y ago
    Plastics leeching toxic chemicals/compounds into food and water, especially when being heated, is a known thing. It's especially bad for the endocrine system. The disruption to the hormonal balance is noticeably affecting people.
    - lumb63 3y ago
      I was under the impression that silicon-based substances were not plastic.
      - dealuromanet 3y ago
        Parent probably intended to say silicone, which is a plastic polymer. Silicone rings are commonly used even in stainless steel kettles or glass bottles for sealing the cap or lid.
        lumb63 3y ago
        In case anyone else also meant silicone and thought it was not a plastic, some research turned this up: https://lifewithoutplastic.com/silicone/ https://lifewithoutplastic.com/silicone/
        sarchertech 3y ago
daneel_w 3y ago
Foreverywhere Chemicals.
- unglaublich 3y ago
  + Foreveryone Chemicals.
Madmallard 3y ago
I remember looking at a friend's chemistry textbook and it said something like there are 500,000 unregulated chemicals currently in industrial use. How we are not more screwed up metabolically is actually somewhat surprising to me. We didn't evolve to metabolize and tolerate these chemicals. So they just disrupt homeostasis of the organism and even the environment. This is the ultra smart animal version of exponential growth killing off its own species
hoppyhoppy2 3y ago
Gift Article link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/magazine/pfas-toxic-chemicals.html?unlocked_article_code=GByENmXy1CWg_ylsVbAgHXUZrarydbJchEhHqZWDGGzED6ZTxpqax5eqSGYesC8-fFrkV93FCa8FggsziYUvAahMle3qKzTV0bplaFFjGuteN44GM_S9OaM0fnsMFL4FmdZpkRUglhqzDVZuSVXcLyy7oS1bmt9InZNodL5Ody2nuavXaYbqdREbeTuyDRFm69rVWE33Y3UPIi6DvUMsyq7ZFC8FvTKy-RIzpQrR7yyMnYKcO9BjMZyIvWBQh7Z9WTWDEcqlo4nAMr9mnyeLTkiGJSnnMB33V24wpms27Opgw3mbh1ULOc5OzZxLZtgMDRWCHWqM1glf1slXHJO1&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/magazine/pfas-toxic-chemi...
bilsbie 3y ago
Is there a good way to test for these at home?
- quartz 3y ago
  If you don't need a certification on the results then cyclopure[1] is probably the best bet for reasonably priced testing. I live in NYC and had the state do lead testing and cyclopure do PFAS testing. Was very happy to have both come back clean / zero detection. [1] https://cyclopure.com/product/water-test-kit-pro/ https://cyclopure.com/product/water-test-kit-pro/
hannasanarion 3y ago
The "Chemical Hunger" hypothesis suggests that PFAS are a prime candidate for triggering the obesity epidemic. They started being introduced to the environment in large quantities just as obesity rates started to rise in the late 70s and 80s, the health effects are poorly understood but seem to have an impact on weight and the endocrine system, and they can be carried downstream (obesity rates are globally higher at lower altitudes). The other best candidate is lithium grease, which has the same distributional attributes but has also been proven to increase weight and explains some of the occupational discrepancies in obesity. https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p...
- polalavik 3y ago
  Interesting, but i'd really like to see some figures on fast food growth in the 70s onwards. Not only growth in fast food, but some sort of metric of quality of ingredients (probably doesnt exist).
  - hannasanarion 3y ago
    People are quick to blame fast food, but it doesn't really make sense. Fast food is as old as society, before there was hamburgers there was fish and chips, waffles, pies, pastries, fried chicken, doner, kebab, and curry, many of which can be more calorie-dense than modern fast food burgers. Ready-to-eat food restaurants were even common in ancient rome, and drive-thru burger chains blew into the mainstream in the 1920s and 1930s, but obesity didn't start rising until the 70s and 80s. It's not like sweets and calorie-dense foods were rare before the reagan administration. Just look at an old cookbook, tons of sugar and fat everywhere. Despite the availability of calorie-dense foods many people struggled to raise their weight above 23 BMI because their bodies naturally made them eat fewer calories, to the point that most weight-management pharmaseuticals were geared towards helping people gain weight. You can't explain that with fast food and food culture alone.
- csours 3y ago
  As an alternative, there is no one single cause of the obesity epidemic. People are made of confounding factors, and the world is very complicated. The world does not owe you simple explanations. Two books have helped me understand the obesity epidemic: Burn by Pontzer - https://www.amazon.com/Burn/dp/0241388422 https://www.amazon.com/Burn/dp/0241388422 Podcast about above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CSNS45RJL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CSNS45RJL0 Hungry Brain by Guyenet - https://www.amazon.com/Hungry-Brain-Outsmarting-Instincts-Overeat/dp/125008119X https://www.amazon.com/Hungry-Brain-Outsmarting-Instincts-Ov... Podcast about above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWriMdYuKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWriMdYuKk
kalium-xyz 3y ago
Fluoride bonds are very very strong, and I imagine the chemist who came up with teflon must have pitched it with: “this coating will last forever”
londons_explore 3y ago
