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.
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.
It feels to me like a missing piece in this conversation is any consideration at all for balancing private profits against public costs when weighing whether or not a particular chemical or technology ought to be sold or used.
Yes, they’re better for solving the narrow use case of being a fire retardant now and that’ll save someone a little bit of money while it’s in use vs. using more water or soaps, but what of the costs thereby put on everyone whose drinking water now has that stuff in it and their increased cancer risks over time? Or what if instead of non-stick aluminum cookware, we used seasoned steel and iron cookware and nobody has to die of cancer because DuPont dumps its manufacturing waste in nearby waterways?
I remember having this conversation about fracking fluids and how “economically important” fracking was to the economy at the time, but those wells are tapped in a matter of a year or two and if the neighbor’s water is rendered undrinkable, that’s a spoiled resource that will remain spoiled for a long, long time- long after the profit is all gone and the well operators have abandoned those wells. If the mess costs more in externalities to others than it creates in profit and value for the people doing it, the thing has net negative value and probably ought not to be done.
The situation is much more nuanced than that. PFAS chemicals are in (almost literally) everything. Your nonslip shoes, your water proof jacket, your stain resistant table cloth, and your fire retardant mattress. On top of that the list of PFAS chemicals that the EPA is looking at is around 70 compounds long and only scratches the surface of all the compounds. The test to detect PFAS is in its 4th draft and can’t reliably detect low enough to reach the levels of concern, except in nearly pristine waters, so you can’t even detect if you have it in most water. The levels of concern that are being discussed are in the single digit PPT for individual compounds or 70 PPT total PFAS for some health advisory levels. Detection levels on normal waste water are generally somewhere between 50 and 4000 because the test is so sensitive other compounds fry the machine and it has to be diluted.
Another problem is that the thresholds are so low that it’s hard to draw any conclusions definitively. It’s associated with so many things you could write a novel: altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes, cancer, decreased birth weight for infants, infertility, and more. The thing is that the only way to make a more conclusive connection is observing high exposure areas where people were drinking it at thousand times higher than the risk levels, so interpolating down smaller values has a lot of theoretical connections, but few smoking guns.
In general industries are trying to move away from PFAS, but the areas where they can’t include things like AFFF foam used for fighting jet fires. Some areas, particularly the military, are unlikely to make concessions as they want the best option available even if a close substitute is available. Your average PFAS using company; however, is moving away from PFAS in general.
EDIT: also the quantity of PFAS in most items is so small that it actually is below the threshold on an SDS for requiring it be reported, so trying to find out if a product you use has PFAS means you have to call the manufacturer. Maybe they can tell you, maybe they don’t want to tell you, or maybe they don’t know because it’s not listed on the SDS for the raw ingredients they use. In the industry it’s gotten into a near legal situation where companies are telling their suppliers and vendors to look for PFAS and certify that their products don’t have it, only for the vendor to turn around and do the same for their vendors and suppliers. The portion at the end of the article captures this well, an example would be, “Well we don’t use PFAS, but our machine has gaskets which probably have PFAS. This doesn’t touch the final product so are we able to use it?”
PFAS chemicals are in (almost literally) everything.
Yes, this is more or less the circumstance we arrive at when the burden of proof for consumer safety is on injured parties to prove the particular thing unsafe, or its use negligent after the fact, in courts against often powerful corporations with lots of money to spend defending themselves, as opposed to the burden being on would-be sellers to prove its use safe and environmentally responsible before bringing it to market.
I appreciate your post, it really is informative, and it explains how problematic it will be to connect injured parties with the people that harmed them, how now that some people depend on those things and will accept no substitute and will continue emitting more of it into the environment, that the rules as they are don’t provide real remedy or solutions for problems that were perfectly legal to create and everyone involved did nothing wrong.
That right there, really, prompts the question- would we really be that much worse off if we had consumer safety rules that put the burden of proving a product or technology’s safety and sustainability on the seller, or on some sort of product safety testing system?
