> However, Cousins noted that PFAS levels in people have actually dropped "quite significantly in the last 20 years" and "ambient levels (of PFAS in the environment) have been the same for the past 20 years".
> "What's changed is the guidelines. They've gone down millions of times since the early 2000s, because we've learned more about the toxicity of these substances."
I think what's changed most is our standards. Used to be if you survived to reproduce, you were doing pretty good. Extra points if you got to watch your kids grow up. Now the standard is basically "Every substance that can be demonstrated to have worse health outcomes than its absence is toxic" - which on a technical level is true, and might even be what you care about, but you also need take a bigger-picture perspective and weigh it against all the other risks of ordinary living you face.
This is at best an incomplete, complacent position to take.
Homo plasticus has polluted the atmosphere and oceans, exploited topsoil and groundwater to the point of long-term destruction, and made polymers part of the global food supply. [1,2,4]
> Used to be if you survived to reproduce, you were doing pretty good.
Used to be.
And if you were lucky, you lived in a stable democracy instead of any one of the variants of violent dictatorship.
Fertility levels are in steep decline. Today's children will grow to adulthood in a world abused to the point of global disaster. [3]
Things have changed for the worse in ways that our species has never before faced.
> Used to be if you survived to reproduce, you were doing pretty
good. Extra points if you got to watch your kids grow up.
" I had to get up in the morning at ten o’clock at night, half an
hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work
twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission
to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and
dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah." [0]
WTAF is it with this "noble savage" glorification of mythical past
miseries as a way to avoid thinking about how massively we've screwed
up as a civilisation? That sort of response is a "Don't look up" level
of avoidance and rationalising.
It's true but other risks are usually discrete. PFAS exposure continously decreases your health while driving a car has no effect on your health until you get into an accident.
The risk calculation feels different in those cases.
Lots of deliberately-missing-the-point by crusaders posting to your point, @nostrademons. Yes it's bad there's plastic in rainwater, they bang on about that like they've thought of something you missed.
But I agree we live with so many other risks, there may conceivably be better windmills to tilt.
Heart disease dominates the US health problems. Maybe we could do something about food in America. Something we can actually do something about, with a measurable improvement in living.
I mean, are you arguing this is somehow a bad development?
“Sorry kid, but at least your dad got to see you ride your first bike, chalk that up to win, used to be much worse! You know, DuPont and 3M can’t give ground all the time.”
It is very hard to read about the cancer clusters in WV/OH around the heavy PFAS sites and not feel some extreme disgust at how bad it got and feel thankful that this is getting significant attention.
In the Netherlands we have Chemours, they produce and dump PFAS. So naturally we find PFAS in and around the factory in Dordrecht NL. We find 13.000 x the norm in certain "swimming" waters. And naturally we find it the eggs of hobby chickens (not industrial ones)... So people stop eating fresh eggs. Many get rid of their chickens. But wait... As it turns out we find PFAS/PFOS that aren't even produced nor used by Chemours! What gives? We investigate and we find it all over the country. Some are above the norm, some below.
How does it get into the chickens? No one knows atm. The rain? The food? It seems like the stuff is just everywhere indeed. We also stopped eating our eggs, looking for a testing service.
I mean the answer about the chickens is obviously the water and the food. Mass produced chicken feed is garbage and I guarantee you your chickens are not fully pasture raised. And even if they were, all of your crops and fields are sprayed with chemicals. And, yeah, PFAS rain.
"I'm not super concerned about the everyday exposure in mountain or stream water or in the food. We can't escape it... we're just going to have to live with it."
I agree that it doesn't feel right to read a quote like, "I'm not super concerned about..." along with such a dire sounding headline.
This is a bit exhausting. I care about the environment. And I care about it's impact on humans. But I feel like it's a never-ending march of things to fret about. It really seems like folks are looking for thins to sound the alarm about.
Maybe PFAS really are a major problem, I don't know. But I'd love to see a bit more circumspection about this and other issues. Keeping people on red alert, all the time, about everything - does not seem like a recipe for human flourishing overall. Though it may be a good way to keep people under control.
You are exhausted. That doesn't mean the concern isn't well considered by those who are presenting it. The problem is your emotional fatigue, not that people are insufficiently "circumspect".
> Keeping people on red alert, all the time, about everything - does not seem like a recipe for human flourishing overall.
