Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    691
    Post Thanks / Like

    Health Risks - Mechanical/Chemical

    Mods: Move this into the Hot Tub if you deem necessary


    For those that wear PPF, etc, how MUCH do we as detailers RESEARCH the health risks associated with the chems we use, the sealants we use, etc.
    Just scratching the surfacing but recently have been taking a deep dive into the ~non stick coatings~ that is in our cookware, our Fabrics, etc and just wanted to expand this over to Autopia, as oftentimes, I am thinking about this when applying LSP, etc.

    "For decades, American consumers have been buying water-resistant packaging and clothing, stain-resistant carpets and Teflon cookware. Now there is growing alarm that the chemical components that give those products their appeal are ending up in the water supply.
    Drinking water in 33 states from New Jersey to California has been tainted by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly referred to as PFAS. Now they are also showing up in human blood: A 2015 study found PFAS in 97 percent of blood samples tested.
    A newly released draft of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency says the substances that have made their way into drinking water are MORE DANGEROUS to human health than previously thought. Its release was delayed for months after a Trump administration aide said it would create a “public relations nightmare.”
    The substances are uncommonly difficult to break down. PFAS, of course, are water-resistant, but they are also used in firefighting foam and cookware for their ability to stand up against high temperatures.
    Despite that resistance, microscopic particles break off and end up in the food chain, causing health problems from high cholesterol to cancer."

    Nonstick Chemicals Can Really Stick Around ? in Your Body | The Pew Charitable Trusts

    Teflon?s Sticky Pollution Problem | Fortune

    Home - GenX




  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    11,816
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Health Risks - Mechanical/Chemical

    Don`t confuse the end product with the process...the PFA contamination is part of the production process, the contaminated water is around the production facilities. The end-use product where you might have run into a PFA or similar substance was Scotchgard, which was reformulated about 20 years ago when 3M found that people who lived on remote pacific islands had the ingredients in their blood...despite never having been near a can of Scotchgard (as alluded to in your quote).

    I wouldn`t worry too much about your frying pan unless you get it above 500F (don`t forget to turn off the stove).

    That`s not to diminish the dangers of these chemicals. Detailers should be smart and wear gloves (as Renny Doyle says, "if it`s on you, it`s in you"), and importantly think about respiratory protection to not inhale mists, etc. And of course hearing protection and eye protection, as applicable.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    691
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Health Risks - Mechanical/Chemical

    yes, I`m well aware we`re discussing the by-product.

    I`m just thinking outloud, as end users of said products, etc, we are supporting said by-products.

    I have not really thought it out much re: similar chemicals we use in our detailing regimine, etc and what the said effect is (whether it be direct or in-direct)....(aka, SIO2 is alot in my regimine).

    What`s unavoidable I suppose is the vibration due to polishing, but I`m not a pro polisher...

  4. #4
    Coleroad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Health Risks - Mechanical/Chemical

    This has been a topic for a long time. Chemicals both natural and man made should be treated with caution. There`s even been deaths over the, over use of ben```. Here`s an article I remembered from way back so I looked it up. It`s about the pfoa`s.


    Eight U.S. companies, including giant DuPont Co., agreed yesterday to virtually eliminate a harmful chemical used to make Teflon from all consumer products coated with the ubiquitous nonstick material.Although the chemical would still be used to manufacture Teflon and similar products, processes will be developed to ensure that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) would not be released into the environment from finished products or manufacturing plants.
    PFOA -- a key processing agent in making nonstick and stain-resistant materials -- has been linked to cancer and birth defects in animals and is in the blood of 95 percent of Americans, including pregnant women. It has also been found in the blood of marine organisms and Arctic polar bears.