Ethics teams would never let you conduct a scientific study of giving some unknown chemical in the food and water of unknowing people to see what effect it had on them. But if you do it anyway and don't record the results, then it isn't a study, so you don't even need to ask the ethics panel!
- huthuthike 3y ago
  Most importantly, if you make a lot of money doing it while not recording the results, then it is legitimized.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Don't forget to do a 2 week study on 6 rats, prove that none of the 6 rats die, and then send those results off to the government to get the chemical approved for use in everything. Then, if later it does cause harm, you can shield yourself behind the fact you were just following government guidelines and the government approved it.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Title was ‘Forever Chemicals’ Are Everywhere. What Are They Doing to Us? ?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JCM9 3y ago
The PFAS situation is at an annoying crossroads of 1) we have tests that can detect it at super low levels, so we’re finding it everywhere. 2) We don’t have great ways to clean it up, and 3) We don’t really know what concentration of this stuff is actually dangerous. Thus everyone is freaking out but without a clear plan or knowledge of it we should be hiding under the covers or not. On the toxicity, standard table salt is extremely toxic you if you eat enough in one go. So the challenge is not “is it toxic” but rather at what quantities and over what exposure. Thus these studies along the lines of “we fed some lab animals a ton of this stuff and they died” aren’t super useful in figuring out if we have a big problem or not. I’m all for taking a cautious approach here given the unknown unknowns, but like a lot of emerging science the truth is it’s messy and takes time to figure things out. This public and press are not well equipped to navigate and communicate on that reality.
qwerty456127 3y ago
This obviously is an interesting subject useful to study, yet I take it philosophically: both life expectancy and health span are much bigger nowadays than when we had no PFAS so practically PFAS are Okay.
tikkun 3y ago
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36509752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36509752
benvolio 3y ago
A relatively comprehensive look into PFAS can be gained by reading the Draft state of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) report published by Health Canada. [1] The Existing Substances Risk Assessment Bureau at Health Canada (which assesses risks of chemicals that are in commerce in Canada), is increasingly moving towards new analysis techniques broadly characterized as New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) (see section 6.2.5 and 7.6 in the report). So, to my understanding, part of the apparent gap in research is being plugged by the application of models which infer chemicals properties, interactions, and effects without needing to study each of them individually to gain at least an initial idea of how they might harm organisms and environments. See: > The evolving landscape of chemical production has rendered toxicological testing using traditional models (i.e., live animals) impractical, and advances in science coupled with ethical concerns have resulted in government agencies, including the United States (US EPA 2021b), European Union, and Canada (Bhuller et al. 2021), committing to reduce, refine, and potentially eliminate the use of mammalian models from certain regulatory testing requirements, where scientifically justified. New approach methodologies (NAMs) are broadly described by the international risk assessment community as any technology, method, approach, or a combination of these that can be used to reduce, refine, or replace animal testing and allow more rapid and effective screening of chemicals. These methods may include the use of computer models or assays with biological molecules, cells, tissues, or organs as well as exposure measurement approaches. [1] [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/draft-state-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-report.html https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services... P.S. CTRL+F "Health effects" in that report to get a cursory idea of the risks. Source: worked as a data analyst at the Existing Substances Risk Assessment Bureau
sharts 3y ago
"By 1965, DuPont had indication that PFAS increased the liver and kidney weight of rats. In the late ’70s and early ’80s, the companies were seeing alarming signals in their animal studies — in one study, monkeys exposed to extreme levels of PFAS died — and among their employees. In 1979, DuPont observed that workers who had contact with the chemicals appeared to have higher rates of abnormal liver function." So, in other words we've known since BEFORE we landed on the moon and, still, nobody cares. Scientists will study this while nothing changes and then perhaps some treatments will be released at exorbitant cost (of course, sighting the research and development costs of the treatment as the reason without any acknowledgement of costs to the people for unwittingly being exposed to this garbage in the first place). Are we even making forward progress as a civilization anymore?

