New PFAS discovered with novel testing method(research.unc.edu)
research.unc.edu
New PFAS discovered with novel testing method
https://research.unc.edu/2023/12/12/carolina-chemists-discover-eight-new-pfas-with-novel-testing-method/
89 comments
It's actually fascinating just how much power private business has to keep their chemical lists private _now_, in the _past_ and concievably in the future.
The fact that we can't just ask them "what were you chemically making 20 years ago" is really an absurd blackhole in regulatory frameworks.
Basically, even the leading edge regulatory frameworks tackling PFAS are doing so _after it's polluted things_ and has _no idea_ what they're associated with, other than large scale manufacturing, 3M, etc.
On the one hand, it's easy to understand since manufaturing has so many different components, but a sheer "there's clearly chemists somewhere, making this shit up and detailing what they're doing" issue, it's pathetic.
The fact that we can't just ask them "what were you chemically making 20 years ago" is really an absurd blackhole in regulatory frameworks.
Basically, even the leading edge regulatory frameworks tackling PFAS are doing so _after it's polluted things_ and has _no idea_ what they're associated with, other than large scale manufacturing, 3M, etc.
On the one hand, it's easy to understand since manufaturing has so many different components, but a sheer "there's clearly chemists somewhere, making this shit up and detailing what they're doing" issue, it's pathetic.
It's not pathetic, it's a collection issue. Estimate the cost of setting up that regulatory framework, and the cost of that reporting on the businesses themselves, and you'll quickly understand why it hasn't been done. Even the cost of estimating, is itself a cost. Without proper awareness of the issue and incentive to fix, a lack of that information isn't anything other than a natural consequence of reality.
> Without proper awareness of the issue and incentive to fix
They were aware, and the incentive to fix was there. There have been consistent and sustained attempt to cover up these issues for decades, because of sheer greed.
They were aware, and the incentive to fix was there. There have been consistent and sustained attempt to cover up these issues for decades, because of sheer greed.
So greed was the strongest incentive? That means they weren't properly incentivized.
I grew up in a poor town that sourced water from the Cape Fear river. There were two major factories in our immediate area: one that made paper and the other made industrial chemicals. The Dupont plant mentioned in the article was 10 miles upstream from where we were. We knew it was better to buy bottled water than to drink what came through the pipes. Grateful for the scientists and journalists for their work exposing all of this.
Just remember: When you buy bottled water, you don't really know where it comes from, and what contaminants are in it.
Don't assume that bottled water is any safer (or more dangerous) than your tap. After all, when you look at the fine print of cheaper bottled waters, you'll often see something like "Sourced from the XXX municipal water supply."
I also remember staying at the Poland Springs resort and observing that they had septic tanks a 10 minute walk away from the "shrine" to the original "Poland Spring," and finding trash in the woods that had been there for years.
Don't assume that bottled water is any safer (or more dangerous) than your tap. After all, when you look at the fine print of cheaper bottled waters, you'll often see something like "Sourced from the XXX municipal water supply."
I also remember staying at the Poland Springs resort and observing that they had septic tanks a 10 minute walk away from the "shrine" to the original "Poland Spring," and finding trash in the woods that had been there for years.
Most municipal water supplies are safer than the piping systems or the private wells.
In sheer probability, your 'dont do X' is really a minority outlier and doesn't help anyone.
In sheer probability, your 'dont do X' is really a minority outlier and doesn't help anyone.
> Most municipal water supplies are safer than the piping systems or the private wells.
I used to work in municipal water software and I don't think this statement can be said broadly. It helps to segregate discussion of water into segments:
- Water extraction and storage health
- Water mainline delivery health
- Water lateral/service line health
Extraction and storage are usually pretty good across the board. Mainline can vary and lateral/service line varies highly in quality.
