Scientists Warn Against Attempts To Change Definition of 'Forever Chemicals' (theguardian.com) 52
A group of 20 internationally renowned scientists have issued a strong warning against attempts to narrow the definition of "forever chemicals" in what they describe as a politically or economically motivated effort to weaken regulation of the potentially harmful chemicals. From a report: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (Pfas) are a large group of synthetic chemicals used for their oil-, water- and stain-resistant properties in a range of consumer and industrial products from waterproof clothing and non-stick cookware to firefighting foams and electronics.
Their molecular structure makes them resistant to degradation, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals." In the last few years there has been growing awareness of the problems associated with Pfas, and a push for more stringent regulation, resulting in the banning of certain forms. A group of scientists are now raising the alarm about efforts, including by some individuals and groups in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUpac), to narrow the current international definition of Pfas in ways that could exclude certain chemical subgroups.
Their molecular structure makes them resistant to degradation, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals." In the last few years there has been growing awareness of the problems associated with Pfas, and a push for more stringent regulation, resulting in the banning of certain forms. A group of scientists are now raising the alarm about efforts, including by some individuals and groups in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUpac), to narrow the current international definition of Pfas in ways that could exclude certain chemical subgroups.
"Forever chemical" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: "Forever chemical" (Score:5, Interesting)
Headline misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline is misleading.
What is actually being discussed is narrowing the definition of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (Pfas). "Forever chemicals" is just the tag line.
The question is, should the definition of what substances are being regulated be identical to the definition of what a Pfas is according to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry chemical definitions?
Depends on Reasons (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously, if you're interested in an evidence-based, rather than politically-based approach.
It depends very much on the reason for the change. It may be that the new proposed definition is for some good scientific reason that has little to do with the political/social need to classify a group of chemicals that build up over the long term in the environment and cause damage. Indeed, it would seem to me that you would be better off completely separating the two definitions since it seems likely that there are more "forever chemicals" than just pfas.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. It's a marketing term designed to manipulate people who overreact about stuff like this. "Mostly peaceful" is like saying that the Titantic "Mostly floats".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Forever chemical" (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly, but what has happened over the last 50 years with regards to PFAS is criminal. Derek Muller, aka Veritasium, did a fantastic mini documentary on this recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]. Very well done. I was relieved to learn that PTFE is inert and non-toxic, even when ingested. But the precursor chemicals used to make it are highly toxic and continue to be released into the environment. These chemicals certainly meet the literal layman's definition of a "forever" pollutant. They are found everywhere on the planet, and all of us now have them in our bloodstream, although some areas are higher than others.
Re: (Score:2)
That's also a political term, and not a scientific one.
Which part of it do you find to be misleading?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, how about let's start with *nothing* is actually "forever." And even if they were, there's nothing about long-lasting chemicals per se, that makes them inherently dangerous. You might say that water is a "forever chemical." It's extremely stable, and it's a chemical.
The scientific name is "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)". If you're not trying to make a political point, use that name. The nickname is meant to stir up alarm, making it inherently political.
Re:"Forever chemical" (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, how about let's start with *nothing* is actually "forever."
What about on a human time scale? You know, what humans care about?
The scientific name is "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)". If you're not trying to make a political point, use that name.
You need to learn to take non-sciencey people (yeah that's a technical term) into account. Otherwise, you're gonna have a bad time.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So, I think you're agreeing with me. The term is used to convince people. If you're just doing scientific work, you can use the scientific name, your scientific peers will understand. If you're going to try to convince people, you use dramatic-sounding nicknames like "forever chemical."
If you only care about human time scales, you shouldn't use the word "forever" because that is not a human time scale.
Re: (Score:3)
So, I think you're agreeing with me.
I'm agreeing only with the part about it being used to convince people, since it's being used to convince people that they are what they are, and not something they aren't.
I'm not agreeing that it's misleading; it might as well be forever on time scales that humans care about. Try thinking like a human, even if you aren't one.
Re: (Score:2)
Did a scienstist come up with forever chemicals term or did someone else come up and run with the term because they thought PFAS is too technical?
In either case, someone was trying to convince people but the motivation also matters (if it is known)
Re: (Score:2)
People like you help the enemy. Reasonable descriptions are fine. This is reasonable.
