[HN Gopher] Magnetic method to clean PFAS contaminated water
___________________________________________________________________
Magnetic method to clean PFAS contaminated water
Author : clouddrover
Score : 168 points
Date : 2023-01-23 09:52 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.uq.edu.au)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.uq.edu.au)
| [deleted]
| TheSoftwareGuy wrote:
| This sounds pretty great! It sounds like they created a chemical
| solution, which coats the PFAS stuff and makes it magnetic, so
| it's easy to remove with a magnet. The solution can be re-used up
| to 10 times, according to the article.
|
| I do wonder what happens to the solutions after that, I hope the
| solution itself isn't very dangerous
| chaxor wrote:
| Neat. I did my Master's on a very similar idea. It was for
| performing several multi-step reactions in one reactor using some
| extra complexities, but the magnetic retrieval of the catalyst
| was the same. One issue with this that I see is that the covalent
| bonds created between the shell and core really need to be tested
| well in lots of pH and temperature environments, because if those
| NPs start degrading (which they always do at some level) then
| you're adding in contamination as well as removing it. That was
| always the scary part for me and why I've struggled to bring
| ideas to market - products that require precision don't really
| work in practice. The way things are used in the real world is
| very sloppy and products need quite enormous safety factors
| associated with them.
| awestroke wrote:
| I wonder how healthy this "magnetic fluorinated polymer sorbent"
| is to drink
| mschuster91 wrote:
| It will get filtered out of the water post contaminant
| absorption, there should not be any after-effects.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| > there should not be any after-effects.
|
| This is either ignorant or ill-intended and neither of those
| is ok.
|
| There is plenty of epidemiological data showing the very
| opposite:
|
| > Merrimack residents experienced a significantly higher risk
| of at least 4 types of cancer over 10 years between 2005 and
| 2014. Merrimack is a community with documented PFAS
| contamination of drinking water in public and private water
| sources. Results indicate that further research is warranted
| to elucidate if southern NH residents experience increased
| risk for various types of cancer due to exposure to PFAS
| contamination.
|
| [0] doi: 10.1177/11786302221076707.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| It is undoubted that PFxx exposure has after-effects, but
| the point of the comment I replied to was if the agent used
| to filter out PFxx compounds out of the water has after-
| effects.
|
| And as that agent will be filtered out after absorbing the
| PFxx compounds, there should not be any after-effects of
| the water treatment.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| I completely misread, utter flame blindness.
|
| There are so many online 3M/Dupont blame shifters that I
| completely jumped the gun.
| chaxor wrote:
| There is a lot hidden in "will be filtered out" here
| though.
|
| Filtration isn't binary, so this may only be useful in a
| few target areas where water sources are contaminated
| enough that introducing a new contaminate (these NPs)
| into the water will pull out more PFAS than are left
| behind after magnetic separation.
|
| The NPs (or more likely the PFAS that degrade off of the
| Fe3O4) also may have a different health affect than PFAS
| in the water stream (due to sulfonation etc).
|
| So it's certainly not that simple, but a great technology
| for companies trying to recover their chemical products
| and reactants for reuse and for areas where contamination
| is very bad.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| kossTKR wrote:
| I live in a scandinavian country and PFOS was first found in
| extremely alarming amounts at various locations where cows have
| been raised, to such an extent that the local population is
| effectively poisoned and need life long screening if they have
| eaten any of the meat.
|
| This has started year long tests and PFAS (+pfos, pfoa) has sadly
| been found in large amounts in most sectors. Even in just the tap
| water. The latest finding - today actually - is in organic eggs
| because of fish bonemeal in their diets, but this is just because
| these items were tested, apparently it's everywhere. Rain samples
| collected recently showed amounts exceeding the EU safe
| thresholds.
|
| Point is, it's really, really bad and who knows what effects it
| will have. Counter point is that we've been swimming in a sea of
| inorganic chemicals for a long time and have just begun to test
| for them lately.
|
| Effects on fertility, cancer, alzheimers, and the ecosystem in
| general is the joker.
| arcticbull wrote:
| I for one look forward to the check from DuPont that will
| surely cover all this.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| DuPont had US$1.79 billion cash on hand as of September 2022.
|
| If ten million people have been negatively affected by PFOS
| (surely an undercount) then that's a fat US$179 per person.
|
| "Okay, so force them to pay a portion of future profits."
|
| Ah, the Purdue Pharma solution. But is everything else that
| DuPont making known to be harmless? If we discover a PFOS-2
| in ten years, should they be required to keep making it in
| order to pay off the victims of PFOS-1?
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Mine comes next month - about $4,000 out of the class action
| - because through the 70s-90s, Wolverine dumped contaminated
| leather scraps and chemical drums in a swamp uphill of the
| well I've been drinking from for more than a decade. Now
| every well in town has 50-200 mg/L of PFAs.
|
| It's only $4,000 because the court saw clear evidence that
| the value of my home was damaged, but couldn't assign damages
| based on an increased risk of cancer; I would have had to
| actually get cancer to sue successfully for damages there.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I think that mcg/L, right? 200mg/L would be insane!
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| You're correct, yes, micrograms or ug/L. Nanograms per
| milliliter. Parts per trillion.
|
| For context, the old USDA/EPA threshold for health
| hazards was 70 ppt, new June 2022 directives say
| "negative health effects may occur with concentrations of
| PFOA or PFOS in water that are near zero and below EPA's
| ability to detect at this time."
|
| Too late to edit...
| giantg2 wrote:
| No problem. I just couldn't help but picture in my mind
| someone drinking a _slurry_ of PFAS. I was like, that can
| 't be right lol.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| You mean the company that caused the deaths of 4000 people in
| Bhopal in night and didn't have a single consequence?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| While Bhopal was a terrible tragedy and absolutely
| criminal, it was Union Carbide who were responsible and not
| DuPont.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Point still stands, and importantly, Dow and DuPont
| merged in 2015.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They'll do what J&J pioneered and spin off a subsidiary that
| owns only the liabilities.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-
| are...
|
| > Here's how the maneuver worked. First, last October, J&J
| spun off a subsidiary in Texas called LTL.
|
| > Then, using a wrinkle in Texas state law, J&J was able to
| transfer all of the potential liability linked to the tsunami
| of baby powder asbestos claims into the shell of the new
| company, while keeping valuable assets separate.
|
| > LTL then quickly filed for bankruptcy in North Carolina.
