9 ms·

I'm a bit confused here. These are recognized as being harmful. It's written all over the msds for these. What is the real change that is going to occur? I re

by chaxor 3y ago

I'm a bit confused here. These are recognized as being harmful. It's written all over the msds for these. What is the real change that is going to occur? I remember dealing with these substances in tiny quantities in the lab, and they were treated as carefully as cholorosifonic super acids. A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. One problem is making methods that can detect waste streams at under ppt levels, which is pretty difficult, but that's the best effort for dealing with these substances at the moment.

staplers 3y ago
What is the real change that is going to occur? Likely a bureaucratic formality that will force private entities to follow certain procedures.
throwaway920102 3y ago
> A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways. Because of the "forever", small amounts add up, perpetually and over time could become not-small amounts.
- naremu 3y ago
  > could become not-small amounts. Let's not get too relaxed here. There's gigantic masses of plastic all over the world that would like to say that anything mass produced and cumulative "WILL become 'not-small' amounts".
- pdonis 3y ago
  So what is the impact of this proposed EPA ruling on ordinary people disposing of ordinary household items like those you describe? Will we all need to have hazmat plants installed in our sewage lines? Will we no longer be able to wash our clothes in washing machines? Will we have to segregate all our trash and pay for our community to have a hazmat disposal truck come around along with the regular trash truck?
  - daveguy 3y ago
    No. No. And Maybe. Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or just disengenuously attacking regulatory agencies. If you're legitimately concerned, I apologize. On the bright side, you can rest easy.
    - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
      This is assuming the EPA still exists in a year, which I'm giving 50/50 odds.
      - cogman10 3y ago
        It'll still exist, however, it's powers will be reduced to nothing with the death of Chevron deference in June. This PFAs decision would be a prime example of something the EPA won't be able to regulate without a new congressional bill approving it.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. Is this actual knowledge or just a prediction? > If you're legitimately concerned I am, but not just about the impact on me personally. I'm more generally concerned about whether the actual costs of such a regulation will be less than the actual benefits.
      - daveguy 3y ago
        It's knowledge. What current regulations require city hazmat vehicles? That was the only remotely plausible impact-to-consumer. Can you name any EPA regulations that affect consumers in any way remotely similar to your original post? Seems taking your fluorescents and lead based batteries to specialized recycle is about it on the consumer side. Personally I'm happy to do that to prevent poisoning my kids and my neighbor. Also happy for industry to identify safer alternative products. Please free yourself from the libertarian fever dream.
  - 3y ago
- mtsr 3y ago
  There’s no could about it. Dutch food advisory is already to limit eating fish to once a week because of PFAS. And eggs from chickens kept in your own yard are considered unsafe to eat, in a pretty big area. Unless you want to have them tested regularly at ~€600 each time.
- timr 3y ago
  > Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? No, because that's not true. Teflon (the substance used widely in waterproof goods and food packaging) is not the same thing as PFAS [1] (which is actually not one thing, but a whole class of things). Teflon is PTFE [2], which is different. The terminology being casually flung around this issue is misleading. Certain PFAS types were used in the manufacture of PTFE (specifically Perfluorooctanoic acid [3]) which is the actual answer to GPs question -- this is primarily an issue of industrial concern. PFOA is far more reactive than PTFE, which is one of the most inert substances known to man. You can't just group these chemicals together in the bucket of "things that have fluoride polymers" and panic about all of them. We regularly put teflon parts in humans, because they don't react with anything. Proving harm here is an incredibly high bar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#/media/File:Perfluorooctanesulfonic_acid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
  - User3456335 3y ago
    PTFE is literally the first example mentioned in the Sample chemicals section of the wiki of PFAS, which you linked. Regardless of your views on whether Teflon is harmful, your comment contains misinformation. Teflon/PTFE is PFAS according to the OECD definition and the Wiki page. Your point regarding whether all PFAS is harmful may very well be interesting but cannot be taken seriously if it is accompanied by blatant misinformation.
    - timr 3y ago
      They list it as a "perfluroalkyl substance", which is exactly what I'm saying is wrong -- Teflon is nothing like the other substances, if only in that it isn't water soluble (it's more than that, but just for starters). You can't just group everything together under that category and claim they're all the same. These are ontological games played by people who either don't understand chemistry, want to scare people, are themselves irrationally scared, or have some other motivation for drawing the broadest possible definition of "PFAS". If you don't understand the argument someone is making and have to rely on the verbatim language in a wikipedia article, you should probably resist the urge the label things "misinformation". Instead, just say "I don't like/agree with what you're saying", which is really what you mean.
hanniabu 3y ago
> What is the real change that is going to occur? The EPA pretend like there's accountability

by chaxor 3y ago

staplers 3y ago

What is the real change that is going to occur? Likely a bureaucratic formality that will force private entities to follow certain procedures.

