Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashark | Hacker News Reader

I sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one or two things currently on/in our food.

View on HN

The diesel fumes you get from walking along any road will probably be high on the list.

One reason why that VW scandal was so morally objectionable is that diesel emissions are fairly local pollutants. Skimping on filtering them offloads an extreme negative externality to every person who gets near your customer/product; it's like poisoning a well. And of course, VW sure isn't alone in cutting inconvenient corners for cash.

Lead solder will probably also be up there. Yeah, yeah, ROHS and REACH and whatever, but there are plenty of exemptions and the barrel-scrapers just ignore them anyways.

Funfact: The highest concentration of NO2 is not found around pedestrians but inside the cars. Most models don't have suitable filter in the standard issue outside of Europe and Japan (and there only the higher-class private ones).

Good, exactly where it should be highest.

Sometimes I can't help but think so too, but many people are not on the road by choice. Many commercial vehicles don't have filters.

Are we talking about the cabin air filter? and do you know of any 3rd party suitable replacements?

Post append: According to [1], a simple activated charcoal cabin air filter is better than the stock one in removing diesel exhaust particles.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24621126

Thanks, I didn't know this paper. We just measure the NO2.

edit: Seriously, how did they get that through the ethics committee.. I'm astonished and a little bit appalled. There is a second study too.

Yes, the issue is the cabin air filter. The simple paper pollen filters don't do anything against NO2 - we measure the same values inside and outside.

Most filters with active charcoal will reduce the NO2 concentration a lot. It is recommended to replace them after 1-2 years or a certain distance, but we don't have numbers on this - still, it is clear the filters degrade after a while.

Nanoparticles. They irritate your lungs in ways that are very similar to asbestos irritation. And of course, it's your body's reaction to the irritation that kills you.

Example: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.7b01873

So I'm assuming that includes zinc oxide sunscreen, which is touted as the "least harmful sunscreen" there is.

Well, that a cream, not dust. So is more of a skin issue, so then the question there is whether it penetrates the skin and turns out to do stuff to the tissue underneath.

I guess that the problem with a lot of these things is that we don't have good (enough?) predictive models for long-term damage.

I sure hope not, as it's the only type of sunscreen that really works for me.

Do you get burned when using other sunscreens?

I have to use at least SPF 50, and if I'm out in the sun all day, even that is definitely reaching its limits, I need the physical sunscreen as well.

I expect the practice of of "sous vide in plastic bags" to be shown as long-term unhealthy sooner or later.

It's one of those things where I wonder if the plastics really are as safe as claimed, or just "safer than the standard we set (and we didn't set it high, and our way of measuring is flawed)".

It's a good point. I can't remember the last time I saw a plastic bag that gave a safe temperature range right there on the bag or package containing the bags.

You'd think they would say Safe for food up to 200 degrees F or something.

My Mom feels guilty that she used those "sterile" plastic bags in our baby bottles when we were little. Of course they were BPA.

Some years ago (and I mean decades) my teenage self read somewhere or heard someone talking of the unknown dangers of some gas being released by motherboards (think: silent killers).

Interesting - found this https://ask.slashdot.org/story/02/09/09/1828240/gassing-off-...

The manufacturing process might not have been completed, the solders etc.

That is usually flame retardant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant

Thanks, that looks like it.

I thought it was common knowledge that you don't want your skin to come in contact with gasoline, and if it does to wash it off relatively quickly.

I dunno, we used to use gasoline to scrub off oil-based paint and stains...

I predict you can put your screen based electronic devices at the top of that list.

I think we are about to go through a change in how flame retardants are classified and handled. The chemicals in use today (in clothing, mattresses, lounges and other fabrics) are known toxic and carcinogenic.

Gasoline is absolutely already on that list. It's a little bit crazy that we're allowed to interact so casually with such a potent solvent and known carcinogen (mostly due to the benzene content) on an everyday basis.

