PFAS have been in the news again. But somehow the following has escaped the notice of the press, as far as I’ve seen anyway. In 2017 there was an Australian Government Expert Panel assessing this issue. From that:

“The panel’s findings support the Environmental Health Standing Committee’s advice that there is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects…..It also concluded there was insufficient evidence of causation between PFAS exposure and any adverse health outcomes.”

Health Department news release here with a link to the report:

https://www.health.gov.au/news/expert-health-panels-independent-pfas-advice

buffy said:

PFAS have been in the news again. But somehow the following has escaped the notice of the press, as far as I’ve seen anyway. In 2017 there was an Australian Government Expert Panel assessing this issue. From that:

“The panel’s findings support the Environmental Health Standing Committee’s advice that there is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects…..It also concluded there was insufficient evidence of causation between PFAS exposure and any adverse health outcomes.”

Health Department news release here with a link to the report:

https://www.health.gov.au/news/expert-health-panels-independent-pfas-advice

Insufficient evidence can also mean that they didn’t look at everything.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

PFAS have been in the news again. But somehow the following has escaped the notice of the press, as far as I’ve seen anyway. In 2017 there was an Australian Government Expert Panel assessing this issue. From that:

“The panel’s findings support the Environmental Health Standing Committee’s advice that there is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects…..It also concluded there was insufficient evidence of causation between PFAS exposure and any adverse health outcomes.”

Health Department news release here with a link to the report:

https://www.health.gov.au/news/expert-health-panels-independent-pfas-advice

Insufficient evidence can also mean that they didn’t look at everything.

Or it can mean, as mentioned, that the evidence is poor enough to say “Nobody knows”.

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

PFAS have been in the news again. But somehow the following has escaped the notice of the press, as far as I’ve seen anyway. In 2017 there was an Australian Government Expert Panel assessing this issue. From that:

“The panel’s findings support the Environmental Health Standing Committee’s advice that there is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects…..It also concluded there was insufficient evidence of causation between PFAS exposure and any adverse health outcomes.”

Health Department news release here with a link to the report:

https://www.health.gov.au/news/expert-health-panels-independent-pfas-advice

Insufficient evidence can also mean that they didn’t look at everything.

Or it can mean, as mentioned, that the evidence is poor enough to say “Nobody knows”.

Nods.
I’ll give the report a good read. I see it said no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects.

I’m looking for evidence that the stuff that has an effect on everything else other than humans.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

PFAS have been in the news again. But somehow the following has escaped the notice of the press, as far as I’ve seen anyway. In 2017 there was an Australian Government Expert Panel assessing this issue. From that:

“The panel’s findings support the Environmental Health Standing Committee’s advice that there is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects…..It also concluded there was insufficient evidence of causation between PFAS exposure and any adverse health outcomes.”

Health Department news release here with a link to the report:

https://www.health.gov.au/news/expert-health-panels-independent-pfas-advice

Insufficient evidence can also mean that they didn’t look at everything.

The wording of the report is inconsistent, at least the bits quoted are.

If there is “limited evidence” there is evidence greater than zero, which is different to “no evidence”.

When assessing risks (of any kind) the standard of evidence is that the product or activity must be proved innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a legal requirement in Australia that in design of structures all risks must be removed or minimised, “so far as is reasonably practicable”.

There is no reason that the same principle should not be applied to chemicals used in fire fighting.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

PFAS have been in the news again. But somehow the following has escaped the notice of the press, as far as I’ve seen anyway. In 2017 there was an Australian Government Expert Panel assessing this issue. From that:

“The panel’s findings support the Environmental Health Standing Committee’s advice that there is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects…..It also concluded there was insufficient evidence of causation between PFAS exposure and any adverse health outcomes.”

Health Department news release here with a link to the report:

https://www.health.gov.au/news/expert-health-panels-independent-pfas-advice

Insufficient evidence can also mean that they didn’t look at everything.

The wording of the report is inconsistent, at least the bits quoted are.

If there is “limited evidence” there is evidence greater than zero, which is different to “no evidence”.

When assessing risks (of any kind) the standard of evidence is that the product or activity must be proved innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a legal requirement in Australia that in design of structures all risks must be removed or minimised, “so far as is reasonably practicable”.

There is no reason that the same principle should not be applied to chemicals used in fire fighting.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Insufficient evidence can also mean that they didn’t look at everything.

The wording of the report is inconsistent, at least the bits quoted are.

If there is “limited evidence” there is evidence greater than zero, which is different to “no evidence”.

When assessing risks (of any kind) the standard of evidence is that the product or activity must be proved innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a legal requirement in Australia that in design of structures all risks must be removed or minimised, “so far as is reasonably practicable”.

There is no reason that the same principle should not be applied to chemicals used in fire fighting.

The above is all I can find on the site.

But it’s not only used in firefighting. The reason I revisited it is because I got information from the Optometrists’ Association yesterday which gave me the link. PFAS substances are in many, many things, including contact lenses.

>>Prominent in the mainstream media this week is a story around a study which has found perfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS ‘forever chemicals’, in soft contact lenses.

The study tested 18 popular kinds of contact lenses and found extremely high levels of organic fluorine, a marker of PFAS, in each.