throwaway920102 3y ago

> A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways. Because of the "forever", small amounts add up, perpetually and over time could become not-small amounts.

naremu 3y ago
> could become not-small amounts. Let's not get too relaxed here. There's gigantic masses of plastic all over the world that would like to say that anything mass produced and cumulative "WILL become 'not-small' amounts".
pdonis 3y ago
So what is the impact of this proposed EPA ruling on ordinary people disposing of ordinary household items like those you describe? Will we all need to have hazmat plants installed in our sewage lines? Will we no longer be able to wash our clothes in washing machines? Will we have to segregate all our trash and pay for our community to have a hazmat disposal truck come around along with the regular trash truck?
- daveguy 3y ago
  No. No. And Maybe. Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or just disengenuously attacking regulatory agencies. If you're legitimately concerned, I apologize. On the bright side, you can rest easy.
  - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
    This is assuming the EPA still exists in a year, which I'm giving 50/50 odds.
    - cogman10 3y ago
      It'll still exist, however, it's powers will be reduced to nothing with the death of Chevron deference in June. This PFAs decision would be a prime example of something the EPA won't be able to regulate without a new congressional bill approving it.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. Is this actual knowledge or just a prediction? > If you're legitimately concerned I am, but not just about the impact on me personally. I'm more generally concerned about whether the actual costs of such a regulation will be less than the actual benefits.
    - daveguy 3y ago
      It's knowledge. What current regulations require city hazmat vehicles? That was the only remotely plausible impact-to-consumer. Can you name any EPA regulations that affect consumers in any way remotely similar to your original post? Seems taking your fluorescents and lead based batteries to specialized recycle is about it on the consumer side. Personally I'm happy to do that to prevent poisoning my kids and my neighbor. Also happy for industry to identify safer alternative products. Please free yourself from the libertarian fever dream.
- 3y ago
mtsr 3y ago
There’s no could about it. Dutch food advisory is already to limit eating fish to once a week because of PFAS. And eggs from chickens kept in your own yard are considered unsafe to eat, in a pretty big area. Unless you want to have them tested regularly at ~€600 each time.
timr 3y ago
> Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? No, because that's not true. Teflon (the substance used widely in waterproof goods and food packaging) is not the same thing as PFAS [1] (which is actually not one thing, but a whole class of things). Teflon is PTFE [2], which is different. The terminology being casually flung around this issue is misleading. Certain PFAS types were used in the manufacture of PTFE (specifically Perfluorooctanoic acid [3]) which is the actual answer to GPs question -- this is primarily an issue of industrial concern. PFOA is far more reactive than PTFE, which is one of the most inert substances known to man. You can't just group these chemicals together in the bucket of "things that have fluoride polymers" and panic about all of them. We regularly put teflon parts in humans, because they don't react with anything. Proving harm here is an incredibly high bar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#/media/File:Perfluorooctanesulfonic_acid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
- User3456335 3y ago
  PTFE is literally the first example mentioned in the Sample chemicals section of the wiki of PFAS, which you linked. Regardless of your views on whether Teflon is harmful, your comment contains misinformation. Teflon/PTFE is PFAS according to the OECD definition and the Wiki page. Your point regarding whether all PFAS is harmful may very well be interesting but cannot be taken seriously if it is accompanied by blatant misinformation.
  - timr 3y ago
    They list it as a "perfluroalkyl substance", which is exactly what I'm saying is wrong -- Teflon is nothing like the other substances, if only in that it isn't water soluble (it's more than that, but just for starters). You can't just group everything together under that category and claim they're all the same. These are ontological games played by people who either don't understand chemistry, want to scare people, are themselves irrationally scared, or have some other motivation for drawing the broadest possible definition of "PFAS". If you don't understand the argument someone is making and have to rely on the verbatim language in a wikipedia article, you should probably resist the urge the label things "misinformation". Instead, just say "I don't like/agree with what you're saying", which is really what you mean.

hanniabu 3y ago

> What is the real change that is going to occur? The EPA pretend like there's accountability