168 points by ianrahman 3y ago

I searched this article for specific evidence of PFAS-related harms. What I found was - PFAS increases liver and kidney weight of rats (in unspecified conditions) - PFAS can kill monkeys (in some unspecified large dose) - A baby was born with birth defects near a DuPont plant manufacturing PFAS (no further information, just this n=1 coincidence) - PFAS was associated with a decrease in post-vaccination immune response to certain vaccines (in one small observational study? how did they come up with this, I thought it was disrupting the liver? smells of HARK-ing and p-hacking.) All the rest of the article's words are devoted to theoretical speculation and background, much of it entirely unrelated (e.g. the Faroe Islands mercury studies, which seem to have provided much stronger evidence of harm than they have for PFAS). The article suggests that, if you believed all the research about the harms of PFAS, you would think they were a sort of all-powerful super-contaminant. This sounds suspicious to me rather than credible. Clearly we need more research, and I'm philosophically opposed to contaminating the environment with weird forever chemicals as much as anyone else. But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Could PFAS concerns be partly some kind of enviro-moral panic?

slowmovintarget 3y ago
The "killing monkeys" is at least mildly relevant. How does this happen? I say interesting, based solely on your bullets and not having read the article, because monkeys are similar enough primates to humans that when something affects them like that, we likely should be worried. We can't make ethical studies that result in death in humans (let alone debate the ethics on killing monkeys), so what's the scoop?
- lionkor 3y ago
  A high enough dose of pretty much anything could kill a monkey
  - eggy 3y ago
    Six liters of water consumed within three hours killed a human among other notable water intoxication deaths, so most anything in large enough quantities will kill you.Toxicity levels need to be confirmed and established [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication From the Wikipedia link: 1097: During the First Crusade, according to at least one chronicle, many crusaders died after drinking too much from a river while marching to Antioch.[16] 1991, Andy Warhol: Five years after his death, Warhol's family publicly accused the hospital where he had his gallbladder removed of causing his death by water intoxication administered post-operatively. A claimed autopsy weight of 68 kg (150 lb), with his weight being 58 kg (128 lb) when admitted, was cited as evidence that too much fluid had been given.[17] November 16, 1995: Leah Betts, a British schoolgirl, died as the result of drinking too much water, though in the media her death was mistakenly attributed to taking an ecstasy tablet at her 18th birthday party.[18] 2003: British actor Anthony Andrews survived a case of water intoxication. He was performing as Henry Higgins in a revival of the musical My Fair Lady at the time, and consumed up to eight litres of water a day. He was unconscious and in intensive care for three days.[19][20] February 2, 2005: Matthew Carrington, a student at Chico State University in Chico, California, died as a direct result of a fraternity hazing ritual involving forced water intoxication. January 12, 2007: Jennifer Strange died after drinking nearly 2 gallons (7.6 liters) of water in an attempt to win a Nintendo Wii.[21] The KDND radio station's morning show, the Morning Rave, held an on-air contest entitled "Hold Your Wee for a Wii," in which contestants were asked to drink as much water as they could without urinating. The DJs were made aware of the dangers but did not inform the contestants. KDND's parent company, Entercom Sacramento LLC, was subsequently ordered to pay $16,577,118 in damages to Strange's family.[22][23] March 11, 2020: Zachary Sabin, an 11-year-old child, died after being forced to drink almost three liters of water in just four hours by his parents. They thought his urine was too dark, so they made him drink water until he threw up.[24] July 4, 2023: A 35 year old Indiana woman died after consuming too much water while on vacation with her family. [25]
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  The shimmery residue on coffee surfaces apparently causes cancer if you concentrate it 10000x and inject it into mice. https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/health-and-safety/does-coffee-need-a-cancer-warning-label-in-california/ https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/health-and-safety/does-c...
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    This is why I switched from french press to pour overs, it reduces the amount of the shimmery film that ends up in the cup. In my mind if it kills monkey at high dose it has a likelihood of being bad for humans at a low (but daily) dose. The problem is that our scientific tools for studying human toxins are not very good. If it increases the chance of some disease by 1% we probably will never know.
    - huthuthike 3y ago
      I think that film is just oils from the coffee beans. Acrylamide is soluble in water, so why would it float on top? Anyway, a single coffee bean is probably enough to kill someone if you grind it up and inject it into the wrong part of them.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      The risk reduction of your actions might be more like putting a helmet on while driving and less like checking your straps before BASE jumping.
      - riversflow 3y ago
        I haven’t checked lately, as cars have become better at crashing, but it was my understanding that putting on a helmet while driving/riding in a car is actually a really good idea, as car accidents are a leading(#2 in the below report, after falling) cause of head trauma. Here is a link supporting that idea: https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/motor-vehicle-accident/ https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/motor-vehicle-accident/
    - 3y ago
myshpa 3y ago
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/995593 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/995593 Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized ... significant links between PFAS exposure and risks of preterm birth, ovarian and breast cancers, osteoporosis, and gestational diabetes ... https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/02/pfas-can-suppress-white-blood-cells-ability-to-destroy-invaders/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/02/pfas-can-suppress-white-blood-... PFAS Can Suppress White Blood Cells’ Ability to Destroy Invaders https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) https://phys.org/news/2023-05-secret-industry-documents-reveal-makers.html https://phys.org/news/2023-05-secret-industry-documents-reve... Secret industry documents reveal that makers of PFAS 'forever chemicals' covered up their health dangers https://apnews.com/article/science-climate-and-environment-government-politics-1997041096d6fc84edde97cf16f72bce https://apnews.com/article/science-climate-and-environment-g... EPA: ‘Forever chemicals’ pose risk even at very low levels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/12/pfas-forever-chemicals-societal-cost-new-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/12/pfas-for... Societal cost of ‘forever chemicals’ about $17.5tn across global economy – report
