[HN Gopher] The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be con...
___________________________________________________________________
The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered
hazardous substances
Author : ChrisArchitect
Score : 298 points
Date : 2024-02-02 16:09 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| tankaiji wrote:
| Good step, but companies will find untested alternatives. "9 out
| of 12,000"
| mouse_ wrote:
| It's almost like the rich and powerful can do whatever they
| want with no real repercussions.
| NeuNeurosis wrote:
| Its not just the rich and powerful, its the knowledgeable
| experts and powerbrokers that facilitate and actually build
| out the power structure that enables the rich to take
| advantage of these opportunities. As long as one of the most
| lucrative and prestigious routes to success for exceptionally
| talented people lie in the power structures that require the
| compromise of society, the rich will have abundant
| opportunity to harvest the wealth that lies in damaging the
| world we live in and make money on the "solutions".
| wolverine876 wrote:
| No reprocussions if you don't do anything about it and
| promote a culture of helplessness - probably exactly what
| they hope you will do.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| This is the inevitable process of humanity's understanding of
| technology.
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the
| perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We
| have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe".
|
| You can still progress technologically without being
| reckless.
| pkaye wrote:
| > My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the
| perspective is backwards from what we have in the US.
|
| Which countries do it that way?
| pimlottc wrote:
| The EU uses a whitelist approach for food additives, vs
| the US's blacklist approach:
|
| > Europe has chosen a precautionary approach in
| regulating, while the U.S. governing bodies tend to be
| more reactive. In other words, in the United States, food
| additives are innocent until proven guilty, while in
| Europe, only those additives proven not to be harmful are
| approved for use.
|
| http://www.germinalorganic.com/2018/02/eu-versus-us-a-
| closer...
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| > in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have
| "prove it's safe
|
| Until you get into pharmaceuticals, then the world standard
| is a step beyond "prove it's harmful" to "no evidence of
| harm is proof that it is safe".
| Kuinox wrote:
| You have to prove that the benefits is worth the
| potential harm. Vaccines are known to be harmful to very
| few persons, yet we vaccine because the benefits outweigh
| the very small potential of harm.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| No, especially with vaccines in the US (and some other
| places) science doesn't have to meet that burden because
| they are indemnified for product liability by the
| government by law.
| Kuinox wrote:
| Good thing I'm not in the US then.
| varelse wrote:
| There are a ton of contaminants in our drinking water that
| the EPA recommends you remove and we know they are harmful
| but they are not mandated to do so. Get yourself a water
| filter because they're not going to filter it for you.
| Semaphor wrote:
| Do you have a list?
| reissbaker wrote:
| If you live in California you likely have an enormous
| amount of chloroform in your water (I tested my water,
| was horrified, and bought a whole-house water filter;
| apparently this is just generally true in the Bay Area,
| and I suspect SoCal as well since we pipe our water down
| there).
| Semaphor wrote:
| Yeah, I had a bit of a brain fart, the E in EPA made me
| think Europe, despite me actually knowing what it stands
| for. I luckily have nothing like that in my water.
| zug_zug wrote:
| I don't think it's remotely inevitable. I think that's an
| outrageous mindset.
|
| Think of it like an engineer. We try to test products before
| deploying them to production (e.g. make all of humanity
| ingest it). If our tests are wrong some significant portion
| of the time, or if being wrong is much more damaging than we
| realized, then absolutely it's time to start the conversation
| of "How do we get better test coverage?"
|
| I bet if you put some paltry amount of money, say 100B
| (compare this to a bailout) into devising tests around the
| long-term safety of various chemicals some creative solutions
| would come up. For example, off the top of my head, if
| reproductive health is a concern, perhaps do a study where
| some animal that reproduces frequently is exposed to it for
| 10+ generations. We can validate if this is a viable way of
| testing by taking some known endocrine-disruptors and
| validating this test catches them effectively.
|
| For whatever reason, some people don't seem to see
| engineering chemicals that are safe for humanity to be a
| worthy enterprise, but I think it's as important as any tech
| company and we should make the financial incentives to
| reflect that and get the right minds on this problem.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Those tests exist already, but no ethical tests can
| determine the full truth.
|
| Also, tests where minute traces of anything, like coffee,
| are purified to extreme amounts and injected into animals
| to cause cancer only add confusion, especially when
| California considers adding cancer warnings to coffee.
| zug_zug wrote:
| > Those tests exist already
|
| Do you actually know which tests the EPA runs and if so
| could you cite your source?
|
| > no ethical tests can determine the full truth.
|
| That's an all-or-nothing fallacy.
|
| Also you didn't respond to the core of my remark, which
| is about increasing the financial incentives by an order
| of magnitude. Lastly I take your complaint about coffee
| as support my argument that the current testing
| mechanisms are likely too simple.
| the8472 wrote:
| Not inevitable at all. It's entirely feasible to specify
| _categories_ of chemicals. E.g. see the german law on novel
| psychoactive substances[0] that lumps substituted molecules
| together with their primitive variants.
|
| One could even go a step further and _mandate outcomes_
| instead of means, that substances must be proven to either
| have a low environmental half-life or to not bio-accumulate.
