PFAS “Forever Chemicals” and Nordic Ski Wax
outsideonline.com
outsideonline.com
I actually recently tried Greenland wax on a cotton canvas anorak, and so far it's working out great. Perhaps it's not as effective as Gore-Tex. I think we should try to remember that people somehow survived outside before these materials were introduced.
Outdoor Research have 'AscentShell'
Black Diamond have 'BD.dry'
Marmot have 'Membrain'
https://www.outdoorresearch.com/us/mens-hemispheres-jacket-2...
https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en/mens-jackets-shells...
https://www.marmot.com/mens-alpinist-jacket-30370.html
TNF still uses Gore-Tex as well, but I didn't include them in my original list - they went mass market about 20 years ago and while less experienced people still buy it based on name recognition, you'll rarely see TNF worn by unsponsored people in the backcountry.
My North Face gear is just as nice as my Marmot gear, both of which are slightly higher in quality than the REI-brand gear. None of them are as good as my Arcteryx jacket, but for the price of that one jacket I could buy a jacket, midlayer, base layer, rain shell, and hiking pants from any or all of the first 3 brands.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2x47296b
Scotchguard got banned years ago, sounds like ski wax is next, but it sounds like it'll still be used in factories for the foreseeable future.
They call out the american birkie for not having banned fluoros yet - that's because the FIS ban hasn't gone into effect yet. American Birkie is a FIS worldloppet race and subject to FIS rules.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0378/1413/files/SDS-PHIL_T...
(Is everyone publishing these now? Is that a California law?)
It's on one of my bikes now. Not super winter friendly (wax style), but works. Their grease is just as good as the hazardous crap out there.
There's another eco brand that sells lube too, can't find their name. Muc-Off wet and drylubes says "biodegradable".
Green Oil is fear mongering. Their website calls PTFE "carcinogenic". This is a lie. The manufacture of PTFE is nasty business, no doubt, but the finished product is safe. Safe enough that it has been widely used in medical implants for the past 50 years.
Teflon is mentioned in the article as a PFAS based chemical that has had legal trouble due to health hazards in the past..
"A just-released film, Dark Waters, stars Mark Ruffalo as an intrepid lawyer battling DuPont in the early 2000s after the chemical giant began making a PFAS-based product, Teflon, at its factory in Parkersburg, West Virginia, where chronic illness and untimely deaths spiked among nearby residents. Several states, New York and Ohio among them, have filed lawsuits that seek compensation for health problems caused by drinking water polluted by PFAS. DuPont and 3M are frequently defendants in these suits."
The chemicals discussed in the article and in the movie you mention are the feedstocks used to make the polymers, and the surfactants used to form coatings. Those chemicals -- referred to collectively as PFAS -- might be a big fucking problem. They are also inert in a chemical sense, but they're monomeric so they live their whole lives as single molecules, free to pass through biological tissues, where they apparently cause problems. PTFE has no such freedom at any scale; even the finest PTFE dust cannot be absorbed in your gut, and evidence of respiratory hazard of PTFE is pretty much nil until it's burnt, in which case the problem isn't the PTFE but rather the pyrolysis products.
PTFE and PFAS... completely different materials with completely different chemical, biological, and environmental behaviors.
You fail to mention it's track record for straight up killing birds if you overheat it. Which, to be clear, we're talking about cookware. The odds of it getting left too long on the heat once in a while are very high.
It will kill your pet bird in seconds. Damage to humans? Unclear.
PTFE does emit some uniquely nasty chemicals when overheated, but in mercifully small quantities, and the effects seem to be temporary. If you read up on fluorinated polymer fume exposure, you'll find exactly zero known deaths, only a handful of known injuries, and no firm evidence of long term health effects. Considering that there are millions of amateur cooks out there abusing non-stick pans every day since the 1960's, I'd say that's a pretty fucking good track record.
Also, it's in our drinking water currently anyways, so if you want to stress out about PFAS might as well do it over something we can change going forward: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-water-foreverchemical...
> In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.