If that were to mean industrial chemicals had to undergo trials or studies in the way that pharmaceuticals do, sure there probably would be fewer new things. OTOH if there had to be even the most-rudimentary plan for the lifecycle of a product up front, maybe we wouldn’t have millions of tons of discarded plastics or forever chemicals in the environment that everyone knows there’s no money to clean up (because our system protects those that profit by externalizing costs).
Great post, but just throwing this out there. Teflon was invented in 1938 and brought to the commercial market in 1948. PFOA is one of the top 2 legacy PFAS chemicals under scrutiny and is a chief ingredient in the manufacture of PTFE (Teflon). PFOA wasn’t noticed at all until 1968 and links to health impacts weren’t noticed until 1999.
This specific chemical existed before many of the consumer protection laws we have today, but even if those laws had been in place it would have likely been decades before we had made the connection. 20 - 60 years to test a new chemical is a long long time.
This is an excuse by the entire world to not spend money on solving the problem because they can just keep spending money the same way and not worry about it changing. This sounds like capitalism 101. They need to spend money is the problem their is no excuse for “there is nothing that can substitute it” aside from “I don’t want to spend money on trying to figure this out”. Their is always a solution to a problem you just need to you know… solve it.
There’s a great conversation going on under this comment that I totally agree with. There’s probably valid uses for which an exception could be made, but these largely do not belong in mass produced consumer goods.
To answer your direct question, though: In a rational world, EVs would not be a thing, or would be a very limited thing for special use cases like farm work or accessibility. They will not solve our problems, only mass transit and better planning can solve things.
The point is being missed. We shouldn’t use pfas for convenience items like pans and such. If we keep them well contained in EV batteries, that’s probably ok.
I don’t think there’s really any measurable difference, assuming the nonstick pan isn’t scuffed enough to cause bits and pieces to flake off into your food.
I concur. Plastic makes great electrical insulation, but not great disposable cups. Petroleum is very versatile feedstock but not a good energy source.
The list is so long you can’t fathom how much it impacts. Pretty much anything with anti- or resistant used to describe it has some sort of PFAS compound. We can live without PFAS, but we would need to do like people used to do and give up a lot of creature comforts.
One thing it’s commonly associated with is surfactants, so no fancy shampoo, but also probably no washing machine because it doesn’t scour your clothes well enough. Plumbing uses it to join pipes. Any sort of metal finishing/coating uses so no more chrome or nickel plating unless you want it to look like you dug it up at a 500 AD site. One of the higher containing things I’ve seen was women’s make up.
Many parts of the world currently depend on cars, and that cannot easily be changed. While it’s not impossible, eliminating cars will require a long time. Much longer than the amount of time we have left to avert catastrophic climate change.
Electric vehicles add demand to the power grid. These days, increased demand is met by increasing renewable energy production (mostly wind turbines). Nobody is building coal plants any more.
Yet I guarantee you that in their R&D labs they’re already looking for alternatives at this point, all the while claiming to the public that it will be impossible to replace or result in inferior products (maybe it will, but hopefully it won’t be super noticeable - leaded gasoline’s octane numbers haven’t been matched cheaply but we can still drive just fine).
Exactly what I thought as soon as i read the title: "These chemicals can't be replaced" "But did you look for substitues?" "Well.. no."
All it took to find a replacement for CFCs was to ban and discontinue them.
Remember your high school chemistry class? What do you think they are going to use instead of fluorine? The thing that makes these compounds useful is exactly the thing that makes them “forever.”
It’s still nanomachines. How can you get sheets of graphene? Nanomachines. How do you solve cold fusion? Nanomachines. How do you cure cancer? Believe it or not, nanomachines.
Yes I do. I also remember my college chemistry classes. And my work in an industry R&D lab evaluating potential replacements for a fluorinated compound.
What do you think they are going to use instead of fluorine?