To complain in this post-truth age where facts no longer matter and reason is under assault; by extension, it has spread into direct attacks on education itself. One of the few things the USA does well and responsible for it's huge advantage is being destroyed at their own peril - it's that insane. You are complaining about literal interpretation of "forever"? WTF is wrong with you?
You think somebody loses credibility by
Re: "Forever chemical" (Score:2)
Keep the broad definition (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a lot of harmful compounds out there. Many are naturally occuring. But the up side to many of them is that they decompose and are removed from the environment. PFAS are one class of compounds that are persistant. Meaning that, if we screw up and formulate a harmful one, it is going to be around for a long time. A special effort should be made to evaluate its effects.
I'd also like to see the definition of persistance wherein some compound can sit around in the environment, unaffected. But then suddenly lose its inert properties once in contact with a living organism and cause deleterious effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how are they persistent but not inert? If they can react with something, then there's a chance that they'll either break down or attach to something else. Before I swallow some and then they react with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Keep the broad definition (Score:4, Interesting)
... but break the automatic and highly political association between "harm" and persistance.
I think there's a principled argument to be made for tight regulation of these things based on their persistence alone.
If someone wants to manufacture a substance that, if not handled properly, will persist in my food, persist in my water, and ultimately end up floating around in my bloodstream far beyond natural levels, I think they should be subject to strict rules. It shouldn't be required to prove a causal link between the substance and bad medical outcomes for us to say that a chemical manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for saying it.
Problem with it is that reason has no place in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a principled argument to be made for tight regulation of these things based on their persistence alone.
\ But lots of things are persistent - including water itself. What makes these dangerous, from what I have read here, is that they are both persistent and reactive. They remain reactive "forever".
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a principled argument to be made for tight regulation of these things based on their persistence alone.
\ But lots of things are persistent - including water itself. What makes these dangerous, from what I have read here, is that they are both persistent and reactive. They remain reactive "forever".
Hence the part of my comment regarding naturally occurring levels. I'm not going to somehow become super hydrated because DuPont is dumping pure H2O into the local stream, so H2O's persistence isn't a concern to me (though maybe I would be concerned about erosion, or effects on the stream's temperature, etc.).
Re: (Score:3)
Meaning that, if we screw up and formulate a harmful one
Virtually every one we have formulated to date has been harmful. The scientific community has looked into this, as has Dupont and the inventors of the stuff. The original "harmless" limit was set at the level which was the lowest limit at which we could detect the substance. When we got better at detecting it, the experiments had to set it lower. The effects of PFAS are the subject of continuous research and the results to date have not looked good.
This is equivalent of city air pollution: They are actively
How about drop the informal definition. (Score:1)
Lots of benign chemicals are "forever" and an informal definition allows too much creative interpretation as a loophole for either avoidance or overregulation.
Let regulations include a database if that's so desperately needed.
Interesting Video on PFAS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting Video on PFAS (Score:5, Interesting)
The title is accurate. DuPont knew about the problems with PFAS chemicals early on, but like tobacco companies, buried the research and hid it from the public for decades. One telling line from the video is that DuPont asked their scientists to determine the safe level of certain PFAS chemicals and their estimate was much lower than the levels found in most waterways now.
Now that it all came out, DuPont and others have switched away from using the original PFAS acid and now use a slightly different one, but one that has all the same characteristics including persistence and reactivity.
Re: (Score:2)
It could make sense to change the definitions (Score:3)
I would think with my limited chemistry knowledge that teflon (carbon flourene polymer where most of the material is locked up in big chains that probably won't be a problem) is not as harmful as a floating carbon florene chain with an ion attached to the end. Ions can change the way things react and also the ph of a solution.
You can't have modern life without teflon, it's not possible. Plastics only get you to 125C, after that you must have a stronger bond in your polymer than carbon hydrogen. Sure you don't have to put PFAS in your kitchen or on food containers (I don't) but you can't phase it out everywhere without serious consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, I don't want it on my clothes. I do want it in my coats because there isn't anything to replace goretex. The problem is now there are people that are calling for a removal of all PFAS from everything. I think that is too much. I also think that we need regulation on how industry stores it and uses it, lets not dump it in rivers, lakes etc.
The polyflorinated acids, I think those are bad news.
Re:It could make sense to change the definitions (Score:4, Informative)
Teflon is inert and stable. It's not a PFAS. But it's made using PFAS precursor chemicals, which are released into the environment by the companies making PTFE. That's the problem.
