DuPont and the Chemistry of Deception
August 12, 2015 6:18 AM Subscribe
"In some ways, C8 already is the tobacco of the chemical industry — a substance whose health effects were the subject of a decades-long corporate cover-up." An investigative report from The Intercept examines the secret history of a toxic byproduct of the chemical manufacturing industry that has recently come to light due to a mass of pending lawsuits.
And as usual, this story is aimed at America's heart and will hit America's stomach.
posted by ocschwar at 6:38 AM on August 12, 2015
posted by ocschwar at 6:38 AM on August 12, 2015
> The company even conducted a human C8 experiment, a deposition revealed. In 1962, DuPont scientists asked volunteers to smoke cigarettes laced with the chemical and observed that “Nine out of ten people in the highest-dosed group were noticeably ill for an average of nine hours with flu-like symptoms that included chills, backache, fever, and coughing.”
Man, there's nothing in this paragraph that is not fucked up.
posted by ardgedee at 6:49 AM on August 12, 2015 [17 favorites]
Man, there's nothing in this paragraph that is not fucked up.
posted by ardgedee at 6:49 AM on August 12, 2015 [17 favorites]
"perfluorooctanoic acid"... This is completely unscientific, but I'm starting to not be surprised when I see "fluoro" and "bad for life" in proximity to one another.
posted by clawsoon at 6:59 AM on August 12, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 6:59 AM on August 12, 2015 [7 favorites]
Man, there's nothing in this paragraph that is not fucked up.
Indeed. 1962 is after the publication of the Nuremberg code on human experimentation.
posted by ocschwar at 7:05 AM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
Indeed. 1962 is after the publication of the Nuremberg code on human experimentation.
posted by ocschwar at 7:05 AM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
Initial notes : before everyone thinks we're "saturated" with C8 and that it is dripping everywhere. Because of their unique mass spectroscopic properties, Perfluoro (PF) compounds are amazingly easy to detect at less than ppb (parts per billion) range; as environmental samples are often pre-concentrated, that means we can detect samples in the ppt (parts per trillion) and lower range. This is a tiny amount of material.....the question is how potent a toxin is it?
The article conflates by association
i) some disgusting practices common to most industries prior to the foundation of the EPA (still not eliminated during the EPA's existance btw, but severely reduced in the USA, still rampant around the world) where chemical hygiene was bad and people died - and they and their families were incredibly damaged by repeated high level doses of untested chemicals. You can bet that the doses in factories with these kinds of practices (sluice it down the drain with a squeegee!! wtf) are many orders of magnitude higher than environmental exposure nearby.
ii) unknown chronic toxicological effects of minuscule amounts of PF compounds distributed around the environment
This is not to deny the problematic history of teflon and chemical regulation in general; nor the disgusting ass-covering behavior of DuPont.
posted by lalochezia at 7:23 AM on August 12, 2015 [14 favorites]
This is a tiny amount of material.....the question is how potent a toxin is it?
I'll give you an analogy. If you buy organic bananas out of concern for your own health, you're being silly. Yes, bananas get drenched with chemicals. But the skin is more than thick enough. If you buy organic bananas out of concern for the people who harvest them, you're doing precisely the right thing.
Same thing here. My use of nonstick pans is probably not booking me into an early grave. But it enabled DuPont to poison their workers and the people around their plants. Time for me to get more cast iron.
posted by ocschwar at 7:38 AM on August 12, 2015 [22 favorites]
I'll give you an analogy. If you buy organic bananas out of concern for your own health, you're being silly. Yes, bananas get drenched with chemicals. But the skin is more than thick enough. If you buy organic bananas out of concern for the people who harvest them, you're doing precisely the right thing.
Same thing here. My use of nonstick pans is probably not booking me into an early grave. But it enabled DuPont to poison their workers and the people around their plants. Time for me to get more cast iron.
posted by ocschwar at 7:38 AM on August 12, 2015 [22 favorites]
when I see "fluoro" and "bad for life" in proximity to one another.
It's not a bad fear to have, fluorine killed, maimed, or poisoned nearly every scientist involved in its discovery and isolation.
posted by Dr. Twist at 7:40 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's not a bad fear to have, fluorine killed, maimed, or poisoned nearly every scientist involved in its discovery and isolation.
posted by Dr. Twist at 7:40 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
when I see "fluoro" and "bad for life" in proximity to one another.
It's not a bad fear to have, fluorine killed, maimed, or poisoned nearly every scientist involved in its discovery and isolation.
