What does a rain jacket or a pan have to do with our health and environment? A lot. They can contain "forever chemicals” or PFAS, which are seriously harmful and never degrade.
2 Likes
Concise, factual, but explained things clearly: exemplary video and very thought-provoking. Thanks for posting this @rippon
Although not specifically mentioned I would think that some products enter the recycling chain and the PFAS thus end up reconstituted into paper, card, etc - which nominally don’t contain plastics of any type. (well - - - I assume not)
I was minded of Cal Flynn’s wonderful book Islands of Abandonment which I may not have mentioned at 5filters before. If not, this is overdue. There is a chapter about Arthur Kill, a tidal creek between New Jersey and Staten Island, NY. This is (some claim ‘was’, I’m not convinced) one of the world’s most blighted waterways, with industrial effluent and much more pumped into the water with no regard at all. This went on for decades.
"“What’s in your Waterproofs?” Perfluorinated/Perflouroalkyl Chemicals #PFCs #PFAs #FluorideisaPoison #EndocrineDisruptors #EnviroToxins
"PFCs are a large group of manufactured
compounds that are widely used to make
everyday products more resistant to stains, grease,
and water. For example, PFCs may be used to
keep food from sticking to cookware, to make
sofas and carpets resistant to stains, to make
clothes and mattresses more waterproof, and may
also be used in some food packaging, as well as
in some firefighting materials. Because they help
reduce friction, they are also used in a variety of
other industries, including aerospace, automotive,
building and construction, and electronics.
PFCs break down very slowly in the environment
and are often characterized as persistent. There is
widespread wildlife and human exposure to several
PFCs, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).1 Both PFOA and
PFOS are byproducts of other commercial products,
meaning they are released into the environment
when other products are made, used, or discarded.
PFOS is no longer manufactured in the United States,
and PFOA production has been reduced and will
soon be eliminated. More research is needed to
fully understand all sources of human exposure,
but people are most likely exposed to these
compounds by consuming PFC-contaminated water
or food, or by using products that contain PFCs.
Unlike many other persistent chemicals, PFCs are
not stored in body fat. However, PFCs are similar
to other persistent chemicals, because the half-life,
or the amount of time it takes for 50% of the
chemical to leave the human body, for some of
these chemicals, is several years. This slow
elimination time makes it difficult to determine
how changes in lifestyle, diet, or other exposure-
related factors influence blood levels."…“The NTP is studying PFCs as a class, due to
potential similarities in chemical properties and
toxicity. The scientists will be able to compare
one PFC chemical to another, determine the
relationship between chain length and toxicity,
and work toward understanding a common basis
for toxicity*”: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/pease/documents/perflourinated_chemicals_508.pdf?utm_source=pocket_saves
*Italics mine. A classic example of put-the-cart-before-the-horse “economics” (so -called). Where is the influence of a philosophy that maintains “establish whether the substances you are using are safe before you expose people to them”? Ever thought recently; “that’s cheap for a pair of those”? Well if you’ve ever wondered why you can stop now for PFCs (also known as “PFAs” -poly-fluoroalkyl chemicals-), can (like the fluoride added to domestic water supplies), easily be sourced from existing industries.
"If you’re reading this, chances are great you’ve got PFCs in your blood.
Since the 1940s, industrial quantities of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), have been manufactured and sold by various chemical companies, most notably 3M and DuPont, for use in well-known products like Scotchguard and Teflon.
There are thousands of variations on the chemistry, which is essential to making consumer products resistant to stains, grease and water. Aerospace, automotive, building and construction and the electronics industries also rely on PFCs for their ability to reduce friction in the manufacturing process.
Because of their ubiquity in cookware, carpet, textiles, upholstery, mattresses, food packaging and firefighting foams, almost all Americans have been exposed to and accumulated some volume of PFCs in their body.
One PFC, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), was found in blood serum in 99 percent of the U.S. general population between 1999 and 2012.
A perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) molecule.
