IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th October 2021, 01:42 AM   #1
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48,115
PFAS

After watching John Oliver about PFAS, I thought there might have been threads about this, but canít find anything. I love Oliver, but donít always accept his every proposition.

The EPA website doesnít engender positivity.

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas

Quote:
There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans. If humans, or animals, ingest PFAS (by eating or drinking food or water than contain PFAS), the PFAS are absorbed, and can accumulate in the body. PFAS stay in the human body for long periods of time. As a result, as people are exposed to PFAS from different sources over time, the level of PFAS in their bodies may increase to the point where they suffer from adverse health effects.

Studies indicate that PFOA and PFOS can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals. Both chemicals have caused tumors in animal studies. The most consistent findings from human epidemiology studies are increased cholesterol levels among exposed populations, with more limited findings related to: infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS).
So what is the consensus here. Are PFAS products like Teflon a dangerous health hazard, or is this hype?

If this has been covered before, apologies and please ask for a merge.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2021, 02:09 AM   #2
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 22,617
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
After watching John Oliver about PFAS, I thought there might have been threads about this, but canít find anything. I love Oliver, but donít always accept his every proposition.

The EPA website doesnít engender positivity.

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas



So what is the consensus here. Are PFAS products like Teflon a dangerous health hazard, or is this hype?

If this has been covered before, apologies and please ask for a merge.
Don't care much about the concern baloney. PFAS are not directly causing scary diseases.

Wanna talk about how they are all dumped in the sea, sure. But don't pretend that we are all poisoned by our coffee cups.

Do I need to refer you to the daily fail list of things that cause cancer? Really? Drinking coffee causes cancer and not drinking coffee causes cancer? Are you simply taking the mick?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2021, 02:12 AM   #3
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48,115
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Don't care much about the concern baloney. PFAS are not directly causing scary diseases.

Wanna talk about how they are all dumped in the sea, sure. But don't pretend that we are all poisoned by our coffee cups.

Do I need to refer you to the daily fail list of things that cause cancer? Really? Drinking coffee causes cancer and not drinking coffee causes cancer? Are you simply taking the mick?
Well the EFA thinks otherwise. Iím not taking the mick.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2021, 08:31 PM   #4
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,304
Quote:
Studies indicate that PFOA and PFOS can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals.
So what they are saying is if they force-feed large amounts of these things to lab animals, that it can lead to problems, but we don't actually eat teflon, do we?

Dosage matters, and the EPA site doesn't go into sufficient detail (like how much was actually ingested) to determine whether this is actually a health concern.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2021, 09:46 PM   #5
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48,115
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
So what they are saying is if they force-feed large amounts of these things to lab animals, that it can lead to problems, but we don't actually eat teflon, do we?

Dosage matters, and the EPA site doesn't go into sufficient detail (like how much was actually ingested) to determine whether this is actually a health concern.
In the article I posted, the EPA have set exposure limits of 70 parts per trillion.

Maybe you donít hold the EPA in high regard, but if I see any government agency give a health warning for such minute concentrations I sit up and pay attention.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 03:07 AM   #6
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,304
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
In the article I posted, the EPA have set exposure limits of 70 parts per trillion.

Maybe you donít hold the EPA in high regard, but if I see any government agency give a health warning for such minute concentrations I sit up and pay attention.
OK. I don't know the basis for that, and I cannot seem to find the bit you refer to in the article you linked.

Do we know of any specific cases of people actually being harmed by everyday exposure to these materials?

In the OP I think you mentioned John Oliver, but I'm not sure that the rest of us have seen the episode you refer to.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 03:22 AM   #7
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48,115
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
OK. I don't know the basis for that, and I cannot seem to find the bit you refer to in the article you linked.

Do we know of any specific cases of people actually being harmed by everyday exposure to these materials?

In the OP I think you mentioned John Oliver, but I'm not sure that the rest of us have seen the episode you refer to.
In the link:

Quote:
Studies indicate that PFOA and PFOS can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals. Both chemicals have caused tumors in animal studies. The most consistent findings from human epidemiology studies are increased cholesterol levels among exposed populations, with more limited findings related to: infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS).

