5 ms·

> “Reducing PFAS in our drinking water is the most cost effective way to reduce our exposure,” said Scott Faber, a food and water expert at Environmental Workin

> “Reducing PFAS in our drinking water is the most cost effective way to reduce our exposure,” said Scott Faber, a food and water expert at Environmental Working Group. “It’s much more challenging to reduce other exposures such as PFAS in food or clothing or carpets.” This says nothing of how impactful the different types of exposures may be, or if a partial reduction is meaningful when we still have other known exposures that we think are just too hard to deal with. Sunken costs can be a bitch, but I really don't get the argument that removing exposures that we are adding into food, for example, can be hard. Just stop using PFAS chemicals, period. Its not hard or expensive, just stop using them and companies will stop manufacturing them. Removing PFAS chemicals that are already out there, like in our water supply, is the difficult and likely expensive change. Giving up any process or product that creates more PFAS contamination is the easy one, and would make a huge dent in the contamination problem as part of the issue is that we continue to add even more chemicals into the environment at a faster rate than nature can deal with.

bagels 3y ago
Re: just stop using them and companies will stop manufacturing them Why can't we have the government we pay for with taxes help all of us with this? I don't know what products have/don't have PFAS in them, as it's disclosed almost nowhere. Why not just have them all banned and fined instead of me having to setup a laboratory to test every product I bring in to my house for lead, pfas, asbestos, radioactive isotopes, etc?
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Because governments are terrible at actually implementing such rules, and the whole point of free (or somewhat free) markets is for us to have the power to decide for ourselves. With regards to labelling, I 100% agree companies should be making it clear what is in the stuff we buy. Again, though, that can be done by consumers if we actually care enough. Sticking with natural materials is a great start, whole foods instead of processed foods and wool or cotton instead of plastic/petroleum clothing, for example.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    If governments are bad, people are much worse. How often do you test your food for lead? How often have you “done your own research” on whether your toaster will explode if you plug it into the wall? And what happens if your neighbor doesn’t do their own research and burns both of your houses down? Unless consumers have the financial means to test everything, it’s not reasonable to expect the burden of consumer protections to fall on consumers. Consumers shouldn’t have to test all of their food for every possible contaminant. Additionally, this doesn’t address harms which companies know they are creating but consumers don’t. Companies will lie and cover up the damage they cause, and pollute the information ecosystem with propaganda which confuses the issue. People used to think cigarettes were good for them.
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      Yeah we need a government takeover of the Better Business Bureau. Only government bureaucrats are qualified to test things. Credit scores, too. Has to be government. Let's throw in a social credit score too so that consumers know who to trust on an individual basis
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      What you're describing is a fundamental problem of centralization at scale. Consumers shouldn't need to test their food for lead because their food is grown locally and isn't highly processed. Consumers shouldn't be tricked by companies lying about and hiding damages causes by them because consumers should be dealing with companies at a scale they can actually understand. We don't need big governments to save us from cigarette companies because people don't know better. We need consumers saying to hell with cigarettes because they just need to roll a bit of dried tobacco leaves if that's what they're going for. We lost the scale of our lives in favor of convenience, marketing, and greed. Governments can't fix that.
      - janalsncm 3y ago
        That doesn’t solve the problem. Even if you’re dealing with a local farmer, are you testing their food for all of the dozens of contaminants which could be there? No. And more importantly, you can’t deal on a local level for the most part. It’s not possible. You mostly purchase products from national or multinational brands, so good luck getting any consumer protection from them. If poisoning customers lets the CEO buy a longer yacht for his house in Cyprus, he will do that.
- onthecanposting 3y ago
  You are being helped. Given these requirements, it's pretty likely that your water utility will hike your rates to pay for the required upgrades. I feel badly for the rural utilities. This is likely to push the trend of regionalization.
  - bagels 3y ago
    Yes, I know. The GP comment was arguing for every person for themselves on this stuff.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      I wasn't arguing for every person for themselves with regards to PFAS in city water. It seems totally reasonable for water utilities to be required to provide clean water, either through government or internal rules. I was arguing that more consumers could step up to make similar decisions, in this case avoiding PFAS products. We don't have direct control over what's in our water, especially in areas where collecting rain water or using a well isn't even allowed if you wanted to do it yourself. We do have control over what we buy though, we just rarely see consumers making decisions that match the values we often argue for (like we need to massively reduce oil/plastic use and chemical exposures).
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Lipitor, Flonase, Xanax are all PFAS. Also about half of new pharmaceuticals in development are pfas.
- jprival 3y ago
  OECD definition > any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (–CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (–CF2–) is a PFAS I don’t think that includes any of those, and Xanax is not fluorinated at all. You might have been thinking of Prozac, which I believe does meet those criteria. It is a broad category with competing definitions, some of which are even broader, though, yes.
idunnoman1222 3y ago
They literally use these chemicals to grease the wheels of food packaging plants, everything you have ever owned that is waterproof is covered them. They fluorinate plastic containers that hold our food so that the food doesn’t taste funny. They are never going away.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Why are they never going away? Every use you list there is specific to centralized, industrial agriculture. That's a modern invention that could absolutely be rolled back if people grow more of their own food and buy locally what they can't do themselves. Humans made it very, very long without plastics and PFAS. Are we really to assume that a few decades with them and we'll never go back, by choice or otherwise?
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    Centralized, industrial agriculture is more-or-less necessary to feed as many people as we have. Like I'm growing potatoes but I'm not under the impression that I'm going to be able to feed myself to an acceptable caloric and nutritional level off of what I can grow on a third of an acre or whatever my yard is.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      If we agree that centralized, industrial agriculture has fundamental problems that can't be avoided, its a moot point whether its the only way to feed today's population. We can't kick the can down the road and throw more control at a problem hoping the system never cracks, given enough time that will *always* fail. Local food doesn't have to mean growing it for yourself in your own yard. Buying local food is a huge improvement. When the food is grown in your area and doesn't have to be processed or packaged to handle national infrastructure challenges the plastics and PFAS aren't necessary. When buying locally you can also have the ability to actually see where and how the food is grown, an option that is never possible when the food is grown across the country, shipped overseas for processing/packaging, and shipped back before eventually hitting shelves at your local chain store.

