Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Contaminate Indoor Air at Worrying Levels, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 70
Toxic PFAS compounds are contaminating the air inside homes, classrooms and stores at alarming levels, a new study has found. From a report: Researchers with the University of Rhode Island and Green Science Policy Institute tested indoor air at 20 sites and detected the "forever chemicals" in 17 locations. The airborne compounds are thought to break off of PFAS-treated products such as carpeting and clothing and attach to dust or freely float through the indoor environment. Experts previously considered food and water to be the two main routes by which humans are exposed to PFAS, but the study's authors note that many humans spend about 90% of their time indoors, and the findings suggest that breathing in the chemicals probably represents a third significant exposure route. "It's an underestimated and potentially important source of exposure to PFAS," said Tom Bruton, a co-author and senior scientist at Green Science.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of about 9,000 compounds used to make products water-, stain- or heat-resistant. Because they are so effective, the chemicals are used across dozens of industries and are in thousands of everyday consumer products such as stain guards, carpeting and shoes. Textile manufacturers use them to produce waterproof clothing, and they are used in floor waxes, nonstick cookware, food packaging, cosmetics, firefighting foam and much more. PFAS are dubbed "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down. They accumulate in animals, including humans, and are linked to cancer, birth defects, liver disease, thyroid disease, decreased immunity, hormone disruption and a range of other serious health problems. A February Guardian analysis of household products found fluorine, an indicator of PFAS, present in 15 items. The chemicals are so widely used that it is difficult to say with precision where all the airborne PFAS are coming from, though the new study also detected their presence in carpets and clothing at some sites.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of about 9,000 compounds used to make products water-, stain- or heat-resistant. Because they are so effective, the chemicals are used across dozens of industries and are in thousands of everyday consumer products such as stain guards, carpeting and shoes. Textile manufacturers use them to produce waterproof clothing, and they are used in floor waxes, nonstick cookware, food packaging, cosmetics, firefighting foam and much more. PFAS are dubbed "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down. They accumulate in animals, including humans, and are linked to cancer, birth defects, liver disease, thyroid disease, decreased immunity, hormone disruption and a range of other serious health problems. A February Guardian analysis of household products found fluorine, an indicator of PFAS, present in 15 items. The chemicals are so widely used that it is difficult to say with precision where all the airborne PFAS are coming from, though the new study also detected their presence in carpets and clothing at some sites.
I tossed out both my non-stick pans (Score:2)
Years ago.
Mostly hardwood floors, there's only 1 room with carpeting but it's over 30 years old.
Haven't bought any new clothing in quite a while, but I'm going to have to bite the bullet soon, cause I'm out of underwear and socks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's plastic all over again. Plastic was cheap and risk free, so everything was made and wrapped in plastic, but now it turns out that the price for it being cheap gets paid in health and environment, but we can't go back to the old ways of no-plastic anymore.
Now you need to go out of your way and look hard and wide to find cast iron pans or similar utensils. It's not economically viable to make non-industrial stuff anymore, and so we lose economies of scale.
Re: (Score:3)
Now you need to go out of your way and look hard and wide to find cast iron pans or similar utensils.
There is more readily available cast iron cookware now than in probably any of our lifetimes. Not only is a lot of the old stuff still around at flea markets and such, but there are a lot of small producers making more. And big makers like Lodge and Staub have expanded what they offer and just about everywhere that sells cookware carries one brand or another.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be surprised if peanut oil seasoning presents any real risk of allergy; the reason to use flaxseed is that it makes a much more durable coating. Flaxseed oil is food-grade *linseed* oil -- the "drying oil" used to make a natural polymer finish in woodworking.
Lodge pans *are* cheap and they work perfectly fine. They can break if they're dropped, but they're so dirt cheap it's no big deal.
In cooking sometimes you need a pan which keeps temperature stable -- e.g. when searing a steak you want cast iron b
Re: (Score:2)
Old pans from antique stores etc are usually better than new cast iron because the finish is smoother. The manufacturers insist it does make a difference with food sticking on a well seasoned pan but my experience is that is BS. You certainly can take a polisher or a grinder and 'fix' the finish on a modern pan if you already have it as well but its more work than just cleaning / rust removal and re-seasoning a old pan.