Something that’s not as good, but good enough. See leaded vs unleaded gasoline for a historical example of industry reacting to regulation. It’ll of course take time and money, and there may be limited use cases where there aren’t any conceivable replacements, but in a lot of cases these compounds are used as a catch-all because they work so well.
PFAS are used in so many forms (solvents, polymers, etc.) that I think the replacement will be very dependent on the specific use case (and potentially other regulations on alternatives, particularly for solvents). I’m not knowledgeable about every field these compounds are used in and for privacy/NDA purposes I can’t talk about the specifics of the ones I worked with.
You are certainly much more knowledgeable about this than I.
In broad general terms:
Doesn’t the fluorine make them both effective and forever? Isn’t it difficult to create a lower energy state molecule than a compound of fluorine.
Is “forever” the problem?
The points you have brought up seem to be an issue with responsibile manufacturing more than the nature of the chemicals themselves. Seems like that should be addressed on a much wider discussion than just these particular compounds.
Doesn’t the fluorine make them both effective and forever? Isn’t it difficult to create a lower energy state molecule than a compound of fluorine.
For many applications, yes. Fluorinated compounds tend to be quite inert. There are definitely some applications where the compounds don’t need to be resistant to every type of chemical attack and you could use a more specialized compound that is generally less inert but performs similarly in whatever conditions you put it under.
Is “forever” the problem?
Forever is a big part of the problem, but it’s worth noting that if a compound is completely nontoxic then bioaccumulation doesn’t matter as much (though some nontoxic chemicals can increase the potency of other, toxic chemicals and cause problems that way: see this article)
The points you have brought up seem to be an issue with responsibile manufacturing more than the nature of the chemicals themselves. Seems like that should be addressed on a much wider discussion than just these particular compounds.
Yes. We need increased strictness on regulations and enforcement for these compounds and others because that’s the only way to make companies comply.
The article opens by saying something totally different than the above summary. The point is that it’s difficult to replace a lot of these chemicals, not that there isn’t any substitute.
Asbestos. You know how long they knew that was killing people? Lead, they knew that was toxic, kept using it. Business, under capitalism, is designed to find the cheapest path to pull in more money. Regardless of the consequences. Changing might not even mean all that much more, in cost. They would still act like they can’t at all, because any back slide looks bad on their charts. They have no financial obligation to the environment and or people. Change that and they’d become innovators overnight.
Criticizing capitalism doesn’t imply communism or socialism. You can just criticize capitalism without suggesting an alternative.
Your jump to communism It’s like saying “I guess I have to kill myself, because some parts of life are hard.” There are other directions one could take.
Reread my comment. Nowhere did I mention communism but rather countries claiming to be so. I would argue they aren’t communist at all, only state capitalist but that’s a tiring discussion to have.
It was not in defence of capitalism but rather to ammend the criticism to include countries pretending to be not capitalist.
I can see how my one-sentence-wording fails to get this point across though and looks like your average “bUt cOmmUniSM bAd” comment whenever capitalism is mentioned.
Ok, but why bring up either communism or countries claiming to be communist? Going up on this thread, I don’t see any references to it. Did I miss something?
The comment made me look up which nations banned asbestos and also which didn’t.
Obviously the US hasn’t - what a surprise - unlike the majority of developed nations who have outlawed it.
Then I was curious about whether former “communist” countries banned asbestos. After all, capitalist businesses - mentioned in the comment - didn’t quite exist in those, everything was state-owned. The entire profit motive was gone.
And with the exception of individual products containing asbestos, such as sprayed asbestos being banned in the GDR a century before its capitalist counterpart, none of them implemented a general ban. From quick research, the first general bans started appearing in the early 90s.
Since these nations regularly tout(ed) themselves as being far more “progressive” than capitalistic one’s I felt it necessary to highlight this discrepancy.
So that’s roughly the reason I made the original comment. Although looking back it seems tangentially related to the original at best.
So you do associate anti-capitalism with communism. That means my original criticism of your post was valid.
I don’t hold it against you. Usually, the next thing out of someones mouth after they criticize capitalism is communism or socialism. It’s pretty easy to make that leap.
Yes, I do associate communism with anti-capitalism.
I consider it to be only a subset of anti-capitalism though, making up a portion but not all of it.
I guess what I intended to say was: The criticism of OP can be applied to every country on the globe, regardless of whether they consider themselves capitalist or not.
My favorite was white phosphorus, which caused Phossy Jaw in the employees making the matches. Switching to red phosphorus would mean a 1% increase in cost or reduction in profits (wasn’t sure which based on the article). Doing so would mean your employees’ bones wouldn’t dissolve. It took regulation to force them to switch.
Asbestos is genuinely a wonderful material. It’s heat-proof, it’s a wonderful insulator, it’s one of the best filters for gas masks, it’s wonderful for use in brake pads and clutches, etc.
It’s just a damn shame it causes cancer in living things.
Because from where I’m sitting it mostly looks like we’d end up paying a little more for things, having things that might stick a little more, that sort of thing.
Between that and having pfas in my body, I’ll go for being slightly inconvenienced
You know, when I learned about the problems associated with non-stick cookware, I stopped buying that shit and replaced mine with cast iron, steel, and ceramic-coated cast iron. That might be regression in someone’s book but really the cookware I’m using now isn’t going to wear out in a couple of years, these things will last the better part of forever- and keeping them seasoned is not difficult once you know how to do it.
I also don’t miss the lead in gas or paint, the asbestos in construction material, industrial coolants based on CFCs, or DDT-based insecticides, or thalidomide-based anti-emetics.
Often, the replacement will just be a derivative that isn’t necessarily better. The narrative that will then go out through the media is: “We’re no longer using this evil thing. Full stop.” The replacement ends up just being something similar with similar problems. People stop paying attention because they assume the problem is solved, when it really isn’t.
Example: there was that whole BPA plastic stink years back, now most bottles and food containers are “BPA Free”…but if you look into the chemical they used to replace BPA, it has the same synthetic estrogen problem BPA did. (Arbitrarily searched source: plasticstoday.com/study-says-bpa-free-plastics-st… )
In the case of replacement for water bottle or food container plastics, the best answer is to just not using them anymore, although glass and metal have their own difficulties, namely fragility and weight.
I remember the horrible transition period of the terrible “energy saving” lightbulbs back when EU banned incandescent bulbs. Expensive, took minutes to warm up, had terrible colour rendition, filled with mercury and saved barely any energy. It felt like such a moronic decision.
Now with over 50 LED bulbs all using like a tenth of the energy they used to with lifespans so long I can’t even remember when I last had to replace one, it feels totally worth it. Sometimes someone has to make you suffer before it gets better.
Though with chemicals in contact with food, hopefully they take it just a bit slower to make sure they are safe first.
It’s just more expensive to make a new substitute and stop selling the toxic shit you still have in storage with no way of getting rid of it. So regulation has to lead the way…otherwise there is no incentive to stop. How about letting THEM come up with a way of removing the chemicals they already put into the environment first, before giving them the next free ticket to pollute.
I support this approach. Any company manufacturing products which are not readily biodegradable must put in place a scheme to capture and render that product inert before they’re allowed to sell it.
New type of plastic that can’t be recycled? Better figure out a recycling process and sort out the logistics of implementing that process wherever you intend to sell it.
Chemicals in your cleaning agent that don’t break down harmlessly after a reasonable time frame? Either re-engineer your chemicals until they do, or develop a process to prevent them ending up in the waterways.
Stainless steel, even with its anti-corrosion properties, will eventually break down over thousands of years from the effects of weathering. So it’s technically biodegradable, but not really on our timescale, I guess.
Edit: Steel is not biodegradable, because it can’t be broken down by biological processes. I was confused on the word.
Oh, okay and thanks for the correction. It makes sense now that i actually look at the word. I just always assumed it meant things that can be decomposed by the environment.
