[HN Gopher] Toxic 'forever chemicals' contaminate indoor air at ...
___________________________________________________________________
Toxic 'forever chemicals' contaminate indoor air at worrying levels
Author : hiddencache
Score : 175 points
Date : 2021-08-31 13:03 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| q_andrew wrote:
| This contributes to the theory that PFAS is affecting ambient
| obesity rates in the modern world:
| https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/26/a-chemical-hunger-p...
| nradov wrote:
| There appears to be a similar issue with other endocrine
| disruptor chemicals like phthalates (plastic softeners)
| possibly increasing the risk of obesity. But those are
| typically polluting food rather than air.
|
| https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc/what-edcs-are/common-ed...
| [deleted]
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| As someone who immigrated from France to the US, it's pretty
| obvious why people in the US are obese: people don't know /
| don't have the time to know how to eat properly and eat junk
| food, all the time, at any hour, and don't move around. It's
| pretty obvious when you realize that there is a lot less
| overweight people in upper middle class areas.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| even among people who say what you're saying - there's just
| so many things that raise insulin levels or contribute to
| insulin-resistance.
|
| people assume it's sugar. and a lot of it is and it's the
| first thing people should cut back on.
|
| but people are surprised zero-calorie artificial sweeteners
| and crystalized versions of stevia and monk fruit do.
|
| people aren't even aware that omega6s PUFAs (which we're
| supposed to have a 1:1 ratio with omega3s, and are supposed
| to have both in fairly low levels) also impact insulin
| resistance
|
| activity does, sleep does, things impact it positively like a
| wide range of plant foods or teas.
|
| but more simply - without going into the whys or the science,
| if generally speaking people cut out A. Sugar and B.
| processed foods (thus removing a ton of salt and omega6s)
| people would be a million times better off.
| graeme wrote:
| When did you do that? In last twenty years France has become
| one of the fattest countries in Europe. I was there in 2008
| and 2019. Huge difference.
|
| The upper middle class in USA is fatter than it used to be.
| Very few people actually lean as opposed to having much less
| fat. The class disparity is real but not the only
| explanation.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| It may be a contributor but there are so many "obvious" things
| that cause obesity in the modern world that a paper needs
| really strong arguments with a rigorous statistical analysis
| with confounding factors in order to draw conclusions.
|
| The obvious include: high availability of energy-rich, cheap
| food, lower amount of physical activity, food designed to be
| addictive (usually with lots of sugar),...
|
| There is also a strong correlation between obesity and low
| socioeconomic status, that can be also explained by "obvious"
| factors, like irregular meals, less physical activity, cheap,
| energy-rich, nutrient-poor food and poor education regarding
| healthy habits.
| smallerfish wrote:
| The slimemold series addresses those. It's worth a read.
| ffhhj wrote:
| I'm designing a wearable device, and I'm looking for resistant
| materials, different from metals, that are safe to use on the
| skin. According to Wikipedia PTFE (teflon) is not harmful. Could
| someone recommend materials to protect the electronics from
| sweat/dirt and the skin from the device silicone?
| camgunz wrote:
| Well, teflon is a "forever chemical" (PFAS) and the consensus
| seems to be it's not wonderful if it gets inside of you [1].
|
| Silicone is a PFAS alternative and a little safer, but also not
| wonderful if it gets inside of you [2].
|
| All of which is to say that your device should be OK as long as
| no one puts it inside them. AFAIK anyway.
|
| [1]: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-
| perfl...
|
| [2]: https://www.healthline.com/health/body-modification/is-
| silic...
| [deleted]
| detcader wrote:
| I can't stomach the science "journalism" here. Most of the
| statements about the research is that studies "found" the
| chemicals here or there. Ok, I can "find" various sources of
| cancer-related radiation in my sock drawer. Particularly
| annoying:
|
| "It found particularly high levels in several kindergarten
| classrooms and also checked the supply room of an outdoor
| clothing store, offices, several university classrooms,
| university labs and an elevator."
|
| Thank goodness we the public have the crucial information that
| the study _checked_ these places.
| ashildr wrote:
| Yes, this is disappointing.
| cjlars wrote:
| I recently retrofit a new HVAC system and as a result have also
| gone on a bit of a deep dive on indoor air quality. The big thing
| I learned is that most homes -- even old "leaky" builds -- have
| rather poor ventilation, meaning all sorts of compounds build up
| in the air... CO2, formaldehyde, VOCs, PFAS, etc. Air purifiers
| work for particulate, but don't really make a dent for chemicals.
| IIRC, You would need like a 50 gallon drum of activated carbon to
| do anything on the chemical front.
|
| A quick solution is to crack the windows, or if you live in a
| non-temperate climate, install an energy recovery ventilating
| system.
| bumby wrote:
| Did you find any industry ventilation standards related to all
| the compounds you listed? IIRC, ASHRAE 60.1 is the industry
| standard but years ago at least, it was based mainly on using
| "bio-effluence" as a proxy for air quality. I.e., reducing
| stink.
|
| > _install an energy recovery ventilating system._
|
| These are a good idea, but the exact type is important or else
| you risk cross-contamination between the exhaust and intake.
| That's why many designs (e.g., heat recovery wheels) are
| generally banned in some applications like healthcare.
|
| With the crowd that HN attracts, I'd be interested if anybody
| has implemented some sort of demand-control ventilation in
| their home.
| cjlars wrote:
| I think an ideal heat recovery system would probably sit mid-
| stream in a central air system with a built in CO2 trigger.
| Basically, the return air gets exhausted while heating the
| incoming/supply air when CO2 concentration > X. Obviously you
| run into the capex vs ongoing energy cost tradeoff in
| designing the system.
|
| Strangely, I couldn't find a ventilator on market with a CO2
| sensor, but there are plenty with humidity sensors. I think
| CO2 sensors are on the horizon though, here's a study
| featuring such a system:
| https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43245317.pdf
|
| My current system is actually ductless however, so I will
| probably have to rely on natural diffusion... I do have an
| air quality monitor which indicates that diffusion is likely
| sufficient (for a one floor open plan condo), but you'll
| optimally need to sleep with the bedroom doors open.
|
| Edit: I haven't looked too deeply at the standards. My little
| sensor indicates that if you keep CO2 in range, VOCs will
| also also be in range, which conforms with my intuition.
| bumby wrote:
| > _Basically, the return air gets exhausted while heating
| the incoming /supply air when CO2 concentration > X._
|
| That's the basic idea of demand control ventilation but how
| are the two air streams interfacing? If our concern is air
| quality, how is cross contamination between the two
| mitigated?
| cjlars wrote:
| I was confused at first by a lot of diagrams I found
| online, but the wiki is pretty good. Basically think of a
| two way radiator. Hot air flows through air channel
| blades on the way out, cold air flows around the blades
| on the way in, with filtering optional at this point.
| Some systems indicate that they literally mix the air,
| which is obviously not going to be optimal, the air needs
| to be fully separated with the energy exchanging through
| a metal layer.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_recovery_ventilation
| EricE wrote:
| CO2 sensors are common in commercial HVAC systems -
| especially for large auditoriums or rooms where you expect
| high occupancy. Economizers will automatically open to
| increase the exchange of outside air. My church has an
| auditorium that can seat up to 1500 - all four AC units
| have CO2 detection built into them and the concentration is
| displayed on the controls too.
