Possible breakthrough to destroy PFAS using sodium hydroxide | Hacker News Reader

Possible breakthrough to destroy PFAS using sodium hydroxide

science.org

95 pointsintunderflow33 comments

Discussion from today.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32515511

I hope this works. Unfortunately the skeptic / realist in me is concerned it will be the new recycled plastic. That is, we recycle a very small percentage. But we rationalize increasing our dependence on plastic by believing "oh, we'll just recycle it."

In fact, I believe there were rumours of Big Plastic promoting and manipulating the narrative around recycling to its advantage.

Why would PFASs be any different?

> Why would PFASs be any different?

Aren't PFAS actually dangerous on their own, regardless of their persistence in the environment? Far more so than plastics. I can't speak for others, but when I avoid PFAS, it's entirely due to the dangers; I don't think about the persistence at all when I'm trying to avoid PFAS (though this isn't to say I don't care about it).

That is not the scientific consensus, although a position taken by some. Much more people agree that bio-accumilation is dangerous to health and nature, also because that ends up in humans when they eat things.

The lack of "scientific consensus" on proven dangers is borderline irrelevant to me. There've been enough indications of their likely dangers already. If science ever comes to the consensus that it's safe, then it might mean something to me. Not the other way around.

The apparent effects on cattle are worth reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...

Agreed. We need to assume negative rather than positive with new stuff that is going to be produced at such a large scale.

Unfortunately, then it comes to these industrial chemicals it's "innocent until proven guilty", at least in the USA.

Untested compounds are constantly being introduced with no awareness of their safety, with no awareness of how they might react with other compounds in the wild (and in the body).

Then it gets a pat on the head and a pass.

I highly recommend the documentary Dark Waters and more so Rob Bilot's well written book, Exposure. It might make the greatest skeptics a little less confident.

Same here. Science takes too long and has a burden of proof that is far too high to establish fact. Corporations use "science" to cement their bad practices and pollution. If it looks like something is toxic...stop it. The people don't have to wait for science to regulate something.

The (mis) perception of plastic recycling and its effect on production + consumption is point I'm trying to make.

I'm not speaking to the dangers of plastic itself. Only the the problem takes a back seat if most believe we recycle most plastic. We do not recycle much at all.

From Big Plastic's POV it's a case of "problem solved".

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry...

I understood what you were saying; I was trying to answer your question. What I was saying was that the answer to your question of "why might the situation turn out any different with PFAS than plastics" is that one of them appears far more dangerous than the other.

i.e. With PFAS the question for consumers is no longer "how do I (re?)use it efficiently" (as with plastics and recycling), but rather "how do I not use it at all".

And ironically, the more dangerous one...most people - including elected officials and other regulators - know nothing about.

Plastic isn't regulated because we have recycling.

I fear PFASs - to your point, far more dangerous - will enjoy the same ignorance is bliss freedom.

If I understood correctly PFAS is not usually harmful in the concentrations released by 1 or 2 products. The problem is that it bioaccumulates to a concentration that is harmful. The persistence and the toxicity are not unrelated.

I'm neither convinced that's true (I'm not aware of scientific consensus on it) or would it matter if it was. So sure, let's say the persistence is what makes it toxic. The conclusion is the same: it still ends up being toxic. And the situation still ends up being very different from that if plastics.

I'm not too sure it is that different. If a sufficient amount of microplastics is harmful to humans then it's a similar threat to our wellbeing when it bioaccumulates.

It's the dose that makes the poison, and if the dose is increasing over time it's going to become a problem if we don't stop it in time.

> If a sufficient amount of microplastics is harmful to humans

The "sufficient amount" you're referring to for plastics so far appear to be of very different orders of magnitude than with PFAS. In fact, I don't recall seeing a single report indicating visible toxicity to large organisms (be they humans, cattle, or other large animals) from the amount of microplastics in our environment right now. Certainly nothing even remotely similar to what I've seen about PFAS, which includes e.g. cows getting organ defects.

Sure, if you eat rubber every day then presumably you'll die a painful death (and I'm not going to wait for a double-blinded RCT on humans to prove I shouldn't eat rubber for lunch before I believe it), so you could also call plastics toxic if you really insist on "p > 0" defining what a toxin is. Dose makes the poison and all that. But we're not proving math theorems here so that's not interesting as a definition or discussion.

Well, that's some good news, now we need to stop making this crap and getting it in the global water cycle.

I thought we had quit making PCBs until I accidentally bought a tube at the hardware store last year.

Our governments' chemical regulation has barely gotten off the ground in the last 100 years. Once it's out there, that's it. Everything gets "grandfathered."

Nice if it be done in the lab, and then? How do you take it out of the full environment without a successive contamination do to cleanup chemicals?

I agree. This process may help prevent further contamination, but won't help clean up current levels. Even then, we would have to start treating PFAS containing materials as hazardous waste to collect and remediare the items, which is highly unlikely.

Can I rid my body of these nasty chemicals by eating lye bread?

Removing your blood from your body can reduce PFAS/PFOA. Typically done with a blood donation.

Pity that donating blood makes me faint.

Same with me. Get yourself checked for anemia.

I'll check that just in case, thanks for the advice.

Wouldn't that that in turn increase the PFAS levels of the recipient of said blood?

Probably better than dying of blood loss.

And replacing the water in your body with an aprotic solvent such as DMSO.

... Easy-Off with PFAS: and that's no lye!

Jeasus christ, thats a dystopian DALLE2 prompt if I ever heard one...

---

The 80s was chock full of weird chemical propaganda.

Twinkies are a wholesome breakfast.

Another one of these stories… again, seems like PR damage control by chemical corporations.

So all it takes is the stuff that makes pretzels pretzel-ly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com