I was able to use the link in the OP, but there was just some extra characters at the end.
I'm almost to the end. In addition to the cancer, I'm wondering if some of the obesity epidemic isn't due to this kind of low-level contamination.
I've definitely wondered about that.
Would that sort of thing show up as an association with big municipal water supplies? Private wells/small-town water systems are more likely to be contaminated, where larger water systems are probably better tested/filtered? Someone must have looked at the question, it'd be easy to figure out, I'd think.
I've probably read something by somebody wondering about that. But I can't recall what. Anyway, regions of concentrated poverty and/or single-employers are dangerous for everybody because they make situations like this possible.
6: I don't think any testing was done for this chemical.
Plus, crappy water is probably correlated with social and economic class. That might be hard to pull out.
Plus, crappy water is probably correlated with social and economic class.
Not within a large unified water system -- e.g., everyone in NYC who drinks tap water, drinks the same tap water, and I figure it's probably the same in other big dense cities.
I take your point about the specificity of testing, that you wouldn't spot this chemical individually, but generally, wouldn't you expect that the bigger the municipality, the more likely it is to be able to reduce contamination? Just by prohibiting waste dumping in the relevant areas and so on?
I'm don't know what to expect about that.
Fair enough. I'd agree that it seems possible but not overwhelmingly likely.
But there's a whole bunch of water suppliers around here. Pittsburgh is mostly, but not entirely, served by the same one. Other nearby towns will often have their own.
IT'S TIME TO BURN SHIT DO..NO! NO THAT WOULD RELEASE CLOUDS OF TOXIC GAS!
Is there a solution to this kind of thing? It seems to happen constantly whenever any kind of industrial production shows up and it's not obvious how to stop it. I mean, sure, actual effective regulation with serious teeth would help a lot, but so would recruiting an army of carcinogen-vampires to suck the poisons out of the water. Both seem about as likely to me.
Re: water testing, you need to know what you're looking for and the safe limit (which is set by the manufacturer for materials like this). It also depends on your filtration/purification system. We do pretty well on bacteria, but organic chemical impurities are harder (see: hormones, antibiotics). If you look at EPA guidelines for water, you will mostly see inorganic materials (eg chloride, lead, arsenic) and bacteria.
I mean, sure, actual effective regulation with serious teeth would help a lot, but so would recruiting an army of carcinogen-vampires to suck the poisons out of the water. Both seem about as likely to me.
This seems like counterproductive despair to me. US surface waters are a lot cleaner and safer than they were before the Clean Water Act, and that's due to actual effective regulation with serious teeth. It's not perfect, but what we do now works, and there's no particular mystery about how to make it work better.
I asked Ydnew over email, "how bad are these replacements like C6 likely to be?" and "What products should I have avoided over the past few decades?" and her answer was super interesting (but long). I need to leave so I'm going to paste it over, with some redactions. If it needs to be more redacted can one of the others do so?
Ydnew wrote:
The sad thing is that a similar battle is taking place over flame-retardants in furniture foam, did take place over leaded gasoline, tobacco, asbestos (remember when we put asbestos in children's pajamas?), . . . It's hard to win, and I think this had some examples of how to get some little victories.
Replacements will likely be pretty much just as bad. The story caught my eye because I was at a seminar a while ago where someone was doing bowel/GI imaging with perfluorinated compounds. It set off an alarm when they were like, "Oh, and it never clears. We couldn't measure a half-life because it just stays there forever." Um, OK? So, maybe never use it in humans? Please? It explains why some of the effects are ulcerative colitis/GI problems. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure exactly how it's toxic, but what I can say is that anything more than C3 rings alarm bells for me. The reason I'd guess that is that a four carbon chain is the accepted carbon length where water solubility is still pretty high, but all the fluorines (a) block metabolism (C-H bonds oxidized to C-OH to increase solubility and allow excretion) and (b) fluorination makes molecules less polar than C-H, so harder to excrete/more fat-storage. If I have time, I'll try to look up a bit more, these are mostly guesses. The important thing is that the reason C8 works to make things non-stick is the reason it stays in your system forever, so any replacement that's effective and works the same way should be expected to have the same problems.
Stuff to have avoided? Fucking everything, basically. Except you'd still have C8 in your bloodstream. Because literally everyone does. But really, there are so many nasty things out there and doing real tox studies (mice and rats don't count) is expensive and not required of anyone ever who releases a new material that it's virtually impossible to have informed opinions. My uninformed opinion is that (a) any harmful compound will be way worse for kids than adults and (b) basically anything plastic is going to leach nasty stuff, more when it's heated. Many BPA-free plastics replace BPA with a close analog that is officially untested (which is a feature) but probably has similar effects. I'd tend to be more worried about pollution that's inhaled than swallowed (at least swallowing, you have first-pass metabolism) and more worried about things that are swallowed than in contact with healthy, closed skin. (Did you see the artificial soccer turf thing? Yikes.)
