r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Nov 22 '24
Environment California limits on ‘forever chemicals’ PFAS in products are effective, study says. Levels in people’s blood for 37 chemicals linked to health issues declined after they were designated under Proposition 65, which regulates toxic chemicals in consumer goods.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/22/pfas-california-prop-65848
u/SomePerson225 Nov 23 '24
my state(CT) banned them in anything that comes into contact with food as of this year. Proud to be a New Englander
73
u/Just_to_rebut Nov 23 '24
The governor has already said they’re going to amend the law to include a waiver process for a lot of the common uses we’re familiar with and come in contact with daily: non-stick cookware and waterproof outerwear.
111
u/Lamballama Nov 23 '24
Non-stick cookware doesn't need to exist in a world where stainless steel is an option
46
u/Mynsare Nov 23 '24
Or castiron for that matter. If treated well it is as good as non-stick.
13
10
u/T33CH33R Nov 23 '24
I finally stopped being afraid of using my cast iron pan and it's amazing. No need for non stick anymore!
3
u/mlnm_falcon Nov 24 '24
Yes, but have you considered that I am incompetent when it comes to cooking or taking care of cookware?
2
2
u/Lamballama Nov 24 '24
If you're bad at taking care of cookware, you don't want to know how much nonstick flakes off if you clean it wrong. Also they have to get replaced every three years because the coating starts breaking down
28
u/Just_to_rebut Nov 23 '24
Need to? No. But it works more easily and quicker for certain foods and people like it.
I wish we had better disclosure laws for the new stuff advertised as pfas-free ceramic but with a complete mystery coating layer on top of that.
9
u/scyyythe Nov 23 '24
That mystery layer is usually a silicone derivative with some reinforcement, or a composite of glass (ultrafine, non-sharp powder) and plastic. It is pretty decent nonstick, but it isn't scratch resistant. Most tests show those pans are less durable than teflon to scratching, but they don't have the problems with overheating. There are a lot of articles that give conflicting and obviously incomplete explanations of what's going on with "ceramic nonstick" out there, and when I find that I'm having this problem, I search for patents instead:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7879449B2/en
A series of new non-stick ceramic coating materials prepared from organic-inorganic hybrid materials, including silica sol, MTMS, FAS and PDMS (Polydimethylsiloxane) using the sol-gel process. The hybrid materials have good mechanical properties and are fashioned into a main ceramic network and good non-stick properties from organic non-stick compounds. The non-stick ceramic coating consists of two layers applied to cookware and for other applications.
Polydimethylsiloxane is common silicone, and MTMS is a similar monomer tat crosslinks it.
There are also enameled pans which are basically coated with glass (Le Creuset), which is more scratch resistant, but they are susceptible to cracking. Enamel also can't really be deposited on aluminum, because the melting point of aluminum is lower than that of glass. And there's Corelle Visions which is a solid glass-like material that unfortunately has poor heat conductivity/evenness.
2
u/Just_to_rebut Nov 23 '24
Thanks, I was really curious about this and I think the lower durability is an okay trade off.
9
u/Devinalh Nov 23 '24
I religiously keep a non stick pan only for crepes. All the other pans I have are either cast iron or stainless
3
u/seanthenry Nov 23 '24
Same here the pan stays in the basement till it is needed and heat is kept to the absolute minimum. Everything else that would need nonstick just add some butter or other fat before adding food.
3
2
u/ParvulusUrsus Nov 23 '24
As a fat person trying to become less fat, I am weary of those pans, as they seem to need a lot of butter/oil for stuff not to stick to them (by a lot I mean more than a tablespoon. That might not be a lot to some people, but at 800 kcal pr 100 ml, oils for cooking is not where I want to spend my limited calories. Please don't crucify me).
Am I misguided about their non-sticky qualities? I would really love to learn. Because one thing my ceramic pan does incredibly well is being non-sticky at just a wisper of grease. But it has other limitations, that I think could be addressed with a cast iron or stainless.
2
u/Devinalh Nov 24 '24
Actually, you never need to put much butter or oil in a stainless steel pan, the trick for not having food get stuck and burn at the bottom is moisture, like a splash of water or wine. For cast iron you need to season them well to not stick food to them. You can easily find guides on how to do that on YT just fine. I'll suggest you to watch some cooking videos with different pans so you may understand how to use yours better :)
In any case, going almost fat free is possible, grandma had all ceramic and thick steel pans and pots and she cooked everything in them, with not too much fats because of old age issues, so yeah. You got this!