bagels 3y ago

Re: just stop using them and companies will stop manufacturing them Why can't we have the government we pay for with taxes help all of us with this? I don't know what products have/don't have PFAS in them, as it's disclosed almost nowhere. Why not just have them all banned and fined instead of me having to setup a laboratory to test every product I bring in to my house for lead, pfas, asbestos, radioactive isotopes, etc?

_heimdall 3y ago
Because governments are terrible at actually implementing such rules, and the whole point of free (or somewhat free) markets is for us to have the power to decide for ourselves. With regards to labelling, I 100% agree companies should be making it clear what is in the stuff we buy. Again, though, that can be done by consumers if we actually care enough. Sticking with natural materials is a great start, whole foods instead of processed foods and wool or cotton instead of plastic/petroleum clothing, for example.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  If governments are bad, people are much worse. How often do you test your food for lead? How often have you “done your own research” on whether your toaster will explode if you plug it into the wall? And what happens if your neighbor doesn’t do their own research and burns both of your houses down? Unless consumers have the financial means to test everything, it’s not reasonable to expect the burden of consumer protections to fall on consumers. Consumers shouldn’t have to test all of their food for every possible contaminant. Additionally, this doesn’t address harms which companies know they are creating but consumers don’t. Companies will lie and cover up the damage they cause, and pollute the information ecosystem with propaganda which confuses the issue. People used to think cigarettes were good for them.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    Yeah we need a government takeover of the Better Business Bureau. Only government bureaucrats are qualified to test things. Credit scores, too. Has to be government. Let's throw in a social credit score too so that consumers know who to trust on an individual basis
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    What you're describing is a fundamental problem of centralization at scale. Consumers shouldn't need to test their food for lead because their food is grown locally and isn't highly processed. Consumers shouldn't be tricked by companies lying about and hiding damages causes by them because consumers should be dealing with companies at a scale they can actually understand. We don't need big governments to save us from cigarette companies because people don't know better. We need consumers saying to hell with cigarettes because they just need to roll a bit of dried tobacco leaves if that's what they're going for. We lost the scale of our lives in favor of convenience, marketing, and greed. Governments can't fix that.
    - janalsncm 3y ago
      That doesn’t solve the problem. Even if you’re dealing with a local farmer, are you testing their food for all of the dozens of contaminants which could be there? No. And more importantly, you can’t deal on a local level for the most part. It’s not possible. You mostly purchase products from national or multinational brands, so good luck getting any consumer protection from them. If poisoning customers lets the CEO buy a longer yacht for his house in Cyprus, he will do that.
onthecanposting 3y ago
You are being helped. Given these requirements, it's pretty likely that your water utility will hike your rates to pay for the required upgrades. I feel badly for the rural utilities. This is likely to push the trend of regionalization.
- bagels 3y ago
  Yes, I know. The GP comment was arguing for every person for themselves on this stuff.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I wasn't arguing for every person for themselves with regards to PFAS in city water. It seems totally reasonable for water utilities to be required to provide clean water, either through government or internal rules. I was arguing that more consumers could step up to make similar decisions, in this case avoiding PFAS products. We don't have direct control over what's in our water, especially in areas where collecting rain water or using a well isn't even allowed if you wanted to do it yourself. We do have control over what we buy though, we just rarely see consumers making decisions that match the values we often argue for (like we need to massively reduce oil/plastic use and chemical exposures).

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Lipitor, Flonase, Xanax are all PFAS. Also about half of new pharmaceuticals in development are pfas.

jprival 3y ago
OECD definition > any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (–CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (–CF2–) is a PFAS I don’t think that includes any of those, and Xanax is not fluorinated at all. You might have been thinking of Prozac, which I believe does meet those criteria. It is a broad category with competing definitions, some of which are even broader, though, yes.

idunnoman1222 3y ago

They literally use these chemicals to grease the wheels of food packaging plants, everything you have ever owned that is waterproof is covered them. They fluorinate plastic containers that hold our food so that the food doesn’t taste funny. They are never going away.

_heimdall 3y ago
Why are they never going away? Every use you list there is specific to centralized, industrial agriculture. That's a modern invention that could absolutely be rolled back if people grow more of their own food and buy locally what they can't do themselves. Humans made it very, very long without plastics and PFAS. Are we really to assume that a few decades with them and we'll never go back, by choice or otherwise?
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  Centralized, industrial agriculture is more-or-less necessary to feed as many people as we have. Like I'm growing potatoes but I'm not under the impression that I'm going to be able to feed myself to an acceptable caloric and nutritional level off of what I can grow on a third of an acre or whatever my yard is.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    If we agree that centralized, industrial agriculture has fundamental problems that can't be avoided, its a moot point whether its the only way to feed today's population. We can't kick the can down the road and throw more control at a problem hoping the system never cracks, given enough time that will *always* fail. Local food doesn't have to mean growing it for yourself in your own yard. Buying local food is a huge improvement. When the food is grown in your area and doesn't have to be processed or packaged to handle national infrastructure challenges the plastics and PFAS aren't necessary. When buying locally you can also have the ability to actually see where and how the food is grown, an option that is never possible when the food is grown across the country, shipped overseas for processing/packaging, and shipped back before eventually hitting shelves at your local chain store.