|
| [0] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/npsg/anlage.html
| edgyquant wrote:
| No we overcomplicate it with overly complex regulations. It's
| pretty simple, don't dump chemicals in water or on land
| period. Assuming chemicals are totally fine until proven
| otherwise is backwards as hell and clearly corrupt.
| amarant wrote:
| Do you know what the word "chemical" means?
|
| We do need to be a bit more specific than that, or we're
| not gonna get anywhere.
|
| Also, once we've specified which chemicals shouldn't be
| dumped, I'd like to include the atmosphere in the list of
| places where one shouldn't dump them. Seems to be a very
| popular place to dump really harmful stuff, we should stop
| that.
| naremu wrote:
| > Do you know what the word "chemical" means?
|
| This intentional nitpicking of the colloquial usage of
| the word chemicals is a favorite of both, disingenuous
| conversationalists who like to take a chance to feel
| correct rather than participate earnestly, and lobbyists.
|
| At least one of them gets paid for it though.
| bawolff wrote:
| Its hardly a nitpick, you're being so vauge that its
| impossible to understand what you are actually proposing.
|
| Why not just use more specific language? If indeed
| everyone is acting in bad faith, using clear language
| would shut them up. If instead they are being ernest and
| cannot understand you because of the "colloquial"
| language, then being rigorous would further your stated
| goal of ernest participation. Either way seems like a
| win-win for you.
| naremu wrote:
| I didn't propose anything, I'm just nitpicking HN's
| nitpicking of attempts to have a real conversation.
|
| Which, since HN is a place for technically minded people,
| has resulted in people arguing that chemical
| contamination of PFAS is categorically the same as
| watering my lawn.
|
| You are technically correct, but this is called a
| "gotcha": it's not about continuing the conversation in
| earnest, if anything, it shuts down conversation about
| the important details by, in the writing of mike judge,
| "playing lawyerball" instead.
|
| In reality we all know that none of us are writing the
| technical legislation, so any of us becoming enamored
| with defending for profit entities against hazardous
| chemical classification through technical usage of
| language is...basically the core spirit of corporate
| lobbyism.
| krisoft wrote:
| > It's pretty simple, don't dump chemicals in water or on
| land period.
|
| Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all
| industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are
| you willing to take the consequences which follow from that
| proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 "dump chemicals in
| air")
| sitkack wrote:
| > Everything is chemicals.
|
| This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically
| destroys the conversation.
| lazide wrote:
| What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not
| dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and
| inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning,
| otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic,
| generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly
| toxic, highly flammable)?
|
| All of these have hazards in specific circumstances, and
| huge benefits in others. All are chemicals.
|
| All are well known and characterized. Many other
| compounds are too new for that level of knowledge and
| characterization. They are chemicals too.
|
| If we allow someone to make new chemicals (it's hard to
| stop, frankly!), either we say 'no, not until they are
| fully understood and characterized', or 'yes, unless we
| learn it's too hazardous'.
|
| Saying no first is a bit of a catch-22 since how are you
| going learn anything and characterize the dangers if you
| don't make and use it a bunch?
|
| If you say 'yes, unless we learn it's too dangerous' then
| we learn a huge amount quite quickly - but inevitably
| have something too dangerous causing problems.
|
| It's a fundamentally conservative vs liberal development
| strategy debate.
| naremu wrote:
| >What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand
| (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets
| crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or
| drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate
| (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine
| (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)?
|
| The MSDSes will elaborate on this and you probably know
| that.
|
| This thread chain has gotten impressively disingenuous
| very fast. We aren't arguing the colloquial definition of
| chemicals which if we're not being pedantic, we know
| brings up ideas of substances damaging to other
| substances or life itself.
|
| Which is fairly obviously the line that you're giving a
| good traditional "but where would we POSSIBLY STOP?!"
| gambit that comes out of paid lobbyist's mouths more
| often than hello or goodbye.
|
| The line to be crossed is obviously at least a few blocks
| up the way from "what is the difference between water and
| hydrazine though".
|
| And also, anything cumulative becomes "too hazardous"
| within years. But by then profits are made, and war
| chests are filled to keep the spice flowing.
|
| The world got by for thousands of years sustainably
| without a lot of these "huge benefits" and I'm willing to
| take a hit or two within my lifetime to ensure there's
| still lifetimes at all down the road.
| lazide wrote:
| No, you're just being disingenuous.
|
| How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn't been
| made yet?
|
| How do you decide it's safe to create a large enough
| quantity of a chemical to figure out what even should be
| in that MSDS?
|
| How can you know if something is mutagenic without
| exposing it to DNA? Or cancer causing without exposing it
| to a living organism? Or causes reproductive harm without
| exposing it to organisms and seeing how it impacts
| reproduction?
|
| Those all are potential harms.
|
| Traditionally, some enterprising alchemist/chemist would
| just try it - and if they lived, would write a paper on
| it. Further research and experience would then inform if
| a better alternative should be used.
|
| The Haber-Bosch process that allowed the creation of
| artificial fertilizers has allowed for the massive
| expansion of the human race. Roughly 3/4 of the humans on
| this planet right now would starve to death without it.
| Assuming they didn't get nuked first. That was in 1909.
