These are critical chemistries that enable modern day life
Then maybe we need to examine "modern day life" with a more critical eye. Some sacrifices may need to be made, because they are worth being made.
There are also measures that lie between "ban" and "use freely". If we cannot eliminate the use of these chemicals in chipmaking, then we need to reconsider the disposability of these chips, or we can even consider if less effective processes result in less damaging chemical use, and accept a bit of regression as a trade-off.
My comment was about how if elimination of these materials is impossible, then we should figure out how best to reduce their usage in an acceptable manner.
Jumping straight to black-and-white "So you'd send us back to the dark ages?!?!?!" type of response is kinda wild.
Yeah, me I do, which is why I want to get rid of these forever chemicals because that’s how we’re going to end up with 40 year lifespans again.
We aren’t getting rid of our nutritious diets and vaccines which are the two biggest factors in history that have extended average lifespans. Not Teflon pans and firefighting materials.
You underestimate the toxicity of PFAS chemicals and their manufacture. I work in a toxicology lab, I know a lot of people researching PFAS right now.
To make PTFE, they used to use a chemical called PFOA, which causes multiple types of cancer and other pathologies. Everyone has been exposed to it, especially since they have been found to just dump it in whatever river is convenient. They had to stop using it after getting sued, but now they just use a different chemical that had been show to have the same effects. And again, they’re just dumping it into rivers knowing the fines for polluting won’t be as bad as actually containing the chemical properly.
That is one PFAS chemical. There are so many others. Do not let corporations poison you for profit and then lick their boots for the privilege.
One of the main uses for PFAS is electric vehicle batteries. So if “modern day life” means reducing CO2 emissions, then it will inevitably mean increased use of PFAS.
Of course. But if we want to reduce CO2 emissions then buses will still need electrification - and therefore require PFAS.
Furthermore, public transportation will not be able replace all private vehicles. Or at least, it cannot replace them all quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. By the time the necessary infrastructure was built, it would be too late. Therefore, electrification of private vehicles will be necessary, which will also require PFAS.
Basically, we are at a late enough stage of CO2 emission that the only realistic hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change requires mass production and adoption of EVs.
Of course. But if we want to reduce CO2 emissions then buses will still need electrification - and therefore require PFAS.
Okay. But again. My comment was that if elimination isn't possible, reduction should be pursued.
So saying "we still require this" is completely irrelevant.
Furthermore, public transportation will not be able replace all private vehicles.
Nowhere has anyone even hinted that replacing all private vehicles is the goal.
Once again. Reduction is the goal.
So saying "we can't replace all" is completely irrelevant.
Or at least, it cannot replace them all quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. By the time the necessary infrastructure was built, it would be too late.
Buses require almost exactly the same infrastructure as private cars.
Basically, we are at a late enough stage of CO2 emission that the only realistic hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change requires mass production and adoption of EVs.
No. What the hell. Why would that be true?
Public transport is a better option for basically every major population centre. And for those centres, we should not be encouraging private vehicle ownership, but rather replacing that as much as possible with public transport. Hell, even if that public transport is on-demand low-occupancy shuttles and ride sharing, that's still better.
Electric private vehicles are better than internal combustion, but they are still awful.
So saying “we can’t replace all” is completely irrelevant.
I think it’s relevant to the person you were replying to as well as the original point of the article.
PFAS are critical to some modern technologies. In some cases, they cannot be replaced. Any time we replace cars with buses, we will need PFAS to electrify the buses. And likely we will need more PFAS in the future than we are using today.
You’re right, you were quoting the article not another person.
Regardless, you asked for a critical look at the necessity of PFAS and whether it is possible to reduce usage. My original answer is the same, namely:
One of the main uses for PFAS is electric vehicle batteries. So if “modern day life” means reducing CO2 emissions, then it will inevitably mean increased use of PFAS.
You always hear about how innovative the US is but the moment there is any talk about requiring industry to find an alternative to something youd think this place was as economically crippled as north korea. An economy so flimsy and industry so devoid of flexibility that it will collapse if required to find an alternative to x y and z but simultaneously supposedly the strongest and most resilient economy in the world.
“I’m not saying the example I just used in this situation is an example that should ever be used in this situation.”