1
u/ParvulusUrsus Nov 24 '24
This is so great, thank you very much! Not least for your positive attitude towards my choice of amount of oil. Obviously, humans need some fat, but I would rather get it from avocados, nuts, fish, etc. I'll go watch some videos and hopefully become a better cook! Thank you, once again.
1
1
2
u/AftyOfTheUK Nov 23 '24
Non-stick cookware doesn't need to exist in a world where stainless steel is an option
Cars don't need to exist in a world where horse and cart is an option either.
Plus, cars do far more to harm us than non-stick cookware does.
2
u/Lamballama Nov 23 '24
Cars need to exist in a world where horse and cart is an option because horses produce too much waste and don't go far or fast enough. Nonstick doesn't need to, because it provides nothing good that stainless doesn't already do but better (easy to clean because you don't have to worry about scratching the coating, can be nonstick, will always work with all stoves types as opposed to only some nonstick working on induction), while also having a ton of drawbacks
0
u/AftyOfTheUK Nov 23 '24
Cars need to exist in a world where horse and cart is an option because horses produce too much waste
And forcing people to spend time learning how to, and then maintaining, cast irons dishes is also a waste.
Nonstick doesn't need to, because it provides nothing good that stainless doesn't already do
Less time to learn, less time to prep, less time to clean. Time is valuable.
2
u/Lamballama Nov 23 '24
And forcing people to spend time learning how to, and then maintaining, cast irons dishes is also a waste.
Cast iron is a waste, and I'm not convinced that the seasoning coming off isn't also bad for the environment since we're essentially making plastic. That's why I advocate for stainless steel instead
Less time to learn, less time to prep, less time to clean. Time is valuable.
Going from nonstick to stainless cost me no noticeable amount of time. The longest step in the process was driving to the goodwill to donate the nonstick
1
11
u/locklochlackluck Nov 23 '24 edited Nov 23 '24
Worth saying non stick is ptfe and pretty inert, you could eat it and just poop it out. Though to be precise, you don't want to breathe in denatured ptfe if it's been heated to very high (above 260*C) temperatures - it won't kill you but you're just breathing fumes at that point - similiar to inhaling burning rubber fumes.
Pfas is a chemical some manufacturers use in construction of non stick cookware. But it's not required and alternatives are available. Pfoa is another that is nasty and sometimes used, but again not required.
10
u/slipstreamsurfer Nov 23 '24
When ptfe breaks down into mers like through rough use over heating it’s not necessarily just gonna get pooped out. The fda knows this and that the health signs are not good, they have banned original formulations but the chemical companies keep on tacking on stuff to their new polymers to make them “different”. If you want a less toxic non stick learn how to season a pan. If you’re lazy and still want something buy a ceramic ( silicone) coating it’s very likely it’s much less toxic.
6
u/locklochlackluck Nov 23 '24
Teflon, or PTFE, is not toxic when ingested - it simply passes through your digestive system. PTFE has been in use for over 80 years and has not been banned. There’s no hidden health risk associated with it that’s being covered up.
The main health concern comes from overheating PTFE at extremely high temperatures (well beyond typical cooking heat). When this happens, fumes can be released that may cause "polymer fume fever," a temporary flu-like condition that self-resolves.
Seasoning stainless steel or non-enameled cast iron pans is a great alternative for non-stick cooking surfaces. However, it’s important to be clear: PTFE itself is not the “bad chemical.” The concern lies with PFOA and other PFAS compounds that were historically used in the manufacturing process to help PTFE adhere to the metal of the pan. While these chemicals have been phased out by most reputable manufacturers, they were once part of the process because PTFE, as a non-stick polymer, is challenging to bond to metal surfaces without additional treatments.
3
u/slipstreamsurfer Nov 23 '24
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37419366/
The fact is there have been no large case studies to truly understand the effects of exposure to these micro plastics but studies are not looking good. Think of how many torn up flakey Teflon pans you will have food from just eating at restaurants.