[Redacted: ..Here is a thing about garage epoxy paint.] They measured VOC from industry leaders to compare to their new, improved stuff and it was horrifying. At least I get to handle volatile organics in fume hoods! Painters/installers, not so much. I think VOCs are going to be a pretty big public health issue now that everybody agrees on things like lead.
Something toxicologists always repeat is "The dose makes the poison." Although basically everything plastic or Teflon-ish is bad for people, most people's exposure is pretty low, and avoiding everything is probably not worth the effort it would take. The big worry is waste disposal and manufacturing in terms of exposure, for employees and nearby residents.
I really violated Yd's sanctity there.
15: The problem has two sides that can be affected by regulation: registration of new materials that required a full tox panel and disposal rules. Waste disposal is very expensive when done right, so lots of companies have a high incentive to cheat. New chemical registries would place a huge burden on industry, where a creating new material would be a bit like creating new drug. You could also remove the part of the rule that allows old materials to be grandfathered.
19: I have an e-mail sitting in my Outbox asking you to let me fact-check myself before posting. Nothing too identity-violating there. I wasn't job-hunting in Big Plastic, luckily.
Disclaimer: I didn't look anything up, just general impressions! I'll make sure there's nothing egregiously wrong when I finish work.
remember when we put asbestos in children's pajamas?
"Not an easy day to forget. I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
My dad worked for DuPont for ~30 years. They paid well, at least by local standards. Hopefully no diseases will follow.
Did he remember his respirator when he was giving the kids their asbestos?
Using cast iron waffle irons seems so pathetically futile, but other than avoiding purchasing or using anything nonstick there doesn't seem anything else one can do. Except for support more and better regulation, another futile act.
other than avoiding purchasing or using anything nonstick
Part of what's scaring me, reading the article, is that I'm the sort of philistine who likes non-stick cookware. Gosh I hope I haven't poisoned myself. . .
I'm working my way through the article slowly, but I just got to this paragraph:
So DuPont brought in a "product defense" firm called the Weinberg Group. Weinberg is best known for helping the tobacco industry recruit scientists to cast doubt on data linking cigarettes to cancer and other disease. But it also has a long history of working with chemical and plastics makers, which it detailed in an April 2003 proposal for DuPont: "Beginning with Agent Orange in 1983, we have successfully guided clients through myriad regulatory, litigation and public relations challenges posed by those whose agenda is to grossly over regulate, extract settlements from, or otherwise damage the chemical manufacturing industry."
And thought, this is just like a George Clooney movie.
23: Evil genius progeny isn't a bad mutation. There had to be some good ones, right?
Exposure to C8 from Teflon cookware is extremely minimal. Even the worst test don't indicate levels above ppm *in the cookware itself* so even if you ate all the Teflon in your cookware you couldn't get to toxic levels. I'd be more worried about microwave popcorn bags (but only if you consume a very large quantity).
As ydnew says, the dose makes the poison. The article at one point implies that a safe level in drinking water is 4 parts per trillion, which is ludicrous. On the other side, there's really no question that the residents of those towns were absolutely exposed to levels that significantly harmed their health (and they way in which it was callously and intentionally done is rage-inducing). The middle question that's difficult to answer is whether the 4 ppb level observed in an average USian does anything significant. My instinct says probably not much, or at least not much compared to other sources of mortality, but not surprisingly, it is very hard to tell.
I think it likely or at least possible that cooking with the stuff isn't a problem, but there is no way to cook with it unless someone manufactures it, so if you don't want to participate in poisoning the people and other living things at the manufacturing and disposal sites you have to not buy it.
The good news is that levels in food and plasma are dropping since 3M stopped manufacturing and stricter environmental controls were instituted. Apparently, eggs are 40X lower in 2010 than they were in 1999. Progress!
26.last: Yep. Interesting and evil specialization. See also e-cigarette manufacturers, and on and on.
How evil are e-cig manufacturers? On a scale from regular cig makers to organic kale farmer.
You Moby are I am sure such an influential tastemaker re cookware that even shoplifting cannot be condoned, you would just be creating demand.
18.5: VOCs are on people's minds already; California started regulating it in new construction products 2008, and now (since 2014) limits apply to just about everything, commercial and residential, new, remodels, and TIs.
Unfortunately, VOCs are not "life safety" in the same way as a failing shear wall, so the building officials in charge of implementation lag the rules a bit, but it's getting better and more consistent enforcement. (In schools and hospitals, it was better enforced from 2011 on.)
LEED has been on track for even longer, and VOC limits are making their way into the International Green Code, so the rest of the country should only lag by a few years.
32: 90% Phillip Morris, but that's just my opinion.
