6 ms·

> “For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use and release toxics like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health" Criticizing politican-speak

by timr 3y ago

> “For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use and release toxics like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health" Criticizing politican-speak about science is almost pointless, but this is a ridiculous conflation of two wildly different things: asbestos, which is a specific mineral, and for which the link to lung cancer in humans is indisputable; and "PFAS", which is a hazy conglomeration of things for which the scientific link to harm is weak, and mostly based on animal studies or bad observational data.

cobalt60 3y ago
When you're gonna compare two things and say one is indisputable and the other is weak, cite some claims. PFAS are real, test your water from your tap today. Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS.
- dylan604 3y ago
  The thing about PFAS to me is it is a build up over time. So it's like heart disease as a silent killer. You can live with it for a long time before you start to notice the effects
  - crote 3y ago
    The worst part is that it doesn't really degrade either. There's literally no way around it, the world just gets increasingly polluted by it. Smoking causes cancer? Stop smoking, and prevent people from smoking near bystanders. Asbestos causes cancer? Ban it in new products, and mandate secure removal for existing stuff. It's not that hard to deal with: just stop using the harmful thing and it'll be fine. PFAS causes cancer? Permanently condemn all contaminated land, kill all wildlife trying to get out, mandatory cremation for all humans who lived there, and a total ban on breastfeeding for mothers who lived there. PFAS might not yet be definitively proven to be harmful in limited quantities, but the bio-accumulation is bad enough that we just cannot take that risk.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  > Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS. I think you can emphasize your point by noting two categories, those which bioaccumulate and those which don't, but the exposure of things bioaccumulated is, to your point, endlessly extended.
  - timr 3y ago
    Bioaccumulation is certainly a factor to be concerned about, but you can't skip over the part where you definitively demonstrate harm. Lots of things bioaccumulate, but cause no problems at all.
JoshTko 3y ago
Are you saying that the dozen studies listed in wikipedia about PFAS harm to humans are flawed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#Health_and_environmental_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 3y ago
  Yes. Specifcally, anything that is an observational epidemiology study (which is much of it) is extremely low credibility. Observational epidemiology is historically terrible, low-quality research that gets lots of hype but doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    Chronic toxins that affect us over decades are difficult to detect. For starters, few studies last the long. That PFAS are very unreactive is meaningless. They still occupy volume and therefore affect kinematic rates and occupy reaction sites.
    - throwup238 3y ago
      > That PFAS are very unreactive is meaningless. They still occupy volume and therefore affect kinematic rates and occupy reaction sites. They're surfactants so they can interfere with basic processes in the intracellular matrix like cells sticking to each other and forming tissue. The long term epidemiological effects and in vitro studies are just getting started understanding the effects.
      - timr 3y ago
        > They're surfactants so they can interfere with basic processes in the intracellular matrix like cells sticking to each other and forming tissue. You know what else is a surfactant? Soap. Literally every surfactant "interferes with basic processes in the intracellular matrix" -- they disrupt lipids (fats). That's how they work. They're not inherently dangerous as a category of chemicals. You slather yourself in them daily. This discussion is veering into "the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide" territory now. You can make pretty much anything sound scary if you try hard enough.
steviedotboston 3y ago
Also the danger of asbestos is specifically when it is breathed in over extended periods of time. There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dangerous to the general public, but people freak out when they hear the word. If there are suitable alternatives its good to ban it and move on.
- jijijijij 3y ago
  > There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dangerous to the general public Source?
  - frud 3y ago
    Any form that doesn't have loose fibrils, microparticles, or dust. I'd compare it to wood from walnut trees, which is perfectly safe to handle and use in dining tables, etc., but dust from its' woodworking is toxic.
    - jijijijij 3y ago
      > Any form that doesn't have loose fibrils, microparticles, or dust. Encasement breaks, materials erode, have to be manufactured and disposed. That's not a valid argument at all. > I'd compare it to wood from walnut trees Well, then you are very uninformed. The toxicity characteristics are nothing alike. If you want to point to a similar hazard, I'd suggest beryllium compounds.
  - nostrademons 3y ago
