| Revision as of 13:02, 17 September 2024 editGahundle (talk | contribs)12 editsm →Inconsistent - PFAS vs. PFASs← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:21, 17 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,376,816 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances/Archive 1. (BOT) | ||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | ||
| {{WikiProject Environment|importance=High}} | {{WikiProject Environment|importance=High}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Chemistry|importance=Mid}} | {{WikiProject Chemistry|importance=Mid}} | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| {{Archives}} | {{Archives}} | ||
| == Biased Source == | |||
| Echoing the previous comment, the page provides a Table titled "Probable links to health issues as identified by the C8 Science Panel." The Table lists position papers that did not meet the quality standards for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and thus were self-published by C8SciencePanel.org. C8SciencePanel.org is registered anonymously, but appears to be owned by a plaintiff's law firm with a financial interest in PFAS litigation. Misplaced Pages's editorial standards say that content "must be verifiable." The C8SciencePanel.org position papers are not verifiable. That Table should be deleted. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| : That table was removed a while ago. --] 22:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Vague tag-ism? == | |||
| I strongly disagree with the necessity of hanging a "vague" tag on the sentence: ''Hypothyroidism is the most common thyroid abnormality associated with PFAS exposure.'' ...especially, as a citation reference is given for that sentence. The entire point of the article is that there are undetermined correlations without established causality or mechanism; connections have been documented without the exact nature of them being known. This, necessarily, falls into the territory of "vagueness". Therefore, there is no reason to cast doubt upon a simple, self-evident statement (one which has a reference) by hanging a "vague" tag on it. Discussion? ] (]) 04:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| : These tags have been ] by ]. It seems to me that he is not an expert in the fields of epidemiology or medicine. --] 09:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{reply|Leyo}} I don't think it's particularly required to be a medical expert in order to point out a phrase that is not clear to a general audience, but I do actually have a science background. Thanks for pointing out this thread, but it would be helpful to direct your comments to the merits of the text, rather than other editors. {{reply|Jmrowland}} I don't have access to the referenced article, so I can't clarify whether the association is based on epidemiology that indicates a statistical correlation that may or may not indicate causation, medical studies that were testing PFOS as a treatment, or case reports from people who had just been accidentally exposed or something. "Significant" is also vague and subjective, so it's better to "show not tell" and give the actual number. Something like this would be less vague: "Epidemiological studies find the opposite response in humans; an exposure of X is statistically correlated with a Y increase in total cholesterol and a Z increase in LDL cholesterol." The rest of that sentence seems to assume that the relationship is causal, rather than allowing that correlation does not prove causation and saying something like: "If PFOS exposure actually causes higher cholesterol, this would indicate..." -- ] (]) 23:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your reply, but my issue is with the wording, not the research. ''"Hypothyroidism is the most common thyroid abnormality associated with PFAS exposure"'' is not an especially vague statement. ] (]) 22:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::: There is only one vague tag remaining (in section ''Hypercholesterolemia''). Do you have access to the full text of ] to check and to come up with a suggestion for rephrasing the sentence? --] 13:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Appropriate language? == | |||
| I'm far from an experienced editor, but I have a concern that there are parts of this article that read like a polemic. Just one particularly egregious (and not particularly well-written) example - "Chemical corporations that produce PFAS pocket approximately an annual $4 billion in profits from the production of this chemical but they impose monumental costs on tax payers and the health of the planet's population." | |||
| Is this appropriate? ] (]) 08:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : Are you concerned about "pocket" and "monumental"? The former might be replaced by "make" or "generate", the latter by the actual (estimated) number. --] 13:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Changed "pocket" to "generate" in the mean time. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 21:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Estimated Contemporary Costs section provides outrageous figure == | |||
| Any claim that PFAS "costs" the world economy '''17.5 trillion dollars annually''' is patently absurd. Such an estimate might be fit for the worst-case scenarios associated with unmitigated climate change. I believe this section should be deleted, or at least the source of this figure should be removed. ] (]) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : ''The analysis broke down societal costs into four categories. Soil and water remediation are the most expensive, followed by healthcare costs and bio-monitoring of PFAS pollution.'' Remediation of contaminated soil and water is indeed known to be very expensive. --] 13:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::We wish climate change would cost us "only" 17.5 trillion... try an extra order of magnitude <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 21:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Will it cost us 17.5T annually? And, even if it does, there is no way PFASs are such an extreme detriment to the world. 20% of world GDP? ] (]) 01:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Expensive as remediation may be, there is no way this figure passes the smell test. If someone argued that all of fossil fuel use, including extraction in ocean wells and fracking from the ground, including health impacts to us and the environment, costs society 17.5T in damages '''annually''', perhaps I'd understand. | |||
