PFAS and Power Lines Cause Cancer?

In summary, the article explores the potential links between PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) and power lines as contributors to cancer risk. It discusses how PFAS, often found in firefighting foam and various consumer products, can accumulate in the environment and human body, leading to health concerns. Additionally, it examines research on electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from power lines and their association with cancer. The piece emphasizes the need for further studies to clarify these relationships and the importance of regulatory measures to protect public health.
  • #1
russ_watters
Mentor
23,518
10,859
TL;DR Summary
Is PFAS the new "power lines cause cancer"?
Here's an article(labeled as opinion) I just read from CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/opinions/chemicals-in-clothes-harmful-health-wicker/index.html

This OP is only a starting point; I intend to look into the issue more deeply. But from what I see, this article (not unique these days) is heavy on fearmongering, light on research connecting the fear to reality. I was tempted to title the thread "PFAS is the New Homeopathy?" but we're not quite there yet.

For reference, the EPA's maximum allowable concentration of arsenic in drinking water, is 10 ppb. These are the sorts of concentration levels being implied are able to cause cancer from PFAS. For the main thrust of the article though, it's clothes and they don't say anything about how PFAS from clothes might get into the bloodstream. Presumably people are rolling up their shirts and smoking them? Or perhaps PFAS Tea?

This issue hits home a bit more because several Philadelphia Phillies veterans have come down with cancer, and the old Veterans Stadium turf was apparently made with PFAS. Presumably the Phillies were grinding the grass up and smoking it? The Philly Inquirer doesn't say how the exposure could happen in its article series about the issue. It's a sad human interest story mainly, with only an implied villain. Must be the PFAS:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/inq2/...ioblastoma-cancer-phillies-1980-20230307.html
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pfas-...oblastoma-reddit-ama-20230314.html?query=pfas

The article above mentions BPA. BPA was used in plastic bottles. That provides a clear vehicle for exposure: BPA leaches into the water, and then you drink it. No such mechanism is suggested for clothes.

In the 1970s, a crackpot scientist and reporter (IIRC) made their names on a spurious claim that power lines cause cancer. My gut tells me we're dealing with a modern version of it here, with PFAS.

edit:
A specific claim:
For example, research by Notre Dame professor Dr. Graham Peaslee shows that PFAS comes off of treated textiles at the parts-per-million level. That’s 1,000 times more. [than ppb!]
The linked article:
Though scientists have not yet learned if PFASs can transfer to the human body simply by coming in contact with the skin....
It's unclear to me what the CNN claim is actually referring to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DeBangis21, Rive and Drakkith
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
russ_watters said:
TL;DR Summary: Is PFAS the new "power lines cause cancer"?

Here's an article(labeled as opinion) I just read from CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/opinions/chemicals-in-clothes-harmful-health-wicker/index.html

This OP is only a starting point; I intend to look into the issue more deeply. But from what I see, this article (not unique these days) is heavy on fearmongering, light on research connecting the fear to reality. I was tempted to title the thread "PFAS is the New Homeopathy?" but we're not quite there yet.

For reference, the EPA's maximum allowable concentration of arsenic in drinking water, is 10 ppb. These are the sorts of concentration levels being implied are able to cause cancer from PFAS. For the main thrust of the article though, it's clothes and they don't say anything about how PFAS from clothes might get into the bloodstream. Presumably people are rolling up their shirts and smoking them? Or perhaps PFAS Tea?

This issue hits home a bit more because several Philadelphia Phillies veterans have come down with cancer, and the old Veterans Stadium turf was apparently made with PFAS. Presumably the Phillies were grinding the grass up and smoking it? The Philly Inquirer doesn't say how the exposure could happen in its article series about the issue. It's a sad human interest story mainly, with only an implied villain. Must be the PFAS:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/inq2/...ioblastoma-cancer-phillies-1980-20230307.html
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pfas-...oblastoma-reddit-ama-20230314.html?query=pfas

The article above mentions BPA. BPA was used in plastic bottles. That provides a clear vehicle for exposure: BPA leaches into the water, and then you drink it. No such mechanism is suggested for clothes.