- inciampati 3y ago
  What about scientific studies? These are all from the press.
  - chaosite 3y ago
    The first 3 links are press releases by an academic PR office publicizing a recently published paper. They literally link to the scientific paper they reference, and being the second step in the science news cycle (https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174), their representation of the contents of the paper is usually fairly accurate. This is not a valid criticism of the GP. Edit: The second link is actually a paper.
    - inciampati 3y ago
suby 3y ago
It's a panic because we have blanketed the world and exposed the entire population to synthetic chemicals which we do not understand the effects of. It could be fine, but it could be the cause of a large increase in terrible diseases and suffering in the future. It's the not knowing which makes things worse.
- polski-g 3y ago
  It's probably the cause of the fertility crash. Even theocratic Iran is now below replacement.
- civilized 3y ago
  I think we should try to believe things because they are true, not because they reinforce our sense of feeling bad about ourselves for contaminating the environment with industrial processes.
  - suby 3y ago
    Here is something that I believe to be true -- it is bad to contaminate the environment with industrial processes when we do not understand the consequences of said contamination. It isn't about feeling, it is about rolling the dice with the future of everyone's health, and inadequate steps being taken to stop this process.
    - civilized 3y ago
      I agree, like I said I am philosophically opposed to this contamination as much as anyone else.
      - matthewdgreen 3y ago
        It's not about philosophical opposition. It's about applying correct cost-benefit analysis in the face of uncertainty. When the harms of a substance are uncertain, the rational analysis actually requires you to assume a wider distribution of risk, and thus calculate a higher potential cost. That's why insurance companies can charge lower premiums when they have lots of data about a particular form of payout, and higher premiums when they have less data: uncertainty adds cost. For some reason humans have a weird, irrational quirk where they miscalculate uncertain risks by assuming that the outcomes will fall on one side of the distribution until it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that they won't. It's a reflection of the same miscalculation that makes running a casino extremely profitable.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Fear about health (read: self-preservation) is a basic instinct. That aside, it's not fear of the known, it's fear of the unknown. Again, pretty natural. Unknown and fear go hand in hand. The sad fact is, we willingly introduced "variables" into the environment without having a clue about the impact any of them might have. Worse, is what happens when they mix in the wild. Given the track record of Big Chem, there's no reasonable reason to remain calm. Big Chem is a known, and fear is not inappropriate when profits come before all else.
pizza234 3y ago
In term of specific PFAS, the film Dark Waters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)) dramatizes DuPont's legal battle over PFOA/C8. In the legal cases, it came to light that chemical companies had themselves documented a wide and significant amount of damages to humans and animals, including a large amount of assembly line workers involved in the production of Teflon, who died or suffered significant illnesses.
- SpikyBlackHard 3y ago
  I don't try to decrease the necessary reaction to the PFAS themselves but I understand that their production involves more and more dangerous chemical compounds. What kills a worker in that plant or a cow where dupont dumps the waste, is not the same chemical as I am eating right?
  - pizza234 3y ago
    It's easier to watch the movie :). The specific chemical has been connected to several classes of diseases (if memory serves me well, 6), in a very large research that was part of the legal case(s).
  - j33zusjuice 3y ago
    I think it’s the state of the chemical that’s the biggest issue. I know for sure that PTFE is highly toxic to basically all life when it’s airborne, which happens when you heat your non-stick pans to over 450°F/233°C. There usually is not enough chemical in the air to kill humans, but it’s absolutely releasing toxic fumes, and I don’t know that we heal from the damage they inflict. Maybe if you burned enough pans, it’d be deadly to you. I stopped using them because an overheated pan will kill our birds in seconds, and they’re really not needed. I cook eggs in cast iron all the time. I’ve read about concerns of PTFE poisoning from flakes, too, which are super common because some people fucking love to use metal utensils on their non-stick cookware. Long story short, you’re definitely getting toxic chemicals sent to your home. The level of exposure seems variable based on your use.
- moffkalast 3y ago
coffeefirst 3y ago
The problem is there's a historical record of the companies withholding or burying evidence when they find it. It's happened enough times that it's entirely understandable for the public to be a little jumpy.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
loupol 3y ago
PFAS non-sticking cookware is quite deadly for pet birds[0]. Teflon themselves have an article acknowledging it[1]. Now I know that our respiratory systems are much more resilient than those of birds, but out of precaution I'd still rather not be the one to test the long-term effects of cooking with those on humans. [0] https://www.allaboutparrots.com/cookware-parrot-safe/ https://www.allaboutparrots.com/cookware-parrot-safe/ [1] https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware-bakeware/safety/bird-safety https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware...
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  Chocolate (Theobromine), Coffee (caffeine) and Candies (Xylitol) can kill a dog [0]. That doesn't indicate that they are bad for humans, so I would be careful to draw conclusions. It is called "canary in the coal mine" because birds are extremely sensitive to gases, luckily we aren't. [0] https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/ss/slideshow-foods-your-dog-should-never-eat https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/ss/slideshow-foods-your-dog-...
  - betenoire 3y ago
    Don't forget that the canary in the coal mine is signal that you are about to get it, too.
    - edejong 3y ago
      On point
    - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
      How often did you have chocolate poisoning? The point is to have an early warning in a situation where gas concentration potentially increases from harmless to dangerous levels, as in a mine shaft, where ventilation is limited. Something that is harmful in low doses to a bird isn't necessarily so to us, until it is too late, which makes the bird useful as an early warning signaller so people can get out early when the dose is still harmless and thus not easily detectable. Thus the saying "the dose makes the poison".
HPsquared 3y ago