And if scientists can’t “magic” new chemicals, I wonder how they came up with the ones addressed in this article? Besides, isn’t capitalism supposed to “drive innovation” and all that? Amazing how that suddenly goes right out the window the minute anyone questions the status quo or, god forbid, the profit that comes from destroying the earth and the people on it.
In almost every case I can think of there is an older solution, it was better, but its less profitable. They’re pushing cheap junk out. PFAS chemicals are not the best solution to much. Lightweight waterproofing, maybe?
We can exist without forever chemicals and have, we cannot exist and have not ever existed without water.
Lemme pose another extreme then. If water killed people after drinking it for 20 years would you just say we can’t replace it and accept that reality? Or would you at least make a strong effort to replace it?
“Forever chemicals” arent water. We have survived without it. It is currently just really inconvenient to do so again given what these substances are used for. I am a chemist. We have replaced things before and were almost certainly going to do it again. Companies just have to give a shit enough to make use of our inginuity to do so. But unfortunately they dont care unless they have a legal gun to their head so here we are
“Forever chemicals” arent water. We have survived without it
Uh. Yeah. Way to avoid my point completely. But sure - we don’t consume “forever chemicals” out of necessity. Guess that chemistry degree is really paying off.
My degree is directly relevant to the topic at hand. I am qualified to have an informed opinion on the feasibility of replacing forever chemicals. You on the other hand, are not.
There are replacements but none as cheap and easy to manufacture (yet… which is the whole point of R and D) which is why companies use them. There is very little pressure forcing companies to switch to alternatives and as long as that is the case, they will still use them rather than do the work needed to phase them out. This is not a problem because we cannot phase them out but because there is no economic driving force to use alternatives.
Making things dirt cheap IS NOT an acceptable excuse to fuck up the environment. We have one planet to live on. This is like pissing in the same office water cooler you drink out of because it costs 50 cents to use the bathroom.
The problem is that the industry has already made replacements and the replacements were bad too. Gen X was a replacement for PFOS and PFOA, all 3 are PFAS compounds. Either we have to completely abstain, greatly limit usage, find a magic way to treat it, or replace it. Odds are whatever wonder replacement we invent will be found to be the next super bad thing in 20 years.
It’s all a ruse to maximise profits and minimise expenses. They’ll do anything to protect the status quo — they’ve used the tragedy of the commons to manufacture dangerous chemicals on an industrial scale for decades, and banning them now would impact entire industries and product segments; probably to the tune of tens or hundreds of billions.
No multinational corporation is ever going to voluntarily support a change that will kill its profits.
Both sides are frustratingly stupid. Both sides are doing absolutely vile and inhumane things. Both sides will never stop because both sides are fucking stupid
We need the global community to step in and remove both natenyahu and Abbas and give the younger generation, who are not so hateful towards each other a chance to coexist together
Abbas is not the leader of Hamas. I actually really appreciate his take on current events. He said he condemns the death of civilians and calls for the release of the kidnapped prisoners.
But keep in mind that Hamas murdered all the Palestinian officials and officers in Gaza back in 2006-2008, they are not so friendly to each other.
It’s going to take more than the removal of the problem. It’s been a constant problem with the United States and friends that they all just figure. Go in take out the top guy. And much of the infrastructure Bingo Bongo everyone that was repressed is now suddenly free to have a decent life. With no infrastructure and no leadership. When the problem itself really remains and still has the infrastructure to build an intensity again.
The only real answer is to give them a path to properly be part of society and feel they have a stake in it. That is the one thing that makes people less resentful and less likely to try to destroy said society. And that’s going to take generations of dedication. Not just removing Netanyahu unfortunately.
Unfortunately, I don’t think employers seeing their employees as mere resources is exclusive to Japan. Though they definitely like to dial it up to 11 there.
KMT presidential candidate Hou Yu-ih said on Saturday that a vote for the DPP was equivalent to “sending everyone out to the battlefield” because supporting Taiwan independence would touch off a war.
What’s happening in Taiwan? Why did a presidential candidate said something like this? In another country, a presidential candidate telling people to not supporting their own country’s sovereignty would be a political suicide.
I’m not parent poster, but I didn’t read that at all. International propaganda works, and has the potential to destroy democracy in America (and lots of other countries, too.)
They’re implying that the people who live there can’t make a decision for themselves, in other words a white guy overseas with zero stake in the matters thinks they know more about the reality than the people who actually live there, which is a very disrespectful prospective.