Not as true with carbon steel but with the cast iron thinker is everything too - yes it
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I tossed out both my non-stick pans (Score:4, Informative)
I've refurbished a number of old Griswolds, and there's do doubt they've got a beautifully machined surface. In comparison the modern Lodge pans you can get for around $19 at the hardware store are rough and pitted.
But having cooked quite a bit on both, I don't see any important differences in cooking performance. As long as you've seasoned the pan properly, you will get a nice release with a cheap modern pan. A fried egg in a Griswold slides around like it's on ice when it releases. In the Lodge it needs a little more nudging, but it's not actually *sticking*. That's not a practical difference, it's more the aesthetic experience.
When I come across an antique cast iron pan in a yard sale I'll buy it, fix it up, and give it away. For someone who likes to cook it makes a really nice gift. But the pan I use myself every day is a cheap Lodge and it's just as good from a practical standpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't get the seasoning layer to stick on the pan I smoothed. I'll take the rougher surface any day. (And maybe I'm doing something wrong, but the fact remains that I am able to season a modern rougher pan but not a smoothed one.) When I buy cast iron cookware, now I only smooth it enough that there's no danger of getting scraped when I touch it.
Re: (Score:2)
how are you seasoning?
I have never had that problem. I usually rub the pans with a high smoke point vegetable fat (peanut or grapeseed oils usually). By rub I mean apply with a paper towel and work the oil in. Than I bake the pan pan for about an hour in a 325f oven. I do have to 'rehab' the seasoning on less frequently used iron ware. They skillet and chicken pot I use most days for most things though stay seasoned without any special care.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the issue may be that I'm using a range--my skillet is bigger than my oven. But I use canola oil or lard, and my application is also with a paper towel. It may not be optimal but it works for the rougher pan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree - grilling does nothing for a good steak. Cast iron skillet will get you a much more repeatable / consistent result in terms of doneness.
Re: (Score:2)
All pans are non-stick if you use and care for them *correctly*, but the advantage of pans with "non-stick" coatings is they can be used any old way, as long as you don't overheat them. The problem is that that "non-stick even if used carelessly" property declines rapidly after about a year of daily use.
Forget the PFTE for a moment; over the course of a lifetime you're going to have to replace a "non-stick" pan at least ten times, if not twenty; at least if you want a pan that works like new. That's a lot
Re: I tossed out both my non-stick pans (Score:2)
Or buy something like Ikea vardagen, enameled thin steel, relatively cheap and lightweight.
Re: (Score:2)
The other plus of multi-layer stainless is that it can work well on poorly designed induction cookers that only give heat in the center. No other cookware will do that (not carbon steel nor cast iron), and the non-gas producing parts of the world are moving toward induction.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want a medal or a cookie?
I never liked non-stick pans when they were a thing, you are so much better off with Cast Iron, or Stainless steel. As oddly enough they are much easier to clean, because non-stick pans tend to stick, and you can't use a rough abrasive to clean them.
Hardwood is the current trend in home decor, however people in 20 years may want to go to carpet again.
Saying you are not part of the problem, doesn't mean you are part of the solution either.
Re:I tossed out both my non-stick pans (Score:5, Funny)
Do you want a medal or a cookie?
COOKIEE!!! OM NOM NOM NOM
Re: (Score:2)
No mod points today, so virtual +1 Funny to you, monster.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you want a medal or a cookie?.
I think the OP wants nontoxic socks and underwear. But what's in the cookie? Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
this is why I still come to /.
Re: (Score:1)
You do you, but there are many nonstick pans these days which explicitly advertise themselves as PFAS and PFOA free.
Re: I tossed out both my non-stick pans (Score:2)
Agreed. They cost more, but there is some nice ceramic coated stuff that is non-stick and PFAS free.
Re: (Score:2)
What you need is a washer and dryer.
Re: (Score:2)
What you need is a washer and dryer.
Ahh, the two things that can wear out your clothes faster than anything else. All that lint you empty after a dryer run is your clothes getting thinner.
Have to dry a lot of nice fluffy socks? Usually 1/4 of a sock worth of lint winds up in the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Suggestion: wear a foil hat to protect your brain from this radiation. Don't forget to bring it on dates also.
Re: (Score:2)
Suggestion: wear a foil hat to protect your brain from this radiation. Don't forget to bring it on dates also.
Because ACs have "hot" dates?
Re: (Score:1)
At certain bandwidths.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying i
Ventilate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no fresh air outside to be breathed within California kindergartens. The whole state is currently on fire.
