6 ms·

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 caus

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.

kreeben 3y ago
I don't follow. Are you saying we should hold off laws that deem e.g. teflon toxic, until there's teflon everywhere? The government: There's almost no teflon in the ground, so that's good. The market: Hold my beer.
- tekla 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - titaniumtown 3y ago
    Are you being sarcastic?
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  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.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Nobody is talking about banning them outright for all purpose here though.
    - TylerE 3y ago
      People here, like tehjoker, are proposing total bans in this very thread.
      - llbeansandrice 3y ago
        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. Hardly the extremism you're implying.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        They are quite literally proposing a total ban. And then following it with some simplistic and emotionally charged rhetoric.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        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.
        TylerE 3y ago
        They are outlining a scenario where they would consider such a ban desirable. How is that not proposing it?
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        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.
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    > we should for semiconductor manufacturing where we have control over waste streams Note that this has not historically been the case, see for example all those superfund sites in SV.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  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.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - TylerE 3y ago
    You’re overselling it a bit. Teflon cookware at normal cooking temperature can be very harmful To birds and reptiles.
    - mrob 3y ago
      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.
    - amluto 3y ago
      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.
- naremu 3y ago
  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.
littlestymaar 3y ago
That's literally how it works today. 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.
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  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.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    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 the harm is likely.
    - hcurtiss 3y ago
      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.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        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.
polski-g 3y ago
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.

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.

kreeben 3y ago

I don't follow. Are you saying we should hold off laws that deem e.g. teflon toxic, until there's teflon everywhere? The government: There's almost no teflon in the ground, so that's good. The market: Hold my beer.

tekla 3y ago
[flagged]
- titaniumtown 3y ago
  Are you being sarcastic?
mensetmanusman 3y ago
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.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Nobody is talking about banning them outright for all purpose here though.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    People here, like tehjoker, are proposing total bans in this very thread.
    - llbeansandrice 3y ago
      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. Hardly the extremism you're implying.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        They are quite literally proposing a total ban. And then following it with some simplistic and emotionally charged rhetoric.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        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.
        TylerE 3y ago
        They are outlining a scenario where they would consider such a ban desirable. How is that not proposing it?
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        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.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > we should for semiconductor manufacturing where we have control over waste streams Note that this has not historically been the case, see for example all those superfund sites in SV.
jdietrich 3y ago
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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- TylerE 3y ago
  You’re overselling it a bit. Teflon cookware at normal cooking temperature can be very harmful To birds and reptiles.
  - mrob 3y ago
    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.
  - amluto 3y ago
    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.
naremu 3y ago
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.

littlestymaar 3y ago

That's literally how it works today. 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.

hcurtiss 3y ago
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.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  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 the harm is likely.
  - hcurtiss 3y ago
    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.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      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.

polski-g 3y ago

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.