Alarming Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Found in Animals' Blood (theguardian.com) 36
Hundreds of animal species across the globe from ticks to whales have blood contaminated with toxic PFAS, a new analysis of previous peer-reviewed research shows. From a report: Though the analysis does not aim to reveal how the exposure to PFAS affects wildlife, anecdotal evidence in some of the previous studies show the chemicals are likely sickening animals. The analysis was compiled by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit that tracks PFAS contamination and developed an interactive map that shows which animal species were studied, where they were analyzed, and the levels and types of PFAS found in their bodies.
Researchers have found the chemicals in a range of species such as scorpions, pandas, Siberian tigers, turtles, horses, dogs, plankton, sea lions, wild boar, otters and oysters. The breadth of the contamination is "sobering," said David Andrews, a senior scientist with the EWG. "It has taken six decades of research on humans to really understand how these chemicals impact our biology in so many different ways ... and there's no reason to believe those same impacts are not also occurring in wildlife," Andrews said. PFAS are a class of about 12,000 chemicals often used to make thousands of consumer products resistant to water, stains and heat. They are called "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down, and they are linked to cancer, liver disease, kidney stress, fetal complications and other serious health problems.
Researchers have found the chemicals in a range of species such as scorpions, pandas, Siberian tigers, turtles, horses, dogs, plankton, sea lions, wild boar, otters and oysters. The breadth of the contamination is "sobering," said David Andrews, a senior scientist with the EWG. "It has taken six decades of research on humans to really understand how these chemicals impact our biology in so many different ways ... and there's no reason to believe those same impacts are not also occurring in wildlife," Andrews said. PFAS are a class of about 12,000 chemicals often used to make thousands of consumer products resistant to water, stains and heat. They are called "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down, and they are linked to cancer, liver disease, kidney stress, fetal complications and other serious health problems.
Re: (Score:3)
What's your basis for that claim?
ISTM that they should be expected to have a range of half-lives, and that the longer lived ones would tend to accumulate over the decades.
Also, for the ones that *do* have a half-life of 20 years, how fast is the usage growing. (Well, not exactly usage...more discard rate.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As usual, missing the point. If you get a batch of forever chemicals in you their half-life is twenty years. However, if you continually get batches in you that starts the next round.
Rinse and repeat. If it was once and done the issue wouldn't be as bad. But since we are constantly exposed, we don't get a break.
Re:Alarm! Alarm! (Score:4)
Where are you getting this 20 year half life from?
You're an idiot. (Score:3)
From the fucking summary "They are called "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down..."
Re: (Score:2)
From the fucking summary "They are called "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down..."
Except that they do: PFAS chemicals do not last forever [sciencedaily.com]. They also take an average of about four years for half of them to leave the body: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) FACT SHEET [pa.gov]
This would still be alarming if PFAS were positively associated with adverse health conditions, but even if they are, it's so minuscule that scientists can't measure it accurately: "some human epidemiological studies that suggest that a possible relationship between exposure to PFAS and health effects, but other stud
Re: (Score:2)
They still dont naturally break down in the open environment so "forever" is certainly still apt.
Re: Alarm! Alarm! (Score:5, Insightful)
A half life of 20 years still means 1/8th of it will remain in you after 60 years, which is basically your whole life ie. "forever". And at the rates we're ingesting it, that's still plenty enough to cause damage.
Teflon in every one's blood (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet we live on.
Re:Teflon in every one's blood (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet we live on.
... with higher rates of cancer, liver disease, kidney stress, fetal complications and other serious health problems thanks to these chemicals.
Alarming! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> PLEASE don't use clickbait headlines.
Curious what you think is click bait about the headline. Is it use of the word "alarming" and the expression "forever chemicals" instead of persistent substances?
> You're cheapening your whole platform.
Slashdot title : "Alarming Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Found in Animals' Blood"
The Guardian article title : "Alarming toxic ‘forever chemicals’ found in animals’ blood – study" - https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
The study : "Groundbreaking map
Re: Go sci-fi with PFAS - What if it became sentie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's almost a little ironic that the SCOTUS is hearing a case which could decide the future of free speech on the internet at the same time that some people are becoming too lazy to author their own forum posts anyway.
If you ask me, ChatGPT is a bigger blight than PFAS chemicals.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Mr. Frundles.
This is because the EU wants to ban 'em (Score:3)
The reason we're suddenly hearing so much about PFAS is because the EU has it in for them. Some of the chemicals which fall under the proposed ban are essentially inert, but the fact alone that they're accumulating in the environment is what the regulators find troubling.
Finding replacements for this all of this stuff without sending modern civilization back to the stone age in the process seems like it would be a daunting task.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No - it would send civilization back before PFAS were in use... about 100 years.
Natural fibers for fabrics, glass and metals for containers, paper not plastic. etc. Yes, there are some things that were done 100 years ago that we now know are bad - e.g. lead solder to seam cans. So, we skip past the things we know are bad and move forward with the things we know are less impacting.
Re:This is because the EU wants to ban 'em (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the only reason. The US EPA banned their production in the US not long ago, though has not banned importing them or using them. The thing is that most of these PFASs have been 'GRAS' chemicals for as long as they've been known about, and *were* considered inert for all that time. Problem is, they're not inert. Some of them (notably PFOA) are now (as of 2018) known carcinogens. It's uncontroversial at this point, even at fairly low concentrations, they create elevated cancer risk. Some of them are endocrine disruptors and can cause kidney and thyroid disease.
Sometimes there's a GOOD REASON why people want to ban shit. This is one of those times. Don't take my word for it. Look around. 3M is going to get a slap on the wrist, even though they knew all this shit was nasty decades ago and they covered it up to make a buck.
For some of the PFASs there may be no immediate *cheap* replacement, and the industries that depend on them are going to have to shell out for whatever it takes to either keep using them while minimizing the risk (keeping as much of them out of the groundwater as possible) or find something else, even if it costs more. However, we *certainly* don't need to keep using PFASs in retail packaging, make-up or ACTUAL FOOD.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason we're suddenly hearing so much about PFAS is because the EU has it in for them.
No. The reason we're hearing so much about them is because of current research showing they are likely not inert (as claimed by their producers) and that they are very much bioaccumulating.
Also the EU doesn't have it in for them. Governments all over the world that have an interest in their citizen's health do. The research into this topic was started in America in the 80s.
Finding replacements for this all of this stuff without sending modern civilization back to the stone age in the process seems like it would be a daunting task.
It's really not. But you've tried nothing and run out of ideas haven't you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your dead bodies are how they remove the toxic chemicals from the system. Show some class, get a lead-lined coffin.
Wait, but wouldn't the lead then leech into the ground water?
PFAS? (Score:2)
Apparently it stands for "Please Fucking Ask Someone".
DuPont's forever chemicals (Score:3)
Time to evolve! (Score:1)
Fire Fighters Cancer Cluster due to PFAS Foam (Score:3)
Some context why people want PFAS to disappear:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]
TL:DR - Collects in blood proteins with little way to get it out of the human body.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that many of them once thought inert turned out to be carcinogenic also didn't help much.