As a doctor, I find it hard to understand why or how a substance that is generally unreactive could cause health problems in the human body. Generally, the less reactive a substance, the less it causes health problems e.g. helium (sure, if you breathe a “hypoxic mixture” of 100% helium, you die, but thats from lack of oxygen, not the helium itself).
Any biochemists out there who can tell me if I’m missing some important context?
I'm not a biochemist, but that unreactive property likely contributes to persistence and bioaccumulation, and like with microplastics, silica, and asbestos, trigger an immune response, cause release of inflammatory cytokines or fibrosis. PFAS can in fact bind to specific proteins in the blood, like albumin as well and other proteins in the liver and kidneys. PFAS molecules have structural similarities to natural hormones, particularly thyroid and allows it to bind to hormone receptors creating agonistic or antagonistic effects.
Isn't the mechanism by which a bunch of carcinogens work by also non-reactive? Like asbestos is carcinogenic due to size and shape, not chemical composition, right?
In the EPA review they go over some of the chemistry involved through the research that has been done. For example with serum albumin binding, the predominant mechanism is van der waals forces and hydrogen bonding.
I've heard differently from the two dentists I've seen. The first suggested using a water pick and the second told me it was fine as a first pass but I still needed to floss. Might be because my teeth are very close to each other though.
If there's evidence stronger than a dentist's opinion, I'd like to hear it, because I preferred the water pick...
Was also sold one by my dentist. Turns out you still have to floss so it was just another thing I paid for at the dentist that I didn't really need. Cool.
Has those tests been repeated by any other researchers? The company refutes the results and I've never heard of this group previously. Not refuting the risk but would like corroboration
Should be easy for Proctor & Gamble or Johnson & Johnson to have grounds for a lawsuit if that's the case. I'd love it if they sued ehn.org so we could clear it all up.
No, they tested for organic fluorine, and then acted surprised when they predictably realized that many floss products contain PTFE, widely known as Teflon, which we've already known for decades. It's not a secret, and it is in fact the only floss that I can use on my tightly arranged teeth.
PTFE is not a PFAS in the sense used in health research. Teflon is a hard, waxy plastic which is among the most inert, biologically inactive substances known. It is used everywhere from medical implants, Gore-Tex, and other clothing, teflon tape used to seal plumbing joints in your house, and many other other common uses. There is no evidence (that is, evidence from scientifically solid studies-- there are a couple poor ones), that any dental floss raises physiologic levels of PFAS.
The reason you know this reporting is bullshit is that nobody is proposing that we outlaw teflon tape in drinking water plumbing, even though it's made from the same plastic as the best floss products.
That’s… 1/4 PFAS. At that point it’s essentially made of PFAS.
I’m not 100% convinced this is that problematic though. You floss and then rinse/spit. And of course this would only need to get rid of the quantity actually shed from the strand. It would be interesting to see the load actually consumed on average, but my gut says it’s probably irrelevant.
The real issue is the unchecked spread into our environment, causing us (and everything else) to unavoidably ingest it regularly and without limit.
Edit: To be clear, my general position on PFAS is “broadly enact bans on its use out of sheer caution” due how rapidly it’s turning up in the environment. This would be no exception. I’m just saying I’d be surprised if its presence in dental floss actually contributed meaningfully to your daily load given the amount you consume incidentally due to widespread environmental contamination.
It's the mouth - a whole lot of kids aren't spitting properly and swallowing a bunch of the organoflorines. Also your dentist is probably using Glide stuff which is the biggest offender.
As a side note, definitely switch to silk floss - completely natural stuff + wax. I prefer the Radius brand since they were the first.
> The agency’s new advisory levels aren’t requirements that drinking water suppliers must meet. The EPA only recommends that utilities notify customers when concentrations exceed the limit.
> But they set the stage for further EPA action. The agency plans to propose mandatory drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS later this year.
I was browsing test kits where you send a sample back to a lab. They're $79 - $300 and advertise 1 or 2 parts per trillion. Looks like getting to 0.02 ppt requires some very specialized equipment, and would probably be optimized for continuous monitoring of a water supply.
It's more meaningful to get a blood test which Quest Health offers without a prescription in the US, although it's not cheap. Obviously the blood test is very precise, but it tests only for a few types of PFAS, whereas thousands of types exist in the environment.
We are so screwed we can't even quantify how screwed we are, because the entire planet and population are contaminated and have been contaminated for a long time now, so there is no longer a control group to compare to.
that's not entirely true (reddit snark way) -- there's blood samples from the Korean war, that are un-tainted. I think that's like the only place though, on earth... not affected. The chemical companies who did this can't pay enough to make amends, and Criminal charges should be on the table for everyone who had any knowledge.
Aren't most environmental targets? Setting extremely high targets, often on unreasonable timetables, makes for great PR regardless of whether or not the targets will ever be enforced.
Readit News
Any biochemists out there who can tell me if I’m missing some important context?
See e.g.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3996095/
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/appendix-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40471525
If there's evidence stronger than a dentist's opinion, I'd like to hear it, because I preferred the water pick...
PTFE is not a PFAS in the sense used in health research. Teflon is a hard, waxy plastic which is among the most inert, biologically inactive substances known. It is used everywhere from medical implants, Gore-Tex, and other clothing, teflon tape used to seal plumbing joints in your house, and many other other common uses. There is no evidence (that is, evidence from scientifically solid studies-- there are a couple poor ones), that any dental floss raises physiologic levels of PFAS.
The reason you know this reporting is bullshit is that nobody is proposing that we outlaw teflon tape in drinking water plumbing, even though it's made from the same plastic as the best floss products.
I’m not 100% convinced this is that problematic though. You floss and then rinse/spit. And of course this would only need to get rid of the quantity actually shed from the strand. It would be interesting to see the load actually consumed on average, but my gut says it’s probably irrelevant.
The real issue is the unchecked spread into our environment, causing us (and everything else) to unavoidably ingest it regularly and without limit.
Edit: To be clear, my general position on PFAS is “broadly enact bans on its use out of sheer caution” due how rapidly it’s turning up in the environment. This would be no exception. I’m just saying I’d be surprised if its presence in dental floss actually contributed meaningfully to your daily load given the amount you consume incidentally due to widespread environmental contamination.
As a side note, definitely switch to silk floss - completely natural stuff + wax. I prefer the Radius brand since they were the first.
Deleted Comment
> The agency’s new advisory levels aren’t requirements that drinking water suppliers must meet. The EPA only recommends that utilities notify customers when concentrations exceed the limit.
> But they set the stage for further EPA action. The agency plans to propose mandatory drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS later this year.
So here we are, in April 2024 with some actual rules and timelines: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas
So it's entirely meaningless.
https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment