Veritasium had video explaining about PFAS and environment protections that were needed to keep people/animals from being sick. Somewhere around minute 23 in video.
For the first half he seems to constantly mix up C8 and Teflon. After a long section explaining that C8 is some carrier molecule used to make Teflon - he then explain C8 is used in factories and kills cows. But it's not clear C8 is anywhere other than the factory and the town around it
They then extrapolate from two chemical (C8 and C6) to just anything that remotely similar (PFAS)
Later they walk it back and say it's only a few chemicals. Actually your Teflon pan is safe. But then say thing "Blah blah was used to make waterproof..." is it in the final product? or is it part of the chemical procedure to make the product?
Is the problem the final consumer goods? Or is the problem the chemical manufacturing? (and subsequent dumping in the environment) Is this residue from after making the Teflon-like material?
The last parts I couldn't follow at all b/c it was a acronym soup of a ton of chemicals that aren't really explained. At this point I'd lost all faith in the presenters impartiality. Seems like he's just trying to stoke outrage for engagement
PFAS is short for 'Per- and poly- FluoroAlkyl Substances'. The Teflon that's used on your pans, which are 'poly-' materials, comes in extra long chains (hundreds of thousands of molecules). Most of its chemical bonds are hidden behind the extremely reactive Fluoride atoms (so if Fluoride is bonded onto that position, it's hard to take it off) and are extremely inert, so they don't interfere with typical biological reactions, thus are perfectly safe.
C8 is known as PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). Per for its chained molecule shape (no carbon side chains), 'fluoro' for the F part, 'octanoic' for the 8 carbon atoms, and 'acid' for its chemical property. Unlike Teflon:
- C8 has a really small molecular mass, making it easier to flow around your body participating in all kinds of biological operations;
- It is an acid (having the carboxylic '-COOH' group) and can pretend to be all kinds of acids and actively take part in reactions. Once they start to get inside, the consequences can be unpredictable and devastating.
- All other atoms on C8 except for the last -COOH group are covered by fluoride atoms. This means that C8 is not biodegradable (no enzyme can break apart the C-F covalent bond since it's bond energy is really too high), and when it gets into the environment, it stays that way.
C6 has a highly similar chemical property akin to C8 (it's a carboxylic acid, and has all atoms covered by fluoride), so is equally harmful.
I'm not sure why you're summarizing what's explained in the video.
It's clear PFAS contains chemicals that are likely dangerous (like C8) and chemicals that are likely not - like Teflon. So, unless I'm misunderstanding, as an umbrella term for dangerous chemicals it's useless from the get go.
I understand the potential danger of C8 and similar acids.. it's explained in detail. But the part that's not explained is why is it in final consumer products. It seems like a chemical that only forms a step in the processes of making Teflon (and I'm guessing other similar products). Is the problem they were just dumping it into the soil at the plant? How is it getting to polar bears? (they keep talking about polar bears)
1. Any substance that has most atoms covered by Fluoride are 'PFAS'.
2. C8 is strictly speaking PFOA (by-definition).
3. C6, and all other acids that has similar chemical properties to C8, can all be generically classified as PFOA-like materials. But for ease of communication people also call them PFOAs or just short for PFOA.
4. PFOAs are crucial for manufacturing Teflon.
5. The problem is manufacturers just dump waste water from PFAS production plants (containing PFOA) without post-processing into natural water bodies and let these toxic substances participate in the food chain and eventually land in our own bodies.
So the problem isn't PFAS or Teflon. It's the dumping of intermediary chemicals during manufacturing? This is the part that just comes off as fear mongering
How is the PFOA ending up in food? Is it from contaminated groundwater near the plant? Isn't the solution to not consumer agricultural products from that limited area?
And.. how is it ending up in polar bears?
The video just seems sensationalist. Somme chemical use in a step to make teflon is pretty toxic.. big surprise. But then it's ending up everywhere... somehow? And it's never really explained. But lots of hangwringing
Because it’s “forever chemical”. Factories release it into environment, it never chemically degrades, it gets into drinking, water, into animals and fish. You eat the animals and fish, etc.
Give it couple of decades of these cycles and you get trace amounts of those chemicals everywhere. Even where human may haven’t been.
