Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday September 27 2022, @05:15AM   Printer-friendly

"Forever Chemicals" Found in Every Umbilical Cord Blood Sample in Global Study:

"Forever chemicals," or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have made quite a few appearances in the news cycle lately. These thousands of manufacturing chemicals leach into the food and water supply, making it nearly impossible to avoid absorption into the human body. Once in the body, they don't go away—hence the name "forever chemicals"—and can cause a host of health concerns, from thyroid disease and cancer to liver damage and fertility issues.

[...] A global study examining more than 30,000 umbilical cord blood samples recently found PFAS in every single one. Worse, these samples were up to five years old—meaning PFAS have been nearly ubiquitous for longer than we otherwise might have thought.

[...] All of [the Environmental Working Group] reported a range of PFAS were found in their respective samples, with 14 studies in particular linking PFAS presence in the umbilical cord with PFAS detection later in childhood, as well as increased health risks in adulthood.

Developing fetuses are particularly vulnerable to PFAS because they "don't have the mechanisms to deal with the chemicals," EWG researcher Uloma Uche told The Guardian. "Even before you've come into the world, you're already exposed to PFAS."

[...] Not all hope is lost. Two separate studies found ways to eliminate PFAS this year alone, one using ultraviolet light and common kitchen ingredients while the other used lye and a chemical solvent. Both methods have their caveats (the first requires a fair bit of scaling up to be effective, while the other only works on some PFAS), but together, they represent a potential pivot in our collective level of risk in the face of pervasive chemical compounds.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by martyb (76) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Tuesday September 27 2022, @05:34AM (37 children)

    by anubi (2828) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @05:34AM (#1273811) Journal

    If we can detect them in umbilical blood, can we detect them in old meat processing plants or anywhere else blood was shed.

    I mean, if these chemicals are forever, they won't have gone anywhere.

    And if they are forever, don't break down, then they are inert?

    How does an inert chemical interfere with metabolism? A catalyst?

    Just trying to separate clickbait from truth.

    If these chemicals are indeed that stable, no telling how old they are.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @06:50AM (25 children)

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @06:50AM (#1273814)

      Xenon is an inert gas and a powerful anesthetic. Asbestos is chemically stable but causes cancer. Bodies are weird places and just because something's inert in the lab doesn't mean it won't stick to a protein and cause problems.

      My problem with these reports is they seldom say how much of a concentration. Some of the ones I've seen run around in alarm at parts per trillion. At that low a concentration, as analytical chemists put it, you can find anything in anything. If there are amounts that approach known damaging doses, that's worth attention.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:30AM (12 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:30AM (#1273816) Journal

        My problem with these reports is they seldom say how much of a concentration. Some of the ones I've seen run around in alarm at parts per trillion

        Normal testosteron concentration in male body: 10 to 35 nanomoles per liter. Only 0.5 to 2.4 nmol per liter in female. Ummm.... seems to me that the differences are significan for biology even in part per trillion concentration.

        Botulinum toxin [wikipedia.org] - type A, lethal at 1ng/kg body, in hours. That's 1 part per trillion. At far lower concentrations, the body eventually manages to decompose it (unlike the PFAS).

        ---

        Let's go along the xkcd 1161 [xkcd.com].

        Human body is about 60% water, which makes about 42kmol water in a body of 70kg (typical mature male). Each mol of water is 6e23 molecules, so you have a 1.4e27 molecules of water in your body. Suppose a 1part/billion molar concentration of PFAS in your body water, that get to a 1.4e19 molecules that are just forever waiting (your body can't destroy them, elimination is slow) to play funny buggers with you DNA synthesis and cell replication.

        Would you mind to Fermi estimate [nasa.gov] how long you have to wait until you get cancer?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:43AM (11 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:43AM (#1273859) Journal
          That's pretty unserious since the stability of the molecule makes them vastly less dangerous than botulin which is one of the most extreme toxins we have found.
          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 27 2022, @02:41PM (10 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @02:41PM (#1273874) Journal

            That's pretty unserious since the stability of the molecule makes them vastly less dangerous than botulin which is one of the most extreme toxins we have found.

            Thus spoke a statistician.