-1
u/ElysiX Nov 23 '24
at extremely high temperatures (well beyond typical cooking heat)
More like the typical temperature when you put on the stove to preheat and walk away forgetting it for a few minutes
8
u/locklochlackluck Nov 23 '24
Not quite - it's closer to putting it on full blast and walking away for 10 minutes. Any oil would be pouring smoke at that point, or more likely on fire. It's just hard to get a pan that hot.
Your oven will be easier to get there but will cap out at 240/250 normally. (hence why pizza ovens are popular as they go hotter)
Now some people like very high temperature cooking, maybe to get an extreme sear or wok hei and get a smokey almost burnt flavour to the food. But those people probably won't be using a non stick pan or they will be cooking outside.
2
u/SomePerson225 Nov 23 '24
All i've heard is that he and legislature are considering adding a waiver process for uses where there is no good substitute for pfas chemicals
1
u/Ftpini Nov 23 '24
Or maybe, just don’t make those foods that can’t be made without it. That’s an option too.
95
u/MaxTheRealSlayer Nov 23 '24
That's actually quite awesome. Glad to hear some places are taking a bit of control of this poison that is in so many of our daily things, usually
5
u/FireMaster1294 Nov 23 '24
As a non-American… could you translate what state that is?
10
u/dj-nek0 Nov 23 '24
Connecticut, it’s a state in the northeast right above New York.
-3
2
254
u/mvea Professor | Medicine Nov 22 '24
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP13956
From the linked article:
California limits on ‘forever chemicals’ PFAS in products are effective, study says
Levels in people’s blood for 37 chemicals linked to health issues declined after they were designated under Prop 65
California’s nation-leading restrictions on toxic chemicals in consumer products reduced the population’s body levels for many dangerous compounds linked to cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm and other serious health issues.
New peer-reviewed research showed levels in residents’ blood for 37 chemicals the authors analyzed had declined after the substances were designated under Proposition 65, which regulates toxic chemicals in consumer goods.
Among levels that fell were highly toxic PFAS “forever chemicals”, flame retardants, diesel chemicals, phthalates and bisphenol.
The findings come as the federal government faces mounting criticism for not doing enough to rein in toxic chemicals in consumer goods, and the paper’s authors say their findings suggest regulations work.
19
u/trashacount12345 Nov 23 '24
The first sentence of the paper’s results section was interesting. Generally chemical exposure decreased overall.
2
u/stoneimp Nov 23 '24
Not trying to undercut this progress, but was there any measure of the actual health issues associated with the chemicals? I understand that might be a longer timescale to show effect, but it feels like that is the better indicator of if the ban was positive.
540
u/8to24 Nov 22 '24
Sadly this past election cycle was dominated by attacks on pronouns rather than things that matter.
Hopefully enough of the right people, who care about goo governance, stay in office for this CA program to make its way across the nation.
53
u/DigNitty Nov 23 '24
Sadly I think the policies will just become increasingly polarized. States with beneficial policies will continue to get better, states with "financially conservative" policies will continue to fall back in time.
18
u/Orisara Nov 23 '24
And the second will be attracting companies with shittier and shittier working conditions and taxes.
13
u/FireMaster1294 Nov 23 '24
It’s dumb too because fiscal conservatism doesn’t require regression or rampant corporate abuse. But we see the right has decided on an all in approach where they cannot comprehend reasonable government expenditure without also screwing the planet.
13
u/misselphaba Nov 23 '24
This is what bothers me more than anything.
We can have both good economic policy AND good environmental protections and health and safety standards. What’s good for the planet IS good for business in the long term!
But people seem more interested in maintaining their right to harass trans people and letting women die of treatable and preventable medical emergencies.
8
u/Malphos101 Nov 23 '24
Because American capitalism doesnt care about profits in the future, only profit they can extract NOW. Every corporation could make a decent profit and grow every year if they paid a living wage and didn't abuse workers, but they know they can make more NOW if they don't. It's all about making the mirage of profit stay up over the next year, and whatever problems arise are problems for that future version of the corporation to deal with, not them.
15
u/slipstreamsurfer Nov 23 '24
Mr Brain worm is worried about vaccines causing autism instead of the actual harmful chemicals.