The racism comes from the long history of white people doing this to peoples who choose for themselves in ways that they don’t agree with. It’s never that they chose for themselves but always that someone else (usually malicious) came in and made the decision for them.
What is your source for this ? Recent polls show reunification support is still <2%, with about 6% open to reunification eventually but not now.
In 2018, before the crackdown in HK, the reunification support was 3%, with 13% open to it eventually - the events in HK have definitely significantly eroded support for reunification in Taiwan.
I have family in Taiwan and literally don’t know a single Taiwanese person that wants reunification with the PRC.
Because things aren’t black and white and reality is all sorts of shades of gray. Most Taiwanese don’t care one way or the other, they just want to live in peace. You constantly see this in the polls and the votes. If the Taiwanese people’s priority was independence, then the vote wouldn’t be so split. This is the reason the DPP hasn’t declared independence, it’s simply not what most Taiwanese people want.
Surprisingly, most Taiwanese are interested in their own well being. This is why the KMT won so many seats last election. This is why Tsai is stepping down. When they threaten Taiwanese people’s well being, shockingly the Taiwanese vote against them. Again, they neither want independence nor submission to China.
Thus, we see the votes EXACTLY AS WE WOULD EXPECT CONSIDERING THE SITUATION. They keep splitting the parties so neither side can make a declaration one way or the other.
As an outside observer, I ask one simple question. Why is it so hard for you to realize that what I said is the truth and not what western media parrots. Why do you believe the black and white issues that your propaganda keeps claiming even in the face of irrefutable evidence.
As an outside observer, I ask one simple question. Why is it so hard for you to realize that what I said is the truth and not what western media parrots. Why do you believe the black and white issues that your propaganda keeps claiming even in the face of irrefutable evidence.
Hmm, did you reply to the wrong comment? Anyway, I’m not aware of current political situation in Taiwan and was really surprised by that presidential candidate’s statement. Are you telling me that this is considered a normal statement for political opposition on Taiwan?
Yes, it is. It’s been like this for decades now. So the fact that it’s surprising and used in a way to shock western audiences tells you a lot does it not?
*Edit: Mind you, I’m not for Taiwan being absorbed into China nor am I strong on Taiwan’s independence. I just want to point out the way western propaganda works to manipulate people.
*Edit 2: Essentially, if the KMT has been talking like that for decades and the Taiwanese still vote for them in large enough numbers to win them most of the seats last election, what does that tell you about the Taiwanese people’s desire for independence? How does the media report on that? Why are these two pieces of information so conflicting.
Use your brain for once and realise that there weren’t modern electronics in the 1940s, and without these compounds, we couldn’t have useful computer systems now.
If that means we’ll have to forfeit the use of, for example computer systems, or some actually vital modern infrastructure - I don’t think we’ll agree to the ban.
On the other hand if their use is unavoidable, for any valid reason - there should be sufficient effort in recycling them…
recycling, containment, disposal… i’m pretty sure forever chemicals aren’t actually forever: put enough energy into them and we can probably make them no longer forever chemicals… it’s only a problem because we don’t contain and process them
So for electrical fires, they use carbon dioxide to smother the fire and sodium bicarbonate to aid in putting it out, along with class c fire extinguishers. Class c are just carbon dioxide.
For chemical fires, carbon dioxide extinguishers are also used. They can use extinguishers with bromochlorodifluoromethane, aka Halon 1211, (which I guess could be a pfas chemical, but I don’t find anything either way).
Another factor that makes lithium-ion battery fires challenging to handle is oxygen generation. When the metal oxides in a battery’s cathode, or positively charged electrode, are heated, they decompose and release oxygen gas. Fires need oxygen to burn, so a battery that can create oxygen can sustain a fire.
Because of the electrolyte’s nature, a 20% increase in a lithium-ion battery’s temperature causes some unwanted chemical reactions to occur much faster, which releases excessive heat. This excess heat increases the battery temperature, which in turn speeds up the reactions. The increased battery temperature increases the reaction rate, creating a process called thermal runaway. When this happens, the temperature in a battery can rise from 212 F (100 C) to 1,800 F (1000 C) in a second.
Yes ideally they should just stop. However, there are things that have changed since the 1940s.
A lot of technology is based on plastics being available and will require a complete redesign to work without it.