The chemistry: Perfluorinated chemicals, also called polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) or polyfluorinated compounds, feature a carbon backbone with fluorine atoms attached each bonding point. Other chemicals like hydrogen, oxygen and chlorine can attach to the end of the carbon chain. Varying the chain length, attached flourines and other atoms can produce different PFCs. For example, PFOA has 8 carbons in its chain and is sometimes referred to as C8.
The toxicity: Perfluorinated chemicals are very stable under harsh conditions, which makes them a great tool for spraying on liquid jet fuel fires but a terrible thing for the environment and the human body. Their stability allows PFCs to persist in the ground and water and bio-accumulate in fish and wildlife. As with mercury, smaller concentrations magnify up the food chain until they land in the diet of fish-eating humans, where the PFCs can remain in the body for years.
The effects: In laboratory studies on animals, some PFCs are shown to disrupt normal endocrine activity, reduce immune system functions, have adverse effects on organs like the kidneys, liver and pancreas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency links two PFCs, PFOS and PFOA, to thyroid disorders and childhood developmental issues. Exposure over certain levels to unborn children or breastfed infants may cause complications like low birth weight, accelerated puberty and skeletal variations. The chemicals have also been linked to testicular and kidney cancers, liver damage and cholesterol changes.
Why isn’t this more widely known? Perfluorinated chemicals haven’t quite broken into mainstream consciousness the way other poisons have. That’s because there’s still a huge amount of study yet to be done. Today, PFCs are considered “emerging contaminants” and are not subject to enforceable regulation or cleanup standards in the U.S. – although the EPA this spring published health advisory guidelines for PFOS and PFOA that suggest prolonged exposure over 70 parts-per-billion (ppt) can cause health problems. There’s ongoing government and university study of other PFCs, but PFOS and PFOA have been scrutinized the longest and therefore the government is comfortable quantifying the risk. The U.S. and Canadian governments also just listed PFOS and PFOA as chemicals of “mutual concern.” Unfortunately, it takes years of study to develop enough data on toxicity for agencies like the EPA to enact regulations. Also, because there are so many PFC variants, scientists are having trouble assessing the risk potential across the entire chemical class.
Where are PFCs found in Michigan? In Michigan, concern about PFCs began elevating in 2010, when testing found PFOS at never-before-seen levels in fish at Clark’s Marsh in Oscoda. Plumes from the closed Wurtsmith Air Force Base, which used a firefighting foam loaded with PFCs, contaminated the wetland and PFCs are still being found at elevated levels in local wells. Elsewhere, PFOS and PFOA have been found in raw and treated water in Ann Arbor and Plainfield Township water supplies. Surface water testing has found PFCs in the AuSable River, Flint River, Kalamazoo River, Saginaw River and St. Joseph River. A 2015 Michigan Department of Health and Human Services report noted that “future source investigations should focus on locations where PFOS-based-firefighting foam may have been used in large quantities and on sources in urban centers.”
PFC problem beyond Michigan: The PFC plumes at Wurtsmith helped wake the U.S. Air Force up to contamination at other military bases. Today, the military is cleaning up PFC-contaminated drinking water near active or former bases in Delaware, Alaska, Pennsylvania, California, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Virginia, New Jersey and Colorado. That’s just a sampling. Military officials have upped the number of possible contaminated sites to 2,000. Industrial use of PFCs in chemical or plastic-making has polluted communities like Hoosick Falls, N.Y., Bennington, Vt., Parkersburg, W. Va., and Washington, W. Va.
What can you do? Experts say PFCs cannot be boiled out of water, but can be removed by reverse osmosis filters, which can cost several hundred dollars for a good model. Michigan is buying filters for folks with contaminated wells in Oscoda and there’s $1 million in the new budget to hook people up to safe, municipal water. That’s only necessary, however, if you’re drinking contaminated water. Because certain PFCs have been phased-out of manufactured products, newer domestically-made items should reduce some latent exposure. You can further reduce PFC exposure by ditching non-stick cookware, or using non-metal utensils with Teflon-coated pans. Also, consumers can choose furniture and carpets not marketed as “stain resistant,” avoid grease-repellant food packaging like French fry boxes, microwave popcorn and pizza boxes, and avoid consumer products with ingredients listing “fluoro” or “perfluoro.”"
