Hysteria over CO2 levels causes so-called environmental groups like Sierra Club to promote "solutions" like electric vehicle mandates and geothermal hot dry rock projects (fracking). As an old person who has had to look out for toxins, I find it a bit cavalier of you to dismiss exposure to Teflon, etc.
Looks like yet another case of the statistically specious linear no threshold model so beloved of heavy-handed regulators out to make a name for themselves to me.
This may be more of a philosophical question, but how much of this is election posturing? We can't solve real problems, so let's invent a few?
Do the regulations offer incentives or mandates against the future use? If not, why do we have the regs in the first place. It is saying it's OK to put them into the environment, but once they are there, we have to pay dearly to take them out.
Fundamental question: is there a "safe" level of PFAS? As Dr. Angwin suggests below, there are toxics everywhere, so where is the reality check?
That we have moved from chasing metals in soil in parts per million (ppm) to solvents in groundwater in parts per billions. And now PFAS in parts per trillion. Not all environmental labs are capable of this level of detection. Minute exposure to PFAS in the field can render bad samples, sometimes from the sampling equipment itself! (sample bottles with Teflon caps, for example).
Thanks for this. I now understand far more about PFAS, however I am a little surprised that 4 drops in 20 olympic sized swimming pools is the safe level. I agree with your comments on diverting climate change funds to something providing more tangible results.
Those 4 - 10 ppt standards will be very costly and take a long time to achieve running groundwater extraction and treatment systems. Unless there's a remediation breakthrough. An innovation that cuts time by 90% and cost by 80%. That's the holy grail right now.
The problems of exposure to toxic materials in the case of PFAS is complicated by the presumed safe level of exposure (ppt? Really? How is that to be realistically managed in any cost effective manner?) and the ubiquitous nature of the exposure at this point in time.
In contrast, I would be overjoyed if more environmental professionals investigated modern research into the toxicology of flouride supplementation to municipal water supplies. I know we have all been subject to a knee jerk dismissal of this matter as a cultural result of the movie Dr. Strangelove, but perhaps consider that environmental and health policy might best be based on recent science rather that the hangover of a ‘60s satirical movie. With an open mind please consider starting here and be advised that the study, as often happens, has been attacked and watered down as a result of vested interests:
It’s clear that given the “science” the very long term cumulative effects of man-made, nearly indestructible chemicals could affect population fertility. None of the science can be considered unbiased.
In a mixed economy, the only unvarying value is power-lust for the few at the expense of the many. There are innumerable ways to kill by playing with fire.🔥
Ideological slavery seems to create lots of Muslims, the world’s fastest growing religion.
Thanks for posting- a great read and summary of the landscape regarding PFAS.
As an environmental professional working in manufacturing here in California, what worries me the most are the precedents that EPA is setting by listing PFOS and PFOA as superfund eligible (with a reporting limit of 1lb!) and their proposed rule to include 9 PFAS chemicals (including Gen X) as hazardous constituents.
As far as I can tell- it is only a matter of time before they expand both lists to include essentially every species of PFAS.
To be fair, I have not read the literature regarding health impacts, and I very well be missing something. But what still does not quite sit well with me is the idea that if safe drinking water thresholds for PFAS are in the parts per trillion, this implies that these chemicals are 1,000 times more toxic than lead (which limits are in parts per billion). The implication that EPA regards PFAS as more hazardous than lead doesn’t pass the red face test with me.
Yup. Great point. And the stability of the C-F bond in the body makes one question.
The C8 study has some interesting and conflicting data. Going by memory here but male cohort with lowest blood level PFAS had statistically significant increase in testicular cancer, but same cohort but with mid-range PFAS blood level has no statistically significant increase in cancer risk. And (the kicker), the cohort with the highest blood level PFAS had a statistically REDUCED risk of testicular cancer. (All going by memory but you get the point).
Another well researched and accurate article. I was one of those who used teflon pans, usually far after their coating was flaking off, and somehow am still alive. But given the damage I force my body to endure daily to my less than perfect lifestyle choices I’d say I’m far less worried about the effects of some plastic particles falling off than my long list of mistakes I make.
there was a song in the 1980's "everything gives you cancer, everything makes you die."
EPA has become totally entwined with the Green Industrial Complex, with a revolving between the two groups.
Hysteria over CO2 levels causes so-called environmental groups like Sierra Club to promote "solutions" like electric vehicle mandates and geothermal hot dry rock projects (fracking). As an old person who has had to look out for toxins, I find it a bit cavalier of you to dismiss exposure to Teflon, etc.
Looks like yet another case of the statistically specious linear no threshold model so beloved of heavy-handed regulators out to make a name for themselves to me.
There's a lot of it about...
