8 ms·

Water repellent clothing and PFAS – are they a danger?

62 points by adomasm3 3y ago

PreInternet01 3y ago
TL;DR: No, at least not by skin contact, although you may ingest PFAS in your drinking water later on, caused by the washing of said clothing. Whether PFAS is (/are?) truly bad for you is still TBD, although the chances of this being an 'asbestos' situation are uncomfortably high.
- adrianN 3y ago
  PFAS are so common that it’s unlikely that they’re as bad as asbestos. They probably aren’t more dangerous than leaded gasoline.
  - revscat 3y ago
    I would not feel comfortable, making such a statement. There is plenty of evidence out there, that they mess with our endocrine system, and are perhaps responsible for the obesity crisis in some part. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/pfass-chemicals-environment-body-weight/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/pfass-chemi...
    - networkchad 3y ago
      [dead]
    - viknesh 3y ago
      Wouldn't another explanation of the result be that eating more calories is correlated with ingesting more PFAS?
    - troyvit 3y ago
      I'd also add that even though asbestos is awful and dangerous, it is a) still everywhere and b) still being made and imported into the US [1]. I guess my point being that even if PFAS are as terrible as asbestos that's not enough to keep us from continuing to produce it. [1] https://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/statistics-facts/ https://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/statistics-facts/
    - adrianN 3y ago
      There is also plenty of evidence that lead is very bad but one can be exposed for decades with effects that only show up in epidemiological studies. Asbestos on the other hand is dangerous enough that one unsafe remodeling job has a good chance of giving you cancer.
  - __alexs 3y ago
    > They probably aren’t more dangerous than leaded gasoline. You've heard of the Lead-Crime Hypothesis right?
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    That's a pretty low bar, both of those are massive health crises, that we may not fully understand the extent of yet. Moreover, it took us a really really long time to realize how dangerous they were- so they are a good example that extremely dangerous things can still take a long time to isolate... especially when the exposure is fairly widespread and we can't isolate/control to study it.
trebligdivad 3y ago
The HN title is a bit misleading; the article is mostly about washing the clothing rather than wearing it.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  Actual title: "Water repellent clothing and PFAS - are they a danger to us?"
- dang 3y ago
  Thanks - I've reverted the title now (minus the "to us" as I don't know who else they'd be a danger to). Submitted title was "Does wearing waterproof clothing increase PFAS in our bodies?". Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - adomasm3 3y ago
    thanks for the note. It used to say "to us" meaning us humans. PFAS is potentially also a danger to the other nature ecosystems.
- adomasm3 3y ago
  The article briefly mentions exposure from touching (wearing) DWR clothing - appears to be 700x lower than washing.
_yb2s 3y ago
Disappointing that the TL;DR doesn't address the title question. As a backpacker and a sailor, I strongly feel that DWR/Gore-Tex stuff is garbage anyways- it's (only slightly) breathable when new, but when the coating wears after a few weeks or months, or gets dirty it becomes no longer hydrophobic, and the water sheets on completely blocking the pores. This leads to zero breathability like a sheet of plastic, yet they usually also manage to leak water in constant all day heavy rains or ocean spray. The gore-tex membrane inside is very fragile and becomes ripped and unglued pretty rapidly, in places you cannot see- you don't know until you are counting on it, and it fails. Two vastly superior alternatives that are PFAS free, much cheaper, more durable, more waterproof, and already on the shelf at most major outdoor stores: * Polyurethane coated polyester raincoats, e.g. by Helley-Hansen cost about $100 USD new, and are more durable and waterproof than DWR/Nylon/Gore-Tex. Zero breathability (just like Gore-Tex in practice!) but because designers know this, they have excellent vents added, with waterproof zippers to close in extreme weather. Although they look similar, these are much better than your standard cheap PVC raincoat. I use these for sailing and stay bone dry with waves crashing over my body all day long. * Membrane only jackets (membrane on the outside) such as Columbia OutDry. Because the surface material is fundamentally hydrophobic, they need no PFAS DWR coating, and stay waterproof and breathable even when dirty or aged. Only about $150 new. // Edit: a third great option is PFAS free Nikwax brand waterproofing you can apply yourself to almost any garment. I've personally only used this on tents and car convertible tops, but it worked great.
- PreInternet01 3y ago