Mainline health usually comes down to maintaining pressure and flow, especially at the end of a service area. In some cities you'll see them dump water from the hydrant, other cities don't have such good hygiene (and stagnant water is dangerous). Service lines have historically been considered on the owner to deal with; there's now federal funding to fight things line lead service lines (of which there are still huge amounts). Service lines do impact overall water health though, as not every water meter or mainline connection has backflow prevention.
I used to work in municipal water software and I don't think this statement can be said broadly. It helps to segregate discussion of water into segments:
- Water extraction and storage health
- Water mainline delivery health
- Water lateral/service line health
Extraction and storage are usually pretty good across the board. Mainline can vary and lateral/service line varies highly in quality.
Mainline health usually comes down to maintaining pressure and flow, especially at the end of a service area. In some cities you'll see them dump water from the hydrant, other cities don't have such good hygiene (and stagnant water is dangerous). Service lines have historically been considered on the owner to deal with; there's now federal funding to fight things line lead service lines (of which there are still huge amounts). Service lines do impact overall water health though, as not every water meter or mainline connection has backflow prevention.
I find your comment offensive: “don’t SUPPOSE x” is very different of “dont DO x” as it’s just a paraphrase of “x is a misconception”.
Furthermore he may be a minority (or not, all we know is you both have a different social circle) but that just make him someone with originals idea so let’s listen instead of blaming (please).
Furthermore he may be a minority (or not, all we know is you both have a different social circle) but that just make him someone with originals idea so let’s listen instead of blaming (please).
What in the world are you talking about?
I might have misunderstood his comment (not english native) and present my apologies if i did.
However my understanding is that proclaiming someone opinion is a “minority outlier” without any more info or source is rude and close minded. Also, how do you understand “minority” in his comment?
It’s like saying “I have a different opinion of yours and I think your opinion is not popular here so shut up please.” By the reactions, his post brought interest and more ideas from others so it’s a good think he didn’t auto-censored.
However my understanding is that proclaiming someone opinion is a “minority outlier” without any more info or source is rude and close minded. Also, how do you understand “minority” in his comment?
It’s like saying “I have a different opinion of yours and I think your opinion is not popular here so shut up please.” By the reactions, his post brought interest and more ideas from others so it’s a good think he didn’t auto-censored.
Good point. What happened to feduciary-style responsibilities for executives in their duties to customers?
Let me give you the data to back it up:
https://www.wpr.org/dnr-says-bottled-water-companies-arent-r....
One 2021 study found PFAS in 39 out of 101 bottled water products that ranged in levels from almost zero to nearly 19 parts per trillion. David Strifling is director of the Water Law and Policy Initiative at Marquette University Law School. He said there’s no general assurance that bottled water is safer than tap water.
Let me give you the data to back it up:
https://www.wpr.org/dnr-says-bottled-water-companies-arent-r....
One 2021 study found PFAS in 39 out of 101 bottled water products that ranged in levels from almost zero to nearly 19 parts per trillion. David Strifling is director of the Water Law and Policy Initiative at Marquette University Law School. He said there’s no general assurance that bottled water is safer than tap water.
The fascinating thing is there PFAS free water
I don’t see why this is conceptually hard to achieve with reverse osmosis.
conceptually, not hard. the issue is scale and transport.
Or even to their non-customer stakeholders!
The meme that corporations exist exclusively for the benefit of shareholders is a very recent, very extreme phenomenon, yielding exactly the sort of results you would expect. Externalizing costs, especially in ways that are dispersed enough not to be addressable by any particular affected party, is the whole point of the modern enterprise. It wasn’t always this way and it need not be this way in the future.
The meme that corporations exist exclusively for the benefit of shareholders is a very recent, very extreme phenomenon, yielding exactly the sort of results you would expect. Externalizing costs, especially in ways that are dispersed enough not to be addressable by any particular affected party, is the whole point of the modern enterprise. It wasn’t always this way and it need not be this way in the future.
