9 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- throwaway920102 3y ago
  In an ideal world, manufacturers would begin to phase out the use of PFAS as waterproofing, which many already are. An alternative would be Nikwax, waxed canvas, or polyurethenate-coatings or TPU coatings. These alternatives are already used in many goods! For containers (not wearables), you can get aluminum, stainless steel, TI, or glass waterproof cans and jars and bottles that have threaded, screw on caps with silicone o-rings to create watertight seals. For outdoor goods like backpacks or bags that you want to stay waterproof, I personally recommend PU and TPU coated drybags. For clothing like pants or shirts, I'd recommend opting for non-water-resistant/non-waterproof versions, and just buy an umbrella or raincoat with a PU or TPU coating to shield you rather than trying to wear clothing that will have water bead. Waxed canvas clothing is another option but it can be heavy. Cool if you are into it though, Fjallraven is famous for it, as is Filson. I don't think you'll be too sad if your disposable food packaging gets a little soggier. You'll probably be a little more sad if you get cancer :( So over time, hopefully you own fewer and fewer goods that are destroying the planet! Happy friday. Eg: https://www.polartec.com/news/polartec-announces-full-use-of-non-pfas-dwr-treatments https://www.polartec.com/news/polartec-announces-full-use-of... https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/06/pfas-toxic-forever-chemicals-manufacturers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/06/pfas-tox...
  - sneak 3y ago
    In an ideal world they'd immediately cease use of them, not "begin to phase out".
    - mlrtime 3y ago
      If we're making up hypotheticals, wouldn't the ideal world be not to have ever used them?
    - jaredhallen 3y ago
      Immediately ceasing use without suitable replacements would cause a non-trivial amount of economic and social disruption. I'm not sure I'd consider that ideal.
- marshray 3y ago
  > 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? We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos. The superficial answer: Yes, there are indeed times when human screwups necessitate hazmat disposal trucks in residential areas. The deeper answer: The optimal solution to a compounding problem is not to politicize it with absurd rhetoric. It is to stop whatever's feeding into the compounding as quickly as possible. Because that is the only reliable way to reduce the long term costs that you'll ultimately have to pay.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos. Indeed we could. And the answer we would find is that no, such requirements were not generally imposed on ordinary homeowners, but on manufacturers and construction firms, in the form of requirements not to use asbestos in future projects and to be forced to undertake remediation efforts when asbestos was found at an existing side that needed to be modified. And we would also find that, as a result, many of those same homeowners ended up with long term health issues from asbestos exposure because they were never informed of the risks or given any feasible way to mitigate them. Nor was any cost benefit calculation done in either case (homeowners or manufacturers/construction firms) to see whether the policy that was actually adopted could reasonably be argued to be a fair tradeoff. Here at least we are being informed of the (claimed) risk. But there is still no cost benefit analysis being done that I can see.
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.

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.
throwaway920102 3y ago
In an ideal world, manufacturers would begin to phase out the use of PFAS as waterproofing, which many already are. An alternative would be Nikwax, waxed canvas, or polyurethenate-coatings or TPU coatings. These alternatives are already used in many goods! For containers (not wearables), you can get aluminum, stainless steel, TI, or glass waterproof cans and jars and bottles that have threaded, screw on caps with silicone o-rings to create watertight seals. For outdoor goods like backpacks or bags that you want to stay waterproof, I personally recommend PU and TPU coated drybags. For clothing like pants or shirts, I'd recommend opting for non-water-resistant/non-waterproof versions, and just buy an umbrella or raincoat with a PU or TPU coating to shield you rather than trying to wear clothing that will have water bead. Waxed canvas clothing is another option but it can be heavy. Cool if you are into it though, Fjallraven is famous for it, as is Filson. I don't think you'll be too sad if your disposable food packaging gets a little soggier. You'll probably be a little more sad if you get cancer :( So over time, hopefully you own fewer and fewer goods that are destroying the planet! Happy friday. Eg: https://www.polartec.com/news/polartec-announces-full-use-of-non-pfas-dwr-treatments https://www.polartec.com/news/polartec-announces-full-use-of... https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/06/pfas-toxic-forever-chemicals-manufacturers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/06/pfas-tox...
- sneak 3y ago
  In an ideal world they'd immediately cease use of them, not "begin to phase out".
  - mlrtime 3y ago
    If we're making up hypotheticals, wouldn't the ideal world be not to have ever used them?
  - jaredhallen 3y ago
    Immediately ceasing use without suitable replacements would cause a non-trivial amount of economic and social disruption. I'm not sure I'd consider that ideal.
marshray 3y ago
> 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? We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos. The superficial answer: Yes, there are indeed times when human screwups necessitate hazmat disposal trucks in residential areas. The deeper answer: The optimal solution to a compounding problem is not to politicize it with absurd rhetoric. It is to stop whatever's feeding into the compounding as quickly as possible. Because that is the only reliable way to reduce the long term costs that you'll ultimately have to pay.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos. Indeed we could. And the answer we would find is that no, such requirements were not generally imposed on ordinary homeowners, but on manufacturers and construction firms, in the form of requirements not to use asbestos in future projects and to be forced to undertake remediation efforts when asbestos was found at an existing side that needed to be modified. And we would also find that, as a result, many of those same homeowners ended up with long term health issues from asbestos exposure because they were never informed of the risks or given any feasible way to mitigate them. Nor was any cost benefit calculation done in either case (homeowners or manufacturers/construction firms) to see whether the policy that was actually adopted could reasonably be argued to be a fair tradeoff. Here at least we are being informed of the (claimed) risk. But there is still no cost benefit analysis being done that I can see.

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.