PFOA c-8 teflon™

   ____________________________________
based on New York Time magazine article
The lawyer who became Dupont's worst nightmare
by Nathaniel Rich

PFOA  PFOA/C-8  FC-143
PFOS (long-chain flourocarbon synthetic)

water-proof coating for tank
Du Pont PFOA/C-8  trade name teflon™
causing cancers
making too much money on this product line
in paints, in fabrics, in raincoats, in boots
for 40 years DuPont knew C-8 was poison

20/20 investigation
on carpet, on clothing, in car, on contact lens

teflon™ is the tradename for PFOA
teflon™ was a ticking time bomb

science study, took 7 years
the largest epidemiological study
it's irrefuable.
We have linked sustained exposure to C-8 to six categories of serious illness.
Kidney cancer, testicular cancer,
thyroid disease, preeciampsia,
high-cholesterol, ulcertaive colitis
3,535 people in the class already have these disases
Many more will develope them
(69,000 blood sampling from the total population)

Robbie Bilott
Rob
Tennant
case law (case law => articles => film) (source material)

Landfill
superfund sites


source:
        dark water (film), 2020
        a Todd Haynes film
        certified FRESH rotten tomatoes
   ____________________________________
forever chemical
rocket fuel
chemical, chemistry
   ____________________________________
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/08/forever-chemicals-destroyed-by-simple-new-method/


‘Forever chemicals’ destroyed by simple new method
Process beheads PFAS, causing it to fall apart into benign end products
August 18, 2022 | By Amanda Morris
Water samples for PFAS analysis. Credit: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy

    Climate Global Health Sustainability Water Weinberg College

PFAS, a group of manufactured chemicals commonly used since the 1940s, are called “forever chemicals” for a reason. Bacteria can’t eat them; fire can’t incinerate them; and water can’t dilute them. And, if these toxic chemicals are buried, they leach into surrounding soil, becoming a persistent problem for generations to come.

Now, Northwestern University chemists have done the seemingly impossible. Using low temperatures and inexpensive, common reagents, the research team developed a process that causes two major classes of PFAS compounds to fall apart — leaving behind only benign end products.

The simple technique potentially could be a powerful solution for finally disposing of these harmful chemicals, which are linked to many dangerous health effects in humans, livestock and the environment.

The research was published in the journal Science.

“PFAS has become a major societal problem,” said Northwestern’s William Dichtel, who led the study. “Even just a tiny, tiny amount of PFAS causes negative health effects, and it does not break down. We can’t just wait out this problem. We wanted to use chemistry to address this problem and create a solution that the world can use. It’s exciting because of how simple — yet unrecognized — our solution is.”

Dichtel is the Robert L. Letsinger Professor of Chemistry in Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. Brittany Trang, who conducted the project as a part of her recently completed doctoral thesis in Dichtel’s laboratory, is the paper’s co-first author.
‘The same category as lead’

Short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS has been in use for 70 years as nonstick and waterproofing agents. They are commonly found in nonstick cookware, waterproof cosmetics, firefighting foams, water-repellent fabrics and products that resist grease and oil.

“PFAS has become a major societal problem. We wanted to use chemistry to address this problem and create a solution that the world can use.”

– William Dichtel

Over the years, however, PFAS has made its way out of consumer goods and into our drinking water and even into the blood of 97% of the U.S. population. Although the health effects are not yet fully understood, PFAS exposure is strongly associated with decreased fertility, developmental effects in children, increased risks of various types of cancer, reduced immunity to fight infections and increased cholesterol levels. With these adverse health effects in mind, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently declared several PFAS as unsafe — even at trace levels.

“Recently, the EPA revised its recommendations for PFOA essentially down to zero,” Dichtel said. “That puts several PFAS into the same category as lead.”
Unbreakable bonds

Although community efforts to filter PFAS from water have been successful, there are few solutions for how to dispose of PFAS once it is removed. The few option that are now emerging generally involved PFAS destruction at high temperatures and pressures or other methods that require large energy inputs.

“In New York state, a plant claiming to incinerate PFAS was found to be releasing some of these compounds into the air,” Dichtel said. “The compounds were emitted from the smokestacks and into the local community. Another failed strategy has been to bury the compounds in landfills. When you do that, you are basically just guaranteeing that you will have a problem 30 years from now because it’s going to slowly leach out. You didn’t solve the problem. You just kicked the can down the road.”