Okay but if I was living downstream from these plants, I'd still take my chances on bottled water that's coming from elsewhere. :P
Sure. But if you know for a fact that your tap water is contaminated it’s logical to buy water from elsewhere. Maybe look for ones that have been filtered with RO.
Still makes me uncomfortable even using the shower when I'm down in Shallotte for the same reason!
How safe are these? It is cool science, but so far PFAS seem to be poisoning us. Are some PFAS considered safe? Or as a class are they all harmful?
Details: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-hea...
Details: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-hea...
The substantive claim against PFAS is that they're very persistent in the environment, can bioaccumulate, and end up in places we didn't anticipate (e.g., in the rain). This is a good argument for scaling back.
Separately from this, there's some science to suggest that PFAS are harmful to humans, but at doses very much higher than experienced by the general population. Many of the headlines about PFAS being detected in weird places involve parts per trillion, and at that level, no health impacts have been demonstrated. Even for lead and ethylmercury in water, the norms are in parts per billion.
Then, there's a cottage industry of anti-progress doomsayers who want to equate it to a handful of big environmental missteps of the past, so the lines get blurred. Same as with microplastics, where you're bombarded with headlines about them being found in random places and being vaguely bad for you.
Separately from this, there's some science to suggest that PFAS are harmful to humans, but at doses very much higher than experienced by the general population. Many of the headlines about PFAS being detected in weird places involve parts per trillion, and at that level, no health impacts have been demonstrated. Even for lead and ethylmercury in water, the norms are in parts per billion.
Then, there's a cottage industry of anti-progress doomsayers who want to equate it to a handful of big environmental missteps of the past, so the lines get blurred. Same as with microplastics, where you're bombarded with headlines about them being found in random places and being vaguely bad for you.
> and at that level, no health impacts have been demonstrated.
Right, but since it bio-accumulates even if your exposure is low over the decades you may accumulate enough of it for it to affect your health. If your body can't get rid of it then it's not the dosage that counts anymore, it's the total exposure over your lifetime that matters.
Right, but since it bio-accumulates even if your exposure is low over the decades you may accumulate enough of it for it to affect your health. If your body can't get rid of it then it's not the dosage that counts anymore, it's the total exposure over your lifetime that matters.
Your argument about "total exposure over a lifetime" can be applied to literally every single thing people ingest or do.
Can be, but the ones that we know are harmful, like lead, have or are being removed from the cycle. I'm sure you're doing a logical fallacy of sorts here, appeal to tradition or something - just because it happens with something else, doesn't make it right.
No, we shit, piss, and/or otherwise emit most things back out. Chemicals which genuinely bioaccumulate are naturally rare and we should be careful with them.
the point of PFAS and the related fear is that 1) they are NOT rare and are everywhere, and 2) we don't piss them out
Hi! I'm Clippy. It looks like you are trying to make a point. Maybe I can help?
Because you definitely need it if you thought your comment did anything.
Because you definitely need it if you thought your comment did anything.
If they were measuring dangerous levels of bioaccumulation then you can be sure we'd hear about it. You'd need to live 1000 years though given the levels we're talking about.
This is not self-evident. Biology is extremely complex and we have a lot left to learn before we can make definitive statements about safety. This idea of 'you can be sure we'd hear about it' places too much of the burden on journalists, random medical researchers, and eventually regulators to suss out what is going on.
As it stands in our system today any awareness we may have about dangers will come far after the danger to us, and then we'll all say a collective 'oops' as we've had to do the last hundred times. Look no further than all the 'I [live near the plant/play on the field/drink the water] and have [cancer/autoimmune/rare disease/etc]' stories that keep coming out year after year.
As it stands in our system today any awareness we may have about dangers will come far after the danger to us, and then we'll all say a collective 'oops' as we've had to do the last hundred times. Look no further than all the 'I [live near the plant/play on the field/drink the water] and have [cancer/autoimmune/rare disease/etc]' stories that keep coming out year after year.