| verisimilitude wrote:
| Energy Recovery Ventilators or Heat Recovery Ventilators are
| absolutely essential (and, I think, part of code in many
| places!) in this era of tight and sometimes extraordinarily
| tight (e.g. Passivhaus) home building.
|
| When we bought our home, the HRV wasn't working and once I
| replaced a bunch of parts in it, the difference in the quality
| of the air was noticeable just in the fact that it smelled
| fresh like the outdoors.
|
| In your deep dive, you probably ran into the evergreen debate
| about running ERV/HRVs in the summer... I just gave up, turn it
| off when we run the A/C and open the windows occasionally...
| BUT I think you could probably run a humidistat/hygrostat
| hooked to the HRV (a common option in the new units, I
| believe).
| cjlars wrote:
| I'm in SF. The tricky thing here is that outdoor humidity is
| often so high that a humidistat would only result in an
| 'always on' system. I think CO2 is an objectively better
| measure anyway. You can remove humidity and particulate with
| energy efficient machines. You can't (realistically) do that
| with CO2 / VOCs.
| slumdev wrote:
| My takeaways:
|
| 1. Open the windows as often as weather allows.
|
| 2. Don't use nonstick pans unless they're cast iron or some kind
| of fired enamel.
|
| 3. Use a water purifier.
| nradov wrote:
| In California now it seems like we have an extended wildfire
| season every summer where no one wants to open the windows due
| to bad air quality.
| sgc wrote:
| But we are also running hepa filters inside for the same
| reason.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| There are no mobile PFAS chemicals in nonstick cookware.
| Nonstick coatings are made from PTFE, which is a completely
| inert polymer that cannot be broken down into mobile components
| unless it's overheated. The fluorinated chemicals used in the
| manufacture of the coatings (largely surfactants) are
| completely removed when the coating is baked on, and they have
| to be or else the coating would fail.
|
| PTFE is used in medical implants. You can eat it. In no case
| that I'm aware of have these things resulted in detectable
| fluorinated compounds in someone's blood stream.
| kaitai wrote:
| People "overheat" their cookware all the time. Do you know
| anyone who measures the temp of the surface of their
| cookware?
|
| Teflon and nonstick coatings kill birds (house pets) when
| overheated. A nonstick pan in the oven to catch the drippings
| from your chicken baking at 400 or 425 can kill your parrot
| quickly. A nonstick wok left unattended for a few minutes
| during a high-heat stir fry easily reaches 400, enough to
| kill your cockatiel.
|
| And as another poster has noted, those coatings always start
| flaking off.
|
| Why buy something that produces fumes enough to kill your
| house pets and also has planned obsolescence built in when
| you can get a cast iron pan that's indestructible and will
| increase your iron intake a bit? It's not hard to develop a
| great seasoning on it that's essentially non-stick. I use
| cast iron for almost everything, and enamel for a few
| remaining applications.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| > _Do you know anyone who measures the temp of the surface
| of their cookware?_
|
| Yes, I do. I have a cheap IR thermometer with my kitchen
| utensils, and I use it all the time. I use it every time I
| roast seeds and spices, because I'm picky that way. I've
| also used it when I've accidentally left a pan on the
| burner too long. I'm careful but I screw up now and then. I
| accidentally heated a stainless pan to nearly 500 deg F
| once, but 've never gotten a nonstick pan over about 400
| deg F.
|
| > _Teflon and nonstick coatings kill birds (house pets)
| when overheated. A nonstick pan in the oven to catch the
| drippings from your chicken baking at 400 or 425 can kill
| your parrot quickly. A nonstick wok left unattended for a
| few minutes during a high-heat stir fry easily reaches 400,
| enough to kill your cockatiel._
|
| Stories of such low temperatures killing birds are
| anecdotal. The lowest temperature that has lead to bird
| deaths in a controlled laboratory setting is 280 deg C,
| which is about 580 deg F. [1]
|
| Keep in mind that birds are easily killed by common cooking
| smoke and fumes, as well as natural gas. The problem with
| these anecdotes is that it's likely there were other fumes
| involved, and there's no way to know what actually kills a
| bird oustide a controlled lab setting.
|
| > _And as another poster has noted, those coatings always
| start flaking off._
|
| As I noted in another comment, it's not hard to keep a
| nonstick pan indefinitely. I have a lot of ten and fifteen
| year old nonstick pans that are as good as the day I bought
| them. My daily drivers are about five years old now, good
| as new. I'm careful not to overheat them and I never use
| metal utensils in them. Following those two rules, even my
| kids were able to use them without damaging them.
|
| > _Why buy something that produces fumes enough to kill
| your house pets and also has planned obsolescence built in
| when you can get a cast iron pan that 's indestructible and
| will increase your iron intake a bit?_
|
| If you overheat that cast iron pan, or if you burn food in
| it, it will kill birds just as easily as a nonstick pan.
| Also note, there is vastly more evidence of harm from
| excess iron consumption than there is of harm from
| overheated PTFE coatings.
|
| That said, I like steel and iron pans. I regularly use
| enameled steel pans for toasting spices, and I cook crepes
| and pancakes on steel pans. I don't use cast iron for much
| because it's heavy as shit and its heat distribution sucks.
|
| I've actually had good luck with seasoned bare aluminum
| pans. This is more common in some restaurant kitchens, but
| not so much in home kitchens. Aluminum seasons just as well
| as iron, and the heat distribution is way way better. But
| for some reason "cast aluminum" doesn't have quite the same
| old-timey panache as does cast iron.
| camgunz wrote:
| I have never heard of cast aluminum, thank you for the
| tip (as well as the rest of this post)!
| yabones wrote:
| Cast iron pans are wonderful. I inherited one that was
| purchased originally in 1929. It's used every day or two to
| cook eggs for breakfast, and as I've found over the years
| butter is fantastic for keeping the seasoning in great
| shape. It's more non-stick than teflon, just a little shake
| is enough to send my eggs sliding to the other side of the
| pan. All it takes is discipline.
|
| Best part is, this same pan will probably live well beyond
| 100 years. Possibly 150 or more. How many household items
| last that long? This is what we've lost with our culture's
| planned obsolescence, products that last for generations.
| It my have been expensive back then, but that was the last
| person in my family to buy this type of cookware. Safe,
| long lasting products isn't an innovation, it's a very
| welcomed regression.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| I agree, I love vintage cookware. My favorite pans are a
| bunch of All-Clad LTD's I assembled from Ebay over the
| years. I use them for omelettes and french toast. Super
| thick aluminum clad with a stainless cooking surface,
| made sometime in the 1980s. They're as tough as cast
| iron, but they heat way more evenly, they're much
| lighter, and you don't have to worry about hurting the
| seasoning.
|
| With cast iron, you can easily destroy the seasoning by
| overheating the pan, or if your mother who doesn't know
| how to care for cast iron puts it in the dishwasher. I
| put my All-Clads in the sink and scrub them with a steel
| tuffy. They're probably the most indestructable tools I
| own.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| i'd have to buy a new stove if i had a cast iron pan
|
| i have a glass top stove.
|
| cast iron has several problems. Learning how to "season" it
| (which i never figured out how to do when i had a different
| oven), the fact it's usually expensive and there's no "one
| size fits all scenarios" type of pan to use and re-use,
| thus resulting in you have to buy several.
