New State restrictions on boots

[Spike elk]

How exactly is banning harmful chemicals sad?

Pick up any package in a store and discover that it causes cancer in CA. What is the cost benefit analysis? Why not let consumers decide? Should ciggs and booze be banned? We know that they contain harmful chemicals? Hell, soda pop contains harmful chemicals. Should we just trust big bro to look out for us? The same people that brought us pain killers, "the jab", terrorists and criminals coming freely across the border, 36 trill in debt, 10 billion $ of war equipment abandoned to the Taliban in Afghanistan, a failure to reasonably foresee the consequence of not being prepared for fires in CA, etc. It is a sad state of affairs that we live in.

 

[Honyock]

I can't believe I survived growing up drinking out of a garden hose.

 

[Jamr]

How exactly is banning harmful chemicals sad?

That was a poor expression of my thoughts. I have no problem banning harmful chemicals. However these states have no problem allowing other harmful chemicals to be sold (see post above) that have very little benefit to people and that may have greater risk to health. It’s hard to take legislation like this serious. May be I am a little jaded or not throughly informed of the risks.

 

[Teodoro]

Rivers I fish are contaminated with PFAS because of decades of manufacturing of high-tech materials and finishes. So I can't say I'm upset about this.

 

[actionshooter]

I can't believe I survived growing up drinking out of a garden hose.

For now.... you do realize your going to die someday right??

 

[cmahoney]

I'm going to buy some new boots this year and in the process of looking at the weight of Lowa Tibet's online, I saw this new restriction on the Lowa website on states they can not ship too:

State Restrictions: As of 1/1/2025, boots containing PFAS cannot be sold to residents of New York, California, and Minnesota.

Not sure what other brands of boots might be affected by this new law but Lowa is a pretty popular and well made boot. Fortunately, this doesn't impact me but I thought I would mention for those it does.

That’s good to see other states taking public safety as seriously as CA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ozyclint]

Meh, been putting up with this for years. Try buying something from USA and have it shipped overseas. 50% of the time they won't ship outside the USA.

It's almost like the USA is the center of the universe and nothing exists outside of it.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

Rivers I fish are contaminated with PFAS because of decades of manufacturing of high-tech materials and finishes. So I can't say I'm upset about this.

What has been the legit bonafide results of said contamination???? Are all the fish and aquatic plants dead? Post some data i’d love to see what this contamination has done in the real world if it has actually had negative consequences.

 

[Teodoro]

What has been the legit bonafide results of said contamination???? Are all the fish and aquatic plants dead? Post some data i’d love to see what this contamination has done in the real world if it has actually had negative consequences.

Well, for one thing, it can give your balls cancer (among other cancers).

In one town where I hunt, the drinking water had levels 11 times the "safe" threshold. Literally thousands of private wells are contaminated. (We had ours tested, and we're in the clear.)

Eating one serving of fish from the river is calculated to be the same as drinking the water for a month.

All of this has come to light in the last 5 or 7 years, so I don't know if there's been any good science on wildlife populations. Generally, I think that's a lower priority than the human effects of cancer juice in the drinking water.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

Well, for one thing, it can give your balls cancer (among other cancers).

In one town where I hunt, the drinking water had levels 11 times the "safe" threshold. Literally thousands of private wells are contaminated. (We had ours tested, and we're in the clear.)

Eating one serving of fish from the river is calculated to be the same as drinking the water for a month.

All of this has come to light in the last 5 or 7 years, so I don't know if there's been any good science on wildlife populations. Generally, I think that's a lower priority than the human effects of cancer juice in the drinking water.

Riding a mountain bike can give your balls Cancer too brother.

So there are no bonafide results then? Lots of things “cause cancer”. Seems people are putting alarm before the proof. You likely ingest more carcinogens sitting in traffic inhaling other people’s emissions.

 

[mt terry d]

How exactly is banning harmful chemicals sad?

No more decent wheel weights and none to cast into bullets.

Lead, lead paint, mercury, asbestos . We used it and played with it .

So did our grandparents.