There's lots of evidence that long-chain PFAS can bioaccumulate across generations. You don't need to live a millennium personally. (Also the effects are disproportionately bad on infants, so you don't need 1000 years of generations either.)
Also we didn't really stop putting them in the water yet...
Also we didn't really stop putting them in the water yet...
> you can be sure we’d hear from it
If it’s widely used and profitable to many, you can be sure you won’t hear from it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
If it’s widely used and profitable to many, you can be sure you won’t hear from it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
Or you just need to be a fetus.
Yes, did you know, fetuses start as single cells?
Yes, did you know, fetuses start as single cells?
We are in the stone ages of medicinal and biological understanding. We have no idea what levels or forms of exposure are "safe", not only for humans but the ecosystem as a whole.
Parts per trillion are small, but can still be bad for you. And this is an area of active study, the old threshold of 70 ppt was dropped a thousandfold recently:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/stricter-federal-...
The Wolverine shoe leather tannery up the road dumped their ScotchGuard contaminated scraps/waste in the swamps behind a farm owned by a family friend back in the 70s and 80s. Now my well water is contaminated with a few parts per trillion of PFAS, and the PFAS levels in my blood are significantly higher than the threshold of proven harm.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/stricter-federal-...
The Wolverine shoe leather tannery up the road dumped their ScotchGuard contaminated scraps/waste in the swamps behind a farm owned by a family friend back in the 70s and 80s. Now my well water is contaminated with a few parts per trillion of PFAS, and the PFAS levels in my blood are significantly higher than the threshold of proven harm.
How were you able to get a blood test?
Everyone in the township was invited/asked to participate in this study:
https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/safety-injury-prev/environmen...
https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/safety-injury-prev/environmen...
>Same as with microplastics, where you're bombarded with headlines about them being found in random places and being vaguely bad for you.
Compounds in plastics mimic hormones putting everyone (and the whole biosphere) on low grade hormone replacement. There's not a question about "if", but "how much". They are biologically active, they are present inside you.
Compounds in plastics mimic hormones putting everyone (and the whole biosphere) on low grade hormone replacement. There's not a question about "if", but "how much". They are biologically active, they are present inside you.
I think many people would rather get upset about some miniscule detection in a random place than take a hard look at their own home where their highest exposure is.
As someone who lived in a place that's still dealing with pfoa contamination, your characterization of "anti-progress doomsayers" feels insensitive. If you tell people that they and their kids have toxic chemicals in their blood at 100x the normal concentration they're going to be concerned. Writing them off as outliers is dismissive and misses the point; it doesn't matter if things are safe in small doses if companies can't be trusted to avoid exposing people to unsafe doses.
From a 2016 study in Vermont:
> More than 400 wells tested positive for PFOA. More than 300 wells had concentrations at levels greater than the state’s PFOA/PFOS drinking water standard of 20 parts per trillion (ppt). The maximum level of PFOA detected in a private drinking water well was 4,600 ppt.
https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/PFAS%20Sam...
From a 2016 study in Vermont:
> More than 400 wells tested positive for PFOA. More than 300 wells had concentrations at levels greater than the state’s PFOA/PFOS drinking water standard of 20 parts per trillion (ppt). The maximum level of PFOA detected in a private drinking water well was 4,600 ppt.
https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/PFAS%20Sam...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanesulfonic_acid
Thanks for posting the (ppt) 20 ppt. It looks like all the animals have higher levels.
One example, with a Science(TM) paywall, cited on the wiki - Great tit near 3M, Port of Antwerp, Belgium 2007 liver 553–11,359[39]
Had a 553-11,359ppb from liver tests published in 2006.
Really happy we moved away from ppb to ppt.
Thanks for posting the (ppt) 20 ppt. It looks like all the animals have higher levels.
One example, with a Science(TM) paywall, cited on the wiki - Great tit near 3M, Port of Antwerp, Belgium 2007 liver 553–11,359[39]
Had a 553-11,359ppb from liver tests published in 2006.