Fluorine (the reactive element) does not equal fluoro (anything wih fluorine attached to it! Refrigerants, drugs, catalysts, chemical intermediates etc etc etc) Please stop this argument from chemical ignorance.
posted by lalochezia at 7:49 AM on August 12, 2015 [23 favorites]
While I'm grateful the cover up is being exposed, i hate how vague this article is with respect to exposure levels. There's no data about the concentrations the rats were exposed to vs the humans or the levels that sickened the cows. I'm sure different situations have orders of magnitude levels of C8, but the article itself gives no clue.
The author does note that even table salt is toxic in the right dose, but she never gives any indications what the C8 doses were.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:56 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
The author does note that even table salt is toxic in the right dose, but she never gives any indications what the C8 doses were.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:56 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
I was careful to say "completely unscientific".
But... most of the categories of "fluoro" compounds you've mentioned have at least one example of "something we initially thought was safe but turned out to be bad after we filled the world with it." Is there any possible reason for that, or am I merely seeing coincidences?
posted by clawsoon at 7:59 AM on August 12, 2015
But... most of the categories of "fluoro" compounds you've mentioned have at least one example of "something we initially thought was safe but turned out to be bad after we filled the world with it." Is there any possible reason for that, or am I merely seeing coincidences?
posted by clawsoon at 7:59 AM on August 12, 2015
But... most of the categories of "fluoro" compounds you've mentioned have at least one example of "something we initially thought was safe but turned out to be bad after we filled the world with it."
Simple: these are compounds that did not exist until the modern era, and so our bodies never evolved to be near them. That applies to pretty much all organic flouro-anythings.
posted by ocschwar at 8:02 AM on August 12, 2015
Surely most of the chemicals we fill the world with, we initially believe to be safe. Why else would we have filled the world with them?
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:04 AM on August 12, 2015
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:04 AM on August 12, 2015
Simple: these are compounds that did not exist until the modern era, and so our bodies never evolved to be near them.
I'm "researching" this on Wikipedia, and it seems that some plants synthesize fluoro- compounds in order to fend of herbivores, so they're not totally novel in nature.
Wikipedia does point out that the carbon-fluorine bond is exceptionally stable, which leads to bioaccumulation of organofluorines. So it might be - again, this is an argument from scientific ignorance - that they suffer from the problem that "everything is toxic in large enough doses".
I.e. they're generally not bad unless a whole bunch ends up in a polar bear's liver; however, because of the stability of the C-F bond, they're more likely than other organic compounds to end up concentrated in a polar bear's liver. Other organic molecules, without the strong C-F bond, get broken down before they get to the polar bear, in the livers of the seals and fish that are down the food chain. Organofluorines don't.
Is that plausible?
posted by clawsoon at 8:15 AM on August 12, 2015
I'm "researching" this on Wikipedia, and it seems that some plants synthesize fluoro- compounds in order to fend of herbivores, so they're not totally novel in nature.
Wikipedia does point out that the carbon-fluorine bond is exceptionally stable, which leads to bioaccumulation of organofluorines. So it might be - again, this is an argument from scientific ignorance - that they suffer from the problem that "everything is toxic in large enough doses".
I.e. they're generally not bad unless a whole bunch ends up in a polar bear's liver; however, because of the stability of the C-F bond, they're more likely than other organic compounds to end up concentrated in a polar bear's liver. Other organic molecules, without the strong C-F bond, get broken down before they get to the polar bear, in the livers of the seals and fish that are down the food chain. Organofluorines don't.
Is that plausible?
posted by clawsoon at 8:15 AM on August 12, 2015
This kind of dissembling is why some people won't take vaccines. (Not that I'm defending that.) When officials show no compunction about lying in the language of science, it breeds widespread mistrust. See also The Scary New Evidence About BPA-Free Plastics And the Big Tobacco-Style Campaign to Bury It.
posted by salvia at 8:21 AM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by salvia at 8:21 AM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
From Wikipedia:
California and food packagingposted by salvia at 8:23 AM on August 12, 2015
An attempt to regulate PFOA in food packaging occurred in the US state of California in 2008. A bill, sponsored by State Senator Ellen Corbett and the Environmental Working Group, was passed in the house and senate that would have banned PFOA, PFOS, and related seven or more fluorinated carbon compounds in food packaging starting in 2010,[87][88] but the bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.[89] The bill would have affected fluorochemical manufacturers outside of the state. Schwarzenegger said the compound should be reviewed by the newly established, and more comprehensive, state program.[89]
Fluorine (the reactive element) does not equal fluoro (anything wih fluorine attached to it! Refrigerants, drugs, catalysts, chemical intermediates etc etc etc) Please stop this argument from chemical ignorance.