    Bedrock, for one. Asbestos occurs naturally in many common rocks. A map of asbestos-containing bedrock includes many population centers in the U.S: https://www.mindat.org/photo-1146434.html https://www.mindat.org/photo-1146434.html Basically any situation where the asbestos is not shedding dust or fibers into air that'll be breathed by humans is pretty safe. Contact with asbestos causes virtually no health risks; it really has to get into the lungs to do damage.
    - 3y ago
es7 3y ago
I'm not really clear on the asbestos risk. Everything I've read and heard seems to indicate that the panic around asbestos might be overblown. Asbestos is unsafe but it is a matter of degrees. In certain cases like loose-fill insulation or certain situations where workers grind/cut asbestos regularly, it seems to cause a meaningful level of risk. Especially for those who are already smokers. But having gone through a remodel in a house with asbestos, I have been blown away at the extreme level of regulations, the meticulous procedures that remediation companies have to follow, the tens-of-thousands spent on remediation and repeated testing, and the tens-of-millions being thrown around in courts whenever Asbestos comes up. As best as I can tell, the risk is close to zero for minor and occasional exposure in otherwise healthy individuals. I'm open to seeing hard evidence to convince me otherwise.
- throwitaway222 3y ago
  In 100 years I bet those same stringent policies will exist for fiberglass batt
  - throwup238 3y ago
    They'll exist for a lot of nanotech like carbon nanotubes too. Pretty much any rigid nanostructure has potential for same effect on the lungs as asbestos since it's caused by mechanical damage.
    - jjtheblunt 3y ago
      It depends on bioaccumulating, i’ve read. Inert things can’t have bonds broken by macrophages, etc, labeling them with an ion. Carbon chains i supposemight break down biologically , but maybe won’t.
    - observationist 3y ago
      Asbestos repeats the injury, endlessly, with near immunity to any chemical decomposition. Mechanical decomposition just makes it more dangerous, as it cleaves into sharper, tinier needle like structures. Other nanostructures aren't nearly as chemically stable, especially inside the body, and can be metabolized or expelled from the body through natural processes. Asbestos sticks, shatters, and all the jagged little needle pieces stick where they are. Fiberglass, dust, and so forth can be expelled by the body and don't represent nearly the same level of harm as asbestos. The material's mechanical and chemical properties make a huge difference in how dangerous they are. Asbestos is chemically robust and mechanically fragile in a way that makes it more dangerous and sticky over time. A nanotube that damages a few cells, then gets metabolized or oxidizes, and then expelled, is far different from a slowly exploding needle bomb that will reside in your body for decades, endlessly killing the cells it contacts, resulting in infections, inflammation, cancer, and sometimes even dead septic chunks of tissue. Asbestos is, on balance, a terrible, horrible thing, and the harm it does can't be justified by the potential for good uses. Fiberglass insulation or carbon nanotubes aren't good for your lungs, but the dangers they pose can be reasonably considered against their benefits. these materials present a very different scale and magnitude of harm, especially over time.
thsksbd 3y ago
PFAS will mess you up. Badly. "How bad could they be?" You ask. "They're incredibly unreacitve!" Enter steric interference. Also, there's a very good reason we do animal studies; because, unless there's a really good reason why something (say burnt food -> we've coevolved with cooking) wouldn't affect humans, if it kills animals, it kills us.
GuB-42 3y ago
It is a completely different risk profile. Asbestos is dangerous, mostly for people who work with it, but other than that, it is just rock, and it occurs naturally. After a few years of not using it and disposing of the decaying remains of stuff made with it, it is unlikely to stay a problem. PFAS on the other hand are not natural, we are putting out tons of stuff that can last for thousands of years and is very hard to get rid off. Maybe it is a problem, or maybe not. If it is not, then we are lucky, but if it is, then our grandchildren and their own grandchildren who may only remember asbestos from history books will be left with a major problem to deal with.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  You have no idea what you are talking about. Plenty of stuff occurs naturally, like poison hemlock. Asbestos certainly does not break down and decay. It stays permanently in your lungs until you die.
AlexandrB 3y ago
Asbestos is also naturally occurring and as a result there's an ambient level of asbestos in the air regardless of how hard you regulate. I find asbestos to be such fascinating substance. As a kid I thought it was cool as hell ("a fluffy rock!?") and even now I think it's pretty neat in its natural form. Because asbestos has so many useful properties - ridiculously insulating and non-flammable - many of the substances that replaced the asbestos are the PFAS this sentence is complaining about. As far as I know there's still not a good non-PFAS substitute in many cases.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by timr 3y ago

cobalt60 3y ago

When you're gonna compare two things and say one is indisputable and the other is weak, cite some claims. PFAS are real, test your water from your tap today. Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS.

