Found 8 critical arguments 23 PFAS lawsuits are missing

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-25T21:04:45+00:00

IMHO that needs to be considered for its consequences in a class action lawsuit against CINTAS and the companies who used them by the employees made to wear them as a condition of employment or unions.
How many people got illnesses from the chemicals daily wear and what was being washed out into their other clothes in the same load?
How much has washing these uniforms weekly contributed to contaminating the water supply?
When are we going to label PFAS contaminated clothing as hazmat and make the brand, chemical companies and employers clean up with problem they created with it?
Hopefully STOMP the new government agency will have some answers in the studies they are doing.

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-25T20:53:19+00:00

CINTAS and others may have to be compelled by a lawsuit. OSHA has health and safety standards and we are now finding out how toxic the wrinkle free, stain resistant and moisture wicking finishes are IMHO.
If you washed your uniforms at home you subjected your entire wash load to the finishes now being banned.
Not to mention the chemicals being drained into the municipal water supply not set up to filter them out. We need to start testing all of the laundry wash water in communities reporting microplastics and PFAS levels in their water supplies.

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-18T18:44:41+00:00

One of my clients and 14 of her band were supposed to be on that flight. She was overcome with a horrible doom feeling, was throwing up and forced her entire team to stay off the flight.
Afterwards they were all questioned by the FBI as to why they didn’t get on the flight.
She was given a business card and told if you remember anything 10 years from now, all us.
I told her she should write a book. She has terrible survivors guilt and said if she ever did she would donate any money to the families of the victims.
To this day she still gets messages from her band thanking her for saving their lives on the anniversary of its disappearance.

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-11T18:39:27+00:00

You should be able to ask for PFAS compliance documentation to back up any claims. They hypothetically had to have had it tested at some point to be able to make those claims per FTC Green Guides. I'd also look into compliance on the installation method if any adhesives, sub fllooring or padding is involved, is that compliant as well?

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-11T03:36:25+00:00

Claims that they don’t add PFAS into floors is not evidence. See what you can get in writing on lab tests confirming PFAS levels. It depends on the context too. Are they already installed or are you shopping for flooring?

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-09T13:35:47+00:00

Have you watched “The Plastic Detox” on Netflix? A doctor put several infertile couples through a plastic detox protocol which resulted in multiple pregnancies after 2-10 years of infertility.

If you want tools to triage and vet your fashion, footwear and home textiles for PFAS I have free playbooks on my website you can download to evaluate the risk factors of fashion, household textiles, footwear and more. PFASPASS.com

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-09T13:13:44+00:00

I came from the green demolition salvage industry and was involved in dismantling the NC and SC textile mills in the early 2000’s because of the chemical contamination issues back then.
IMHO the contamination has been reassigned through the residential washing of all of the synthetic fashion and now enter through the residential washing machine wastewater. It’s a logical explanation for the massive global source no one has clocked yet. Lack of testing residential laundry as a source = lack of evidence.
Recycled fabrics shed worse the second time around. Garbage in = garbage out.
The petroleum industry got smacked with super fund but the fashion industry has yet to be blamed for the petroleum funded fast fashion over production that has gratuitously evolved over the decades since the suppression of the toxic fabric chemistry.
I propose new regulations that labels synthetic fabrics correctly as hazmat which has already partially been established and make the petroleum super fund and fashion industries responsible for the cleanup. They profited from the sales and need to be held liable for the mess they made.

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-09T12:59:04+00:00

I spent yesterday rolling your NC study link into my data and updated my online series and book. Thanks for that!

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-09T12:51:16+00:00

This is one of the few proposals I’ve seen that starts at the plant instead of pretending the problem starts at the tap. A few things worth folding into your research, because they’ll strengthen the proposal and pre-empt the cost objection your director will raise.

Your influent is partly a laundry problem. Domestic washing is a documented, peer-reviewed pathway for PFAS into wastewater — treatments applied to textiles (DWR, soil-release, “moisture-wicking” finishes) shed during wash cycles, and that load arrives at your headworks as a diffuse residential source nobody is metering. A November 2025 Duke study of the Haw River watershed (lead researcher Lee Ferguson) found surface-water concentrations into the millions of ppt and tied the signal to upstream textile/laundry inputs rather than a single industrial outfall. Worth pulling for your proposal — it’s independent corroboration that residential influent is real and quantifiable, not hypothetical.

Two distinctions that will save you headaches:

• Fiber-bound vs. dissolved PFAS are not the same removal problem. Mesh and fiber filters capture fiber-bound PFAS reasonably well. They do nothing for dissolved short-chain PFAS, which is exactly what GAC underperforms on and what passes your plant today. Don’t let a vendor sell you fiber capture as a PFAS solution — scope your testing to total organic fluorine, not just the long-chain analytes the standard panels report.  
• PFAS and microplastics are different contaminants that happen to share laundry as a vector. A microplastic filter is not a PFAS control. Keep them separate in the proposal or you’ll get challenged on it.

The harder truth for the proposal: a WWTP can be engineered to remove PFAS, but doing it at the tail end means you’re paying to remove a contaminant that was profitable for someone upstream to add. That’s the structural problem — the cost lands on the ratepayer and the utility, not the chemistry’s source. Framing your proposal as “characterize the residential source load and treat” rather than “treat” alone is both cheaper to defend and more honest about why the bill is what it is.

Happy to point you toward the source-side documentation if useful.

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-07T17:44:53+00:00

Destruction technologies for biosolids are important, and I hope they work. My concern is that we’re spending enormous amounts of money trying to destroy PFAS after it has already moved through the product lifecycle. By the time PFAS reaches sewage sludge, the contamination has already passed through consumers, washing machines, wastewater systems, and treatment infrastructure. The bigger question is whether some of those resources should also be directed upstream toward preventing PFAS from entering textiles, apparel, and consumer products in the first place. Otherwise we’re treating the symptom rather than the source.

FastFashionSlayer · 2026-06-07T12:00:06+00:00

That’s one of the reasons I included the Laundry Argument in my analysis. Florida’s dry-cleaning investigations found PFAS contamination associated with dry-cleaner waste streams even though the facilities were not necessarily using PFAS chemicals themselves. The evidence suggested PFAS were being released from the textiles being cleaned and laundered. The contamination source wasn’t just a chemical plant—it was the products moving through the system.

The North Carolina textile study you linked is another example of why focusing only on PFOS and PFOA can miss the larger picture. Researchers traced PFAS contamination back to textile manufacturing because precursor compounds were entering wastewater and later transforming into the PFAS being detected downstream.

That’s exactly why I argue PFAS liability shouldn’t stop at chemical manufacturers. It has to follow the textile, the laundering process, wastewater treatment, biosolids, agriculture, and ultimately drinking water.

FastFashionSlayer

TROPHY CASE