|
| Then there's stainless steel pans but good luck with that -
| everything sticks to that.
|
| I just want to cook some eggs without having to use some
| chemical solvent to actually clean the egg remnants off the
| pan.
| bumby wrote:
| I was maybe (mis)remembering studies that showed the pans
| had to be heated to a high-temperature relatively fast (in
| the order of under a second) for the off-gassing to occur,
| but I couldn't find that yet. I did find some interesting
| information about the dangers at different temperatures [1]
| and common cooking temperatures[2]. Without finding that
| study about quickly heating being necessary, they seem to
| corroborate your point.
|
| [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-017-00
| 95-y/...
|
| [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-017-00
| 95-y/...
| nate_meurer wrote:
| Notice that the reports in your first link of PTFE
| coatings breaking down at less than 260 deg C are
| anecdotal. The lowest temperature at which PTFE coatings
| have been verified to give off breakdown products is 240
| deg C. Even then, the only detected product was PTFE
| sublimate (small particles of PTFE flying off), which can
| lead to what we call "fume fever" if it's inhaled in
| large quantities, but reports of this happening in real
| life are rare, even in factory workers who are exposed at
| higher levels.
|
| PTFE is chemically stable well past 300 deg C (540 deg F)
| and many nonstick cookware lines are marketed for these
| temperatures. For example, I have Calphalon pans labelled
| for use up to 550 deg F, which are advertised for searing
| steak. I get them pretty hot, and they show no signs of
| degradation.
|
| At around 360 deg F (650 deg F), PTFE starts to give off
| detectable pyrolysis products, which are theoretically
| able to cause health problems, but even then reports of
| actual harm are few and far between. This is remarkable
| given that billions of pieces of nonstick cookware have
| been in use every day around the world for the past
| seventy years. Between the end users and the factory
| workers who make stuff, and all of the accidents and
| episodes of overheating that occur all the time, if there
| were going to be significant health effects I think
| they'd show up by now.
|
| The real problem is the PFAS chemicals that are sprayed
| on our clothes, upholstery, carpeting and other home
| furnishings, that the military and civilian airports have
| dumped in our water supplies. This is a shaping up to be
| a true environmental catastrophe, and the manufacturers
| of nonstick coatings have no doubt contributed to this
| pollution. But the teflon cookware itself is not the
| slightest threat.
| verall wrote:
| Because rice will still stick to the cast iron and enamel
| pans?
|
| People don't just choose PTFE because they are lazy. I
| tried a carbon steel, cast iron, and "oiled enamel" and
| rice stuck to all of them.
| mahogany wrote:
| But people must have cooked rice in pans before these
| recent inventions. How did they do it?
| meristohm wrote:
| I might go with "because they are lazy" for many of the
| shortcuts we take. We have one well-seasoned cast-iron
| pan and several not-so-well-seasoned which I've been too
| lazy to properly treat, so for now I spend the extra time
| scrubbing. I even use soap (!), though only after the dog
| gets the big stuff off. Teflon pans required too much
| care, so we never repaced them. I agree that rice sticks
| easily to iron pans, so I usually cook rice in
| inox/stainless saucepans or in ceramic in the pressure
| cooker. Eggs we cook in the seasoned iron pan. We can
| change our habits so that we don't do so much harm to
| life on earth.
| verall wrote:
| I think that you are correct in most cases, people choose
| nonstick for the easy cleanup afterwards. But that's not
| what I'm referring to. I have not found a pan, other than
| PTFE coated, which can fry rice to crispy without using
| excessive tons of oil. All of the best crispy rice will
| get stuck to the pan and become inedible.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| This is my experience as well. I also use a lot of slowly
| sauteed garlic, like pretty much every day, and I'm
| completely reliant on a small nonstick pot to do it
| without sticking and burning.
|
| Scrambled eggs too, especially the soft-scrambled kind
| ala Gordon Ramsay's famous short video. They simply wipe
| out of nonstick pan, and I've never seen this work with
| any other kind of cookware.
| doctorsher wrote:
| When you tried the carbon steel pan, was it properly
| seasoned? They stick like hell before they are well
| seasoned, but seasoning them gives the carbon steel its
| non-stick properties. Woks are the ultimate tool for
| this, as they are carbon steel (so non-stick when
| seasoned) and their shape minimizes the amount of oil
| necessary to fry the rice. It is ubiquitous for fried
| rice across almost all of Asia.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| Yeah but they use a lot of oil in those woks, and they
| get them really hot. Any Chinese street vendor with an
| open fire and cheap steel wok can do shit I can't dream
| of doing in my fancy ass American kitchen.
| doctorsher wrote:
| J Kenji Lopez-Alt has a lot of great wok content for
| American kitchens. In [0], he uses a butane torch to get
| the smoky wok flavor (wok hei) in a standard kitchen. He
| also reviews outdoor wok setups for those who want
| something close to Chinese street vendor-type vibe.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/iac_idcz6XE
| gruez wrote:
| >Do you know anyone who measures the temp of the surface of
| their cookware?
|
| They don't need to, because the oil is going to start
| smoking before the coating stacks degrading.
|
| >And as another poster has noted, those coatings always
| start flaking off.
|
| That doesn't really matter because the coating itself is
| inert.
| GordonS wrote:
| With every non-stick pan I've ever owned, the coating
| eventually starts flaking off. Usually after less than 1 year
| of use. I'm pretty sure I must have ingested plenty of these
| coatings over the years...
| jstanley wrote:
| Right, and as long as you're not heating it to like 300
| deg. C, it's completely inert and won't cause you any
| trouble.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| I have many pieces of well-used nonstick cookware well over
| a decade old, which are in pretty much the same condition
| as when I bought them. This includes cheap IKEA pans that
| my kids used. Some of them get used literally every day. We
| don't overheat them, and don't use metal utensils in them,
| and there's no reason they can't last forever.
|
| Regardless, you can eat the entire coating off of your pan,
| and there will be no detectable fluorinated compounds in
| your blood. PTFE is completely inert and indigestible. It
| is widely used in medical implants _inside_ people 's
| bodies, with no detectable leaching of any chemicals.
| GordonS wrote:
| Hmm, sounds like you've got lucky with your pans -
| everyone I've ever mentioned this too has had the same
| problem with non-stick pans! Lifetime of 6-12 months tops
| :/
|
| I never did use metal utensils with them; it might be I
| overheated some, but certainly not all, and a pan isn't
| much use if you can't get it hot!
| nate_meurer wrote:
| I don't think I'm lucky, but there is definitely a cost.
| The cost is that I'm a fucking asshole about my nonstick
| pots and pans. I keep my stash separate from the rest of
| the family, I get grumpy if I catch anyone using it, and
| god forbid anyone scratches my shit.
|
| I buy separate stuff for my kids, and my wife has her own
| favorite pan.
|
| Of course there's no need to be an asshole like me. But I
| think it's eminently doable for everyone. I do believe
| keeping the temperature down is key to longevity,
| especially for cheaper cookware with simpler two-layer
| nonstick coating systems. I have a lot of these too, and
| I just avoid going over 300 deg F or so. No problems so
| far.
| slumdev wrote:
| The idea that PTFE doesn't break down except at very high
| temperatures is not true.