| That move immediately halted the baby powder cases, which
| could remain on hold for months or years.
| ebiester wrote:
| Isn't that the purpose of Chemours?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Eventually, perhaps. Right now it's got assets and
| revenue.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| You'd hope a judge would go "nice try" and apply the intent
| of law to them anyway.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It's a loophole in the law, it seems. I mean if law was
| simple and I was in charge, I'd just be like "yeah this
| was done by J&J at the time, nice try" and sue them
| anyway. But apparently it's not that easy.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| It is absolutely disgusting that DuPont knew that these
| chemicals are harmful and accumulative in the body.
|
| The spin they put on this is that "it is possible for these
| chemicals to be used safely", but the parameters for safe use
| are not realistic in the real world.
|
| The fine print on your frying pan or waterproofing contains
| legal get outs that are unrealistic.
|
| Nevermind the fact most paper straws, fast food wrappers
| (McDonalds) and others are lined with these chemicals.
|
| They knew. They knew they don't break down, bio-accumulate
| and cause health issues, but still tell the world they can be
| safely used.
|
| Jail them all.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| > Nevermind the fact most paper straws, fast food wrappers
| (McDonalds) and others are lined with these chemicals.
|
| I knew something was off about those paper straws...but
| they put PFAS in them?? It's like we're saying: copper is
| too damaging when mined, let's replace our water pipes with
| lead.
| chrisdhal wrote:
| Agreed, ban those paper straws, they are terrible. I just
| want my good old plastic straws back.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Might I suggest drinking with your mouth? :)
| gruez wrote:
| >but they put PFAS in them
|
| Not sure about paper straws specifically, it's put in
| paper based fast food containers as a
| waterproofing/greaseproofing agent.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| This was done when public perception turned against
| polystyrene containers.
|
| Then McDonalds and many others, via packaging companies,
| greenwashed to paper looking containers lined with PFAS
| type materials.
|
| The paper degrades and leaves the sealant in the
| environment.
|
| Sickening really, given they know this happens. But if
| you can't see it happen, hey, better than polystyrene
| because it is easier to get away with.
|
| At least my burger box seems greener.
| seiferteric wrote:
| I don't understand why they don't have wax coated paper
| straws?
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| The insides are PFAS lined so the straw doesn't go soggy
| and become unusable.
|
| Plastic doesn't seem so bad now eh?
| gruez wrote:
| >The fine print on your frying pan or waterproofing
| contains legal get outs that are unrealistic.
|
| What world are you living in that has "fine print" on pans?
| The pans I bought recently certainly doesn't have them,
| probably because the PFAS/PFOS risk is only there during
| manufacture, not usage.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > probably because the PFAS/PFOS risk is only there
| during manufacture, not usage
|
| That's not true.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever
| ericpauley wrote:
| Perhaps the only fine print I've seen on PTFE-coated pans
| is that they should not be heated above 500F/250C. My
| understanding is that, under these temperatures,
| decomposition of the PTFE is not possible.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Yeah but it has been shown in normal cooking these temps
| are often exceeded.
|
| Hence the material being dangerous under normal
| conditions.
|
| Do you cook steak with a thermometer on the pan?
| gruez wrote:
| My wording was a bit imprecise, but it should be obvious
| the thread that we're talking about "PFAS/PFOS ending up
| in body" risk.
| tristor wrote:
| And that's also not true. Cooking with Teflon or other
| types of non-stick cookware based on these types of
| chemicals will result in those chemicals contaminating
| your food. In particular, pre-heating non stick pans is
| particularly bad, as is the use of the wrong utensils
| which will cause physically perceptible particles of the
| material to end up in your food.
|
| Any non stick pan comes with a warning you can't use it
| in the same house/building as pet birds. Just like
| canaries in a coal mine, birds are highly susceptible to
| things which are also dangerous to humans. Just because
| it doesn't kill you dead within minutes of turning on the
| burner does not make it safe.
| gruez wrote:
| >And that's also not true. Cooking with Teflon or other
| types of non-stick cookware based on these types of
| chemicals will result in those chemicals contaminating
| your food. In particular, pre-heating non stick pans is
| particularly bad, as is the use of the wrong utensils
| which will cause physically perceptible particles of the
| material to end up in your food.
|
| source? The guidance from the FDA contradicts your claim
|
| >Some PFAS are approved for use in the manufacture of
| non-stick cookware coatings. These coatings are made of
| molecules that are polymerized (i.e., joined together to
| form large molecules) and applied to the cookware through
| a heating process that tightly binds the polymer coating
| to the cookware. Studies show that this coating contains
| a negligible amount of PFAS capable of migrating to food.
| Similarly, the PFAS used in manufacturing of gaskets that
| come into contact with food do not pose a safety risk
| because they are also made of molecules that are
| polymerized.
|
| https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-
| food/questions...
| [deleted]
| cwkoss wrote:
| have you ever seen a non stick pan that someone used
| metal utensils on? flaked off areas of the non stick
| coating are apparent.
| [deleted]
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| These studies are based on manufacturer guidelines for
| product use (heat range, material handling), most of
| which are shown so narrow in scope that in your average
| kitchen the test environment doesn't exist.
|
| Like giving people a drink that can only be stored below
| 5C or it may become dangerous. Is your fridge exactly
| always below 5C? Mine isn't.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| You're not paying enough attention. The last pan I bought
| that had PFAS-based non-stick coating stated:
|
| (a) do not heat above 220C (b) do not use metal utensils
|
| This isn't because they think these things won't happen
| (they know they will, and you do too). And it isn't
| because they want to ensure the longevity of your pan
| (the opposite is true). It's because they can say that
| the pan was used incorrectly, as highlighted by FDA
| testing parameters, and therefore liability for any
| ingesting of hazardous material is the user's problem.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| If you scratch the pan, you are generating micro
| particles of PFAS that eventually turn into the stuff
| some people are worried about.
|
| Now, on the scale of things, probably the obesity
| epidemic due to sedentary life styles, sugar, etc. is
| 10-100x more of a societal health issue, but it's harder
| to blame someone else for that.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Counter point is that we've been swimming in a sea of
| inorganic chemicals for a long time and have just begun to test
| for them lately.
|
| Per/polyflouride compounds are not naturally occurring, this is
| all stuff that humans brought onto the planet in the last few
| decades - neither nature nor humans have had the time to evolve
| adaptations for exposure to them.
|
| We as a species are in for a real wild ride the next centuries.
| apack wrote:
| For those looking for a water filter that easily installs into
| your sink: https://www.hydroviv.com/collections/hydroviv-water-
| filters
| 6DM wrote:
| Wow prices have really increased, I thought your recommendation
| was priced high but it turns out the original one I got in Feb
| 2021 only cost $79.99 now costs $449.99, that's insane:
| https://www.aquasana.com/under-sink-water-filters/claryum-3-...
|
| One thing to note, you really need to change your filters
| regularly, otherwise they will potentially introduce more
| bacteria than you would normally get from treated water. I know
| this video is a Singapore based media, but I think the
| information is relevant anywhere you live:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObbHbx_2fY
| throwaway290 wrote:
| The worse PFAS are found for your health, the more expensive
| these filters are going to be...
