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

231–237 of 237 posts

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

#231

Post by timr »

StableAlkyne wrote: post #161
timr wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Polytetrafluoroethylene is a polymer where the individual monomers are fluorinated alkanes. I fail to see how a polymer made entirely of fluorinated alkyl substances is not a polyfluorinated alkyl substance. I'm not really sure how one could argue they're not if we ignore politics and just look at chemical nomenclature

> I fail to see how a polymer made entirely of fluorinated alkyl substances is not a polyfluorinated alkyl substance.

It is a "polyfluorinated alkyl". The term is so broad as to be meaningless, and PFOA is wildly different, chemically and physically, than PTFE. One is a water-soluble acid. The other is an insoluble substance that is one of the most chemically inert things known to science.

It's like labeling something as "fluoride-containing" and panicking because your city water supply has it (which some people do, but I digress).

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

#232

Post by themerone »

timr wrote: post #228
themerone wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, they aren't. PFAS are/were used [1] in the creation of Teflon, which is what defines GoreTex. 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.

No, you don't understand how Gore-Tex is made.

Gore-Tex is a PTFE membrane laminated one side of a fabric.

The other side of the fabric is coated with a DWR (durable water repellent) coating.

The DWR finish prevents the outer fabric from being saturated with water.

The DWR is not made from PTFE and historical has contained PFAS compounds.

It is not a permanent finish, so it definitely ends up in the environment.

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

#233

Post by User3456335 »

timr wrote: post #227
User3456335 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They list it as a "perfluroalkyl substance", which is exactly what I'm saying is wrong -- Teflon is nothing like the other substances, if only in that it isn't water soluble (it's more than that, but just for starters). You can't just group everything together under that category and claim they're all the same. These are ontological games played by people who either don't understand chemistry, want to scare people, a…

My only point is that you use the term PFAS for a different group of compounds than multiple different official sources define it as. I'm just pointing out that that looks strange to me as a layperson.

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

#234

Post by CodeWriter23 »

Kuinox wrote: post #71
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, especially with vaccines in the US (and some other places) science doesn’t have to meet that burden because they are indemnified for product liability by the government by law.

Good thing I'm not in the US then.

Chances are then you live in a country that says “the FDA is good enough for us”. India not being one such country.

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

#235

Post by sitkack »

krisoft wrote: post #126
sitkack wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything is chemicals. This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.

> This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation. It is not. Quite contrary. The thought it provokes is "what chemicals do you want to ban?" Do you want to ban water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports it? It is a chemical after all. One which is quite dangerous in many circumstances. But surely that is not what edgyquant meant. Should we prohibit people selling soap? I…

> Do you want to ban water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports it? It is a chemical after all.

Exactly. You prove my point.

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

#236

Post by feedsmgmt »

timr wrote: post #230
feedsmgmt wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

No, they found organic fuorine in the products. FTA: > 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…

Per the article there are few sources of that substance other than PFAS. What makes you believe that there are many sources for it?

"That’s because all PFAS contain organic fluorine, and there are few other sources of the compound, says Graham Peaslee, PhD, a professor of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, who has studied PFAS in food packaging.

Another complication: PFAS is used so widely—found in ink on food containers, recycled paper, machines that make packaging, and more—that it often shows up in products unintentionally."

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

#237

Post by feedsmgmt »

feedsmgmt wrote: post #236
timr wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they found organic fuorine in the products. FTA: > 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…

Per the article there are few sources of that substance other than PFAS. What makes you believe that there are many sources for it? "That’s because all PFAS contain organic fluorine, and there are few other sources of the compound, says Graham Peaslee, PhD, a professor of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, who has studied PFAS in food packaging. Another complication: PFAS…

Here is another study they did that is phthalate and they link a PDF of their methodology: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/the...
Post reply on HN