Really happy we moved away from ppb to ppt.
I mean, we’ve understood negative impacts of climate change for like a hundred years now, and minimizer propaganda is still winning the information war for a majority of the planet, and some 40% of Americans.
I don’t think there’s any issue at all with getting ahead of forever chemicals and regulating them before it gets to climate change levels of disaster (in some deregulation parts of the country, it will soon be legal to contaminate the soil and groundwater with pfas and radioactive materials because some politicians friend wants to sell their companies waste to road work).
I am sorry, but I simply disagree that the issue is minimal here. We should be treating this as if it’s already out of control and stamping it out before propaganda pieces settle and let it become out of control.
I don’t think there’s any issue at all with getting ahead of forever chemicals and regulating them before it gets to climate change levels of disaster (in some deregulation parts of the country, it will soon be legal to contaminate the soil and groundwater with pfas and radioactive materials because some politicians friend wants to sell their companies waste to road work).
I am sorry, but I simply disagree that the issue is minimal here. We should be treating this as if it’s already out of control and stamping it out before propaganda pieces settle and let it become out of control.
great summary! I wrote a blog post focusing on DWR clothing, but ended up covering PFAS human and animal studies and concentration sampling. Overall with very similar conclusions: https://open.substack.com/pub/molecularspec/p/water-repellen...
However, if we are able to better detect them, we can build better remediation which we need.
However, if we are able to better detect them, we can build better remediation which we need.
The problem with PFAS isn't the amount found in the general environment, it's the amount found in the immediate area around factories that produce them or apply them to products.
>> and at that level, no health impacts have been demonstrated
But again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The fact is, our ability to detect harmful health effects, particularly over the long term, is still in its absolute infancy. There is absolutely no reason to declare things safe until proven unsafe, particularly, particularly when you look with a historical lens.
The damage of a chemical will always be greater than what we can measure, because science (measuring blood levels of tens of thousands of people with mass spectometry and correlating against long-term health events like cancer) is incredibly hard, expensive, and slow.
As a thought experiment, suppose a chemical released in the water increased emotional irritability by 1%, or ADD by 2%, or reduced sperm count by 3%? What are the odds that we'd be able to conduct a study sensitive enough to prove the link? And what are the odds that anybody would happen to guess that correlation existed and choose to look in the first place?
But again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The fact is, our ability to detect harmful health effects, particularly over the long term, is still in its absolute infancy. There is absolutely no reason to declare things safe until proven unsafe, particularly, particularly when you look with a historical lens.
The damage of a chemical will always be greater than what we can measure, because science (measuring blood levels of tens of thousands of people with mass spectometry and correlating against long-term health events like cancer) is incredibly hard, expensive, and slow.
As a thought experiment, suppose a chemical released in the water increased emotional irritability by 1%, or ADD by 2%, or reduced sperm count by 3%? What are the odds that we'd be able to conduct a study sensitive enough to prove the link? And what are the odds that anybody would happen to guess that correlation existed and choose to look in the first place?
> There is absolutely no reason to declare things safe until proven unsafe
I wish i could upvote this more
>> and at that level, no health impacts have been demonstrated
There’s a really important distinction between these two mindsets. The presumption that small amounts of chemicals should have to be demonstrated harmful to be considered toxic, is a mindset that is common in the self-identified scientifically skeptical, yet is anything but. It’s somewhere between careless - something like “humans have always consumed whatever is in the environment, therefore that’s the baseline” - and simply parroting corporate propaganda and lobbyist talking points.
I wish i could upvote this more
>> and at that level, no health impacts have been demonstrated
There’s a really important distinction between these two mindsets. The presumption that small amounts of chemicals should have to be demonstrated harmful to be considered toxic, is a mindset that is common in the self-identified scientifically skeptical, yet is anything but. It’s somewhere between careless - something like “humans have always consumed whatever is in the environment, therefore that’s the baseline” - and simply parroting corporate propaganda and lobbyist talking points.