It would help if we had some sort of mechanism to turn these "alerts" into action, which seems to be a sticking point for a globe dominated by society obsessed with corporate liberties to do nothing or double down on the problematic behavior.
PFAS is just the currently hyped and talked-about symptom of reactive regulation.
The problem is that there's no requirement for demonstration of safety for new products/chemicals, not even monitoring, nothing (in most parts of the world). Which seems obviously bad.
But we currently live in a particularly idiotic mass-communication by memes times, hence we have defund the police and PFAS, and so on.
The only way water after being distilled by the sun to pure H2O can be contaminated with these chemicals is if the chemicals are in the air. To my knowledge, we have zero regulations on what airplanes are allowed to spray into the atmosphere. Scientists at https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ and https://climateviewer.com/ have tested the aerosols and other chemicals being sprayed and found them to include a number of harmful chemicals. If enough people were aware of what is going on, we could demand some transparency and accountability.
PFAS boiling point is around 189 Celsius, so it can also evaporate with water - of course very slowly, but it's enough to simply get everywhere on Earth
A common model for chemical intake is based on the person's weight. I.e. if it's unsafe for the average human it's likely even worse for children, smaller animals, etc.
Safety is not Boolean. Things are not safe or unsafe. It's just a question of HOW safe something is, what the risks are, etc.
Do we have any sense of the actual amount of PFAS in rainwater, and the human health impact of such? I didn't see any mention of this in the article. Maybe more investigation along these lines would be helpful.
As noted in the article, the EPA recently lowered the "safe limit" based on evidence that the previously acceptable levels were still high enough to reduce vaccine efficacy in children.
And we already know PFAS impact fertility and hormones, can cause some cancers, etc.
This gives a new spin on the question, what does rain taste like?
(I don't remember if that was part of the books too, but in the show The Expanse, a major character who was born and lived on Ceres pondered this occasionally. In the end, he was told by an Earther that "it tastes like nothing, it's just water". I guess this is an improvement over status quo.)
I hope this is the last nail in the coffin of "Better living through chemistry™." Just because we can make it (and make money from it) doesn't mean we should.
It's worth noting that filters capable of removing PFAS are readily available (in the industrialized world). Apparently even regular activated charcoal filters do a good job.
>The EPA recently lowered its PFAS guidelines significantly after discovering that the chemicals may affect the immune response in children to vaccines, Cousins noted.
If anyone were to collect the major PFAS/microplastics/foreverchem threads from HN, I bet the list would be even more mammoth than the tax-filing perennial for which I had to convert the "related" list into continuation-passing style: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
It’s interesting how no real evidence was cited and how they state that levels in humans have dropped precipitously even though levels in the environment have not.
They attribute this to knowing that PFAS exist but that doesn’t really explain anything.
Maybe I’m missing something but this article (as written) seems like pseudo science.
[+] [-] nostrademons|2 years ago|reply
> "What's changed is the guidelines. They've gone down millions of times since the early 2000s, because we've learned more about the toxicity of these substances."
I think what's changed most is our standards. Used to be if you survived to reproduce, you were doing pretty good. Extra points if you got to watch your kids grow up. Now the standard is basically "Every substance that can be demonstrated to have worse health outcomes than its absence is toxic" - which on a technical level is true, and might even be what you care about, but you also need take a bigger-picture perspective and weigh it against all the other risks of ordinary living you face.
[+] [-] tomxor|2 years ago|reply
PFAS didn't exist 75 years ago. Now we've almost permanently contaminated our environment and atmosphere with it, that's quite a big change.
[+] [-] heresie-dabord|2 years ago|reply
Homo plasticus has polluted the atmosphere and oceans, exploited topsoil and groundwater to the point of long-term destruction, and made polymers part of the global food supply. [1,2,4]
> Used to be if you survived to reproduce, you were doing pretty good.
Used to be.
And if you were lucky, you lived in a stable democracy instead of any one of the variants of violent dictatorship.
Fertility levels are in steep decline. Today's children will grow to adulthood in a world abused to the point of global disaster. [3]
Things have changed for the worse in ways that our species has never before faced.
= = =
[1]_ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/in-a-first-micropl... , https://www.theseacleaners.org/news/microplastics-in-human-b...