My intent was not to spread FUD regarding fluorine compounds, many of which are stable, useful and non-toxic, only to point out that elemental fluorine also also has a storied history of being legendarily dangerous. I was on my phone and phrasing was poor.
posted by Dr. Twist at 8:25 AM on August 12, 2015
My intent was not to spread FUD regarding fluorine compounds, many of which are stable, useful and non-toxic, only to point out that elemental fluorine also also has a storied history of being legendarily dangerous. I was on my phone and phrasing was poor.
posted by Dr. Twist at 8:25 AM on August 12, 2015
Wikipedia does point out that the carbon-fluorine bond is exceptionally stable, which leads to bioaccumulation of organofluorines.
This is correct. The C-F bond is a very strong bond, and does persist in the environment for very long periods. The C-F bond itself is not necessarily problematic, however. You have to look at the whole molecule. For C-8, or perfluorooctanoic acid, there is a very acidic carboxylic acid moiety at one terminus of the carbon chain, which is quite reactive due to the electron withdrawing power of the perfluorinated carbon chain. Here is an MSDS for the compound, which would have been useful for the article to include. The HMIS and NFPA numbers for health (that diamond graphic you might see on gasoline trucks and other chemical containers) are 3 for this compound (see page 8), which is pretty toxic. Unfortunately, there aren't very good LD50 numbers in the MSDS, but suffice to say this compound should only be handled with very good personal protective equipment (PPE) and engineering controls.
For comparison, here is the MSDS for perfluorooctane, which doesn't have the carboxylic acid group. The HMIS and NFPA health numbers are 0, indicative of the non-reactivity of the compound.
This is not to say that MSDS sheets are authoritative sources for chemical hazards; as you can see from these sheets, there are a number of entries for which no data is available. But they are a good rule of thumb for selecting PPE and limiting personal exposure.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:40 AM on August 12, 2015 [12 favorites]
This is correct. The C-F bond is a very strong bond, and does persist in the environment for very long periods. The C-F bond itself is not necessarily problematic, however. You have to look at the whole molecule. For C-8, or perfluorooctanoic acid, there is a very acidic carboxylic acid moiety at one terminus of the carbon chain, which is quite reactive due to the electron withdrawing power of the perfluorinated carbon chain. Here is an MSDS for the compound, which would have been useful for the article to include. The HMIS and NFPA numbers for health (that diamond graphic you might see on gasoline trucks and other chemical containers) are 3 for this compound (see page 8), which is pretty toxic. Unfortunately, there aren't very good LD50 numbers in the MSDS, but suffice to say this compound should only be handled with very good personal protective equipment (PPE) and engineering controls.
For comparison, here is the MSDS for perfluorooctane, which doesn't have the carboxylic acid group. The HMIS and NFPA health numbers are 0, indicative of the non-reactivity of the compound.
This is not to say that MSDS sheets are authoritative sources for chemical hazards; as you can see from these sheets, there are a number of entries for which no data is available. But they are a good rule of thumb for selecting PPE and limiting personal exposure.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:40 AM on August 12, 2015 [12 favorites]
The company even conducted a human C8 experiment, a deposition revealed. In 1962, DuPont scientists asked volunteers to smoke cigarettes laced with the chemical and observed that “Nine out of ten people in the highest-dosed group were noticeably ill for an average of nine hours with flu-like symptoms that included chills, backache, fever, and coughing.”
They explicitly gave their volunteers polymer fume fever. That is fucked up.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:42 AM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
They explicitly gave their volunteers polymer fume fever. That is fucked up.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:42 AM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Forgive me for having basically no chemistry background but:
How does it happen that a chemical can be so reactive, and yet so stable? How can it simultaneously be nearly impossible to break down, but also have such effects?
posted by explosion at 8:45 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
How does it happen that a chemical can be so reactive, and yet so stable? How can it simultaneously be nearly impossible to break down, but also have such effects?
posted by explosion at 8:45 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's very reactive on its own, until it forms a bond with another substance, at which point the resulting substance is very stable. The two often go hand in hand actually.
posted by en forme de poire at 8:53 AM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 8:53 AM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
Like every other middle-class kid in the US, I never paid much attention to this while growing up. Around my early twenties I started to pay attention, and the single most glaring conclusion I can come to now after many years of paying attention is:
Man, DuPont and Dow are some rank evil fuckers.
posted by eclectist at 9:08 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
Man, DuPont and Dow are some rank evil fuckers.
posted by eclectist at 9:08 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
Surely most of the chemicals we fill the world with, we initially believe to be safe *profitable*. Why else would we have filled the world with them?
posted by j_curiouser at 9:39 AM on August 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 9:39 AM on August 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
Geary Olsen at 3M, a company that until 2000 manufactured perfluorochemicals, has published a lot of material on the exposures and health effects in humans as well as on related animal research. 3M voluntarily withdrew their products from the market (think Scothguard) when they realized this chemistry was everywhere. And, as far as I can tell, is trying its best to figure out the damage. There are plenty of people who say they aren't doing enough, but compared to their competitors, they are way closer to the right path.
