4 ms·

In what scenario would you be exposed to the aerosolized coating, assuming it is aerosolized at all?

callalex 2y ago
The history of ewaste recycling is horrifying and is worth thinking about before making more in the future. And I’m using ewaste as the friendly term for hazmat/hazardous materials. All too often they end up in a huge burn pile that uneducated impoverished children set on fire and then climb and forage in.
ceejayoz 2y ago
Same scenarios I'm exposed to Teflon; widespread use everywhere long before we know the safety profile. If it's effective, folks are going to want it in hospitals, school buses, hand railings at public places, elevator buttons, the works. It took decades for the risks of PFAS materials to properly surface.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  Copper has a very long safety record. Comparing it to PFAS is ridiculous.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    I’m more wondering about the nanotextured steel.
    - thsksbd 2y ago
      You're right to be concerned. Material innovators should be open about these things. Copper is toxic, but at these levels shouldnt be a concern. Nano stuff are nasty, but since copper in the body cannot last long (corrosive environment), the nano particles will quickly disappear. This is likely to be far more benign than other nano materials. The question is, will this survive outside a lab?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    It depends on what's being compared. Anything that has a known negative effect that is intentionally suppressed in order to maximize profits all fall into the same category to me regardless of that the "it" actually is. At the same time, we have plenty of historical evidence where a new thing was thought to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and rushed to market only to be found that it is pretty nasty stuff. We can now test the new thing much more rigorously if only someone wants to spend the money and possible delay in profits which is no company ever.
  - numpad0 2y ago
    Copper is not safe, which is kind of the point.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    That safety record says that copper dust/particles are definitely toxic to humans and there are plenty of instances of it getting into things it should not so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If copper found its way into everything as invidiously as pfas has, that would be really bad
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      The safety record says elemental copper dust is an irritant outside very large doses and acute toxicity happens at levels above a gram. Copper is already everywhere at levels far, far above PFAS. It is found naturally in all plants and animals and it has been used for everything from coinage to water pipes for upwards of six millennia.
- refurb 2y ago
  Teflon - poly(tetrafluoroethylene), is used in medical implants in the human body. I wouldn't about it. PFAS? That's different.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Plutonium is also used in medical implants; it remains toxic. https://osrp.lanl.gov/pacemakers.shtml https://osrp.lanl.gov/pacemakers.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene > PTFE is one of the best-known and widely applied PFAS commonly described as persistent organic pollutants or "forever chemicals".
    - refurb 2y ago
      The plutonium in a pacemaker isn’t constantly bathed in your body fluids. PTFE is 100% inert unless heated. It’s the reason why it’s used in joints and stents.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        In other words, a material's safety may depend on the context in which it is used. I have concerns that a copper-coated nanotextured steel might, in some scenarios, have human health impacts; I'd rather not learn about it after decades of widespread use like PFAS.
        refurb 2y ago
        Don’t hold back progress based on unfounded fears.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        That industry won't properly test for safety and hide evidence as long as possible is not unfounded. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237242/ > Our review of industry documents shows that companies knew PFAS was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested” by 1970, forty years before the public health community. Further, the industry used several strategies that have been shown common to tobacco, pharmaceutical and other industries to influence science and regulation – most notably, suppressing unfavorable research and distorting public discourse.

The history of ewaste recycling is horrifying and is worth thinking about before making more in the future. And I’m using ewaste as the friendly term for hazmat/hazardous materials. All too often they end up in a huge burn pile that uneducated impoverished children set on fire and then climb and forage in.

ceejayoz 2y ago

Same scenarios I'm exposed to Teflon; widespread use everywhere long before we know the safety profile. If it's effective, folks are going to want it in hospitals, school buses, hand railings at public places, elevator buttons, the works. It took decades for the risks of PFAS materials to properly surface.

Aloisius 2y ago
Copper has a very long safety record. Comparing it to PFAS is ridiculous.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  I’m more wondering about the nanotextured steel.
  - thsksbd 2y ago
    You're right to be concerned. Material innovators should be open about these things. Copper is toxic, but at these levels shouldnt be a concern. Nano stuff are nasty, but since copper in the body cannot last long (corrosive environment), the nano particles will quickly disappear. This is likely to be far more benign than other nano materials. The question is, will this survive outside a lab?
- dylan604 2y ago
  It depends on what's being compared. Anything that has a known negative effect that is intentionally suppressed in order to maximize profits all fall into the same category to me regardless of that the "it" actually is. At the same time, we have plenty of historical evidence where a new thing was thought to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and rushed to market only to be found that it is pretty nasty stuff. We can now test the new thing much more rigorously if only someone wants to spend the money and possible delay in profits which is no company ever.
- numpad0 2y ago
  Copper is not safe, which is kind of the point.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  That safety record says that copper dust/particles are definitely toxic to humans and there are plenty of instances of it getting into things it should not so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If copper found its way into everything as invidiously as pfas has, that would be really bad
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    The safety record says elemental copper dust is an irritant outside very large doses and acute toxicity happens at levels above a gram. Copper is already everywhere at levels far, far above PFAS. It is found naturally in all plants and animals and it has been used for everything from coinage to water pipes for upwards of six millennia.
refurb 2y ago
Teflon - poly(tetrafluoroethylene), is used in medical implants in the human body. I wouldn't about it. PFAS? That's different.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Plutonium is also used in medical implants; it remains toxic. https://osrp.lanl.gov/pacemakers.shtml https://osrp.lanl.gov/pacemakers.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene > PTFE is one of the best-known and widely applied PFAS commonly described as persistent organic pollutants or "forever chemicals".
  - refurb 2y ago
    The plutonium in a pacemaker isn’t constantly bathed in your body fluids. PTFE is 100% inert unless heated. It’s the reason why it’s used in joints and stents.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      In other words, a material's safety may depend on the context in which it is used. I have concerns that a copper-coated nanotextured steel might, in some scenarios, have human health impacts; I'd rather not learn about it after decades of widespread use like PFAS.
      - refurb 2y ago
        Don’t hold back progress based on unfounded fears.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        That industry won't properly test for safety and hide evidence as long as possible is not unfounded. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237242/ > Our review of industry documents shows that companies knew PFAS was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested” by 1970, forty years before the public health community. Further, the industry used several strategies that have been shown common to tobacco, pharmaceutical and other industries to influence science and regulation – most notably, suppressing unfavorable research and distorting public discourse.