PFAS and Power Lines Cause Cancer?

[russ_watters]

TL;DR Summary

Is PFAS the new "power lines cause cancer"?

Here's an article(labeled as opinion) I just read from CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/opinions/chemicals-in-clothes-harmful-health-wicker/index.html

This OP is only a starting point; I intend to look into the issue more deeply. But from what I see, this article (not unique these days) is heavy on fearmongering, light on research connecting the fear to reality. I was tempted to title the thread "PFAS is the New Homeopathy?" but we're not quite there yet.

For reference, the EPA's maximum allowable concentration of arsenic in drinking water, is 10 ppb. These are the sorts of concentration levels being implied are able to cause cancer from PFAS. For the main thrust of the article though, it's clothes and they don't say anything about how PFAS from clothes might get into the bloodstream. Presumably people are rolling up their shirts and smoking them? Or perhaps PFAS Tea?

This issue hits home a bit more because several Philadelphia Phillies veterans have come down with cancer, and the old Veterans Stadium turf was apparently made with PFAS. Presumably the Phillies were grinding the grass up and smoking it? The Philly Inquirer doesn't say how the exposure could happen in its article series about the issue. It's a sad human interest story mainly, with only an implied villain. Must be the PFAS:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/inq2/...ioblastoma-cancer-phillies-1980-20230307.html
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pfas-...oblastoma-reddit-ama-20230314.html?query=pfas

The article above mentions BPA. BPA was used in plastic bottles. That provides a clear vehicle for exposure: BPA leaches into the water, and then you drink it. No such mechanism is suggested for clothes.

In the 1970s, a crackpot scientist and reporter (IIRC) made their names on a spurious claim that power lines cause cancer. My gut tells me we're dealing with a modern version of it here, with PFAS.

edit:
A specific claim:

For example, research by Notre Dame professor Dr. Graham Peaslee shows that PFAS comes off of treated textiles at the parts-per-million level. That’s 1,000 times more. [than ppb!]

The linked article:

Though scientists have not yet learned if PFASs can transfer to the human body simply by coming in contact with the skin....

It's unclear to me what the CNN claim is actually referring to.

 

[pinball1970]

TL;DR Summary: Is PFAS the new "power lines cause cancer"?

Here's an article(labeled as opinion) I just read from CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/opinions/chemicals-in-clothes-harmful-health-wicker/index.html

This OP is only a starting point; I intend to look into the issue more deeply. But from what I see, this article (not unique these days) is heavy on fearmongering, light on research connecting the fear to reality. I was tempted to title the thread "PFAS is the New Homeopathy?" but we're not quite there yet.

For reference, the EPA's maximum allowable concentration of arsenic in drinking water, is 10 ppb. These are the sorts of concentration levels being implied are able to cause cancer from PFAS. For the main thrust of the article though, it's clothes and they don't say anything about how PFAS from clothes might get into the bloodstream. Presumably people are rolling up their shirts and smoking them? Or perhaps PFAS Tea?

This issue hits home a bit more because several Philadelphia Phillies veterans have come down with cancer, and the old Veterans Stadium turf was apparently made with PFAS. Presumably the Phillies were grinding the grass up and smoking it? The Philly Inquirer doesn't say how the exposure could happen in its article series about the issue. It's a sad human interest story mainly, with only an implied villain. Must be the PFAS:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/inq2/...ioblastoma-cancer-phillies-1980-20230307.html
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pfas-...oblastoma-reddit-ama-20230314.html?query=pfas

The article above mentions BPA. BPA was used in plastic bottles. That provides a clear vehicle for exposure: BPA leaches into the water, and then you drink it. No such mechanism is suggested for clothes.

In the 1970s, a crackpot scientist and reporter (IIRC) made their names on a spurious claim that power lines cause cancer. My gut tells me we're dealing with a modern version of it here, with PFAS.

edit:
A specific claim:

The linked article:

It's unclear to me what the CNN claim is actually referring to.

On my tablet so I cannot post links easily. The States are driving this but this is filtering down to Europe.
Your are familiar with ECHA and REACh? More complicated since Brexit.
Three webinars this year alone on this subject....

Basically there has been push back over here but I will update you from work.
Simply put the chemistry is very broad (12,000 chemicals one estimate)
Endocrine disruptors cited rather than carcinogenic regarding the ecosystem.
They do the jobs they are supposed to do very well, they do not break down.

Problem is they don't break down!

 

[jrmichler]

In the 1970s, a crackpot scientist and reporter (IIRC) made their names on a spurious claim that power lines cause cancer.