Here is an article that estimates the human half-life of three species of perfluorocarbons: PFOS, PFHS, and PFOA. It gives estimates of levels in exposed workers as well.
This is an abstract of an article that documents the decline of mean and upper limit levels in US general-population samples of these and other species based on Red Cross blood donors (who may or may not be representative). Full paper is behind a paywall.
Here are two other abstracts for papers related to mortality and disease incidence among workers exposed to perfluorocarbons.
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:46 AM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
Here is an article that estimates the human half-life of three species of perfluorocarbons: PFOS, PFHS, and PFOA. It gives estimates of levels in exposed workers as well.
This is an abstract of an article that documents the decline of mean and upper limit levels in US general-population samples of these and other species based on Red Cross blood donors (who may or may not be representative). Full paper is behind a paywall.
Here are two other abstracts for papers related to mortality and disease incidence among workers exposed to perfluorocarbons.
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:46 AM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
In case anyone is interested, USEPA has these fluorinated compounds on their emerging chemicals of concern list - http://water.epa.gov/scitech/cec/
Also here's a bunch more info on EPAs website that's helpful - http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/
posted by FireFountain at 10:58 AM on August 12, 2015
Also here's a bunch more info on EPAs website that's helpful - http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/
posted by FireFountain at 10:58 AM on August 12, 2015
when I see "fluoro" and "bad for life" in proximity to one another.
See? The people against putting fluoride in water were right all along!!! Gen. Jack D. Ripper, why did I ever doubt you?
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:25 PM on August 12, 2015
See? The people against putting fluoride in water were right all along!!! Gen. Jack D. Ripper, why did I ever doubt you?
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:25 PM on August 12, 2015
explosion: How does it happen that a chemical can be so reactive, and yet so stable?
A molecule can be chemically stable but biologically reactive. If the molecule's shape is very similar to a specific hormone, for example, it can bind to the receptors for that hormone and trigger the downstream regulatory cascade that the hormone usually triggers. That's probably how BPA causes problems, for example.
posted by clawsoon at 12:54 PM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
A molecule can be chemically stable but biologically reactive. If the molecule's shape is very similar to a specific hormone, for example, it can bind to the receptors for that hormone and trigger the downstream regulatory cascade that the hormone usually triggers. That's probably how BPA causes problems, for example.
posted by clawsoon at 12:54 PM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
> Time for me to get more cast iron
That's probably the smallest bit of PTFE in your life. Teflon is the magic lubricator in your car, the magic insulator in most electrical equipment, and the magic seal in your water pipe joints.
PTFE != C8, and yet this article keeps conflating the two.
posted by scruss at 1:16 PM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
That's probably the smallest bit of PTFE in your life. Teflon is the magic lubricator in your car, the magic insulator in most electrical equipment, and the magic seal in your water pipe joints.
PTFE != C8, and yet this article keeps conflating the two.
posted by scruss at 1:16 PM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
Simple: these are compounds that did not exist until the modern era, and so our bodies never evolved to be near them.
OK, so it's my fault for not being evolved enough to handle it...good to know, I will do my best to catch up.
posted by sexyrobot at 1:45 PM on August 12, 2015
OK, so it's my fault for not being evolved enough to handle it...good to know, I will do my best to catch up.
posted by sexyrobot at 1:45 PM on August 12, 2015
A molecule can be chemically stable but biologically reactive. If the molecule's shape is very similar to a specific hormone, for example, it can bind to the receptors for that hormone and trigger the downstream regulatory cascade that the hormone usually triggers. That's probably how BPA causes problems, for example.
Yeah that's the whole thing. A lot of people talked up the chemical inertness of flurocarbons but it turns out there are mechanisms by which they can be biologically toxic nonetheless.
posted by atoxyl at 3:05 PM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah that's the whole thing. A lot of people talked up the chemical inertness of flurocarbons but it turns out there are mechanisms by which they can be biologically toxic nonetheless.
posted by atoxyl at 3:05 PM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hormones are typically measured in the picogram-per-mL concentration in the blood, which might explain why hormone-imitating compounds have effects even at extremely low concentrations.
posted by clawsoon at 9:06 AM on August 13, 2015
posted by clawsoon at 9:06 AM on August 13, 2015
« Older I spent a weekend at Google talking with nerds... | a goat who wears pants Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by oceanjesse at 6:24 AM on August 12, 2015