For example, I used to drink tons of unflavored, purified carbonated water (aka "Seltzer Water"). I thought this is likely not very unhealthy since it's literally just pure water + carbon dioxide dissolved in it. It made me drink tons of more water (we're talking significantly more water than I would normally drink) so I thought it's a net benefit. But some evidence came out [1] that common seltzer brands have detectable amount of PFA in them. This may be because (1) PFAs are in water sources, (2) PFAs are in the plumbing systems of these companies' factories, (3) something else. Since we don't know how much PFA is too much, we've been a lot more meek about drinking seltzer water. To be honest, I still do drink it, but a lot less so. I mostly drink tap water, and in the area I live in (Boston, MA), there is no PFA detection, or it's very low.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pfas-chemicals-in-sparkling-wat...
I was so disappointed when many of our local restaurants stopped serving bottles of San Pellegrino, and instead switched to whatever the commercial food service equivalent of a SodaStream is.
[1] https://khymos.org/2012/01/04/mineral-waters-a-la-carte/
It’s “real” carbonated water and is also chilled. It works quite well.
Further, it has standard tank hookup so you can attach a huge co2 tank if you prefer. We only have to change it out yearly.
Are there other cons I'm not aware of?
Seems like small potatoes compared to having clean drinking water.
Are you saying that the amount of energy it takes to deliver a given volume of water, varies based on the resistance at the outlet?
Most toothpastes make my teeth sensitive. Interestingly, one of the few that doesn't is fluoride-free. There's been no negative difference in the health of my teeth over the last several years of using that. My experience - fluoride overhyped, especially if you have an electric toothbrush.
It’s also a heavy metal, so if you don’t have problems with tooth decay I’d say you have nothing to worry about :)
Water utilities will all be moving to activated carbon filtration as emerging contaminants are better understood and regulations catch up.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/san-pellegrino-clone.56...
https://us.zipwater.com/hydrotap-product-range/hydrotap-arc-...
1. The relative harm of the type of PFA to human and animal health 2. The longevity of that PFA in the environment 3. The removal/price ratio for any technique getting rid of that PFA 4. How likely that PFA in the environment will infiltrate water supplies, food supplies, the biosphere
They're the "forever" chemicals. Like mercury in tuna fish.
PFAS are handy, but there are alternatives. The potential for harm is documented, and developed nations have a duty to consider protecting their populations from their effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...
Also great for preventing stains, used on carpets.
Lots of attractive applications of these chemicals and that's why they're so pervasive
I have no recourse, obviously.
I don’t think it’s a minor issue.
Sorry to hear your diagnosis :(
Should we use PFAs in underwear, handsoap, women's fashionware, mens hair products, sweaters, holiday decorations, etc? Absolutely not. These items are seasonable and disposable.
Is it ok to use PFAs in outdoor wear, long term infrastructure, and other things designed to have a lifespan of 10-20 years? Yeah probably; a huge net positive for the environment is reduce consumption.
Building fewer things that last longer is a good thing. I have no idea how we would manage this, I don't have all the answers. Obviously PFAs have no place in Fast Fashion, which by itself without PFAs is extraordinarily hard on the environment (lookup textile waste).
The real problem is PFA usage is being completed abused. I think PFAs are needed when durability actually matters, as it's a good tradeoff.
This is my opinion, I'm sure people will disagree.