|
| It also allowed for the creation of modern high
| explosives (and propellants) at scale, and the horrors of
| WW1 and WW2. And the mining revolution, which has
| provided the raw materials necessary to build our modern
| economies at vastly cheaper prices than were ever
| possible before for humanity.
|
| Chemistry is a fundamental building block of modern
| society, and removing it would literally cause its sudden
| and violent collapse.
|
| Deciding if 'freezing' it in place, or letting it
| continue to develop new and interesting applications is
| the discussion - because no, we weren't sustainable
| before (unless you count constant and ongoing genocides
| as 'sustainable'), and we've long passed the point where
| trying to return to that would be anything but
| apocalyptic.
|
| Literally.
|
| And keeping in mind that just because we agree to stop
| research in one area doesn't mean anyone else
| (competitors) will do so. Regardless of if that is in the
| realm of drugs, or weapons, or soaps, or foods, or
| whatever.
| naremu wrote:
| So, let me get this straight: I've claimed reducing
| everything to "chemicals" is disingenuous, and in
| response, I'm immediately told "no, you" and then
| challenged with debates over topics or ideas I haven't
| actually talked about like
|
| >How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn't been
| made yet?
|
| What argument that I've made do you present this logical
| fallacy to?
|
| > Deciding if 'freezing' it in place, or letting it
| continue to develop new and interesting applications is
| the discussion
|
| This is not my viewpoint and was never mentioned by me.
| This is an argument you're either making in reference to
| another comment, a point not addressed by myself, or
| you're talking to your own strawman, who doesn't seem to
| have a significant stance other than "well, it's
| basically unsolveable!".
|
| That is the discussion I was having. You're doing exactly
| what I mentioned, being disingenuous about the literal
| technical definition of chemicals and muddying waters
| because water is a chemical too, man!
|
| Well watering my lawn doesn't kill it or give organisms
| that live mere decades cancer. That's a reasonable
| measurement to start.
|
| And if you're really saying there can't be more in depth,
| slower research to chemicals that people will end up
| having in their bloodstream, then I don't even know what
| to say to that, other than Andrew Ryan would be proud.
| lazide wrote:
| It doesn't seem like you're reading your comments or my
| replies?
|
| The concern about the chemicals we're talking about is
| that they are _in the water you are using to water your
| lawn_ , anmong other things, and have been getting made
| at scale for over 50 years. And is a family of 6 million
| something chemicals, some of which we suspect now may be
| dangerous - including causing cancer - and some we have
| no idea.
|
| We can only test for things we suspect are an actual
| issue and have a test for. And for which we actually
| test.
|
| Which we don't really have reasonable tests for 'doesn't
| bio degrade over decades+ and bio accumulates to
| potentially dangerous levels' yet. Except watching
| nature, anyway, which is how we discovered this problem.
| There are millions more chemicals that this hasn't
| happened either.
|
| So what do you propose doing here besides freezing it
| until such tests can be put in place and developed?
| bawolff wrote:
| > The line to be crossed is obviously at least a few
| blocks up the way from "what is the difference between
| water and hydrazine though".
|
| Do you actually have a line? We can't make a law out of
| people saying "you know what i mean".
| naremu wrote:
| > the colloquial definition of chemicals which if we're
| not being pedantic, we know brings up ideas of substances
| damaging to other substances or life itself.
|
| From the comment you're responding to. Damage is
| quantifiable, if it wasn't, the OP (EPA proposing
| hazardous substance classification) wouldn't even exist.
| bawolff wrote:
| one presumes it is not when there is any quantifiable
| damage, no matter how slight. I assume nobody is
| proposing banning water, etc. But even plain water can
| result in large amounts of environmental damage in
| certain contexts.
|
| If the point is just to ban things when the risks
| outweigh the benefits, that is simply the status quo.
| lazide wrote:
| The challenge is, one can usually only make that kind of
| trade off when something is well known enough to know the
| risks and benefits in a wide variety of environments.
|
| The first real problematic PFAS compounds were in fire
| fighting foam used to put out aircraft fires for example,
| and took decades for their problems to show up.
|
| Which requires either extremely exhaustive (or
| essentially impossible economically) testing, or yolo'ng
| it. Or only using already known compounds.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| No, it's pretty much the only appropriate response to
| edgyquant's demand that we do the impossible.
| krisoft wrote:
| > This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically
| destroys the conversation.
|
| It is not. Quite contrary. The thought it provokes is
| "what chemicals do you want to ban?" Do you want to ban
| water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports
| it? It is a chemical after all. One which is quite
| dangerous in many circumstances.
|
| But surely that is not what edgyquant meant. Should we
| prohibit people selling soap? It is a chemical! But that
| is silly. We would probably lose more by banning that
| than by not banning it.
|
| Should we ban plastics? Maybe? Which types? All types?
| All uses?
|
| Should we sell hydrazine in grocery stores? Oh, we better
| not. Can we use hydrazine in special applications like
| fuelling satellites? If so what do we require from people
| who handle/store/dispose of it?
|
| So many thoughts provoked by that simple observation.
| legulere wrote:
| Chemicals are shorthand for synthetic chemicals. We co-
| evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're
| usually not too harmful to us and get easily biodegraded.