Yeah, there was a point in time where none were used. To say there isn’t an alternative is to say this isn’t true. They might not like it, but we don’t require whatever they’re producing with it.
There was a point in time we didn’t have smartphones either. Just because they weren’t used before doesn’t mean we don’t need them in modern society. Developing an alternative that works just as well just needs gut funding boost to get there.
Also back then, we didn’t have massive populations. Most of the world struggled to survive. Finding food was a all-day activity. Should we go back to that?
What a wonderfully unrelated to my post comment you've made. Since you are so kind as to make up what you want to argue against, perhaps you won't mind making up the response so those of us on topic can get on with discussing that topic.
Without the haber process modern civilization could not be sustained. We cannot go back without massive population losses. Dunno about you but I’m not picking which of my friends and family aren’t important.
Non stick pans, fire retardant mattresses, nonslip shoes, many forms of plastic, stain resistant shirts, water proof jackets, fume suppressants, metal coating/plating, high quality surfactants (ie lots of soaps), many types of pipe and the joining compounds used in plumbing, and the list goes on.
It’s not even a dent in the list of all effected products. For the no known replacement there should be a preface, we can generally make things without PFAS still, but PFAS is a major reason why the item is desirable.
For example, we can go back to lye and castile soap but we probably won’t be able to have laundry or dish detergent. The alternatives exist, they just don’t function well enough to be replacements. Without detergents you would need to pre-wash your dishes and laundry (or completely skip using) before using your washing machine and dish washer (hand wash everything). This says nothing about industrial usage of surfactants which is also really important.
We’d still have plastics, but we probably wouldn’t have any plastics which are naturally “slippy,” smooth, or soft. Hard brittle plastics only.
An example I used earlier, we could still have metal coating/plating, but it would probably look more like something from the early 1800s. PFAS is used in the process to suppress fumes and also to protect against corrosion, staining, and weathering.
I don’t know enough to say how far back it would set us with computers. I have the sense they’d still exist, but we’d be set back several decades.
Well, then I don’t think it makes sense for an immediate blanket ban on it.
I suspect the best path forward is to set maximum limits and slowly adjust those down over time. I really don’t think we want to continue to be inundated with carcinogens.
I generally agree. The links to cancer are a bit tenuous to be honest. We know at high levels they definitely are bad, but at low levels we aren’t really sure. Looking at the effects to people living downstream of the DuPont plants, and who were drinking high quantities of it in their source water, we known it’s bad. The problem is that it bioaccumulates and we suspect that at low levels, over long enough, it’ll be bad. The low levels we’re talking about are in the single digit part per trillion. It’s really hard to put into context how small 1 ppt is. If we took Lake Superior as an example, 1 ppt would be 32 gallons in the whole lake. Loch ness lake would be 1.95 gallons.
NYC generates approximately 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater per day, that means 1 ppt would be about 5 mL per day in the whole city.
We know that PFAS is bad at high levels, but because the low levels are so low we are having a hard time proving it’s bad. Most studies will say that there are links or that it’s a likely carcinogen.
We definitely need to cut this stuff out, but doing so is going to seriously cripple most peoples way of life or we’ll find a replacement which might not be as safe as we think it is.
Also, I frankly wouldn’t mind returning to a world where almost half my time was my own and not my employer’s.
It still wouldn't actually be your own. You currently work to afford your lifestyle. You'd still work the same amount, probably more, but you certainly wouldn't have your current lifestyle.
It’s the same stupid bullshit as the 2a nuts. There is no logical reason, they just like a manmade product, which is a great extension of any interesting person :)
We also survived thousands of years without any of the creature comforts our society has taken for granted. Unfortunately, all the scientific advances we’ve achieved for the betterment of mankind involved these forever chemicals in one way or another.
I’m not saying they’re not terrible, but at least some of the voices against these restrictions aren’t in bad faith. It just speaks to the importance of finding alternatives, and we have to accept the fact that some things might not be replaceable with biodegradable solutions.
Add comment