Quote:
To provide Americans, including the most sensitive populations, with a margin of protection from a lifetime of exposure to PFOA and PFOS from drinking water, EPA has established the health advisory levels at 70 parts per trillion.
This was covered in Oliverís largest show.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 04:40 AM   #8
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,012
so eating foods fried in frying pans is bad for us?

What is the chemistry involved?
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 06:15 AM   #9
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
This was covered in Oliverís largest show.
Are you talking about PFAS, or shilling for Oliver?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 06:22 AM   #10
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48,115
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Are you talking about PFAS, or shilling for Oliver?
What a stupid post,
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 06:39 AM   #11
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
What a stupid post,
I'm serious. What does the size of Oliver's show have to do with whatever it is you're trying to say about PFAS?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 07:46 AM   #12
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 18,392
I usually don't find it difficult to stay far away from Platoons Firing Artillery Shells, so I don't think I have to worry about this hazard.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 10:03 AM   #13
attempt5001
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 659
Two links on the subject from Health Canada's perspective if interested.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...ubstances.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/he...ubstances.html
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 10:23 AM   #14
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,234
WOW is this really ISF? I don't see any skeptical critical thinking in this thread at all. Just people migrating to their respective corners to defend their tribe. Silly.

All that matters is the evidence and how robust that evidence may or may not be. A skeptic searches for this and sees if there really is a basis for claiming PFAS are harmful to public health.

So lets look and see:

Early life exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and latent health outcomes: A review including the placenta as a target tissue and possible driver of peri- and postnatal effects

That was the first link from my Google scholar search. Seems their just might be something to it. That's a fair good bit of science, well documented and testable too.

So that leads to deeper searches into reviews, to see if it is just one "out of the box" paper, or something the main body of science recognizes.

A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects

hmmmm That was so easy to find. Literally the first review listed at Google scholar!

So to answer a few questions from above. Yes it does seem to be a legit serious public health concern, and no its not just from Teflon coated frying pans.

That leaves us with looking finally at the political side and regulatory impact/reform based on the science.

Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances scientific literature review: water exposure, impact on human health, and implications for regulatory reform

Any of you defenders of your respective tribal associations want to counter any of these conclusions with actual science?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 5th October 2021 at 10:48 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 10:32 AM   #15
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,801
It might be the most dangerous thing currently in our water and my feeling about this have nothing to do with the fact that I've spent most of the last two years designing treatment facilities to remove PFAS from groundwater.

Any rate, they aren't going to kill us all but they probably aren't that good for us either.

Reminds of the bit about infrastructure he did a few years ago. The American Society of Civil Engineers puts out a yearly report telling everyone that our infrastructure is falling apart. Oliver covered it mostly saying how awful it is but correctly pointed out that its also the American Society of Golden Retrieves putting out a report on the number of balls being thrown concluding that its not nearly enough balls being thrown.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 10:34 AM   #16
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,257
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm serious. What does the size of Oliver's show have to do with whatever it is you're trying to say about PFAS?
I think "largest show" should have been "latest show."
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 11:10 AM   #17
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
In the article I posted, the EPA have set exposure limits of 70 parts per trillion.
https://xkcd.com/radiation/

Also, the EPA? I hope you're not cherry-picking which US government agencies to believe in and which ones to be skeptical of.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 12:53 PM   #18
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48,115
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
WOW is this really ISF? I don't see any skeptical critical thinking in this thread at all. Just people migrating to their respective corners to defend their tribe. Silly.

All that matters is the evidence and how robust that evidence may or may not be. A skeptic searches for this and sees if there really is a basis for claiming PFAS are harmful to public health.

So lets look and see:

Early life exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and latent health outcomes: A review including the placenta as a target tissue and possible driver of peri- and postnatal effects

That was the first link from my Google scholar search. Seems their just might be something to it. That's a fair good bit of science, well documented and testable too.

So that leads to deeper searches into reviews, to see if it is just one "out of the box" paper, or something the main body of science recognizes.

A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects

hmmmm That was so easy to find. Literally the first review listed at Google scholar!

So to answer a few questions from above. Yes it does seem to be a legit serious public health concern, and no its not just from Teflon coated frying pans.

