EPA Proposes 'Forever Chemicals' Be Considered Hazardous Substances (npr.org) 51
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
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
Uhhhhhhhhh (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Uhhhhhhhhh (Score:3)
Re:Believe the science (Score:4, Informative)
No direct links to cancer but evidence is suggesting it can increase odds. The sample size was 10,000. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023... [ucsf.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Believe the science (Score:1)
Don't forget to ignore the economic and downstream social costs of the ban. Can't have pesky things like nuanced thinking about complex problems creeping into Science(TM).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You would think that conservatives would be highly concerned with the proliferation of endocrine disruptors, given that these hormone scramblers could very well be a major factor in the explosion of gender confusion in today's society.
You don't think that keeping our public bathrooms properly sorted is worth almost any conceivable economic or social cost?
Re:Believe the science (Score:4, Informative)
"The agency cited various studies in which forever chemicals were found to cause a litany of "toxic effects""
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Please and ALL plastic coatings for any product th (Score:1)
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)
Klean Kanteen water bottles have 8% nickel and no interior coating.
Re: Please and ALL plastic coatings for any produc (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
These always Pig Stomachs or Clay Pots!
Replace it all (Score:2)
Figure out how to make substitutes out of hemp. Nobody will question its safety and health benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obesity - While it is great grand fun to blame it all on overeating and laziness, There have been some very interesting tests and studies of some of the endocrine disruptors. Much of the world is getting fat, despite the common narrative that it is a US only issue. Turns out that the endocrine disruptors probably have a part in that, and it might be multi-generational.
As well, at a time when we are urge
Re: (Score:2)
Molecules (Score:1)
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.
Re: Molecules (Score:2)
Don't trust atoms, they make up everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't trust atoms, they make up everything.
Heyo!
Re: (Score:1)
You can't trust atoms! They make up everything!
Re: (Score:2)
Then i should stop eating extra big ass tacos, they come with more molecules.
Re: (Score:2)
Great to see this getting attention at last (Score:2)
Our Green 'friends' have fixated on the minimal risks of nuclear power and ignored chemicals for far too long.
Re: Great to see this getting attention at last (Score:2)
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.
14 years is not a long time (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
You miss my point (Score:2)
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...
Hmm (Score:1)
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??
Since these forever chemicals are everywhere now (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the span of the EPA's regulatory powers? Everything?
The environment, yaknow?
hazardous (Score:2)
Redefining words. Is there data to show that these actually ARE hazardous? All I ever see is that they are ubiquitous. So is air.
Can I Just Get a Clean Glass of Water? (Score:2)