Checknthrowup238's response elsewhere for a great response. You seem to recognize the properties of PFAS but wave away the risk over time.
Like asbestos, we should shelve this substance, even if it's good at what it does.
Like asbestos, we should shelve this substance, even if it's good at what it does.
> Are some PFAS considered safe? Or as a class are they all harmful?
I don't think many chemists want to admit that there's very little reason to believe any PFAS formulation could ever really be safe. Perhaps one could be designed to break down faster and be less bioaccumulating in animals but realistically their mechanism of action as surfactants - the reason they're so industrially useful - is the very reason they're toxic to living organisms.
Surfactants fundamentally change the surface tension of water and other fluids which has an effect on everything from how biological surfaces adhere to each other (including to the internal extracellular matrix that most multicellular life depends on to organize its cells) to how proteins fold together. Normally surfactants like soap, lecithin in egg yolks, and glycolipids are not a problem because they're immediately biodegradable but not PFAS.
The carbon-flourine bonds that make them so resistant to breakdown and so bioaccumulating are the reason why they work in such a wide range of industrial environments, surviving high temperature and strong redox reagents that would normally rip apart any other molecule. It's the worst kind of catch 22. The whole class should be banned and the industry forced to live with the consequences like all the anti-fouling agents that are banned in the maritime industry.
I don't think many chemists want to admit that there's very little reason to believe any PFAS formulation could ever really be safe. Perhaps one could be designed to break down faster and be less bioaccumulating in animals but realistically their mechanism of action as surfactants - the reason they're so industrially useful - is the very reason they're toxic to living organisms.
Surfactants fundamentally change the surface tension of water and other fluids which has an effect on everything from how biological surfaces adhere to each other (including to the internal extracellular matrix that most multicellular life depends on to organize its cells) to how proteins fold together. Normally surfactants like soap, lecithin in egg yolks, and glycolipids are not a problem because they're immediately biodegradable but not PFAS.
The carbon-flourine bonds that make them so resistant to breakdown and so bioaccumulating are the reason why they work in such a wide range of industrial environments, surviving high temperature and strong redox reagents that would normally rip apart any other molecule. It's the worst kind of catch 22. The whole class should be banned and the industry forced to live with the consequences like all the anti-fouling agents that are banned in the maritime industry.
This applies only to small molecule PFAS, not PFAS polymers, which are about as inert as you can get. You need the small molecules to make the polymers, but there's no reason you need to release them into the environment. Strong regulation (e.g. Chinese style, with lengthy prison sentences or death penalty for CEOs of companies violating them) could enforce strict containment of the reactions and safe disposal of the waste with techniques such as supercritical water oxidation.
This would increase the cost, but there's no good substitute for PFAS polymers, so people who really needed them would be willing to pay.
This would increase the cost, but there's no good substitute for PFAS polymers, so people who really needed them would be willing to pay.
If the case is that clear, then perhaps so could regulatory enforcement?
This was a great simple, explanation of the reason for the harm and why small amounts matter. Thank you
Unless I misunderstood the article, the UNC researchers developed a way to detect more PFAS in the water. They didn’t develop new PFAS.
Good video on the topic here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8qGtEVh7oQ
> Researchers collaborating with Baker’s lab collected samples from North Carolina’s Cape Fear River in 2016. Using this new detection method, they tested the samples and found 47 different PFAS. Of those, 11 had not been previously detected in the river, and eight had not been detected anywhere outside of a lab.
Chemours, a renamed DuPont factory, has been caught dumping PFAS into the river before. Funnily enough, it was spun off partially in order to assume liabilities against DuPont from the various lawsuits they had against them for very similar reasons.
There are also multiple superfund sites along the river. Pollution has been an issue for decades and yet nothing ever really seems to change.
Chemours, a renamed DuPont factory, has been caught dumping PFAS into the river before. Funnily enough, it was spun off partially in order to assume liabilities against DuPont from the various lawsuits they had against them for very similar reasons.
