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
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So we lose non-stick pans, how does that make us return to a hunter gatherer society?

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

      Maybe consider for once that these compounds are not only used for pans, but also for other applications, like electronics?

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

        I wasnt aware the laws were targeting electronics. Are we talking all electronics or just some?

    • Knightfox@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

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

        What? This stuff is in soaps and plastics? Wow this stuff is everywhere.

        Is this list all products effected or the products that have no known replacement?

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

          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.

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

            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.

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

              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.