Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 400 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia'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. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Biased Source
[edit]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. Wikipedia's editorial standards say that content "must be verifiable." The C8SciencePanel.org position papers are not verifiable. That Table should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.212.40 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- That table was removed a while ago. --Leyo 22:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Vague tag-ism?
[edit]I strongly disagree with the necessity of hanging a "vague" tag on the sentence: Hypothyroidism is the most common thyroid abnormality associated with[vague] 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? rowley (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- These tags have been added by Beland. It seems to me that he is not an expert in the fields of epidemiology or medicine. --Leyo 09:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @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. @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..." -- Beland (talk) 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. rowley (talk) 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 doi:10.1080/10408440802209804 to check and to come up with a suggestion for rephrasing the sentence? --Leyo 13:44, 10 November 2023 (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. rowley (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @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. @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..." -- Beland (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Appropriate language?
[edit]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? Hank Stamper (talk) 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. --Leyo 13:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Changed "pocket" to "generate" in the mean time. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 21:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Estimated Contemporary Costs section provides outrageous figure
[edit]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. Rsfadia (talk) 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. --Leyo 13:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- We wish climate change would cost us "only" 17.5 trillion... try an extra order of magnitude [1] {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 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? Rsfadia (talk) 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. Rsfadia (talk) 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. 85.230.186.119 (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- We wish climate change would cost us "only" 17.5 trillion... try an extra order of magnitude [1] {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 21:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bon courage: Would you be happy with the reference used in Gestational hypertension#cite_ref-Lo2013_4-0? Leyo 19:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- PMID:23403779 is a reasonable, but old, source in a changing field. What use should I be happy for? Bon courage (talk) 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. --Leyo 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? Bon courage (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Typo fixed. Hence, you may now respond to the content. --Leyo 21:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? That's not making sense. Could you say clearly in plain English what you want to do exactly? Bon courage (talk) 19:56, 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. --Leyo 19:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that you have now removed the remaining parts of the section Pregnancy-induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia. 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, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111113
- Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223
--Leyo 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Professional ski wax technicians
[edit]This section was removed 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, doi:10.1002/ajim.23454
- Occupational exposures to airborne per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—A review, doi:10.1002/ajim.23461
Leyo 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. Bon courage (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that Environmental Science & Technology is a garbage journal … It's not a review article, but garbage?! --Leyo 21:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the journal, it's Wikipedia content sourced to unreliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you refer to WP:Primary sources? --Leyo 21:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Non-WP:MEDRS for WP:BMI. Bon courage (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you refer to WP:Primary sources? --Leyo 21:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the journal, it's Wikipedia content sourced to unreliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that Environmental Science & Technology is a garbage journal … It's not a review article, but garbage?! --Leyo 21:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Corporate and federal government suppression of information
[edit]I have reintroduced a paragraph in this section [2] improving some content that had been removed in the past [3]. @Bon courage 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 WP:MEDRS for that kind of information. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 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 WP:SECONDARY in nature? Bon courage (talk) 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 WP:SECONDARY. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 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. Bon courage (talk) 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 WP:PRIMARY source. The "deductive codes" refer to the categories they used to categorise the documents:
Drawing on the work of Bero and White [37], 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:“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:We then analyzed the documents, coding for each of these strategies
. This falls well within the scope of WP:SECONDARY. If you don't have further concerns would you self-revert? {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 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. Bon courage (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the self-revert. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 20:34, 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. Bon courage (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that a "novel" categorisation was used to classify the primary documents definitely does not make this a WP:PRIMARY source. The "deductive codes" refer to the categories they used to categorise the documents:
- 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. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 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 WP:SECONDARY. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Bloomberg Investigates
[edit]A new documentary that was released a few days ago may be considered to be mentioned in the article: The Forever Chemical Scandal | Bloomberg Investigates 77.58.7.44 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification
[edit]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
[edit] 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"?
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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.[24]"
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)