There are also multiple superfund sites along the river. Pollution has been an issue for decades and yet nothing ever really seems to change.
> yet nothing ever really seems to change.
That's not an accident.
> To avoid responsibility for what many experts believe is a public health crisis, leading chemical companies like Chemours, DuPont and 3M have deployed a potent mix of tactics.
> They have used public charm offensives to persuade regulators and lawmakers to back off. They have engineered complex corporate transactions to shield themselves from legal liability. And they have rolled out a conveyor belt of scantly tested substitute chemicals that sometimes turn out to be just as dangerous as their predecessors.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/business/chemours-dupont-...
That's not an accident.
> To avoid responsibility for what many experts believe is a public health crisis, leading chemical companies like Chemours, DuPont and 3M have deployed a potent mix of tactics.
> They have used public charm offensives to persuade regulators and lawmakers to back off. They have engineered complex corporate transactions to shield themselves from legal liability. And they have rolled out a conveyor belt of scantly tested substitute chemicals that sometimes turn out to be just as dangerous as their predecessors.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/business/chemours-dupont-...
Well, that is interesting to detect new PFAS chemicals in water. Then, we get this this neat tidbit:
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) keeps a list of more than 14,000 known or potential per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)."
Why do we need 14,000+ different PFAS substances? I honestly did not know there was this many out there.
Why do we need 14,000+ different PFAS substances? I honestly did not know there was this many out there.
When we do chemical reactions (specially organic) we always have some by products
One word: Patents
So that when one is banned for causing cancer you can just tweak the formula so that it's technically different assume can bypass bans even though it's essentially the same thing and just as toxic.
Drug analogue laws pass to enforce against this behavior in the medical space. I wonder how this is different.
Unrelated to the content:
The chemists are from UNC and the article writer from NC State University. Is it common to just use just "Carolina" when referring to locals instead of "North Carolina" (to differentiate from the South)?
The chemists are from UNC and the article writer from NC State University. Is it common to just use just "Carolina" when referring to locals instead of "North Carolina" (to differentiate from the South)?
Carolina, in this case, refers to the name of the institution. This is likely based on its history. UNC-Chapel Hill used to be the only public institution of higher education in the southeastern US. Over time, UNC evolved to become the name of the system of schools that includes UNC-CH, NCSU, and 15 other campuses.
To this day, however, UNC-CH is still often referred to as Carolina, UNC, Chapel Hill, or - for athletics - the Tar Heels.
To this day, however, UNC-CH is still often referred to as Carolina, UNC, Chapel Hill, or - for athletics - the Tar Heels.
to be clear, the connection is more than colloquial. NCSU and the others you mention are formally "constituent institutions" under "the UNC system" (although this comes as a surprise to most NCSU students).
https://catalog.unc.edu/about/unc-system/
https://catalog.unc.edu/about/unc-system/
Kinda like how UC-Berkeley refers to itself as "California" or just "Cal"
Thanks for this. I went through the article again and it doesn't even hint at that usage. I suppose it's a bit like "America" coming to mean just one country.
I grew up in Chapel Hill and yes UNC Chapel Hill refers to itself as "Carolina" (in sports [1], research [2], and name [3]).
It's less commonly recognized outside the state... I live in NYC now and often have to catch myself when I say something like "I'm headed back to visit a friend at Carolina" since it almost always results in "oh? which one?"
[1] https://shop.goheels.com/mens-fanatics-branded-black-north-c...
[2] https://research.unc.edu/?s=Carolina
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwi4dIT-jIY
It's less commonly recognized outside the state... I live in NYC now and often have to catch myself when I say something like "I'm headed back to visit a friend at Carolina" since it almost always results in "oh? which one?"
[1] https://shop.goheels.com/mens-fanatics-branded-black-north-c...
