I'm a bit confused here. These are recognized as being harmful.
It's written all over the msds for these.
What is the real change that is going to occur?
I remember dealing with these substances in tiny quantities in the lab, and they were treated as carefully as cholorosifonic super acids. A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle.
One problem is making methods that can detect waste streams at under ppt levels, which is pretty difficult, but that's the best effort for dealing with these substances at the moment.
> 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, perpetually and over time could become not-small amounts.
> 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 types were used in the manufacture of PTFE (specifically Perfluorooctanoic acid [3]) which is the actual answer to GPs question -- this is primarily an issue of industrial concern. PFOA is far more reactive than PTFE, which is one of the most inert substances known to man. You can't just group these chemicals together in the bucket of "things that have fluoride polymers" and panic about all of them.
We regularly put teflon parts in humans, because they don't react with anything. Proving harm here is an incredibly high bar.
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:
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.
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."
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.
Can we please keep the reddit comments on reddit? There is an entire site of simple jokes and small puns - please post them there instead.
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.
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.
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.
When it comes to CF bonds I'm more concerned with bioaccumulation than direct skin contact. Besides, polonium-210 is also harmless upon direct skin contact, it's not as if skin-contact is the most dangerous form of exposure.
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.
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.
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 blatant misinformation.
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, are themselves irrationally scared, or have some other motivation for drawing the broadest possible definition of "PFAS".
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.
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.
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).
Let's not get too relaxed here. There's gigantic masses of plastic all over the world that would like to say that anything mass produced and cumulative "WILL become 'not-small' amounts".
There’s no could about it. Dutch food advisory is already to limit eating fish to once a week because of PFAS.
And eggs from chickens kept in your own yard are considered unsafe to eat, in a pretty big area. Unless you want to have them tested regularly at ~€600 each time.
So what is the impact of this proposed EPA ruling on ordinary people disposing of ordinary household items like those you describe? Will we all need to have hazmat plants installed in our sewage lines? Will we no longer be able to wash our clothes in washing machines? Will we have to segregate all our trash and pay for our community to have a hazmat disposal truck come around along with the regular trash truck?
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 silicone o-rings to create watertight seals.
For outdoor goods like backpacks or bags that you want to stay waterproof, I personally recommend PU and TPU coated drybags. For clothing like pants or shirts, I'd recommend opting for non-water-resistant/non-waterproof versions, and just buy an umbrella or raincoat with a PU or TPU coating to shield you rather than trying to wear clothing that will have water bead. Waxed canvas clothing is another option but it can be heavy. Cool if you are into it though, Fjallraven is famous for it, as is Filson.
I don't think you'll be too sad if your disposable food packaging gets a little soggier. You'll probably be a little more sad if you get cancer :(
So over time, hopefully you own fewer and fewer goods that are destroying the planet! Happy friday.
Immediately ceasing use without suitable replacements would cause a non-trivial amount of economic and social disruption. I'm not sure I'd consider that ideal.
> Will we have to segregate all our trash and pay for our community to have a hazmat disposal truck come around along with the regular trash truck?
We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos.
The superficial answer:
Yes, there are indeed times when human screwups necessitate hazmat disposal trucks in residential areas.
The deeper answer:
The optimal solution to a compounding problem is not to politicize it with absurd rhetoric.
It is to stop whatever's feeding into the compounding as quickly as possible. Because that is the only reliable way to reduce the long term costs that you'll ultimately have to pay.
> We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos.
Indeed we could. And the answer we would find is that no, such requirements were not generally imposed on ordinary homeowners, but on manufacturers and construction firms, in the form of requirements not to use asbestos in future projects and to be forced to undertake remediation efforts when asbestos was found at an existing side that needed to be modified. And we would also find that, as a result, many of those same homeowners ended up with long term health issues from asbestos exposure because they were never informed of the risks or given any feasible way to mitigate them. Nor was any cost benefit calculation done in either case (homeowners or manufacturers/construction firms) to see whether the policy that was actually adopted could reasonably be argued to be a fair tradeoff.
Here at least we are being informed of the (claimed) risk. But there is still no cost benefit analysis being done that I can see.
No. No. And Maybe. Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or just disengenuously attacking regulatory agencies. If you're legitimately concerned, I apologize. On the bright side, you can rest easy.
> Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first.
Is this actual knowledge or just a prediction?
