[pianotech] Teflon accused again

[Susan Kline]

Thanks, Barrie.

I had already gotten rid of teflon-coated frying pans, because of toxic 
fumes if
(when) they get overheated. I still have a soup pot lined in teflon, 
since it
doesn't get as hot when soup is simmering, but I won't replace it with 
another
teflon pot.

I don't use very much teflon spray, and now I won't use it at all.

This article does convince me that while I will use my large existing 
supply of teflon
powder, carefully and not very quickly, I won't buy more when it's gone.

Susan Kline
>> From the BBC
>
> It's on saucepans, clothing, even buildings, but now Teflon - the 
> famed non-stick chemical - is at the centre of a slippery controversy 
> about cancer and birth defects.
>
> Since its invention in the 1930s, amateur and professional cooks alike 
> will acknowledge their debt of gratitude to Teflon. Over the years, 
> the non-stick coating on pots and pans has helped turn out countless 
> perfect fried eggs and cheese soufflés.
>
> But for how much longer? Environmentalists have called for the 
> withdrawal of a chemical which is a key ingredient in the manufacture 
> of Teflon because of growing health fears.
>
> Perfluorooctanoic Acid, PFOA for short, is a synthetic chemical used 
> in the manufacture of advanced plastics including Teflon.
>
> Today, all new man-made chemicals must undergo rigorous testing to be 
> marketed in Europe. But PFOA is one of 100,000 or so chemicals which 
> avoided the test because they were invented before 1981.
>
> Teflon was invented in the 1930s by DuPont, the US firm which uses it 
> today to make non-stick cookware, and also markets it as a coating for 
> clothes and carpets.
>
> Bucky Bailey
> Bucky Bailey's mother became pregnant while working at DuPont's West 
> Virginia plant
> The company recently agreed to an out-of-court settlement to a class 
> action lawsuit brought by around 50,000 residents who lived near its 
> West Virginia plant.
>
> The residents, who lived along the Ohio river south of Parkersburg, 
> West Virginia, claimed the company had contaminated local water 
> supplies with PFOA, which they alleged was linked to birth defects and 
> other health hazards.
>
> Among the plaintiffs was Bucky Bailey, who was born with a single 
> nostril and a deformed face. His mother fell pregnant with him while 
> working at DuPont's Parkersburg plant.
>
> DuPont eventually agreed to pay $50m in cash to the plaintiffs, plus 
> $22m in legal costs. The company also agreed to spend $10m on special 
> water treatment facilities to filter out PFOA.
>
> But, crucially, DuPont did not accept liability and maintained PFOA 
> did not pose any danger to the public.
>
> Water tests
>
> "We want to make very clear that settling this lawsuit in no way 
> implies any admission of liability on DuPont's part," says DuPont 
> lawyer Stacey J Mobley.
>
>
> DuPont have some brilliant scientists.. I don't believe they couldn't 
> find an alternative
> Dr Tim Kropp
>
> At the same time, DuPont is facing another multi-million dollar 
> lawsuit from the US environmental watchdog for allegedly failing to 
> disclose the results of secret water tests in 1984.
>
> It faces being fined $27,000 for every day since 1984.
>
> Now, environmental campaigners on both sides of the Atlantic want to 
> ban the controversial chemical.
>
> "PFOA accumulates in the body and in the environment and studies on 
> animals suggest a link to birth defects. We are very concerned about 
> it," says Karine Pellaumail, from Friends of the Earth.
>
> Dr Tim Kropp, a toxicologist working for the Environmental Working 
> Group in the US says tests carried out by the US firm 3M suggested 
> high doses of PFOA led to various forms of cancer in rats.
>
> "DuPont have some brilliant scientists and I don't believe that they 
> couldn't find an alternative if they put their minds to it," says Dr 
> Kropp.
>
> 'Respond with compassion'
>
> But DuPont disagrees. "There is no evidence that PFOA is harmful," 
> says its director of media relations, Clifton Webb. "We are very 
> confident that there are no health effects associated with the 
> public's exposure to PFOA at the levels we have seen."
>
>
> FACTS ABOUT TEFLON
> Non-stick frying pan
> Invented in US in 1930s
> 1946, first marketed by DuPont as Teflon
> Has the lowest coefficient of friction of any solid material known to man
> Found on pots, pans, overcoats, bullets and pine lining
> But, he accepts that, in high enough doses, PFOA could be carcinogenic 
> to animals.
>
> As for those who had suffered birth defects, such as Bucky Bailey, he 
> says the firm would "respond with compassion and concern, but they are 
> not related to exposure to PFOA".
>
> According to 3M's tests, PFOA was present in five parts per billion in 
> the bloodstream, says Mr Webb.
>
> Workers exposed to it were likely to have a level "thousands of times 
> higher", he concedes, but there was no evidence it was doing them harm.
>
> As for substitutes, the company has identified around 100 possible 
> alternatives to PFOA - which is used as a processing aid in Teflon - 
> but none could produce the sufficient "quantity or quality" required. 
> Cost, he says, is not an issue.
>
> Last year the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched 
> an investigation into the chemical's effects, a study which is being 
> watched by the British government.
>
> It acknowledges "considerable scientific uncertainties" on the issue 
> but says there is no reason anyone should stop using Teflon products.
>
> But the EPA is expected to submit a more comprehensive risk analysis 
> next month.
>
> Last year the British government called for a related chemical, 
> perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS), to be withdrawn. It followed 3M's 
> decision to abolish the chemical from its well-known Scotchgard 
> products after health concerns were raised.
>
> "PFOA is related to it but nowhere near as much research has been done 
> into it and we are awaiting the outcome of the EPA's research," says a 
> spokesman for Defra.
>
> Others are seeking a more restrained response. Professor Scott Mabury, 
> head of environmental chemistry at the University of Toronto, says a 
> ban on PFOA would be "Draconian" and the answer was to go back to the 
> factory and make sure residual levels of the polluting chemicals were 
> removed in the production process.
>
>
>
> Not good reading
>
> Barrie
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20121224/89d7793a/attachment.htm>