    The voluntary pact, which was crafted by the Environmental Protection Agency, will force companies to reduce manufacturing emissions of PFOA by 95 percent by no later than 2010. They will also have to reduce trace amounts of the compound in consumer products by 95 percent during the same period and virtually eliminate them by 2015.
    The agreement will dramatically reduce the extent to which PFOA shows up in a wide variety of everyday products, including pizza boxes, nonstick pans and microwave-popcorn bags.
    While not as sweeping as the federal ban on DDT in 1972, yesterday`s agreement is expected to have profound implications for public health and the environment. An independent federal scientific advisory board is expected to recommend soon whether the government should classify the chemical as a "likely" or "probable" carcinogen in humans, which could trigger a new set of federal regulations.
    "The science is still coming in on PFOA, but the concern is there," said Susan B. Hazen, acting assistant administrator of EPA`s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "This is the right thing to do for our health and our environment."
    The move, which came just a month after DuPont reached a $16.5 million settlement with EPA over the company`s failure to report possible health risks associated with PFOA, drew applause from environmental groups that have frequently criticized both the administration and DuPont.
    "This is one of those days when the Environmental Protection Agency is at its best. With its announcement today, the EPA is challenging an entire industry to err on the side of precaution and public safety, and invent new ways of doing business," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization. "As harshly as we have singled out DuPont for criticism for its past handling of PFOA pollution, today we want to single out and commend the company and acknowledge its leadership going forward."
    DuPont officials said they were confident they could alter manufacturing methods over the coming decade to contain PFOA exposure from products that generated $1 billion in sales for the company in 2004.
    "It`s important to do this because this is a persistent material in the environment, and it`s at low levels in people`s blood," said David Boothe, DuPont`s global business director. To remove PFOA, he said, the company will subject some of its products to extra heat and will sometimes add a step in the manufacturing process. "We`re going to push it really hard and take it as far as we can."
    Scientific studies have not established a link between using products containing trace amounts of PFOA, such as microwave-popcorn bags or nonstick pans, and elevated cancer levels. Hazen said yesterday`s announcement should "not indicate any concern . . . for consumers using household products" with such coatings.
    Several other companies agreed yesterday to reduce public exposure to the chemical, including 3M Co., Ciba and Clariant Corp. But DuPont, which settled a class-action suit last year accusing it of contaminating drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia communities near its plant in Parkersburg, W.Va., has attracted the most public scrutiny over its PFOA use.
    William Bailey III, who was born in 1981 with multiple birth defects while his mother, Sue, was working with the chemical at the Parkersburg plant, said he will "be watching" to see if the chemical giant complies with the new agreement.
    "They`re trying to save face," said Bailey, who is suing DuPont over his birth defects.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    238
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Health Risks - Mechanical/Chemical

    Every couple of years I email 3M and ask them what masks I should be wearing for the current crop of abrasives used in compound and polishes. I would buy the mask or filters and use them. I am going to have to add SiO2 components.
    I would give the number of my current mask, but I was cleaning out the closet and my 4 German Shepherds thought it was a pull toy. I am going to Lowes and see if I can find the mask and I am also going to email 3M to get some current recommendations.

  6. #6
    LEDetailng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    977
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Health Risks - Mechanical/Chemical

    Quote Originally Posted by kajunman View Post
    Every couple of years I email 3M and ask them what masks I should be wearing for the current crop of abrasives used in compound and polishes. I would buy the mask or filters and use them. I am going to have to add SiO2 components.
    I would give the number of my current mask, but I was cleaning out the closet and my 4 German Shepherds thought it was a pull toy. I am going to Lowes and see if I can find the mask and I am also going to email 3M to get some current recommendations.
    I’ve often wondered about wearing a particle mask when doing compounding and polishing. The microscopic dust cannot be good for our lungs. I should probably start with consistently wearing eye and ear protection

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    11,816
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Health Risks - Mechanical/Chemical

    Quote Originally Posted by mobiledynamics View Post
    yes, I`m well aware we`re discussing the by-product.

    I`m just thinking outloud, as end users of said products, etc, we are supporting said by-products.
    Well, a lot of the exposure is to the workers...and the surrounding communities when the mfrs. dumped these chemicals instead of handling them responsibly. I`m one who usually gives the benefit of the doubt in these situations, that these releases occurred before it was clear the dangers posed, etc. But a friend of mine pointed out to me that prosecutions and lawsuits have proved that in many of these instances, these chemicals were dumped after the companies involved knew full well the dangers (kind of the way Exxon kept secret its climate change data, the cigarette companies pretended they didn`t know nicotine was addictive or that cigs caused lung cancer, and the asbestos companies played dumb about those dangers).

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    81,585
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Health Risks - Mechanical/Chemical

    Ah, people are paying attention to such stuff!

    Back in the days of 3M`s PI-II line most detailers scoffed at the idea.

 

 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 02:26 PM
  2. The inherent risks of racing
    By togwt in forum Hot Tub
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-02-2012, 08:26 PM
  3. Detailing Health Risks
    By togwt in forum Autopia Detailing Wiki
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-02-2011, 01:44 PM
  4. mechanical vs chemical
    By III in forum Auto Detailing 101
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-08-2005, 06:25 PM
  5. New to detailing, chemical health question!
    By markabcasn in forum Auto Detailing 101
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-03-2004, 05:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •