Decades ago, Kris Hansen showed 3M that its PFAS chemicals were in people’s bodies. Her bosses halted her work. As the EPA now forces the removal of the chemicals from drinking water, she wrestles with the secrets that 3M kept from her and the world.
Discovered during the Manhattan Project, these ‘waterproof’ chemicals bind to every living thing’s cells with only bad results. 3M knew since the late 70’s and has continued to manufacture enough to contaminate all the freshwater on Earth.
In April, the EPA took two historic steps to reduce exposure to PFAS. It said that PFOS and PFOA are “likely to cause cancer” and that no level of either chemical is considered safe; it deemed them hazardous substances under the Superfund law, increasing the government’s power to force polluters to clean them up. The agency also set limits for six PFAS in drinking water. In a few years, when the EPA begins enforcing the new regulations, local utilities will be required to test their water and remove any amount of PFOS or PFOA which exceeds four parts per trillion — the equivalent of one drop dissolved in several Olympic swimming pools. 3M has produced enough PFOS and chemicals that degrade into PFOS to exceed this level in all of the freshwater on earth. Meanwhile, many other PFAS continue to be used, and companies are still developing new ones. Thousands of the compounds have been produced; the Department of Defense still depends on many for use in explosives, semiconductors, cleaning fluids and batteries. PFAS can be found in nonstick cookware, guitar strings, dental floss, makeup, hand sanitizer, brake fluid, ski wax, fishing lines and countless other products.
This article is about PFOS so why are you bringing up another chemical discontinued 20 years ago ? I mean, other than fanning the flames of the FOREVER CHEMICALS moral panic ?
Probably not yet...at least, not good, solid numbers. There's a study out of the University of Michigan that claimed to find that certain PFAS chemicals could double the risk for certain cancers in women with previous cancer diagnoses. Sounds from the abstract that it was just a correlational study (meaning it just shows a relationship between exposure and risk, but doesn't show that PFAS caused the increased risk...if you're interested in why a correlation doesn't establish causation, this site is a fun way to learn more https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)
There's a lot of different PFAS chemicals and a lot of different cancers, so there's gonna be a lot of work required to nail it all down.
The article is several thousand words...none of which talk about a causal link or dose response in humans, which is the demographic I assumed the person I was replying to was curious about. It took me less time to find primary sources and link them than to read the biography of Ms. Hanson.
Thanks ! That's a way better answer than the other guy who recommended blocking all lemmy.ml users, instead of answering.
Still the previous comment has 10x more negative votes so any dissenting voices are already silenced by the cultists even before we get deamplified, blocked, deleted and banned.