The secret to PFAS’s indestructibility lies in its chemical bonds. PFAS contains many carbon-fluorine bonds, which are the strongest bonds in organic chemistry. As the most electronegative element in the periodic table, fluorine wants electrons — and badly. Carbon, on the other hand, is more willing to give up its electrons.

“When you have that kind of difference between two atoms — and they are roughly the same size, which carbon and fluorine are — that’s the recipe for a really strong bond,” Dichtel explained.
Pinpointing PFAS’ Achilles’ heel
pfas

PFAS structure

But, while studying the compounds, Dichtel’s team found a weakness. PFAS contains a long tail of unyielding carbon-fluorine bonds. But at one end of the molecule, there is a charged group that often contains charged oxygen atoms. Dichtel’s team targeted this head group by heating the PFAS in dimethyl sulfoxide — an unusual solvent for PFAS destruction — with sodium hydroxide, a common reagent. The process decapitated the head group, leaving behind a reactive tail.

“That triggered all these reactions, and it started spitting out fluorine atoms from these compounds to form fluoride, which is the safest form of fluorine,” Dichtel said. “Although carbon-fluorine bonds are super strong, that charged head group is the Achilles’ heel.”

In previous attempts to destroy PFAS, other researchers have used high temperatures — up to 400 degrees Celsius. Dichtel is excited that the new technique relies on milder conditions and a simple, inexpensive reagent, making the solution potentially more practical for widespread use.

After discovering the PFAS degradation conditions, Dichtel and Trang also discovered that the fluorinated pollutants fall apart by different processes than generally assumed. Using powerful computational methods, collaborators Ken Houk at UCLA and Yuli Li, a student at Tianjin University who virtually visited Houk’s group, simulated the PFAS degradation. Their calculations suggest that PFAS falls apart by more complex processes than expected. Although it was previously assumed that PFAS should fall apart one carbon at a time, the simulation showed that PFAS actually falls apart two or three carbons at a time — a discovery that matched Dichtel and Trang’s experiments. By understanding these pathways, researchers can confirm that only benign products remain. This new knowledge also could help guide further improvements to the method.

“This proved to be a very complex set of calculations that challenged the most modern quantum mechanical methods and fastest computers available to us,” said Houk, a distinguished research professor in organic chemistry. “Quantum mechanics is the mathematical method that simulates all of chemistry, but only in the last decade have we been able to take on large mechanistic problems like this, evaluating all the possibilities and determining which one can happen at the observed rate. Yuli has mastered these computational methods and worked with Brittany long distance to solve this fundamental but practically significant problem.”
Ten down, 11,990 to go

Next, Dichtel’s team will test the effectiveness of its new strategy on other types of PFAS. In the current study, they successfully degraded 10 perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids (PFECAs), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and one of its common replacements, known as GenX — two of the most prominent PFAS compounds. The U.S. EPA, however, has identified more than 12,000 PFAS compounds.

Although this might seem daunting, Dichtel remains hopeful.

“Our work addressed one of the largest classes of PFAS, including many we are most concerned about,” he said. “There are other classes that don’t have the same Achilles’ heel, but each one will have its own weakness. If we can identify it, then we know how to activate it to destroy it.”

Dichtel is a member of the Institute for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern’s Program on Plastics, Ecosystems and Public Health; the Center for Water Research and the International Institute for Nanotechnology.
   ____________________________________
https://brainmd.com/blog/forever-chemicals/

What Are Forever Chemicals?

The scientific term for forever chemicals is PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These manmade chemicals are common in consumer products that are grease-, stain-, and water-resistant. This includes non-stick cookware and waterproof clothing.

So, why are they called forever chemicals?

Because they’re practically indestructible.

Unfortunately, these toxins are difficult to avoid since they’re in so many products we use every day. And here’s the really bad news…they’re inside us too.

A Brief History of PFAS

In 1946, the DuPont manufacturing company introduced the non-stick cookware known as Teflon. Numerous fluorinated chemicals were created based on Teflon, and they were used in a variety of products. A short time later, 3M became the main manufacturer of PFAS products.

In 1950, 3M studies confirmed that PFAS could pollute the human blood. By the 60s, joint 3M and DuPont animal studies showed that PFAS were harmful to health. Both companies found a link between PFAS and extreme illness in many of their employees in the 80s.

