Talk:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

message: The article states that PFOS is very stable and toxic. While I agree that it is very stable and unreactive, what is the toxic dose of PFOS? untill an unbiased, reputable source is found stating the dose of PFOS in the enviornment is toxic to humans and other animals and organisms, it is a violation of the NPOV and original reaserch policies to make such claims. Also, PFOS is not on the list of the 12 persistent organic pollutants. Polonium 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PFOS is frequently listed as a persistent organic pollutant in many documents. It is a suspect endocrine disruptor, cancerogen, and it undergoes bioaccumulation. It is not on the List of Twelve, but its inclusion is being considered.  After all, it is persistent, it is organic, and it is pollutant. Or isn't it? --Shaddack 05:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it is not on the list of 12 so far, therefore it should not be listed unless it becomes offically listed as a POP. Also, is it really a pollutant? Polonium 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is named "initial", not "exhaustive". According to the definition of pollutants, they have to be damaging to the environment; as I doubt endocrine disruptors won't be considered as damaging, I therefore believe PFOS can be considered a pollutant. --Shaddack 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is a reputable, unbiased source that states that PFOS is an endocrine disruptor? Also, if it is not yet on the list, the article should not state that it is (unless it is added to the list). Also, some industry front groups, like the ACSH, claim that PFOS is harmless. While these groups are certainly biased, the EWG is also biased. Polonium 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this count as a reputable source?  Or an abstract here: . According to SourceWatch, ACSH is little more than a bunch of industry shills . What about setting up a :Category:Suspected persistent organic pollutants or something like that? That should satisfy everybody. --Shaddack 18:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the gist of Polonium's comments above.  To me, the current article is almost hysterical.  Being extremely stable and toxic are not mutually exclusive, but the combination is exceptional.  And it is risky to conclude that long-lived molecules are super-bad.  Of course it is also risky to ignore such persistent species. I dont think that PFOS is toxic in the sense that a casual reader would expect, i.e. like cyanide or strychnine. --Smokefoot 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and Accuracy Disputed 

message: what is the probablity that this could cause renal cancer to the kidney?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.175.139 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  cancer 

message: Most of the discussion above is no more specific or accurate than the article that it is criticizing.  However, there is a clear (minor) technical error in the article.  The article says "Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOA)".  This is incorrect nomenclature: PFOA is actually a different chemical: "Perfluorooctanoic acid" (it has no sulfur).  PFOS refers to both perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (the dry form) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (the aqueous anion).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.22.10 (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I undid this incorrect change. --Leyo 09:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PFOA 

message: Please consider adding this recent study to the article: 
“Serum Vaccine Antibody Concentrations in Children Exposed to Perfluorinated Compounds”.  Grandjean et al.  Journal of the American Medical Association 307(4):391-397, 2012.
Thanks. 24.141.16.132 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For everyone interested in this article: It may be accessed at doi:10.1001/jama.2011.2034. --Leyo 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposure to perfluorinated compounds 

message: Hi , I saw you undid my edit here. yes, the 2 things are separate processes, I know. And I think you know I know. -:) My intention was, to not have one-sentence major sections, as you know, and I know you know this is not ok. PLease let's find a section heading that you can live with for these 2 sentences. Thank you !--Wuerzele (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: These two things (industrial synthesis vs. transformation of precursors to form PFOS in e.g. WWTPs) may not be merged into one section, even though both sections are short. Both may be extended, see e.g. ENV/JM/MONO(2006)15 (Lists of PFOS, PFAS, PFCA, related compounds and chemicals that may degrade to PFCA, 157 pages) or this review article. --Leyo 19:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello, Did you even read what I wrote , man? PLease reply to teh question instead of repeating your opinion...--Wuerzele (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read what you wrote, but there is no question. If you like to have a direct statement addressing your last sentence: There is no such section heading. --Leyo 09:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  synthesis, presursor sections 

message: The opening sentence sounds slightly demented. 
:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) (conjugate base perfluorooctanesulfonate) is an anthropogenic fluorosurfactant and global pollutant. 
So since it is "anthropogenic" it was in fact designed to be a "global pollutant"? Wow, whose laboratory did this? Lex Luthor's? Doctor Octopus's? Secondarily, I would suggest explaining the jargon "anthropogenic" in the sentence rather than forcing someone, who is consulting an encyclopedia for information, down into a rabbit warren of links. Using fancy words does not substitute for knowledge. The fact that it has been determined to be a global pollutant should be in the lede, but maybe not mixed in with its origin in the initial sentence.
Sorry for the sarcasm. Perhaps it is unwarranted. It never ceases to amaze me just when, where, and how much Wikipedia is willing to push an agenda. Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of global pollutants. I am in favor, however, of good style and logical thinking. Dynasteria (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: According to Chemical Abstracts, 11492 reports have appeared on "PFOS". About 40% have appeared since 2015, corresponding to >2 papers per day.  216 of those >2015 papers are secondary (i.e. reviews). 4 most highly cited reviews:
*
*
*
*
none of these, THE most cited reviews, were mentioned in our article.  I will be addressing that gap.
--Smokefoot (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Lit search update

message: The medical claims in the article are supported by the references below.  Do any of these references meet WP:MEDRS standards?  How do fellow editors recommend this issue be handled?  The basic issue, often, is that evidence of disease causation by ppb levels of PFOS is difficult to establish.
*
*
*
*</ref><ref name=Nelson>
*
*{Cite journal| last1 = Peden-Adams | first1 = M. M.| last2 = Keil| last3 = Romano| last4 = Mollenhauer| last5 = Fort| last6 = Guiney| last7 = Houde| last8 = Kannan| last9 = Muir| title = Health effects of perfluorinated compounds—What are the wildlife telling us? | first17 = J. M.| last17 = Keller | first16 = P. A.| last16 = Fair | first15 = G. D.| last15 = Bossart | first14 = L.| last14 = Talent | first13 = T.| last13 = Scott | first12 = A. L.| last12 = Segars | first11 = J.| journal = Reproductive Toxicology| last11 = Stuckey| volume = 27| issue = 3–4 | first10 = C. D.| pages = 414–415| year = 2009| doi = 10.1016/j.reprotox.2008.11.016 | first2 = D. E.| last10 = Rice | first3 = T. | first4 = M. A. M. | first5 = D. J. | first6 = P. D. | first7 = M. | first8 = K. | first9 = D. C.}}
*Peden-Adams et al. (June 2008). In PFAA Days II  (PDF). p. 28.
*
*
*
--Smokefoot (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In Levels in humans is the claim "a small segment of individuals in the upper range of the general population may be over the 91.5 parts per billion level" but the article cited is for trials on mice and states in the abstract "these effects occurred at serum PFOS levels (91.5 ppb in male mice) that were 14 times lower than the average blood concentrations of occupationally exposed humans". Clearly the wording of this paragraph is inconsistent and misleading and needs reworking. 84.65.66.230 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: MEDRS