Well, they were thoughtful. They gave us 4 drops in 20 Olympic sized swimming pools as a safety factor.
So, we have that going for us. ;)
Excellent post, thank you!
This may be more of a philosophical question, but how much of this is election posturing? We can't solve real problems, so let's invent a few?
Do the regulations offer incentives or mandates against the future use? If not, why do we have the regs in the first place. It is saying it's OK to put them into the environment, but once they are there, we have to pay dearly to take them out.
Fundamental question: is there a "safe" level of PFAS? As Dr. Angwin suggests below, there are toxics everywhere, so where is the reality check?
That we have moved from chasing metals in soil in parts per million (ppm) to solvents in groundwater in parts per billions. And now PFAS in parts per trillion. Not all environmental labs are capable of this level of detection. Minute exposure to PFAS in the field can render bad samples, sometimes from the sampling equipment itself! (sample bottles with Teflon caps, for example).
thanks.
Thanks for this. I now understand far more about PFAS, however I am a little surprised that 4 drops in 20 olympic sized swimming pools is the safe level. I agree with your comments on diverting climate change funds to something providing more tangible results.
Yup. Opportunity cost.
Thanks!
What is the ratio of people killed by PFAS to people killed by falling off ladders?
don't have that data handy.
But we'll hazard a guess: it's going to be in the range of 0-1 for PFAS and in the range of 187 for ladders, both annually across America.
Many natural substances have low levels of toxins. Potatoes, for example. But they still sell potatoes for food.
We need some reality checks here.
Those 4 - 10 ppt standards will be very costly and take a long time to achieve running groundwater extraction and treatment systems. Unless there's a remediation breakthrough. An innovation that cuts time by 90% and cost by 80%. That's the holy grail right now.
I think the true holy grail would be a certain level of sanity.
Very true!
The problems of exposure to toxic materials in the case of PFAS is complicated by the presumed safe level of exposure (ppt? Really? How is that to be realistically managed in any cost effective manner?) and the ubiquitous nature of the exposure at this point in time.
In contrast, I would be overjoyed if more environmental professionals investigated modern research into the toxicology of flouride supplementation to municipal water supplies. I know we have all been subject to a knee jerk dismissal of this matter as a cultural result of the movie Dr. Strangelove, but perhaps consider that environmental and health policy might best be based on recent science rather that the hangover of a ‘60s satirical movie. With an open mind please consider starting here and be advised that the study, as often happens, has been attacked and watered down as a result of vested interests:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/results/pubs/rr/reports/rr01_508.pdf
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride
We all have PFAS of one or more types in our blood already.
And we all have for decades. It's been found in polar bears in the Arctic.
Just because it can be detected down to ppt levels does not make it hazardous. This is the same problem with radiation…
It’s clear that given the “science” the very long term cumulative effects of man-made, nearly indestructible chemicals could affect population fertility. None of the science can be considered unbiased.
In a mixed economy, the only unvarying value is power-lust for the few at the expense of the many. There are innumerable ways to kill by playing with fire.🔥
Ideological slavery seems to create lots of Muslims, the world’s fastest growing religion.
WHATTODO?
As always you guys nailed it!
Thanks!
🎵Take a look to the sky before you DEI
Oh no! A windmill spoils your view!🎵
*drums*
Thanks for posting- a great read and summary of the landscape regarding PFAS.
As an environmental professional working in manufacturing here in California, what worries me the most are the precedents that EPA is setting by listing PFOS and PFOA as superfund eligible (with a reporting limit of 1lb!) and their proposed rule to include 9 PFAS chemicals (including Gen X) as hazardous constituents.
As far as I can tell- it is only a matter of time before they expand both lists to include essentially every species of PFAS.
To be fair, I have not read the literature regarding health impacts, and I very well be missing something. But what still does not quite sit well with me is the idea that if safe drinking water thresholds for PFAS are in the parts per trillion, this implies that these chemicals are 1,000 times more toxic than lead (which limits are in parts per billion). The implication that EPA regards PFAS as more hazardous than lead doesn’t pass the red face test with me.
Yup. Great point. And the stability of the C-F bond in the body makes one question.
The C8 study has some interesting and conflicting data. Going by memory here but male cohort with lowest blood level PFAS had statistically significant increase in testicular cancer, but same cohort but with mid-range PFAS blood level has no statistically significant increase in cancer risk. And (the kicker), the cohort with the highest blood level PFAS had a statistically REDUCED risk of testicular cancer. (All going by memory but you get the point).
Another well researched and accurate article. I was one of those who used teflon pans, usually far after their coating was flaking off, and somehow am still alive. But given the damage I force my body to endure daily to my less than perfect lifestyle choices I’d say I’m far less worried about the effects of some plastic particles falling off than my long list of mistakes I make.
Here, here.