Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Found in Toilet Paper Around the World (theguardian.com) 49
All toilet paper from across the globe checked for toxic PFAS "forever chemicals" contained the compounds, and the waste flushed down toilets and sent to sewage treatment plants probably creates a significant source of water pollution, new research has found. From a report: Once in the wastewater plant, the chemicals can be packed in sewage sludge that is eventually spread on cropland as fertilizer, or spilt into waterways. "Toilet paper should be considered as a potentially major source of PFAS entering wastewater treatment systems," the study's authors wrote. PFAS are a class of about 14,000 chemicals typically used to make thousands of consumer products resist water, stains and heat. They are called "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down, and they are linked to cancer, fetal complications, liver disease, kidney disease, autoimmune disorders and other serious health issues.
The study checked 21 major toilet paper brands in North America, western Europe, Africa, Central America and South America, but it did not name the brands. The peer-reviewed University of Florida report did not consider the health implications of people wiping with contaminated toilet paper. PFAS can be dermally absorbed, but no research on how it may enter the body during the wiping process exists. However, that exposure is "definitely worth investigating," said David Andrews, senior scientist with the Environmental Working group, a public health non-profit that tracks PFAS pollution.
The study checked 21 major toilet paper brands in North America, western Europe, Africa, Central America and South America, but it did not name the brands. The peer-reviewed University of Florida report did not consider the health implications of people wiping with contaminated toilet paper. PFAS can be dermally absorbed, but no research on how it may enter the body during the wiping process exists. However, that exposure is "definitely worth investigating," said David Andrews, senior scientist with the Environmental Working group, a public health non-profit that tracks PFAS pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
How much longer (Score:5, Insightful)
How much longer will corps be allowed to poison the enviroment with these chemicals until politicians wake up and do something? Most of these chemicals are unnecessary in day to day life. Do I need a non stick pan or easy wipe coat? No. We had an excuse when we didnt realise what they were doing. Now we do. We got rid or CFCs (though arguably the replacements weren't a whole lot better) so time to get rid of PFAs.
Future generations will despise us for what we're doing right now. Assuming we dont fuck the ecosystem so badly that they're never even born.
Re: (Score:1)
Lead isn't a forever chemical
Uh, say waht? Lead is an atomic element. You can't "break it down" or get rid of it short of nuclear transmutation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't spreading false information about this. [yankeeinstitute.org]
While in the past such as panels from the 1970s may have contained PFAS, modern panels do not. There is also no evidence to suggest PFAS are leaching from such panels.
You are mistaken if you think we are only focused on greenhouse gases. This is why you are seeing advancements in things like lab grown meat products. PFAS have been on the radar for quite some time now.
Construction materials are still very dirty however and coasting often contain them s
Re:How much longer (Score:4, Insightful)
Politicians are paid by corporations to ignore problems like this. Politicians don't represent you unless you send a large check.
Glyphosate is another toxic time bomb. It's been outlawed in Europe since they are less susceptible to bribes than the US.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it hasn't. Not yet. https://www.politico.eu/articl... [politico.eu]
Re: How much longer (Score:2)
Oh dear! Looks like Monsanto is battling hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How much longer (Score:5, Informative)
Here in EU, a ban on PFAS is on the table: "Once the ban is in force, companies will be given between 18 months and 12 years to introduce alternatives to the more than 10,000 PFAS affected, depending on the availability of alternatives, according to the draft proposal."
https://www.reuters.com/market... [reuters.com]
As much as I'm against these forever chemicals, I am -tough one, I realize- against a total ban, for now. Be PFAS removed from food packaging or pans, toilet paper and other consumer consumables, one would be mad not to support the ban. But I'm somewhat glad the proposal mentions "depending on availability of alternatives," because for some industrial applications, no real alternative exists. Anyways, as the proposal is atm, such would decrease pollution by PFAS by many orders of magnitude, even if we cannot terminate any and all use of them.
Re: (Score:2)
There will be exemptions for certain uses, just like there was with RoHS.
Completes the circle (Score:2)
GIGO -> GOGI -> (repeat)
Contradictory information, makes no sense (Score:4, Informative)
"The study also checked wastewater at eight wastewater treatment plants and found it is likely that 6:2 diPAP in toilet paper represents much of the compound found in wastewater." .... "However, PFAS are so common that it is difficult to pin their source with precision, which speaks to the larger issue around the chemicals’ widespread use"
So we know for sure it's coming from the toilet paper, but we really don't know for sure.