34: Yes to better building codes, but occupational exposure is the thing I was thinking of that's very poorly regulated (or at least I think it is) compared to products. Think beauty industry. Hairstylists, nail salons, spas. What about people who install carpet or flooring? Or painters? I'm less worried about the user/client end than I am about the folks who get so much repeat exposure. The nail salon regs in NYC say that workers should wear surgical masks, but that's completely inappropriate gear. The best solution is better ventilation, but that's expensive.
US surface waters are a lot cleaner and safer than they were before the Clean Water Act, and that's due to actual effective regulation with serious teeth.
That's not the relevant comparison... the relevant comparison is pre-Industrial Revolution. On that score we don't look so good.
I'd be more worried about microwave popcorn bags (but only if you consume a very large quantity).
Fortunately I usually only eat the popcorn, I only eat the bag itself when I'm really hungry.
Kale farmers are probably 70 to 80 percent Philip Morris.
36
Technological innovation carries a price. More technology can mitigate that price, but it's only fare to include all pros and cons. You can certainly compare to pre-industrial revolution if you want, but would you be willing to give up all advances since then to get there?
Related: everyone gets to feel all great about how much we've done to mitigate pollution and chemical exposure, when a large portion of that has simply been us exporting those effects to China.
You can certainly compare to pre-industrial revolution if you want, but would you be willing to give up all advances since then to get there?
Plus, some things about water have improved since the industrial revolution. Like, now it has less cholera.
Plus, some things about water have improved since the industrial revolution. Like, now it has less cholera.
I'm not sure that's actually true. Cholera wasn't introduced to Europe and the Americas until well into the nineteenth century, which would make it at least contemporaneous with if not after the industrial revolution. It's been in India forever, of course, and is still a problem there, though probably less of one than before industrialization.
Ask the fucking fish your questions. BEFORE you eat them.
Well, I certainly hope they're not fucking after I eat them. That's kinda rude.
Wait. Where did the fish come into this?
Europe and the Americas until well into the nineteenth century
Dammit, my cursory "was cholera around prior to the industrial revolution" check prior to posting that turned up a false positive. Now I've got egg on my face.
Better egg than poop. You might get...
Since I guess nobody knows, I'll need an R01, several hundred chickens, and some of the UN people who were sent to Haiti.
Why not add a gamma ray source and a couple of vials of anthrax? Secondary hypotheses.
57/58: I feel like the CDC might be a one stop shop for your project. They probably have avian flu, too.
They probably watch things too closely.
Never mind then. Atlanta here I come.
Put in this thread because chickens.
63 -- I love that story so much, especially how the article is in the standard ridiculously pompous law review format. "In Part III, I explain why CLOACA must be sent to Guantanamo Bay and eaten by pteranodons. In Part IV, I conclude."
You can tell the Harvard touch. A guy who went crazy after learning law at Dickenson probably wouldn't have been able to come up with an acronym so good.
So, did a bunch of law students blue book that thing while high or what?
Student-run law journals are so amazingly horrible. I love that you can just name your journal whatever, so if the dean will shell out a few thousand bucks a year, you and your friends can list National Security Law Journal on your CVs.
I mean, this article looks like a doozy, but crap that's nearly as bad (but vastly more boring) gets published all the time, and in "better" law reviews.
He gets 178 pages. We get maybe 4,000 words. Usually less.
And every time we call for somebody to be killed, the peer reviewers raise a fuss.
Not, to be fair, that we ever suggested killing law professors.
63: The lying about receiving a silver start was especially nice. Isn't that the sort of thing that would get noticed at West Point?
"To determine the degree of cartilage degradation after six months, all of the law professors who didn't like The Song of Roland were sacrificed."
Here's the journal's apology which includes a link to a good 4-page demolition of the article by one Jeremy Rabkin.
I presume that people who go to law school at George Mason, home of right-wing ideology, and then devote their time to be on the editorial board of something called the "National Security Law Journal", are probably right-wing fanatics? Just as you might expect the reverse from the Vassar Sociology Review.
I studied the song of Roland with a professor who sang it for us.
77: Wrong thread, I think! Also...really??? The whole thing? To what tune?
78.last: Hopefully to the tune of "Frodo of the Nine Fingers."
Surprisingly, it works fine to "The Yellow Rose of Texas."
81: Also surprisingly, when I studied The Song of Roland in college, I wrote my own blues version of The Song of Roland. One of my proudest achievements in songwriting!
You need to start at 63. Every informed citizen needs to read that. It has almost nothing to do with bird orifices. I just put that part up as marketing.
Just an excerpt but it was great!
I preferred the lais of Marie de France and Erec and Enide as stories, but if everyone being cleaved asunder & brains running all about is your thing then Roland's your man.
I'm pretty sure the Duponts are responsible for most of my university's endowment. In related news, no one I know in this area plants fruits or vegetables in the soil here.