Hacker News Reader

Comment by birdiesanders | Hacker News Reader

Gortex and similar waterproof/fireproof gear are loaded with pfas/pfoa cocktails.

No, they aren't. PFAS (and specifically PFOA) has a carboxyl group, making it much more polar than PTFE (it is an acid). PFOA is soluble in water. PFTE is not.

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.

PFAS are in the DWR coating on the outside of Gore-Tex fabric. The PTFE membrane is on the inside. The DWR finish definitely ends up going down the drain or wears off in use.

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.

No, they aren't. PFAS are/were used [1] in the creation of Teflon, which is what defines GoreTex.

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.

No, you don't understand how Gore-Tex is made.

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.

>…would be quickly washed away

There is no “away”. “away” is our waterways and soil.

It’s been washed outside the environment

Can we please keep the reddit comments on reddit? There is an entire site of simple jokes and small puns - please post them there instead.

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.

Please let me know where your sink that drains directly into the sun is. It would prove rather handy for the large quantity of nuclear waste I need to dispose of.

(apologies but it's a goodie) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

Firefighter turnouts both have PFAS right after manufacture, and continue to emit PFAS though wear and tear.

Source: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/01/wear-and-tear-...

There is no science connecting Goretex -- even direct skin application of Goretex over long periods of time -- with any harm whatsoever. The shrill nature of the commentary around PFAS (which by some definitions doesn't even include PTFE) is wild to me.

When it comes to CF bonds I'm more concerned with bioaccumulation than direct skin contact. Besides, polonium-210 is also harmless upon direct skin contact, it's not as if skin-contact is the most dangerous form of exposure.

You are talking about GoreTex in the first sentence, then PFAS in general in the next, conflating the two. The EPA has absolutely found harm in humans from PFAS using science [1]. I don't know anything about GoreTex, but I do know they changed their formula to get rid of PFAS, at least for marketing reasons if not out of fear of liability as well, considering they are being sued.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained#:~:text=Scientific%2....

Goretex contains PTFE, which is inert enough to be used inside the human body. It can be used to patch for example a ruptured artery. https://web.archive.org/web/20160712144834/http://www.chemhe...

Also, PTFE is decidedly not among the nine proposed by the EPA to be classified as hazardous.

And what chemicals are used to create PTFE? How pure is the PTFE that's manufactured? What does PTFE release/breakdown to under specific conditions? The answers might surprise you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com