> If you're legitimately concerned
I am, but not just about the impact on me personally. I'm more generally concerned about whether the actual costs of such a regulation will be less than the actual benefits.
It's knowledge. What current regulations require city hazmat vehicles? That was the only remotely plausible impact-to-consumer. Can you name any EPA regulations that affect consumers in any way remotely similar to your original post?
Seems taking your fluorescents and lead based batteries to specialized recycle is about it on the consumer side. Personally I'm happy to do that to prevent poisoning my kids and my neighbor. Also happy for industry to identify safer alternative products.
Please free yourself from the libertarian fever dream.
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?
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.
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?
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!
What’s hard to understand exactly? I’ve pulled a brief summary from both links here to make sure it’s clearer.
> Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity. The epidemiological evidence suggests associations between increases in exposure to (specific) PFAS and certain health effects
* Heart
Increases in cholesterol levels (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFDA)
* Vaccine
Lower antibody response to some vaccines (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFDA)
* Liver
Changes in liver enzymes (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS)
* Pregnancy complications
Pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia (PFOA, PFOS)
* Infant birth weights
Small decreases in birth weight (PFOA, PFOS)
* Cancer
Kidney and testicular cancer (PFOA)
And
An estimated 200 million U.S. residents receive PFAS-contaminated drinking water, and state-level testing indicates widespread contamination of environmental media, (13) yet tremendous data gaps exist related to PFAS contamination and human exposure. (2,14) The only federal drinking water testing initiative with PFAS data to date, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3), focused on large drinking water systems, had high reporting thresholds (10–90 ng/L), and excluded private wells. (15) The EPA has developed nonbinding Health Advisory Levels (HALs) for four PFAS, including updated HALs for PFOA and PFOS at “near zero” levels, (16) but no federal limits on PFAS in public drinking water currently exist. (2)
That set of known harmful effects + 2/3 of the population having the stuff in their drinking water… ain’t great.
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.
Most of the regulatory agencies in the US exist to serve as anticompetitive moats around the largest industrial companies in the US. You see it in the FDA, the FAA, the EPA, SEC/FINRA, etc. Once you get big enough, it seems that the federal government places you under the umbrella of "national security" and decides to make sure you get to continue to exist (so long as you cooperate and play ball). Being part of the large supply chains for the military always helps, too.
Once you see it, you can't unsee it. The US is incredibly corrupt.
The food pyramid is what made me see it. The USDA decided to just fuck up the diet of the western world because the US happens to be great a growing corn.
Doesn’t the DEA deal with the same thing with THC analogs? I could be wrong but I thought they got pretty quick about banning them. I want to look into this now…
Disallow any new chemicals that have not been tested. You shouldn't be able to just create some new chemical and use the public as guinea pigs. And none of this nonsense about stifling technological development. If there is life saving or otherwise groundbreaking use of some new chemical, they can work to get an exception or accelerate the approval process.
I don't think it's remotely inevitable. I think that's an outrageous mindset.
Think of it like an engineer. We try to test products before deploying them to production (e.g. make all of humanity ingest it). If our tests are wrong some significant portion of the time, or if being wrong is much more damaging than we realized, then absolutely it's time to start the conversation of "How do we get better test coverage?"
I bet if you put some paltry amount of money, say 100B (compare this to a bailout) into devising tests around the long-term safety of various chemicals some creative solutions would come up. For example, off the top of my head, if reproductive health is a concern, perhaps do a study where some animal that reproduces frequently is exposed to it for 10+ generations. We can validate if this is a viable way of testing by taking some known endocrine-disruptors and validating this test catches them effectively.
For whatever reason, some people don't seem to see engineering chemicals that are safe for humanity to be a worthy enterprise, but I think it's as important as any tech company and we should make the financial incentives to reflect that and get the right minds on this problem.
Those tests exist already, but no ethical tests can determine the full truth.
Also, tests where minute traces of anything, like coffee, are purified to extreme amounts and injected into animals to cause cancer only add confusion, especially when California considers adding cancer warnings to coffee.
Do you actually know which tests the EPA runs and if so could you cite your source?
> no ethical tests can determine the full truth.
That's an all-or-nothing fallacy.
Also you didn't respond to the core of my remark, which is about increasing the financial incentives by an order of magnitude. Lastly I take your complaint about coffee as support my argument that the current testing mechanisms are likely too simple.
No. Ethical tests cannot determine the full truth - that is just a simple fact.