            Testosterone is not classified as a toxin, but is still acting in concentrations of parts per trillion.
            Growth hormone normal concentration is 0.4 to 10 picograms/L for adult males, 1 to 14 pg/L for adult females and 10 to 50 pg/L in kids [mountsinai.org]. Heck, this may explain why kids grow like a canc... (err, scratch that...) in their early ages (grin)

            Letting aside the stability of a molecule does not equate biochemical inertness and toxicity is also influenced by the capacity of the body to eliminate it before it does enough damage (the halflife is about 3 years for PFOA and approximately 4–5 years for PFOS [ukhsa.gov.uk])

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:01PM (2 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:01PM (#1273900) Journal

              Lead, the poster boy for persistent bioaccumulated toxicity has a half life in your body of 28 DAYS, for comparison!

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:04PM

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:04PM (#1273901) Journal
              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 27 2022, @09:55PM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @09:55PM (#1273925) Journal

                Lead, the poster boy for persistent bioaccumulated toxicity

                Fortunately, we banned DDT long ago (except in places with malaria), so it's no longer the poster boy.

                DDT and DDE have half-lives are 6 and up to 10 years, respectively [wikipedia.org] - I still remember the smell of DDT in my childhood, they were using in crop spraying.

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:34PM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:34PM (#1273937) Journal

              Testosterone is not classified as a toxin, but is still acting in concentrations of parts per trillion.

              In the human body, not in the environment.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday September 28 2022, @12:57AM (5 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 28 2022, @12:57AM (#1273947) Journal

                I'm not seeing any indication about the "in the environment" restriction in the OP, on the contrary the suggestion is more about the concentration inside the body "If there are amounts that approach known damaging doses, that's worth attention." One doesn't usually administer "doses" to the environment, does one?

                But even assuming the "in the environment" context, since the PFAS absorbs in the organism and bioaccumulates (with halflives reaching 5 years), you aren't out of the woods at parts per trillion in the environment. For example, if the water that you drink has parts per trillion concentration, you will get to the same concentration in about a month starting from clean state (human body at 70kg, with a 2L/day water intake).
                Heck, even at parts per quadrillion concentration in drinking water, you'll reach the parts per trillion concentration in your body in about 2 years (just plot the α·t - e-t/(2·halflife); it's monotonically increasing to the y = α·t asymptote; the faster as the halflife is higher and the exponential's contribution more negligible).

                And that's just ignoring the intake from the other food sources which were contaminated by the same water - that's the risk of being the "top of the chain omnivorous predator"

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 28 2022, @03:11AM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 28 2022, @03:11AM (#1273969) Journal

                  I'm not seeing any indication about the "in the environment" restriction in the OP, on the contrary the suggestion is more about the concentration inside the body "If there are amounts that approach known damaging doses, that's worth attention." One doesn't usually administer "doses" to the environment, does one?

                  Unless you're in environmentalism. Then it happens a lot.

                  But even if we go with this assumption that they're talking about in the body, you have to show these chemicals actually have an effect at this dosage. Selectively picking a few chemicals that the human body is unusually sensitive to, doesn't cut it. Neither botulin or testosterone are PFAS, for example.

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 28 2022, @04:02AM (3 children)

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 28 2022, @04:02AM (#1273974) Journal

                    you have to show these chemicals actually have an effect at this dosage.

                    No, I don't.
                    See my quote to which I responded here [soylentnews.org]

                    My point: concentrations in "per trillion" ranges aren't to be dismissed as irrelevant. I hope the examples provided show enough counterexamples against "All parts per trillion concentrations are laughable, you can find anything in anything".

                    ---

                    If I'd have chosen to address the "damaging dose" part of it, I'm sure I could find enough studies that show correlations between PFAS and various disorders - cancer for example [cancer.gov] - (and those will prove possibility), to which I'd add articles exploring how other nonionic surfactants screw up proteins, enzymes and cell membranes [nih.gov] (and those will show the mechanisms by which PFAS surfactants are likely doing the same screwing).

                    After which I can let it there and rely on the precautionary principle [wikipedia.org]. Maybe ask you to prove that PFAS are completely safe at part per trillion concentrations, if this is your thesis.