The Teflon chemical was discovered in the drinking water in Parkersburg, West Virginia in 2001. This led to a class-action lawsuit against DuPont, which knew PFAS were hazardous to its workers and the local community. The lawsuit initiated several studies, some of which link Teflon to serious medical conditions.

The Problem with PFAS

According to one health expert, PFAS are harmful for three main reasons:

    PFAS are extremely hard to break down in the environment and in our bodies.
    They’re hard to contain because they move through the environment rapidly.
    Even low levels of exposure to PFAS can be damaging to our health.

As if that isn’t bad enough, many manufacturers choose not to disclose the use of PFAS in their products.

How Do PFAS Impact Health?

Forever Chemicals 2
Numerous animal or human studies have linked PFAS to:

  • Reproductive problems
  • Endocrine disruption
  • Weakened childhood immunity
  • Increased cholesterol
  • Low birth weight
  • Severe liver and kidney issues

Many independent studies have shown the negative impact of PFAS on people of all ages. PFAS were found in the breast milk, umbilical cord blood or bloodstreams of 98% of participants in a survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
   ____________________________________
“”─“”‘’•─“”
   ____________________________________
https://www.ewg.org/what-are-pfas-chemicals


What are PFAS chemicals?
Frying pan over fire
The ‘forever chemicals’ in 99% of Americans

Hundreds of everyday products are made with highly toxic fluorinated chemicals called PFAS. They build up in our bodies and never break down in the environment. Very small doses of PFAS have been linked to cancer, reproductive and immune system harm, and other diseases.

For decades, chemical companies covered up evidence of PFAS’ health hazards. Today nearly all Americans, including newborn babies, have PFAS in their blood, and more than 200 million people may be drinking PFAS-tainted water. What began as a “miracle of modern chemistry” is now a national crisis.

What Are PFAS?

In 1946, DuPont introduced nonstick cookware coated with Teflon. Today the family of fluorinated chemicals that sprang from Teflon includes thousands of nonstick, stain-repellent and waterproof compounds called PFAS, short for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.

PFAS are used in a staggering array of consumer products and commercial applications. Decades of heavy use have resulted in contamination of water, soil and the blood of people and animals in the farthest corners of the world. PFAS are incredibly persistent, never breaking down in the environment and remaining in our bodies for years.

DuPont invented the PFAS chemical patented as Teflon, but 3M became its main manufacturer. In 2001, a scandal erupted in Parkersburg, W.Va.
, after discovery of the Teflon chemical in the drinking water of tens of thousands of people near a DuPont plant. (The story is documented in the film “The Devil We Know.”)

A class-action lawsuit uncovered evidence DuPont knew PFAS was hazardous and had contaminated tap water but didn’t tell its workers, local communities or environmental officials. The lawsuit also triggered studies linking the Teflon chemical to cancer and other diseases.

What are the health risks of PFAS?

The most notorious PFAS chemicals – PFOA, the Teflon chemical, and PFOS, an ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard – were phased out in the U.S. under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency after revelations of their hidden hazards. (They are still permitted in items imported to this country.) Numerous studies link these and closely related PFAS chemicals to:

  • Testicular, kidney, liver and pancreatic cancer.
  • Reproductive problems
  • Weakened childhood immunity
  • Low birth weight
  • Endocrine disruption
  • Increased cholesterol
  • Weight gain in children and dieting adults

PFOA, PFOS and the related phased-out compounds are called “long chain” chemicals because they contain eight carbon atoms. Since these chemicals have been phased out, the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration have recklessly allowed the introduction of scores of “short chain” replacements, with six carbon atoms.

Chemical companies claim this structure makes them safer. But DuPont admits
 that the short-chain chemical GenX causes cancerous tumors in lab animals. A 2019 Auburn University study found that short-chains may pose even worse risks than long-chains, which supports scientists’ growing agreement that the entire class of PFAS are hazardous.


But drinking water is not the main route of PFAS exposure for most Americans:

  • Although the original PFAS chemical used to make Teflon has been taken off the market, Teflon and other brands of nonstick cookware are still produced with new PFAS that may be no safer.
  • PFAS chemicals are widely used to coat paper and cardboard wrappers for fast food and bakery goods.
  • PFAS chemicals lurk in stain-resistant furniture and carpets treated with Scotchgard, Stainmaster and other fabric treatments.
  • Clothes labeled stain- or water-repellent, such as Gore-Tex jackets, usually contain PFAS chemicals.
  • PFAS are even in personal care products and cosmetics.