How can anything be tested on on enough humans ethically? We can use animal models to detect some negatives. But if animal tests show a substance is "safe", doubt would still remain until tested on humans. It is normal that humanity creates new technology without knowing the future impact. Some people think that we shouldn't introduce new technology since we can't afford the risks. But technology has ethically positive outcomes - not only negative risk. Doing nothing has risks too.
I guess that it's a fallacy because we don't need to determine the "full truth", just as much of it as we can if doing so would prevent mass poisonings.
I'm sorry but that is nothing but a gross oversimplification of the topic.
There is neither lack of effort nor lack of incentive for human-analog testing ( which would lead to curing cancer, weightloss, hairloss, vaccines, etc. etc. etc.). You can't just write unit tests for the real world. Please do some reading before you try and hand-wave away a whole field as trivial.
Not inevitable at all. It's entirely feasible to specify categories of chemicals. E.g. see the german law on novel psychoactive substances[0] that lumps substituted molecules together with their primitive variants.
One could even go a step further and mandate outcomes instead of means, that substances must be proven to either have a low environmental half-life or to not bio-accumulate.
My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe".
You can still progress technologically without being reckless.
You have to prove that the benefits is worth the potential harm.
Vaccines are known to be harmful to very few persons, yet we vaccine because the benefits outweigh the very small potential of harm.
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.
The EU uses a whitelist approach for food additives, vs the US's blacklist approach:
> Europe has chosen a precautionary approach in regulating, while the U.S. governing bodies tend to be more reactive. In other words, in the United States, food additives are innocent until proven guilty, while in Europe, only those additives proven not to be harmful are approved for use.
There are a ton of contaminants in our drinking water that the EPA recommends you remove and we know they are harmful but they are not mandated to do so. Get yourself a water filter because they're not going to filter it for you.
If you live in California you likely have an enormous amount of chloroform in your water (I tested my water, was horrified, and bought a whole-house water filter; apparently this is just generally true in the Bay Area, and I suspect SoCal as well since we pipe our water down there).
Yeah, I had a bit of a brain fart, the E in EPA made me think Europe, despite me actually knowing what it stands for. I luckily have nothing like that in my water.
No we overcomplicate it with overly complex regulations. It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Assuming chemicals are totally fine until proven otherwise is backwards as hell and clearly corrupt.
> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period.
Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are you willing to take the consequences which follow from that proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 “dump chemicals in air”)
Chemicals are shorthand for synthetic chemicals. We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're usually not too harmful to us and get easily biodegraded.
In this case it's about PFAS, a subgroup of organofluorine compounds. There's only 5 known organofluorine compounds produced by organisms.
Notice the word usually I used. It's about probabilities, and with vastly different probabilities come different burdens of proof.
If you had the choice to put something random from the forest in your mouth or something from a chemistry lab?
Aside from the evidence of > 2,000 years of lead and mercury poisoning, of course.
Humans have been naturally digging these things up and refining them since at least the Roman Empire [1] in the west and the earliest Chinese Dynasties in the East [2].
No its not. Its an absurd statement that doesn't adequately define chemicals, water, or land nor does it address the very necessary industrial processes wherein 'chemicals' are and need to be dumped on water or land. A trivial for instance:
Okay, no more fertilizer on the crops then. Enjoy the famine.
Obviously it's broad and there will be many exceptions. The exceptions are often the interesting part of the discussion.
Words have different meanings in different contexts. Pretending that "chemicals" can only ever be used to refer to all material substances equally is just intentionally trying to sabotage productive discussion.
The usage of chemicals is so broad and incorrect as to be inane in historical context and rhetorically useless, as demonstrated previously. If there's something to discuss regulating, then is necessary to describe it, otherwise all that's been said is 'BAD THINGS' shouldnt be put on the ground. A: duh B: meaningless, because "bad things" doesn't create a basis for a rule or judgement of aforementioned exceptions be because here 'chemicals' are already being assigned the negative connotation. No true chemical (Scotsman fallacy) could be put on the ground and so forth.
> 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 definition that makes sense in the context you are arguing, and you lack the knowledge/ability to make up your own definition that would fit your argument.
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 substances.
adjective
of, used in, produced by, or concerned with chemistry or chemicals: a chemical formula; chemical agents.
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.
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.