  Well, I'm really old and also (for probably unrelated reasons) really dumb, but for me Gore-Tex has been an absolute revelation. Whereas previously, rain gear was heavy and had a very limited lifetime, anything with the magic GORE-TEX (sorry for the all-caps, but that is the trademark...) label actually worked and lasted pretty much forever (like PFAS, I get it now, but still...). I'm sure that PE-coated and membrane-only gear are also really great, and I'll definitely check them out the next time I need a new softshell, but for the next decade or so, I'm also sure my current jacket will be just fine. But, Nikwax? Nope... good for the outside layer of shoes (with the inside layer taking care of heat/moisture), but that's really about it. Tents, maybe, car-tops, no idea, but for garments that's just a no-go, since it will all but eliminate outgoing heat transfer.
cncc 3y ago
> Finally aspartame is proven to cause cancer mmm... no "IARC classifies aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B), based on limited evidence it might cause cancer (specifically liver cancer) in people. IARC also notes there is limited evidence for cancer in lab animals and limited evidence related to possible mechanisms for it causing cancer." https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/aspartame.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/aspa...
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  With all the attention it's gotten, and some really great explanations of how it's metabolized, I suspect we could safely say aspartame is safer than sugar.
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    That's not a very good conclusion to draw
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Ensorceled 3y ago
      Why not? Sugar seems to be, at least partially, causing a LOT of health issues right now.
      - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
        Sounds like we're just trading a known evil for an unknown one
        Ensorceled 3y ago
        We literally just established that sugar is a known evil and aspartame is probably not.
droopyEyelids 3y ago
This raises a question i see a lot of confusion about, but doesnt quite answer it: Are finished PTFE products contaminated with the base PFAS monomers? Its like how vinyl chloride is dangerous, but when its the polymer PVC its basically safe. People are confused about this in general. I am too.
- amluto 3y ago
  The monomer is tetrafluoroethylene, which is a gas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrafluoroethylene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrafluoroethylene As I understand it, the three concerns are: 1. The manufacturing and processing of PTFE is usually done in water with a fluorosurfactant mixed in. The fluorosurfactant varies from nasty to extremely nasty. 2. PTFE could potentially degrade into something less benign than PTFE. 3. PTFE has mediocre thermal stability — it starts to decompose a bit at temperatures that you can easily reach with careless cooking and, notably, it starts to decompose while it’s still a solid. This makes any kind of theromoplastic processing (extruding, molding, etc) a bit nasty. I think the decomposition products are gasses. They are noted for killing birds and concentrations at which their presence is not obvious to mammals.
hackan 3y ago
We just can't have nice things, god damn!!
samstave 3y ago
Growing up in lake tahoe, we would spray "Scotch Guard" on tons of things, to make them 'waterproof' in winter, like all our ski gear, and even some furniture. Scotch Guard is basically 'spray teflon' and is super toxic for you, but in the 80s we were encourdaged to spray it all over the place. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/ask-ewg-why-there-teflon-clothes-it-safe https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/ask-ewg-why-there-tef...
- eecc 3y ago
  That reminds me of an occasion as a kid in the 80s, when I sprayed some kind of impermeabilizer on a jacked. I fell ill for a whole day, face glowing red, from the exposure. Might be a good idea to check if I have been exposed to some of this rubbish
  - samstave 3y ago
    You have. Watch this disturbing documentary on teflon "the devil we know" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFbsWX4MJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFbsWX4MJM
nwatson 3y ago
For another, older, weatherproofing material that was hazardous, consider tent canvas covered in paraffin thinned with gasoline: https://todayincthistory.com/2023/07/06/july-6-the-saddest-day-in-hartford-history/ https://todayincthistory.com/2023/07/06/july-6-the-saddest-d... The Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus set up in Hartford, CT and a fire broke out with a big crowd inside the big tent. 160+ people died.
- mustacheemperor 3y ago
  And when I attended scout camp (in Connecticut) our tents were all painted with block letter warnings not to bring a flame anywhere close to them because they were similarly weatherproofed. Always gave me the heebie jeebies in a campsite full of teenagers!
lacoolj 3y ago
This title needs to be changed. Don't clickbait us with a question, just tell us what is going to be proven