Ironic that there are a lot of criticisms of PFAS, but they don't seem to stick.
sophacles 3y ago
Perhaps after decades of being told "trust us, these random concoctions we whipped up in the lab are perfectly safe, we spent 30s thinking of how this might instantly kill you and didn't come up with anything, therefore they are harmless" only to find out later that they cause major problems, people are finally starting to do the sane thing and not trust the shockingly stupid position of "prove harm or we'll permeate the world with it, actual consequences be damned". It's less some new finding about the specific compounds and more a shift in default position.
frognumber 3y ago
> But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Could PFAS concerns be partly some kind of enviro-moral panic? I will tell you what scares me: - I think covid has maybe a 10-20% chance of leaving a large portion of the population partially disabled (with small but significant effects like lead) - We have new diseases coming out all the time. This is pretty new, and specific to humans living with the density and travel we have today. Most serious human diseases are <10,000 years old. I think this is >20% risk. - I think PFAS are also in a 10-20% chance range. - I think there are a half-dozen similar things currently in the environment. - Toss in some reasonable probability for biological superweapons (which can now be made at many university labs by a clever undergrade). - Add in thermonuclear war, which was very possible during the cold war, and seems increasingly possible now. - Global warming. I think it's overblown, and I'd also toss it in the same 10-20% range of being a civilization-ending crisis. - AI apocalypse ... and so on. Modern humans have been around for (big-O) 100,000 years. Prior to 200 years, we had zero ways to cripple or end or all human life (or all life) on the planet. Today, we have literally dozens. I don't think any individual one is that likely, but I am increasingly concerned that we might have reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter I'd like for us to invest the resources to take each of these seriously and address them. That's really where I'd like a big chunk of my tax dollars spent. Right now, we're spending big-O zero resources on serious crisis mitigation. FEMA is maybe 0.01% of our GDP. That's not really a fair way of looking at it, since military, CDC, etc. aren't part of FEMA, and play similar roles, but the point is that I'd like us to have a holistic infrastructure for: - understanding risks - mitigating them - having big projects to eliminate them (like we had with getting rid of many diseases like smallbox a half-century ago) - leading and coordinating globally - having food stores, medical supplies, shelters, and access local manufacturing capacity - having emergency capacity (e.g. producing all the artillery shells Ukraine needs, or all the respirators we thought we needed during the acute phase of covid). ... and so on. If that takes up 10-30% of our GDP, I think that's money well-spent. I actually don't think that would take that big of an increase in spending, since a lot of our existing capacity could be generalized. For example, the military could train for a lot of domestic disaster relief and coordination as well. We could give small subsidies to e.g. manufacturing plants if they maintain more general capacity and excess capacity. Etc.
throwpfas 3y ago
My sister's kids both have birth defects on the eyes - my father worked at Dupont in research at the time (n=3? Or just coincidence?) Sorry, but it's quite obvious that data has been thrown under the rug systematically.
samstave 3y ago
Watch the documentary The Devil We Know about TEFLON and DUPONT/DOW. Its disturbing to say the least. - Here is my own personal theory based on observations through travelling a lot in South East Asia ; There are a lot of pesticides and fertilizers that are over-used in rural famring areas of the china, philippines, malasia, thailand, laos, myanmar etc... These chemicals "turn the frogs gay" - while seen as a 'conspiracy' trope - the fact is that the endocrine systems of mammals amphibians and (perhaps) reptiles are impacted heavily due to these chemicals. The reason why we see a f-ton of "lady-boys" in places like thailand, philippines and other rural asian communities where rice is the staple of not only the diet - but a large part of the economy (the philippines has a national rice management department as they state that its the right of every family to have rice on the table (source, my ex-brother-in-law worked for this department)... we see that in the rice paddies they advertise which pesticides/fertilizers they are using, and they are coaxed into over-use of the chemicals... These leech into the aqua-sphere and it affects the endocrine systems of the pregnant, young and developing people... It results in a switch from high testosterone to higher estrogenic development, which results in more femininely expression in males...
- BaculumMeumEst 3y ago
  I see that over the course of your travels, you developed quite an interest in southeast Asian ladyboys. Would you say you’re now an authority on the matter? Do you plan to continue your research?
  - samstave 3y ago
    My interest on chemicals and how they affect the human endocrine systems is important, so rather than being a flippant ass - GFYS.
- rdedev 3y ago
  So there are a lot of Asian countries that eat rice everyday. Including india. I can't even try to come up with anything in those countries that comes close to what's there in Thailand or Philippines. Assuming everything you said is true your last sentence about how hormone production somehow switches. That needs to be backed up by some source. It's a big leap in conclusion if those fertilizers you talk about does not mimic estrogen
jvans 3y ago
Besides being false, the problem with making the scientific certainty the bar for whether to ban these chemicals is that the default action is to keep them, harming people for decades before science catches up. The bar should be for proving safety, not proving harm
cykotic 3y ago
Wouldn't it be better from a public policy point of view to ban the use of PFAS (and other such chemicals) until they demonstrate that it is safe?
autokad 3y ago
yeah, I grown immune to media's "this thing is secretly killing you! and we dont know much about it!" We are stressing over so much crap that may have some impact on our lives, but there are huge 'low hanging fruit' that make it inconsequential. like inactivity and too much sugar.
hedora 3y ago
> Clearly we need more research This phrase sets of the same alarm bells for me as “think of the children”. It was the main argument made by proponents of tobacco, climate change, asbestos, artificial sweeteners, trans fats, HFCS, DDT, etc, etc. There has been strong evidence that PFAS causes severe health issues since at least the mid 1990’s. People can always use weasel words like “some studies show there may be a correlation” (and leave out the p=99.99999 from the cited studies). Here’s a present-day example for DDT, over 50 years after it was banned: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-...
emeril 3y ago
I'm more concerned re: chemical sunscreens entering the bloodstream I get the impression this hasn't been studied enough and likely won't be anytime soon