|
| In this case it's about PFAS, a subgroup of
| organofluorine compounds. There's only 5 known
| organofluorine compounds produced by organisms.
| bawolff wrote:
| > We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that
| they're usually not too harmful to us
|
| There are plenty of counter examples to this (and also
| pretty unclear what is meant by "natural")
|
| Lead is natural. Mercury is natural.
| marshray wrote:
| Jesus this is a stupid argument.
|
| "Don't dump chemicals in water or on land" is a perfectly
| logical and defensible statement.
| callalex wrote:
| Do you wash your dishes and clothes? Do you shower with
| soap?
| stainablesteel wrote:
| that's also the point too, you might find one that's a lot
| better in every way
| vavooom wrote:
| Original EPA proposal here: https://www.epa.gov/hw/proposal-list-
| nine-and-polyfluoroalky...
|
| Where they outline the nine PFAS are: - Perfluorooctanoic acid. -
| Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid - Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid. -
| Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid. - Perfluorononanoic acid. -
| Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid. - Perfluorodecanoic acid. -
| Perfluorohexanoic acid. - Perfluorobutanoic acid.
| chaxor wrote:
| I'm a bit confused here. These are recognized as being harmful.
| It's written all over the msds for these. What is the real
| change that is going to occur?
|
| I remember dealing with these substances in tiny quantities in
| the lab, and they were treated as carefully as cholorosifonic
| super acids. A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle.
| One problem is making methods that can detect waste streams at
| under ppt levels, which is pretty difficult, but that's the
| best effort for dealing with these substances at the moment.
| staplers wrote:
| What is the real change that is going to occur?
|
| Likely a bureaucratic formality that will force private
| entities to follow certain procedures.
| throwaway920102 wrote:
| > A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle.
|
| Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food
| packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little
| confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS
| treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring
| down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from
| there into natural waterways.
|
| Because of the "forever", small amounts add up, perpetually
| and over time could become not-small amounts.
| naremu wrote:
| > could become not-small amounts.
|
| Let's not get too relaxed here. There's gigantic masses of
| plastic all over the world that would like to say that
| anything mass produced and cumulative "WILL become 'not-
| small' amounts".
| pdonis wrote:
| So what is the impact of this proposed EPA ruling on
| ordinary people disposing of ordinary household items like
| those you describe? Will we all need to have hazmat plants
| installed in our sewage lines? Will we no longer be able to
| wash our clothes in washing machines? Will we have to
| segregate all our trash and pay for our community to have a
| hazmat disposal truck come around along with the regular
| trash truck?
| daveguy wrote:
| No. No. And Maybe. Like most EPA regulations they will be
| enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. I'm
| not sure if you're being facetious or just disengenuously
| attacking regulatory agencies. If you're legitimately
| concerned, I apologize. On the bright side, you can rest
| easy.
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| This is assuming the EPA still exists in a year, which
| I'm giving 50/50 odds.
| cogman10 wrote:
| It'll still exist, however, it's powers will be reduced
| to nothing with the death of Chevron deference in June.
|
| This PFAs decision would be a prime example of something
| the EPA won't be able to regulate without a new
| congressional bill approving it.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the
| manufacturing /commercial side first._
|
| Is this actual knowledge or just a prediction?
|
| _> If you 're legitimately concerned_
|
| I am, but not just about the impact on me personally. I'm
| more generally concerned about whether the actual costs
| of such a regulation will be less than the actual
| benefits.
| throwaway920102 wrote:
| In an ideal world, manufacturers would begin to phase out
| the use of PFAS as waterproofing, which many already are.
| An alternative would be Nikwax, waxed canvas, or
| polyurethenate-coatings or TPU coatings. These
| alternatives are already used in many goods! For
| containers (not wearables), you can get aluminum,
| stainless steel, TI, or glass waterproof cans and jars
| and bottles that have threaded, screw on caps with
| silicone o-rings to create watertight seals.
|
| For outdoor goods like backpacks or bags that you want to
| stay waterproof, I personally recommend PU and TPU coated
| drybags. For clothing like pants or shirts, I'd recommend
| opting for non-water-resistant/non-waterproof versions,
| and just buy an umbrella or raincoat with a PU or TPU
| coating to shield you rather than trying to wear clothing
| that will have water bead. Waxed canvas clothing is
| another option but it can be heavy. Cool if you are into
| it though, Fjallraven is famous for it, as is Filson.
|
| I don't think you'll be too sad if your disposable food
| packaging gets a little soggier. You'll probably be a
| little more sad if you get cancer :(
|
| So over time, hopefully you own fewer and fewer goods
| that are destroying the planet! Happy friday.
|
| Eg:
|
| https://www.polartec.com/news/polartec-announces-full-
| use-of...
|
| https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/06/pfas-
| tox...
| sneak wrote:
| In an ideal world they'd immediately cease use of them,
| not "begin to phase out".
| marshray wrote:
| > Will we have to segregate all our trash and pay for our
| community to have a hazmat disposal truck come around
| along with the regular trash truck?
|
| We could pose all of your same questions about, say,
| asbestos.
|
| The superficial answer:
|
| Yes, there are indeed times when human screwups
| necessitate hazmat disposal trucks in residential areas.