Think cali has it bad, utah air is worse because of cali's fires. (and canadas) they at least get air from ocean but us inlanders trap it in the rockies.
But at least the smoke is easily filtered out with merv 11 filters.
Re: Ventilate (Score:2)
Time for consumer wet scrubbers.
Great (Score:2)
I am pretty sure that my wife would trade a few years of life for everyone in my family for unspotted furniture and carpets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
damn. You're right, I'm sure. That's why I got rid of her.
How about face masks? (Score:2)
PFAS in food packaging, cosmetics, bla blah blah, anything that needs to be formed uses some sort of mold release agent so they don't stick.
During manufacture for kn95 masks or even surgical masks, the things that make the pleats or hold the masks down are covered in non-stick chemicals, presumably w/ PFAS.
Are we inhaling them now at our own will?
Re: (Score:2)
You’re right. Better we make them from asbestos, I don’t trust the decades of research telling me it causes cancer. As a matter of fact I found a video on bitchute debunking the asbestos myth.
Re:How about face masks? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually given how many probably hundreds of millions if not billions of people who've used or been exposed to asbestos over the years, the cancer rate from it is virtually in the noise because used properly it isn't a problem. There are far more noxious substances in everyday use but for [reasons] they get to carry on being used.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's bad. Scientists recommend going outside to get a healthy dose of Vitamin D. DON'T THEY KNOW THAT SHIT CAUSES CANCER!
WHAT ELSE AREN'T THEY TELLING YOU! Wake up sheeple!
Re: (Score:2)
I seek wisdom (Score:1)
Do air purifiers or carbon filters help with these substances?
Re: (Score:1)
No - Carbon filters tend to work best with polar solvents (e.g. VOCs), and things that are electrochemically active. This stuff will pass right through HEPA filters, unless it's stuck to a particle that will get filtered out.
Electrostatic filters will take this stuff out, but the maintenance on them is absurd (no matter what the brochure says).
Basically, you have to wash them daily for them to be effective. And, if you have the voltage incorrect they can generate ozone - which has its own set of safety iss
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know why they don't get trapped in HEPA? Or do you know of any documents that can give more info?
Be concerned (Score:1)
Higher for slashdotters. Many of us forgot what sunshine looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
They're saying "many humans spend about 90% of their time indoors". Why isn't it 100%? What else is there besides "indoors"?
Are you telling me there's something else, like... "out-door"? Scary thoughts!
Re: (Score:2)
Outdoors is where the cancer causing UV light is.
Open a bladdy window (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The side the shards are on pretty quickly disprove that blame. ;)
Toxic? The dose is the poison (Score:2)
Are they toxic? Well, anything is toxic in large doses, including water, Oxygen, and vegetables.
Longevity has been linked to all these issues as well.
Re:Toxic? The dose is the poison (Score:5, Insightful)
The word 'toxic' gets tossed around with abandon. In industry, toxic has a very specific and narrowly defined meaning, which is miles away from the usage by Grauniad chicken littles.
Re:Toxic? The dose is the poison (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, well... between the industry of psychopaths that would have anyone die to make a dime, and the chicken littles with anxiety disorder that would rather die than to dare leave their safe space, there's a sane middle ground, called LD 50. The dosage at which 50% of the exposed die.
Note that "Horrible pus-leaking pustules and unimaginable pain" alone does not go into "lethal". So you might prefer to look into that too. ;)
And note that this is *only* for that chemical's effects by itself. Not for any effec
Re: (Score:3)
What does it mean? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It means artificial or not.
As in: Did it have millions of years for the world to adapt to it, and it adapt to the world, so everything that's left does fine even with its existence.
Otherwise you'd die a horrible death every time you eat a mint, because that's an insect neurotoxin. :)
And yes, dear industry, it's still artificial, even if it came from nature some many many steps ago. Hence the difference in digesting fruits full of sugar, and only the pure acellular lone sugar in it. (The latter one makes you
Pollution is not only indoors (Score:1)
We have a issue with a factory producing PFOS (part of the PFAS chemicals)
Whole parts of a city near a factory are poluated.
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/s... [www.vrt.be]
How does that work? (Score:1)
So they are forever... yet they react in the body?
How do they react without changing?
Are they some kind of catalyst that doesn't get used up, merely helping in the reaction of something else?
Re: (Score:2)