| ::Given that this this number is from one relatively small NGO that seems laser focused on PFAS regulation (not without reason), I'd argue that this is not an unbiased source. The Guardian article being cited feels like a rewrite of a ChemSec press release, with no one interviewed except for ChemSec employees. ] (]) 01:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Inclined to Agree here. Summing up semi-acknowledged and fully acknowledged (thereby not necessarily correct by any means and faults surely overestimations by NGOs in line with shadow reporting culture, and underestimating/overestimating by Gov Agencies with special interests. In my totally irrelevant field we found that adding up numbers for fatalities globally, as they are reported (ca 2019) and used in fundraising, priority setting, policy shaping and science orientation we all have to die approximately 1,42 times. That’s not very helpful and a very smart colleague posits a theorem that we in fact only die once (population level). In effect, if so then that holds no matter what the aggregates sum up to. If the same is indeed applicable here, then we may have a systemic problem going in a multitude of globally critical academic fields that is kind of urgent to address. Lay-man understanding of the sciences and a fair grasp of my own immediate reality is that radical transformative action to correct for threats that are based in extremely faulty underlying premises (like +42% over theoretical max in my admittedly limited scope) may be spot on though that’s unlikely. But, even in such a lucky outcome scenario, then overdone and at the expense of the ‘opportunity cost’ (for lack of knowledge of more precise terminology) of also lessening resources and attention bandwidth available to simultaneously address other global issues also of paramount importance. IMHO Making arguments for policy based on simple truth-telling seems like a naïve but perhaps nifty way to begin to address this problem. Partly self regulating too as the instant the total hits 103,7% everyone knows somewhere something is off. Back to the drawing board for all claiming a percentage to hash it out amongst themselves till they reach a nice 100% benchmark consensus. That is of course provided I’m on to something here that even exists at all as an issue, and is a problem rather than a feature also for the special interest groups engaging. ] (]) 01:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{ping|Bon courage}} Would you be happy with the reference used in ]? ] 19:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :] is a reasonable, but old, source in a changing field. What use should I be happy for? ] (]) 19:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Have you got a newer publication that is acceptable? If not, the one above should be sufficient to revert your removal. --] 19:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Huh? That's not making sense. Could you say clearly in plain English what you want to do exactly? ] (]) 19:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Typo fixed. Hence, you may now respond to the content. --] 21:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed that you have now ]. The following review articles might be helpful to draft a short section on that matter: | |||
| * ''Considering environmental exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as risk factors for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy'', ] | |||
| * ''Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food'', ] | |||
| --] 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Professional ski wax technicians == | |||
| This section was ] with the inappropriate comment "rmv. garbage". There are two 2023 review articles that cover at least major parts of the content: | |||
| * ''Occupational exposure and serum levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): A review'', ] | |||
| * ''Occupational exposures to airborne per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—A review'', ] | |||
| ] 19:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want to insert non-garbage-content, go ahead. But don't criticise legitimate cleanup of garbage sources (as you have before), as it's disruptive. ] (]) 20:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: I wasn't aware that '']'' is a garbage journal … It's not a review article, but garbage?! --] 21:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem isn't the journal, it's Misplaced Pages content sourced to unreliable sources. ] (]) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Do you refer to ] sources? --] 21:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Non-] for ]. ] (]) 00:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Corporate and federal government suppression of information == | |||
| I have reintroduced a paragraph in this section improving some content that had been removed in the past . @] I see you reverted it simply stating "Primary sourcing". What do you mean exactly? The source is a high quality source as far as I can tell https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237242/ and the sourcing should be appropriate per ] for that kind of information. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The publisher categorize this as an "Original Article", but PUBMED has it as a review. On inspection, it's a composite of both. So, the question is: is the cited material ] in nature? ] (]) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course: "It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". In this case the primary sources are the historical documents that they reviewed. It was published in a peer reviewed journal and is on PUBMED. So it is a reliable secondary source per ]. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::They also "developed deductive codes to assess industry influence". And this "development" is original work (primary research). The review element pertains to determining document dating, so far as I can see. ] (]) 20:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fact that a "novel" categorisation was used to classify the primary documents definitely does not make this a ] source. The "deductive codes" refer to the categories they used to categorise the documents: {{tq|Drawing on the work of Bero and White , we deduced six codes from the cross-industry strategies of manipulation that researchers previously established to see whether the same practices emerge among the PFAS industry.}}. The codes were for example: {{tq|“manipulation of the research question to obtain predetermined results; funding and publishing research that supports industry interests; suppressing unfavorable research; distorting the public discourse about research; changing or setting scientific standards to serve corporate interests;"}} etc. They then used those codes to simply tag the documents they were reviewing to categorise them: {{tq|We then analyzed the documents, coding for each of these strategies}}. This falls well within the scope of ]. If you don't have further concerns would you self-revert? <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 20:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Bits are primary and bits are secondary, as for many sources. However looking with that in mind the bits you added seem to be secondary, so there is not an issue. ] (]) 20:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the self-revert. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Bloomberg Investigates == | |||