|
| The deeper answer:
|
| The optimal solution to a compounding problem is not to
| politicize it with absurd rhetoric.
|
| It is to stop whatever's feeding into the compounding as
| quickly as possible. Because that is the _only_ reliable
| way to reduce the long term costs that you 'll ultimately
| have to pay.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> We could pose all of your same questions about, say,
| asbestos._
|
| Indeed we could. And the answer we would find is that no,
| such requirements were not generally imposed on ordinary
| homeowners, but on manufacturers and construction firms,
| in the form of requirements not to use asbestos in future
| projects and to be forced to undertake remediation
| efforts when asbestos was found at an existing side that
| needed to be modified. And we would also find that, as a
| result, many of those same homeowners ended up with long
| term health issues from asbestos exposure because they
| were never informed of the risks or given any feasible
| way to mitigate them. Nor was any cost benefit
| calculation done in either case (homeowners or
| manufacturers/construction firms) to see whether the
| policy that was actually adopted could reasonably be
| argued to be a fair tradeoff.
|
| Here at least we are being informed of the (claimed)
| risk. But there is still no cost benefit analysis being
| done that I can see.
| mtsr wrote:
| There's no could about it. Dutch food advisory is already
| to limit eating fish to once a week because of PFAS.
|
| And eggs from chickens kept in your own yard are considered
| unsafe to eat, in a pretty big area. Unless you want to
| have them tested regularly at ~EUR600 each time.
| toss1 wrote:
| It does seem to be determined that these pose some degree of
| hazard.
|
| Two problems:
|
| 1) defining the class sufficiently broadly to encompass the
| entire set so mfgrs can't just dodge the regulations by
| rearranging the molecule a bit and making the regulators play
| whack-a-mole, and possibly making things worse
|
| 2) not making the regulations too onerous, such as a sudden total
| ban. Yes, a lot of disposable uses should be discouraged or
| contained, and it may be reasonable to phase out all use to
| develop better alternatives.
| tehjoker wrote:
| For what it's worth, depending on the harms, a sudden total ban
| is not out of the question as being beneficial to humanity as a
| whole. It would just be disruptive to enterprise, boo hoo. We
| don't need to always treat bad actors with kid gloves.
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| As a society we're going to have to have a come to Jesus moment
| about all of these estrogenic chemicals that make up the plastics
| we consume.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| try the "Green Chemistry" movement about two decades ago, or
| the close relation "Body Burden" PR campaigns.. the message was
| clear and the science was not mysterious. Some percentage of
| people responded, the markets and products .. well.. look
| around
| newZWhoDis wrote:
| This is one thing I'm hopeful about for EVs. Plastic is cheap
| because of massive demand scaling the oil industry, collapse
| the demand for oil and plastic becomes more expensive.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Then what is the alternative? Going back to metal and wood
| consumer goods at the scale western consumerism exists today
| versus the pre 1960s would probably be impossible and really
| throw gasoline on the entire climate crisis.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Some of those plastics would be well-replaced by metals.
| How many plastic spatulas fill landfills? An adult probably
| goes through a dozen or more in their lifetimes if they're
| careful with them, and far more if they burn them leaving
| them in pans.
|
| A single stainless steel one has to be better, unless I'm
| just off on the math.
|
| We make so many things that, even if they're not
| _disposable_ they are "disposable" when they do not have
| to be.
|
| Finding a good without plastic in it is actually one of my
| criteria for kitchenware. Glass, metal, wood... nothing
| else should touch food if I can help it (some exceptions
| when truly warranted, silicone can be useful).
| kube-system wrote:
| Packaging makes up, by far, the largest share of plastic
| waste. And in regards to food, the only packaging without
| plastic is basically just glass. Cans are lined with
| plastic to avoid chemically reacting with food. And paper
| is coated with plastic to stay waterproof. Glass is great
| but it is energy intensive and has its own waste issues.
| bluGill wrote:
| We can make plastics from bio sources. It is more
| expensive, and those plastic biodegrade (sometimes a
| positive, but sometimes a negative)
|
| We can make any oil from the basic atoms (mostly carbon,
| oxygen, and hydrogen - but some molecules may want
| something else). However this process costs a lot more
| energy (read $) vs pumping oil from the ground and so it is
| rarely done. This is how synthetic oils are made so if you
| know the cost of car oil you can get a good picture of the
| difference in costs.
| waterhouse wrote:
| How does that work? If it were simply "oil can be turned into
| fuel or turned into plastic", then lowered demand should
| lower the price. Is it that turning oil into fuel produces
| plastic (or plastic precursors) as a byproduct?
| richardw wrote:
| The auto industry is a competing use of oil, isn't it? So
| halving demand is more likely to reduce prices.
|
| Car industry obviously helped to build the infrastructure but
| I think now that it's there, fair chance there's going to be
| a lot of oil supply looking for a use. Infrastructure won't
| disappear overnight.
| RetpolineDrama wrote:
| >So halving demand is more likely to reduce prices.
|
| 1) Halve demand
|
| 2) Price plummets
|
| 3) Sources shut off
|
| 4) Prices climb again, _but at lower volume_
|
| Plastification requires $x/barrel oil _at insane volume_ to
| work.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The key thing people are talk over each other here is
| that step #3 takes years.