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| TLDR: We'll clean up PFAS with.. more PFAS! Now, I understand why
| this works, but the filters themselves better be made without the
| hamrful fluorosurfactants, and they have to be disposed properly
| to avoid releasing toxic gases and/or more PFASes
| ck2 wrote:
| You are never going to clean all the rainwater on earth and
| almost all freshwater fishing is no longer safe
|
| https://www.su.se/english/news/it-s-raining-pfas-even-in-ant...
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/rainwater-no-longer-safe-to-...
|
| https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_US_fish/map/
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| I will be installing a Reverse-Osmosis water filter soon.
| manmal wrote:
| What's your solution to the low pH and total lack of minerals?
| I've tried mineral drops (out of Utah) but their composition is
| not comparable to ,,normal" water and they seem to give me
| headaches sometimes.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| I was thinking the same thing but all those machine always use
| some form of flexible hose which from what I have seen are also
| chock full of plasticizers as well. Feels like a choose your
| poison sort of situation.
|
| It would be great to have a reverse osmosis machine where only
| the membrane itself was plastic and everything else was glass
| or steel. But I am not sure anything like that actually exists?
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| I'd think the single hose /apparatus would have much less
| exposure than most water supplies, especially over time.
| Maybe run the water for a bit before using?
| ohthanks wrote:
| I sell residential RO systems. Industry wide the tubing is
| typically LDPE and the housings/fittings are mostly
| polypropylene. There is no real practical way to build a
| residential RO system without using these materials.
|
| It's a trade off between different types of plastic /
| chemical exposure. Not really ideal but I suspect nearly all
| sources of treated water will have traveled through a similar
| amount of plastic to get to you.
|
| Copper is avoided on RO systems because the post membrane
| water typically drops 1-3 points in PH and will slowly
| corrode and leech copper into the treated water. All post
| membrane fittings and tubing should be plastic/stainless,
| cheap brass fittings with high lead content are the biggest
| concern. This can be resolved with post membrane PH amendment
| but you then create a failure point that can cause heavy
| metal exposure or leaks if it isn't maintained.
|
| You could build a system with steel housings and braided
| stainless hose but the size/weight and cost are not
| practical.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I'm not worried about that. I have a counter top RO machine
| made out of plastic but the water comes out at nearly 0ppm
| TDS, and it flows through the machine slowly, at low temp,
| and for a short time. Whatever is in there is orders of
| magnitude less than you would find anywhere else, it's
| basically laboratory grade pure water.
| chaxor wrote:
| > laboratory grade pure water
|
| "but that'll kill 'ya!"
| thearrow wrote:
| Which machine do you have? I've been looking for a decent
| countertop RO system without much success.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| AquaTru. I'm pretty happy with it, purchased it used on
| eBay and put new filters into it.
| aliqot wrote:
| RO Buddy is a good starter if you just want to try for
| 60ish dollars.
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| Ouch, that's a good point.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I mean you could probably get copper piping to work on it
| with some plumbing skills and tools; copper is, as far as I'm
| aware, fairly inert in the human body. at the moment anyway.
| D13Fd wrote:
| This is worth doing regardless of the contamination issue IMO.
| If you drink a lot of water, it's so nice to have a little
| spout that gives water that tastes like perfect bottled water
| any time you want it.
| [deleted]
| jangofett27 wrote:
| We need more jurisdictions monitoring and publishing local PFAS
| levels, or people are never going to realize just how much of a
| problem this is in their areas. Most reports so far have just
| been case studies, and few states have picked up the torch and
| actually started regularly monitoring.
| JCM9 wrote:
| Seeing people ask why PFAS hasn't just been immediately banned.
| Like a lot of things, "it's complicated."
|
| 1. These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From
| lubrication to fire retardants there's a reason these compounds
| are everywhere.
|
| 2. The press and many activists tend to treat things in a binary
| manner but science doesn't really work like that. It's clear that
| very high levels of these compounds are bad. It's less clear that
| lower levels are bad. Lots of things (like vitamins) are toxic at
| high levels and actually good at low levels. Not saying PFAS is
| good, but it's not as simple as just saying any is terrible
| either.
|
| 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much better
| over the years. We're now talking parts per trillion
| measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything. A
| lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to measure
| things combined with "2" above around any detection being slated
| as terrible.
|
| 4. Both the reporting and public's reactions tend to be
| illogical. PFAS found at a nearby factory? Shut it down. Sue
| everyone. However a growing body of evidence is finding PFAS in
| things like synthetic turf playing fields and yet with rare
| exception most school districts seem perfectly happy having these
| instead of plain old grass. As such the amount of "outrage" is
| often rooted in the convenience of it supporting existing
| activist movements (close the factory!) than it is based in any
| science or defensible reality.
|
| Not for a moment trying to suggest we shouldn't pay attention to
| this, and we probably should look for alternative compounds. But
| the near hysteria from some corners creates more of a distraction
| than actually helping anything.
| alexpotato wrote:
| > These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From
| lubrication to fire retardants there's a reason these compounds
| are everywhere.
|
| You could make the same argument about asbestos (and people
| probably did at the time).
|
| You could also argue that it took class action lawsuits to
| finally push the cost of using it from "wonder product" to
| "only when really needed" to "not worth it" to "it's now
| illegal". (Granted the last step is not 100% tied to the
| financial cost).
| s0rce wrote:
| And DDT, CFCs and tetra-ethyl lead...