PFAS are a class of about 14,000 chemicals typically used to make consumer products resist water, stains and heat, and can be found in thousands of products such as dental floss, cosmetics, sunscreen, textiles, sanitary products and toilet paper. They are called ‘forever chemicals’ because they do not naturally break down. In contact lenses, PFAS are used to soften the lenses and help oxygen pass through.<<

buffy said:

But it’s not only used in firefighting. The reason I revisited it is because I got information from the Optometrists’ Association yesterday which gave me the link. PFAS substances are in many, many things, including contact lenses.

>>Prominent in the mainstream media this week is a story around a study which has found perfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS ‘forever chemicals’, in soft contact lenses.

The study tested 18 popular kinds of contact lenses and found extremely high levels of organic fluorine, a marker of PFAS, in each.

PFAS are a class of about 14,000 chemicals typically used to make consumer products resist water, stains and heat, and can be found in thousands of products such as dental floss, cosmetics, sunscreen, textiles, sanitary products and toilet paper. They are called ‘forever chemicals’ because they do not naturally break down. In contact lenses, PFAS are used to soften the lenses and help oxygen pass through.<<

I didn’t know about the lenses with PFAS in them. Nor about the rest.

I had to fiddle around a bit, but this seems to be the study pdf:

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/241032/1/PFAS%20Health%20Study%20Systematic%20Review_1.pdf

buffy said:

But it’s not only used in firefighting. The reason I revisited it is because I got information from the Optometrists’ Association yesterday which gave me the link. PFAS substances are in many, many things, including contact lenses.

>>Prominent in the mainstream media this week is a story around a study which has found perfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS ‘forever chemicals’, in soft contact lenses.

The study tested 18 popular kinds of contact lenses and found extremely high levels of organic fluorine, a marker of PFAS, in each.

PFAS are a class of about 14,000 chemicals typically used to make consumer products resist water, stains and heat, and can be found in thousands of products such as dental floss, cosmetics, sunscreen, textiles, sanitary products and toilet paper. They are called ‘forever chemicals’ because they do not naturally break down. In contact lenses, PFAS are used to soften the lenses and help oxygen pass through.<<

OK, so make that:

There is no reason that the same principle should not be applied to chemicals used in fire fighting, contact lenses, and other things.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

But it’s not only used in firefighting. The reason I revisited it is because I got information from the Optometrists’ Association yesterday which gave me the link. PFAS substances are in many, many things, including contact lenses.

>>Prominent in the mainstream media this week is a story around a study which has found perfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS ‘forever chemicals’, in soft contact lenses.

The study tested 18 popular kinds of contact lenses and found extremely high levels of organic fluorine, a marker of PFAS, in each.

PFAS are a class of about 14,000 chemicals typically used to make consumer products resist water, stains and heat, and can be found in thousands of products such as dental floss, cosmetics, sunscreen, textiles, sanitary products and toilet paper. They are called ‘forever chemicals’ because they do not naturally break down. In contact lenses, PFAS are used to soften the lenses and help oxygen pass through.<<

OK, so make that:

There is no reason that the same principle should not be applied to chemicals used in fire fighting, contact lenses, and other things.

This.

I’ve skimmed the Introduction of that paper, and I think it is worth a read. Too much detail to put into a post here. Then if you are interested, you can read the rest of the details.

buffy said:

I’ve skimmed the Introduction of that paper, and I think it is worth a read. Too much detail to put into a post here. Then if you are interested, you can read the rest of the details.

I’ve downloaded it for later as I’m off to the shower and thence to see my GP.

Bubblecar said:

Photography?

How does that work?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Photography?

How does that work?

Maybe they mean film photography.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Photography?

How does that work?

Seems to be mainly PFOS (a member of PFAS group).

>The semiconductor industry historically has used PFOS for their surface-active properties in the fabrication of imaging devices such as digital cameras, cell phones, printers, and scanners (Poulsen et al. 2005). Studies have shown semiconductor waste streams containing the PFAAs PFBS, PFHxS, PFOS, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA, PFDA, PFUnA, and PFDoA (Lin, Panchangam, and Lo 2009). Similarly, in photolithography processes, PFOS has been used predominantly in applying top-layer antireflective coatings (TARCs), bottom antireflective coatings (BARCs), and etchants. Smaller quantities of PFOS and longer-chain PFAS have been used in wet etchants, film developers, cleaners, protective coatings, and color filters (SIA 2008), with ongoing uses permitted.

https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/2-6-pfas-releases-to-the-environment/

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Photography?

How does that work?

Well in the old days they had a lens that focuses light onto a light sensitive medium but now days they use their fingers, everything’s digital.

I reckon the stuff wouldn’t get such bad press if it was pronounced “pfas” and not “Pee fas”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Photography?

How does that work?

Maybe film photography?

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Photography?

How does that work?

Maybe they mean film photography.

Great minds…

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Photography?

How does that work?

Maybe they mean film photography.

Great minds…

Whether it’s film, or electronic photon detector thingies, surely if it’s all wrapped up inside a camera there isn’t much transmission to the outside world.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Maybe they mean film photography.

Great minds…

Whether it’s film, or electronic photon detector thingies, surely if it’s all wrapped up inside a camera there isn’t much transmission to the outside world.

The PFOS etc. are apparently no longer used in digital cameras, scanners etc.

But they are used in the surface treatment of photographic prints and similar.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Maybe they mean film photography.

Great minds…

Whether it’s film, or electronic photon detector thingies, surely if it’s all wrapped up inside a camera there isn’t much transmission to the outside world.

Only when it gets to be on the tip.

PTFE (Teflon) is a PFAS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene

Michael V said:

PTFE (Teflon) is a PFAS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene

That’s also something I wasn’t aware of.