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

141–150 of 151 posts

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

#141

Post by nhyun »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #126
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…

i'd have to buy a new stove if i had a cast iron pan i have a glass top stove. cast iron has several problems. Learning how to "season" it (which i never figured out how to do when i had a different oven), the fact it's usually expensive and there's no "one size fits all scenarios" type of pan to use and re-use, thus resulting in you have to buy several. Then there's stainless steel pans but good luck with that - eve…

I have a glass top stove and a cast iron pan. Just don't slide the pan around on top of the stove and you'll be fine.

As for cleaning, we use a chainmail scrubber and water to clean off the bits that stick.

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

#142

Post by atom_arranger »

nate_meurer wrote: post #116
atom_arranger wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, we have lots of long term information about nonstick cookware. People forget we've been using nonstick cookware since the 1950's. That’s not a study. > You won't be able to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, because our PFC exposure via other routes is so high. We’re so poisoned by these chemicals it’s impossible to run a study to figure out if one possible source of them specifically is measurably poisonin…

> We’re so poisoned by these chemicals it’s impossible to run a study to figure out if one possible source of them specifically is measurably poisoning us. Sort of. My point is that teflon cookware is not a plausible source of PFAS, because there is no detectable PFAS in finished cookware. Further, because there have been billions of pieces of nonstick cookware in use around the world for decades, if there were negat…

> Further, because there have been billions of pieces of nonstick cookware in use around the world for decades, if there were negative health effects we would probably notice them by now.

Dropping testosterone levels and sperm counts, increasing levels of obesity. I think we're seeing the health effects, although as mentioned it is hard to pick apart exactly what is having what impact. Our lives are flooded with plastic, I suppose non-stick cookware is kind of like a drop in the bucket.

> This is not the case with teflon cookware. There is no detectable PFAS in nonstick cookware, nor are there verifiable reports of health effects from its use, in spite of the millions or billions of such uses happening every day over decades.

I would need a lot of evidence to be convinced there's not a risk. I think we'll look back on plastics a similar way to how we look back on our naivety about things like cigarettes, lead, asbestos, etc.

> I guarantee you're not able to avoid PFAS-treated upholstery, carpeting, and other home furnishings. And depending on where you live, chances are good that you ingest significant amounts of PFAS in your drinking water. If you've ever eaten fast food, the wrapper it came in was probably coated in PFAS. Due to these and other sources, I guarantee you have measurable levels of PFAS in your blood and tissues.

I don't dispute this. I just try to avoid plastics when it's practical. As mentioned I would like to have regulations passed to reduce sources. I would not like to give up and say "well alright I'm being so poisoned already, might as well risk having a bit more by using non-stick pans".

I also don't want to support the manufacturing of these chemicals generally. Putting aside the end consumer, the manufacturing seems very likely to have been harmful to people, and chemicals from the manufacturing could also end up spreading in the environment.

Non-stick pans may not be the absolute worst thing to come out of the plastics industry, but getting rid of them still seems like a step in the right direction.

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

#143

Post by sooheon »

qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: post #137
sooheon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

> It can be impossible to tell with things that only have no - to mild effects.

If any effects are unmeasurable with standard clinical trial practices, then it's safe. People care about things that actually are harmful.

> Proving a negative ("this is not dangerous") is hard :)

Which is why I never asked for it. Safety standards are always phrased positively. OSHA doesn't say "workplaces must not be dangerous", they say "wear a hard hat, the employer shall do ___, employees must not be forced to do ___". It's very easy to regulate that "new compounds must be shown not to affect human hormone levels at X concentration, must be shown not to be carcinogenic in Y model of cancer" etc.

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

#144

Post by [deleted] »

fragmede wrote: post #87
BoxOfRain wrote: post #58

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…

Part of the issue with GM crops is the corporations involved, and how to operate them ethically under capitalism. The EU has a much stronger stance against capitalism run amok, than the US' does, so even if you do trust the science, the science doesn't operate in a vacuum. The EU understands this.