Also ordinary stuff f.i. rain jackets, cookware and cleaning products. All of these could be replaced with whatever people used beforehand, but one reason why plastics has been used so widely is because it’s a cheap biproduct that could replace more expensive and more energy intensive productions. F.i. imagine if we had to replace all hard plastic casing with ceramics, glass or steel. That would require a lot of furnaces to run on coal. Multiply this with the increased population since the 1940s and it might very well just cause a different environmental disaster.
If only there was a way of avoiding coal furnaces! I have this freaky idea from this sparky rock I found. It might be related to those times when the sky gets angry and makes loud bangs and flashes.
Cast iron pans work great, you can even use them on your induction stove and they heat way better than any expensive non-stick. Waxed canvas is also excellent at waterproofing. We do have solutions already for many things. Your plastic argument as well. The types of plastics the complaint is about is for specific products, not all of them. I work in manufacturing and the availability of safe materials are plentiful as science keeps looking for new ways. People just have to stop buying new things to throw perfectly good and usable ones in the garbage. It would go a long way.
Yes absolutely. Reuse is the second best step of the" reduce, reuse, recycle, reclaim" cycle of materials.
All I’m saying is that if everyone needs durable quality products, then we’re facing a different material problem than what plastics are doing. Plastic is used because it’s a cheap biproduct. Cast iron is not, and we can’t replace all plastics with iron, glass or stone without also damaging the environment in other ways.
Personally I think plastic wrapping is better place to start. Why not use paper, cardboard or another biodegradable material for wrapping.
I remember commenting on a post where China condemned Japan for doing this.
I asked ppl there “is this actually bad or is this kind of par for the course of getting rid of the dangers left behind in Fukushima?” And most of them were like “it’s not a common occurrence but it’s not inherently dangerous and it’s not that big of a deal”
To me it looks like the vast majority of objections to this came from strategic propaganda related to domestic relations of China and/or other nations.
The USSR and Russia were huge players in nuclear technology and contributed a lot to the field. I actually can’t think of an energy source that has a closer connection to communism.
All you said that was humans mess up everything we do, as if that were something meaningful to say. That is not an argument against nuclear. That's an argument against absolutely everything humans do. It's meaningless. Look:
I don’t doubt solar power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
I don’t doubt coal power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
I don’t doubt hydro power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
I don’t doubt steam power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
All of those are exactly as meaningless as what you wrote. So don't go on snarkily about my "great wisdom" like you've made any point at all. Nuclear is safer than oil and coal and gas, which is where the majority of the world's energy comes from right now. Fossil fuels are actively destroying our planet right now, and you're spreading nuclear FUD about things that haven't happened. That's not helpful, and it doesn't match the reality we live in.
I don’t doubt steam power works. I just know how humans work. Everything we build we also destroy. Let’s not take the planet with us.
Funny they didn’t bother with solar or wind…
It would be a lot cooler if you showed how many meltdowns occurred from solar and wind.
I’d rather not commit future generations with the obligation of dealing with nuclear power. But I guess you like billionaires like Bill Gates deciding that for you.
Anyway, I’m done with you. You sound like a shill. Might want to clean the boot polish off your face next time.
I have no facts to give you other then humans are too dumb and fickle to be trusted with something as temperamental nuclear power when solar and wind exist.
Anyway, I’m done with you. You sound like a shill.
Lol.
The famous last words of someone who has no point to make but can't even admit it to themselves.
I wrote an honest reply to you and I even bothered to Google some sources for you to refer to. You didn't even reply to what I said and just came back spouting more non sequitur garbage.
It's shameful. You should do better than this. Be better than this.
There’s nothing more capitalist than pushing coal and oil.
And any rational green energy advocate knows it’ll take us decades to build enough solar/wind to fill the fossil fuels gap, but would only take us a couple years to fill that demand with nuclear and also produce fewer emissions. That’s simple numbers.
So are you just irrational or a coal-snorting capitalist yourself?
Best case scenario estimates are a complete replacement by 2050 if energy consumption doesn’t change. This requires aggressive investment in renewable production.
However, that’s unlikely to happen, as energy consumption is increasing, especially as vehicles across the globe abandon oil-based fuel for electricity from the grid.
The largest hurdle to nuclear power is simply regulatory. We could have nuclear plants built by 2030 with a ~30+ year life that would guarantee us the ability to fully phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewables by 2050 even as demand increases.
