Live data from Hacker News

Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

theguardian.com

71–80 of 151 posts

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#71
post #16

California law TB117 required fire retardant foam until 2015 so a lot of couches have PFAS. This is an example of creating a problem by trying to avoiding another. Of course, this is not to single out CA as this is a global problem. Could be wrong but it seems like the general rule is that manufacturers are allowed to "experiment in public" when it comes to chemical science. PFAS alternatives are already in the wild…

I don't want flame retardants in my products. I suspect most of these requirements came from the era when a lot more people smoked. Sure, put flame retardants in oven mitts and things that will reasonably catch fire, rather than things like pillowcases. Even still, how common were couch fires 20+ years ago when flame based (non-vaping) smoking was so much more common?

couch fires happen every day. a thing to note is that couches are really just very fluffy aerated flammable plastic, and they burn extremely well.

i don't want fire retardants in couches either, but it's easy to see how the choice was made to mandate it.

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#72
post #42
post #40

The problem is not PFAS. It is extreme regulatory capture that got us to the this point. Even if we ban PFAS tomorrow, there are other alternatives that will be used and another 2 decades of lies and cover ups before we find out what harm those chemicals have. Example: look at what happened when BPAs harms became known. Manufacturers switched to using any of the other 40 chemicals in the same bisphenol family (BPS, e…

> from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven safe" That’s about how the EU does it.

If you think about REACH I heard it's not what it does (although it sounds like it does). The lobbies were there...

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#73
post #69
post #40

The problem is not PFAS. It is extreme regulatory capture that got us to the this point. Even if we ban PFAS tomorrow, there are other alternatives that will be used and another 2 decades of lies and cover ups before we find out what harm those chemicals have. Example: look at what happened when BPAs harms became known. Manufacturers switched to using any of the other 40 chemicals in the same bisphenol family (BPS, e…

>>We need to flip the approval process on its head -- from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven safe". Totally agree in principle. There is one fly in the ointment - it is impossible to prove a negative, such as "X does not exist" or "there is no possible harm from this to any person ever" (water would not meet that standard). So, this needs to be implemented in such a way as to not c…

What is progress?

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#74
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no mobile PFAS chemicals in nonstick cookware. Nonstick coatings are made from PTFE, which is a completely inert polymer that cannot be broken down into mobile components unless it's overheated. The fluorinated chemicals used in the manufacture of the coatings (largely surfactants) are completely removed when the coating is baked on, and they have to be or else the coating would fail. PTFE is used in medica…

People "overheat" their cookware all the time. Do you know anyone who measures the temp of the surface of their cookware? Teflon and nonstick coatings kill birds (house pets) when overheated. A nonstick pan in the oven to catch the drippings from your chicken baking at 400 or 425 can kill your parrot quickly. A nonstick wok left unattended for a few minutes during a high-heat stir fry easily reaches 400, enough to ki…

> Do you know anyone who measures the temp of the surface of their cookware?

Yes, I do. I have a cheap IR thermometer with my kitchen utensils, and I use it all the time. I use it every time I roast seeds and spices, because I'm picky that way. I've also used it when I've accidentally left a pan on the burner too long. I'm careful but I screw up now and then. I accidentally heated a stainless pan to nearly 500 deg F once, but 've never gotten a nonstick pan over about 400 deg F.

> Teflon and nonstick coatings kill birds (house pets) when overheated. A nonstick pan in the oven to catch the drippings from your chicken baking at 400 or 425 can kill your parrot quickly. A nonstick wok left unattended for a few minutes during a high-heat stir fry easily reaches 400, enough to kill your cockatiel.

Stories of such low temperatures killing birds are anecdotal. The lowest temperature that has lead to bird deaths in a controlled laboratory setting is 280 deg C, which is about 580 deg F. [1]

Keep in mind that birds are easily killed by common cooking smoke and fumes, as well as natural gas. The problem with these anecdotes is that it's likely there were other fumes involved, and there's no way to know what actually kills a bird oustide a controlled lab setting.

> And as another poster has noted, those coatings always start flaking off.

As I noted in another comment, it's not hard to keep a nonstick pan indefinitely. I have a lot of ten and fifteen year old nonstick pans that are as good as the day I bought them. My daily drivers are about five years old now, good as new. I'm careful not to overheat them and I never use metal utensils in them. Following those two rules, even my kids were able to use them without damaging them.

> Why buy something that produces fumes enough to kill your house pets and also has planned obsolescence built in when you can get a cast iron pan that's indestructible and will increase your iron intake a bit?

If you overheat that cast iron pan, or if you burn food in it, it will kill birds just as easily as a nonstick pan. Also note, there is vastly more evidence of harm from excess iron consumption than there is of harm from overheated PTFE coatings.

That said, I like steel and iron pans. I regularly use enameled steel pans for toasting spices, and I cook crepes and pancakes on steel pans. I don't use cast iron for much because it's heavy as shit and its heat distribution sucks.

I've actually had good luck with seasoned bare aluminum pans. This is more common in some restaurant kitchens, but not so much in home kitchens. Aluminum seasons just as well as iron, and the heat distribution is way way better. But for some reason "cast aluminum" doesn't have quite the same old-timey panache as does cast iron.

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#75
post #62

I recently retrofit a new HVAC system and as a result have also gone on a bit of a deep dive on indoor air quality. The big thing I learned is that most homes -- even old "leaky" builds -- have rather poor ventilation, meaning all sorts of compounds build up in the air... CO2, formaldehyde, VOCs, PFAS, etc. Air purifiers work for particulate, but don't really make a dent for chemicals. IIRC, You would need like a 50…

Did you find any industry ventilation standards related to all the compounds you listed? IIRC, ASHRAE 60.1 is the industry standard but years ago at least, it was based mainly on using "bio-effluence" as a proxy for air quality. I.e., reducing stink.

>install an energy recovery ventilating system.

These are a good idea, but the exact type is important or else you risk cross-contamination between the exhaust and intake. That's why many designs (e.g., heat recovery wheels) are generally banned in some applications like healthcare.

With the crowd that HN attracts, I'd be interested if anybody has implemented some sort of demand-control ventilation in their home.

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#76
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven safe" That’s about how the EU does it.

How can you prove anything safe without data on its use? Isn't that sort of a chicken and egg problem?

You collect data on a smaller scale, like clinical trials do for medications. There's a big range between "no data" and "we've enrolled eight billion humans in an uncontrolled trial".

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#77
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that PTFE doesn't break down except at very high temperatures is not true. Breakdown begins to occur at either 200 or 260 degrees Celsius (depending on what data you're looking at). These temperatures are well within the realm of temperatures that even a home chef might encounter.

> Breakdown begins to occur at either 200 or 260 degrees Celsius (depending on what data you're looking at). This isn't good data. The stories of PTFE coatings breaking down at less than 260 deg C are anecdotal. The most well known one comes from someone who swears their chickens were killed by coated light bulbs in a coop. The lowest temperature that has lead to bird deaths in a controlled laboratory setting is 280…

> The lowest temperature that has lead to bird deaths in a controlled laboratory setting is 280 deg C

"Did any birds die?" is an approach to this problem that I would expect from an undeveloped nation a hundred years ago. It is both excruciatingly short-term in focus and so imprecise that the results are useless for anyone who is not himself a rat or a canary.

Your data answers the question, "To what temperature must we heat PTFE in order to kill small animals?"

It does not answer the question, "What are the long-term effects on humans of short excursions outside of normal cooking temperatures?"

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#78
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your clothing is waterproof or has some kind of exercise "moisture wicking" material, it is common to have PFAS.

Wicking materials don't use PFAS (although see edit below). The properties that PFAS endows a fabric are pretty much of the opposite of what you need for wicking. Wicking fabrics such as Capilene and polypropylene must be wettable in order to work. PFAS reduces the wettability of fibers. That's its whole point. PFAS is used in nearly all current water resistant fabrics, including clothing, upholstery, and carpet. The…

I’ve put off buying a sleeping bag from REI because of DWR. I like to sleep outside as much as I can, and when temps are freezing a well-insulated bag is great. I’ve switched to wool blankets for now. I’m also more and more okay with going without various comforts; the cost of having whatever I want is too high.

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#79
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no mobile PFAS chemicals in nonstick cookware. Nonstick coatings are made from PTFE, which is a completely inert polymer that cannot be broken down into mobile components unless it's overheated. The fluorinated chemicals used in the manufacture of the coatings (largely surfactants) are completely removed when the coating is baked on, and they have to be or else the coating would fail. PTFE is used in medica…

People "overheat" their cookware all the time. Do you know anyone who measures the temp of the surface of their cookware? Teflon and nonstick coatings kill birds (house pets) when overheated. A nonstick pan in the oven to catch the drippings from your chicken baking at 400 or 425 can kill your parrot quickly. A nonstick wok left unattended for a few minutes during a high-heat stir fry easily reaches 400, enough to ki…

Because rice will still stick to the cast iron and enamel pans?

People don't just choose PTFE because they are lazy. I tried a carbon steel, cast iron, and "oiled enamel" and rice stuck to all of them.

Re: Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which isn't without issues of its own of course, for example the EU is notoriously backwards on the issue of genetically modified crops which may turn out to be a vital lifeline if climate change causes agricultural collapse. Another example I can think of off the top of my head is the atrociously bad legislation to what was then the new technology of vaping, it came in pre-Brexit just when I was considering quitting…

Sure, banning GMO's outright would be a huge problem, but is it so awful that they be tested first? I don't know if they test for this, but GMOs do run the risk of become invasive or destructive species which could potentially tilt things towards the "devastating famine" side of the equation. I don't think the ecological concern is what most people worry about when they think GMOs, and I'm not of the mind that GMOs =…

I think what the argument comes down to is how much risk we're willing to tolerate as a society. There's definitely a middle ground to be had between an under-cautious world where things like leaded petrol and thalidomide are on the market causing immense human suffering, and an overly cautious world where progress is suffocated by the glacially slow wheels of bureaucracy and endless spurious "safety" objections by lobbyists attempting to kill their competition in its crib.

Having said that, the EU is a bit of a unique specimen when it comes to things like this. I'm perhaps being a little unfair to the precautionary principle per se when I suppose it's more the EU's implementation of it that I'm criticising. I don't want this to come across as an anti-EU polemic either, there's obviously pros and cons here and I realise the EU is very much in a class by itself when it comes to political polities which make comparisons quite difficult. My own biases are probably at play here too, for various reasons I'd say my risk tolerance is probably higher than most.

Post reply on HN