[1] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/pfas-blood-testing.html
The blood serum levels reported by CDC are staggering. As an example, I have a well and it's in a contamination plume of PFOS and PFOA. The EPA certified laboratory measured level two years ago was 11 ppt (parts per trillion.) The CDC measured 2.1 ug/L of PFOA (only) in the blood of over 2000 people in 2014. That's 2,100,000 ppt; 5 orders of magnitude higher than my 'contaminated' water.
A ug is 10E-6 grams, a liter is about 10E+3 grams.
Huffington Post article: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-b...
Dark Waters film on the topic: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/
DuPont was the entity responsible for the pollution and coverup.
If you're concerned about goretex and dwrs, everything made by Nikwax uses different technology and is PFA free. Goretex might be safe for end user (or might not) but the manufacturing process is probably environmentally risky ... I wouldn't buy goretex for non-critical uses. So use it for mountaineering but not in the ski resort or on the way to work
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/10/firefighting-foam-afff-p...
That is one big caveat, Teflon is in cookware, under direct flames, is there more precise info on what being "burned" actually means temperature-wise in Celsius?
I am personally a total baby about the few non-stick pieces I own. The only things they cook are eggs, and I don't let anyone else use them. But that's just because I'm precious about their condition, not because I fear fumes. As I said in an other comment downthread:
> PTFE does emit some uniquely nasty chemicals when overheated, but in mercifully small quantities, and the effects seem to be temporary. If you read up on fluorinated polymer fume exposure, you'll find exactly zero known deaths, only a handful of known injuries, and no firm evidence of long term health effects. Considering that there are millions of amateur cooks out there abusing non-stick pans every day since the 1960's, I'd say that's a pretty fucking good track record.
To my knowledge no manufacturer has ever disclaimed that their product should be used below 200°C or else fluorinated polymer fumes are released into your kitchen.
Downplaying the health impact of those fumes is distracting from the manufacturers' omission.
Also we shouldn't defend this with the safety of PTFE in implants, this is misleading because they are completely inert at body temperatures it does not help any discussion regarding the safety a pervasive cookware.
The fact that cookware makers aren't overly concerned with temperature warnings should tell you something about the health risk here. There is little liability risk to them because apparently there is no demonstrable health risk. At the risk of repeating myself endlessly:
> read up on fluorinated polymer fume exposure, you'll find exactly zero known deaths, only a handful of known injuries, and no firm evidence of long term health effects.
If you can find any evidence of negative health impacts from nonstick cookware, there are thousands of ambulance-chasing personal injury lawyers who would love to see your work.
FWIW, William-Sonoma says theirs do too: https://blog.williams-sonoma.com/is-nonstick-safe/
I’d bet most people don’t read the directions for their pan, and if they do, they’re probably not measuring the temperature of their pan during use. They’re probably just trying not to burn their butter or smoke their oil, which happens around 200c anyway.
And you might have another reason to worry about that food fried at 200c+: many foods cooked at high temperatures themselves form carcinogenic substances.
> I raise exotic birds and have heard that fumes from Teflon will them. Is this true?
> We have heard of this before. In the Scanpan manufacturing process, the non-stick compound is actually embedded into the material that makes up the cooking surface, unlike cheaper cookware where the Teflon coats the Aluminum base. The only way that fumes will be released from this material will be if the non-stick compound actually breaks down from excessive heat. (e.g. the pan is left empty on full flame for extended periods). If used within its normal operational boundaries, no damage should result. Obviously we cannot warrant that no damage will arise but have no reported cases of this happening. In fact since 2007, Scanpan GreenTEK is made with no PFOA, the primary harmful components for exotic birds. Once should be aware that the fumes from burning margarine are more intense than that from cookware and may cause more damage to exotic birds.
The part about PFOA being the primary harmful component for birds is utter bullshit. But the bit about margarine is interesting.
Should pollute less because it lasts longer?
you probably don't need to worry about handling LF or HF with gloves, it's not that toxic. but if you're waxing with them you should be wearing a respirator.
Now I use the Pro-Glide from SkiMD, rather than hot-waxing, scraping and brushing, you crayon the wax on cold then use it as a friction device to "melt" the wax in with some very light brushing. Much much quicker, uses far less wax and produces very little dust, highly recommended:
I never really used Fluro-based waxes because it doesn't last long and the guidance was that you needed to "get it out of your base" after racing as it supposedly did long term damage to the ski.