|
| But also, plastics can pay much more for oil and gas than
| fuel can. It's currently not scarce at all, and the
| economic restrictions are all around using the plastic in
| some way. So don't expect the plastic industry to suffer
| like your last paragraph implies.
| kube-system wrote:
| Oil supply is fairly demand inelastic, if demand for oil
| drops, we'll almost certainly see _cheaper_ oil. And if OPEC
| sees the writing on the wall they 're going to price
| aggressively as long as they can.
| RetpolineDrama wrote:
| Really? Because I would think refineries/wells start
| shutting down the second their profit goes negative.
| kube-system wrote:
| The high-cost suppliers in countries where cartels are
| illegal do. Which is why fracking busts and booms in the
| US as prices change around the world for other reasons.
| But there's enough places in the world where oil flows
| with minimal effort to sustain low prices in a world
| where demand is decreasing.
| bluGill wrote:
| That isn't how it works. Oil wells cost a lot of $$$
| upfront to get the first drop of oil. Every liter of oil
| after that is practically free - there is a little
| electric or gas needed to run the pumps, but that is so
| little it doesn't count. Most of the cost is in finding a
| spot to drill, getting permissions to drill there, and
| then drilling. (mineral rights are really complex, but
| generally whoever owns them gets a % of the sale value of
| the crude, so if the price goes down or the well produces
| less they get less money)
|
| Which is to say oil wells don't shutdown when the profit
| goes negative because that never happens. Oil wells do
| shutdown (or more likely produce less because the pump is
| slowed) if the owner decides they want to control supply
| to bring the price up - but you have to have a lot of
| wells to even think about that. During the pandemic oil
| wells shutdown, but that was because there was no place
| to put store the oil - if you could store it there was
| plenty of value in pumping it (though it was an
| investment).
|
| Refineries don't shutdown when the profit goes negative.
| Again, because the sunk cost in machinery is a large part
| of the cost. If the profit goes down they will often not
| remodel and eventually shutdown because the equipment it
| wore out. Many have shutdown because the right crude
| wasn't available (and they didn't want to invest in
| machinery to handle crude they can get) - and then
| reopened a decade later when someone started pumping the
| right crude again.
|
| Yes of course if profit goes negative they will both
| shutdown. However long before profits go negative they
| will be managing things and so in practice they are
| shutdown for other reasons first.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| For a while, yes. On longer timespans, the production is
| quite elastic as wheels dry and new ones have to be created
| all the time.
| kube-system wrote:
| Right, but lower trending demand would also put more
| power into the hands of OPEC to crater prices and prop up
| demand any time alternatives start to threaten oil's
| dominance. They're not going to go out without a fight to
| the end because those economies depend on oil. I'm sure
| it will go on long after I'm gone from this world.
| bluGill wrote:
| Will they though? A large consumer of oil is cars and EVs
| are coming fast. Even if we assume that 5% of cars will
| always be fuel burning ICE for "reasons" that is such
| large demand destruction that in 10 years I don't think
| OPEC will have any power - in fact I wouldn't be
| surprised if most of the world just embargo all OPEC
| countries: they are mostly middle east areas where there
| is a lot of conflict and the few non-OPEC oil producers
| can supply the world's needs, so cutting them off from
| all money is a good thing for the world.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Even if we assume that 5% of cars will always be fuel
| burning ICE
|
| By the time it gets that low, I agree, they're done.
| We're a very long way from that. 85% of cars being sold
| globally are still ICE, and the population of vehicles on
| the road lags sales figures by a couple of decades. And
| even with the increase in EV sales figures, oil demand is
| not dropping, because the total demand for cars is
| increasing.
|
| But if demand for oil starts to drop due to EV adoption,
| OPEC is for sure going to make sure it's cheap as hell to
| operate an oil burning car, and people in the majority of
| the world where it's still legal will have a huge
| incentive to keep buying them.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Fucking hell. I half wish I wouldn't have read what I read
| after googling "estrogen plastics"
| Zigurd wrote:
| It's not just synthetic chemicals. Humanity already can't undo
| the nuke test fallout layer and the lead from gasoline layer
| future archeologists will marvel at: "What arrogant dopes,
| leaving a mark on the entire planet out of negligence."
| bawolff wrote:
| I mean, maybe not fully, but its mostly back to normal at
| this point https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e
| 2/Radiocar...
| dundarious wrote:
| Why is 1955 the "normal" baseline? I could be convinced
| it's somewhat reasonable, but right now, I wouldn't assume
| it. More data would be the most convincing argument.
| chmod600 wrote:
| We really need a concept of scale when it comes to branding a
| chemical "toxic". Small amounts for particular purposes are not
| harmful. Being everywhere may cause some problems.
| kreeben wrote:
| I don't follow. Are you saying we should hold off laws that
| deem e.g. teflon toxic, until there's teflon everywhere?
|
| The government: There's almost no teflon in the ground, so
| that's good.
|
| The market: Hold my beer.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| No, he's saying we shouldn't use PFAS for carpet or military
| firefighting, but we should for semiconductor manufacturing
| where we have control over waste streams.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Nobody is talking about banning them outright for all
| purpose here though.