|
| Breakdown begins to occur at either 200 or 260 degrees
| Celsius (depending on what data you're looking at). These
| temperatures are well within the realm of temperatures that
| even a home chef might encounter.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| > _Breakdown begins to occur at either 200 or 260 degrees
| Celsius (depending on what data you 're looking at)._
|
| This isn't good data. The stories of PTFE coatings breaking
| down at less than 260 deg C are anecdotal. The most well
| known one comes from someone who swears their chickens were
| killed by coated light bulbs in a coop.
|
| The lowest temperature that has lead to bird deaths in a
| controlled laboratory setting is 280 deg C, which is about
| 580 deg F. [1] This is way freaking hot, and likely only to
| be reached by accident.
|
| Even in the case of accidental overheating of non-stick
| cookware, there have been only a few verifiable cases of
| injury, and certainly no fatalities. Most cases of polymer
| fume fever have been gleened from among workers in
| factories, which is remarkable considering that billions of
| pieces of nonstick cookware have been in use every day
| around the world for the past seventy years.
|
| Also note that cooking fumes from food are themselves
| toxic, and kill birds and lead to long term respiratory
| issues in humans much more easily than PTFE coatings.
|
| 1 - https://sci-hub.st/10.1289/ehp.7511197 - An Industrial
| Approach to Evaluation of Pyrolysis and Combustion Hazards
| slumdev wrote:
| > The lowest temperature that has lead to bird deaths in
| a controlled laboratory setting is 280 deg C
|
| "Did any birds die?" is an approach to this problem that
| I would expect from an undeveloped nation a hundred years
| ago. It is both excruciatingly short-term in focus and so
| imprecise that the results are useless for anyone who is
| not himself a rat or a canary.
|
| Your data answers the question, "To what temperature must
| we heat PTFE in order to kill small animals?"
|
| It does not answer the question, "What are the long-term
| effects on humans of short excursions outside of normal
| cooking temperatures?"
| nate_meurer wrote:
| > _" Did any birds die?" is an approach to this problem
| that I would expect from an undeveloped nation a hundred
| years ago. It is both excruciatingly short-term in focus
| and so imprecise that the results are useless for anyone
| who is not himself a rat or a canary._
|
| I sort of agree, but birds do make a convenient study
| subject because they are exquisitely sensitive, much more
| so than humans.
|
| The lowest temperature at which PTFE coatings have been
| seen to evolve breakdown products (that I know of) is 240
| deg C. Even then, the only detected product was micro-
| size PTFE sublimate, which can lead to what we call "fume
| fever", but reports of this actually happening are rare,
| even in factory workers who are exposed at much higher
| levels.
|
| The temperatures at which PTFE pyrolysis really starts to
| give off nasty shit are way higher [1], but even _then_ ,
| evidence of physiological harm is sketchy. Anecdotally, I
| know a few people, including my father, who have left a
| nonstick pan on the stove, got distracted, and burned the
| coating right the fuck off. Aside from the smell, no ill
| effects were observed. This isn't scientific at all, but
| if burning PTFE is _that_ toxic, one might have expected
| some effects.
|
| > _It does not answer the question, "What are the long-
| term effects on humans of short excursions outside of
| normal cooking temperatures?"_
|
| This is true, but undertaking such a study would be both
| impossible and pointless, because we are exposed to
| millions or billions of times more fluorinated compounds
| from clothing, furniture, and carepeting, than we could
| evey hope to get from nonstick cookware, even if you
| overheat it regularly.
|
| Keep in mind that billions of pieces of nonstick cookware
| have been in use every day around the world for the past
| seventy years. And all time, factory workers have been
| exposed to the manufacturing process. That's plenty of
| time for problems to have been observed on some level,
| but they just haven't. The problems we're seeing come
| from the billion-fold higher levels of PFC we get from
| other sources.
|
| To repeat an analogy from an earlier comment, worrying
| about nonstick cookware is sort of like a lifeguard who
| works in the sun all day, but obsessively blacks out the
| windows in his home because he's worried about UV
| radiation getting in his house. It makes no sense.
|
| 1 - https://sci-hub.st/10.1289/ehp.7511197 - Waritz, R.
| S. (1975). An industrial approach to evaluation of
| pyrolysis and combustion hazards. Environmental Health
| Perspectives
| slumdev wrote:
| The last time I needed an x-ray for a broken bone, I
| asked the x-ray tech for a lead vest to protect my torso
| and groin area.
|
| He told me that it was pointless because I would be
| exposed to more background radiation throughout the
| course of my normal life. He did not understand that
| ionizing radiation damage is cumulative and that there is
| no safe limit for exposure. Annoyed with my request, he
| gave me the vest anyway.
|
| Is there a safe limit for exposure to PFAs? I would
| readily concede that the risk to an individual is
| probably negligible, but like in the case of x-rays,
| population-level risks probably do exist for even the
| smallest exposure.
|
| That said, I would also support eliminating all sources
| of PFAs, just like we tried to do with CFCs and asbestos.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| You were right to ask for a shield. I would do the same
| thing, and I'd be a little pissed that I had to ask.
|
| However there's a big difference, in that the x-ray you
| got actually delivers a substantial amount of ionizing
| radiation-- up to one full percent of the average annual
| background dose. There is no evidence that even a lot of
| normal x-ray scans have any effect on health, but at
| least it's a physical possibility.
|
| In contrast, the level of chemical hazard from nonstick
| cookware is a billionth or trillionth (or even smaller)
| than what's in the carpets we all grew up playing on, or
| the clothes we wear and furniture we sit on every day.
|
| To use another analogy, worrying about nonstick cookware
| is like worrying about the ionizing radiation coming from
| a banana that's sitting uneaten across the room from you.
|
| I agree about absestos, and I fee the same about lead as
| well. Those are nasty poisons that, contrary to popular
| lore, cannot be used and applied safely such that they
| won't eventually get loose and become a health hazard.
| I've been thinking about asbestos this week because I've
| been replacing ceiling light fixtures in my house, and
| it's impossible to do without causing the asbstos-filled
| popcorn texture to rain down like snow. It's fucking
| unbelievable what previous generations afflicted us with.
|
| EDIT:
|
| I feel compelled to repeat that common cooking fumes and
| smoke are known toxins and carcinogens. It makes no sense
| to be more concerned about tiny amounts of aerosolized
| PTFE than the far greater amounts of cooking smoke and
| fumes that will inevitably be emitted by your food at the
| same temperatures.
| [deleted]
| colechristensen wrote:
| PTFE burns at high but commonly achieved cooking
| temperatures, the result is a fine particulate in the air.
| You have to be careful (and many aren't) to only use nonstick
| for low to medium temperature cooking.
| atom_arranger wrote:
| There aren't any long term studies comparing people who cook
| with non-stick vs stainless or cast iron, so we can only
| guess about long term and population level effects based on
| limited information.
|
| I personally would not take the risk given the benefit is
| just a pan that things stick to less. Medical uses are more
| justifiable.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| No, we have lots of long term information about nonstick
| cookware. People forget we've been using teflon cookware
| since the 1950's. There have been billions of pieces of
| nonstick cookware in use every day around the world for
| decades.
|
| The problem is that because there are so many free PFAS
| chemicals around us from other sources, studying the
| possible effects of cookware is a bit like studying whether
| it contains evil spirits. You won't be able to come up with
| a falsifiable hypothesis, because our PFC exposure via
| other routes is so high.