How about anhydrous ammonia? Or phosphate? I’m sorry, but there is no generous interpretation of “don’t dump chemicals on land.” It’s an empty statement that amounts to little more than value signaling. And it was presented with righteous indignation. I thought it best to counter that extreme position with obvious and irrefutable exceptions in an effort to open the door to a more thoughtful conversation. Unfortunately, on environmental issues, it seems for some there is only dogma.
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.
> 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? It is a chemical! But that is silly. We would probably lose more by banning that than by not banning it.
Should we ban plastics? Maybe? Which types? All types? All uses?
Should we sell hydrazine in grocery stores? Oh, we better not. Can we use hydrazine in special applications like fuelling satellites? If so what do we require from people who handle/store/dispose of it?
So many thoughts provoked by that simple observation.
What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)?
All of these have hazards in specific circumstances, and huge benefits in others. All are chemicals.
All are well known and characterized. Many other compounds are too new for that level of knowledge and characterization. They are chemicals too.
If we allow someone to make new chemicals (it’s hard to stop, frankly!), either we say ‘no, not until they are fully understood and characterized’, or ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too hazardous’.
Saying no first is a bit of a catch-22 since how are you going learn anything and characterize the dangers if you don’t make and use it a bunch?
If you say ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too dangerous’ then we learn a huge amount quite quickly - but inevitably have something too dangerous causing problems.
It’s a fundamentally conservative vs liberal development strategy debate.
>What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)?
The MSDSes will elaborate on this and you probably know that.
This thread chain has gotten impressively disingenuous very fast. We aren't arguing the colloquial definition of chemicals which if we're not being pedantic, we know brings up ideas of substances damaging to other substances or life itself.
Which is fairly obviously the line that you're giving a good traditional "but where would we POSSIBLY STOP?!" gambit that comes out of paid lobbyist's mouths more often than hello or goodbye.
The line to be crossed is obviously at least a few blocks up the way from "what is the difference between water and hydrazine though".
And also, anything cumulative becomes "too hazardous" within years. But by then profits are made, and war chests are filled to keep the spice flowing.
The world got by for thousands of years sustainably without a lot of these "huge benefits" and I'm willing to take a hit or two within my lifetime to ensure there's still lifetimes at all down the road.
> the colloquial definition of chemicals which if we're not being pedantic, we know brings up ideas of substances damaging to other substances or life itself.
From the comment you're responding to. Damage is quantifiable, if it wasn't, the OP (EPA proposing hazardous substance classification) wouldn't even exist.
one presumes it is not when there is any quantifiable damage, no matter how slight. I assume nobody is proposing banning water, etc. But even plain water can result in large amounts of environmental damage in certain contexts.
If the point is just to ban things when the risks outweigh the benefits, that is simply the status quo.
The challenge is, one can usually only make that kind of trade off when something is well known enough to know the risks and benefits in a wide variety of environments.
The first real problematic PFAS compounds were in fire fighting foam used to put out aircraft fires for example, and took decades for their problems to show up.
Which requires either extremely exhaustive (or essentially impossible economically) testing, or yolo’ng it. Or only using already known compounds.
How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn’t been made yet?
How do you decide it’s safe to create a large enough quantity of a chemical to figure out what even should be in that MSDS?
How can you know if something is mutagenic without exposing it to DNA? Or cancer causing without exposing it to a living organism? Or causes reproductive harm without exposing it to organisms and seeing how it impacts reproduction?
Those all are potential harms.
Traditionally, some enterprising alchemist/chemist would just try it - and if they lived, would write a paper on it. Further research and experience would then inform if a better alternative should be used.
The Haber-Bosch process that allowed the creation of artificial fertilizers has allowed for the massive expansion of the human race. Roughly 3/4 of the humans on this planet right now would starve to death without it. Assuming they didn’t get nuked first. That was in 1909.
It also allowed for the creation of modern high explosives (and propellants) at scale, and the horrors of WW1 and WW2. And the mining revolution, which has provided the raw materials necessary to build our modern economies at vastly cheaper prices than were ever possible before for humanity.
Chemistry is a fundamental building block of modern society, and removing it would literally cause its sudden and violent collapse.
Deciding if ‘freezing’ it in place, or letting it continue to develop new and interesting applications is the discussion - because no, we weren’t sustainable before (unless you count constant and ongoing genocides as ‘sustainable’), and we’ve long passed the point where trying to return to that would be anything but apocalyptic.
Literally.
