Comment on Scientists find a simple way to destroy 'forever chemicals' — by beheading them
krigo666@lemmy.world 3 months ago
And now instead of stopping producing them, we will continue with the excuse ‘we have the cure for the disease!’
RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 3 months ago
doylio@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Humanity: Nothing stops this train
nexusband@lemmy.world 3 months ago
You do realize, many of those “forever chemicals” have no alternative? PFOA for example is essential for modern production, because there is no other material known to withstand the temperatures and pressures needed in the production processes? So the alternative is either not to use them at all, with ALL the consequences - or we have use a proper way to dispose them.
Purification Plants are the same argument.
prex@aussie.zone 3 months ago
Is there really no alternative in shampoo & disposable coffee cups?
I understand that these chemicals do have some outstanding properties but that doesn’t mean unfettered production & use. Any risk assessment of a potential use really should include 100% resource recovery & disposal or recycling. This could have been done years ago but if industry can’t self regulate then bans it is.
These chemicals make silent spring look like, um, er, weekend at Bernie’s?
nexusband@lemmy.world 3 months ago
There is - but i personally think it’s up to customers to not just grab what’s on the shelf and do at least some basic research, because PFAS generally have to be marked on the bottle. Disposable coffee cups are just stupid all together.
I get the sentiment, but why not regulate stuff, before just banning it? And while we’re at it, how about educating the customer?
RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 3 months ago
You’re just shifting responsibility to the population that has no real control over the matter. That’s completely unethical.
BakerBagel@midwest.social 3 months ago
People any afford rent and groceries anymore. You expect them to voluntarily look up what’s going on with all the brands they are thinking about buying so they can choose the more expensive option? The only way to cut these oit is heavy regulation and punishment to corporations using these chemicals unnecessarily.
Lutra@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Here’s a subtle thing…we say both the manufacturers and consumers have choices.
The manufacturer has the choice between all the thousands of possible ways to deliver a product, and picks one or two. A consumer has the choice between those two. ( or do without )
Those are all valid choices, but they are not alone of equal weight
GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Well it’s not really a decision between “either not use them at all, or have a proper way to dispose of them”
Yes, there are applications we don’t have alternative materials that we can agree are essential like safety products. That being said, we should definitely cut down our use of PFAS for items like floss, cosmetics, etc while continuing to look for alternatives. We use it far too much just for added convenience, but that convenience could be doing a lot of harm.
cen.acs.org/environment/…/i46
Kinda like the idea in this article, seems like a good compromise
nexusband@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Oh i absolutely agree with you. Especially in cosmetics and other “day to day” products that are disposable.
But that’s also exactly the argument - make companies and customers dispose of these products correctly, because banning PFAS outright will have devastating consequences. (Like 3M just shifting production to China from Europe. Europe had the highest safety and production standards for PTFE - now they are going to be produced in china with absolutely no standards )
sqibkw@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Depending on their impact, it is often worthwhile to seek alternatives that are less effective or convenient, but also less dangerous. We’ve had materials in the past which were also deemed “essential”, and yet we moved away from them.
A lot of miracle substances tend to be extremely dangerous. There’s nothing quite like asbestos when it comes to fire and heat resistance, but we can still make firefighters clothes, or fireproof buildings, or brakes, even if it means they’re heavier or harder to manufactured. R134 and especially R12 make fantastic refrigerants for car AC systems, but we phased those out in favor of substances that are more complex and costly to implement because of the calamitous effect they had on the ozone layer. Carbon tet is an incredible solvent and great at extinguishing fires too. But we don’t use that anymore either.
You could be right, maybe there is truly no way around PFOAs, but I’m just calling out a pattern here. And maybe there’s no workaround right now that doesn’t cause more harm, but with enough research and investment, we can get there in the future.
nexusband@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Well, since working in the industry, i can say with a very high confidence: There will be substitutes, but not for everything - at least at this point in time. There may soon very well be a breakthrough in material science, but at this point there is no alternative in some use cases (like gaskets, that have to sustain extreme temperatures and pressures…).
But i absolutely do agree with you.
prex@aussie.zone 3 months ago
Good old copper is pretty hard to beat for a high temp/pressure (or vacuum). Chemical compatibility can be an issue though.
Viton gets used a lot & I’m struggling to think of alternatives to it.
MrEff@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I agree with you as a realist on the situation. We will never stop manufacturing them, at least for the foreseeable future. But we forget that something like recycling is the last stage of the 3R’s to follow. We must first look to reduce consumption. We need to find alternatives where possible, and switch away from these forever chemicals anywhere we can. Next, while “reusing” is not the best term here, but we need to find ways to extend the life of the products that we are forced to use and try to use them up in every way we can. Then lastly we need to be recycling it as best as possible before we send it to an incinerator, or more realistically a developing nation landfill.
Reduce -> Reuse -> Recycle is listed that way for a reason. Everyone always just jumps to the final stage then argue about how bad the recycling is while not even considering ways to reduce or reuse throughout the entire process.
BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Production of what, exactly?
nexusband@lemmy.world 3 months ago
for example production of base chemicals that are used in various other follow up products, lot’s of efficiency due to special membranes and so on.
BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 3 months ago
…you really do need to be specific. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re claiming that “the production processes” (of what, everything? all products in the entire economy?) require PFOAs- and that’s plain bullshit.
Yes, there are some products for which there aren’t equivalent inputs, and you don’t need to be vague and generalize over all of productive everything in the economy in order to make that point- but given the opportunity to be specific, you specified “production of base chemicals that are used in various other follow-up products” and that’s not a straight or specific answer to a direct question.