Talk:Perfluorooctane sulfonate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal Perfluorooctane sulfonate is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Neutrality and Accuracy Disputed

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)

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. [1] After all, it is persistent, it is organic, and it is pollutant. Or isn't it? --Shaddack 05:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Does this count as a reputable source? [2] Or an abstract here: [3]. According to SourceWatch, ACSH is little more than a bunch of industry shills [4]. 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)

I will create the proposed category Category:Suspected persistent organic pollutants. Polonium 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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)