myshpa 3y ago

The ceaseless proliferation of polluting substances like forever chemicals, plastics, and pesticides stands as an unequivocal testament to humanity's reckless disregard for the wellbeing of our planet and its inhabitants.

ethbr1 3y ago
The ceaseless increased economic output of the world has lifted billions out of poverty and allowed us to sustain the current world population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File%3AWorld_Population_Prospects.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File... Are there consequences? Absolutely! Were the benefits or costs greater? Now that's a more interesting question.
- okeuro49 3y ago
  Can I have the growth please without chemists putting microplastic beads in my toothpaste.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    No. Would you prefer less growth or fewer microplastics?
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      I would prefer you stop equating the two.
    - okeuro49 3y ago
      Is that the same growth that was contingent on lead in paint and CFCs in the atmosphere?
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Are you saying lead paint doesn't have economic and material advantages over non-lead paint? Hint: it does. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/why-use-lead-in-paint/3004319.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/why-use-lead-in-paint/30... Or CFCs over replacement fluoropolymers? Replacements which, circling back to the OP, may be decomposing into persistent organic chemicals. https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/CFC-replacements-source-persistent-organic/98/web/2020/05 https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/CFC-re... Sometimes you get something for free, but more often you're trading something in exchange for it (at minimum, cost). Maybe it's a valid trade-off, maybe not. But ignoring the consequences on both options is an incomplete comparison.