Who is responsible for PFAS pollution?

Manufacturers

As far back as 1950, 3M studies showed PFAS could pollute people’s blood. By the 1960s, 3M and DuPont animal studies showed that PFAS were health hazards. In the 1980s, both companies linked PFAS to cancer and found elevated cancer rates among their own workers. But they kept these and other studies secret. Here is a timeline of internal memos, studies and other documents detailing the decades-long deception.

https://www.ewg.org/pfastimeline/

Six other companies that made PFOA were subject to the PFOA phaseout
. They included Arkema, Asahi, BASF, Clariant, Daikin and Solvay Solexis. In 2015, DuPont spun off its PFAS business to a new company named Chemours. Chemours’ PFAS plants have also polluted drinking water, and the two companies are locked in a legal battle over who will pay to clean up contamination.

https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program#participants

https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Chemours-clean-GenX-pay-12/96/web/2018/11

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/chemours-says-dupont-s-liability-estimates-spectacularly-wrong

Industrial discharges

At least 475 industrial facilities may be discharging PFAS into the environment. Yet there are currently no restrictions on industrial PFAS discharges under the federal Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act. Here’s a map of those facilities.

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_suspected_industrial_discharges_of_pfas/map/

The military

Despite knowing about the hazards of PFAS-based firefighting foam, the Defense Department continued to use it for decades and now is fighting efforts to clean up legacy pollution. This map shows military sites where drinking water or groundwater is contaminated with PFAS at levels above the EPA’s advisory level.

https://www.ewg.org/research/pfas-chemicals-contaminate-least-110-us-military-sites/pentagon-s-50-year-history-pfas

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_pfas_contamination/map/


3M and DuPont Timeline

For nearly 70 years, chemical companies like 3M and DuPont have known that PFAS chemicals could build up in our blood. They’ve known for almost that long that PFAS chemicals could have a toxic effect on our organs.

But they kept those facts from the public. EWG has compiled documents that detail decades of deception.


What is being done about the PFAS contamination crisis?

Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA has known about the hazards of PFAS at least since 1998, when 3M provided studies that led to the withdrawal of the Scotchgard chemical from the market. Since then, despite mounting evidence of PFAS’ toxicity and contamination, the EPA has inexcusably dragged its feet.

The EPA has failed to set a legal limit for any PFAS in tap water, and its non-enforceable health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS is 70 times higher than what independent studies show is needed. In 2019 the EPA announced a toothless “action plan” that would do nothing to reduce ongoing PFAS releases or clean up legacy PFAS pollution.

Food and Drug Administration

Like the EPA, the FDA has recklessly let the chemical industry introduce new PFAS chemicals for use in food wrappers and packaging, with scant safety testing. FDA found PFAS in popular foods but didn’t make the findings public. After the results leaked, top agency officials said PFAS in food is “not a concern.”
The Pentagon

The Defense Department has also failed to deal adequately with the crisis. The Pentagon tried to block release of a federal toxics agency’s recommendation of a much lower safe level of PFAS than the EPA’s health advisory level. It lobbied the White House to back woefully weak cleanup standards.
   ____________________________________
http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/

The Science Panel Website

During 2005-2013, the C8 Science Panel carried out exposure and health studies in the Mid-Ohio Valley communities, which had been potentially affected by the releases of PFOA (or C8) emitted since the 1950s from the Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia. They then assessed the links between C8 exposure and a number of diseases. The C8 Science Panel has completed its work and no longer exists; this website summarizes the results.

The Science Panel consisted of three epidemiologists: Tony Fletcher, David Savitz, and Kyle Steenland, who were chosen jointly by the parties to the legal settlement of a case between plaintiffs and DuPont regarding releases of C8 from the plant. The Panel, its research programme, and links to other sources of information can be found via the links on the left.

