Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ contaminate indoor air at worrying levels

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 151 posts

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

#131

Post by darkteflon »

verisimilitude wrote: post #81
cjlars wrote: 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…

Energy Recovery Ventilators or Heat Recovery Ventilators are absolutely essential (and, I think, part of code in many places!) in this era of tight and sometimes extraordinarily tight (e.g. Passivhaus) home building. When we bought our home, the HRV wasn't working and once I replaced a bunch of parts in it, the difference in the quality of the air was noticeable just in the fact that it smelled fresh like the outdoor…

I’m based in Tokyo and have spent the past few months going down the rabbit hole of indoor air quality. It started out of concern for the health of our four-year old - lots of time indoors on account of the pandemic, etc.

We have HEPA filters in every room now and portable CO2, PM2.5, VOC monitors, etc for keeping an eye on things. As others have stated, however, this does nothing to address the VOC issue and so I am very keen to take the additional step of installing an Energy Recovery Ventilator or Heat Recovery Ventilator, as you suggest.

If anyone here has Japan or Tokyo-specific information on manufacturers, suitable systems and/or contractors capable of doing the work, I for one would certainly be grateful to hear it!

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

#132

Post by fomine3 »

ruined wrote: post #71
BitwiseFool wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But how without cigarettes?

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

#133

Post by fomine3 »

nate_meurer wrote: post #74
kaitai wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

+1 for measuring temp. I recommend everyone to buy $10 IR thermometer from AliExpress, despite it's not absolutely accurate, it's very helpful to measure and see changing temperature.

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

#134

Post by calvinmorrison »

ffhhj wrote: post #45

I'm designing a wearable device, and I'm looking for resistant materials, different from metals, that are safe to use on the skin. According to Wikipedia PTFE (teflon) is not harmful. Could someone recommend materials to protect the electronics from sweat/dirt and the skin from the device silicone?

Rubber?

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

#135

Post by just-ok »

kongolongo wrote: post #84
doitLP wrote: 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". The tally of harm to all life caused by these chemicals is on a massive scale that any mass murderer would be proud of. That isn't always practically feasible and its a really tough problem to solve. Consider all the ways a compound released into the environment can break down and how…

> Even now we don’t know if they’re necessarily harmful.

Micro-plastics are definitely harmful, e.g. they’ve been associated with lower fertility [1,2]. We’re actively engineering our own extinction.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7967748/ [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/28/shanna-swan-...

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

#136

Post by qweqwweqwe-90i »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #57
doitLP wrote: 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…

> 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, etc) many of which had even worse safety profiles, while proudly proclaiming their products were "BPA free". It's worse than that. I remember when some 10 years ago Johnson&Johnson baby bottles were banned in one market, they were still available in others, an…

Except that most evidence support the safety of BPA...

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

#137

Post by qweqwweqwe-90i »

sooheon wrote: post #61
ironmagma wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Should the data be collected without consent by exposing the public to it for decades or provided by clinical trials funded by the company that wants to bring it to market?

You are asking for the impossible. It can be impossible to tell with things that only have no - to mild effects. Proving a negative ("this is not dangerous") is hard :)

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

#138

Post by qweqwweqwe-90i »

graeme wrote: post #70
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who immigrated from France to the US, it’s pretty obvious why people in the US are obese: people don’t know / don’t have the time to know how to eat properly and eat junk food, all the time, at any hour, and don’t move around. It’s pretty obvious when you realize that there is a lot less overweight people in upper middle class areas.

When did you do that? In last twenty years France has become one of the fattest countries in Europe. I was there in 2008 and 2019. Huge difference. The upper middle class in USA is fatter than it used to be. Very few people actually lean as opposed to having much less fat. The class disparity is real but not the only explanation.

People in france are doing the same thing now :) Mcdo is popular there too :) (not that I'm just blaming one fast food place)

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

#139

Post by verall »

doctorsher wrote: post #115
verall wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that you are correct in most cases, people choose nonstick for the easy cleanup afterwards. But that's not what I'm referring to. I have not found a pan, other than PTFE coated, which can fry rice to crispy without using excessive tons of oil. All of the best crispy rice will get stuck to the pan and become inedible.

When you tried the carbon steel pan, was it properly seasoned? They stick like hell before they are well seasoned, but seasoning them gives the carbon steel its non-stick properties. Woks are the ultimate tool for this, as they are carbon steel (so non-stick when seasoned) and their shape minimizes the amount of oil necessary to fry the rice. It is ubiquitous for fried rice across almost all of Asia.

I cook with my carbon steel somewhat often, and it seems to have built up a nice thin black layer that keeps most things from sticking. Cleaning is a breeze, some dish soap and a couple scrubs. None of the black layer comes off.

Rice does not stick at first, but as it gets hot it does, unless I put around 3x the oil I would prefer. I have a gas range with a large burner so it gets very hot.

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

#140

Post by atom_arranger »

gruez wrote: post #50
atom_arranger wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't any long term studies comparing people who cook with non-stick vs stainless or cast iron, so we can only guess about long term and population level effects based on limited information. I personally would not take the risk given the benefit is just a pan that things stick to less. Medical uses are more justifiable.

>I personally would not take the risk given the benefit is just a pan that things stick to less. Being able to use less cooking oils is a material benefit, especially considering the obesity rates we see in the developed world.

Obesity rates going up may actually be a side effect of widespread PFAS exposure (some of which is possibly from these non-stick pans).

https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/26/a-chemical-hunger-p...

Post reply on HN