And a lot of money was spent to find that:
1) People who lived near high voltage power lines had increased rates of cancer
and
2) People who lived near HV power lines had less healthy lifestyles
and
3) Those lifestyles (rates of drinking, smoking, lack of exercise, diet) were associated with higher rates of cancer
and
4) Further studies controlled for those lifestyle variables did not find increased cancer.

The fearmongering was still happening in the late 1990's when I was designing an active vibration control system using powerful electromagnets. The question was raised in a design review, so I looked into it. Somebody at the Medical College of Wisconsin had reviewed several hundred papers on the subject, and posted a list of those paper with a short paragraph summary of each paper online in chronological order. It was interesting reading because the papers started with a strong correlation between power lines and cancer. As the various researchers controlled for confounding variables, the correlation got weaker until it disappeared completely. I looked for that site a few years ago, and was unable to find it.

 

[pinball1970]

UK webinar will be regulatory. Next one.
ECHA have dossiers on this and other SVHC that are accessible.

 

[pinball1970]

Conclusions are after page 21.

 

[hutchphd]

I suggest that it is important to call out fearmongering for what it is.
That being said, it is not, and should never be, used as an ad hominem counterargument. The fact that there are fearmongers says nothing about the underlying real science and some dang in our environment is really really bad. Can we say TetraEthylLead ?

 

[pinball1970]

I suggest that it is important to call out fearmongering for what it is.
That being said, it is not, and should never be, used as an ad hominem counterargument. The fact that there are fearmongers says nothing about the underlying real science and some dang in our environment is really really bad. Can we say TetraEthylLead ?

Total apologies guys. That was NOT intentional. Link was footy somehow???
I must have been on another forum link not sure.
Apologies. Not pf

 

[chemisttree]

PFAS is kinda my life these days. I’m a project manager helping to clean it up for the Air Force.

It’s not tin foil hat stuff. The science is coming in and it’s kinda scary. They are finding these “forever chemicals” in Antartica! Which means it is present in rainwater…. everywhere.

 

[russ_watters]

The science is coming in and it’s kinda scary. They are finding these “forever chemicals” in Antartica! Which means it is present in rainwater…. everywhere.

That sort of science doesn't scare me; you should be able to find basically everything everywhere if you can detect small enough quantities. The question is: are there health impacts?

 

[TeethWhitener]

That sort of science doesn't scare me; you should be able to find basically everything everywhere if you can detect small enough quantities. The question is: are there health impacts?

The answer is yes, most likely:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/
The mechanism of action is still up in the air, as the chemical reactivity of PFAS itself is very low. However, physically, PFAS “looks” a lot like lipids, and can activate lipid-specific pathways and partition preferentially into the lipid cell membrane, where it can change permeability properties. This suggests systemic dysregulation of lots of pathways, which is consistent with the wide range of symptoms reported by people with high PFAS exposure.

 

[pinball1970]

This alert today, Americans not aware of these chemicals

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-americans-oblivious-chemicals.html

Despite articles like this

https://time.com/6254060/pfas-period-chemicals-underwear-tampons/

 

[chemisttree]

This alert today, Americans not aware of these chemicals

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-americans-oblivious-chemicals.html

Despite articles like this

https://time.com/6254060/pfas-period-chemicals-underwear-tampons/

You couldn’t devise a better transdermal delivery device for PFAS!

 

[pinball1970]

You couldn’t devise a better transdermal delivery device for PFAS!

Yes you can absorb drugs via mucosa, ppm though? Not sure if could illicit an effect? I suppose the cumulative one dose per month for 3-7 days every year from age 13-45 is the issue.

 

[BillTre]

This alert today, Americans not aware of these chemicals

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-americans-oblivious-chemicals.html

Despite articles like this

https://time.com/6254060/pfas-period-chemicals-underwear-tampons/

It would not surprise me if most Americans don't understand how the chemical nature of water affects them.

 

[pinball1970]

High levels of PFAS found in dolphins in this article in phys.org yesterday

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-critically-endangered-victorian-dolphins-highest.html

Paper here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723070663?via=ihub

Lots of refs in the introduction to levels found in other animals, also a little bit the compounds in question, chemistry, longevity, affect on health and the environment.

 

[pinball1970]

It would not surprise me if most Americans don't understand how the chemical nature of water affects them.

And British Bill. I work with some great techs but they glaze over when I talk about chemistry and I have limited knowledge on the subject.
They know about tolerances and certain tests but as to the underlying mechanisms they think it is boring.
Does it pass? Yes. Good to go.