The main conclusions are in the form of Probable Link reports which summarize in each case whether the Science Panel found or did not find a link between exposure and disease. The detailed science behind the summaries in the Probable Link reports is published in articles in scientific journals. Many articles have been published and a few more are still in the process of publication. Follow the links at the left. For six disease categories, the Science Panel concluded that there was a Probable Link to C8 exposure: diagnosed high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
   ____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutant
   ____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

History

3M (then the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) began producing PFOA by electrochemical fluorination in 1947.[2] Starting in 1951, DuPont purchased PFOA from 3M for use in the manufacturing of specific fluoropolymers—commercially branded as Teflon, but DuPont internally referred to the material as C8.[11][12][13]

In 1968, organofluorine content was detected in the blood serum of consumers, and in 1976 it was suggested to be PFOA or a related compound such as PFOS.[14][15][16]

In 1999, EPA ordered companies to examine the effects of perfluorinated chemicals after receiving data on the global distribution and toxicity of PFOS.[17] For these reasons, and EPA pressure,[18] in May 2000, 3M announced the phaseout of the production of PFOA, PFOS, and PFOS-related products—the company's best-selling repellent.[19] 3M stated that they would have made the same decision regardless of EPA pressure.[20]

Because of the 3M phaseout, in 2002, DuPont built its own plant in Fayetteville, North Carolina, to manufacture the chemical.[21] The chemical has received attention due to litigation from the PFOA-contaminated community around DuPont's Washington Works facility in Washington, West Virginia, along with EPA focus. In 2004, ChemRisk—an "industry risk assessor" that had been contracted by Dupont, reported that over 1.7 million pounds of C8 had been "dumped, poured and released" into the environment from Dupont's Parkersburg, West Virginia-based Washington Works plant between 1951 and 2003.[22]

Research on PFOA has demonstrated ubiquity, animal-based toxicity, and some associations with human health parameters and potential health effects. Additionally, advances in analytical chemistry in recent years have allowed the routine detection of low- and sub-parts per billion levels of PFOA in a variety of substances.[16] In 2013, Gore-Tex eliminated the use of PFOAs in the manufacture of its weatherproof functional fabrics.[23] Major companies producing PFOA signed with the Global PFOA Stewardship Program with the goal of elimination of PFOA by 2015.[24] Since then it has been eliminated from the production of non-stick materials used in cookware. GenX has been introduced as a replacement for PFOA, but in a 2015 study which tested the effects on rats, GenX caused many of the same health problems as PFOA, but required much higher concentrations. This is because GenX (C3) is a short chain alternative to PFOA. GenX also has a significantly shorter half-life than PFOA so it is not as bio-persistent as PFOA or other long chain perfluorinated chemicals.[25]

Robert Bilott investigation

In the fall of 2000, lawyer Robert Bilott, a partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister, won a court order forcing DuPont to share all documentation related to PFOA. This included 110,000 files, consisting of confidential studies and reports conducted by DuPont scientists over decades. By 1993, DuPont understood that "PFOA caused cancerous testicular, pancreatic and liver tumors in lab animals" and the company began to investigate alternatives. However, because products manufactured with PFOA were such an integral part of DuPont's earnings, $1 billion in annual profit, they chose to continue using PFOA.[11] Bilott learned that both "3M and DuPont had been conducting secret medical studies on PFOA for more than four decades", and by 1961 DuPont was aware of hepatomegaly in mice fed with PFOA.[11][26][27] Later research eventually found that PFOA had an outsized effect based on gender on several negative health outcomes in mice that had been exposed to the chemical. The PFOA exposure in these mice led to a modification of genetic expression. This led to the development of fatty tissue which caused the exposed mice to develop varying rates of hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol). The impact of PFOA on this health outcome varied greatly between mice of different genotypes across relevant parts of the genome. Also, notably, female mice across all genotypes saw significantly higher rates and more severe cases of hypercholesterolemia.[28]

Bilott exposed how DuPont had been knowingly polluting water with PFOAs in Parkersburg, West Virginia, since the 1980s.[11] In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers investigated the toxicity of PFOA.[27]

For his work in the exposure of the contamination, lawyer Robert Bilott has received several awards including The Right Livelihood Award in 2017.[29] This battle with DuPont is featured in the documentary The Devil We Know, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 2018,[30] and Dark Waters, directed by Todd Haynes.
   ____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

In a 2009 EPA study of 116 products, purchased between March 2007 and May 2008 and found to contain at least 0.01% fluorine by weight, the concentrations of PFOA were determined.[48] Concentrations shown below range from not detected, or ND, (with the detection limit in parenthesis) to 6750 with concentrations in nanograms of PFOA per gram of sample (parts per billion) unless stated otherwise.

Product     Range, ng/g
Pre-treated carpeting     ND (<1.5) to 462
Carpet-care liquids     19 to 6750
Treated apparel     5.4 to 161
Treated upholstery     0.6 to 293
Treated home textiles     3.8 to 438
Treated non-woven medical garments     46 to 369
Industrial floor wax and wax removers     7.5 to 44.8
Stone, tile, and wood sealants     477 to 3720
Membranes for apparel     0.1 to 2.5 ng/cm2
Food contact paper     ND (<1.5) to 4640
Dental floss/tape     ND (<1.5) to 96.7
Thread sealant tape     ND (<1.5) to 3490
PTFE cookware     ND (<1.5) to 4.3
   ____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

Global occurrence and sources
PFOA contaminates every continent.[49] Two of the most common types (PFOS and PFOA) were phased out of production in the United States (US) in 2002 and 2015 respectively, but are still present in some imported products. PFOA and PFOS are found in every American person's blood stream in the parts per billion range,

Due to the surfactant nature of PFOA, it has been found to concentrate in the top layers of ocean water.[52] PFOA is detected widely in surface waters, and is present in numerous mammals, fish, and bird species.[49] PFOA is in the blood or vital organs of Atlantic salmon, swordfish, striped mullet, gray seals, common cormorants, Alaskan polar bears, brown pelicans, sea turtles, sea eagles, Midwestern bald eagles, California sea lions and Laysan albatrosses on Sand Island, a wildlife refuge on Midway Atoll, in the middle of the North Pacific Ocean, about halfway between North America and Asia.[11] Because PFAS are ubiquitous in households, consumer products, food, and the environment generally, some trace levels reflecting this ubiquitous broad use of these compounds will make their way into the wastewater and solid waste streams.[53]
   ____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

Despite a decrease in PFOA, the longer perfluorinated carboxylic acid PFNA is increasing in the blood of US consumers.[63] PFAS are also found in paper mill residuals, digestates, composts, and soils.
   ____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

Industrial sources

PFOA is released directly from industrial sites. For example, the estimate for the DuPont Washington Works facility is a total PFOA emissions of 80,000 pounds (lbs) in 2000 and 1,700 pounds in 2004.[12] A 2006 study, with two of four authors being DuPont employees, estimated about 80% of historical perfluorocarboxylate emissions were released to the environment from fluoropolymer manufacture and use.[2] PFOA can be measured in water from industrial sites other than fluorochemical plants. PFOA has also been detected in emissions from the carpet industry,[65] paper[66] and electronics industries.[67] The most important emission sources are carpet and textile protection products, as well as fire-fighting foams.[68]
   ____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

Sources to people

Food,[78] drinking water,[79] outdoor air, indoor air,[80] dust, and food packagings[81] are all implicated as sources of PFOA to people.[71] However, it is unclear which exposure routes dominate[82] because of data gaps. When water is a source, blood levels are approximately 100 times higher than drinking water levels.[83][84]

People who lived in the PFOA-contaminated area around DuPont's Washington Works facility were found to have higher levels of PFOA in their blood from drinking water. The highest PFOA levels in drinking water were found in the Little Hocking water system, with an average concentration of 3.55 parts per billion during 2002–2005.[12] Individuals who drank more tap water, ate locally grown fruits and vegetables, or ate local meat, were all associated with having higher PFOA levels. Residents who used water carbon filter systems had lower PFOA levels.
   ____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

Food contact surfaces

Microwave popcorn bags can contain residual PFOA from fluorotelomers.

