We really need a concept of scale when it comes to branding a chemical "toxic". Small amounts for particular purposes are not harmful. Being everywhere may cause some problems.
And that's part of the problem with PFAS, because you can release them in tiny fractions (not toxic at this scale) but they end up concentrating in the food chain and people are still being harmed in the end.
Can you point me to a study showing definitive harm due to bioaccumulation of expected exposure levels? EPAs own page cleverly dodges the issue by saying (1) it can accumulate and (2) high exposure levels can cause harm. But the exposure levels we've seen in the studies evidencing harm are thousands of times higher than any observed bioaccumulation. For me to be concerned about environmental exposure, I'm going to actually need to see some science showing somebody was harmed given the range of expected exposure mechanisms and expected exposure levels.
We know PFAS levels in the environment can only increase in practice due to their very low degradation rate (hence their “forever chemicals” nickname). So even if these harmful levels aren't being reached now, they will definitely be at some point of we keep pouring them out there. And by that time it would be too late.
You don't wait for someone to be harm before intervening when the harm is likely.
You seem to think there’s piles stacking up all over the place. We’re talking parts per trillion, or smaller. The sun may burn out before we encounter quantities sufficient to be harmful.
There are already plenty (literally hundreds) of places where the amount accumulated in the environment already exceeds safe limits (mostly in the immediate vicinity of chemical plants processing them, or fire departments which use them extensively).
You said you cared about science in the first message but you obviously don't.
Still waiting on that study showing harmful effects due to bioaccumulation. Of course acute exposure can be harmful. The same is true of oxygen. The question is whether there are harmful bioaccumulative pathways. I’ve seen no science to support that.
Teflon (PTFE) is not toxic. It is approved by the FDA for use in implantable medical devices. At normal working temperatures, it is one of the most chemically and biologically inert materials known to exist. PTFE has a number of unique properties that make it an irreplaceable material in a wide variety of applications.
Some of the feedstock chemicals used to produce PTFE are likely toxic. The most concerning of these is perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); this is one of the chemicals that the EPA proposal applies to. Most manufacturers of PTFE have already voluntarily phased out the use of PFOA. There is some debate about whether the replacement feedstock chemicals are meaningfully less toxic. These feedstock chemicals can - and should - be prevented from ever entering the environment, which would largely nullify concerns about their toxicity.
The maximum safe temperature for PTFE is uncertain, with many conflicting sources. Depending on your risk tolerance, you might accept anywhere from 200C to 250C. The former is easy to exceed by accident (personally tested using an IR thermometer), the latter is only likely to happen if you use incorrect technique, e.g. trying to sear meat on it, or leaving a hot pan unattended. PTFE is only suitable for gentle cooking.
The quality of the pan also makes a difference; cheap ones often use very thin metal that doesn't spread the heat well, resulting in hot spots.
I recommend using an IR thermometer to learn how your personal cooking setup behaves.
Is it? The reference I found quickly suggests that PTFE needs to be heated a bit above 530F before it starts to cause problems, and that’s not a normal cooking temperature for basically any purpose other than pizza.
Unfortunately, most stoves do no adequately control temperature, and it’s easy to reach that temperature by accident.
We're not allowed to begin bailing the water out of the sinking ship until the ship is sunk.
You'd think we'd finally have gotten far enough in education to not be so easily carrot and sticked. But damn. People coming out of the woodwork in this thread to defend literal world contamination.
No, he's saying we shouldn't use PFAS for carpet or military firefighting, but we should for semiconductor manufacturing where we have control over waste streams.
That's a very bad faith paraphrase of their single comment in this thread:
> For what it's worth, depending on the harms, a sudden total ban is not out of the question as being beneficial to humanity as a whole. It would just be disruptive to enterprise, boo hoo. We don't need to always treat bad actors with kid gloves.
Humanity is currently set to die off, starting in about 2040, because of falling fertility. Microplastics acts as endocrine disruptors, making everyone less fecund. It is the single greatest existential threat to our species.
And that's part of the problem with PFAS, because you can release them in tiny fractions (not toxic at this scale) but they end up concentrating in the food chain and people are still being harmed in the end.