| TylerE wrote:
| People here, like tehjoker, are proposing total bans in
| this very thread.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| That's a very bad faith paraphrase of their single
| comment in this thread:
|
| > For what it's worth, depending on the harms, a sudden
| total ban is not out of the question as being beneficial
| to humanity as a whole. It would just be disruptive to
| enterprise, boo hoo. We don't need to always treat bad
| actors with kid gloves.
|
| Hardly the extremism you're implying.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| They are quite literally proposing a total ban. And then
| following it with some simplistic and emotionally charged
| rhetoric.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| No they aren't! This comment isn't proposing anything!
|
| They are arguing that even total bans should not be
| dismissed by default, and that there can exist situations
| " _depending on the harms_ " that justifies a total ban.
|
| And they did not say that in a vacuum, but as an answer
| to another comment that straight out dismissed total ban
| as an option.
|
| This comment is in no way advocating for a total ban of
| PFAS in particular.
| TylerE wrote:
| They are outlining a scenario where they would consider
| such a ban desirable. How is that not proposing it?
| littlestymaar wrote:
| For that _scenario_ to be a _proposal_ , the hypothesis
| of the said scenario should be asserted first. They just
| said: "should this be a big enough harm to humanity as a
| whole we should not shy away from a total ban", but he's
| not arguing that there is a big enough harm at stake
| here.
|
| And they aren't even talking specifically about PFAS in
| this comment in the first place! They're answering, _in
| the abstract_ , to a commenter that argues against total
| bans as a matter of principle. All they're saying is "I
| disagree that we should always dismiss the option of a
| total ban, there are situations where it is justified".
| This isn't a proposal for a total ban of PFAS in any way.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| The _thread_ starts here:[1].
|
| There's no comment from a user called "tehjoker" nor any
| comments talking about total bans, in this _thread_.
|
| Also, in another, different, threat, "tehjoker" is also
| not _proposing_ a total ban, you 're reading his comment
| wrong.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39231091
| bigbillheck wrote:
| > we should for semiconductor manufacturing where we have
| control over waste streams
|
| Note that this has not historically been the case, see for
| example all those superfund sites in SV.
| jdietrich wrote:
| Teflon (PTFE) is not toxic. It is approved by the FDA for use
| in implantable medical devices. At normal working
| temperatures, it is one of the most chemically and
| biologically inert materials known to exist. PTFE has a
| number of unique properties that make it an irreplaceable
| material in a wide variety of applications.
|
| Some of the feedstock chemicals used to produce PTFE are
| likely toxic. The most concerning of these is
| perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); this is one of the chemicals
| that the EPA proposal applies to. Most manufacturers of PTFE
| have already voluntarily phased out the use of PFOA. There is
| some debate about whether the replacement feedstock chemicals
| are meaningfully less toxic. These feedstock chemicals can -
| and should - be prevented from ever entering the environment,
| which would largely nullify concerns about their toxicity.
| TylerE wrote:
| You're overselling it a bit. Teflon cookware at normal
| cooking temperature can be very harmful To birds and
| reptiles.
| mrob wrote:
| The maximum safe temperature for PTFE is uncertain, with
| many conflicting sources. Depending on your risk
| tolerance, you might accept anywhere from 200C to 250C.
| The former is easy to exceed by accident (personally
| tested using an IR thermometer), the latter is only
| likely to happen if you use incorrect technique, e.g.
| trying to sear meat on it, or leaving a hot pan
| unattended. PTFE is only suitable for gentle cooking.
|
| The quality of the pan also makes a difference; cheap
| ones often use very thin metal that doesn't spread the
| heat well, resulting in hot spots.
|
| I recommend using an IR thermometer to learn how your
| personal cooking setup behaves.
| amluto wrote:
| Is it? The reference I found quickly suggests that PTFE
| needs to be heated a bit above 530F before it starts to
| cause problems, and that's not a normal cooking
| temperature for basically any purpose other than pizza.
|
| Unfortunately, most stoves do no adequately control
| temperature, and it's easy to reach that temperature by
| accident.
| naremu wrote:
| We're not allowed to begin bailing the water out of the
| sinking ship until the ship is sunk.
|
| You'd think we'd finally have gotten far enough in education
| to not be so easily carrot and sticked. But damn. People
| coming out of the woodwork in this thread to defend literal
| world contamination.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| That's literally how it works today.
|
| And that's part of the problem with PFAS, because you can
| release them in tiny fractions (not toxic at this scale) but
| they end up concentrating in the food chain and people are
| still being harmed in the end.
| polski-g wrote:
| Humanity is currently set to die off, starting in about 2040,
| because of falling fertility. Microplastics acts as endocrine
| disruptors, making everyone less fecund. It is the single
| greatest existential threat to our species.
| satellite2 wrote:
| Title could be changed as "The EPA is proposing that nine PFAS be
| considered hazardous substances"
| andersrs wrote:
| What a joke. Companies like 3M and Dupont just switch up a few
| atoms. Teflon becomes 'GenX'. One has to conclude that the EPA
| are complicit in this.
| barbazoo wrote:
| What should the EPA have done instead?
| heyoni wrote:
| Doesn't the DEA deal with the same thing with THC analogs?
| I could be wrong but I thought they got pretty quick about
| banning them. I want to look into this now...
| sneak wrote:
| Most of the regulatory agencies in the US exist to serve as
| anticompetitive moats around the largest industrial companies
| in the US. You see it in the FDA, the FAA, the EPA,
| SEC/FINRA, etc. Once you get big enough, it seems that the
| federal government places you under the umbrella of "national
| security" and decides to make sure you get to continue to
| exist. Being part of the large supply chains for the military
| always helps, too.
| efitz wrote:
| What are the benefits these chemicals have provided, and do the
| benefits outweigh the negative effects?
|
| Are these chemicals dangerous in the forms that they're found in
| the environment, e.g. there are unlikely to be many pools of
| acid. Are they chemically bonded to something that reduces bio-
| interactivity?
|
| I don't agree with the approach "you can't do anything new until
| you prove it's safe". I also am very skeptical of the EPA ever
| since they declared CO2 a pollutant (sorry, my exhalations are
| not "pollution").
|
| Like every sane person I want a clean environment. Like any
| rational person, I want to understand the trade-offs of
| regulations before I support or oppose them.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Who says otherwise?
| Nevermark wrote:
| > sorry, my exhalations are not "pollution"
|
| Try breathing in a bag.
|
| Air is 21% oxygen. On average, a resting adult breathes in
| about 250ml of oxygen per minute.
|
| Air is about about 0.04%. The average adult expels
| approximately 200ml to 250ml of carbon dioxide per minute.
| Roughly the same as the o then they intake.
|
| So the relative percentage of C02 increases extremely rapidly
| in any small volume of air, compared to relative reduction in
| oxygen.
|
| Up to 0.5% (5,000 parts per million): Considered safe for
| prolonged exposure, this level is typically used as an
| occupational exposure limit.
|
| 1% to 2%: Can cause drowsiness and poor air quality perception.
|
| 3%: May lead to impaired hearing, headache, and increased blood
| pressure and pulse rate.
|
| 5% and above: Can lead to shortness of breath, dizziness,
| confusion, and even loss of consciousness. Exposure at this
| concentration for several hours can be dangerous to human
| health.
|
| Above 8%: Can be fatal.
|
| More? Once someone expires, the percentages reach an unwanted
| steady state!
|
| Even in a tightly closed building, CO2 buildup can impact
| cognition.
|
| And build up in the atmosphere impacts the heat balance of the
| planet.
|
| Your exhalations are only pollution when they destabilize
| healthy levels. So that's a bit of a straw man concern.
|
| Breathing (outside of plastic bags, and unventilated
| buildings): fits within normal planetary balance of C02. Not a
| concern as a pollutant.
|
| Continuously burning billions of tons C02 generating chemicals
| for decades, another matter.
| efitz wrote:
| > Try breathing in a bag.
|
| Dumb argument. Is water a pollutant because of the drowning
| risk?
| jprival wrote:
| > What are the benefits these chemicals have provided
|
| They have a lot of properties that can be useful in materials -
| hydrophobicity, lipophobicity, chemical resistance, low
| friction, etc.
|
| They are certainly used in some niches (like medical devices,
| protective clothing, advanced manufacturing) that people would
| agree are Important, but a significant percentage of production
| goes into, and a significant amount of contamination comes out
| of, stuff like stain-proofing couches and making food packaging
| grease resistant. I'm under the impression that a lot of
| environmental contamination likely also comes from their use in
| firefighting foams - a useful application to be sure, but there
| are some things it's not a great idea to spray straight into
| the environment.
|
| > Are they chemically bonded to something that reduces bio-
| interactivity?
|
| A huge part of the story of PFAS is that they are quite
| resistant to (permanent) chemical bonding, which has often lead
| to them being thought of as "inert" in a sense that is
| conflated with safety. But this sense of inertness is a bit of
| a red herring when it comes to biology (plenty of things
| interact with receptors without covalently bonding) and
| meanwhile makes them highly persistent both within organisms
| and in the environment.
|
| "PFAS" as a literal chemical category feels pretty broad. The
| ones best established to be harmful are fluorosurfactants like
| the whole list explicitly targeted here. But broadness is also
| kind of the point because there are tons of chemicals in use
| that are likely to have similar accumulative properties that
| have never really been studied for health effects, and which
| can't really be assumed to be harmless if the others aren't.
| sitkack wrote:
| The EPA appears toothless and ineffective.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Whose interests does that perception serve?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| And why do you say that?
| legulere wrote:
| The EU in contrast is planning to heavily restrict all PFAS
| https://echa.europa.eu/de/-/echa-publishes-pfas-
| restriction-...
| ijhuygft776 wrote:
| Because 9 out of 12,000+ seems ineffective.
| abakker wrote:
| "We have just agreed.....that you are not Orcs." - Treebeard
| Benano wrote:
| Really wonderful reference, kudos
| sva_ wrote:
| PFAS seem like they could be the asbestos of our time, but
| perhaps much worse, since there is much more exposure. I wouldn't
| be particularly surprised if it will be shown that they have
| severe detrimental effects on the human body, in particular on
| the endocrine system.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-02 23:00 UTC)