There is a way to make Teflon without the PFAS acids, but it's less efficient. DuPont could have researched how to make PTFE without releasing all these chemicals, but they chose to cover it up for decades instead. Now they have moved to using slightly different acids in teflon production, but they are still PFAS chemicals with all the same persistence and reactivity. See Veritasium's video that's been linked to several times in the comments here.
Re: (Score:2)
Teflon is inert and stable. It's not a PFAS.
This might be a silly question, but isn't having a perfluorinated methylene group sufficient to qualify as a PFAS (at least according to the definition we are talking about changing here)? And doesn't PTFE have rather a lot of these?
Wikipedia certainly seems to think so: it gives a list of common PFAS chemicals, and PTFE is top of that list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Teflon is inert and stable.
Except if you heat it enough to degrade into PFOA. Loading with just oil can easily do it before you add something to fry.
Same story (Score:3)
This happens all the time. Legal definitions get changed to no longer reflect the dictionary definition. I still remember when news organizations had to walk back on editorials calling trump a traitor for the Ukrainian extortion racket, because lawyers were mentioning how the legal definition was very narrow. Too me, unless you are specifically referring to the law, you should be able to say a dictionary definition term without fear of reprisal, even if it's an opinion.
"Charities" by the IRS definition aren't necessarily "charitable" by people's understanding of the term. Insider trading is legal, if there isn't a financial quid pro quo, from my understanding. I'm no lawyer so correct me if wrong but I remember listening to a story that basically said as much e.g. I think, if an executive tells a friend information without getting anything back (except maybe similar info from the friend, sometime later) then they aren't criminally pursued. Again, if someone knows exactly, it would be interesting to learn even if wrong.
Even, if I'm not correct in my examples, I know there are tons out there. They corrupt laws. One is by changing definitions and another is by using laws meant to protect people against them or for corporations (e.g. 14th amendment/corporate personhood)
Never say forever? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That raises an interesting question, if we stopped the emission of PFAS chemicals into the environment completely, how long would it take for concentrations to get to the point they are below recommended safe levels (as recommended by DuPont's own scientists) in water ways, plants, animals, and humans? How long to get to undetectable? I suspect 100 years or more. Sure that's finite. But doesn't help the humans suffering from its effects in the meantime.
Re: (Score:3)
With half-lives of 2.7-5.3 years for major PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS), it would take approximately:
5-7 half-lives (~15-35 years) to reach DuPont's 1991 internal guidelines
10+ half-lives (~30-50+ years) to reach undetectable levels
At least from what I can find using search.
Re: (Score:2)
With half-lives of 2.7-5.3 years for major PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS), it would take approximately:
It seems like you're accounting for only very short-lived examples, but there are over 10,000 of them. Even if production stopped today, they would still be coming out of products in use and people's bodies for years, and since it's easy to make new ones and we tend to ban specific products instead of classes of chemical, they will be difficult to control if we exert our usual minimal effort.
Re: (Score:2)
With half-lives of 2.7-5.3 years for major PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS), it would take approximately:
5-7 half-lives (~15-35 years) to reach DuPont's 1991 internal guidelines 10+ half-lives (~30-50+ years) to reach undetectable levels
That assumes you could avoid new PFAS contamination while you slowly excrete them. Since they are everywhere, that does not happen. Cohort studies show PFOA (and PFOS and other friends) contamination just increases with age.
Re: (Score:2)
Right I responded to the question that asked what happens if we completely stopped emmiting them today. How long would they exist. Obvioulsy that can't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
PFAS def: Molecule Fluorine attach to Carbon (Score:1)
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/heal... [nih.gov]
Yes, it would blow up to 100's of chemicals under suspicion.
Yet the definition needs to be since mankind has audacity to find loopholes in the law.
Re: (Score:1)
That's ok we'll stop using HFCs and HFO's for refrigeration and go back to good ol' safe Ammonia and Propane. It will be interesting to see how one etches silicone wafers with just hydrocarbons, but hey who needs semi-conductors and integrated circuits?
Re: (Score:1)
I think in the 1920s people said, "Good luck with farming if we don't use Arsenic and Copper-based insecticides." or the 1960s "Best wishes controlling malaria without DDT."
Since then there have been a lot of changes on those fields. Don't count out the semiconductor industry to find alternatives.