62 points by adomasm3 3y ago

TL;DR: No, at least not by skin contact, although you may ingest PFAS in your drinking water later on, caused by the washing of said clothing. Whether PFAS is (/are?) truly bad for you is still TBD, although the chances of this being an 'asbestos' situation are uncomfortably high.

adrianN 3y ago
PFAS are so common that it’s unlikely that they’re as bad as asbestos. They probably aren’t more dangerous than leaded gasoline.
- revscat 3y ago
  I would not feel comfortable, making such a statement. There is plenty of evidence out there, that they mess with our endocrine system, and are perhaps responsible for the obesity crisis in some part. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/pfass-chemicals-environment-body-weight/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/pfass-chemi...
  - networkchad 3y ago
    [dead]
  - viknesh 3y ago
    Wouldn't another explanation of the result be that eating more calories is correlated with ingesting more PFAS?
  - troyvit 3y ago
    I'd also add that even though asbestos is awful and dangerous, it is a) still everywhere and b) still being made and imported into the US [1]. I guess my point being that even if PFAS are as terrible as asbestos that's not enough to keep us from continuing to produce it. [1] https://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/statistics-facts/ https://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/statistics-facts/
  - adrianN 3y ago
    There is also plenty of evidence that lead is very bad but one can be exposed for decades with effects that only show up in epidemiological studies. Asbestos on the other hand is dangerous enough that one unsafe remodeling job has a good chance of giving you cancer.
- __alexs 3y ago
  > They probably aren’t more dangerous than leaded gasoline. You've heard of the Lead-Crime Hypothesis right?
- _yb2s 3y ago
  That's a pretty low bar, both of those are massive health crises, that we may not fully understand the extent of yet. Moreover, it took us a really really long time to realize how dangerous they were- so they are a good example that extremely dangerous things can still take a long time to isolate... especially when the exposure is fairly widespread and we can't isolate/control to study it.

trebligdivad 3y ago

The HN title is a bit misleading; the article is mostly about washing the clothing rather than wearing it.

CharlesW 3y ago
Actual title: "Water repellent clothing and PFAS - are they a danger to us?"
dang 3y ago
Thanks - I've reverted the title now (minus the "to us" as I don't know who else they'd be a danger to). Submitted title was "Does wearing waterproof clothing increase PFAS in our bodies?". Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- adomasm3 3y ago
  thanks for the note. It used to say "to us" meaning us humans. PFAS is potentially also a danger to the other nature ecosystems.
adomasm3 3y ago
The article briefly mentions exposure from touching (wearing) DWR clothing - appears to be 700x lower than washing.

_yb2s 3y ago

Disappointing that the TL;DR doesn't address the title question. As a backpacker and a sailor, I strongly feel that DWR/Gore-Tex stuff is garbage anyways- it's (only slightly) breathable when new, but when the coating wears after a few weeks or months, or gets dirty it becomes no longer hydrophobic, and the water sheets on completely blocking the pores. This leads to zero breathability like a sheet of plastic, yet they usually also manage to leak water in constant all day heavy rains or ocean spray. The gore-tex membrane inside is very fragile and becomes ripped and unglued pretty rapidly, in places you cannot see- you don't know until you are counting on it, and it fails. Two vastly superior alternatives that are PFAS free, much cheaper, more durable, more waterproof, and already on the shelf at most major outdoor stores: * Polyurethane coated polyester raincoats, e.g. by Helley-Hansen cost about $100 USD new, and are more durable and waterproof than DWR/Nylon/Gore-Tex. Zero breathability (just like Gore-Tex in practice!) but because designers know this, they have excellent vents added, with waterproof zippers to close in extreme weather. Although they look similar, these are much better than your standard cheap PVC raincoat. I use these for sailing and stay bone dry with waves crashing over my body all day long. * Membrane only jackets (membrane on the outside) such as Columbia OutDry. Because the surface material is fundamentally hydrophobic, they need no PFAS DWR coating, and stay waterproof and breathable even when dirty or aged. Only about $150 new. // Edit: a third great option is PFAS free Nikwax brand waterproofing you can apply yourself to almost any garment. I've personally only used this on tents and car convertible tops, but it worked great.