PFOA is also formed as an unintended byproduct in the production of fluorotelomers[85] and is present in finished goods treated with fluorotelomers, including those intended for food contact. Fluorotelomers are applied to food contact papers because they are lipophobic: they prevent oil from soaking into the paper from fatty foods. Also, fluorotelomers can be metabolized into PFOA.[86] In a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) study, lipophobic fluorotelomer-based paper coatings (which can be applied to food contact paper in the concentration range of 0.4%) were found to contain 88,000–160,000 parts per billion PFOA before application, while the oil from microwave popcorn bags contained 6–290 parts per billion PFOA after heating.[87] Toxicologists estimate that microwave popcorn could account for about 20% of the PFOA levels measured in an individual consuming 10 bags a year if 1% of the fluorotelomers are metabolized to PFOA.[86]

In 2008 as news stories began to raise concerns about PFOA in microwaved popcorn, Dan Turner, DuPont's global public relations chief, said, "I serve microwave popcorn to my three-year-old." Five years later, journalist Peter Laufer wrote to Turner to ask if his child was still eating microwave popcorn. "I am not going to comment on such a personal inquiry", Turner replied.[88][89]

Fluorotelomer coatings are used in fast food wrappers, candy wrappers, and pizza box liners.[90] PAPS, a type of paper fluorotelomer coating, and PFOA precursor, is also used in food contact papers.[71]

Despite DuPont's asserting that "cookware coated with DuPont Teflon non-stick coatings does not contain PFOA",[91] residual PFOA was also detected in finished PTFE products including PTFE cookware (4–75 parts per billion).[87] However, PFOA levels ranged from undetectable (<1.5) to 4.3 parts per billion in a more recent study.[48] Also, non-stick cookware is heated—which should volatilize PFOA; PTFE products that are not heated, such as PTFE sealant tape, had higher (1800 parts per billion) levels detected.[92] Overall, PTFE cookware is considered an insignificant exposure pathway to PFOA.[93][94]
   ____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

   ____________________________________
if your grand mother (or in growing cases, your great grand mother) does not recognize it, you should not be eating it; ...
   ____________________________________
https://www.dw.com/en/pfas-forever-toxins-teflon/a-57756695

Nature and Environment
Germany
'Forever chemicals:' The hidden toxins in your body
Tim Schauenberg
06/11/2021
June 11, 2021

They're everywhere, are harmful to our health and do not biodegrade. Has DW reporter Tim Schauenberg also unknowingly ingested "forever chemicals"?
https://p.dw.com/p/3uL9b
Copy link

What do raincoats, pizza boxes, frozen vegetable packaging and nonstick frying pans have in common? They all contain perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS). Known as "forever chemicals" by experts, they could be damaging human health.

Roland Weber, an environmental consultant with the United Nations, describes them as "one of the most threatening chemicals ever invented."

Some 4,500 human-made substances

fall under the PFAS designation, and residues from this family of chemicals are now found across the globe — in soil, drinking water, food, animals and even inside the human body.

A polar bear walking across melting ice A polar bear walking across melting ice
PFAS have even been found in Arctic polar bears
Image: Brent Stephenson/Nature Picture Library/Imago Images
Do I have PFAS in my body?

Some 98% of US Americans have PFAS in their blood. Studies from India, Indonesia and the Philippines found the toxic substances in nearly all breastmilk samples tested. Every child in Germany has forever chemicals inside them, and in a fifth of those cases, concentrations exceed critical levels.

This made me wonder about the levels of forever toxins in my own body. Finding out is not easy as there are very few specialist labs in Germany able to perform the necessary tests. But I managed to locate one, IPASUM, in the southern city of Erlangen.

I sent them a blood sample. It was analyzed for PFOA and PFOS — the best-known forever chemicals — which can cause liver and kidney damage, decrease male fertility, and affect the weight of newborn babies as well as the effectiveness of vaccines. In high concentrations, they can lead to cancer. New studies have also indicated a link between the chemicals and severe cases of COVID-19.

A close of someone having their blood taken A close of someone having their blood taken
Just a small number of specialists labs in Germany test for PFAS
Image: Cem Adam Springer

The lab found 4 nanograms of PFOA and PFOS per liter of my blood. That's around a thousandth of the weight of a grain of sand and means I'm well below critical levels and in line with the German average.

Thomas Göen, a professor at IPASUM, who carried out the analysis, told me these concentrations present no risk according to current scientific knowledge. But the results didn't put my mind at ease because the substances are persistent and can accumulate in the body.

"And that's the main problem," Göen said, "that in the end they may accumulate in a dose, which might be a problematic concentration."

Forever chemicals are so stable that they don't biodegrade in nature, and the human body excretes them very slowly. Scientists are looking for ways to break them down, but any methods are still in their infancy.
How do forever chemicals end up in nature and in us?