Link: What are PFCs and why should you care? - mlive.com
“Additional Research on PFCs
In addition to the NTP’s effort, NIEHS-funded
grantees across the country are researching PFCs.
For example, some are exploring a potential link
between PFCs and behavioral disorders, including
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,9 while
others are evaluating the potential adverse health
risks of PFCs and other chemicals on
neurobehavioral development and immune function.For example, a 2012 NIEHS-funded
human study found that elevated PFC exposures
during development were associated with reduced
vaccine-induced immune protection in children.”: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/pease/documents/perflourinated_chemicals_508.pdf?utm_source=pocket_saves
Once I began to investigate these compounds it became very obvious to me why I found the whole subject so disturbing, disruptive and in-fact frightening. I have encountered fluoride before and my body (esp. my aura), remembers the experience (in-fact I screamed and dragged my heels so much when my mother was hauling me to the dental clinician that she agreed to stop taking me, this was just as-well as the effects I have experienced from exposure led to me sustaining life changing and life threatening injuries -one inducing an NDE-, in my teens and caused me to be prone to such “accidents” to this day).
I have just binned a moderately expensive jacket (after approx. 5 years or so), because the synthetic lining had started to particulate and I was in danger of inspiring such (Teflon tasting muck), quote; “Fluoride treatments at the dentist’s office are equally hazardous. In the typical fluoride treatment, 10,000 parts per million fluoride, which comes in a flavoured gel to make it taste good, is left on the teeth for about five minutes. Then the child spits it out, though invariable he swallows some. The child cannot rinse, eat or drink for at least half an hour afterward. Children have died after swallowing fluoride topically applied on their teeth. In one well publicized case, the dental hygienist neglected to tell the child to wash his mouth out and spit out the solution. The child began vomiting and sweating and died the same day*"
"I am a victim of pre-pubescent dental clinical fluoride treatment myself (my story is sad, long and ongoing). These articles hint that there may be even higher costs to the patient/victim but don’t make the connections (as we the victims don’t anymore), however, I can talk from my experience as-well and this has led me to the conclusion that fluoride is a “whole system” disruptor and can be responsible for ailments as diverse as; fracturing, kidney failure/dysfunction, behavioural problems/brain damage, depression and suicide.
What I have not seen however (or been able to find so far on-line), are the statistics, the epidemiological evidence, which will prove (I now have no doubt), that many of the “victims” of clinical fluoride treatment are no longer with us. For one thing the behavioural changes induced by fluoride treatment are of such an uncontrollable and self-destructive nature that the patient may perish due to some apparently “self-induced” accident superficially unrelated to any dental treatment they may have received a decade or so before. Therefore it is necessary to examine the medical records of all of those patients who received clinical fluoride treatment as children and compare the statistics for the incidences of accidental “premature” deaths (esp. “self-induced” -not necessarily suicide at all but the suicide statistics MUST be examined as-well-), and serious injuries within the treated group with those of the same demographic within the wider population.”
*Italics mine.
“Arafel”: “Children have died after swallowing fluoride topically applied on their teeth” & “The Epidemiology of Deaths” & “Arafel”: #Fluoride "After 40 or More YEARS my Suspicions are Confirmed; “Y Chromosome Damage”
If you want to investigate the alternatives please go to: 15 eco-friendly waterproof jackets UK to stay dry in 2022
Economies of scale dependent on supply and demand apply I’m afraid so these items are easily three times the price of those containing pfc/pfas. It should be remarked, however, that progress is being made using natural substances (for instance clothing made from bamboo is becoming increasingly more popular). We need to force manufacturers and retailers to change their practices, I sent this to “Trespass” today, quote;
“Hi
I am a frequent visitor to your store in Southampton but I have been alarmed by what I read about the chemical compounds used to “waterproof” and make “breathable” many items now on the market. Can you supply me with a list of items you retail containing these items (possibly by TP rating)? What is your policy regarding these persistent chemicals? Would I be able to return any (recently purchased), items to you on the basis that they contain any of these perfluoro-carbons? Do your boots contain pfcs/pfas? Thank you.”" https://www.arafel.co.uk/2022/11/whats-in-your-waterproofs.html
As you can imagine I take the persistence of this problem rather personally!
2 Likes
"Receipts and bisphenols
Bisphenol A, or BPA, is one of the most recognisable names in our modern arsenal of synthetic chemicals. Its normally associated with plastic reusable water bottles, where stickers invite us to buy ‘BPA-free’ as a ‘healthy’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ option. The irony is that in touching the receipt for our purchase we’re likely to be exposed to the very substance we were trying to avoid. This is because BPA is a common active ingredient in the thermal paper used to make receipts and tickets. Thermal paper can contain significantly more BPA [1] than the trace levels found in plastic water bottles. BPA can be absorbed directly through the skin. BPA can be released during production of the paper, and recycling receipts can contaminate our waste stream, meaning BPA is also found in recycled paper products.
Why are we concerned about BPA?
BPA has been a hotly contested chemical for many years now. It’s a known endocrine disruptor, which means it can interfere with our hormones. Despite this, it has a myriad of other uses: as a raw material for hard polycarbonate plastic, as additives in other plastics such as PVC, as well as for thermal paper. It’s one of the highest production volume chemicals in the world, with around [8 million tonnes produced annually 2]. As a direct result this chemical is widespread in our environment and in our bodies. Over 90% of humans tested have been found to have BPA in their bloodstream according to multiple studies [3].
So, is BPA safe? The recommendations from authorities such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), are that the chemical is safe to humans, on the assumption that most of us are only exposed to very small doses. Many independent laboratory studies, however, indicate that BPA can affect human cells and animals even at very low levels of exposure, and the chemical has been linked to a whole host of medical problems including obesity, diabetes [4] and [breast cancer 5].
EFSA is in the process of re-evaluating their 2015 conclusion on health impacts. In the meantime, ongoing concern is reflected in regulation. Many countries have banned the use of BPA in baby’s bottles to protect young children from potential hormone-disrupting effects. The use of BPA in receipts will also be banned across the EU, though this legislation will not come into force until 2020 (and potentially after Brexit). This measure has been put in place specifically to protect the unborn children of pregnant shop workers, who are handling receipts for hours and days at a time leading to comparatively high exposure levels [6].
And what about environmental impacts? We know that aquatic species are already being affected by concentrations found in water globally [7]. Fish have been shown to pass on impacts from BPA exposure to their offspring. BPA has been shown to interfere with gender determination in reptiles, that can cause turtles to be born that are unable to reproduce. Combine this with the broad environmental impacts of paper production and it’s a pretty damning case for the unwanted receipt.
An A-Z of regrettable substitution
If a ban on BPA in receipts is just around the corner, why are we focusing on them? Unfortunately, the story does not end at a BPA ban. On the hunt for alternatives to this controversial chemical, other bisphenols such as BPS, BPF and even BPZ are being used to substitute a variety of uses of BPA. BPS is the cheapest, and most common substitute for thermal paper, and its use in receipts is growing. However, a similar structure often means these substances will behave in a similar way within the environment and our bodies. Although many of these alternatives are less well studied, new tests show these alternatives may have similar, and in some cases more harmful effects than BPA itself [8].
Many NGOs are calling for a change in the way we legislate on chemicals, to avoid this kind of harmful substitution. Groups such as the ChemTrust call for chemicals to be legislated as structurally similar groups, putting responsibility onto industry to prove a chemical is safe. The ChemTrust’s ‘Toxic Soup’ report highlights how important this is in the case of bisphenols.