The crap they put into food now
is worse than any of the stuff we dealt with.

 

[Teodoro]

Riding a mountain bike can give your balls Cancer too brother.

So there are no bonafide results then? Lots of things “cause cancer”. Seems people are putting alarm before the proof. You likely ingest more carcinogens sitting in traffic inhaling other people’s emissions.

So you want proof, but "We found a shit ton of carcinogens in the drinking water" and "the manufacturing plant is dropping off pallets of water to folks with contaminated wells" doesn't count?

This shit's a chemical (actually an enormous knot of related chemicals), not a person. We're not going to find a manifesto, "I gave little Timmy cancer! Yours truly, PFAS."

So yeah, I think it's safe to say there's no bona fide proof that would convince you. But I don't think there could be.

Sorry, but at the end of the day I care more about my balls than your shoes.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Gore-tex has PFAS. Any boot with Gore-tex can no longer be sold/shipped to NY, CA or MN.

Negative their membrane has been PFAS free since 22. Now the DWR not so much, but it’s the DWR that’s getting most brands.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Riding a mountain bike can give your balls Cancer too brother.

So there are no bonafide results then? Lots of things “cause cancer”. Seems people are putting alarm before the proof. You likely ingest more carcinogens sitting in traffic inhaling other people’s emissions.

No real human cancer links, it’s the fact it’s a forever chemical meaning it has a very long half life.

 

[hunt1up]

What is the risk with regard to boots? I'm not licking the boots, grilling and eating the soles, or rubbing them in my eyes. In all seriousness, how does the rubber in the boot translate to cancer on a person?

 

[180ls1]

What is the risk with regard to boots? I'm not licking the boots, grilling and eating the soles, or rubbing them in my eyes. In all seriousness, how does the rubber in the boot translate to cancer on a person?

Your skin absorbs it into your body.

The same way there are creams to treat all sorts of things.

 

[MuleyFever]

What is the risk with regard to boots? I'm not licking the boots, grilling and eating the soles, or rubbing them in my eyes. In all seriousness, how does the rubber in the boot translate to cancer on a person?

Also, it isnt about just the user of the product. The chemicals end up in the environment from the process of making them to using them and disposing of them. Just like plastics, you arent going to see health effects from rubbing a plastic bottle on your head but now everything from mountain lakes to unborn babies have microplastics in them.

 

[fmyth]

Negative their membrane has been PFAS free since 22. Now the DWR not so much, but it’s the DWR that’s getting most brands.

I read that only the newest Gore-Tex's ePE membrane is PFAS-free. Have they eliminated the original Gore-tex?

" After decades of providing waterproof outdoor materials using PFAS chemicals, Gore, the maker of GORE-TEX®, today announced a step away from these chemicals. Gore will offer a new option for the key membrane that provides waterproofing in its consumer outdoor clothing products. The new membrane is made without PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), but GORE-TEX® items generally have a second waterproofing treatment, a surface coating known as durable water repellent (DWR) made of PFAS. The first products using this new PFAS-free membrane will be available for purchase in late 2022. The new membrane technology, called ePE by Gore, is an alternative to the company’s ePTFE membrane, which is made with PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.” Gore has not yet publicly committed to eliminating all PFAS from manufacturing GORE-TEX® or in DWR treatments used on GORE-TEX products."

 

[cuerro viejo]

I read that only the newest Gore-Tex's ePE membrane is PFAS-free. Have they eliminated the original Gore-tex?

" After decades of providing waterproof outdoor materials using PFAS chemicals, Gore, the maker of GORE-TEX®, today announced a step away from these chemicals. Gore will offer a new option for the key membrane that provides waterproofing in its consumer outdoor clothing products. The new membrane is made without PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), but GORE-TEX® items generally have a second waterproofing treatment, a surface coating known as durable water repellent (DWR) made of PFAS. The first products using this new PFAS-free membrane will be available for purchase in late 2022. The new membrane technology, called ePE by Gore, is an alternative to the company’s ePTFE membrane, which is made with PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.” Gore has not yet publicly committed to eliminating all PFAS from manufacturing GORE-TEX® or in DWR treatments used on GORE-TEX products."