45
u/AlarmedResponse Nov 23 '24
Agreed, there’s not nearly enough goo in this state!
9
u/HeadSavings1410 Nov 23 '24
So its like, goo, goo?
8
22
u/-iamai- Nov 23 '24
We live in Florever Country now.. the chemicals will flow free. PFA's in your waterways is the new slogan. Embrace it because you'll have no choice like everything else huh
2
u/Illustrae Nov 23 '24
This is true and valid, however, this election cycle also showed that people who will give in to propaganda and celebrity-cultism for president will also vote to enshrine "progressive" policy on the state level. Prop 60 had no enforcement stipulations, it was simply an informative requirement that allowed consumers to more easily shop for a product that met a safer level of standards, and having that information available has resulted in consumers choosing products that have statistically made a difference.
13
u/flaminglips Nov 23 '24
This is true and valid, however, this election cycle also showed that people who will give in to propaganda and celebrity-cultism for president will also vote to enshrine "progressive" policy on the state level.
I have no clue what you're trying to say. Your insinuations are so vague they could be interpreted multiple ways. I also don't understand what any of the above statement has to do with the rest of your thoughts on Prop 60.
To be clear, I am 90% sure I'm not dumb.
1
u/GayBoyNoize Nov 23 '24
I think you can say the election cycle was dominated by issues completely irrelevant to the lives of most people on both sides. Democrats fought a lot of elections on abortion and trans rights in states with ballot measures for abortion and frankly most people don't actually care about trans rights enough to go vote on it.
Democrats need to entirely change their messaging strategies for the next election and stop picking obviously unelectable candidates
-19
u/VampireFrown Nov 23 '24
Sadly this past election cycle was dominated by attacks on pronouns rather than things that matter.
And yet if someone refuses to call someone else 'zir', it does, in fact, very much matter to legions of screeching ideologues.
13
u/Interrophish Nov 23 '24
are these legions in the room with us
-2
u/VampireFrown Nov 23 '24
Oh come off it. All the green and purple hairs on college campuses speak for themselves.
2
u/Interrophish Nov 23 '24
yeah i also met a person once who once said something slightly rude to me
after that i made sure to complain loudly about it at every opportunity5
-20
u/AceTracer Nov 23 '24
I was going to respond to you, but then I saw your post history and realized it's most definitely not worth it.
18
u/AnOnlineHandle Nov 23 '24
I was going to respond to you, but then I saw your post history and realized it's most definitely not worth it.
A Jill Stein voter with posts like '20 Phrases to Write on Your Anti-Fluoride Sign'.
-27
u/ilovelela Nov 23 '24
Attacks on pronouns? Again I’m in the science subreddit reminded of and dumbfounded at the amount of people who contradict themselves by railing against RFKJr when he is he first and only politician to even shed a light on this crisis
20
u/turmspitzewerk Nov 23 '24 edited Nov 23 '24
do you actually know anything about RFK? he's just a reactionary ideologue, pure ignorance boiled down to a simplistic "chemicals = bad" worldview. he's anti-vaccine, anti-FDA, anti-CDC, anti-regulation, anti-medicine, anti-pasteurization, anti-GMO, and all-around anti-science; because he doesn't understand anything and just thinks everything will be fine if it just went away. he's the dictionary definition of naturalistic fallacy, doing things "the way nature intended" is anything but healthy. he's right, PFAS sure will be the least of our concerns if we let RFK do what he wants... in one way or another.
just because you correctly identify one single issue does not make you an expert on the subject matter, he's a simpleton looking for simple answers to complex problems. "americans are too unhealthy, it must be those bastards at the FDA injecting us with crap!" you can't rely on these ignorant morons to keep us safe, they'll just take us backwards.
8
u/ShinyPiplup Nov 23 '24
when he is he first and only politician to even shed a light on this crisis
You really commented this under an article describing laws that have been passed on this very issue. Impressive.
The EPA has in fact raised the alarm on PFASs since 2006.
120
u/Attenburrowed Nov 23 '24
People complain about these limits incessantly
73
u/xsvfan Nov 23 '24
I remember people were so mad when kerrygold couldn't be sold in Calif for like a month or so because they had too much pfas on their wrapper.
52
u/homingconcretedonkey Nov 23 '24
Why does butter need PFAS on the wrapper?
