PFAS in fish

KPE thanks for pointing out the reality of follow the money. Many in government have learned how to milk large corporations, MN is way ahead of most.

That being said we do need to monitor possible carcinogens being released in our industrial society. I wonder how much of that 3M settlement went to fund trial lawyers new homes full of PFAS? I wonder how much of the funds the state received will have anything to do with the cleanup? How much went into special project slush funds? We all know how that game is played.

“Your gore Tex boots and rain coats are PFAS, Your fluorocarbon fishing line is PFAS, your carpet is PFAS coated like anything that claims to be stain resistant.”

Spot on KPE. I don’t understand the environmental ignorance/hypocrisy on this forum.

Complaining about things like PFAS and plastic pollution while at the same time using plastic fishing line with a fluorine chemistry in it which means it’s PFAS.

All the while wearing gortex boots (PFAS) and rain coats (PFAS) in the spring and fall fishing from your boat with PFAS carpet.

Flurocarbon fishing line—-2023 is probably its last year so get ready for it to get banned in the next 6-12 months.

So for those either outraged or concerned about PFAS. Will you get rid of all your fluorocarbon fishing line today?

Hey wrote:

So for those either outraged or concerned about PFAS. Will you get rid of all your fluorocarbon fishing line today?

Kind of missing the point. Is Seaguar settling for a 675 million settlement like DuPont did? Or an $850 million lawsuit settlement like 3M is? Is Seaguar required to monitor and clean up the ground water supply they’ve contaminated? No, they aren’t. Because they are disposing of the chemicals properly.

Its perfectly fine to use these chemicals. They are used in a lot of items we use on a daily basis, including fluorocarbon fishing line. No one is arguing that here.

If I found out the in-tact Goretex or fluorocarbon I was using lead to increased levels in tissue samples I would 100% give them up. Im already doing that with lead and microplastics.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Hey wrote:</div>
So for those either outraged or concerned about PFAS. Will you get rid of all your fluorocarbon fishing line today?

Kind of missing the point. Is Seaguar settling for a 675 million settlement like DuPont did? Or an $850 million lawsuit settlement like 3M is? Is Seaguar required to monitor and clean up the ground water supply they’ve contaminated? No, they aren’t. Because they are disposing of the chemicals properly.

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact the Seaguar doesn’t have the dollars that Dupont and 3M have to make it worth putting a target on them? Pretty impressed that you know how Seaguar disposes of their chemicals too.

I tried to post some links, but they appear to have broken forum rules or something like that … sorry about that.

I would suggest that anyone interested in PFAS look at the CDC site. Plenty of information on established (known risks) and perceived/extrapolated risks.

If you believe you are exposed or could be exposed … take the actions you believe are necessary.

“Kind of missing the point. Is Seaguar settling for a 675 million settlement like DuPont did? Or an $850 million lawsuit settlement like 3M is? Is Seaguar required to monitor and clean up the ground water supply they’ve contaminated? No, they aren’t. Because they are disposing of the chemicals properly.”
And you know this how?
I don’t think anyone on this forum condones dumping. My point wasn’t in support of dumping, but pointing out, and criticizing the media for the overblown hysteria they’re causing. We’re raising an entire generation of snowflakes thanks to the unfounded fear they’ve caused.

Go back and read KPE’s post. Disposal that was legal at one time may no longer be.

Let me add that say 50 years, 30 years ago or even 5 years ago (depending on the materials or concentrations)… testing did not have the accuracy or sensitivity to measure what is now being measured. Not just on these chemicals, but many things present in our environment. Example Radon.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Hey wrote:</div>
So for those either outraged or concerned about PFAS. Will you get rid of all your fluorocarbon fishing line today?

Kind of missing the point. Is Seaguar settling for a 675 million settlement like DuPont did? Or an $850 million lawsuit settlement like 3M is? Is Seaguar required to monitor and clean up the ground water supply they’ve contaminated? No, they aren’t. Because they are disposing of the chemicals properly.

Its perfectly fine to use these chemicals. They are used in a lot of items we use on a daily basis, including fluorocarbon fishing line. No one is arguing that here.

