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

The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 237 posts

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#131

Post by sneak »

throwaway920102 wrote: post #118
pdonis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the impact of this proposed EPA ruling on ordinary people disposing of ordinary household items like those you describe? Will we all need to have hazmat plants installed in our sewage lines? Will we no longer be able to wash our clothes in washing machines? Will we have to segregate all our trash and pay for our community to have a hazmat disposal truck come around along with the regular trash truck?

In an ideal world, manufacturers would begin to phase out the use of PFAS as waterproofing, which many already are. An alternative would be Nikwax, waxed canvas, or polyurethenate-coatings or TPU coatings. These alternatives are already used in many goods! For containers (not wearables), you can get aluminum, stainless steel, TI, or glass waterproof cans and jars and bottles that have threaded, screw on caps with sil…

In an ideal world they'd immediately cease use of them, not "begin to phase out".

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#132

Post by sva_ »

PFAS seem like they could be the asbestos of our time, but perhaps much worse, since there is much more exposure. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if it will be shown that they have severe detrimental effects on the human body, in particular on the endocrine system.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#133

Post by sneak »

andersrs wrote: post #99
satellite2 wrote: post #34

Title could be changed as "The EPA is proposing that nine PFAS be considered hazardous substances"

What a joke. Companies like 3M and Dupont just switch up a few atoms. Teflon becomes 'GenX'. One has to conclude that the EPA are complicit in this.

Most of the regulatory agencies in the US exist to serve as anticompetitive moats around the largest industrial companies in the US. You see it in the FDA, the FAA, the EPA, SEC/FINRA, etc. Once you get big enough, it seems that the federal government places you under the umbrella of "national security" and decides to make sure you get to continue to exist (so long as you cooperate and play ball). Being part of the large supply chains for the military always helps, too.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it. The US is incredibly corrupt.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#134

Post by amelius »

legulere wrote: post #76
wolverine876 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why do you say that?

The EU in contrast is planning to heavily restrict all PFAS https://echa.europa.eu/de/-/echa-publishes-pfas-restriction-...

Speaking about no teeth. The EU just extended the permit for the use of RoundUp for another 10 years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03589-z

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#135

Post by daveguy »

pdonis wrote: post #111
daveguy wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. No. And Maybe. Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or just disengenuously attacking regulatory agencies. If you're legitimately concerned, I apologize. On the bright side, you can rest easy.

> Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. Is this actual knowledge or just a prediction? > If you're legitimately concerned I am, but not just about the impact on me personally. I'm more generally concerned about whether the actual costs of such a regulation will be less than the actual benefits.

It's knowledge. What current regulations require city hazmat vehicles? That was the only remotely plausible impact-to-consumer. Can you name any EPA regulations that affect consumers in any way remotely similar to your original post?

Seems taking your fluorescents and lead based batteries to specialized recycle is about it on the consumer side. Personally I'm happy to do that to prevent poisoning my kids and my neighbor. Also happy for industry to identify safer alternative products.

Please free yourself from the libertarian fever dream.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#136

Post by hanniabu »

chaxor wrote: post #23
vavooom wrote: post #3

Original EPA proposal here: https://www.epa.gov/hw/proposal-list-nine-and-polyfluoroalky... Where they outline the nine PFAS are: - Perfluorooctanoic acid. - Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid - Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid. - Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid. - Perfluorononanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid. - Perfluorodecanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanoic acid. - Perfluorobutanoic acid.

I'm a bit confused here. These are recognized as being harmful. It's written all over the msds for these. What is the real change that is going to occur? I remember dealing with these substances in tiny quantities in the lab, and they were treated as carefully as cholorosifonic super acids. A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. One problem is making methods that can detect waste streams at under ppt leve…

> What is the real change that is going to occur?

The EPA pretend like there's accountability

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#137

Post by timr »

throwaway920102 wrote: post #39
chaxor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit confused here. These are recognized as being harmful. It's written all over the msds for these. What is the real change that is going to occur? I remember dealing with these substances in tiny quantities in the lab, and they were treated as carefully as cholorosifonic super acids. A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. One problem is making methods that can detect waste streams at under ppt leve…

> A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways. Because of the "forever", small amounts add up…

> Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods?

No, because that's not true. Teflon (the substance used widely in waterproof goods and food packaging) is not the same thing as PFAS [1] (which is actually not one thing, but a whole class of things). Teflon is PTFE [2], which is different.

The terminology being casually flung around this issue is misleading. Certain PFAS types were used in the manufacture of PTFE (specifically Perfluorooctanoic acid [3]) which is the actual answer to GPs question -- this is primarily an issue of industrial concern. PFOA is far more reactive than PTFE, which is one of the most inert substances known to man. You can't just group these chemicals together in the bucket of "things that have fluoride polymers" and panic about all of them.

We regularly put teflon parts in humans, because they don't react with anything. Proving harm here is an incredibly high bar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#138

Post by birdiesanders »

timr wrote: post #137
throwaway920102 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways. Because of the "forever", small amounts add up…

> Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? No, because that's not true. Teflon (the substance used widely in waterproof goods and food packaging) is not the same thing as PFAS [1] (which is actually not one thing, but a whole class of things). Teflon is PTFE [2], which is different. The terminology being casually flung around this issue is misleading. Certain PFAS…

Gortex and similar waterproof/fireproof gear are loaded with pfas/pfoa cocktails.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#139

Post by ruined »

timr wrote: post #137
throwaway920102 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways. Because of the "forever", small amounts add up…

> Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? No, because that's not true. Teflon (the substance used widely in waterproof goods and food packaging) is not the same thing as PFAS [1] (which is actually not one thing, but a whole class of things). Teflon is PTFE [2], which is different. The terminology being casually flung around this issue is misleading. Certain PFAS…

no. PTFE is a member of the class PFAS.

polytetrafluoroethylene is a polyfluoroalkyl substance.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#140

Post by hanniabu »

VyseofArcadia wrote: post #19
mensetmanusman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the inevitable process of humanity's understanding of technology.

My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe". You can still progress technologically without being reckless.

> We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe".

Don't be silly, US has "prove it's profitable"

Post reply on HN