Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Medicine

EPA Proposes 'Forever Chemicals' Be Considered Hazardous Substances (npr.org) 51

Posted by BeauHD from the hazardous-constituents dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing that nine PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals," be categorized as hazardous to human health. The EPA signed a proposal Wednesday that would deem the chemicals "hazardous constituents" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. For the agency to consider a substance a hazardous constituent, it has to be toxic or cause cancer, genetic mutation or the malformations of an embryo. The full list of the nine substances can be found here.

The agency cited various studies in which forever chemicals were found to cause a litany of "toxic effects" in humans and animals, including, but not limited to cancer, a decreased response to vaccinations, high cholesterol, decrease in fertility in women, preeclampsia, thyroid disorders and asthma, the EPA said. Short for "per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances," PFAS cover thousands of man-made chemicals. PFAS are often used for manufacturing purposes, such as in nonstick cookware, adhesives, firefighting foam, turf and more. PFAS have been called "forever chemicals" because they break down very slowly and can accumulate in people, animals and the environment. Further reading: 'Forever Chemicals' Taint Nearly Half of US Tap Water, Study Estimates
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA Proposes 'Forever Chemicals' Be Considered Hazardous Substances More

EPA Proposes 'Forever Chemicals' Be Considered Hazardous Substances

Comments Filter:

  • Uhhhhhhhhh (Score:4, Informative)

    by paul_engr ( 6280294 ) on Friday February 02, 2024 @11:35PM (#64209976)
    They aren't already? Jesus we're all fucked.
    • Yes that's the problem, they've become fairly ubiquitous very quickly, and can only be destroyed from the water supply through somewhat difficult means.
    • Even this unfortunately addresses nine of the thousands of PFAS that exist. And they are used widely. People only really know Teflon (and manufacturers are now trying to cover the fact that they are using Teflon by using alternative names for it). But things like textile protectors, tooth floss and various plastic containers, even for food stuff. Yes, your mayonnaise, microwave popcorn, takeaway food etc. might be in a package containing PFAS, that will even seep into the food. Some manufacturing processes

  • You can't buy a water bottle at any reasonable price that doesn't have unknown nickel composition and unknown coating on inside of container/straw/lid. They will all be BPA free, woop, but damn it we are in trouble with this.

    Favourite aluminium bottle, just aluminium left in an airport last year. Discovered a nikel allergy from Stainless steel bottles, can't get aluminium without polyamide coatings on inside, god knows what's on straws/lids.

    These products are poisoning us, and there's flock all we can do ab

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      You can't buy a water bottle at any reasonable price that doesn't have unknown nickel composition and unknown coating on inside of container/straw/lid.

      Klean Kanteen water bottles have 8% nickel and no interior coating.

      • Yep, and if you get the expensive ones even the lid is stainless. Most of their bottles have plastic lids now, though. I use one of their insulated bottles for my coffee, it has a plastic sippy lid and instead of threads on the bottle it has just bumps in a spiral pattern that are much easier to clean. Cost as much as one of those damned cups though

    • If you have a nickel sensitivity, you might try some of the glass bottles with silicone protective sleeves. They are not perfect but might be a better option than plastic if stainless steel isn't working for you.

      https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C... [amazon.com]
      https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M... [amazon.com]

      (I have no affiliation with either brand and I have removed any sponsorship links from the sources I found these mentioned. These are just to give you an idea of an alternative water bottle if you haven't already tried them.)

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      If they ban these materials, companies will just come up with something new. In a few years time this new product will be found to be toxic (possibly even moreso than it replaced), will get banned and the cycle starts again.

      What would make more sense is going the other way, regulating exactly what materials are permitted for food containers and require an approval process for anything new.

      • If they ban these materials, companies will just come up with something new. In a few years time this new product will be found to be toxic (possibly even moreso than it replaced), will get banned and the cycle starts again.

        Yes. Bisphenol-A, (BPA) that was pretty damn ubiquitous in plastic products, and is a nasty endocrine disruptor is a case. After being banned - mostly, there are a few not likely to be ingested uses - some of the replacements were indeed worse than BPA. https://www.epa.gov/sciencemat... [epa.gov]

        Oh yes, one of the political parties wants to end the EPA.

        What would make more sense is going the other way, regulating exactly what materials are permitted for food containers and require an approval process for anything new.

        Exactly. The present system is an experiment seeing what happens to people after widespread adoption of the chemical. "Oh - this one causes mutations, ruins people

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by labnet ( 457441 )

      These always Pig Stomachs or Clay Pots!

  • Figure out how to make substitutes out of hemp. Nobody will question its safety and health benefits.

  • The real culprit here is molecules. I notice every time there's some toxic shit discovered, there's a molecule involved. If not a molecule then atoms. Always one of the two.

  • Our Green 'friends' have fixated on the minimal risks of nuclear power and ignored chemicals for far too long.

    • No, you've ignored us talking about chemicals. We've been talking about them all along. If you search this site you can find me talking about many of them. You don't get to pretend that we didn't try to warn you, we will not remain quiet for your lies.

      • The OED offers 2010 as the first use of the term, which suggests that the idea that they were a real problem hadn't been entering the public sphere seriously before then. By contrast anti-nuclear activists have been part of the green world since forever - or at least the 1970s triggered by Three Mile Island.

        https://www.oed.com/search/dic... [oed.com]

        https://www.cleanenergywire.or... [cleanenergywire.org]

        • Moving the goalposts.

          Also, teflon being toxic has been known since the 1980s [theconversation.com]; Nobody was calling them forever chemicals yet, but they were warning about them.

          Your whole methodology is either idiotic or disingenuous.

          • Teflon toxicity in pyrolysis is not directly comparable to ingestion of PFOx but was reported as far back as 1951, then in an industrial setting in 1965. I became aware of it through model airplane magazines and word of mouth mid-late 60s, with reports of cigarette smokers developing flu-like symptoms after using Teflon spray dry lubricants (for control rods and hinges) then smoking. These might not have been reliable reports, but cautionary conjectures drawn from the 1965 report and recent availability o

    • Our Green 'friends' have fixated on the minimal risks of nuclear power and ignored chemicals for far too long.

      You've got to be making a joke, right?

      I've looked at the research and posted about it for years. We're quite effectively poisoning ourselves. We've found at least one cause of autism (and it is in no way vaccines or thimerosol - it is proximity to areas using herbicides and insecticides) We've posted about and exposed endocrine disruptors and phytoestrogen overload and their effects. Effects like male birth defects and reproductive problems, and female shutdown of internal estrogen production. We've pos

      • I entirely agree there are some serious questions about chemicals in the environment; I'm pleased that it is, at last, getting more attention, after nuclear power ate most of the Greens' campaigning time. I didn't know of some of the effects you mention; scary...

  • including, but not limited to cancer, a decreased response to vaccinations, high cholesterol, decrease in fertility in women, preeclampsia, thyroid disorders and asthma,

    Wow, that's pretty broad.

    Do they make the crops fail and the chickens stop laying too??

  • What is the span of the EPA's regulatory powers? Everything?

  • Redefining words. Is there data to show that these actually ARE hazardous? All I ever see is that they are ubiquitous. So is air.

  • I'm not some tree-hugger, but it's getting harder and harder to get a glass of water that doesn't have microplastics, PFAS, or chemical compounds from excreted prescription drugs. Companies need to do more to either prove that their products won't contaminate our food, water, and land or they should be forced to invent and deploy tools and strategies to mitigate the effects of their products on our environment. It's ridiculous that they get to reap profits on their products for decades and then leave taxp

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

Close