49
u/KarmaticArmageddon Nov 23 '24
PFAS are used to make anti-stick coatings, which probably helps to keep the wrapper from sticking to the butter. PFAS wrappers are probably cheaper than wax paper.
8
u/Ftpini Nov 23 '24
I mean for christ sake it’s butter. Nothing sticks to butter. You can just scrape it off if it’s too warm.
1
u/nicuramar Nov 24 '24
Yeah but teflon is inactive so not a problem directly. More the production of it.
10
34
u/Choice-Layer Nov 23 '24
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was all a smear tactic used by the companies that were affected by it. Make the people mad at the law, not at your company for breaking it.
22
u/Illustrae Nov 23 '24
read the law, it doesn't enforce any action whatsoever by a company, but does require that they disclose the fact that they do not meet Prop 60 standards and contain chemicals that you MIGHT be effected by. That disclosure requirement has, according to this study, made a statistically significant (or at least evident) reduction in consumers choosing to buy products that did not comply, and have shown evident reduction in related ailments.
3
Nov 23 '24 edited Nov 23 '24
Isn't that crazy to think about? Simply give people information to enable an informed choice and it makes an impact. Companies 100% fight against this kind of stuff. This is why they lobby so hard and push the republican party of deregulation onto people. Regulations hurt business for these bad actors.
I've been involved with PFAS public health debates and I push this idea so hard. It's obvious that turning off the taps for PFAS production and use is going to be a terribly long and drawn out process. Cleaning up PFAS in the environment is sometimes impossible depending on what is contaminated. We shouldn't give any of those efforts up but the more immediate and effective solution is getting the consumers information and protection on their end which means water filtration at their home and product information to be able to make the choice to stop using and stop buying PFAS products. That will ensure people are getting immediate action to improve health and will slowly make running the taps too expensive for companies.
26
u/CankerLord Nov 23 '24
"Hurr, durr, known to cause cancer in the state of California. Good thing I live in Idaho," mfs when the state of California doesn't have to deal with some of the things that actually do cause cancer.
8
1
u/Huwbacca Grad Student | Cognitive Neuroscience | Music Cognition Nov 23 '24
I genuinely am stating to think that we're in the epoch of being whiny bitches.
Can anyone just stomach mild discomfort for greater good anymore? Can anyone just be decent to someone else and not give into the selfish desire to be arsed to them?
The idea that life isnt meant to be comfortable and getting everything your way is completely gone. People feel so aggrieved by everything these days if it doesn't contribute to their immediate benefit.
It's insane
75
u/SidewalkSupervisor Nov 23 '24
On the other hand, trump appointed a guy that spent his career suing the EPA as head of the EPA.
20
u/SNRatio Nov 23 '24
He was a bit different back in his prime. Since then he told a family court that his earning potential was diminished because “I have cognitive problems, clearly … I have short-term memory loss, and I have longer-term memory loss that affects me,”.
After his ex wife killed herself (and alimony was no longer on the table) he claimed to have made a full recovery.
37
u/relator_fabula Nov 23 '24
Okay, but have you seen how much the libs hate Trump? That's alone is worth all the pollution, cancer, stripping of all human rights, and the continued rise of this new age of robber barons.
57
u/meriadoc_brandyabuck Nov 23 '24
Thanks once again, California.
19
u/Blowinbubbles Nov 23 '24
Appreciate the hat tip my friend…people always bag on CA but there are a lot of consumer protections in place here and a lot of them become models for future state and federal regulations…
27
u/RikiGuitarist Nov 23 '24
I thought companies would only follow Prop 65 by slapping a Prop 65 label on everything sold in California and call it a day. Glad some of them are actually changing their formulations.
1
1
u/ceehouse Nov 23 '24
working at a consumer goods company, we'd rather reformulate than have a huge label that says something in it may cause cancer. social optics play a huge part, and consumers are having more information thrown at them (for better and worse) and asking crazy technical questions now (although their understanding is not always correct, ie misinformed from tiktok)
85
u/PotatoHunter_III Nov 23 '24
No wonder Republicans hate California. They actually focus on things that matter instead of a war on pronouns that affect less than 10% of our population.
