Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways.
Because of the "forever", small amounts add up, perpetually and over time could become not-small amounts.
No, because that's not true. Teflon (the substance used widely in waterproof goods and food packaging) is not the same thing as PFAS [1] (which is actually not one thing, but a whole class of things). Teflon is PTFE [2], which is different.
The terminology being casually flung around this issue is misleading. Certain PFAS types were used in the manufacture of PTFE (specifically Perfluorooctanoic acid [3]) which is the actual answer to GPs question -- this is primarily an issue of industrial concern. PFOA is far more reactive than PTFE, which is one of the most inert substances known to man. You can't just group these chemicals together in the bucket of "things that have fluoride polymers" and panic about all of them.
We regularly put teflon parts in humans, because they don't react with anything. Proving harm here is an incredibly high bar.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
Even if there were lingering PFOA in Teflon, it would be quickly washed away.
Some people try to confuse the issue by grouping together anything with a poly-CF2 chain as "PFAS", but this is wrong.
There is no “away”. “away” is our waterways and soil.
Yes I know it was just a joke. I do have a sense of humor. Yes I know downvote buttons exist. Those are the sugar additive of online comments. In blind taste tests people will often vote the sugary comment is prefered - and this is repeated until it's filled with sugary comments.
HN is one of the few places to have avoided this fate - I'd love to keep it this way.
Source: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/01/wear-and-tear-...
There are new PFAS free DWR finishes, but don't know if Gore-Tex is using them yet.
Gore does not consider PTFE to be environmentally friendly and is working on flourocarbon free fabrics.
You're being confused by people who try to argue that Teflon is as PFAS.
[1] there are other ways of making Teflon, and the industry has been phasing out PFOA for a long time.
Gore-Tex is a PTFE membrane laminated one side of a fabric.
The other side of the fabric is coated with a DWR (durable water repellent) coating.
The DWR finish prevents the outer fabric from being saturated with water.
The DWR is not made from PTFE and historical has contained PFAS compounds.
It is not a permanent finish, so it definitely ends up in the environment.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained#:~:text=Scientific%2....
Also, PTFE is decidedly not among the nine proposed by the EPA to be classified as hazardous.
polytetrafluoroethylene is a polyfluoroalkyl substance.
They're common only in that they both contain polyfluorinated carbon chains.
I fail to see how a polymer made entirely of fluorinated alkyl substances is not a polyfluorinated alkyl substance. I'm not really sure how one could argue they're not if we ignore politics and just look at chemical nomenclature
It is a "polyfluorinated alkyl". The term is so broad as to be meaningless, and PFOA is wildly different, chemically and physically, than PTFE. One is a water-soluble acid. The other is an insoluble substance that is one of the most chemically inert things known to science.
It's like labeling something as "fluoride-containing" and panicking because your city water supply has it (which some people do, but I digress).
"PTFE, or polytetrafluoroethylene, belongs to a subgroup of PFAS called fluorinated polymers"
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/dan...
> CR tested products for their total organic fluorine content, which is considered the simplest way to assess a material’s total PFAS content."
Totally different, and so completely misleading that it's mind-boggling. Do you know how many things have organic fluorine that have nothing to do with PFAS? Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organofluorine_chemistry
They repeatedly say in the article that it's basically impossible to reduce organic fluorine content to zero, because it's everywhere. You cannot leap to the conclusion that "finding organic fluorine" has any relationship to Teflon in food wrapping (especially at the 20ppm threshold they used), and you also can't jump to the conclusion that this means that there's a specific health risk.
They do test for a few specific PFAS compounds "in a subset" of the wrappers later in the article. This is more compelling -- but again, you don't know where it comes from.
"That’s because all PFAS contain organic fluorine, and there are few other sources of the compound, says Graham Peaslee, PhD, a professor of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, who has studied PFAS in food packaging.
Another complication: PFAS is used so widely—found in ink on food containers, recycled paper, machines that make packaging, and more—that it often shows up in products unintentionally."
Your point regarding whether all PFAS is harmful may very well be interesting but cannot be taken seriously if it is accompanied by blatant misinformation.
If you don't understand the argument someone is making and have to rely on the verbatim language in a wikipedia article, you should probably resist the urge the label things "misinformation". Instead, just say "I don't like/agree with what you're saying", which is really what you mean.
Let's not get too relaxed here. There's gigantic masses of plastic all over the world that would like to say that anything mass produced and cumulative "WILL become 'not-small' amounts".
And eggs from chickens kept in your own yard are considered unsafe to eat, in a pretty big area. Unless you want to have them tested regularly at ~€600 each time.
This PFAs decision would be a prime example of something the EPA won't be able to regulate without a new congressional bill approving it.
Is this actual knowledge or just a prediction?
> If you're legitimately concerned
I am, but not just about the impact on me personally. I'm more generally concerned about whether the actual costs of such a regulation will be less than the actual benefits.
Seems taking your fluorescents and lead based batteries to specialized recycle is about it on the consumer side. Personally I'm happy to do that to prevent poisoning my kids and my neighbor. Also happy for industry to identify safer alternative products.
Please free yourself from the libertarian fever dream.
For outdoor goods like backpacks or bags that you want to stay waterproof, I personally recommend PU and TPU coated drybags. For clothing like pants or shirts, I'd recommend opting for non-water-resistant/non-waterproof versions, and just buy an umbrella or raincoat with a PU or TPU coating to shield you rather than trying to wear clothing that will have water bead. Waxed canvas clothing is another option but it can be heavy. Cool if you are into it though, Fjallraven is famous for it, as is Filson.
I don't think you'll be too sad if your disposable food packaging gets a little soggier. You'll probably be a little more sad if you get cancer :(
So over time, hopefully you own fewer and fewer goods that are destroying the planet! Happy friday.
Eg:
https://www.polartec.com/news/polartec-announces-full-use-of...
https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/06/pfas-tox...
We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos.
The superficial answer:
Yes, there are indeed times when human screwups necessitate hazmat disposal trucks in residential areas.
The deeper answer:
The optimal solution to a compounding problem is not to politicize it with absurd rhetoric.
It is to stop whatever's feeding into the compounding as quickly as possible. Because that is the only reliable way to reduce the long term costs that you'll ultimately have to pay.
Indeed we could. And the answer we would find is that no, such requirements were not generally imposed on ordinary homeowners, but on manufacturers and construction firms, in the form of requirements not to use asbestos in future projects and to be forced to undertake remediation efforts when asbestos was found at an existing side that needed to be modified. And we would also find that, as a result, many of those same homeowners ended up with long term health issues from asbestos exposure because they were never informed of the risks or given any feasible way to mitigate them. Nor was any cost benefit calculation done in either case (homeowners or manufacturers/construction firms) to see whether the policy that was actually adopted could reasonably be argued to be a fair tradeoff.
Here at least we are being informed of the (claimed) risk. But there is still no cost benefit analysis being done that I can see.