I was shocked to discover that my apartment had lead flashing around the roof and balcony, so I researched it a bit, and read some reassuring stuff claiming it was safe (and has less toxic run-off than zinc), and some other less-than-reassuring stuff, so I'm not totally convinced it's safe for my cats to sit in contact with on the balcony.

Of course workers installing it must be careful, but it's claimed to be not harmful to people using the building, or to the environment (from run-off). Just don't lick it or let kids play with it.

On principle, I'd rather have flashing that's ok to lick, and safe for kids to play with and cats to sit on, but that's just not an option at this time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashing_(weatherproofing)

Not only flashing, but entire roofs can be covered in lead sheeting! https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/381680137144209527/?lp=true

Lead Flashing: Is it Dangerous? http://bestqualityroofingandchimney.blogspot.nl/2015/01/lead...

Are lead roofing and flashings a problem? https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz22.htm

Lead roofing and flashings are much more likely to be a health hazard for people working with the materials than for people using the building.

Lead has been used for roofing for centuries and is one of the oldest flashing materials. It is durable and soft enough to be formed into complex shapes. Lead roofing and flashings can last over 200 years. Generally speaking, lead roofing or flashing that is in good shape may safely be left in place.

Lead can be used safely if worker exposure is monitored and lead is handled properly to avoid skin contact, ingestion, and exposure to lead dust and fumes.

Lead Sheet Goes Full Circle: https://elsia.org.uk/sustainability/other-research/

This document sets out to provide a scientifically sound appraisal of the use of lead sheet in construction applications.

Research findings in the document show that lead sheet poses no risk to the environment, even when water run-off is taken into account, and does not present any risk to human beings. Providing simple hygienic precautions are observed people who handle significant quantities of lead do not expose themselves to health risks.

Low environmental impact of lead sheet on buildings

A study conducted in 2005 looked at the environmental impact of lead sheet used in the building industry. With the following conclusions:

There is no risk related to emissions of lead sheet into the environment. These conclusions are still valid even if it is assumed that all building roofs are disconnected from the sewer system and that the runoff enters the environment directly.

Chemical hazards: Lead: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.ns...

Surveys of rainwater from domestic tanks have identified lead contamination as a potential problem. Results have been variable with exceedances of the ADWG health-related guideline value of 10 µg/L (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004) ranging from 0% to 15% of samples collected (SA Health unpublished results 1999-2009; Simmons et al. 2001; Chapman et al. 2006 and 2008; Morrow et al. 2007; Huston et al. 2009; Rodrigo et al. 2009). In addition to these results a survey in Melbourne recorded a particularly high exceedance frequency of 33% (Magyar 2008).

As discussed in other sections the reduction of lead concentrations in paint and the introduction of lead free petrol have decreased the risk from paint and general traffic emissions. However, roof materials and uncoated lead flashing in particular remain a potential source of contamination (Simmons et al. 2001; Chapman et al. 2006; Magyar et al. 2008; Huston et al. 2009), as rainwater tends to be acidic and may mobilise lead, and possibly other metals, into solution. The increasing availability of lead-free or coated lead flashing is expected to reduce future concentrations of lead in rainwater tanks.

Roof catchments used in the collection of rainwater for drinking should not include uncoated lead flashing. Alternative materials should be used in new roofs or when renovating or extending roofs. In existing roofs, painting of uncoated flashing will reduce the risk of contamination. Lead may also enter rainwater from lead washers for roofing screws. These can be replaced with plastic washers.

Leaching of lead into roof run-off may be more of a problem from poorly maintained roofs and gutters, where the process could be increased by the action of water made acidic with organic substances from materials such as leaf litter.

Sunblock I bet. Rubbing that cream into your skin multiple times per day can't be good. In the hiking community, many hikers are moving to sun blocking clothing. There are even sun gloves now.

Why is sunblock bad while moisturizers ok?

Presumably sunblock is more chemically exotic and thus is more likely to be harmful due to greater variance in harm, lack of knowledge about the mechanisms of harm, inability to fully characterize the harm using current tests, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com