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Until recently (according to reporting) these compounds could
| not be filtered and are not ever expected to break down
| naturally in nature or the body. You can't get overexposed and
| be fine over time. It seems you're presuming all the exposure
| people are getting is "probably fine" ala astbestos in the
| walls.
|
| Then, there is the behavior of the factories producing it,
| which you brush off. Drinking supplies in certain areas are
| permanently destroyed, and producers aren't in jail.
|
| Yes, strict liability should apply when indestructible chemical
| compounds ruin regional drinking supplies and give people
| cancer.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Absolutely, you dont get to release unknown irremovable shit
| into encironment for 10 years while someone else spends money
| on reasearch to proove you are poiaoning them
| actionfromafar wrote:
| _Any_ widespread message _must be simple_. Even a moderate,
| sane movement will have hysteria on the fringes, just owing to
| it being large enough to have a fringe.
| specialist wrote:
| Yes and:
|
| Message simplicity, discipline, and _repetition_ , to maybe
| somewhat mitigate the inevitable and very effective
| nutpicking by corporate media (and other shills) for the
| purpose of discrediting any reform, accountability, etc.
|
| --
|
| _" The practice of sifting through the comments of blogs,
| email threads, discussion groups and other user generated
| content in an attempt find choice quotes proving that the
| advocates for or against a particular political opinion are
| unreasonable, uninformed extremists."_
|
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nutpicking
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Every person that has ever fought for improvement p of any
| kind, against power, was accused of extremist or worse,
| terrorism.
|
| If you weren't, you never made enoufg waves to be noticed.
| kshahkshah wrote:
| Is that empirically the case? Maybe in the marketing world
| but policy tends to get debated with more vigor. From my view
| 'defund the police' seems to have severely backfired.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| You basically want reality to be simple? Well, it isn't.
|
| How about denying megaphones to the hysterical fringes?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "Don't let children work in sweatshops" and "let women
| vote" were once the "hysterical fringes" of public policy.
| There's often a benefit to exploring the edges of the
| Overton window.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| If they were fringe, those changes would never have
| happened. It's not like people ever had as much leverage
| for hysteria as they have now.
|
| You are not exploring the edges of the Overton window
| when you drown balanced speech. That just creates
| multimodal extremism.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > If they were fringe, those changes would never have
| happened.
|
| They were initially fringe. Activism by that initial
| fringe is what made it mainstream.
| ldh0011 wrote:
| The implication of your first claim seems to be that
| fringe opinions would never become mainstream in society.
| I think essentially all of human history contradicts that
| pretty well...
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Obviously children should not work in sweatshops and
| rather go to school instead, but do good numbers exist,
| that the "hysterical" campaigns increased those numbers
| and not just put the kids on the street to do scavenging
| on toxic dumbsters?
|
| Well intended is not always well done and hystery is
| seldom helping. I remember from my youth(in germany),
| that work for kids was also forbidden. With some
| exceptions like delivering advertisement to every door.
| The result was, that this was a very shitty job, very
| badly paid (you were replaceble) and the ones illegally
| working for the bike shed for example, made way more
| money.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > do good numbers exist, that the "hysterical" campaigns
| increased those numbers and not just put the kids on the
| street to do scavenging on toxic dumbsters?
|
| So let me get this straight your hypothesis is that
| campaign to get kids out of sweatshops were harmfull, and
| the reason we stopped putting them insweatshops is not
| public pressure but spontanous mass enlightenment?
|
| Maybe it is your perception of these campaignes as
| hysterical thats wrong.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "So let me get this straight your hypothesis is that
| campaign to get kids out of sweatshops were harmful"
|
| My hypothesis is, that just banning kids working in
| sweatshop is not enough to improve living conditions for
| those kids, but can in fact worsen them. So I repeat my
| question, do you have good numbers, that the living
| conditions actually improved?
|
| Hysteric campaigns from the west often stop exactly there
| - so the companies can place a label on their product
| that says free of child labour, but it does not say at
| all, where those kids are now, but the consumers now feel
| better.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Do you have good numbers that being polite, reasonable
| and timid activism will get large corporations to give up
| billions in profits to please you?
|
| We've had 26 climate change conferences, the issue was
| known for 40 years, nobody gave a flying fuck. Some kids
| blocked traffic in London for 1 day, and suddenly people
| paid attention.
|
| How are you going to solve Nestle level of indignity and
| inhumanity?
|
| "Nestle admits slavery in Thailand while fighting child
| labour lawsuit in Ivory Coast"
|
| If people were more hysterical, and the HQ of offending
| corporation burned down occasionally, then Nestle would
| sort itself out prompto
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "Some kids blocked traffic in London for 1 day, and
| suddenly people paid attention."
|
| Yeah, I know. We have the same in germany. The common
| people now do pay attention to the road blockers and want
| them all jailed as terrorists. I just do not see, how
| this will help the cause.
|
| "If people were more hysterical, and the HQ of offending
| corporation burned down occasionally, then Nestle would
| sort itself out prompto"
|
| Yes, they would simply tighten up security.
|
| Rage is just rage, it does not solve anything, unless it
| is channeled constructivly. Lynch mobs just create a
| state of fear and people driven by fear seldom act smart.
| We _do_ need the rage to act, but just acting does not
| improve anything. It is the right act, that can improve.
|
| There was this big rage about poverty and exploitation
| that lead to socialism. But do you really think, that the
| socialist states improved anything? I was born into such
| a state. I do not think so. They were worse for the
| workers and worse for the environment.
| arcticbull wrote:
| > But do you really think, that the socialist states
| improved anything?
|
| Socialism is a big tent term.
|
| One one end you have "social democracy" where a market
| economy exists with some state ownership and taxation is
| used to ensure a good standard of living for all. This is
| also referred to a social capitalism or a social market
| economy. This is the kind of socialism you find in the
| Nordics and to a lesser extent Canada. Your Bernie
| Sanders socialism if you will.
|
| On the other end you have "authoritarian state socialism"
| - the kind of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism you may be thinking
| of.
|
| Then there's communism in which, in it's final form,
| there is no state at all.
|
| These are all socialism but each has had very different
| outcomes.
|
| So to answer your question with a question, to which kind
| of socialism are you referring? I'd say the former has
| worked out very well. The middle, not so much. The latter
| may not even be possible?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > But do you really think, that the socialist states
| improved anything?
|
| For some it did. In many places socialism was replacing
| some form of tyrany, foreign tyrany or feudalism, so it
| was hard to make things worse.