And keeping in mind that just because we agree to stop research in one area doesn’t mean anyone else (competitors) will do so. Regardless of if that is in the realm of drugs, or weapons, or soaps, or foods, or whatever.
So, let me get this straight: I've claimed reducing everything to "chemicals" is disingenuous, and in response, I'm immediately told "no, you" and then challenged with debates over topics or ideas I haven't actually talked about like
>How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn’t been made yet?
What argument that I've made do you present this logical fallacy to?
> Deciding if ‘freezing’ it in place, or letting it continue to develop new and interesting applications is the discussion
This is not my viewpoint and was never mentioned by me. This is an argument you're either making in reference to another comment, a point not addressed by myself, or you're talking to your own strawman, who doesn't seem to have a significant stance other than "well, it's basically unsolveable!".
That is the discussion I was having. You're doing exactly what I mentioned, being disingenuous about the literal technical definition of chemicals and muddying waters because water is a chemical too, man!
Well watering my lawn doesn't kill it or give organisms that live mere decades cancer. That's a reasonable measurement to start.
And if you're really saying there can't be more in depth, slower research to chemicals that people will end up having in their bloodstream, then I don't even know what to say to that, other than Andrew Ryan would be proud.
It doesn’t seem like you’re reading your comments or my replies?
The concern about the chemicals we’re talking about is that they are in the water you are using to water your lawn, anmong other things, and have been getting made at scale for over 50 years. And is a family of 6 million something chemicals, some of which we suspect now may be dangerous - including causing cancer - and some we have no idea.
We can only test for things we suspect are an actual issue and have a test for. And for which we actually test.
Which we don’t really have reasonable tests for ‘doesn’t bio degrade over decades+ and bio accumulates to potentially dangerous levels’ yet. Except watching nature, anyway, which is how we discovered this problem. There are millions more chemicals that this hasn’t happened either.
So what do you propose doing here besides freezing it until such tests can be put in place and developed?
No you’re being pedantic and proving my point. Everyone, every single person, knows when you’re doing something that could potentially devastate an environment and if you have to ask if it could don’t be dumping. Why should anyone be allowed to dump anything at all into the local environment?
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.
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.
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 seems like a win-win for you.
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 conversation about the important details by, in the writing of mike judge, "playing lawyerball" instead.
In reality we all know that none of us are writing the technical legislation, so any of us becoming enamored with defending for profit entities against hazardous chemical classification through technical usage of language is...basically the core spirit of corporate lobbyism.
> 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.
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.
Its not just the rich and powerful, its the knowledgeable experts and powerbrokers that facilitate and actually build out the power structure that enables the rich to take advantage of these opportunities.
As long as one of the most lucrative and prestigious routes to success for exceptionally talented people lie in the power structures that require the compromise of society, the rich will have abundant opportunity to harvest the wealth that lies in damaging the world we live in and make money on the "solutions".
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.
This will continue until the population becomes comfortable with extra-judicial violence against those in power.
(Also, look at how old my account is and consider whether or not I care about your downvote. Reply with something that directly refutes the point I'm making so we can have the vibrant discussion this website used to be known for. Downvotes are simply pathetic attempts to silence correct views. Intellectuals have discussions, not censor their opponents. Only the most indefensible and mediocre positions depend on censorship. It also explains why the most unimpressive people depend on it.)
It does seem to be determined that these pose some degree of hazard.
Two problems:
1) defining the class sufficiently broadly to encompass the entire set so mfgrs can't just dodge the regulations by rearranging the molecule a bit and making the regulators play whack-a-mole, and possibly making things worse
2) not making the regulations too onerous, such as a sudden total ban. Yes, a lot of disposable uses should be discouraged or contained, and it may be reasonable to phase out all use to develop better alternatives.
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.
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.).
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?
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.
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.
This is probably linked more to changing social attitudes towards the medicalization of gender non-conformity. And also sexual fetishes being more accepted.
It's not just synthetic chemicals. Humanity already can't undo the nuke test fallout layer and the lead from gasoline layer future archeologists will marvel at: "What arrogant dopes, leaving a mark on the entire planet out of negligence."
Why is 1955 the "normal" baseline? I could be convinced it's somewhat reasonable, but right now, I wouldn't assume it. More data would be the most convincing argument.
This is one thing I’m hopeful about for EVs. Plastic is cheap because of massive demand scaling the oil industry, collapse the demand for oil and plastic becomes more expensive.