|
| Another reason long term studies aren't viable is that
| there is no plausible mechanism of action of toxicity from
| nonstick cookware under the sort of use that it almost
| always gets. Unless it's badly overheated, PTFE is
| completely stable in inert.
|
| Think about this logically: if you handle a water resistant
| jacket and then eat a sandwich, you'll ingest measureable
| quanities of PFAS. Every time kids or babies play on a
| stain-resistant carpetting and furniture, then ingest far
| greater quantities from their hands and toys.
|
| In contrast, any PFAS that remains in nonstick cookware
| would be on the edge of detectability. PFAS surfactants are
| used in the manufacture of the coatings, but it boils off
| when the coating is baked on, and as far as I know, no
| detectable PFAS has ever been verified in finished
| cookware. Even when agressively overheated, nonstick
| cookware doesn't emit PFAS. It sublimates micro-size PTFA
| particles, which can lead to what we call "fume fever" but
| reports of this actually happening are rare, even in
| factory workers who are exposed at much higher levels than
| a home cook is.
|
| So put these two things together: you are likely ingesting
| millions of times more PFAS from your clothes, carpets, and
| furniture than you ever could from nonstick cookware.
|
| Worrying about nonstick cookware is sort of like a
| lifeguard who works in the sun all day, but obsessively
| blacks out the windows in his home because he's worried
| about UV radiation getting in his house. It makes no sense.
| atom_arranger wrote:
| > No, we have lots of long term information about
| nonstick cookware. People forget we've been using
| nonstick cookware since the 1950's.
|
| That's not a study.
|
| > You won't be able to come up with a falsifiable
| hypothesis, because our PFC exposure via other routes is
| so high.
|
| We're so poisoned by these chemicals it's impossible to
| run a study to figure out if one possible source of them
| specifically is measurably poisoning us. Maybe we should
| consider banning them, or just avoiding them in general.
|
| > PFAS surfactants are used in the manufacture of the
| coatings, but it boils off when the coating is baked
|
| See sibling comments.
|
| > if you handle a water resistant jacket and then eat a
| sandwich, you'll ingest measureable quanities of PFAS
|
| I try to avoid synthetic fabrics when I can, so in my
| case it's not like your lifeguard scenario.
|
| I also think the government should step in to limit the
| use of plastics generally.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| > _We're so poisoned by these chemicals it's impossible
| to run a study to figure out if one possible source of
| them specifically is measurably poisoning us._
|
| Sort of. My point is that teflon cookware is not a
| plausible source of PFAS, because there is no detectable
| PFAS in finished cookware. Further, because there have
| been billions of pieces of nonstick cookware in use
| around the world for decades, if there were negative
| health effects we would probably notice them by now. But
| there aren't.
|
| Contrast this to the lead that has been widely used in
| glass and ceramic cookware and dishes over the same
| period of time. Manufacturers claimed that lead bearing
| glazes were perfectly safe. This is false, but we don't
| need any "studies" to tell us that. Rather we've plainly
| seen tangible health effects from the use of these items
| in many medical reports over the years, and we can easily
| test and verify the presence of lead that is leached into
| foods that are cooked and served in them.
|
| This is not the case with teflon cookware. There is no
| detectable PFAS in nonstick cookware, nor are there
| verifiable reports of health effects from its use, in
| spite of the millions or billions of such uses happening
| every day over decades.
|
| > _See sibling comments._
|
| Which ones? The ones where I addressed the poorly
| substantiated risks of overheating?
|
| > _I try to avoid synthetic fabrics when I can, so in my
| case it's not like your lifeguard scenario._
|
| I guarantee you're not able to avoid PFAS-treated
| upholstery, carpeting, and other home furnishings. And
| depending on where you live, chances are good that you
| ingest significant amounts of PFAS in your drinking
| water. If you've ever eaten fast food, the wrapper it
| came in was probably coated in PFAS. Due to these and
| other sources, I guarantee you have measurable levels of
| PFAS in your blood and tissues.
|
| So by all means, avoid nonstick cookware if you want. It
| won't hurt, and it may have value just because it makes
| you feel better. That's legit. But in terms of actual
| harm reduction it is very much like the theoretical
| lifeguard blacking out his windows.
| gruez wrote:
| >I personally would not take the risk given the benefit is
| just a pan that things stick to less.
|
| Being able to use less cooking oils is a material benefit,
| especially considering the obesity rates we see in the
| developed world.
| someguy321 wrote:
| I think PTFE pans are overheated more often than we expect.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Sure but this puts the burden on the citizen.
|
| I'm all about taking your health into your hands, but it won't
| hold on the long run.
|
| We also need strong policies against this.
| slumdev wrote:
| Yeah, I agree that these things probably ought to be
| legislated out of existence, but I don't hold my breath on
| it.
| meristohm wrote:
| Contrary responses aside, these three actions seem healthy.
| I'll add that I'd like to see regulation towards cleaner air,
| water, and land, so that avoidance/mitigation is less
| necessary.
| defaulty wrote:
| Are there air purifiers that filter these? I have not seen them
| on list of what air purifiers can filter
| neom wrote:
| "HEPA filters capture pollen, dirt, dust, moisture, bacteria
| (0.2-2.0 mm), virus (0.02-0.3 mm), and submicron liquid aerosol
| (0.02-0.5 mm).[8][9][10] Some microorganisms, for example,
| Aspergillus niger, Penicillium citrinum, Staphylococcus
| epidermidis, and Bacillus subtilis are captured by HEPA filters
| with photocatalytic oxidation (PCO). HEPA is also able to
| capture some viruses and bacteria which are <=0.3 mm."
|
| "Eleven particle-size-segregated samples were taken to
| investigate the particle-size distribution of perfluoroalkyl
| substances (PFASs) using two five stage impactors in parallel.
| ... Particle-size distribution varied between perfluorooctane
| sulfonate (PFOS) and other perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFSAs),
| perfluorooctane carboxylate (PFOA) and other perfluoroalkyl
| carboxylates (PFCAs) and n-methyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamido
| ethanol (MeFOSE). Whereas PFOA and MeFOSE were predominantly
| observed in smallest size fraction (<0.14 mm), maximum PFOS
| mass fractions were observed in the coarser size fractions
| between 1.38 and 3.81 mm."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00456...
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| For those uninterested in digesting these details, the upshot
| of this seems to be: Yes. HEPA filters should capture these.
|
| Edit: Though perhaps inefficiently. See the replies below.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Hold on, that is very much the opposite of my
| interpretation.
|
| HEPA filters are typically designed with 0.3mm pores this
| is mostly a legacy of medical applications (i.e. to
| guarantee they catch bacteria).
|
| Submicron performance (< 0.3mm) is kind of down to luck.
| You need the submicron particle to travel on a larger
| liquid particule for it to adhere to the filter lattice.
|
| The PFAS is a group of substances, the article is
| specifically talking about 6:2 FTOH (one of many PFAS
| substances) that is found in carpets etc.
|
| 6:2 FTOH specifically is a sub-micron compound, from the GP
| article the closest particle to it is PFOA which is <0.14
| mm. So unless your 6:2 FTOH compound is travelling on a
| moisture particle it is unlikely it would be filtered.
|
| To answer GGP question, a high MERV rating filter will
| probably catch some of these compounds but not the
| totality. Open your windows frequently (if outside air
| pollution allows wherever you live) and make sure you
| understand what products you have in your house.
| tzs wrote:
| > You need the submicron particle to travel on a larger
| liquid particule for it to adhere to the filter lattice
|
| That's what intuition would suggest, but intuition turns
| out to be wrong when dealing with filters for microscopic
| things. There are at least four mechanisms by which a
| filter can trap particles, three of which work on
| particles smaller than the pores [1].
|
| Briefly:
|
| 1. Big particles don't fit between the fibers of the
| filter. Think fish in a fish net. This is called sieving.
|
| 2. Particles too small for sieving but heavier than the
| surrounding flow don't make the turns as well as the
| surrounding flow when the flow goes around the fibers.
| The particles can get embedded in the fibers. This
| mechanism is called inertial impaction.
|
| 3. The smallest might be too small to actually be
| affected much by the flow of the surrounding fluid
| through the filter. The move by diffusion, and many will
| randomly hit the fibers and get stuck.
|
| 4. Particles too big for diffusion but too light for
| inertial impaction still can run into fibers and get
| stuck. This is called interception.
|
| The effectiveness of sieving, inertial impaction, and
| interception all follow S shaped curves that start out
| low for small particles, then at some point start rising,
| and then level out. The sieving curve's rise is almost
| vertical. The rise for inertial impaction is steep but
| not nearly as steep as it is for sieving. The curve for
| interception's rise is much more relaxed.
|
| The effectiveness for diffusion goes the other way. Much
| more effective for very small particles, then above some
| size drops down and is low from then on.
|
| When you put all these together, you get a curve that is
| effective at the small end, and at some point as size
| goes up effectiveness drops, reaching a minimum, and then
| rises again to reach high effectiveness for particles
| above some certain size.
|
| There is also a fifth mechanism in some filters where
| electrostatic attraction between the fibers and the
| particles catches some particles.
|
| [1] https://donaldsonaerospace-
| defense.com/library/files/documen...
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| TIL, I can't edit or delete my comment by now. Hopefully
| your comment amends my misunderstanding.
| sooheon wrote:
| Please don't spread misinformation that is easily
| debunked by wikipedia:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA#Mechanism
|
| HEPA is actually twice as efficient at removing <0.01
| micron particles than 0.3 micron.
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| I don't claim to know one way or the other. I was basing
| my interpretation on GGP's quotation from Wikipedia,
| which seems to indicate that HEPA filters can capture
| down to 0.02 mm. I note now, however, that it then goes
| on to suggests that HEPA filters _don 't_ reliably
| capture some other categories of larger particles, which
| is consistent with your comment. Edited accordingly.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Regular HEPA filters should be able to filter these, but I'll
| admit I don't know what size these particles are. If they're
| single molecules it may be a problem.
| magwa101 wrote:
| Do HEPA filters capture PFAS particles?
| doitLP wrote:
| The problem is not PFAS. It is extreme regulatory capture that
| got us to the this point. Even if we ban PFAS tomorrow, there are
| other alternatives that will be used and another 2 decades of
| lies and cover ups before we find out what harm _those_ chemicals
| have.
|
| Example: look at what happened when BPAs harms became known.
| Manufacturers switched to using any of the other 40 chemicals in
| the same bisphenol family (BPS, etc) many of which had even worse
| safety profiles, while proudly proclaiming their products were
| "BPA free".
|
| We need to flip the approval process on its head -- from "safe
| until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven
| safe". The tally of harm to all life caused by these chemicals is
| on a massive scale that any mass murderer would be proud of.
| kongolongo wrote:
| >We need to flip the approval process on its head -- from "safe
| until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven
| safe". The tally of harm to all life caused by these chemicals
| is on a massive scale that any mass murderer would be proud of.
|
| That isn't always practically feasible and its a really tough
| problem to solve. Consider all the ways a compound released
| into the environment can break down and how long it might take
| for any exposure or even low levels of exposure might take to
| have any adverse health affects. The type of evidence you'd
| need to gather to demonstrate any compound is fully safe with
| that bar would make it nearly impossible to declare anything
| safe.
|
| Microplastics, PFAS, and other compounds with potential long-
| acting health impacts are very hard to predict far in advance.
| Strong evidence against any adverse health effects would take
| considerable effort to gather while in the mean time they would
| offer massive clear benefits and solve so many problems.
| Plastics have massively reduced costs in almost every industry
| and have become almost irreplaceable in some applications such
| as medical equipment (think packaging for syringes, surgical
| tools, or anything that requires contamination control). Yet
| how they break down into microplastics in the environment and
| then eventually bioaccumulate in our tissues through the food
| chain is something that would've been extremely hard to predict
| at the onset of their creation. Even now we don't know if
| they're necessarily harmful.
| toss1 wrote:
| >>We need to flip the approval process on its head -- from
| "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently)
| proven safe".
|
| Totally agree in principle.
|
| There is one fly in the ointment - it is impossible to prove a
| negative, such as "X does not exist" or "there is no possible
| harm from this to any person ever" (water would not meet that
| standard).
|
| So, this needs to be implemented in such a way as to not
| completely halt progress.
|
| Should be straightforward to require testing to reasonable
| standards levels of biological harm to humans and ecology,
| persistence/degradability, etc. the levels need to be set by
| NEITHER the industry NOR the perfectionist eco-activists.
| Finding such a panel will be tricky.
| meristohm wrote:
| What is progress?
| toss1 wrote:
| I consider progress to be getting closer to technology that
| gets us out of the unsustainable ecological/biosystems hole
| which we have dug for ourselves.
|
| We are not going to put the technological genie back in the
| bottle, short of eliminating 98+% of all humans and
| reverting back to hunter-gatherer tribes.
|
| The only solution is to go through this dirty technology
| cycle and build and implement clean sustainable
| technologies that allow us to live with something
| resembling current populations without destroying the
| climate system, breaking the food web, or poisoning
| ourselves (& everything else).
|
| So, yes, the only thing worse than halting all progress now
| would be to do it a decade age before solar, wind, etc.
| became viable, but we need a lot more progress, i.e.,
| better performance for lower costs - both ecological &
| economical - for most of our technologies, and eliminating
| those destructive technologies. That would be progress.
|
| What's your definition?
| ashildr wrote:
| > from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until
| (independently) proven safe"
|
| That's about how the EU does it.
| wiz21c wrote:
| If you think about REACH I heard it's not what it does
| (although it sounds like it does). The lobbies were there...