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 28 2022, @11:27AM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 28 2022, @11:27AM (#1274005) Journal

                      After which I can let it there and rely on the precautionary principle. Maybe ask you to prove that PFAS are completely safe at part per trillion concentrations, if this is your thesis.

                      The precautionary principle has already been shown to violate itself. And the fact we're speaking vaguely of detection of PFAS rather than any evidence of harm is a strong proof that they are safe at those concentrations.

                      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 28 2022, @01:04PM (1 child)

                        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 28 2022, @01:04PM (#1274015) Journal

                        is a strong proof that they are safe at those concentrations.

                        Mate, the absolute honest answer is "We don't know yet, there's no maximal safe limit determined from the studies. So far, we know that concentrations in parts per billion in blood serum are correlated with increase in various cancers and some autoimmune diseases and that those chemicals bioaccumulate".

                        With research in progress or no research at all, your claim of "strong proof" is, objectively speaking, bullshit. Based on what we know so far, it may turn one way or the other with equal probability.

                        --
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 28 2022, @05:38PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 28 2022, @05:38PM (#1274065) Journal
                          That's an interesting mix of handwavy uncertainty and confidence.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by anubi on Tuesday September 27 2022, @08:12AM (2 children)

        by anubi (2828) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @08:12AM (#1273822) Journal

        Thanks, Beryllium...

        Xenon. Anaesthetic. First I've heard of using it this way. Just had to DDG it. Sure 'nuff, it is. I would have swore it would act the same as nitrogen, maybe useful in deep sea diving. Which I thought was just CO2 boiling out when the overburden pressure was dropped. I still have a hard time thinking nitrogen would act that way.

          I figured anything like a noble gas would be completely ignored by life processes.

        Spot on with the asbestos too. Somehow the asbestos isn't metabolized which activated it's toxicity? I guess it may have something to do with the physical shape of it's molecule acting as a catalyst forming toxic organics?

        I don't know, but I am sure glad I asked. Never thought of it this way.

        It's things like this that make this forum important to me.

        --
        "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:47AM (#1273860)

          The problem with asbestos is actually physical, not chemical. It just keeps cleaving down to molecularly sharp needles. They punch holes in cells and kill them. This doesn't affect the needle at all. Then white blood cells come along and try to clean up the mess. Surprise, white blood cell, there's a deadly needle in the middle of that. This just keeps happening, inducing inflammation and scarring until either something goes wrong and you get cancer, or your lungs stop working due to scar tissue (usual problem is inhaled asbestos dust).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2022, @02:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2022, @02:04AM (#1273957)

          fwiw, Beryllium (the metal, not the SN poster) is damn toxic too, as dust.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Tuesday September 27 2022, @02:54PM (7 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @02:54PM (#1273875)

        How about another problem then - we have no clue what the safe levels of chronic exposure for most of of theses chemicals might be. And as a rule, chronic exposure is much more damaging than just getting exposed today.

        Step one is recognizing that the chemicals are there, and not going away. We've got that covered.

        Step two is figuring out what chronic exposure level they become dangerous at. Given the range of known worsening public health problems that may be linked, and the huge variety of persistent chemicals that might be responsible, that's likely to be a nightmare.

        Step three is determining if anything bio-accumulates (i.e. the amount in your body will constantly increase so long as it's present in the environment)

        Step four is figuring out how to stop adding more of anything dangerous to the environment before it crosses any threshold where chronic exposure will cause problems.

        Step five is figuring out how to remove or neutralize the chemicals from the environment at outrageous expense, because we were more concerned about keeping profits up with business as usual than proactively reducing our output before we were *sure* it was going to be a problem

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 27 2022, @03:39PM (3 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @03:39PM (#1273879) Journal

          How about another problem then - we have no clue what the safe levels of chronic exposure for most of of theses chemicals might be.
          ...
          Step three is determining if anything bio-accumulates (i.e. the amount in your body will constantly increase so long as it's present in the environment)

          My guess: the longish halflife (3-5 years [ukhsa.gov.uk]) for elimination of those compounds from the body will favor bioacumulation and drives the dangerous level of chronic exposure to very low value.
          Unless you menstruate or bleed regularly [ucsf.edu], that is.