Oil supply is fairly demand inelastic, if demand for oil drops, we'll almost certainly see cheaper oil. And if OPEC sees the writing on the wall they're going to price aggressively as long as they can.
Right, but lower trending demand would also put more power into the hands of OPEC to crater prices and prop up demand any time alternatives start to threaten oil's dominance. They're not going to go out without a fight to the end because those economies depend on oil. I'm sure it will go on long after I'm gone from this world.
Will they though? A large consumer of oil is cars and EVs are coming fast. Even if we assume that 5% of cars will always be fuel burning ICE for "reasons" that is such large demand destruction that in 10 years I don't think OPEC will have any power - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if most of the world just embargo all OPEC countries: they are mostly middle east areas where there is a lot of conflict and the few non-OPEC oil producers can supply the world's needs, so cutting them off from all money is a good thing for the world.
> Even if we assume that 5% of cars will always be fuel burning ICE
By the time it gets that low, I agree, they're done. We're a very long way from that. 85% of cars being sold globally are still ICE, and the population of vehicles on the road lags sales figures by a couple of decades. And even with the increase in EV sales figures, oil demand is not dropping, because the total demand for cars is increasing.
But if demand for oil starts to drop due to EV adoption, OPEC is for sure going to make sure it's cheap as hell to operate an oil burning car, and people in the majority of the world where it's still legal will have a huge incentive to keep buying them.
That isn't how it works. Oil wells cost a lot of $$$ upfront to get the first drop of oil. Every liter of oil after that is practically free - there is a little electric or gas needed to run the pumps, but that is so little it doesn't count. Most of the cost is in finding a spot to drill, getting permissions to drill there, and then drilling. (mineral rights are really complex, but generally whoever owns them gets a % of the sale value of the crude, so if the price goes down or the well produces less they get less money)
Which is to say oil wells don't shutdown when the profit goes negative because that never happens. Oil wells do shutdown (or more likely produce less because the pump is slowed) if the owner decides they want to control supply to bring the price up - but you have to have a lot of wells to even think about that. During the pandemic oil wells shutdown, but that was because there was no place to put store the oil - if you could store it there was plenty of value in pumping it (though it was an investment).
Refineries don't shutdown when the profit goes negative. Again, because the sunk cost in machinery is a large part of the cost. If the profit goes down they will often not remodel and eventually shutdown because the equipment it wore out. Many have shutdown because the right crude wasn't available (and they didn't want to invest in machinery to handle crude they can get) - and then reopened a decade later when someone started pumping the right crude again.
Yes of course if profit goes negative they will both shutdown. However long before profits go negative they will be managing things and so in practice they are shutdown for other reasons first.
The high-cost suppliers in countries where cartels are illegal do. Which is why fracking busts and booms in the US as prices change around the world for other reasons. But there's enough places in the world where oil flows with minimal effort to sustain low prices in a world where demand is decreasing.
The auto industry is a competing use of oil, isn’t it? So halving demand is more likely to reduce prices.
Car industry obviously helped to build the infrastructure but I think now that it’s there, fair chance there’s going to be a lot of oil supply looking for a use. Infrastructure won’t disappear overnight.
Do you know how fractional distillation works? Fuel doesn’t compete for oil. Fuel, bitumen and other heavy fractions is the main reason we distill oil. Those are the hydrocarbons that are actually hard to make. The light fractions used in plastics fall out of that process. It’s not a competition, it’s a synergy.
If they’re going to turn ALL the oil into plastics, at the very least they have to have more processing steps. It’s not hard but it will require bigger refineries, in other words, more expensive plastics.
Also, they will be competing with bio-plastics and other alternatives, that will probably get more favourable regulations in many countries.
Plastics won’t go away. Even if we don’t pump for oil it’s not very hard to make the same plastics from biological hydrocarbons.
The key thing people are talk over each other here is that step #3 takes years.
But also, plastics can pay much more for oil and gas than fuel can. It's currently not scarce at all, and the economic restrictions are all around using the plastic in some way. So don't expect the plastic industry to suffer like your last paragraph implies.
How does that work? If it were simply "oil can be turned into fuel or turned into plastic", then lowered demand should lower the price. Is it that turning oil into fuel produces plastic (or plastic precursors) as a byproduct?
Then what is the alternative? Going back to metal and wood consumer goods at the scale western consumerism exists today versus the pre 1960s would probably be impossible and really throw gasoline on the entire climate crisis.