|
| Before the revolutions some of my ancesteors were
| literally property. They were serfs, with all the fun
| bits like regular whippings, and living in a wooden hut.
| They went to nirmal-ish 2nd world life.
|
| The other side of my family had someone who was
| repressed, i.e. dissapeared.
|
| Today suffragettes are universally praised and noone
| remmbers that they invented the letter bomb.
|
| I don't advocate violence, but if you want a social
| movement to suceed, it has to have some teeth and power,
| either through court, money or civil disobedience.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Eugenics was controversial too. What's your point?
|
| No naive rules of thumb like "well if the public health
| experts like it then it must be good" or "bigger overton
| window = better" will ever come close to being a viable
| replacement for critical thinking on any specific policy
| matter. If the extreme fringes can't convert people to
| their cause then is their cause really that worthy?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Eugenics was controversial too. What's your point?
|
| Eugenics is fringe _now_. It wasn 't in the early 1900s.
| The point is that "no megaphones for the fringe" can also
| be a bad thing.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Eugenics absolutely was fringe in the early 1900s. To
| claim otherwise is revisionist. The fact that they got as
| far as they did, even passing laws in some states, is
| testament to what happens when people outsource their
| thinking to the experts and the experts engaged in
| extreme policy not supported by the people. Make no
| mistake, the policy would have worked but the end did not
| justify the means outside of the circle jerk in which the
| "experts" and were living.
|
| The fact that the fringe was unable to convert the
| broader public is why the overwhelming majority of
| eugenics policy was unilaterally adopted by institutions
| (government or otherwise) vs being legislated by
| politicians and that's because people didn't really want
| it en-masse.
| hgomersall wrote:
| This is more or less where we are now with mainstream
| macroeconomics - a previously fringe theory becomes
| dominant and too many people stop thinking in deference
| to the experts.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Do you have any references that support this lack of
| support? Everything I have ever read points to a general
| acceptance as being a modern and scientific theory if not
| a direct moral imperative at that time. It wasn't until
| the results of WWII were unpacked and civil rights
| debated was it really revisited on a humanist basis. I
| would be genuinely glad to read material that refutes
| this.
| wizofaus wrote:
| "the policy would have worked" - in what sense? Are you
| genuinely arguing that eugenicists would have objectively
| and accurately determined which genes led to
| strongest/most intelligent/most productive humans and
| only allowed people with those genes to reproduce, and
| successfully ensured "defective" genes were eliminated
| from the homo sapiens gene pool? Even if somehow they had
| achieved that, the thought of living in a society where a
| human life is only considered valuable if it fits some
| predefined criteria is frankly far too high a cost to
| pay. (Interestingly I was watching Man in the High Castle
| last night, the episode that "celebrates" the choice of
| one of the characters to have himself be euthanised
| because of an incurable medical condition. It was an odd
| experience because superficially it came across as a very
| powerful and moving scene, despite the horrid underlying
| creepiness of it. But it didn't seem hard to believe that
| people could genuinely be swayed into thinking that it
| was a "noble" thing to have your life terminated just
| because of a particular genetic condition. I suppose at
| least it's a more justifiable stance than believing that
| anyone not of a particular race was undeserving of a
| fulfilling life, though clearly many eugenicists believed
| exactly that too).
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Can you perhaps elaborate on your definition of "fringe"?
|
| "Official policy of 30+ states and upheld by SCOTUS"
| doesn't fit mine.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Eugenics came and went over the careers timeline of the
| people who peddled it (as most of these policy fads do).
| At best it was tolerated by the uninvolved masses. Things
| like women voting, gay rights, etc. managed to persist
| after the people who staked their careers on it and would
| be compelled to peddle it croaked. Eugenics failed to
| convert the masses (good).
|
| That official policy of what you speak is just that,
| unilateral policy by various government institutions
| (usually prison systems and public health institutions).
| Most states didn't manage to get it through the
| legislature in any meaningful capacity because it was not
| something the masses cared for and therefore not
| something that a politician could earn votes peddling. It
| was as endorsed by the masses as some DOT policy about
| pothole patching would be.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| You don't think the outcome of WWII might have changed
| minds and hearts instead? Most literature I've read was
| eugenics became deeply unpopular following a realization
| of what the Nazis had done.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Pothole fixing is very mainstream, I'd say.
|
| Eugenics got a bad reputation because of a certain
| moustachioed leader in Germany.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's not fringe now.
|
| E.g. there are essentially no children with downs born in
| Denmark due to sex selective abortions.
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| Maybe it would be wise to try to understand why they are
| hysterical before you take away their voice.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| >How about denying megaphones to the hysterical fringes?
|
| Most megaphones today are in the hands of private
| corporations who profit off of "engagement", that is,
| giving megaphones to the fringes. How do you suppose we do
| that?
|
| Not to mention that the line between not providing a
| megaphone and suppressing free speech is a thin one.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > How about denying megaphones to the hysterical fringes?
|
| Do you think it is an accident that, when there is a
| popular movement, whether it is punk rock or protests
| against vietanm war, the media will invite the most crazy
| person possible and portray them as maniacs?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I guess you have just understood what I am talking about.
|
| If the media is intend on lying and mass manipulation,
| that media exactly should not have the support of well
| meaning people.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| So then why is HN, a community full of people who are much
| more educated than average and much more frequently employed
| in fields where logic and reason are key, so constantly
| receptive to the "hysteria on the fringes" take on such
| issues?
|
| Reddit, 4cham, other cesspools like that I get, but why HN?
| This community fancies itself as having a little more
| rationality and self awareness than that. So either there's
| an explanation for why those takes gain as much traction here
| or...
|
| (this is a serious question)
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Smarter people on average != less emotional ones. What
| parent is complaining are emotional reactions. Here we have
| a proof that even HN readers do have emotions and sometimes
| they get the best and worst out of us, just like everybody
| else.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well it's not like HN is a council of Vulcans debating
| logic all day, we're all as human as the next guy.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Speak for yourself
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well it's not like I'm a council of Vulcans debating
| logic all day.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > fields where logic and reason are key, so constantly
| receptive to the "hysteria on the fringes" take on such
| issues?
|
| Many on HK has emotional intelligence id an edgy highschool
| student, plus often they live in a buble. This leads to
| poor grasp of social issues.
|
| 'Average' places like reddit are actually better in this
| regard.
| gruez wrote:
| >'Average' places like reddit are actually better in this
| regard.
