The problem here is that when a corporation like 3M sets up a chemical production system, they want to control costs, and dealing with the pollution stream is a

The problem here is that when a corporation like 3M sets up a chemical production system, they want to control costs, and dealing with the pollution stream is a cost they don't want to absorb. Now, ideally they'd run a 'green' process which in practice really means a zero-waste process. If you're producing one molecule of toxic waste for every molecule of desirable product, that's not a green process. Sometimes that's unavoidable with current technology, however. The thing is, there's always a solution available to the waste problem that doesn't involve dumping the gunk into the water, air and soil. Those solutions are typically expensive, i.e. you have to build a whole backend processing plant to deal with the waste. I'd guess high-intensity UV can be used to break strong C-F bonds, for example. The article states 3M (an ex-employer of mine incidentally, though in a completely unrelated area) will now do this: > "We have also put in place new controls in Zwijndrecht, including technology to control air emissions, and capture, dispose, and treat PFAS in water. These investments, along with appropriate collaboration with the relevant authorities, help us bring idled processes back online enabling European production of essential products for our customers around the world." What's ridiculous is that flourinated hydrocarbon waste has been a known serious pollution issue for decades, and yet chemical manufacturers have been allowed to keep dumping without being forced to build such back-end processing plants to deal with it.