I wish chemistry was a core part of high school. My goodness.

Here is the missing point you do not understand. So Seaguar disposes of all PFAS properly? How do you dispose of PFAS properly? The PFAS chemical is almost entirely disposed into the fishing line they make. The PFAS chemicals are in the line…

You’re confused on this.

Let’s say seagur gets 1000lbs of PFAS chemicals. It almost entirely goes in to the fluoro carbon line. It makes untold feet of fishing line with PFAS in it.

How does all that Fluorocarbon fishing line, that contains the PFAS chemicals, get disposed of properly??? It’s transferred into the fishing line!

So what happens when the fishing line degrades—-where do the PFAS chemicals go?????

You’re thinking like oil spill stuff.. it’s not the oil it’s the spilling of it.

That’s not what this is. It’s the PFAS chemical itself not a spill somewhere

…and the reason we use PFAAs is largely due to their non-reactivity, AKA, their inertness. So somewhere, perhaps everywhere, at the bottom of lakes and rivers we have PFAs just waiting to kill things, right? Except that they’re….. wait for it….FOREVER CHEMICALS! And they’re “forever” because the don’t react. We have a lot on inert, non-reactive stuff floating around in our bodies…….harmlessly. So don’t git yer undies in a bunch over some inflammatory headline. Remember, the news media is in the business of selling fear. Don’t bite at the bait!
Another common chemical is handled by many of us without a second thought. We throw it around, and throw it away freely, never considering what it’s doing to other animals or people. It’s lead. Now I’m not gonna start preaching about lead. I’m a regular user/abuser myself. It’s useful stuff. But we’ve entered a period of lead fatigue, where we no longer hear the media screaming about all the carnage we’re wreaking. Instead, we’re suckered into the new Chemical DuJour, PFA’s.
I speculate that we’re causing far more damage to the environment(physical, not chemical damage) by failing to recover all or broken fishing line. Think of all those poor little critters dying a slow entangled death. But then again, it makes wonderful bird nests. My level-wind reels will attest to that.

“If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.”

I’m certainly not defending a corporation here, and certainly not the one we’re talking about in this thread, but I strongly encourage folks who are interested to understand the difference between intentional release (ie dumping) and monitoring mass balances in a complex, closed process to discover where something may be escaping inadvertently, then stopping the process and self-reporting to the EPA about the escape.

There’s nothing malicious about self-reporting, in fact it’s one of the best things a company can do when they discover their own issues because the EPA doesn’t have resources to monitor everything.

What WILL happen in the next decade or two, is new chemistries will be invented by new companies in an attempt to displace fluorochemicals. Chemistries that you nor I nor the world know NOTHING about. And there won’t be any long term data for decades beyond that. And then one day some lab somewhere will discover that Chemical X2.0 is somewhere it’s not supposed to be, or behaving a certain way with biochemistry, and a whole new generation can be outraged about PFAS replacements.

Just remember that PFAS are (relatively) well studied at this point, and more data is coming every month from around the globe. The replacements for PFAS won’t have any data, and many will gladly embrace them because they “are not PFAS”, failing to understand that they may be toxic, persistent, bioaccumulative, etc.

gimruis wrote:

The major company around here responsible for it is 3M. In 2018 they settled a whopping $850 million settlement with the state for releasing these forever chemicals into the environment at a manufacturing site in 2010. The primary product made at this site that requires the use of it is scotchguard.

1 850 Million $ fine for 3M is about like a 100$ speeding fine for a average person. Until the punishment is large enough to hurt it will not stop anything.

850 Million $ fine for 3M is about like a 100$ speeding fine for a average person. Until the punishment is large enough to hurt it will not stop anything

3M reported a 2022 net income of $5,777 million.

850/5,777 = 14.71%

So, for an average person to have a $100 fine equate to 14.71% of their income, they would only be making about $680 a year.

According to the US Census Bureau, the median US household income in 2021 was $71,186.

$71,186 x 0.1471 = $10,471.

So, for the sake of comparison, an $850 million settlement for 3M actually compares to a $10,471 speeding fine for the average US household, not $100.