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| Which isn't without issues of its own of course, for example
| the EU is notoriously backwards on the issue of genetically
| modified crops which may turn out to be a vital lifeline if
| climate change causes agricultural collapse. Another example
| I can think of off the top of my head is the atrociously bad
| legislation to what was then the new technology of vaping, it
| came in pre-Brexit just when I was considering quitting
| smoking (which I eventually managed and never could have done
| without a vape) and it was so poorly thought out I'm
| convinced the tobacco industry had a hand in drafting it!
|
| The precautionary principle has its merits, but I think it's
| often cargo-culted and its limitations not well articulated.
| In cases such as GM crops where the stakes may within a human
| lifetime be "devestating famine" versus "less famine", or
| cases like vaping where although the harm is unknown it's
| certainly less than what it's replacing (vaping is
| uncontroversially less harmful than smoking) the
| precautionary principle actually has a harmful effect in
| itself.
| fragmede wrote:
| Part of the issue with GM crops is the corporations
| involved, and how to operate them ethically under
| capitalism. The EU has a much stronger stance against
| capitalism run amok, than the US' does, so even if you _do_
| trust the science, the science doesn 't operate in a
| vacuum. The EU understands this.
| asdswe wrote:
| We're still decades from a potential global agricultural
| collapse caused by climate change, there's plenty of time
| to study effects of GMO crops on environment and human
| health.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| Decades is a short time on a planetary scale, at risk of
| sounding alarmist I really do believe we should be hoping
| for the best but preparing for the worst when it comes to
| climate change. If there was ever a time for action it
| was fifty years ago, but now is better than further
| delay.
| jszymborski wrote:
| Sure, banning GMO's outright would be a huge problem, but
| is it so awful that they be tested first?
|
| I don't know if they test for this, but GMOs do run the
| risk of become invasive or destructive species which could
| potentially tilt things towards the "devastating famine"
| side of the equation.
|
| I don't think the ecological concern is what most people
| worry about when they think GMOs, and I'm not of the mind
| that GMOs = Bad, but I think we owe it to ourselves to
| study the ecological impact of GMOs we plan to grow widely.
| sampo wrote:
| > GMOs do run the risk of become invasive or destructive
| species
|
| Crop plants don't run the risk to become invasive or
| destructive species. They are bred to be easily
| digestible food sources, which the exact opposite of the
| strategy for surviving in the wild.
| jszymborski wrote:
| That's true and a relief, but they're also bred to be
| resistant to certain insecticides and to be robust.
|
| I guess my point is that we don't always get what we
| think we're getting when it comes to GMOs/selection: when
| farmers selected for Red Delicious apples that were
| entirely red, they also selected out the gene that made
| them palatable. Surely they wouldn't have done what they
| had if they knew we'd be left with the mealy mess Red
| Delicious apples are today.
|
| We hope we'll get edible plants that also don't do well
| in the wild, but there's a lot of room for error and
| testing is warranted in my not-an-expert opinion (I've a
| degree in Biochemistry, not Ecology or Agriculture).
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/the-
| evil-...
| danudey wrote:
| On one hand, the multiple levels of bureaucratic red tape
| and regulatory approval keeps a lot of technology from
| progressing onto the market and into people's lives at
| the rate it could otherwise.
|
| On the other hand, the multiple levels of bureaucratic
| red tape and regulatory approval keeps a lot of
| technology from progressing onto the market and into
| people's lives at the rate it could otherwise.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| I think what the argument comes down to is how much risk
| we're willing to tolerate as a society. There's
| definitely a middle ground to be had between an under-
| cautious world where things like leaded petrol and
| thalidomide are on the market causing immense human
| suffering, and an overly cautious world where progress is
| suffocated by the glacially slow wheels of bureaucracy
| and endless spurious "safety" objections by lobbyists
| attempting to kill their competition in its crib.
|
| Having said that, the EU is a bit of a unique specimen
| when it comes to things like this. I'm perhaps being a
| little unfair to the precautionary principle _per se_
| when I suppose it 's more the EU's implementation of it
| that I'm criticising. I don't want this to come across as
| an anti-EU polemic either, there's obviously pros and
| cons here and I realise the EU is very much in a class by
| itself when it comes to political polities which make
| comparisons quite difficult. My own biases are probably
| at play here too, for various reasons I'd say my risk
| tolerance is probably higher than most.
| jszymborski wrote:
| I think that's fair criticism.
|
| I've enough friends who work for the Canadian government
| or university administration to know that there is a
| coveted and illusive middle ground where vital regulation
| doesn't grind all it touches to a hapless stand-still.
|
| Hot take: I think the HN software dev crowd might not be
| the worst equipped to help towards addressing these sorts
| of problem. From the horror stories I hear, disciplined
| approaches to tooling could solve a class of problems
| that appear to be pervasive.
| ironmagma wrote:
| How can you prove anything safe without data on its use?
| Isn't that sort of a chicken and egg problem?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You collect data on a smaller scale, like clinical trials
| do for medications. There's a big range between "no data"
| and "we've enrolled eight billion humans in an uncontrolled
| trial".
| sooheon wrote:
| Should the data be collected without consent by exposing
| the public to it for decades or provided by clinical trials
| funded by the company that wants to bring it to market?
| refurb wrote:
| No, that's not how the EU does it.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfluorex
|
| A drug that was highly suspected of killing several hundred
| to several thousand people stayed on the market for decades.
|
| A similar drug with similar risks was pulled from the US
| market _24 years earlier_.
| Lutzb wrote:
| Would you say Benflourex is an outlier or the norm
| regarding the EUs stance?
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| > Example: look at what happened when BPAs harms became known.
| Manufacturers switched to using any of the other 40 chemicals
| in the same bisphenol family (BPS, etc) many of which had even
| worse safety profiles, while proudly proclaiming their products
| were "BPA free".
|
| It's worse than that. I remember when some 10 years ago
| Johnson&Johnson baby bottles were banned in one market, they
| were still available in others, and the FAQ on their website
| said they do this because they don't believe BPA is harmful. It
| is only after the total ban in 2012 that they stopped doing
| this.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| ,,cleaning,, products, even dish and hand soap
|
| new furniture and clothes
|
| any sort of spray or solvent
|
| ...
|
| read the ingredients if available
|
| avoid if it smells synthetic
|
| avoid places where you encounter them
|
| ...
|
| edit: for the downvoters, try googling "indoor air pollution voc"
|
| example: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200909-why-indoor-
| air-p...
| hmm320 wrote:
| How does one know if their clothing is PFAS-free if it doesn't
| specifically say?
| chamsom wrote:
| If your clothing is waterproof or has some kind of exercise
| "moisture wicking" material, it is common to have PFAS.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| Wicking materials don't use PFAS (although see edit below).
| The properties that PFAS endows a fabric are pretty much of
| the opposite of what you need for wicking. Wicking fabrics
| such as Capilene and polypropylene must be wettable in order
| to work. PFAS reduces the wettability of fibers. That's its
| whole point.
|
| PFAS is used in nearly all current water resistant fabrics,
| including clothing, upholstery, and carpet. The industry
| calls these Durable Water Resistant (DWR) treatments.
|
| PFAS-free treatments are only just recently hitting the
| market, but there are only a few so far and they're
| expensive. The North Face's Futurlight, Helly Hanson's Lifa
| are the only ones I know by name, but I've heard that Marmot
| and Mountain Hardware have some PFC-free garments as well.
|
| EDIT:
|
| I searched "PFAS wicking" and I see a some underwear makers
| are claiming their DWR treated products have enhanced wicking
| properties. This is confusing marketing. The DWR isn't
| actually enhacing the wicking. Rather, it's keeping the
| surface of the fabric that's next to the skin dry, while the
| untreated bulk of the fabric wicks moisture away. This is
| sort of like the thin perforated polyethylene membrane used
| in Band Aids to keep the would dry and prevent adhesion of
| the dressing.
|
| Nevertheless, it appears we now have to be wary of forever
| chemicals in our underwear. Lame.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Waxed canvas is also waterproof and free of questionable
| chemistry and is delightful.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| I agree. My favorite hat is oilcloth, and it's as
| waterproof as any fancy modern gear.