[deleted]

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

#145

Post by raxxorrax »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #58
ashildr wrote: 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.

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…

> the EU is notoriously backwards on the issue of genetically modified crops

The EU has more efficient agriculture by area compared to the US. Part of it by necessity of course. There are problems with pesticides that could be solved with GMO in some circumstances.

But the same principle applies: It isn't stricly necessariy to employ GMO, especially not for yield (we don't have any yield problems anyway). The problems of agriculture today are economic in nature and there still could be negative consequences if GMO strains are spread in nature.

So I don't see anything as backwards really. There just isn't a problem that requires GMO currently. I think saying GMO will be vital instrument against climate change is ridiculous to be honest. Maybe if plants could be modified to use less water?

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

#146

Post by ironmagma »

sooheon wrote: post #143
qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

> It can be impossible to tell with things that only have no - to mild effects. If any effects are unmeasurable with standard clinical trial practices, then it's safe. People care about things that actually are harmful. > Proving a negative ("this is not dangerous") is hard :) Which is why I never asked for it. Safety standards are always phrased positively. OSHA doesn't say "workplaces must not be dangerous", they s…

Even still, PFAS started being used in the 50s. If it took us this long to figure out there is something dangerous about it, chances are a small study would not have found anything either. We’ve had lots of time and a huge N.

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

#147

Post by kongolongo »

just-ok wrote: post #135
kongolongo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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-...

Associated with sure, but at what exposure levels? Can we expect all microplastics to have this affect? What if the lower fertility rates are tolerable compared to the benefits of plastic use overall?

From your first source: >Data are still preliminary but suggest that ingested MPs bio-accumulate in mammalian tissue, including the testis, with outcomes on semen quality in rodents, as a consequence of inflammatory state and oxidative stress damage.

>The mechanisms decreasing fertility rate during the lifespan are still poorly understood.

>Taken together, although studies in mammals are still limited, preliminary observations point out a possible risk of MPs for male fertility.

The evidence is still "preliminary" and data "suggests" some outcomes but nothing is close to definitive. There are lots of confounding factors that can cause lower fertility that are explicitly noted in the that source. For example they even suggest that the microplastics themselves might not be causing harm, but rather that they act as "sponges" or vehicles for concentrating other pollutants that are actually decreasing fertility.

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

#148

Post by thatfrenchguy »

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.

2014, I still go back annually. You have a large portion of the lower middle class that’s more overweight now but it’s not like in the US where you can be somewhere where it’s impossible to find healthy food for 100 miles, and where you can go inside a Walmart and almost everyone is overweight. There’s obviously some bias given I live in the Bay Area, I’m sure there are areas where upper middle class folks are more overweight.

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

#149

Post by dd36 »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #125
dd36 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to buy new Hanes or Fruit of the Loom undershirts and literally couldn’t find any that didn’t have their proprietary coating.

sigh. that's all the undershirts i have. i'm "sure" (/s) that the chinese competitors on amazon are sooo much better. I'm so tired of having to anaylze every fucking product i bring into my home and expose myself, my wife and my kid to. I'm tired of being "that guy" to my wife too. It's endlessly frustrating

Yes! Let’s start an underwear company!

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

#150

Post by jakub_g »

fragmede wrote: post #87
BoxOfRain wrote: post #58

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…

Part of the issue with GM crops is the corporations involved, and how to operate them ethically under capitalism. The EU has a much stronger stance against capitalism run amok, than the US' does, so even if you do trust the science, the science doesn't operate in a vacuum. The EU understands this.

This is my main gripe with GMO those days. With GMO, the farmers effectively buy a one-year _license_ for a seed (SaaS-like) which can't be used in next years. Also there were stories of farmers going broke due to neighbors' GMO crops taking over their fields, and being sued for license breach.

We must find a way to bound the corporate greed with a good regulatory framework because GMO sooner or later might become inevitable.

Post reply on HN