dylan604 3y ago
The thing about PFAS to me is it is a build up over time. So it's like heart disease as a silent killer. You can live with it for a long time before you start to notice the effects
- crote 3y ago
  The worst part is that it doesn't really degrade either. There's literally no way around it, the world just gets increasingly polluted by it. Smoking causes cancer? Stop smoking, and prevent people from smoking near bystanders. Asbestos causes cancer? Ban it in new products, and mandate secure removal for existing stuff. It's not that hard to deal with: just stop using the harmful thing and it'll be fine. PFAS causes cancer? Permanently condemn all contaminated land, kill all wildlife trying to get out, mandatory cremation for all humans who lived there, and a total ban on breastfeeding for mothers who lived there. PFAS might not yet be definitively proven to be harmful in limited quantities, but the bio-accumulation is bad enough that we just cannot take that risk.
jjtheblunt 3y ago
> Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS. I think you can emphasize your point by noting two categories, those which bioaccumulate and those which don't, but the exposure of things bioaccumulated is, to your point, endlessly extended.
- timr 3y ago
  Bioaccumulation is certainly a factor to be concerned about, but you can't skip over the part where you definitively demonstrate harm. Lots of things bioaccumulate, but cause no problems at all.

JoshTko 3y ago

Are you saying that the dozen studies listed in wikipedia about PFAS harm to humans are flawed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#Health_and_environmental_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
timr 3y ago
Yes. Specifcally, anything that is an observational epidemiology study (which is much of it) is extremely low credibility. Observational epidemiology is historically terrible, low-quality research that gets lots of hype but doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  Chronic toxins that affect us over decades are difficult to detect. For starters, few studies last the long. That PFAS are very unreactive is meaningless. They still occupy volume and therefore affect kinematic rates and occupy reaction sites.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    > That PFAS are very unreactive is meaningless. They still occupy volume and therefore affect kinematic rates and occupy reaction sites. They're surfactants so they can interfere with basic processes in the intracellular matrix like cells sticking to each other and forming tissue. The long term epidemiological effects and in vitro studies are just getting started understanding the effects.
    - timr 3y ago
      > They're surfactants so they can interfere with basic processes in the intracellular matrix like cells sticking to each other and forming tissue. You know what else is a surfactant? Soap. Literally every surfactant "interferes with basic processes in the intracellular matrix" -- they disrupt lipids (fats). That's how they work. They're not inherently dangerous as a category of chemicals. You slather yourself in them daily. This discussion is veering into "the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide" territory now. You can make pretty much anything sound scary if you try hard enough.

steviedotboston 3y ago

Also the danger of asbestos is specifically when it is breathed in over extended periods of time. There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dangerous to the general public, but people freak out when they hear the word. If there are suitable alternatives its good to ban it and move on.

jijijijij 3y ago
> There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dangerous to the general public Source?
- frud 3y ago
  Any form that doesn't have loose fibrils, microparticles, or dust. I'd compare it to wood from walnut trees, which is perfectly safe to handle and use in dining tables, etc., but dust from its' woodworking is toxic.
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    > Any form that doesn't have loose fibrils, microparticles, or dust. Encasement breaks, materials erode, have to be manufactured and disposed. That's not a valid argument at all. > I'd compare it to wood from walnut trees Well, then you are very uninformed. The toxicity characteristics are nothing alike. If you want to point to a similar hazard, I'd suggest beryllium compounds.
- nostrademons 3y ago
  Bedrock, for one. Asbestos occurs naturally in many common rocks. A map of asbestos-containing bedrock includes many population centers in the U.S: https://www.mindat.org/photo-1146434.html https://www.mindat.org/photo-1146434.html Basically any situation where the asbestos is not shedding dust or fibers into air that'll be breathed by humans is pretty safe. Contact with asbestos causes virtually no health risks; it really has to get into the lungs to do damage.
  - 3y ago