| meristohm wrote:
| I've put off buying a sleeping bag from REI because of DWR.
| I like to sleep outside as much as I can, and when temps
| are freezing a well-insulated bag is great. I've switched
| to wool blankets for now. I'm also more and more okay with
| going without various comforts; the cost of having whatever
| I want is too high.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| Wool is badass. How do you feel about the extra weight?
| strict9 wrote:
| An absurd challenge: walk to into a target or some other
| large retail store and try to find mens briefs that do not
| have moisture wicking treatment.
|
| It feels like I'm in a strange dystopia trying to find
| undergarments not treated with some sort of PFAS additives.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| I don't think PFAS are for moisture wicking. More
| water/moisture repelling.
|
| Also, go to Costco and there's a 3 or 4 pack of 100% cotton
| boxer-briefs on sale.
| ashildr wrote:
| This is really strange - I'm in Germany and I hear for the
| first time that underwear is treated like this.
|
| None of the brand I wear (HOM) seem to be and I don't
| remember that being mentioned on any pack of underwear I
| purchased the last 40 years.
|
| Is it an US thing?
|
| (and yes, I'm posting about my underwear on hacker news.
| weird.)
| strict9 wrote:
| It is strange! It's a recent thing in the US, yes.
| Probably in the past 4-5 years nearly all major brands
| put some sort of special chemical that gives it 'moisture
| wicking' (usually in partnership with Dow or 3M).
| ectopod wrote:
| I just bought some new underwear from Marks & Spencer in
| the UK which has their "Cool & Fresh" treatment. I
| haven't worn it yet but this thread is putting me off.
|
| M&S publish a Manufacturing Restricted Substances List
| [1] for their suppliers, which seems to ban the use of
| all per- and poly-fluorinated chemicals in the
| manufacture of textiles for them.
|
| Either I'm misunderstanding, or some of these underwear
| treatments don't involve PFAs. Who knows what they use
| instead?
|
| [1]:
| https://corporate.marksandspencer.com/documents/plan-a-
| our-a...
| ashildr wrote:
| Maybe it's only in sports apparel over here?
| dd36 wrote:
| Me too but for undershirts! I didn't see your comment
| before making mine.
| dd36 wrote:
| I tried to buy new Hanes or Fruit of the Loom undershirts and
| literally couldn't find any that didn't have their
| proprietary coating.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| sigh. that's all the undershirts i have.
|
| i'm "sure" (/s) that the chinese competitors on amazon are
| sooo much better.
|
| I'm so tired of having to anaylze every fucking product i
| bring into my home and expose myself, my wife and my kid
| to.
|
| I'm tired of being "that guy" to my wife too.
|
| It's endlessly frustrating
| chamsom wrote:
| California law TB117 required fire retardant foam until 2015 so a
| lot of couches have PFAS. This is an example of creating a
| problem by trying to avoiding another. Of course, this is not to
| single out CA as this is a global problem.
|
| Could be wrong but it seems like the general rule is that
| manufacturers are allowed to "experiment in public" when it comes
| to chemical science. PFAS alternatives are already in the wild
| and we don't know what those do either.
|
| Here's what you can do:
|
| 1. Open windows to your house, but also your car which contains
| PFAS in the upholstery
|
| 2. Minimize dust w/ vacuum, HEPA filters
|
| 3. Reduce use of old couches which stirs up dust until you
| replace it
|
| 4. Minimize polyurethane foam products - polyster foam is better
|
| 5. Paper/biodegradable takeout containers and fast food packaging
| have PFAS lined so the paper doesn't absorb oil etc.
| l30n4da5 wrote:
| > HEPA filters
|
| This is probably the most important. If you work from home, it
| might be prudent to at least have a one-room HEPA filter in
| your home office.
| intrasight wrote:
| I have in furnance airflow and also one in bedroom.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of filter I can
| use for my furnace. I've read a little bit about it and it
| seems that a residential furnace might not be able to
| handle the HEPA filter due to the higher airflow
| resistance. Even MERV 13 might already be too high.
| bradfa wrote:
| The MERV or other rating of a filter is not what's
| important to your furnace (it's what's important to the
| humans) but what matters is how much airflow through the
| filter can be achieved by the furnace fan and how much
| pressure drop the filter induces.
|
| If you get a MERV 12 filter with LOTS of filter material,
| it may flow more air at a lower pressure drop than a MERV
| 6 filter with minimal filter material. Look for more
| pleats in the filter or modify (or hire an HVAC
| contractor to modify) your furnace filter cabinet to
| accept a thicker filter cartridge.
|
| For reference, in my furnace during an HVAC consultation,
| we saw the same 0.5 inches of water pressure drop from a
| cheap 3M Filtrete MERV 7 filter as with a K&N reusable
| MERV 12 filter. The K&N has MUCH more filter material.
|
| You don't want to restrict the airflow to your furnace
| any more than is necessary. Most furnaces will have their
| required maximum pressure drop from the duct work and
| filter printed on a label inside. You can get a
| differential pressure meter to measure the actual
| pressure drops yourself, or hire an HVAC technician to do
| an audit of your furnace (often they'll do lots of other
| neat tests and give you lots of data and reports and
| info, too).
| barbazoo wrote:
| Thank you, I'll do that!!!
| danudey wrote:
| Also, California's law that makes everyone label everything
| with "this product contains some measurable level of an
| identified carcinogen" means that no one pays attention to
| those labels when it's plastered on something like an asbestos
| breathing mask or lick-and-paint radon clocks, making them even
| worse than useless.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Or the alternative: there are a huge amount of dangerous
| products in the market that we all shouldn't be using. Thank
| you California for bringing this to our consciousness.
|
| Personally I'm very content with these labels and actually
| avoid products that contain the warning. It's only because of
| prop 65 that I recently learned many seaweeds contain high
| levels of arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I don't want flame retardants in my products. I suspect most of
| these requirements came from the era when a lot more people
| smoked. Sure, put flame retardants in oven mitts and things
| that will reasonably catch fire, rather than things like
| pillowcases.
|
| Even still, how common were couch fires 20+ years ago when
| flame based (non-vaping) smoking was so much more common?
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > .. oven mitts .. that will reasonably catch fire, ..
|
| Or make them from densely woven wool. The ignition
| temperature is higher than all of the common textiles and it
| does not melt.
|
| See https://iwto.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IWTO_Wool-
| Fire.p...
| tharkun__ wrote:
| Like my sibling sort of did I want to point out that this
| possibly was meant to counter another trend. Unfortunately
| furniture nowadays burn much faster than before.
|
| They did an experiment. Built one room with old furniture
| made from solid wood and other "old style materials" and set
| it on fire. Then they built another one with modern materials
| with the typical particle board furniture. Set it on fire.
|
| Not many more words needed. Just watch:
| https://youtu.be/aDNPhq5ggoE
| ruined wrote:
| couch fires happen every day. a thing to note is that couches
| are really just very fluffy aerated flammable plastic, and
| they burn extremely well.
|
| i don't want fire retardants in couches either, but it's easy
| to see how the choice was made to mandate it.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| No, fire retardants used in furniture are not based on PFAS
| chemicals. Fire retardants are almost exclusively BPDE's:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers
|
| PFAS chemicals are used in fire suppression foam at airports
| and by the military, but that's a different (but still huge)
| problem.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-31 23:03 UTC)