[2]_ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2023/06/16/humans-...
[3]_ https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is...
[4]_ https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/07/1123462
[+] [-] nonrandomstring|2 years ago|reply
[0] https://python.mzonline.com/sketches/wewerepoor/
[+] [-] unmole|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theGnuMe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hugsun|2 years ago|reply
The risk calculation feels different in those cases.
[+] [-] lr1970|2 years ago|reply
With so many people deciding to go childless i am not so sure.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|2 years ago|reply
But I agree we live with so many other risks, there may conceivably be better windmills to tilt.
Heart disease dominates the US health problems. Maybe we could do something about food in America. Something we can actually do something about, with a measurable improvement in living.
And so on.
[+] [-] dogman144|2 years ago|reply
“Sorry kid, but at least your dad got to see you ride your first bike, chalk that up to win, used to be much worse! You know, DuPont and 3M can’t give ground all the time.”
It is very hard to read about the cancer clusters in WV/OH around the heavy PFAS sites and not feel some extreme disgust at how bad it got and feel thankful that this is getting significant attention.
[+] [-] teekert|2 years ago|reply
How does it get into the chickens? No one knows atm. The rain? The food? It seems like the stuff is just everywhere indeed. We also stopped eating our eggs, looking for a testing service.
[+] [-] johnmaguire|2 years ago|reply
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/dutch-court-rule...
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/dutch-governmen...
[+] [-] Solvency|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Neil44|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anymouse123456|2 years ago|reply
"I'm not super concerned about the everyday exposure in mountain or stream water or in the food. We can't escape it... we're just going to have to live with it."
I agree that it doesn't feel right to read a quote like, "I'm not super concerned about..." along with such a dire sounding headline.
[+] [-] lm28469|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lendal|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alistairSH|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnyjeans|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nifty3929|2 years ago|reply
Maybe PFAS really are a major problem, I don't know. But I'd love to see a bit more circumspection about this and other issues. Keeping people on red alert, all the time, about everything - does not seem like a recipe for human flourishing overall. Though it may be a good way to keep people under control.
[+] [-] ttpphd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DinaCoder99|2 years ago|reply
It would help if we had some sort of mechanism to turn these "alerts" into action, which seems to be a sticking point for a globe dominated by society obsessed with corporate liberties to do nothing or double down on the problematic behavior.
[+] [-] globular-toast|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pas|2 years ago|reply
The problem is that there's no requirement for demonstration of safety for new products/chemicals, not even monitoring, nothing (in most parts of the world). Which seems obviously bad.
But we currently live in a particularly idiotic mass-communication by memes times, hence we have defund the police and PFAS, and so on.
[+] [-] kornhole|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerry80|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pas|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] banga|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amenghra|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsq|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nifty3929|2 years ago|reply
Do we have any sense of the actual amount of PFAS in rainwater, and the human health impact of such? I didn't see any mention of this in the article. Maybe more investigation along these lines would be helpful.
[+] [-] alistairSH|2 years ago|reply
As noted in the article, the EPA recently lowered the "safe limit" based on evidence that the previously acceptable levels were still high enough to reduce vaccine efficacy in children.
And we already know PFAS impact fertility and hormones, can cause some cancers, etc.
[+] [-] maerF0x0|2 years ago|reply
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abm8868
(Method to destroy PFAs)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35764476
[+] [-] thrawn0r|2 years ago|reply
The new proposed EPA guideline is 4.0[1] parts per trillion (also expressed as ng/L) for PFOA and PFOS.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|2 years ago|reply
(I don't remember if that was part of the books too, but in the show The Expanse, a major character who was born and lived on Ceres pondered this occasionally. In the end, he was told by an Earther that "it tastes like nothing, it's just water". I guess this is an improvement over status quo.)
[+] [-] cpburns2009|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tutfbhuf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krunck|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boyka|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alifatisk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wongarsu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alistairSH|2 years ago|reply
But, as the article noted, PFAS levels in humans are steady for now. So, the damage is probably already done.
[+] [-] galangalalgol|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
I'd do it myself, but am le tired.
[+] [-] InquiringFriend|2 years ago|reply
They attribute this to knowing that PFAS exist but that doesn’t really explain anything.
Maybe I’m missing something but this article (as written) seems like pseudo science.
[+] [-] imadierich|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]