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

  • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It's kinda hard to tell. I would need to find a specific list of things that we could no longer produce with the specific laws.

    If it's just that we no longer get non-stick pans, I am fine with losing those if we get less cancer.

    • Knightfox@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Haywire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      How much less cancer do you prefer from these vs internal combustion cars?

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

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

          I concur. Plastic makes great electrical insulation, but not great disposable cups. Petroleum is very versatile feedstock but not a good energy source.

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

          I do wonder if cooking in nonstick pans without oil is less risky than cooking with oil in conventional pans.

          • Clegko@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Haywire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Cooking oil decomposes into carcinogens. Especially low smoke point oils.

              (Admittedly the increased risk from either is pretty low)

      • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don't know. We stop cars, cancer goes away pretty quickly. Forever chemicals are well… Forever.

        That is why I need specifics. You deserve specifics too.

        • Haywire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We stop all cars. Build nanomachines to cure cancer and enable cold fusion. Abolish capitalism . It's all so easy.