But it's exactly this stability that makes PFAS so useful. Water, fat and dirt resistant, they are are deployed in practically every industry and found in a diverse range of products, including artificial leather, photographic paper,  pesticides, the foam in fire extinguishers, dyes and airplanes.

Humans ingest most PFAS in their food. Fish, meat, milk, eggs and vegetables from contaminated regions can contain particularly high rates of these chemicals.

Most sewage treatment plants can't filter out the chemical residues, which then enter the environment through landfills, industrial waste, and by washing outdoor clothing. PFAS have been found in the remote mountains of Patagonia, snow in Antarctica and the Altai Mountains in Central and East Asia, as well as inside polar bears, birds and dolphins.
A satellite image of earth. Red dots represent contamination with PFASA satellite image of earth. Red dots represent contamination with PFAS
PFAS are found all over the world but contamination is often much higher near factories
Image: Greenpeace

Some animals with high PFAS concentrations experience changes in their hormone levels as well as to their liver and thyroid function. There has been little research on their impact on ecosystems.
From the atom bomb to the kitchen cupboard

In 1938, US chemicals concern DuPont invented PTFE, one of the first PFAS chemicals. As it was able to protect metal from corrosion at incredibly high temperatures, they used it in the first atomic bomb.

PTFE soon appeared in households around the globe as a durable coating on frying pans under the brand name "Teflon." It was a huge commercial success.

But in 1998, the nonstick brand found itself in a sticky situation when a livestock farmer said his cows grazing near a Teflon production plant in Parkersburg West Virginia were wasting away and dropping dead.  
A picture of the Fat Man atomic bomb A picture of the Fat Man atomic bomb
When the first atomic bomb was secretly built, one of the first PFAS was used for valves and seals to protect against highly reactive uranium hexafluoride
Image: picture-alliance/CPA

Robert Bilott, environmental lawyer and longtime defender of the livestock farmer in his legal battle against DuPont, said his client "could see white foaming water coming out of a landfill next to his property." It soon came out that thousands of people in the region had been contaminated with PFAS through sewage from the DuPont factory and leaking landfill waste.

Documents show that DuPont — unlike state authorities — had known of the danger for decades but continued to discharge the toxic substance into the environment.

Studies suggest

that high PFAS levels in the area are connected to increased cases of kidney and testicular cancer. In 2017, DuPont agreed to pay victims $671 million (€554 million) in compensation for bodily harm.
A letter showing DuPont knew about the toxicity of PFAS A letter showing DuPont knew about the toxicity of PFAS
DuPont knew for decades about the dangers from the production of Teflon (PTFE), as indicated in this internal document from 1970
Image: Ewige Chemikalien, Forever Chemicals, DuPont
Industry gets creative with legal loopholes

Other countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy, have seen cases of PFAS contaminating

drinking water and the environment.

Some of these forever chemicals are now being phased out in the EU, the USA and Japan, and the amount detected in the population has steadily decreased. In Germany, the average has more than halved since 1990.

In response to the crackdown, the chemicals industry is manufacturing a new generation of PFAS that differ very little from their predecessors, but don't fall under the ban for now.

How can I protect myself?

What am I supposed to take from all this? I'm a bit stumped. It feels impossible to avoid something found in so many things but which isn't flagged on labels or packaging.
A tray on a table with empty McDonald's fast food packaging A tray on a table with empty McDonald's fast food packaging
Fast food packaging often contains PFAS coating. McDonalds wants to phase out the substances by 2022
Image: Ralph Peters/imago images

For now, I've said goodbye to nonstick pans and I'm considering buying a water filter to get rid of any PFAS in my drinking water. It looks like takeaway and convenience food, which I've never been a fan of anyway, will slip even further down the menu, so I can keep away from PFAS-laden disposable packaging. But I'll never be able to turn down a box of frozen spinach — a childhood favorite of mine.

On a global level, the pressure to dispense with PFAS is growing. Following a Greenpeace campaign

, outdoor clothing manufacturers Vaude, Paramo and Rotauf committed to detoxing their garments. Swedish furniture giant Ikea says it has also banned the substances, while countries such as Germany, Denmark, Norway and Sweden are pushing for an EU-wide ban on all PFAS by 2030.

This article was adapted from German.
   ____________________________________
   ____________________________________
   ____________________________________
   ____________________________________
   ____________________________________