As lawmakers around the world weigh bans of 'forever chemicals,” many manufacturers are pushing back, saying there often is no substitute.

  • darq@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Public transportation depends on buses, and buses require either fossil fuels or batteries.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • darq@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Very all-or-nothing response.

                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.

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • darq@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think it’s relevant to the person you were replying to

                    I was the top comment. So no.

                    as well as the original point of the article

                    Which is why I was talking about reduction in cases where elimination isn't feasible.

                    Bloody hell man.

    • Haywire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who would have a problem with us returning to an average lifespan of 40 years?

      • Elivey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Haywire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you overestimate the toxicity of PTFEs. You know they are used in implants?

          • Elivey@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Haywire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Seems like the problem is the lack of proper environmental protection and enforcement.

              Love the closing personal attacks. Really drives your point home.

              Your mamas so fat , oops I mean PHAT.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.