Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

201–210 of 237 posts

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

#201

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.

https://pubs.acs.org/cms/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502/asset/i...

This isn’t compelling? These aren’t population centers they are known PFAS contamination sites — not following population. They are airports (PFAS in firefighter foam was a massive source of contamination), industrial sites, military sites and wastewater treatment plants. Only one of those are inherently associated to population centers.

What kind of map would be more compelling? Maybe a more interactive one?

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/

The usgs has different data and visualizations:

https://www.usgs.gov/tools/pfas-us-tapwater-interactive-dash...

I also know there is a map for Europe:

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/02/23/f...

The study I linked to suggests that the methodology used to collect the information is flawed (the EPA didn’t even test private wells of any kind for example) and suggested that this is only perhaps 1/3 of the actual contamination.

What’s important to understand is that many groundwater systems complex and quite a few are connected so when you add chemicals that don’t break down to them you can make changes that aren’t potentially even fixable. And we are talking about the vast majority of usable water on earth being contaminated.

> When many people think of a water source, they think of lakes, rivers and streams; in other words, surface water. However, of all of the usable freshwater in the world, approximately 97 percent of it is groundwater. According to the United Nations, 10 million cubic kilometres of water are stored underground. The United States Geological Survey states that there is about 4.2 million cubic kilometres of water within 0.8 kilometre of the earth’s surface. Environment Canada cites a study that estimates that all of the groundwater in the world would cover the surface of the earth to a depth of 120 metres, while all of the surface freshwater would only cover the earth to a depth of 0.25 metre! While groundwater estimates can vary, scientists agree that there is a lot of water under the earth’s surface!

Source: https://www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/groundwate...

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

#202
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

If we're making up hypotheticals, wouldn't the ideal world be not to have ever used them?

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

#203
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No reprocussions if you don't do anything about it and promote a culture of helplessness - probably exactly what they hope you will do.

What do you suggest, then? Vote? Formally complain? Spread awareness? I've been doing all that, that's how we got here.

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

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well the main reason to entertain it is that that's how science works -- something isn't false until proven, it's unknown until studied. It's worth studying because if it's true we'd like to know it.

Now is there any plausibility whatsoever? To my mind it definitely wouldn't be the weirdest scientific discovery of the last 20 years. Many of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors meaning they affect hormones. Some of these are so prevalent that we get exposed to them in-utero. And obviously sex hormones when the body is developing can impact one's development [1].

Some of these chemicals are essentially inescapable in our everyday life (BPA is even in the air at this point) but often at very low doses. So we don't know any direct link, but there's a lot we don't know.

1 - https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/in-utero-exp...

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

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

This line of reasoning is absurd! We know PFAS levels in the environment can only increase in practice due to their very low degradation rate (hence their “forever chemicals” nickname). So even if these harmful levels aren't being reached now, they will definitely be at some point of we keep pouring them out there. And by that time it would be too late. You don't wait for someone to be harm before intervening when th…

You seem to think there’s piles stacking up all over the place. We’re talking parts per trillion, or smaller. The sun may burn out before we encounter quantities sufficient to be harmful.

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

#206
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>…would be quickly washed away There is no “away”. “away” is our waterways and soil.

It’s been washed outside the environment

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

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means.

classic bad-faith interpretation, using the classic bad-faith slogan. No, you’re not “just trying to understand” anything, and GP is absolutely correct about that.

We are not dying for content here without your “hurr durr don’t you know water is a chemical posts, and we generally try to maintain a higher level of discourse here. Maybe try Reddit instead.

Please see the site rules about using the most generous possible interpretation of a comment, and if you actually have something to contribute then maybe try again.

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

#208
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No reprocussions if you don't do anything about it and promote a culture of helplessness - probably exactly what they hope you will do.

What do you suggest, then? Vote? Formally complain? Spread awareness? I've been doing all that, that's how we got here.

People have been organizing and effectively doing things politically for generations. That's how we got here. All the current law, etc. is a product of political activity, all the good, all the bad (good and bad as we perceive it).

How you got to where you are is to complain and promote powerlessness. Excuses are tools to build monuments of nothingness. Seriously, if your opponents could fund you, they would; you could earn some money at least.

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

#209
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. classic bad-faith interpretation, using the classic bad-faith slogan. No, you’re not “just trying to understand” anything, and GP is absolutely correct about that. We are not dying for content here without your “hurr durr don’t you know water is a chemical posts, and we generally try to maintain a higher level of discourse her…

The comment that spurred this conversation did claim that the problem was overly complicated legislation to a simple problem. "Don't dump chemicals" is about as good a solution as "don't do bad things". You can't oversimplify a complex issue like that and expect to get anywhere.

I'm being plenty charitable in assuming you're arguing in good faith, at first glance your comment comes off as anti-intellectual value signalling, which will never ever solve anything. Ever.

But this is HN, so I'm going to assume you've simply misunderstood the concern, as anti intellectualism has no place here.

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

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of reasoning is absurd! We know PFAS levels in the environment can only increase in practice due to their very low degradation rate (hence their “forever chemicals” nickname). So even if these harmful levels aren't being reached now, they will definitely be at some point of we keep pouring them out there. And by that time it would be too late. You don't wait for someone to be harm before intervening when th…

You seem to think there’s piles stacking up all over the place. We’re talking parts per trillion, or smaller. The sun may burn out before we encounter quantities sufficient to be harmful.

This is misinformation.

There are already plenty (literally hundreds) of places where the amount accumulated in the environment already exceeds safe limits (mostly in the immediate vicinity of chemical plants processing them, or fire departments which use them extensively).

You said you cared about science in the first message but you obviously don't.

Post reply on HN