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

141–150 of 237 posts

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

#141

Post by hcurtiss »

sva_ wrote: post #132

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.

Conversely, after so many studies, I would be particularly surprised if we discover severe detrimental effects of PFAS as a category. So far, most of the science has revolved around the fact we can find them all over the place. They are relatively pervasive. For most of these compounds (and there are many under the umbrella PFAS) health effects at expected exposure levels have been much more difficult to prove. In fact, many PFAS are ingested orally by millions of people daily (e.g., Flonase, Prozac, etc.).

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

#142

Post by timr »

birdiesanders wrote: post #138
timr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, they aren't. PFAS (and specifically PFOA) has a carboxyl group, making it much more polar than PTFE (it is an acid). PFOA is soluble in water. PFTE is not.

Even if there were lingering PFOA in Teflon, it would be quickly washed away.

Some people try to confuse the issue by grouping together anything with a poly-CF2 chain as "PFAS", but this is wrong.

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

#143

Post by cyberax »

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.

Teflon is not hazardous, it's also not GenX.

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

#144

Post by timr »

ruined wrote: post #139
timr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

PTFE is not a PFAS unless you define PFAS so broadly as to be meaningless.

They're common only in that they both contain polyfluorinated carbon chains.

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

#145

Post by hcurtiss »

littlestymaar wrote: post #16
chmod600 wrote: post #7

We really need a concept of scale when it comes to branding a chemical "toxic". Small amounts for particular purposes are not harmful. Being everywhere may cause some problems.

That's literally how it works today. And that's part of the problem with PFAS, because you can release them in tiny fractions (not toxic at this scale) but they end up concentrating in the food chain and people are still being harmed in the end.

Can you point me to a study showing definitive harm due to bioaccumulation of expected exposure levels? EPAs own page cleverly dodges the issue by saying (1) it can accumulate and (2) high exposure levels can cause harm. But the exposure levels we've seen in the studies evidencing harm are thousands of times higher than any observed bioaccumulation. For me to be concerned about environmental exposure, I'm going to actually need to see some science showing somebody was harmed given the range of expected exposure mechanisms and expected exposure levels.

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

#146

Post by hcurtiss »

birdiesanders wrote: post #138
timr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is no science connecting Goretex -- even direct skin application of Goretex over long periods of time -- with any harm whatsoever. The shrill nature of the commentary around PFAS (which by some definitions doesn't even include PTFE) is wild to me.

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

#147

Post by s1artibartfast »

littlestymaar wrote: post #117
TylerE wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are outlining a scenario where they would consider such a ban desirable. How is that not proposing it?

For that scenario to be a proposal , the hypothesis of the said scenario should be asserted first. They just said: “should this be a big enough harm to humanity as a whole we should not shy away from a total ban”, but he's not arguing that there is a big enough harm at stake here. And they aren't even talking specifically about PFAS in this comment in the first place! They're answering, in the abstract , to a comment…

They literally declared that the only harms are to enterprise and are trivial.

>For what it's worth, depending on the harms, a sudden total ban is not out of the question as being beneficial to humanity as a whole.

Total ban should be considered against harms.

>It would just be disruptive to enterprise, boo hoo.

Harms are trivial because they are to enterprise.

>We don't need to always treat bad actors with kid gloves.

Implying that enterprises are bad actors, and deserve more harms.

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

#148

Post by hcurtiss »

timr wrote: post #144
ruined wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no. PTFE is a member of the class PFAS. polytetrafluoroethylene is a polyfluoroalkyl substance.

PTFE is not a PFAS unless you define PFAS so broadly as to be meaningless. They're common only in that they both contain polyfluorinated carbon chains.

As it turns out, the definition of PFAS is hotly contested, with those advocating for increased regulation often also advocating for a very broad definition. https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2022/is-there-a-right-d...

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

#149

Post by krisoft »

naremu wrote: post #97
bawolff wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its hardly a nitpick, you're being so vauge that its impossible to understand what you are actually proposing. Why not just use more specific language? If indeed everyone is acting in bad faith, using clear language would shut them up. If instead they are being ernest and cannot understand you because of the "colloquial" language, then being rigorous would further your stated goal of ernest participation. Either way…

I didn't propose anything, I'm just nitpicking HN's nitpicking of attempts to have a real conversation. Which, since HN is a place for technically minded people, has resulted in people arguing that chemical contamination of PFAS is categorically the same as watering my lawn. You are technically correct, but this is called a "gotcha": it's not about continuing the conversation in earnest, if anything, it shuts down co…

> has resulted in people arguing that chemical contamination of PFAS is categorically the same as watering my lawn.

I don't recognise anyone here arguing this. Let me recap the conversation: tankaiji said it is good to ban these, but expressed concern that companies will find other dangerous chemicals to replace them with. mensetmanusman responded something along the lines of this being an inevitable consequence of human technology. edgyquant responded that the problem is overly complex regulation and seemingly proposed a simpler solution.

People rightfully pointed out that his simpler solution can't distinguish between the chemical contamination of PFAS and watering ones lawn. Which is ridiculous. So clearly the problem is not that simple. In fact the problem is complex and therefore the regulations around it are complex too.

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

#150

Post by hcurtiss »

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.

>just switch up a few atoms

What a silly statement. Adding a single oxygen atom to CO makes it far less toxic. Even among the class of chemicals we call PFAS, there are profound differences measured by the difference of only a few atoms.

Post reply on HN