From the summary: "The peer-reviewed University of Florida report did not consider the health implications of people wiping with contaminated toilet paper" which I guess is true because the study is called "Environmental Exposure to 6:2 Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphate Diester and Impaired Testicular Function in Men", it doesn't appear to have anything to do with toilet paper, and it's not a study from The University of Florida.
Re:Contradictory information, makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
From the summary: "The peer-reviewed University of Florida report did not consider the health implications of people wiping with contaminated toilet paper" which I guess is true because the study is called "Environmental Exposure to 6:2 Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphate Diester and Impaired Testicular Function in Men", it doesn't appear to have anything to do with toilet paper, and it's not a study from The University of Florida.
Wrong paper. The article (once again) fails to link the paper [wsvn.com] it is talking about.
The Article is Clear (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
The article (Yes, I know it's Slashdot) says explicitly that they tested toilet paper and found PFAS there. It is in small enough amounts that it seems clear that it was not deliberately added and may come from coatings that are designed to stop pulp from sticking to machines.
I read the article. Sure it says that, but it refers to a study and doesn't link it.
The summary provides "The study" link, but the study doesn't match the article.
Either way the article text contradicts itself when it says wastewater contamination "likely" comes from toilet paper, and then subsequently says it's impossible to know.
Good Science (Score:2)
Either way the article text contradicts itself when it says wastewater contamination "likely" comes from toilet paper, and then subsequently says it's impossible to know.
If you think about it that does make sense. What they know is that there are PFAS in toilet paper and that there are PFAS in sewage. Since toilet paper ends up as sewage it stands to reason that at least some of the PFAS in sewage come from toilet paper, hence the PFAS in sewage likely come from toilet paper to some degree. However, unless you know the percentage of sewage that comes from toilet paper it is impossible to be certain whether toilet paper is the primary source of PFAS in sewage i.e. they are
Who would have thought? (Score:1)
Shit causes pollution.
Yet another reason be on team bidet (Score:5, Funny)
Stay clean, stay fresh, keep them buttholes sparkling
Re: (Score:2)
Team Toto, assemble! ... but not all at the same time, please. Toilets are private.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
A Bidet Administration official was asked for a comment, but has not responded.
Re: (Score:2)
People who have never used a toilet with built in bidet (washlet) often don't know what they are missing. As well as saving toilet paper, you get cleaner than wiping can ever do.
If you got faeces on any other part of your body, you wouldn't just wipe it off with tissue and call it job done.
A decent washlet, with warm water and a little bit of detergent, and a self-cleaning function, is a big quality of life upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! and anyone intrigiued by the idea, you don't need to buy a whole new toilet, we'd all love a Toto but any of the add-on units that cost ~$40 on Amazon work absolutely great, i've used them for years, people i know have used them, they are simple to install and really it's worth a try.
If you like it they literally pay for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure you get a self cleaning one.
Analytical Chemistry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It shouldn't be that hard to find out if pfas are used deliberately in the manufacturing process. If not, the contamination originates elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Particularly, will so-called forever chemicals, which are not readily degraded once they are in the environment, you are going to find them wherever you look.
Okay... but the issue is they ARE accumulating right now which is why we're detecting them everywhere we look.
The question becomes when will it be a significant amount.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
Was the study paid for by Bidet makers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Follow the money.
The recent gas stove dangers study was paid for by the industry that does gas to electric appliance conversions.
Re: (Score:2)
Which study? The effects of indoor air pollution have been documented repeatedly for decades.
Which industry? The gas appliance makers and the electric appliance makers are pretty much the same people.
This is so vague it sounds made up.
Donâ(TM)t eat bog paper (Score:2)
that's really unfortunate (Score:2)
I have a septic system, not a city sewer. My system captures mildly treated water and irrigates some of my lawn with it. The rest goes into a leech field which after a very long time underground makes its way into the local creek that goes out to the ocean via the San Lorenzo River.
- alternative to music rolls - (Score:2)
While my neighbors were hoarding massive quantities of toilet tissue during the early plague years, I was comfortable with a 4 pack in reserve.
After about 5 years with a cheap bidet (~$25) I've noticed that I consume very little TP. It's a pleasant addition to the process that leaves me using 3 squares of paper just to be sure I'm OK. You'll notice that having less friction in that area is a blessing, especially in times of frequent explosive eruptions. You may need a couple days' practice for best aiming a
So it begins: The War On TP (Score:1)
WhoGivesACrap.com (Score:2)
Anti-V4xx3r5 b3c0m3 4nt1 w1p3r5! (Score:1)
Time for the Three Seashells? (Score:3)
Time for the Three Seashells? A'la "Demolition Man" movie from the 1990s.
JoshK.
Re: (Score:1)