          Step four is figuring out how to stop adding more of anything dangerous to the environment before it crosses any threshold where chronic exposure will cause problems.

          Well, the first step would be to formally make lobbying by industry a crime. After that, it become easier to squeeze DuPont and 3M's balls.

          Step five is figuring out how to remove or neutralize the chemicals from the environment at outrageous expense

          Mix in some iodized table salt and expose everything to UV light. May be a bit inconvenient to decontaminate soil by this method, maybe we can enroll DuPont/3M executives in the earth-moving physical effort (call in their lobbyists too). While at it, shine a UV light through their veins too, I hear this kills viruses too

          Another proposed approach is to concentrate the stuff then boil it with concentrated lye for 4-8 hours.

          I picked the two above from the two links towards the end of TFS(ummary).

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday September 27 2022, @04:10PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @04:10PM (#1273882)

            >Well, the first step would be to formally make lobbying by industry a crime.

            An excellent idea - I see only two small problems.
            1) Lobbyists.
            2) The politicians that would have to pass such a law, and are currently getting rich off lobbyists.

            I'm sure they'll be easy to work around...

          • (Score: 2) by number11 on Tuesday September 27 2022, @09:18PM (1 child)

            by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @09:18PM (#1273920)

            My guess: the longish halflife (3-5 years [ukhsa.gov.uk]) for elimination of those compounds from the body will favor bioacumulation and drives the dangerous level of chronic exposure to very low value.
            Unless you menstruate or bleed regularly [ucsf.edu], that is.

            Let's hear it for donating blood regularly, then! Four pints (2 quarts) per year for whole blood. So you can protect yourself against that stuff, and be helping others at the same time (though you'll be pass your toxic chemicals on to them also).

            Of course, that assumes this stuff does maintain a level in the blood, and isn't held by other tissues. And that you're not contraindicated for giving blood (there are a bunch of possible reasons why they might not want your blood, some temporary and some permanent). But they'll ask you questions and test your blood to ascertain that.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 27 2022, @09:46PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @09:46PM (#1273923) Journal

              Of course, that assumes this stuff does maintain a level in the blood, and isn't held by other tissues.

              It is held by other tissues (e.g fat), otherwise it won't bioaccumulate

              If they do, then back to the good old medieval blood letting.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 27 2022, @05:46PM (1 child)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @05:46PM (#1273895) Journal

          I believe it has been proven that they do bioaccumulate so step 3 is complete as well.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:08PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:08PM (#1273902) Journal

            Holy crap, if c0lo's link up thread proves accurate, half lives measured in years are insanely bad. Like.......way the fuck worse than I would have guessed and I deal with shit this like this for a living!

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:54PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:54PM (#1273911) Journal

          Step two is figuring out what chronic exposure level they become dangerous at.

          A task for some future xeno-archeologist.

          That would save us money in the present.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2022, @12:45AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2022, @12:45AM (#1273945)

        Thankfully that doesn't apply to covid vaccines, else we could have a huge problem since we forced most of the population to take it.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 27 2022, @06:57AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @06:57AM (#1273815) Journal

      Just trying to separate clickbait from truth.

      Fine. We're talking about PFAS [wikipedia.org]

      And if they are forever, don't break down, then they are inert?

      Not quite inert, just hard to decompose under normal conditions/natural environment [wikipedia.org]. That is to say the decomposition reaction requires energies beyond what the usual enzymes in a living body are able to work with. As an approximation, just think that the UV radiation is damaging to biological tissues and the energy of an UV photon is around 3eV.

      How does an inert chemical interfere with metabolism? A catalyst?

      They are surfactants [wikipedia.org]. Think what it would be if you'd carry a low concentration of indestructible soap in your blood or plasma.

      Something like your protein replication engine starts doing what it does best (assembling aminoacids into chains) and suddenly a rogue molecule start gravitating around the assembly area and throwing wrenches into the mechanism (protein synthesis makes use of hydrogen bonds and Van Der Waals forces quite a lot). Eventually, the rogue molecule may go away (but again, it may still stay attached), but the synthesized aminoacid chain has some defects (or end abruptly with a molecule of fluoro-soap). Maybe you wouldn't like [wikipedia.org] to have that protein chain inserted into a new cell's DNA, but what can you do?