| A new documentary that was released a few days ago may be considered to be mentioned in the article: ] (]) 21:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Bioaccumulation and biomagnification == | == Bioaccumulation and biomagnification == | ||
| Line 126: | Line 54: | ||
| :You raise some interesting points. I agree that the article doesn't need a note about US legislation that didn't pass back in 2021. If we can get someone to second this point, then I'm in favor of removing the paragraph. ] (]) 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | :You raise some interesting points. I agree that the article doesn't need a note about US legislation that didn't pass back in 2021. If we can get someone to second this point, then I'm in favor of removing the paragraph. ] (]) 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::I agree, not necessary for this article. Should also be removed from intro section. ] (]) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Inconsistent - PFAS vs. PFASs == | == Inconsistent - PFAS vs. PFASs == | ||
| Line 131: | Line 60: | ||
| Article alternates between using PFAS as plural and PFASs. Should be standardized throughout. I see there was previously a RfC on this topic that did not lead to any changes. '''I am partial to "PFAS" without plural s''', as that seems to be more common in literature (and it's what the group I work with uses, so that helps). Whichever way it goes, a decision should be made and article updated to reflect that. ] (]) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | Article alternates between using PFAS as plural and PFASs. Should be standardized throughout. I see there was previously a RfC on this topic that did not lead to any changes. '''I am partial to "PFAS" without plural s''', as that seems to be more common in literature (and it's what the group I work with uses, so that helps). Whichever way it goes, a decision should be made and article updated to reflect that. ] (]) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Leaning towards using ''PFAS'''''. There are more instances of that being used over the other version, and I haven't seen any instances where PFAS was used to refer to something in the singular. —] ( ] • ] ) 01:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | :'''Leaning towards using ''PFAS'''''. There are more instances of that being used over the other version, and I haven't seen any instances where PFAS was used to refer to something in the singular. —] ( ] • ] ) 01:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :Even the OECD in its revised definition (]) uses "PFAS" as a singular: {{tq| any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF<sub>3</sub>) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF<sub>2</sub>−) is a PFAS.}}<br>"PFAS" is even sometimes used in singular, when actually the plural is meant, {{tq|Where PFAS is found at levels that exceed these standards}} {{tq|If PFAS is detected in your water}}. When using "PFASs", nobody would use "is" instead of "are". Furthermore, I've seen it several times, that people mistake "PFAS" to be a single chemical, similar to similar-looking acronyms such as PFOS, PFOA etc. This wouldn't happen if "PFASs" was used. <br>Initially, "PFASs" was used. A few years ago, there was a shift towards "PFAS". Recently, there has been a shift back to "PFASs" by Organisations such as the UN (incl. Stockholm Convention), OECD, but also in the scientific literature.<br>For the reasons stated, '''I do strongly prefer "PFASs" (with plural-s)'''. --] 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Condensing sections: adverse health outcomes, regulatory concerns, remediation == | |||
| These three sections are pretty bloated. Health outcomes I think can be reduced to a single paragraph, rather than 7 subheadings. Same idea for litigation and regulation: there are quite a lot of details about litigation from individual US states that I think the breadth of this article does not warrant. Much of this can be condensed, removed, or moved to an article specific to PFAS litigation/regulation. The section on remediation needs a rewrite; it's not organized, it's unclear which technologies are in use and which are under research, or how well developed any of them are. I'm planning to start tackling these when I get a chance, but wanted to give people a chance to weigh in (or beat me to it!) in case there are any strong feelings about any of this. ] (]) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==analytical methods== | |||
| The following paper could be useful to improve and update the section on analytical methods: | |||
| ''Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water'', https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122 ] (]) 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination as a vital article == | |||
| I've nominated this article as a level 5 vital article ]. ]] 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:21, 17 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 13 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 | On 24 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to PFAS. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 Archives | |
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification
In my view, this addition would need to be condensed considerably. The text includes general information on bioaccumulation and biomagnification. --Leyo 22:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, we prefer wikilinks to concepts like bioaccumulation and biomagnification. I don´t understand why the review (Houde M, Martin JW, Letcher RJ, Solomon KR, Muir DC (June 2006). "Biological monitoring of polyfluoroalkyl substances: A review". Environmental Science & Technology. 40 (11): 3463–3473) was removed; secondary sources are generally preferred in wp. Feel free to condense the text. JimRenge (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GregRR1 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Merge "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs"?
The sections "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs" partly cover the same topic. What about merging the contents in a section called "Socio-economic role"? 195.176.112.14 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Both sections (as such) do not exist anymore. --Leyo 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Presence in Fertilizer
Which section does this go under? ‘This is Chernobyl’: Texas ranchers say ‘forever chemicals’ in waste-based fertilizers ruined their land Hcobb (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Examples
Other than Teflon, that list isn't particularly meaningful to a non-chemist. Maybe list common products that contain these chemicals? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Unsupported statement in the article
Under the subheading of United States in the section titled "Concerns, litigation, and regulations in specific countries and regions" this statement is made: "but the Republican Party, supported by the U.S. chemical industry filibustered the bill."
I read the article linked as support for this statement. It mentions filibuster once and does not state who did the filibuster. Txantimedia (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The quote from the article is "All legislation aimed at regulating toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” died in the Democratic-controlled US Congress last session as companies flexed their lobbying muscle and bills did not gain enough Republican support to overcome a Senate filibuster." It doesn't say that there was an actual filibuster. I take it to mean if there was a filibuster, there was not enough Republican support to overcome it. So I agree that the wording in the article should be clarified. Nowa (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Even if well-sourced, the factoid may not merit inclusion in this article. It's not really about PFAS themselves. I don't know if this type of political information is appropriate for this article. (It doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia.) Drsruli (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- You raise some interesting points. I agree that the article doesn't need a note about US legislation that didn't pass back in 2021. If we can get someone to second this point, then I'm in favor of removing the paragraph. Nowa (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, not necessary for this article. Should also be removed from intro section. Gahundle (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Inconsistent - PFAS vs. PFASs
Article alternates between using PFAS as plural and PFASs. Should be standardized throughout. I see there was previously a RfC on this topic that did not lead to any changes. I am partial to "PFAS" without plural s, as that seems to be more common in literature (and it's what the group I work with uses, so that helps). Whichever way it goes, a decision should be made and article updated to reflect that. Gahundle (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Leaning towards using PFAS. There are more instances of that being used over the other version, and I haven't seen any instances where PFAS was used to refer to something in the singular. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Even the OECD in its revised definition (doi:10.1787/e458e796-en) uses "PFAS" as a singular:
any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.
"PFAS" is even sometimes used in singular, when actually the plural is meant, e.g.Where PFAS is found at levels that exceed these standards
orIf PFAS is detected in your water
. When using "PFASs", nobody would use "is" instead of "are". Furthermore, I've seen it several times, that people mistake "PFAS" to be a single chemical, similar to similar-looking acronyms such as PFOS, PFOA etc. This wouldn't happen if "PFASs" was used.
Initially, "PFASs" was used. A few years ago, there was a shift towards "PFAS". Recently, there has been a shift back to "PFASs" by Organisations such as the UN (incl. Stockholm Convention), OECD, but also in the scientific literature.
For the reasons stated, I do strongly prefer "PFASs" (with plural-s). --Leyo 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Condensing sections: adverse health outcomes, regulatory concerns, remediation
These three sections are pretty bloated. Health outcomes I think can be reduced to a single paragraph, rather than 7 subheadings. Same idea for litigation and regulation: there are quite a lot of details about litigation from individual US states that I think the breadth of this article does not warrant. Much of this can be condensed, removed, or moved to an article specific to PFAS litigation/regulation. The section on remediation needs a rewrite; it's not organized, it's unclear which technologies are in use and which are under research, or how well developed any of them are. I'm planning to start tackling these when I get a chance, but wanted to give people a chance to weigh in (or beat me to it!) in case there are any strong feelings about any of this. Gahundle (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
analytical methods
The following paper could be useful to improve and update the section on analytical methods: Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122 194.230.145.139 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Nomination as a vital article
I've nominated this article as a level 5 vital article here. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- C-Class Chemistry articles
- Mid-importance Chemistry articles
- WikiProject Chemistry articles
- C-Class Science Policy articles
- High-importance Science Policy articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists