3 ms·

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 (

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.

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.