Somebody has got to step up here…..
July 20, 2019….
I recently saw a manufacturer’s letter regarding PFOA in turnout gear. It was published in April, shortly after the manufacturer sat in the front row of FDIC hearing everything Dr Peaslee had to say about PFAS in turnout gear.
But, before you read that statement… PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE FROM DR PHILIPPE GRANDJEAN, (just google philippe/pfas and hundreds of articles will come up) AND THE LEADING TOXICOLOGIST IN THE WORLD. Please pay close attention to how miniscule an amout of PFOA effects the LIVER..
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/curbing-the-use-of-forever-chemicals/?fbclid=IwAR1I8I4jjXnAwioZIrzIE2P5GvA7pYUukQLvhEzYRRXA8Hd2ENmdhaVETNw https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3475623/LION_PFOA_factsheet_042419.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0w-XaMhVppAQh27oKmsKEh1EG5DUFleIBNZ_cjt5wXUdp-UPL8OTDBPHQ
I would ask would be why would Lion choose to minimize the risk, when they heard directly from Dr Peaslee the precursor, forms PFOA in hours to days, what study are they referring to and how does the method used in their study differ from Dr Peaslee’s testing method?
Lion Gear flew to Notre Dame to bust Dr Peaslee’s lab in April. Days before they published their own store bought study. Dr Peaslee gracefully allowed their questions and was not moved by their coaching him to say the short chain PFAS are not as dangerous.
Where is the study? Why would you not name the study? Lion’s statement also attributes a statement from the International Association of FireFighters. What are the amounts, who did the study, what method was used? Why so secret? Reference the study. It is unheard of to not reference the study.
The Lion article references OKO Tek setting a limit of 25 ppb PFOA in ‘protective clothing’. That is inaccurate. Oko Tek did not set the limit. European Chemical Agency (ECHA) did in 2015.
It wasn’t based on health for the end user. It was a compromise for the industry.
In 2006 ECHA began the notifications to manufacturers that they were going to ban PFOA in all of Europe. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/61e81035-e0c5-44f5-94c5-2f53554255a8
In 2014 ECHA gave the manufacturers this form to allow a six month period for comments:
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/3b6926a2-64cb-4849-b9be-c226b56ae7fe
Here are the stake-holders comments and the response by the EU ( I hope these open for you).
Spec ific information requests — ECHA
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/c537f5b4-1305-ad3c-1a10-829144656cbd
Oct 6, 2017 — Comments and response to comments on Annex XV restriction …. Our experience is that stakeholders misinterpret identical wording in the REACH PFOA … Fjord, 2016" reports that PFCA was detected PFUnDA in sediments, ..
In 2015 the decision was delivered to allow for 25 ppb PFOA and 1ppm ‘precursor’ in ‘protective
clothing’ See page 7 : https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13641/rest_pfoa_compiled_opinions_en.pdf/2f0dfce0-3dcf-4398-8d6b-2e59c86446be
See page 37 for the six year provision given for FF PPE: https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13641/rest_pfoa_compiled_opinions_en.pdf
The fire service should proceed by circumventing manufacturers spin altogether and design your own safe handling and disposal protocols,
It is stunning with all this information in Europe all this time we were never made aware by our manufacturers. And, now while we are aware, we’re being told the trace amounts are fine…
Originally published at https://medium.com on July 20, 2019.