View Single Post
Old 10-06-21, 07:39 PM
  #70  
woodcraft
Senior Member
 
woodcraft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 6,016
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1814 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 923 Times in 569 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute
No. Polytetrafluroethylene is not building up in our blood. Some flurocarbons are building up in our blood but not polytetrafluroethylene. You could eat spoonfuls of the stuff and it would not do anything other than pass through your gut. Using it in wax isn’t an environmental disaster. The wax is more reactive than PTFE and it is extremely unreactive.

Learn some chemistry before you go telling people about chemistry.


The organization whose website I linked above was started by a woman who I have met, and who has spent decades in this field, starting as a Berkeley grad student in the '60s.

They argue that the many highly flourinated chemicals as a group are too hazardous, and should not be used. While your distinction between the largely inert PTFE, and more hazardous PFAS makes sense,

one of their papers states:

"Fluoropolymers consist of molecular segments (monomers) that are linked together, with up to hundreds of thousands of linked monomers in high-molecular weight polymers. While they are commonly regarded as PFAS,(58) fluorochemical producers now argue that fluoropolymers should be separated from other PFAS for hazard assessment or regulatory purposes.(59) However, the production of fluoropolymers and perfluoropolyethers is responsible for extensive environmental PFAS contamination, including releases of both intentionally added PFAA processing aids and unintentional PFAS byproducts.(13,43,60−65) It is estimated that the vast majority (∼80%) of PFCA in the environment is from fluoropolymer manufacture and use."
woodcraft is offline