In the 1970s, a crackpot scientist and reporter (IIRC) made their names on a spurious claim that power lines cause cancer. My gut tells me we're dealing with a modern version of it here, with PFAS.

edit:
A specific claim:

The linked article:

It's unclear to me what the CNN claim is actually referring to.
On my tablet so I cannot post links easily. The States are driving this but this is filtering down to Europe.
Your are familiar with ECHA and REACh? More complicated since Brexit.
Three webinars this year alone on this subject....

Basically there has been push back over here but I will update you from work.
Simply put the chemistry is very broad (12,000 chemicals one estimate)
Endocrine disruptors cited rather than carcinogenic regarding the ecosystem.
They do the jobs they are supposed to do very well, they do not break down.

Problem is they don't break down!
 
  • #3
russ_watters said:
In the 1970s, a crackpot scientist and reporter (IIRC) made their names on a spurious claim that power lines cause cancer.
And a lot of money was spent to find that:
1) People who lived near high voltage power lines had increased rates of cancer
and
2) People who lived near HV power lines had less healthy lifestyles
and
3) Those lifestyles (rates of drinking, smoking, lack of exercise, diet) were associated with higher rates of cancer
and
4) Further studies controlled for those lifestyle variables did not find increased cancer.

The fearmongering was still happening in the late 1990's when I was designing an active vibration control system using powerful electromagnets. The question was raised in a design review, so I looked into it. Somebody at the Medical College of Wisconsin had reviewed several hundred papers on the subject, and posted a list of those paper with a short paragraph summary of each paper online in chronological order. It was interesting reading because the papers started with a strong correlation between power lines and cancer. As the various researchers controlled for confounding variables, the correlation got weaker until it disappeared completely. I looked for that site a few years ago, and was unable to find it.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes berkeman, russ_watters and BillTre
  • #4
UK webinar will be regulatory. Next one.
ECHA have dossiers on this and other SVHC that are accessible.
 
  • #5
Conclusions are after page 21.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
I suggest that it is important to call out fearmongering for what it is.
That being said, it is not, and should never be, used as an ad hominem counterargument. The fact that there are fearmongers says nothing about the underlying real science and some dang in our environment is really really bad. Can we say TetraEthylLead ?
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #7
hutchphd said:
I suggest that it is important to call out fearmongering for what it is.
That being said, it is not, and should never be, used as an ad hominem counterargument. The fact that there are fearmongers says nothing about the underlying real science and some dang in our environment is really really bad. Can we say TetraEthylLead ?
Total apologies guys. That was NOT intentional. Link was footy somehow???
I must have been on another forum link not sure.
Apologies. Not pf
 
  • #8
PFAS is kinda my life these days. I’m a project manager helping to clean it up for the Air Force.

It’s not tin foil hat stuff. The science is coming in and it’s kinda scary. They are finding these “forever chemicals” in Antartica! Which means it is present in rainwater…. everywhere.
 
  • Like
Likes TeethWhitener, russ_watters, pinball1970 and 1 other person
  • #9
chemisttree said:
The science is coming in and it’s kinda scary. They are finding these “forever chemicals” in Antartica! Which means it is present in rainwater…. everywhere.
That sort of science doesn't scare me; you should be able to find basically everything everywhere if you can detect small enough quantities. The question is: are there health impacts?
 
  • Like
Likes phinds, Laroxe and Bystander
  • #10
russ_watters said:
That sort of science doesn't scare me; you should be able to find basically everything everywhere if you can detect small enough quantities. The question is: are there health impacts?
The answer is yes, most likely:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/
The mechanism of action is still up in the air, as the chemical reactivity of PFAS itself is very low. However, physically, PFAS “looks” a lot like lipids, and can activate lipid-specific pathways and partition preferentially into the lipid cell membrane, where it can change permeability properties. This suggests systemic dysregulation of lots of pathways, which is consistent with the wide range of symptoms reported by people with high PFAS exposure.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes pinball1970, BillTre and berkeman
  • #13
chemisttree said:
You couldn’t devise a better transdermal delivery device for PFAS! 🙁
Yes you can absorb drugs via mucosa, ppm though? Not sure if could illicit an effect? I suppose the cumulative one dose per month for 3-7 days every year from age 13-45 is the issue.
 
  • #16
BillTre said:
It would not surprise me if most Americans don't understand how the chemical nature of water affects them.
And British Bill. I work with some great techs but they glaze over when I talk about chemistry and I have limited knowledge on the subject.
They know about tolerances and certain tests but as to the underlying mechanisms they think it is boring.
Does it pass? Yes. Good to go.
 
  • #18
We’re hearing that EPA is getting ready to publish an MCL for drinking water of 40 parts per trillion. Expecting this by late Summer or Fall. When that happens all H is going to break loose. This will go nationwide, so it’s coming to a water district near you!

Good time to be in the remediation business.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and pinball1970
  • #19
chemisttree said:
We’re hearing that EPA is getting ready to publish an MCL for drinking water of 40 parts per trillion. Expecting this by late Summer or Fall. When that happens all H is going to break loose. This will go nationwide, so it’s coming to a water district near you!

Good time to be in the remediation business.
Parts per trillion? Pretty certain our test houses reporting limits are ppb, 5?
I will check!

EDIT:
A quick check on a couple of reporting limits.
The labs report Ppb going as low as 0.01 ppb for specific organics.
0.01ppb = 10 ppt, therefore within the range you specified.
Testing (we use) is a mixture of LC and GC/MS so not particularly cheap.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
The problem with PFAS and plastics generally are really associated with the huge number of different compounds and the lack of clear data around adverse health effects. As yet, the public are unconvinced that this issue represents a significant risk. I actually do think that the fearmongering of the environmental movement is an issue, the increasing distrust of the information in the media has reduced the impact. It's interesting that it's the governments and health bodies that are pushing the control efforts, rather than public pressure.

Of course plastics do break down over time and any complex molecule can be destroyed, nothing is forever really. Microplastics do eventually settle out of the ocean and will eventually revert to their original form as a form of oil and the and the suggested dangers of PFAS is based on weak, poor quality research. There are also a number of technologies being developed to remove PFAS from the environment, these even include biological control, there are now some 400 organisms identified that can break down plastics.

The real issue now is about the increasing amount of PFAS in the environment, something which may very well turn a potential threat into a very real one. It's only now and in very select places that efforts are starting to reduce their use, we have little idea as to how successful these will be, and it's likely that progress will be slow. It's surprising how many perfectly natural chemicals can be found in our bodies, which appear to have few health effects, but despite the efforts to control PFAS, removing them is a slow process, and they will continue to accumulate.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #21
Laroxe said:
There are also a number of technologies being developed to remove PFAS from the environment, these even include biological control, there are now some 400 organisms identified that can break down plastics.
I have a friend who made a system using micro-organisms to rapidly remove some nasty toxic chemical contaminant from ground water.
The water is pumped out via well and run through a fluidized sand bed
(kind of like this:)

Screenshot 2024-02-07 at 2.17.55 PM.png

but 10-20 foot diameter and 8-10 feet tall.
The bacteria grows on the sand which is constantly falling through an upwelling flow of contaminated water. It could handle big flows of water and the treated water was clear of the contaminant.
He found the bacteria by collecting mud in industrial areas were the chemical had a history of being spilled.
He made a bunch of money on this because the alternative was run to pumped water through very large charcoal (activated carbon) filters (very expensive). Then the charcoal would have to disposed of in safe way because the chemical was still in the charcoal, not destroyed as the bacteria would do.

These are the same kind of filters used in many large fish facilities (which is how I met him).
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and Laroxe
  • #22
We (USAF) have been operating under the assumption that the EPA’s recommendation of 70 ppT would eventually become an MCL.
 
  • #23
It is not my experience that PFAS remediation and the establishment of exposure limits are being driven by governments or health bodies. It is also not my experience that PFAS chemicals are naturally broken down in the environment or that the science around the issue is of poor quality.

Please do share with me the biological organisms that are breaking down PFAS compounds. Are there really 400 organisms that can break down PFAS compounds?
 
  • Like
Likes Laroxe
  • #24
chemisttree said:
It is not my experience that PFAS remediation and the establishment of exposure limits are being driven by governments or health bodies. It is also not my experience that PFAS chemicals are naturally broken down in the environment or that the science around the issue is of poor quality.

Please do share with me the biological organisms that are breaking down PFAS compounds. Are there really 400 organisms that can break down PFAS compounds?
Well, the qualifying statements first; the first issue is in the number of PFAS along with the number of different plastics and processes involved in producing them. These often have very different properties, and it's very unlikely that any one process will effectively remove them all. Having said that there are already a number of technologies being developed that appear able to destroy them and I do have a problem with the whole idea of "forever chemicals" particularly those that are complex compounds. There is a common myth about plastics staying in the environment for hundreds of years, this is despite the fact if you leave a bucket outside and go back to it a year later the thing will disintegrate as you pick it up. In fact many of the techniques involve versions of the common processes of degradation, UV light, oxidation, heat, acids/alkalis and various enzymes. It's true that these compounds are very resilient, so many of these techniques have a limited range and require some special ways of enhancing the reactions.
Apparently, the first evidence of possible bacterial control was discovered in 2016 and because of the possible commercial applications prompted the identification of more. As Bill described, these are often identified at sites that manage these chemicals as waste products, basically you find an environmental niche and some form of life will try to exploit it. Remember that they even got bacteria to grow on the external surface's of the space station.
The best I could come up with for more detail is in this article, but I doubt that there will be a complete list of organisms, the number will grow, and the discoveries will be commercially protected. Its likely that all of these organisms will be very specific in the chemicals they target, and there needs to be ways developed to enhance the speed of their activities. It's interesting that soon after writing my original comments I noticed the title of another article on Medscape entitled "We are in a Brave New World of Low Grade Toxicities", that seems about right really.

https://www.theseacleaners.org/news...a-sci-fi-or-plan-b-against-plastic-pollution/
 
  • #25
I see. You are referring to plastics and not PFAS compounds.
 
  • #26
PFAS compounds have been identified as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) which can create hormonal imbalances. Hormones as we recall are chemicals that regulate many bodily functions to maintain homeostasis. Imbalances in hormone levels may have all manners of effects. Even slight imbalances can cause significant effects regarding metabolism, development, mood, growth, sexual function. One might particularly want to be concerned about the effect in children.

For more info see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926449/
 
  • Like
Likes Laroxe and BillTre
  • #28
gleem said:
PFAS compounds have been identified as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) which can create hormonal imbalances. Hormones as we recall are chemicals that regulate many bodily functions to maintain homeostasis. Imbalances in hormone levels may have all manners of effects. Even slight imbalances can cause significant effects regarding metabolism, development, mood, growth, sexual function. One might particularly want to be concerned about the effect in children.

For more info see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926449/
I'm not trying to defend the use of PFAS but it is a complex issue. Our environment is awash with potential toxins and our own body as a by product of metabolism produces some of the more dangerous. We need to remember that most of the organisms we use as food sources are not happy about this and plants in particular invented endocrine disruption as a weapon against their predators well before we did.

The fact is that virtually anything can be toxic, even water, but as a famous forensic pathologist once said, "the poison is in the dose". Your own link in many ways explains the problem, there are good reasons to believe that PFAS can be potentially damaging, its just not clear if the level of exposure will cause these problems. Then there is the issue that even if we can identify endocrine effects, are these at a level to have health effects. It does seem we are going into attempting to control this potential threat with little in the way of understanding. I noticed one report of trials in which long chain PFAS were replaced with short chain PFAS which are thought to be somewhat safer. This was until they noticed that various chemical reactions in the environment caused some of the SC-PFAS to convert to LC versions
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and OCR
  • #29
Laroxe said:
but as a famous forensic pathologist once said, "the poison is in the dose".
Paracelsus a Swiss physician and alchemist 1493-1541

The fact that PFASs can bind to estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormone receptors should be a concern enough to think hard about the need for these substances.
 
  • Like
Likes Laroxe and pinball1970
  • #32
  • #33
pinball1970 said:
Which part? @Bystander
"Everything" causes cancer/"Oh!My!Gawd!It's!Dip!"**/Global Warming/the latest fad/.... Seventy-some years, chem. degree/geo-chem minor, have somewhat jaded me. **Jessica Rabbit, WFRR.
 
  • #34
pinball1970 said:
You not think that is disrespectful?

Do I post like a sensationalist idiot? If not DON'T reply to me like that.
Not you, the study.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #35
The FDA has announced that there will be no more food wrappers/containers that use PFAS as a grease barrier in the US. These include coated paper products such as fast food wrappers, boxes, and bags.
 
  • Like
Likes Laroxe

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top