Technically No, but Cali announced the ban in 21. So Gore and competing textiles like Columbia, been limiting it since 22. Biggest hit to all the MFG’s is the DWR’s and stain resistant coatings not the WPB laminates.

 

[The Ri Guy]

I have worked in the Single-Use Plastics and Chemical industries for two decades now in sectors such as BioPharma, BioTech, Chemical Manufacturing, Refining, and Food & Bev, and currently work for a company that manufactures single-use plastics. Virtually every drug, vaccine, sauce, shampoo, water bottle, snack, etc. that goes into or is consumed by anyone, is produced using heavy PFAS materials in the fluid-systems or paths during manufacturing, or are packaged in PFAS materials.

Why? Because PFAS are incredibly durable, and phobic to essentially any type of liquid, be it water, oil, ketchup, glue, you name it. It is also infinitely faster and more profitable to use PFAS for production and packaging.

PFAS are progressively more well-studied, but still in the early stages of "science" and "medicine" understanding their impact. The data on just the handful of the PFAS family of chemicals that have been studied, is alarming. The vast majority of PFAS chemicals have not been studied at all yet, as there are thousands of chemicals within the family. Based on what we do know, they should ban them all*, everywhere, in everything, as quickly as possible.

* (This is not physically possible in our lifetime or probably ever due to their absolute prevalence in virtually every meaningful industrial process or manufacturing sector, and the immense lobbying power of industries that rely on these chemicals to hit profit numbers, kickback to politicians, etc. etc. etc.)

One semi-frequently cited study in our circles for reference: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7906952/

Environmentally, the concern is as already described prior -- leachability into the water supply, and the long-term accumulation of PFAS in said water supply, rising to the surface, etc. PFAS have been shown to impact animals outside of humans. I have not heard of any data or seen any studies (outside of locations adjacent, downwind, or down-stream of chemical plants) that indicated any meaningful build up in natural landscapes yet. But it is inevitable if the manufacturer and usage of PFAS continues.

Practically speaking, the risk of PFAS shedding and absorption from clothing through the skin is minimal compared to how much exposure we have from nearly anything we eat and drink these days. Talk to any compliance officer or chemist involved in the design and manufacture of outdoor gear, and they will tell you your risk of PFAS exposure from clothing is largely limited to the presence of moisture (sweat) combined with friction, directly on the skin. This goes for most synthetic materials that are against your skin in those conditions. This is why you see a big push in media and marketing back to natural fiber underwear, and away from synthetic underwear. Because PFAS have shown clear impacts on reproductive organs in both men and women. DWR is pure PFAS, but is external to your body, so almost exclusively an environmental concern as it degrades on your rain gear. When you wash your rain gear in the washer, then you are introducing those PFAS to your ground water and water supply as well.

Largely, precaution is the key here and what states are going for. Early studies are showing clear and concerning negative health impacts of PFAS to humans and animals, and the half-life's range all the way up to 40 years in the human body for some of these chemicals. In the ambient environment, PFAS once again have varying half-life's, with some reaching up to 1,000+ years. The continued accumulation of them, combined with early warning signs of their impact, are why folks are raising the flag and banning them early. Again, this is all preliminary findings with very strong correlations.

PFAS are in virtually everything these days, there is no escaping them in your day-to-day life anymore.

This is really a case of "hey, this is for sure bad for us, maybe we should do what we can to mitigate it now instead of later", or not making it out children's problem and destroying future generations biology and food/water supplies.

In the end, if you are a younger adult with health and longevity in mind, you may want to invest the time into researching the already known effects on the human body from PFAS. The best you can personally do, is to eliminate sources of PFAS in your personal life ranging from your clothing, food and water storage, cooking utensils/pans, cleaning chemicals, etc.

Ultimately, though, unless you live in an extreme remote and untouched location, with your own stable food and pure water supply, you aren't escaping PFAS no matter what you do.