221–230 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s been washed outside the environment
Please let me know where your sink that drains directly into the sun is. It would prove rather handy for the large quantity of nuclear waste I need to dispose of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is water a chemical? How about nitrogen, which comprises 3/4 of our atmosphere?
You know what was meant and this question is the perfect example of someone who is bad faith actor and we should jail for pretending to not get it. Water is a necessity to life and what humans drink, toxic chemicals aren’t. It’s simple, if it isn’t water don’t dump it, period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's what they said. And I'm not giving my opinion on their take here. But they said nothing about PFAS, and made no proposal to ban them. Again, this is an abstract statement that says “stop shying away from punishing those bastards when they kill people”, not a proposal to ban PFAS in particular in this situation.
They said nothing about punishment or consequences. You’re twisting their words, like, a lot.
Let's go back to the original quote:
> 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. It would just be disruptive to enterprise, boo hoo. We don't need to always treat bad actors with kid gloves.
How isn't that talking about “punishment”? What do you think the last sentence is supposed to mean?
You either have a pathological level of confirmation bias, or acute reading deficiency, I'm afraid.
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…
Your point regarding whether all PFAS is harmful may very well be interesting but cannot be taken seriously if it is accompanied by blatant misinformation.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>…would be quickly washed away There is no “away”. “away” is our waterways and soil.
It’s been washed outside the environment
Yes I know it was just a joke. I do have a sense of humor. Yes I know downvote buttons exist. Those are the sugar additive of online comments. In blind taste tests people will often vote the sugary comment is prefered - and this is repeated until it's filled with sugary comments.
HN is one of the few places to have avoided this fate - I'd love to keep it this way.
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…
PTFE is literally the first example mentioned in the Sample chemicals section of the wiki of PFAS, which you linked. Regardless of your views on whether Teflon is harmful, your comment contains misinformation. Teflon/PTFE is PFAS according to the OECD definition and the Wiki page. Your point regarding whether all PFAS is harmful may very well be interesting but cannot be taken seriously if it is accompanied by blatan…
If you don't understand the argument someone is making and have to rely on the verbatim language in a wikipedia article, you should probably resist the urge the label things "misinformation". Instead, just say "I don't like/agree with what you're saying", which is really what you mean.
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.
PFAS are in the DWR coating on the outside of Gore-Tex fabric. The PTFE membrane is on the inside. The DWR finish definitely ends up going down the drain or wears off in use. There are new PFAS free DWR finishes, but don't know if Gore-Tex is using them yet. Gore does not consider PTFE to be environmentally friendly and is working on flourocarbon free fabrics.
You're being confused by people who try to argue that Teflon is as PFAS.
[1] there are other ways of making Teflon, and the industry has been phasing out PFOA for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You are talking about GoreTex in the first sentence, then PFAS in general in the next, conflating the two. The EPA has absolutely found harm in humans from PFAS using science [1]. I don't know anything about GoreTex, but I do know they changed their formula to get rid of PFAS, at least for marketing reasons if not out of fear of liability as well, considering they are being sued. [1] https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-exp…
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…
"CR found 'forever chemicals' in bowls, bags, plates, and wrappers, even from some companies that say they've phased them out" https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/dan...
> CR tested products for their total organic fluorine content, which is considered the simplest way to assess a material’s total PFAS content."
Totally different, and so completely misleading that it's mind-boggling. Do you know how many things have organic fluorine that have nothing to do with PFAS? Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organofluorine_chemistry
They repeatedly say in the article that it's basically impossible to reduce organic fluorine content to zero, because it's everywhere. You cannot leap to the conclusion that "finding organic fluorine" has any relationship to Teflon in food wrapping (especially at the 20ppm threshold they used), and you also can't jump to the conclusion that this means that there's a specific health risk.
They do test for a few specific PFAS compounds "in a subset" of the wrappers later in the article. This is more compelling -- but again, you don't know where it comes from.