Some of those plastics would be well-replaced by metals. How many plastic spatulas fill landfills? An adult probably goes through a dozen or more in their lifetimes if they're careful with them, and far more if they burn them leaving them in pans.
A single stainless steel one has to be better, unless I'm just off on the math.
We make so many things that, even if they're not disposable they are "disposable" when they do not have to be.
Finding a good without plastic in it is actually one of my criteria for kitchenware. Glass, metal, wood... nothing else should touch food if I can help it (some exceptions when truly warranted, silicone can be useful).
Packaging makes up, by far, the largest share of plastic waste. And in regards to food, the only packaging without plastic is basically just glass. Cans are lined with plastic to avoid chemically reacting with food. And paper is coated with plastic to stay waterproof. Glass is great but it is energy intensive and has its own waste issues.
We can make plastics from bio sources. It is more expensive, and those plastic biodegrade (sometimes a positive, but sometimes a negative)
We can make any oil from the basic atoms (mostly carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen - but some molecules may want something else). However this process costs a lot more energy (read $) vs pumping oil from the ground and so it is rarely done. This is how synthetic oils are made so if you know the cost of car oil you can get a good picture of the difference in costs.
try the "Green Chemistry" movement about two decades ago, or the close relation "Body Burden" PR campaigns.. the message was clear and the science was not mysterious. Some percentage of people responded, the markets and products .. well.. look around
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.
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.
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 the harm is likely.
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.
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.
Still waiting on that study showing harmful effects due to bioaccumulation. Of course acute exposure can be harmful. The same is true of oxygen. The question is whether there are harmful bioaccumulative pathways. I’ve seen no science to support that.
Teflon (PTFE) is not toxic. It is approved by the FDA for use in implantable medical devices. At normal working temperatures, it is one of the most chemically and biologically inert materials known to exist. PTFE has a number of unique properties that make it an irreplaceable material in a wide variety of applications.
Some of the feedstock chemicals used to produce PTFE are likely toxic. The most concerning of these is perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); this is one of the chemicals that the EPA proposal applies to. Most manufacturers of PTFE have already voluntarily phased out the use of PFOA. There is some debate about whether the replacement feedstock chemicals are meaningfully less toxic. These feedstock chemicals can - and should - be prevented from ever entering the environment, which would largely nullify concerns about their toxicity.
The maximum safe temperature for PTFE is uncertain, with many conflicting sources. Depending on your risk tolerance, you might accept anywhere from 200C to 250C. The former is easy to exceed by accident (personally tested using an IR thermometer), the latter is only likely to happen if you use incorrect technique, e.g. trying to sear meat on it, or leaving a hot pan unattended. PTFE is only suitable for gentle cooking.
The quality of the pan also makes a difference; cheap ones often use very thin metal that doesn't spread the heat well, resulting in hot spots.
I recommend using an IR thermometer to learn how your personal cooking setup behaves.
Is it? The reference I found quickly suggests that PTFE needs to be heated a bit above 530F before it starts to cause problems, and that’s not a normal cooking temperature for basically any purpose other than pizza.
Unfortunately, most stoves do no adequately control temperature, and it’s easy to reach that temperature by accident.
We're not allowed to begin bailing the water out of the sinking ship until the ship is sunk.
You'd think we'd finally have gotten far enough in education to not be so easily carrot and sticked. But damn. People coming out of the woodwork in this thread to defend literal world contamination.
No, he's saying we shouldn't use PFAS for carpet or military firefighting, but we should for semiconductor manufacturing where we have control over waste streams.
That's a very bad faith paraphrase of their single comment in this thread:
> 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.
No they aren't! This comment isn't proposing anything!
They are arguing that even total bans should not be dismissed by default, and that there can exist situations “depending on the harms” that justifies a total ban.
And they did not say that in a vacuum, but as an answer to another comment that straight out dismissed total ban as an option.
This comment is in no way advocating for a total ban of PFAS in particular.
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 commenter that argues against total bans as a matter of principle. All they're saying is “I disagree that we should always dismiss the option of a total ban, there are situations where it is justified”. This isn't a proposal for a total ban of PFAS in any way.
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.
> 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.
Humanity is currently set to die off, starting in about 2040, because of falling fertility. Microplastics acts as endocrine disruptors, making everyone less fecund. It is the single greatest existential threat to our species.
