Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Since their inception in the 1940s, the so-called forever chemicals have woven themselves into the fabric of our modern world. But recently, they've been appearing in alarming news headlines about their damaging effects on our health.
PFAS have, in fact, come under intense scrutiny due to new research showing their persistent nature in the environment and potential health impacts.
[...] The strength of their carbon-fluorine bonds is also what makes them resist breakdown by natural processes. Their longevity, often measured in centuries, has earned them the moniker of "legacy compounds."
Their presence has been detected in worrying concentrations in drinking water, soil, air and even in Arctic ice. Recent scientific investigations have unveiled a concerning connection between PFAS exposure and damage to health, both in humans and animals.
These effects include an increased risk of cancer, liver damage, compromised immune function, developmental disorders and hormonal disruption.
The adverse health effects can be traced to their persistence within the human body. Unlike many substances that are metabolized and eliminated over time, PFAS accumulate in bodily tissues and fluids without breaking down.
This accumulation creates a perpetual, self-sustaining cycle: PFAS contamination permeates rivers, soil and the food chain. These chemicals find their way into the bodies of humans and animals, where they continue to accumulate over time.
The mounting evidence of PFAS-related health risks has triggered global concern. Organizations such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants have set their sights on imposing stricter regulations on PFAS use within the European Union.
There is still a lot we don't know about the long-term health consequences of PFAS exposure, but the increasing global concern is indisputable.
In the UK and Ireland, PFAS contamination infiltrates everyday consumer products and industrial processes. In 2019, the UK Environment Agency's screening consistently identified PFAS in surface water samples, with PFOA and PFOS found at 96% of the sites they surveyed.
The presence of heightened PFAS concentrations signifies that none of England's rivers meet the "good chemical" status criteria established by the Water Framework Directive. The Chief Scientist's Group report identified military and civilian airfields, landfills and wastewater treatment facilities as the likely sources of PFAS contamination.
A pressing issue in Europe and the UK is the absence of standardized regulations regarding these forever chemicals. Only two of the most prevalent PFAS variants, PFOA and PFOS, are currently monitored in the UK.
[...] The intricacies associated with PFAS mean we need a holistic approach involving research to discover new chemical compounds that do not harm the environment and human health.
While the solution is complex, it is undoubtedly achievable. We need stringent regulations, more research and a global effort to eliminate PFAS. The pay off is worth it—a safer and healthier future for both our planet and its inhabitants.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pTamok on Monday November 13 2023, @07:54PM (3 children)
I've always been taught that the first time I use an acronym or initialism, I should spell it out in full in parentheses immediately afterwards.
So PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances [wikipedia.org]) are a scourge on the modern world...
I happen to think it is also helpful to link to an explainer for technical jargon or unusual and rare terms, like, for example, hapax legomenon [wikipedia.org] or incunabulum. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Tuesday November 14 2023, @06:39AM
I knew the article was talking about plastic, but I still thought of the Professional Footballers' Association [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2023, @10:38AM (1 child)
You should spell it out and introduce the acronym in parenthesis for later reuse:
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs)
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday November 14 2023, @11:22AM
You say /təˈmeɪ.toʊ/, I say /təˈmɑː.təʊ/.
Not expanding the acronym/initialism is saying /ˈtɒm.ə.təʊ/
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 13 2023, @09:44PM (2 children)
Anyone ever do any "hands on" work with HF in H2O (hydrofluoric acid)?
It's such fun stuff, you can't even store it in glass. Talking with nuclear isotope breeder / refiner guys, the real challenges in the isotope world aren't around the radiation - that's relatively easy to deal with, it's the chemical processes - particularly ones like the Uranium Hexafluroide step - that are the real bitch to get right and not kill people in the process.
So, yeah, tame that fluorine and put it in cookware, what could possibly go wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) [wikipedia.org]
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Tuesday November 14 2023, @03:45AM
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-touch-1 [science.org]
[he has a whole series of "things I won't work with"]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday November 14 2023, @05:40PM
Not many things will clear out a lab faster than someone shouting "HF leak", but the carbon bond is stable.
Which made me wonder how an unreactive chemical could be dangerous to chemical beings like us.
There are examples. Bodies are complicated and weird.
Xenon is a noble gas and will not participate in any reactions under human body conditions. It's also a powerful anesthetic. Apparently it physically fits into a receptor site.