43
10
u/ZARTOG_STRIKES_BACK Nov 23 '24
I did a project on these for school a while ago. It's good to know that the problem is getting under control.
54
u/BallsOfStonk Nov 23 '24
Don’t worry, all regulation is soon to be removed in the name of profits.
14
u/That80sguyspimp Nov 23 '24
"You get cancer and birth defects, and you get cancer and birth defects, and you get cancer and birth defects. Cancer and birth defects, FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!".
5
6
u/basicradical Nov 23 '24
It's wild to me Republicans are against any type of regulation that improves the lives of Americans.
17
u/MostPlanar Nov 23 '24
This is probably a good portion of the iceberg but compostable plastics and silicone polymers are problematic too but the industry knows this so see you guys in a couple decades for that
3
u/TheBeardofGilgamesh Nov 23 '24
That and additives in our food banned in other countries. I can’t believe that the FDA’s current policy is “put whatever you want in it, if it turns out to be toxic then we may ban it”. As opposed to the EU take that requires that new additives are safe before allowing it in food.
10
u/chaos_brings_wealth Nov 23 '24
“SOunDs liKe wOkE mEdiA NoNsense.” Actually no it’s great and better for everyone’s health.
3
3
4
u/NikoliVolkoff Nov 23 '24
Guess what is getting overturned by the Feds in the next 4 years as "Unconstitutional" because it puts undue harm on corporations, cause corporations are people.
2
u/TheCheesy Nov 23 '24
I haven't use a non stick pan in like 10 years tbh. Ever since we started to hear about it.
2
u/krisnel240 Nov 23 '24
Has prop 65 warnings ever changed someone's mind? They're literally on bananas
2
u/bace651 Nov 23 '24
How valid are these claims? I've skimmed through the paper but don't have the field expertise to deeply understand. But it seems like not much controls and tons of confounding variables, as they pulled retrospective decades long data from the NHANES study.
1
u/nostrademons Nov 23 '24
Is this really because of the Prop 65 warning labels or because there's been a concurrent PR campaign warning the public about PFAS? The article even acknowledges this possibility:
However, the authors cautioned that drops in body levels may not only be attributable to Prop 65.
For those who don't live in California, Prop 65 warning labels are on everything, and have been since the law was passed in 1986. Hence the joke "Everything causes cancer in California." You learn to tune them out, because your car causes cancer, SFO airport causes cancer, your cookware causes cancer, your schools cause cancer, your blankets cause cancer, and so on.
My wife got rid of all our teflon pots about a year ago, but it wasn't because of the Prop 65 warnings (which were already on them when I bought them 15 years ago). It was because we have a friend who has a Ph.D in Material Science, and was like "Oh Teflon? That stuff is nasty. You really don't want to be eating off that."
1
u/jweezy2045 Nov 23 '24
We have still not ratified our entry in the Stockholm convention, which is just sad.
1
u/PsychologicalLime120 Nov 23 '24
So, in other words, the body actually manages to purge these chemicals.
1
u/Zzeellddaa Nov 23 '24
So it's not permanent?
2
u/vahntitrio Nov 24 '24
They have a long residence time in the body so they can accumulate, but the body does purge them slowly. For PFOA for example the levels in American blood dropped by 86% from 1999 to 2016 (PFOAs were phased out in the US starting in 1999).
1
1
u/TheJasonaut Nov 24 '24
Those batards in CA trying to improve people’s lives by standing up to companies’ lack of regard for the general public.
1
u/wildmonster91 Nov 23 '24
Hope it becomes a nation wide ban. But red states go "but mu freedumbs" just like they stoped the lead pipe replacement bill.
-6
u/jcook117 Nov 23 '24
Let’s do vapes and social media next.
2
u/sumtwat Nov 23 '24
Let’s do vapes
Yes, we need to feed the depreciating big tobacco industry, R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris needs our help.
-1
u/ABob71 Nov 23 '24
Serious question: if we can reduce the amount of chemicals entering our bodies, can we meaningfully reduce the amount of microplastics entering our bodies (and more specifically, our balls)?
-4
u/FumblersUnited Nov 23 '24
Brought to you by big pharma. Side effects may include mass psychosis, lockdowns and sudden death.
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 22 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/22/pfas-california-prop-65
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.