es7 3y ago

I'm not really clear on the asbestos risk. Everything I've read and heard seems to indicate that the panic around asbestos might be overblown. Asbestos is unsafe but it is a matter of degrees. In certain cases like loose-fill insulation or certain situations where workers grind/cut asbestos regularly, it seems to cause a meaningful level of risk. Especially for those who are already smokers. But having gone through a remodel in a house with asbestos, I have been blown away at the extreme level of regulations, the meticulous procedures that remediation companies have to follow, the tens-of-thousands spent on remediation and repeated testing, and the tens-of-millions being thrown around in courts whenever Asbestos comes up. As best as I can tell, the risk is close to zero for minor and occasional exposure in otherwise healthy individuals. I'm open to seeing hard evidence to convince me otherwise.

throwitaway222 3y ago
In 100 years I bet those same stringent policies will exist for fiberglass batt
- throwup238 3y ago
  They'll exist for a lot of nanotech like carbon nanotubes too. Pretty much any rigid nanostructure has potential for same effect on the lungs as asbestos since it's caused by mechanical damage.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    It depends on bioaccumulating, i’ve read. Inert things can’t have bonds broken by macrophages, etc, labeling them with an ion. Carbon chains i supposemight break down biologically , but maybe won’t.
  - observationist 3y ago
    Asbestos repeats the injury, endlessly, with near immunity to any chemical decomposition. Mechanical decomposition just makes it more dangerous, as it cleaves into sharper, tinier needle like structures. Other nanostructures aren't nearly as chemically stable, especially inside the body, and can be metabolized or expelled from the body through natural processes. Asbestos sticks, shatters, and all the jagged little needle pieces stick where they are. Fiberglass, dust, and so forth can be expelled by the body and don't represent nearly the same level of harm as asbestos. The material's mechanical and chemical properties make a huge difference in how dangerous they are. Asbestos is chemically robust and mechanically fragile in a way that makes it more dangerous and sticky over time. A nanotube that damages a few cells, then gets metabolized or oxidizes, and then expelled, is far different from a slowly exploding needle bomb that will reside in your body for decades, endlessly killing the cells it contacts, resulting in infections, inflammation, cancer, and sometimes even dead septic chunks of tissue. Asbestos is, on balance, a terrible, horrible thing, and the harm it does can't be justified by the potential for good uses. Fiberglass insulation or carbon nanotubes aren't good for your lungs, but the dangers they pose can be reasonably considered against their benefits. these materials present a very different scale and magnitude of harm, especially over time.

thsksbd 3y ago

PFAS will mess you up. Badly. "How bad could they be?" You ask. "They're incredibly unreacitve!" Enter steric interference. Also, there's a very good reason we do animal studies; because, unless there's a really good reason why something (say burnt food -> we've coevolved with cooking) wouldn't affect humans, if it kills animals, it kills us.

GuB-42 3y ago

It is a completely different risk profile. Asbestos is dangerous, mostly for people who work with it, but other than that, it is just rock, and it occurs naturally. After a few years of not using it and disposing of the decaying remains of stuff made with it, it is unlikely to stay a problem. PFAS on the other hand are not natural, we are putting out tons of stuff that can last for thousands of years and is very hard to get rid off. Maybe it is a problem, or maybe not. If it is not, then we are lucky, but if it is, then our grandchildren and their own grandchildren who may only remember asbestos from history books will be left with a major problem to deal with.

sidewndr46 3y ago
You have no idea what you are talking about. Plenty of stuff occurs naturally, like poison hemlock. Asbestos certainly does not break down and decay. It stays permanently in your lungs until you die.

AlexandrB 3y ago

Asbestos is also naturally occurring and as a result there's an ambient level of asbestos in the air regardless of how hard you regulate. I find asbestos to be such fascinating substance. As a kid I thought it was cool as hell ("a fluffy rock!?") and even now I think it's pretty neat in its natural form. Because asbestos has so many useful properties - ridiculously insulating and non-flammable - many of the substances that replaced the asbestos are the PFAS this sentence is complaining about. As far as I know there's still not a good non-PFAS substitute in many cases.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]