Asbestos was industrially useful for chemical stability as well as being fireproof, but we all know what it does.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 13 2023, @09:49PM (5 children)
Think of it like this: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/16/us/bear-euthanized-trash-colorado-trnd/index.html [cnn.com]
on a cellular level throughout your body...
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday November 14 2023, @06:13AM (4 children)
Why think about it that way when there's no evidence for your viewpoint? There are a million dangers out there. If we just do feels like this, then we have no way to determine which dangers and risks we should put our scarce resources towards. There should be a better criteria than merely what special interest manages to put in front of your eyeballs.
It should be demonstration of harm and human exposure, not merely narratives that sound alarming.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 14 2023, @06:22PM (3 children)
I've got a new Fluorine based compound that will ease your aching joints, like Teflon in a beer can! Never been shown to cause any harm (never been tested for more than 90 days in a subject, either), drink up!
We'll eagerly await any reported problems (and suppress them for decades because the profit motivation to do so is so strong.)
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 14 2023, @09:57PM (2 children)
You been feeding it to anyone? Because otherwise: no dose no problem.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 14 2023, @10:19PM (1 child)
>You been feeding it to anyone? Because otherwise: no dose no problem.
Industry has been feeding us all this crap for decades. The dose is real, some negative effects have been proven and many more have a high probability of being proven.
They're getting out cheap: roughly $1B for Teflon:
https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/dupont_and_chemours_settle_teflon_toxin_lawsuit_for_up_to_921m/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=tfd_dsa&gclid=CjwKCAiA0syqBhBxEiwAeNx9NzgEgnEnB4w89uZtNVaEe-76FMN0O3cWQPA_wW34BP5IUoHikdBtMBoCeRUQAvD_BwE [earthisland.org]
$4B for PFAS:
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/dupont-chemours-and-corteva-reach-4-billion-settlement-forever-chemicals [ewg.org]
And they fought to continue to profit from them for decades:
https://time.com/6292482/legal-liability-pfas-chemicals-lawsuit/ [time.com]
Same shit as asbestos, lead, arsenic, etc.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Wednesday November 15 2023, @01:03AM
Again, what's the dose and harm? A composition fallacy particular to PFAS is that it's a vague group with a lot of chemicals in it. You'll see a lot of stories where they talk about some sort of generic PFAS as if it had the properties of everything in the group. I find it telling that there are populations such as chemical plant workers with highly elevated levels of PFAS in their blood, but weak linkage to cancers and such. So when I read stories about PFAS's alleged effect at much lower doses than that, I have to wonder if there's any evidence at all supporting that.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday November 13 2023, @11:01PM
Unused mod points end up draining through the rivers into the oceans. Eventually they find their way into plants, animals and our food supply. Mod points that you don't use become woven into the fabric of our modern world.
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Rich on Tuesday November 14 2023, @04:12AM (1 child)
Don't forget the currently preferred automotive AC coolant HFO-1234yf which was lobbied in by the patent holders, while Volkswagen apparently had ACs production ready which worked with CO2. However, CO2 requires a bit of re-engineering, because it needs higher pressure and it looks like the competition wanted to get an advantage here. The stuff is highly flammable or even explosive. (I wonder why anyone complains about propane as coolant because it can burn...) if it burns, it produces HF and the even more toxic carbonyl fluoride (just like Phosgen, just with F instead of Cl). If it doesn't burn and is released, it decomposes to TFA, which is a toxic-to-aquatic life forever PFA chemical.
Yay. About as great as starting up ancient Soviet reactors, and running them on non-vendor-certified fuel rods, which we had earlier today. Those could still up their game by burning hard-neutron MOX in the narrow VVER vessels, but then the 1234yf group had the idea of adding mutagenic CF3I as flame retardant.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 14 2023, @12:09PM
The spirit of Thomas Midgley lives on.
https://www.healthandenvironment.org/environmental-health/social-context/history/thomas-midgley-jr.-developed-tetraethyl-lead-for-gasoline [healthandenvironment.org]
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 14 2023, @10:22PM
>a holistic approach involving research to discover new chemical compounds that do not harm the environment and human health.
Or, imagine this - if you can, new (or even old) ways of living that do not require ANY novel chemical compounds to serve the needs formerly addressed by PFAS...
I have a cast iron skillet with a thick coat of black baked on "seasoning" - primarily oil from the foods cooked therein - no Teflon or Teflon substitutes required.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]