Dr Anna Watson, Head of Advocacy at CHEM Trust said:
“BPA is well known to have endocrine disrupting properties, and it is worrying that a number of the other bisphenols are also being found to have similar hazardous properties. We need the regulators to phase out* *groups of chemicals of concern, such as the bisphenols, rather than slowly restricting one chemical at a time, which allows companies to move from one harmful chemical to another.
We fully support FIDRA ’s campaign calling on the industry to end the use of bisphenols in till receipts to protect people *and the environment from these hazardous chemicals." https://www.fidra.org.uk/news/beat-the-receipt/
"If you haven’t heard yet that the chemical BPA in cash register receipts and credit/debit machines can be a health risk, you might want to know a few facts. New research shows that this chemical, which is a known endocrine disruptor, can be absorbed through your skin.
Bisphenol A (BPA) has been banned for use in baby bottles and sippy cups. Some manufacturers have also removed it from water bottles and food containers. However, the thermal paper used for cash register and other receipts is another common source of BPA. Handling the paper leads to increased levels of the chemical in our bodies because it rubs off easily.
“There’s more BPA in a single thermal paper receipt than the total amount that would leach out from a polycarbonate water bottle used for many years,” said John Warner, Ph.D., president of the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry.
Research has linked BPA to an increased risk of breast and prostate cancers, cardiovascular disease, and reproductive and brain development abnormalities. Because it mimics the biological activity of estrogen, developing children face the greatest risks from BPA.
A chronically high estrogen level disrupts the male and female reproductive and endocrine systems. BPA has been found in well over 90 percent of American adults and children. High levels are associated with altered thyroid function, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, impaired liver and kidney function, inflammation, hyperactivity, and impaired learning. In men, such levels have been linked to reduced libido, lower sperm quality, and altered sex-hormone concentrations. And in women, these levels have been tied to reproductive effects such as polycystic ovary syndrome, infertility, miscarriage, premature delivery, and an increased risk of breast cancer. Women may be especially vulnerable to the BPA in receipts.
Even if you’re not a cashier, you still may be getting more BPA exposure than you realize because thermal paper is used in so many receipts we handle – everything from airline boarding passes and luggage tags, to trains, movies, sporting events and amusement parks tickets, even labels on prescription bottles or packaged deli meats or cheeses.
Here’s a quick test to tell you if the paper you’re handling is the thermal type containing BPA: scratch the printed side of the paper. If you see a dark mark, the paper is thermal.
While some manufacturers make “BPA free” thermal paper, they often use a similar chemical (BPS), which also may pose health hazards similar to BPA. Both are easily transferred to skin. These bisphenols are easily absorbed through the skin because skin the molecule is smaller than estradiol — a natural estrogen — that is sometimes delivered by a skin patch.
So what should you do to reduce your exposure?
- Be aware that thermal paper discolors easily when scratched with a coin or paperclip.
- Don’t accept receipts whenever possible.
- Go with a paperless receipt via email or text message. This is an increasingly available option at many retailers.
- If you must handle a receipt, try to touch only the nonglossy backside. It contains much less BPA.
- Carefully store receipts. If you absolutely need a receipt, place it in an envelope. Its BPA will rub off on everything: your hands, pocket, wallet, or purse, even the folding money in your wallet.
- Quickly wash your hands after touching a receipt. Scrub with soap and water. If you wait longer than four minutes, it’s too late.
- Wear latex gloves if your job requires the frequent handling of receipts.
- Don’t use a hand sanitizer after touching a possible thermal receipt.
- In a recent experiment, Dr. vom Saal and his team demonstrated that BPA levels went up to 185 times higher, “an absolute monster effect,” after the use of skin products such as hand sanitizers, sunscreens, and moisturizers. These products often contain chemicals called “dermal penetration enhancers” that break down the skin’s protective barrier to enhance delivery of the products’ active ingredients.
To learn more, check out our Resources.
Take the pledge – say “no” to single-use plastic.
FacebookTwitterLinkedIn" https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/blog/2016/12/23/is-bpa-on-thermal-paper-a-health-hazard