|
| That might be true in that niche subreddit you subscribe
| to, but it's clearly not true for /r/all.
| Brybry wrote:
| Is more education and being employed in a field of logic
| and reason likely to make one less receptive to fringe
| beliefs?
|
| For example, engineers are probably overrepresented amongst
| Islamic extremists[1] and, from what few studies there are,
| may be skewed conservative and religious compared to other
| higher education fields.
|
| [1] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29836/1/Why_are_there_so_many
| _Engi...
| yunohn wrote:
| Just like plastic... Everyone wants to ban it, but it's
| ubiquitous for a reason.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Because humans tend to think in the short term and for-profit
| entities are happy to oblige.
|
| It could be argued there are many things which we are morally
| obliged to stop using plastic for, as it only serves as a
| convenience. Disposable food trays and "silverware", straws,
| individually wrapped things, and so on. Society could adjust
| to bringing their own water bottles to be filled at
| restaurants/gas stations/work, but between laziness on the
| consumer and the profit motive of selling cheap plastic
| bottles for $3 by companies, we don't.
|
| Then there are plenty of things for which plastic is useful,
| durable; and instances where even single-use plastic can be
| justified. But on the whole, society is trading the
| environment tomorrow for convenience and money today.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| yes: it's cheap...
| diob wrote:
| I think I'd be more comfortable with it if the folks using PFAS
| had to pay into a fund to handle cleanup / treatment of folks
| affected.
|
| Right now they get all the upside with none of the downside.
| for1nner wrote:
| > But the near hysteria from some corners creates more of a
| distraction than actually helping anything.
|
| US media and politics in a nutshell.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > 1. These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From
| lubrication to fire retardants there's a reason these compounds
| are everywhere.
|
| > 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much
| better over the years. We're now talking parts per trillion
| measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything.
| A lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to
| measure things combined with "2" above around any detection
| being slated as terrible.
|
| People don't understand how pervasive these chemicals are. When
| field testing for levels of PFAS, those doing the testing are
| given a list of things they need to avoid and not carry into
| the field because they will contaminate the results. This
| includes certain makeup, stain or water resistant clothing,
| certain types of paper, and lots of other things people would
| never consider.
| blablabla123 wrote:
| The comparison with Vitamins seems absurd. But really, what are
| "very high levels" then in ppm and exposure time?
|
| Also the public's reaction _is_ logical since information has
| been kept from the public for decades to hinder proper
| regulation. I think the successful class action lawsuit speaks
| for itself.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| PFAS were the highest level national security secrets during
| WW2 due to their amazing properties (which haven't been
| improved upon due to the periodic table/fundamental
| properties of fluorine), so it's not a surprise the
| information was kept from the public for many decades.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Can't make computer chips without PFAS, and many normal things
| would wear down so much faster we would spend a lot more
| energy/CO2 emissions replacing things faster.
|
| PFAS have orders of magnitude differences in half lives,
| understanding which are bad and how to destroy them when needed
| is all that is required.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The calls the shut down the factories are rational. They might
| not be reasonable, but that is debatable.
|
| Typically, if you find someone is lying or manipulating
| repeatedly, you jump to stricter outcomes. If you ban a
| specific substance in cookware and they just create a slightly
| different, untested, one... If they promise that waste won't
| escape the facility because there are safe ways to handle it,
| yet it continues to happen...
|
| It's like having a child that continually pushes the limits of
| the rules and repeatedly causes trouble. At some point you must
| realize they are lying and will hurt themselves or others. You
| can't play with that ball responsibly? Guess what, it's gone.
| _adamb wrote:
| Can you explain more? It seems like you're arguing with
| yourself.
|
| You say if we ban one substance, they'll just come out with a
| less tested, less understood, and likely worse new one. I
| probably agree with this!
|
| Then you say we have to just take it away, like a kid who is
| being irresponsible with a ball. I understand this means you
| think we should ban the materials.
|
| --
|
| If we ban these substances, won't research just pour all the
| more heavily into the new ones, causing the 1st scenario you
| mentioned? Are you suggesting we ban research into _any_ new
| materials whatsoever?
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Are you suggesting we ban research into _any_ new
| materials whatsoever?"
|
| Quite the opposite. I'm saying the items should be
| tested/researched. Hence my use of _untested_ , as you also
| point out.
|
| Essentially, stop trusting the company because they are
| acting like a child. You ban that class of chemicals until
| they can prove they are responsible and the chemical can
| realilistically be handled safely (unlikely for consumer
| products since the waste at product life end would be
| unmanageable). You can do this through a strict
| certification and surveillance program as well as limiting
| the use of the product to industrial applications where no
| alternatives exist.
|
| But the only real point I was trying to make is that people
| are more likely to support bans on a rational basis that
| the companies have fucked up before and lied/manipulated
| and are likely to cause more harm like that in the future.
| The stuff we are discussing at this point is a little
| outside of that as we are getting into what people would
| debate considering what is reasonable.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Yeah, the current system requires demonstrable harm.
|
| We should have a system that requires demonstrable
| safety.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| It's like no one remembers the "BPA-Free" crap where
| manufacturers replaced it with other, untested, possibly-
| just-as-bad analogues. Those manufacturers have already
| acted in bad faith, why would anyone trust them to do
| better next time? They weren't punished and they have all
| the wrong incentives.
| tangjurine wrote:
| He's simply suggesting new materials be banned by default,
| and research and studies that prove it is safe are needed
| to allow a material to be mass produced.
|
| It's always funny when people pretend such policies would
| be the end of the world, when Europe has been doing this
| for years.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| When are we gonna have stricter outcomes for the people who
| use such tactics to peddle things like bag bans, onerous
| management of residential water consumption, vehicle
| inspection requirements and other things that waste resources
| and political capital treating something that is at best a
| tiny fraction of whatever the problem supposedly is? These
| people at best do nothing and at worse sully the good name of
| people who want to enact smarter but less emotionally
| appealing policy to treat those problems. They've been caught
| repeatedly using the same sleazy tactics you say are worthy
| of stricter treatment.
| freejazz wrote:
| Why act as if emotions aren't a component of people? People
| are emotional. It's real. It hasn't stopped us from getting
| this far.
| hammock wrote:
| _> 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much
| better over the years. We're now talking parts per trillion
| measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything.