[2] https://research.unc.edu/?s=Carolina
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwi4dIT-jIY
I've spent a decent amount of time in NC (and a little bit of time in SC), and I've never heard of "Carolina" as a generic term for just NC. The closest I've heard is "the Carolinas" for both NC and SC.
cultural counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_in_My_Mind
There is also the Carolina Panthers.
In the case of the Panthers "Carolina" refers to both states, which is why the logo is the combined outline of North Carolina and South Carolina.
Seems like a smart way to lay a claim to a bigger market rather than being tied to a specific city or state.
Seems like a smart way to lay a claim to a bigger market rather than being tied to a specific city or state.
Used that way Carolina refers to UNC chapel hill, not north carolina the state. It's an extremely common local usage when talking about the university sports teams. It's less pervasive but still very common for referring to the university itself.
Does this cause any kind of conflict with South Carolinians?
Yes. South Carolina is the only state in the country where “Carolina” isn’t synonymous with “UNC”. It conflicts with the University of South Carolina. Which also has the issue of having the less popular side of the overlapping acronym with University of Southern California (USC).
Go Cocks!
Go Cocks!
Phosphorus in Watch Factories > Lead in Paint > Asbestos in everything > PFAS in the global water supply, (unevenly distributed but considerable just the same.)
I probably skipped a few pernicious enviro-toxin whoopsies but still--Its almost like there's a pattern about to emerge here.
All elected officials (mayors, governors, members of the various legislatures) should be required to drink one glass of water from the most polluted body of water in their jurisdiction once each month. A simple carbon filter might be allowed, such as the kind used by backpackers.
The fact that PFAS are everywhere and have been for decades is IMHO itself evidence that they aren't actually as big of a problem as some want to believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Global_...
Most industrialized nations have average PFOA blood serum levels ranging from 2 to 8 parts per billion;[57] the highest consumer sub-population identified was in Korea—with about 60 parts per billion.[52] In Peru,[58] Vietnam,[59] and Afghanistan[60] blood serum levels have been recorded to be below one part per billion. In 2003–2004 99.7% of Americans had detectable PFOA in their serum with an average of about 4 parts per billion
I know correlation is not causation, but look up the corresponding other statistics about those countries' population health such as life expectancy, and that data seems to suggest the exact opposite to "PFAS are harmful".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Global_...
Most industrialized nations have average PFOA blood serum levels ranging from 2 to 8 parts per billion;[57] the highest consumer sub-population identified was in Korea—with about 60 parts per billion.[52] In Peru,[58] Vietnam,[59] and Afghanistan[60] blood serum levels have been recorded to be below one part per billion. In 2003–2004 99.7% of Americans had detectable PFOA in their serum with an average of about 4 parts per billion
I know correlation is not causation, but look up the corresponding other statistics about those countries' population health such as life expectancy, and that data seems to suggest the exact opposite to "PFAS are harmful".
From the same page:
As of November 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) based on “sufficient” evidence for cancer in animals and “strong” mechanistic evidence in exposed humans.[119]
As of November 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) based on “sufficient” evidence for cancer in animals and “strong” mechanistic evidence in exposed humans.[119]
A lot of other things are in group 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_1_Carcinogens#Chemi...
Alcoholic beverages
Processed meat (consumption of)
Tobacco smoking
...including things that people will voluntarily ingest without much worry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_1_Carcinogens#Chemi...
Alcoholic beverages
Processed meat (consumption of)
Tobacco smoking
...including things that people will voluntarily ingest without much worry.
[deleted]
I guess we just ignore the sky rocketing cancer rates? About 50% of my generation can expect to get cancer, for younger generations it's pretty much a guarantee.
This feels like deja vu: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38676779
Given how much PFAS has been found in remote corners of the world, I think it is safe to assume that most of the world has been touched by PFAS. Everywhere humans try to find PFAS, we find it. The reason we hear about it so often now is that we are checking for it everywhere. And like the article describes, there are new PFAS being discovered all the time.
This is a generational issue.