That leaves us with looking finally at the political side and regulatory impact/reform based on the science.

Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances scientific literature review: water exposure, impact on human health, and implications for regulatory reform

Any of you defenders of your respective tribal associations want to counter any of these conclusions with actual science?
Thank you. I started this thread hoping for informative posts like this. I havenít used Google Scholar before. I must start.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 12:56 PM   #19
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48,115
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I think "largest show" should have been "latest show."
Correct. Sorry about the typo.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 03:37 PM   #20
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 43,524
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Correct. Sorry about the typo.
Let he who is without guilt....
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
ďPerception is real, but the truth is not.Ē - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 07:55 AM   #21
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,025
Parrots are particularly susceptible to PFAS, such as PTFE, so parrot owners tend to be quite aware of the hazard.

A Birdís Eye View: Finding New Ways to Track Synthetic Chemicals in the Environment

What Kind of Cookware Is Safe for Parrots? [A Complete Guide]
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 08:15 AM   #22
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,801
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
WOW is this really ISF? I don't see any skeptical critical thinking in this thread at all. Just people migrating to their respective corners to defend their tribe. Silly.
That's pretty much par for the course, isn't. Much like KFC, the ISF had to change its name because there's no actual chicken in it anymore.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 12:12 PM   #23
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,012
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
That's pretty much par for the course, isn't. Much like KFC, the ISF had to change its name because there's no actual chicken in it anymore.
Now we are getting to the meat of the matter! Fried in Teflon?
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 12:17 PM   #24
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,012
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
..... Are PFAS products like Teflon a dangerous health hazard, or is this hype?
Aren't PFAs and PFOs by-products of the manufacture of PTFE? NOT useful?

And PTFE is so inert it ought to be safe around animals, us included. I think?
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 12:47 PM   #25
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
And PTFE is so inert it ought to be safe around animals, us included. I think?
Nope. Parrots, for example, are animals, and PTFE toxicity in parrots and other birds is well-established and has been for a long time.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 10:57 AM   #26
attempt5001
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 659
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
WOW is this really ISF? I don't see any skeptical critical thinking in this thread at all. Just people migrating to their respective corners to defend their tribe. Silly.

All that matters is the evidence and how robust that evidence may or may not be. A skeptic searches for this and sees if there really is a basis for claiming PFAS are harmful to public health.

So lets look and see:

Early life exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and latent health outcomes: A review including the placenta as a target tissue and possible driver of peri- and postnatal effects

That was the first link from my Google scholar search. Seems their just might be something to it. That's a fair good bit of science, well documented and testable too.

So that leads to deeper searches into reviews, to see if it is just one "out of the box" paper, or something the main body of science recognizes.

A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects

hmmmm That was so easy to find. Literally the first review listed at Google scholar!

So to answer a few questions from above. Yes it does seem to be a legit serious public health concern, and no its not just from Teflon coated frying pans.

That leaves us with looking finally at the political side and regulatory impact/reform based on the science.

Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances scientific literature review: water exposure, impact on human health, and implications for regulatory reform

Any of you defenders of your respective tribal associations want to counter any of these conclusions with actual science?
Thanks Red Baron. That's helpful and a good approach. Indeed there is a large amount of scientific interest and literature on this topic, mostly aligned with work on other persistent organic pollutants in food and the environment. A major challenge for investigating the toxicology of these compounds is that it is hard to replicate the complexity of the real world situation. By that I mean that a controlled study on the toxicity of PFAS may show that it is not a major concern based on typical levels in foods. Similar studies may lead to the same conclusions for dioxins and furans and PCBs and PBDEs and any number of pesticides. But of course in the real world, all of these chemicals are present at various levels. Throw in waste pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, human and animal metabolites, heavy metals, chemical processing leachates etc. etc. and it becomes very difficult to design a study to accurately assess the impact of total chemical exposure to populations. Meta-analyses of unique populations can certainly help, but the complexity of this challenge is still daunting.

My point is that "are PFAS a risk to human health?" may be too simple a question as to yield useful conclusions and I can understand why some national health regulatory authorities may take a highly precautionary approach to developing and implementing policy on this.
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.