| A lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to
| measure things combined with "2" above around any detection
| being slated as terrible._
|
| Unfortunately, unlike many other common toxins, PFAS _is
| actually toxic_ at parts per trillion levels. It's not just a
| matter of "we detected trace amounts."
|
| _> 4. Both the reporting and public's reactions tend to be
| illogical. PFAS found at a nearby factory? Shut it down. Sue
| everyone. However a growing body of evidence is finding PFAS in
| things like synthetic turf playing fields and yet with rare
| exception most school districts seem perfectly happy having
| these instead of plain old grass_
|
| Shutting down a factory is logical. Using a PFAS turf field is
| illogical. Is that what you meant? Or did you really mean to
| imply that we shouldn't shut down the factory until we remove
| the turf field as well?
| __alexs wrote:
| You could say the same things about lead I think? But then
| maybe we are more scared of lead than we should be, there's
| just more alternatives to it now?
| moffkalast wrote:
| And asbestos too. Fantastically good isolator, strong, cheap,
| and only dangerous when broken.
| Grazester wrote:
| I can here to say asbestos was great at its job too!
| JCM9 wrote:
| Yes. People are often shocked when asbestos is found and
| the recommended response is to do nothing. Messing with it
| is likely to cause more issues than just letting it be. If
| it's intact and unlikely to be disturbed it's not going to
| hurt anyone. The public has been trained to think this
| stuff is so bad that any mention of it has people doing
| full blown evacuations running for the hills.
|
| Nuclear power has, unfortunately, suffered a similar fate.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Nuclear power has the particular disadvantage of having
| to be actively managed. You can't just "leave it alone".
| rcme wrote:
| Leaving asbestos "alone" or encapsulating it is the
| common advice. It can also terrible advice, especially if
| the material is non-friable. Take something like vinyl
| asbestos tile as an example. When exposed, it's pretty
| easy to get rid of. You can cut through the tile, into
| the sub-floor, and take out huge chunks of tile at a
| time. You do release some fibers via cutting, but overall
| a very manageable amount. Now let's say you decide to
| tile over instead, what happens? Well for starters,
| you've now hidden the danger. You might know what's
| underneath your new tiles, but what happens when you sell
| the home? Also, it's no longer easy or simple to remove
| the VAT now. For example, this guy dosed himself and his
| whole family with a large asbestos dose unknowingly: http
| s://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/comments/dyvj3u/so_.
| ..
|
| If you have a hazard in your home, just deal with it
| appropriately. "Cover it up until it's someone else's
| problem" is selfish and irresponsible.
| giantg2 wrote:
| It's not difficult to safely remediate most of it. A P100
| respirator, Tyvek suit, water to spray down the areas to
| work on, and a garden hose to hose off yourself/suit. If
| inside, it gets more tricky, but not too different from
| mold remediation. The toughest or most expensive part is
| usually finding a site that will take the waste bags.
|
| Also, the guy in your link complains about a lack of
| warning. If he read the warnings that cam with that
| grinding wheel, he would have been fine. Even if it
| doesn't say stuff about specifically about asbestos, the
| warning about silicosis has practically the same
| precautions.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| That really depends on what kind of asbestos it is. In a
| hard, easily removable plate, sure you can do it
| yourself. Loosely-bound asbestos is a whole different
| game.
| zug_zug wrote:
| Indeed the very first "science" on leaded gasoline was a
| study conducted by the bureau of mines, which concluded that
| leaded gasoline was entirely safe... Spoiler alert: It was
| not entirely safe.
|
| PFAs aren't even proven safe, they're just not-yet-proven-
| dangerous-in-small amounts, but that's so hard to measure it
| doesn't really assure us of anything.
| hgomersall wrote:
| The history of toxic stuff is rarely revised to show that
| the stuff is less toxic.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Saccharin.
| rcme wrote:
| No, you can't say the same thing about lead. We understand
| the mechanisms in which lead poisons the body. We know that
| even low levels of lead exposure cause damage. And, we've
| measured this damage by comparing large samples sizes based
| on blood lead levels. Even a tiny amount of lead, like 3.5
| mcg / dL measured in blood, is correlated with loss of IQ.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Not really, no. We have evidence that even very low levels of
| lead is dangerous. The cost/benefit analysis is different. We
| have no idea what the "safe" level of PFAS is. Maybe its
| zero, like lead, but maybe not.
|
| Every sip of water you drink has arsenic and cyanide in it.
| These chemicals are harmful, but not at very low
| concentrations.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Very low levels of arsenic may be a necessary
| micronutrient, according to animal studies.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Counter-example: ozone layer hole and CFC's (iirc), where the
| clear message of "this stuff causes this" led to a global ban
| and monitoring system on that generation of refrigerants.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| Why is that a counterexample? Isn't the comment above saying
| that harm at low levels isn't really known?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It's a response to at least #1; CFCs were similarly widely
| used and good at what they did. It just turned out that
| "you're not allowed to use these any more" sparked some
| significant innovation in alternatives.
| ericpauley wrote:
| Interestingly there are still some CFCs for which no
| truly viable replacement exists. For instance aviation
| fire extinguishers still use reclaimed Halon largely
| produced before the ban.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Alternatives exist for aviation fire extinguishers;
| https://www.sportys.com/blog/which-fire-extinguisher-
| right-p.... Halotron needs a larger extinguisher (2x the
| weight/size, but it's not gonna be the thing to break
| your weight/balance budget) but is otherwise very
| similar, with a 96% reduction in environmental impact.
| ericpauley wrote:
| Interesting, wasn't aware Halotron had gotten any
| approvals. I imagine a lot of people will want to stick
| with their existing Halon ones since they're already
| there and, in the event of a fire, they'll want the most
| effective/maneuverable product available.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| There is a big difference between using a substance to
| save life and limb.
|
| And putting it on every random consumer product whwre it
| has no need to be
| dylan604 wrote:
| This is a valid point until you killed it with hyperbole.
| I know this from experience. This forum is probably okay
| for the hyperbole, but I always used the hyperbole even
| on non-friendly forums which caused me to "cede the
| higher ground".
|
| If a product was being used where it "has no need to be",
| that would mean the manufacturer is doing something that
| is costing them money (the PFAS isn't free nor is the
| application of it) which ultimately cuts into the bottom
| lines. So if they are using it, maybe it is that
| something is needed in that fashion and they already have
| a large investment in it so use it vs let's just put this
| stuff everywhere because it's freeeeee.
