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

181–190 of 237 posts

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

#181

Post by kccqzy »

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.

Goretex contains PTFE, which is inert enough to be used inside the human body. It can be used to patch for example a ruptured artery. https://web.archive.org/web/20160712144834/http://www.chemhe...

Also, PTFE is decidedly not among the nine proposed by the EPA to be classified as hazardous.

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

#182

Post by kccqzy »

naremu wrote: post #80
amarant wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what the word "chemical" means? We do need to be a bit more specific than that, or we're not gonna get anywhere. Also, once we've specified which chemicals shouldn't be dumped, I'd like to include the atmosphere in the list of places where one shouldn't dump them. Seems to be a very popular place to dump really harmful stuff, we should stop that.

> Do you know what the word "chemical" means? This intentional nitpicking of the colloquial usage of the word chemicals is a favorite of both, disingenuous conversationalists who like to take a chance to feel correct rather than participate earnestly, and lobbyists. At least one of them gets paid for it though.

This intentional nitpicking is necessary for anyone who has taken a first course in chemistry.

You do not appear to have done that. That's why you are arguing with the colloquial usage of the word. Because you can't offer a useful and precise definition.

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

#183

Post by bawolff »

marshray wrote: post #178
bawolff wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Words have different meanings in different contexts Well define it then. Nobody is complaing that there might be an alternative definition of chemical. The complaint is that you're not using any widely known definition of "chemical" and not providing your own definition. You can shut everyone up by just defining how you are using the word. I doubt you will since i think you are lying about there existing some other…

Here you go, here's one plain vanilla dictionary definition, absent context. Now would you like to discuss which "substances produced by chemical processes" are likely to be the most impactful upon the environment, or would you like to continue quibbling over semantics? chemical [ kem-i-kuhl ]SHOW IPA noun a substance produced by or used in a chemical process. chemicals, Slang. narcotic or mind-altering drugs or subs…

Well given this is in response to the statement:

> "It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period."

Then i still maintain anyone using that definition of chemical in the context of that statement is an utter idiot.

> Now would you like to discuss which "substances produced by chemical processes" are likely to be the most impactful upon the environment

Why? There is already a government department tasked with that, that can probably do a better job then you or i could.

If you're trying to argue that the status quo is fine and we shouldn't change anything, then you have a weird way of doing so.

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

#184

Post by sva_ »

hayleox wrote: post #160
sva_ wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and we've seen some pervasive changes about people in the past decade. Just because people made those changes to their bodies their identity, doesn't mean that those changes haven't happened.

Is... is this about trans people? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you suggesting a causal relationship between the use of PFAS and the visibility of trans people in society?

No, I do not make claims of such a causal relationship in particular, since there is no direct evidence which would support such a hypothesis (so far).

My thinking is, that in the past we've been able to detect industrial pollutants that are harmful to human health because they had clear detrimental effects, like asbestos which clearly causes cancer.

Newer pollutants would probably be more subtle, because we can select out those which clearly cause harm. Agents that affect the endocrine system might currently slip under the radar, as we do not fully understand how different agents interact with it, and what the long-term repercussions are.

Surely there are different aspects of our bodies that could be negatively affected by industrial pollutants, but I just have a personal hunch that the endocrine system might be one that is subtle enough that it could evade our investigations long enough that could cause accumulative harm before we really notice it. Hope that makes some sense.

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

#185

Post by giantg2 »

kccqzy wrote: post #181
birdiesanders wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Goretex contains PTFE, which is inert enough to be used inside the human body. It can be used to patch for example a ruptured artery. https://web.archive.org/web/20160712144834/http://www.chemhe... Also, PTFE is decidedly not among the nine proposed by the EPA to be classified as hazardous.

And what chemicals are used to create PTFE? How pure is the PTFE that's manufactured? What does PTFE release/breakdown to under specific conditions? The answers might surprise you.

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

#186

Post by giantg2 »

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.

Then you should add some sources and correct Wikipedia.

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

#187

Post by warble »

happytiger wrote: post #180

Lets us all join hands and pray that the EPA will one day learn to do their job. How can this be a debate? This stuff has broadly poisoned the water supplies of entire regions in a way that won’t be easy to fix and they are still debating . Is that really the line? Look at this map. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502 Look at the known effects: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html

After reading this it's still not clear there's a problem.

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

#188

Post by appplication »

happytiger wrote: post #180

Lets us all join hands and pray that the EPA will one day learn to do their job. How can this be a debate? This stuff has broadly poisoned the water supplies of entire regions in a way that won’t be easy to fix and they are still debating . Is that really the line? Look at this map. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502 Look at the known effects: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html

I’m on board with your sentiment but it’s hard to find most mapped data compelling. Everything converges to population centers so every map of data points ends up looking the same unless there’s some specific local bias.

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

#189

Post by hcurtiss »

marshray wrote: post #171
hcurtiss wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is water a chemical? How about nitrogen, which comprises 3/4 of our atmosphere?

Is Bose–Einstein condensate a chemical? How about Neutronium? See how that works? Real productive mode of conversation, huh.

I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. If nitrogen and water are OK, then the directive is plainly wrong. What else would be OK? And how would we make that decision?

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

#190

Post by thfuran »

zug_zug wrote: post #175
hayleox wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is... is this about trans people? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you suggesting a causal relationship between the use of PFAS and the visibility of trans people in society?

This shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, and I say that as a queer person myself. It obviously shouldn't be presumed true until disproven either, but if/when it gets dismissed it should be for conclusive scientific reasons rather that fear of offending.

Is there any particular reason to entertain it? If I give you fifty wild ass guesses as to things it causes, we can be pretty sure that, upon further study, at least one of them is going to come back as a positive result ( p < 0.05 ). That doesn't really mean anything other than that we've probably wasted a bunch of time and money.
Post reply on HN