3 ms·
That's the thing - it's not very toxic, that's why it's used. But it's toxic enough that when it builds up it causes problems that are very difficult to detect
by ars 5y ago
That's the thing - it's not very toxic, that's why it's used.
But it's toxic enough that when it builds up it causes problems that are very difficult to detect.
Finding a less toxic alternative isn't easy - it took decades to discover the toxicity of the current chemical, specifically because its toxicity is so low.
- CamperBob2 5y agoFinding a less toxic alternative isn't easy - it took decades to discover the toxicity of the current chemical, specifically because it's toxicity is so low. Maybe, just maybe, and work with me here, it's not that big a deal. Treating everything as if it were plutonium isn't a sustainable way to move humanity forward. Anathema to the EU's way of thinking, certainly... yet defensible from an objective point of view.
- darkmarmot 5y agoThe problem is that it virtually never goes away, keeps building up in the environment, and results in ever greater levels of toxicity over time.
- CamperBob2 5y agoWhat would be a good resource to look up symptoms of fluorocarbon toxicity? Unless/until you burn them, my understanding is that these are some of the most chemically-inert substances in common use.
- bsder 5y agoIs the problem the end chemical or the intermediary waste stream? Even if the end result is inert, there are probably a LOT of waste byproducts that are pretty nasty--this is fluorine chemistry, after all. If the site is just dumping those, that's going to be bad.