| ldh0011 wrote:
| I think the "no need" is referencing the lack of a
| societal or consumer need, not the "need" of the company
| to make more money.
| dylan604 wrote:
| i read the "no need" like there's no functional need for
| it to be there. benefit of doubt on my part that it is
| needed even if the "no need" commenter doesn't understand
| the need.
| gruez wrote:
| >It just turned out that "you're not allowed to use these
| any more" sparked some significant innovation in
| alternatives.
|
| Source? My impression was that alternatives were already
| being developed prior to widespread ban. A quick
| wikipedia search confirms this. The montreal protocol was
| signed in 1987 and came into effect in 1989, but by that
| time alternatives already existed.
|
| "DuPont began producing hydrofluorocarbons as
| alternatives to Freon in the 1980s."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon
| gnatman wrote:
| >Source? My impression was that alternatives were already
| being developed prior to widespread ban. A quick
| wikipedia search confirms this. The montreal protocol was
| signed in 1987 and came into effect in 1989, but by that
| time alternatives already existed.
|
| The Montreal Protocol was signed in '87 but things had
| been underway since the 70s, including a partial ban on
| aerosols in in US in '78. DuPont saw the writing on the
| wall.
|
| "In 1976 the United States National Academy of Sciences
| released a report concluding that the ozone depletion
| hypothesis was strongly supported by the scientific
| evidence. In response the United States, Canada and
| Norway banned the use of CFCs in aerosol spray cans in
| 1978."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Rowland-
| Molina...
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| I've no idea how humanity hasn't managed to coordinate a global
| and immediate ban on these chemicals.
|
| We really can't keep ourselves safe in the face of greed.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| In the scale of technology development for humanity, PFAS is
| about the same age as nuclear power. Both are infants.
| chaxor wrote:
| I agree to extent; but one issue is that there should be a
| small amount available for research purposes and places where
| it is required.
|
| For example, containment of certain chemicals is pretty much
| impossible without Teflon.
|
| Chlorosulfonic acid is one of them.
|
| Also, if you're working with this chemical, it may be useful to
| make mixtures of PFOS, PFBS, etc in order to process other
| products and not have highly reactive situations (effectively
| 'explosions'). Obviously these should get out of the facility
| they are contained in to pollute waste water or anything else,
| and should be used in a way that they are recovered and
| recycled for use over and over - _much like what the authors
| are suggesting to do here_.
|
| Of course it obviously doesn't work _perfectly_ that way, and
| things like this also introduce pollution as well while
| cleaning the water. So of course this should only be applied
| where there is a chance that they can remove more PFAS than
| they introduce to the system, which may not be as universally
| applicable as we may think.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| I'm sure there are acceptable corner cases, but when
| everything from your new sofa to the trainers you bought are
| covered in the stuff in the form of fire retardants, we're
| just sloshing the stuff around.
|
| Most of the uses are not due to necessity, but because these
| dangerous chemicals are cheaper to produce and have higher
| margins. Or use of them has second order margin increases by
| allowing us to do other things cheaper.
|
| Humanity is terrible at long term harm consideration. Unless
| the danger is immediate we can't really feel the urgency.
|
| Look how we all live, as if we won't die. It's sadly the
| human condition, and that bug in our cognition may be our
| downfall.
|
| What happens when the urgency comes and the damage we did
| can't be undone, regardless of our ingenuity?
| giantg2 wrote:
| Because most people don't care. People have more immediate
| problems than something that _might_ kill /injure them decades
| from now. Most people don't even know about the potential
| dangers and where the chemicals are used. When people do find
| out, they're shocked/skeptical.
|
| As an example, my mother-in-law was using old non-stick pans. I
| had to tell about the FDA saying to throw out pans from before
| 2013. She was shocked. Then I had to explain the new pans still
| have similar concerns because they changed the formula which
| isn't that different and is just less tested. Her world view is
| that there's no way the government would allow anything harmful
| on the market. Yeah... ok...
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Her world view is that there's no way the government would
| allow anything harmful on the market. Yeah... ok...
|
| Its reasonable to expect that people in government and the
| nedia are doing their job to inform the public.
|
| I can't keep track of all the possible fuckups - like who
| here knows that Philadelphia police firebombed a house full
| of children in 1985 and noone was held accountable for their
| deaths?
|
| If that happened today in your city, maybe you would be
| defunding the police.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Its reasonable to expect that people in government and the
| nedia are doing their job to inform the public."
|
| It might be rational to expect that. But as you point out
| with your example, it's not actually _reasonable_ to expect
| that. With the track record of screw ups that there are, it
| 's more reasonable to assume that you have to do you're own
| research.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| But there are only so many things you can research
| yourself, there are limited hours in the day.
|
| Like why should a naive person expect frying pans to be
| particularly suspicious and worth researching? How do you
| know to research issues with PTFA's, how would you know
| they even exist?
|
| You have to trust that the rest of society is generally
| functional. This is what free market extremists do not
| understand, if all trust is gone, society collapses
| giantg2 wrote:
| "to be particularly suspicious and worth researching"
|
| If it's some new miracle product, like burnt on cheese
| not sticking to the pan, then it would be good to look
| into.
|
| "You have to trust that the rest of society is generally
| functional."
|
| And you would _generally_ be right. In which case you
| should expect /accept that you might encounter products
| that fall outside of that _general_ protection that put
| you at risk of harm.
|
| As a member of society, you also have to think for
| yourself and question things. If 100% of society is just
| following everyone else, then nobody will discover,
| discuss, and address harmful situations.
|
| "This is what free market extremists do not understand,
| if all trust is gone, society collapses"
|
| Who said all trust is gone? Why are you bringing up
| extremists? Let's try to stay on-topic.
| thorvaldsson wrote:
| Not to sound too cynical, but humanity has rarely (or ever)
| been able to react in a coordinated timely fashion to any event
| threating it in any way.
|
| That is until we reach the brink.
|
| Think of the Montreal Protocol from the 80's, a treaty for
| phasing out and eventually banning CFC/HCFC's in an effort to
| protect and hopefully restore the ozone layer. The protocol was
| in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer
| over Antarctica in the 80's.
|
| To me, from everything I read and hear about PFAS pollution, it
| would seem we are at the brink again in terms of those
| chemicals.
| gruez wrote:
| CFCs were a nice confluence of events because there was a
| ready alternative available for CFCs. The same doesn't exist
| for PFAS.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-23 23:01 UTC)