PFAS Chemical "PFBA" Goes to / Stays in Lungs. Making Respiratory Diseases' Prognoses WORSE: CBC

So, CBC's Science show (Quirks+Quarks) this week covered the so-called "Forever Chemicals" in the PFAS group of contaminants & some of their subgroups

Along the way, they reported, that one of the chemicals in the group [PFBA?], earlier thought to be safe as it wasn't found in the Blood, after exposure to it, has since been found, in dangerous concentrations, in the Lungs, thereby complicating lung / respiratory diseases (Does any such disease come to mind?)

The story - in a longer segment of this week's Quirks & Quarks show - is part of a longer series of programs, in case you want to hear more about similar topics; search CBC.CA)

  1. Firefighting Foam (banned in SA, from 30 Jan 2018) contained at least one of the PFAS chemicals, as do some articles of fire-retardant clothing. Female Firefighters (eg, in San Fransico, where women comprise a significantly higher % of active Firefighters), were getting, eg, Breast Cancer at 6x the rate of women Firefighters elsewhere, apparently due to exposure to such contaminants.

Apparently, the risk of exposure is serious enough that - even in places where such Foam is still permitted (for the moment) - it was suggested, that the actual Foam NOT be used for Foam-Training, but reserved for actual firefighting use ONLY.

More Bad News:

  1. A woman, who's been exposed to some PFAS chemicals, eg, during pregnancy or before, will pass the contaminant to her baby. The only known workaround is to protect women from exposure to such "Forever Chemicals"

  2. Some researchers found, that - oddly enough - "Less contaminant is More" in some cases, eg, sug-gesting, that the body can flush out the chemical(s) only when they are in high enough concentrations or quantities, but the flushing response is Not seen (ie, the contaminant Stays in the body) when it's in lower concentrations or qty's.


(Let's hope the LNT = Linear No-Threshold folks won't see a similar response to low levels of exposure to Radiation of the Radioactive kind… ;~)

Comments

  • +18

    On a positive note, congratulations on your formatting.

    • +1

      But so many commas in the second paragraph!

      • +1

        If some more were added, they may flush out.

  • +4

    I have this game, where after reading a forum topic I say "IVI or no IVI"
    I won today…..

    • +1

      I play the same game! I think I got to the word “chemical” and wrote it off as an IVI thread…

    • +2

      Really lengthy and cites the source in the title, probably ivi.

  • Give it time, I'm sure there will be be a compo fund similar to Defence's F-111 DRCA for chemical exposure.

  • +1

    Why does this focus so much on women?
    Is it suggesting women shouldn’t be firefighters?
    Is it suggesting that less effective means of fire suppression should be employed so that women can be firefighters?
    Is it suggesting women should swim in suppression foam?

    This comment is as pointless as this thread…

  • +1

    This puzzles me:

    Some researchers found, that - oddly enough - "Less contaminant is More" in some cases, eg, sug-gesting, that the body can flush out the chemical(s) only when they are in high enough concentrations or quantities, but the flushing response is Not seen (ie, the contaminant Stays in the body) when it's in lower concentrations or qty's.

    So if you have (arbitary numbers) 10 units your body can't flush it out, but if you have say 90 units your body flushes it out fine? What happens after your body flushes the first 80 units of that 90 and gets down to 10 units left? It keeps flushing, even though it you only had 10 units in the first place it wouldn't flush them at all?

  • +1

    Not sure what the purpose of this post is, a PSA?
    This has been known for years, in WA we have a town that's been forced onto bottled water due to contamination in the ground (https://www.swan.wa.gov.au/News-Media/2019/News-focus-storie…)

    Having said that though, this stuff is literally everywhere, and i mean everywhere, not just around firefighting areas and airports (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pfas-everyda…) non-stick fry pans, pizza boxes, take away containers.

    It's so common that when sampling the contamination risk is so high as it can be on your clothes/gloves etc.

    Basically it's not really anything new the health fears have been known since the early 2000's with the government only acting on it in the past 10 or so.

    • Yeah, most people that need to know about this already should do. I did my fire training something like 15 years ago and they were taking about it then.

  • Further highlights the other-endlessness of the PFAS mess
    https://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/08/04/fda-phasing-out-pape…
    You, and this has inspired me, R IVI. Bioaccumulation involved of different sort.

Login or Join to leave a comment