1076
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
1076 points (98.9% liked)
Not The Onion
12729 readers
1798 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In reality no one can say for certain, but a lot of research is pointing to long term exposure being bad. The problem is that the research to determine how bad will take decades (and has been going on for decades at this point). Right now it's being used as the boogeyman for every sort of ill from causing cancer, infertility, issues with lactation, liver failure, high cholesterol, thyroid disease, and auto-immune disorders. Basically the preliminary research says that it at least in part impacts all of these things, we just don't know how much.
On the flip side bacon also causes cancer and high cholesterol at some level. That's not to make light of the situation, but it does give some credence to your earlier statement.
The thing people are missing in these discussions is what are they willing to live without if we don't use these chemicals. Going without non-stick cookware is literally the tip of the iceberg. How do we feel about cars, furniture, and mattresses being more flammable because they don't have the fire retarding forever chemicals? How do we feel about stain resistance, oil resistance, water resistance, and slip resistance in everything including shoes, umbrellas, clothes, oven mitts, jackets, and more? How do we feel about needing to clean everything including clothes, appliances, and floors more often. How about in industry where it's used as a fume suppressant so smelly chemicals don't waft as far or fire fighting foams the next time an electric car catches on fire? This stuff is even in the wrapping of your food so the it doesn't go through the packaging and cause a mess as easily.
Dupont coined the phrase "Better Living Through Chemistry" and that chemistry is PFAS. It's in your clothes when you buy them, it's in your detergent when you clean them, it's in the cleaner that you wipe your washer off with, it's in the floor sealant of the laundry room that washer is in, it's in the gloves you wear while cleaning that laundry room, it's in the carpet in the room next to the laundry room, and the list goes on and on.
Dropping PFAS chemicals fully would probably send us back to the 1960's or we'll end up replacing it with something just as bad that we don't know the effects of yet.
It's not just the use itself, but also how irresponsibly it is produced. Exposing pregnant workers to high levels, dumping it in community water supplies, on farmland etc.
Also the EU did ban them last september (effective in 2026) for essentially all of the uses you outlined, most of which I dont think are such a big deal and just minor inconveniences. It's not like the 60s were terrible in terms of living conditions.
We also used to use asbestos for a lot of the uses you outlined and we got rid of that without too much inconvenience, but you could have made similar arguments about it back then.
And any reduction is a good thing, it's not an all or nothing thing. DDT was banned, but can and is still used where there's no better alternative. And just categorically saying any alternative must be just as bad is just a non-sequitur, there's no reason that should be true. Cookware is a good example, cast iron works just as well, is not as bad, the only downside compared to teflon is weight. But it's not like sending us back to the stone age or anything...
You can have your own opinion here, but anything which performs like PFAS compounds, in the variety of uses that PFAS is used, will almost certainly be bad. In general when you make new compounds and materials which are more complex their potential health impacts are worse. PFAS is already an extremely complex material and while broad sweeping statements might not be 100% accurate, I wouldn't bet that it's replacement would be better for people.
It's another thing altogether if you are recommending going backward in the development chain, cookware is a good example here but it's limited case underlies the ubiquity of PFAS. Hell, PFAS is a major component in computer part manufacturing and is part of the reason computing technology has progressed as it has.
How do we feel about having 8g of plastic in our brain. Each of us. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cef0/fd3b2409e2ef92182d9fc42e4308d5fe1b2b.pdf
I don't have a lot of thoughts on the matter, I know a good bit about PFAS, not microplastics. Grams vs Nanograms is a huge difference, but I don't know if that's detrimental or not. Looking over the link you provided the study provides it's own description of limitations which may or may not be trivial.
It's in the rain and every freshwater fish or lake water has it, such that even once per year fish consumption is not recommended. Safe level is 4.4ng per kg body weight/week. 300ng for adult male. Half kilo of fish will be 4800ng. Technically that is 3 fish portions per year, but you will get enough smaller amounts every day to breech limit with freshwater fish.
You have a point that it may still be needed for some stuff.
Source for once per year fish consumption? I couldn't find that.
You can't have it needed in some stuff and critically dangerous if it's a bio-accumulating chemical that virtually never breaks down. To reduce it enough to not be a hazard world wide you would functionally have to stop using it everywhere.
I haven't seen any definitive results on dangerous health levels, 4.4 ng/kg might be it, but then other studies show people with mg/L of blood concentration. Overall the effects of exposure seem to depend on more than just the concentration, such as health status, exposure duration, magnitude of exposure, and how lucky you got with the genetic lottery. Even then we are fairly certain it is bad, we just don't know what or how specifically. I would also throw caution at any study using ng as a serious measurement here, especially over prolonged exposure. The problem with measuring on such a low level is that you have far too much uncertainty to claim any true accuracy, at best these studies are guessing when they throw out numbers. Hell, the EPA just came out with a standardized method for analyzing PFAS last year.
At those levels of exposure you're probably getting it just from eating commercially grown fruits and vegetables, because it can bio-accumulate in those as well.
4.4ng/kg per week was the result from google "safe pfas levels". 46 weeks gets to 1 mg.
Um, no it doesn't.... maybe you're confusing micrograms for nanograms?