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
    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.

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

      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.