You will notice other links in this discussion and suggested in the video - that consumer products are contaminated with these chemicals. As far as I understand these chemicals are supposed to be purely part of the manufacturing process. Is it in products or not..? Or only the non-dangerous long chains are in products? The whole discussion is muddled and unclear - and designed to spark outrage (click and subscribe! and don't forget to check NordVPN)
> Give it couple of decades of these cycles and you get trace amounts of those chemicals everywhere. Even where human may haven’t been
I skeptical this is factory run-off that goes down the rivers, dilutes in the vast gigantic ocean, and then ends up in a polar bear. Maybe that's what's happening.. but they're not dumping gigatons of this stuff and the ocean is infinitely large in volume. You'd have vastly different orders of magnitude for anyone near the river vs at the north pole..
So things aren't adding up. I'm not saying these chemicals aren't a problem. I'm just saying the discussion is disingenuous and just doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.
> As far as I understand these chemicals are supposed to be purely part of the manufacturing process. Is it in products or not..?
Video clearly states - factories did not care about cleaning it as it was uneconomical. I assume with existing “chemical whack-a-mole” current plant will not care as long as substance is not obviously banned. Secondly, video also states that even if those products are collected - they leach from landfills.
Personally I could bet that trace amounts of chemicals from “manufacturing process” still end up in final product anyways.
> Or only the non-dangerous long chains are in products?
IMHO, we should drop “non-dangerous” as a myth from teflon commercials of the 70s. As also from the video - due to heat you can consume harmful chemicals, even with acute consequences.
PFAS, from my understanding is a group of thousands of chemicals, most of them with no research on harmfulness. Though we know that some of them are directly linked to increasing some cancers or some other illnesses.
> they're not dumping gigatons of this stuff and the ocean is infinitely large in volume.
As per videos - we are talking about ridiculously miniscule amounts. Amounts in terms of couple parts per trillion of PFAS are considered harmful.
There were examples - PFAS is everywhere. Food packaging, hygiene products, tooth floss, fire extinguishers, clothes, kitchen appliances, etc. It’s manufactured all over the globe in multiple factories for seemingly everything.
It gets into the water cycle and trace amounts of PFAS is now found in polar circles and remote mountain tops from rain and snow.
We are exposed to it through water and through the things we use that contains it.
If you look for it in Mariana trench - maybe you won’t find it, but everywhere we do find it and that’s just a fact.
My personal biggest takes are:
- It’s not only c6/c8 that are harmful, there’s GenX and others thar also are and a plethora that haven’t even been tested, and they all are under PFAS umbrella;
- Most of those chemicals accumulate and don’t deteriorate. You get part per quadrillion there, part per trillion there, maybe permille next to a factory or a landfill. Give it 70 years and all animals and humans have >1 ppb of most harmful known PFAS in their blood. When we know that at 30ppb you get double chance of getting kidney cancer (and that’s just one cancer);
- The nature of indestructability is the main problem of cleaning it up. It doesn’t matter if something is “only used in manufacturing process”. It’s already somewhere, in the product, on the packaging, in the water that cleans the factory, in the landfill that collects it;
I think you're engaging in the same hysteria as the video
> It’s already somewhere, in the product, on the packaging, in the water that cleans the factory, in the landfill that collects it
If the chemical is used during manufacturing.. why would it do anywhere outside the factory? Why would it not be infinitely reused? It's just used as part of the way they deposit the harmless teflon
> IMHO, we should drop “non-dangerous” as a myth from teflon commercials of the 70s. As also from the video - due to heat you can consume harmful chemicals, even with acute consequences.
It doesn't say that in the video. They clearly say it's not harmful
> PFAS, from my understanding is a group of thousands of chemicals, most of them with no research on harmfulness
> PFAS is everywhere. Food packaging, hygiene products, tooth floss, fire extinguishers, clothes, kitchen appliances, etc. It’s manufactured all over the globe in multiple factories for seemingly everything.
I think you didn't watch the video. Or maybe you're just hearing what you want to hear. They explain it's from a small handful of factories. It's not explained why it's in floss (if that's even true?). If it's some byproduct, then maybe the solution is not to stop using PFAS, but understanding how to eliminate the contamination from manufacturing byproducts.
They make a clear distinction between substances like teflon and stuff like C8.
> PFAS, from my understanding is a group of thousands of chemicals, most of them with no research on harmfulness
It's clear from the video some are found to be harmful while others are not. Therefore it's absurd to conclude anything about this category. The category doesn't tell you anything about safety. I'm sure an onion has thousands of chemicals "with no research on harmfulness".
The point is the starting point of this conversation is already disingenuous and poorly communicated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2eSujzrUY