cph123 3y ago

https://archive.ph/Yn2K1 https://archive.ph/Yn2K1

ycombinete 3y ago

Just try to buy an electric kettle that doesn't have plastic, or silicon, in contact with the boiling water. They are few and far between!

jes 3y ago
Can you say a little bit about the possible risks from hot silicon being in contact with the water? I have not heard of this before.
- dealuromanet 3y ago
  Plastics leeching toxic chemicals/compounds into food and water, especially when being heated, is a known thing. It's especially bad for the endocrine system. The disruption to the hormonal balance is noticeably affecting people.
  - lumb63 3y ago
    I was under the impression that silicon-based substances were not plastic.
    - dealuromanet 3y ago
      Parent probably intended to say silicone, which is a plastic polymer. Silicone rings are commonly used even in stainless steel kettles or glass bottles for sealing the cap or lid.
      - lumb63 3y ago
        In case anyone else also meant silicone and thought it was not a plastic, some research turned this up: https://lifewithoutplastic.com/silicone/ https://lifewithoutplastic.com/silicone/
        sarchertech 3y ago

daneel_w 3y ago

Foreverywhere Chemicals.

unglaublich 3y ago
+ Foreveryone Chemicals.

Madmallard 3y ago

I remember looking at a friend's chemistry textbook and it said something like there are 500,000 unregulated chemicals currently in industrial use. How we are not more screwed up metabolically is actually somewhat surprising to me. We didn't evolve to metabolize and tolerate these chemicals. So they just disrupt homeostasis of the organism and even the environment. This is the ultra smart animal version of exponential growth killing off its own species

hoppyhoppy2 3y ago

Gift Article link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/magazine/pfas-toxic-chemicals.html?unlocked_article_code=GByENmXy1CWg_ylsVbAgHXUZrarydbJchEhHqZWDGGzED6ZTxpqax5eqSGYesC8-fFrkV93FCa8FggsziYUvAahMle3qKzTV0bplaFFjGuteN44GM_S9OaM0fnsMFL4FmdZpkRUglhqzDVZuSVXcLyy7oS1bmt9InZNodL5Ody2nuavXaYbqdREbeTuyDRFm69rVWE33Y3UPIi6DvUMsyq7ZFC8FvTKy-RIzpQrR7yyMnYKcO9BjMZyIvWBQh7Z9WTWDEcqlo4nAMr9mnyeLTkiGJSnnMB33V24wpms27Opgw3mbh1ULOc5OzZxLZtgMDRWCHWqM1glf1slXHJO1&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/magazine/pfas-toxic-chemi...

bilsbie 3y ago

Is there a good way to test for these at home?

quartz 3y ago
If you don't need a certification on the results then cyclopure[1] is probably the best bet for reasonably priced testing. I live in NYC and had the state do lead testing and cyclopure do PFAS testing. Was very happy to have both come back clean / zero detection. [1] https://cyclopure.com/product/water-test-kit-pro/ https://cyclopure.com/product/water-test-kit-pro/

hannasanarion 3y ago

The "Chemical Hunger" hypothesis suggests that PFAS are a prime candidate for triggering the obesity epidemic. They started being introduced to the environment in large quantities just as obesity rates started to rise in the late 70s and 80s, the health effects are poorly understood but seem to have an impact on weight and the endocrine system, and they can be carried downstream (obesity rates are globally higher at lower altitudes). The other best candidate is lithium grease, which has the same distributional attributes but has also been proven to increase weight and explains some of the occupational discrepancies in obesity. https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p...

polalavik 3y ago
Interesting, but i'd really like to see some figures on fast food growth in the 70s onwards. Not only growth in fast food, but some sort of metric of quality of ingredients (probably doesnt exist).
- hannasanarion 3y ago
  People are quick to blame fast food, but it doesn't really make sense. Fast food is as old as society, before there was hamburgers there was fish and chips, waffles, pies, pastries, fried chicken, doner, kebab, and curry, many of which can be more calorie-dense than modern fast food burgers. Ready-to-eat food restaurants were even common in ancient rome, and drive-thru burger chains blew into the mainstream in the 1920s and 1930s, but obesity didn't start rising until the 70s and 80s. It's not like sweets and calorie-dense foods were rare before the reagan administration. Just look at an old cookbook, tons of sugar and fat everywhere. Despite the availability of calorie-dense foods many people struggled to raise their weight above 23 BMI because their bodies naturally made them eat fewer calories, to the point that most weight-management pharmaseuticals were geared towards helping people gain weight. You can't explain that with fast food and food culture alone.
csours 3y ago
As an alternative, there is no one single cause of the obesity epidemic. People are made of confounding factors, and the world is very complicated. The world does not owe you simple explanations. Two books have helped me understand the obesity epidemic: Burn by Pontzer - https://www.amazon.com/Burn/dp/0241388422 https://www.amazon.com/Burn/dp/0241388422 Podcast about above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CSNS45RJL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CSNS45RJL0 Hungry Brain by Guyenet - https://www.amazon.com/Hungry-Brain-Outsmarting-Instincts-Overeat/dp/125008119X https://www.amazon.com/Hungry-Brain-Outsmarting-Instincts-Ov... Podcast about above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWriMdYuKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWriMdYuKk

kalium-xyz 3y ago

Fluoride bonds are very very strong, and I imagine the chemist who came up with teflon must have pitched it with: “this coating will last forever”

londons_explore 3y ago

Ethics teams would never let you conduct a scientific study of giving some unknown chemical in the food and water of unknowing people to see what effect it had on them. But if you do it anyway and don't record the results, then it isn't a study, so you don't even need to ask the ethics panel!

huthuthike 3y ago
Most importantly, if you make a lot of money doing it while not recording the results, then it is legitimized.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Don't forget to do a 2 week study on 6 rats, prove that none of the 6 rats die, and then send those results off to the government to get the chemical approved for use in everything. Then, if later it does cause harm, you can shield yourself behind the fact you were just following government guidelines and the government approved it.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Title was ‘Forever Chemicals’ Are Everywhere. What Are They Doing to Us? ?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JCM9 3y ago

The PFAS situation is at an annoying crossroads of 1) we have tests that can detect it at super low levels, so we’re finding it everywhere. 2) We don’t have great ways to clean it up, and 3) We don’t really know what concentration of this stuff is actually dangerous. Thus everyone is freaking out but without a clear plan or knowledge of it we should be hiding under the covers or not. On the toxicity, standard table salt is extremely toxic you if you eat enough in one go. So the challenge is not “is it toxic” but rather at what quantities and over what exposure. Thus these studies along the lines of “we fed some lab animals a ton of this stuff and they died” aren’t super useful in figuring out if we have a big problem or not. I’m all for taking a cautious approach here given the unknown unknowns, but like a lot of emerging science the truth is it’s messy and takes time to figure things out. This public and press are not well equipped to navigate and communicate on that reality.

qwerty456127 3y ago

This obviously is an interesting subject useful to study, yet I take it philosophically: both life expectancy and health span are much bigger nowadays than when we had no PFAS so practically PFAS are Okay.

tikkun 3y ago

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36509752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36509752

benvolio 3y ago

A relatively comprehensive look into PFAS can be gained by reading the Draft state of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) report published by Health Canada. [1] The Existing Substances Risk Assessment Bureau at Health Canada (which assesses risks of chemicals that are in commerce in Canada), is increasingly moving towards new analysis techniques broadly characterized as New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) (see section 6.2.5 and 7.6 in the report). So, to my understanding, part of the apparent gap in research is being plugged by the application of models which infer chemicals properties, interactions, and effects without needing to study each of them individually to gain at least an initial idea of how they might harm organisms and environments. See: > The evolving landscape of chemical production has rendered toxicological testing using traditional models (i.e., live animals) impractical, and advances in science coupled with ethical concerns have resulted in government agencies, including the United States (US EPA 2021b), European Union, and Canada (Bhuller et al. 2021), committing to reduce, refine, and potentially eliminate the use of mammalian models from certain regulatory testing requirements, where scientifically justified. New approach methodologies (NAMs) are broadly described by the international risk assessment community as any technology, method, approach, or a combination of these that can be used to reduce, refine, or replace animal testing and allow more rapid and effective screening of chemicals. These methods may include the use of computer models or assays with biological molecules, cells, tissues, or organs as well as exposure measurement approaches. [1] [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/draft-state-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-report.html https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services... P.S. CTRL+F "Health effects" in that report to get a cursory idea of the risks. Source: worked as a data analyst at the Existing Substances Risk Assessment Bureau

sharts 3y ago

"By 1965, DuPont had indication that PFAS increased the liver and kidney weight of rats. In the late ’70s and early ’80s, the companies were seeing alarming signals in their animal studies — in one study, monkeys exposed to extreme levels of PFAS died — and among their employees. In 1979, DuPont observed that workers who had contact with the chemicals appeared to have higher rates of abnormal liver function." So, in other words we've known since BEFORE we landed on the moon and, still, nobody cares. Scientists will study this while nothing changes and then perhaps some treatments will be released at exorbitant cost (of course, sighting the research and development costs of the treatment as the reason without any acknowledgement of costs to the people for unwittingly being exposed to this garbage in the first place). Are we even making forward progress as a civilization anymore?