      If these chemicals are indeed that stable, no telling how old they are.

      Their age doesn't matter for their effect inside your body.

      Otherwise, they aren't older that 1940, ever since they started to be introduce commercially (no, they don't occur naturally. Those fluoride atoms linking to the alkyl backbone? They were previously being quite content being bound in minerals before DuPont and 3M forced them out there and pushed them to bind with hydrogen and then subject them to electric currents [wikipedia.org])

      ---

      Finally, to slowly wash PFAS away from your body, menstruate and/or donate blood regularly and then stay far away from them (if you can). So say Aussie firefighters [abc.net.au] and the scientists confirm [ucsf.edu] (when they do something, those Aussie firefighters know what they are doing).

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Tuesday September 27 2022, @08:25AM

        by anubi (2828) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @08:25AM (#1273824) Journal

        Thanks, cOlo!

        I got thrown with that forever claim. Didn't even consider it mimicking an amino acid. Yup, an impostor amino acid could really screw up DNA transcription. Without any change whatsoever to the rogue molecule.

        Sure am glad I posted and folks like you give me something to chew on.

        --
        "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:12PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @07:12PM (#1273904) Journal

        What is the half life of a teflon (PFA) coated frying pan in a landfill, I wonder!

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Opportunist on Tuesday September 27 2022, @08:37AM (2 children)

      by Opportunist (5545) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @08:37AM (#1273828)

      Think of it as with, say, computers in a geek's home. They also tend to be forever, because you don't throw them out, that old piece of junk in the attic can still be used as a router or a firewall. And so it accumulates, takes up space and you fill your home with garbage until your important stuff has no room anymore, you trip over it and you fall down, usually while carrying something that actually has value.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday September 27 2022, @09:46AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @09:46AM (#1273832) Journal

        And so it accumulates, takes up space and you fill your home with garbage until your important stuff has no room anymore, you trip over it and you fall down,

        Groan... Oh, God, I need to get rid of that 486 with 32MB RAM/120MB HDD and its CRT display in the attic. I'm heartbroken but I don't want to be killed by them.

        usually while carrying something that actually has value.

        Whew! I mean, look, nothing in my attic has value, so I'm safe... ummm... usually.
        (... blink...blink...)
        Speaking of which, are you sure that the necessary condition to trip over and fall down is to carry something that actually has value?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by Opportunist on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:14AM

          by Opportunist (5545) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:14AM (#1273855)

          It's not strictly a necessity, only an extension of Murphy's Law.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:21AM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:21AM (#1273858) Journal

      Sand is pretty inert and stable. Get a particle of sand into an oyster shell, it irritates the oyster, so the oyster creates a pearl to isolate the irritant.

      Add in the fact that some of these inert plastics are suspected of causing cancer with long term exposure, and suddenly, we have a pretty huge problem.

      The term "forever chemical" isn't accurate, since plastics do indeed break down. Bacteria and sunlight are known to decompose most plastics, but it takes a long time. Anything that can be expected to last longer than a human lifetime is "forever" in media lingo.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2022, @01:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2022, @01:03PM (#1273864)

        Anything that can be expected to last longer than a human lifetime is "forever" in media lingo.

        I don't think that is unreasonable. It also sums up how I feel about copyright duration.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 27 2022, @05:49PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @05:49PM (#1273896) Journal

        Get enough of those particles into your lungs and you get Silicosis. [www.nhs.uk]

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 27 2022, @06:49PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @06:49PM (#1273898) Journal

      They didn't even exist until Dupont invented them in 1946 under the trade name Teflon.

      What are PFAS chemicals? [ewg.org]

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by PiMuNu on Tuesday September 27 2022, @04:28PM

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday September 27 2022, @04:28PM (#1273886)

    Much as I dislike the EU politically, they once again are ahead of the game, at least as far as new chemicals goes:

    https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm [europa.eu]

    > "No data no market": the REACH Regulation places responsibility on industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the
    > substances. Manufacturers and importers are required to gather information on the properties of their chemical substances, which will allow their safe
    > handling, and to register the information in a central database in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki.

(1)