What are the benefits these chemicals have provided, and do the benefits outweigh the negative effects?
Are these chemicals dangerous in the forms that they're found in the environment, e.g. there are unlikely to be many pools of acid. Are they chemically bonded to something that reduces bio-interactivity?
I don't agree with the approach "you can't do anything new until you prove it's safe". I also am very skeptical of the EPA ever since they declared CO2 a pollutant (sorry, my exhalations are not "pollution").
Like every sane person I want a clean environment. Like any rational person, I want to understand the trade-offs of regulations before I support or oppose them.
> What are the benefits these chemicals have provided
They have a lot of properties that can be useful in materials - hydrophobicity, lipophobicity, chemical resistance, low friction, etc.
They are certainly used in some niches (like medical devices, protective clothing, advanced manufacturing) that people would agree are Important, but a significant percentage of production goes into, and a significant amount of contamination comes out of, stuff like stain-proofing couches and making food packaging grease resistant. I’m under the impression that a lot of environmental contamination likely also comes from their use in firefighting foams - a useful application to be sure, but there are some things it’s not a great idea to spray straight into the environment.
> Are they chemically bonded to something that reduces bio-interactivity?
A huge part of the story of PFAS is that they are quite resistant to (permanent) chemical bonding, which has often lead to them being thought of as “inert” in a sense that is conflated with safety. But this sense of inertness is a bit of a red herring when it comes to biology (plenty of things interact with receptors without covalently bonding) and meanwhile makes them highly persistent both within organisms and in the environment.
“PFAS” as a literal chemical category feels pretty broad. The ones best established to be harmful are fluorosurfactants like the whole list explicitly targeted here. But broadness is also kind of the point because there are tons of chemicals in use that are likely to have similar accumulative properties that have never really been studied for health effects, and which can’t really be assumed to be harmless if the others aren’t.
Air is 21% oxygen. On average, a resting adult breathes in about 250ml of oxygen per minute.
Air is about about 0.04%. The average adult expels approximately 200ml to 250ml of carbon dioxide per minute. Roughly the same as the o then they intake.
So the relative percentage of C02 increases extremely rapidly in any small volume of air, compared to relative reduction in oxygen.
Up to 0.5% (5,000 parts per million): Considered safe for prolonged exposure, this level is typically used as an occupational exposure limit.
1% to 2%: Can cause drowsiness and poor air quality perception.
3%: May lead to impaired hearing, headache, and increased blood pressure and pulse rate.
5% and above: Can lead to shortness of breath, dizziness, confusion, and even loss of consciousness. Exposure at this concentration for several hours can be dangerous to human health.
Above 8%: Can be fatal.
More? Once someone expires, the percentages reach an unwanted steady state!
Even in a tightly closed building, CO2 buildup can impact cognition.
And build up in the atmosphere impacts the heat balance of the planet.
Your exhalations are only pollution when they destabilize healthy levels. So that’s a bit of a straw man concern.
Breathing (outside of plastic bags, and unventilated buildings): fits within normal planetary balance of C02. Not a concern as a pollutant.
Continuously burning billions of tons C02 generating chemicals for decades, another matter.
> Your exhalations are only pollution when they destabilize healthy levels. So that’s a bit of a straw man concern.
So CO2 is not a pollutant because it is a product of breathing.
Regarding,
> Dumb argument. Is water a pollutant because of the drowning risk?
It might be counter intuitive - because water is not a risk in most contexts. But on another planet where water is an unusual corrosive, then of course it could be a pollutant.
And even on Earth, if some production system kept pumping our environment full of water as a side effect of some process, to the point of endangering or killing ecosystems, in that context it would be a pollutant.
A pollutant is when the accumulation of some left over of a process significantly alters and harms its environment.
Pollutant is a statement about some material’s impact in its context. It isn’t something inate, without context.
I said cost be benefits - it’s now clear that the costs of many usages of lead and asbestos outweighed the benefits. I’m suggesting we look at both sides before we make a decision. Doesn’t seem like an extreme position.
The cost and benefits need to be carried by the same people. Right now with a lot of pollution some people have to pay the price for the benefits of others. Or often the whole population has to suffer damage because some capitalists get richer.
Where they outline the nine PFAS are: - Perfluorooctanoic acid. - Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid - Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid. - Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid. - Perfluorononanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid. - Perfluorodecanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanoic acid. - Perfluorobutanoic acid.