Y’kown we nuclear power plants cant explode like an atomic bomb right. Chernobyl was about the worst case scenario, and most of the blame is on dogshit soviet designs.
Also if you bring up the Russian troops who got fucked up, that was caused by not using PPE and then promptly inhaling graphite dust and some randome mildly radioactive materials. It was fine while in the ground but breathing that shi in will do a number, probably still better than going to those old mining towns where the air is now made of asbestos.
And anti-nuclear propagandists who are almost entirely paid by fossil fuel companies?
They’re dastardly clever. They’ve created a narrative that it’s fossil fuels companies who are actually pushing nuclear technology. I suspect they’re also behind the unusual opposition to hydrogen – if hydrogen is ubiquitous, it’s going to be green hydrogen more likely than not. By trying to stop that, fossil fuel companies are able to continue selling and using hydrogen from refinery operations.
I feel like there was enough issues on damn near every level that the term “compounding issues” comes to mind. Seriously its one of those situations where if it wasnt one thing that wrnt wrong it wouldve been something else.
The chip wasn’t even made by Chinese machines. And the chips are many generations behind in performance.
The CCP propaganda machine has gone all out trying to prove to the west that “see, we can make amazing products even with your sanctions in place, so you should just remove the sanctions. …Please remove them.”
So what better response than to tighten the sanctions?
Well since the US sanctions started, the chinese semiconductor industry went from being a multi generations late, government funded laughing stock, even for Chinese officials, to something that is now close to the best Intel and USA can make.
Both now are at 7nm non-EUV, only Taiwan is significantly ahead.
If anything the sanctions are counterproductive, instead of crippling the competition, they lit a fire under them.
The Chinese chip manufacturing industry is still a laughing stock, and many generations behind. The new Huawei phone is using components from 2018 that they obtained before the sanctions. There won’t even be a next generation after this. They’re not even close to Intel despite what claims they make.
This is all pure economics the strategic importance of small nodes is highly overrated, even more so than the importance of chip design is underrated.
Sure TSMC leads when it comes to node size, but that node size doesn’t even come close to being optimal when it comes to costs per transistor. No military is prevented from building rocket control systems, no weather service is prevented from building supercomputers, by not having access to 5nm. Certainly no government is prevented from having secure communications, home-brew PCs for civil servant desks, etc, by not having access.
The new plant in Europe that TSMC is building with Bosch, NXP, and Infinion is going to go down to 12nm – about the optimum when it comes to price per transistor. Neither of the three companies has any interest in challenging Intel or AMD on the desktop market, it’s all about automotive and industry applications: If Bosch wants to sell you a thingie with tons of their sensors in it pretty much the only thing they don’t produce themselves right now is a CPU to connect it all up (that isn’t a microcontroller), and 12nm are plenty for such applications. For a sense of scale: The BCM2711, the SOC in a Rasberry Pi 4, is made in 28nm. 12nm is roughly Zen1 or NVidia Turing class (e.g. 2080Ti). Bosch themselves are sticking with much larger nodes because they’re into MEMS and stuff, there’s e.g. basically no smartphone in the world that doesn’t use one of their accelerometers. “Price per transistor” isn’t really the right metric, there, it’s about mechanics, not transistors.
Another thing might play into things: SMIC has been spying on TSMC heavily, it’s kind of like their favourite past-time. They might already have stolen all the knowledge they need to copy TSMC’s newest nodes, the people in charge of deciding these things know, and all this sanction stuff is to keep the Chinese from benefitting economically from that. It might be that neither Taiwan nor the US would care had the Chinese actually developed their own shit – which they’re now forced to do without access to EUV. I very much doubt than small nodes without EUV will be price-competetive, though.
Don't forget that homophobia is still completely rampant in Japan, a country that is nowhere close to legalizing gay marriage or showing any other side of widespread tolerance.
Keeping your sexual orientation secret is a necessary safety precaution in a country like that. Which is why we need to be vigilant and resist these anti-queer right wingers everywhere in the world including at home. People deserve to not feel unsafe simply because of their born identity.
It’s so infuriating that news outlets are trying their damnest to avoid promoting FOSS alternatives, which in this case is Mastodon and other ActivityPub, even as institutions in the EU are slowly embracing it.
They’d rather mention Threads of all things. Threads!
And this is despite an already sizeable Japanese presence in the fediverse in the form of mstdn.jp, pawoo, and misskey.
japantimes.co.jp
Hot