PreInternet01 3y ago
Well, I'm really old and also (for probably unrelated reasons) really dumb, but for me Gore-Tex has been an absolute revelation. Whereas previously, rain gear was heavy and had a very limited lifetime, anything with the magic GORE-TEX (sorry for the all-caps, but that is the trademark...) label actually worked and lasted pretty much forever (like PFAS, I get it now, but still...). I'm sure that PE-coated and membrane-only gear are also really great, and I'll definitely check them out the next time I need a new softshell, but for the next decade or so, I'm also sure my current jacket will be just fine. But, Nikwax? Nope... good for the outside layer of shoes (with the inside layer taking care of heat/moisture), but that's really about it. Tents, maybe, car-tops, no idea, but for garments that's just a no-go, since it will all but eliminate outgoing heat transfer.

cncc 3y ago

> Finally aspartame is proven to cause cancer mmm... no "IARC classifies aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B), based on limited evidence it might cause cancer (specifically liver cancer) in people. IARC also notes there is limited evidence for cancer in lab animals and limited evidence related to possible mechanisms for it causing cancer." https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/aspartame.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/aspa...

rootusrootus 3y ago
With all the attention it's gotten, and some really great explanations of how it's metabolized, I suspect we could safely say aspartame is safer than sugar.
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  That's not a very good conclusion to draw
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    Why not? Sugar seems to be, at least partially, causing a LOT of health issues right now.
    - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
      Sounds like we're just trading a known evil for an unknown one
      - Ensorceled 3y ago
        We literally just established that sugar is a known evil and aspartame is probably not.

droopyEyelids 3y ago

This raises a question i see a lot of confusion about, but doesnt quite answer it: Are finished PTFE products contaminated with the base PFAS monomers? Its like how vinyl chloride is dangerous, but when its the polymer PVC its basically safe. People are confused about this in general. I am too.

amluto 3y ago
The monomer is tetrafluoroethylene, which is a gas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrafluoroethylene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrafluoroethylene As I understand it, the three concerns are: 1. The manufacturing and processing of PTFE is usually done in water with a fluorosurfactant mixed in. The fluorosurfactant varies from nasty to extremely nasty. 2. PTFE could potentially degrade into something less benign than PTFE. 3. PTFE has mediocre thermal stability — it starts to decompose a bit at temperatures that you can easily reach with careless cooking and, notably, it starts to decompose while it’s still a solid. This makes any kind of theromoplastic processing (extruding, molding, etc) a bit nasty. I think the decomposition products are gasses. They are noted for killing birds and concentrations at which their presence is not obvious to mammals.

hackan 3y ago

We just can't have nice things, god damn!!

samstave 3y ago

Growing up in lake tahoe, we would spray "Scotch Guard" on tons of things, to make them 'waterproof' in winter, like all our ski gear, and even some furniture. Scotch Guard is basically 'spray teflon' and is super toxic for you, but in the 80s we were encourdaged to spray it all over the place. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/ask-ewg-why-there-teflon-clothes-it-safe https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/ask-ewg-why-there-tef...

eecc 3y ago
That reminds me of an occasion as a kid in the 80s, when I sprayed some kind of impermeabilizer on a jacked. I fell ill for a whole day, face glowing red, from the exposure. Might be a good idea to check if I have been exposed to some of this rubbish
- samstave 3y ago
  You have. Watch this disturbing documentary on teflon "the devil we know" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFbsWX4MJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFbsWX4MJM

nwatson 3y ago

For another, older, weatherproofing material that was hazardous, consider tent canvas covered in paraffin thinned with gasoline: https://todayincthistory.com/2023/07/06/july-6-the-saddest-day-in-hartford-history/ https://todayincthistory.com/2023/07/06/july-6-the-saddest-d... The Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus set up in Hartford, CT and a fire broke out with a big crowd inside the big tent. 160+ people died.

mustacheemperor 3y ago
And when I attended scout camp (in Connecticut) our tents were all painted with block letter warnings not to bring a flame anywhere close to them because they were similarly weatherproofed. Always gave me the heebie jeebies in a campsite full of teenagers!

lacoolj 3y ago

This title needs to be changed. Don't clickbait us with a question, just tell us what is going to be proven