5 ms·

There are a lot of things that won't degrade in decades under normal natural conditions. Probably a lot of metal alloys, ceramics, glasses. There are also a lo

There are a lot of things that won't degrade in decades under normal natural conditions. Probably a lot of metal alloys, ceramics, glasses. There are also a lot of polymers and plastics we wouldn't call "forever chemicals" but still last quite a while. So is it really the "forever-ness" of these chemicals that's so bad? Maybe it's how they seem to spread everywhere and potentially mess with certain biological systems (e.g. endocrine disruption)?

adrianN 4y ago
Metals, ceramics and glasses also exist naturally and we have thousands of years of evidence that they are okay (heavy metals excluded of course). Polymers and plastics, well, evidence is mounting that microplastics are not particularly healthy and it would be better if we hadn't spent a century producing literal mountains of plastic. It is my understanding that currently you're allowed to manufacture a completely new chemical and put it into your product with essentially no testing of the long term effect of that compound. That doesn't seem very wise to me, but maybe I'm misinformed about this topic.
- jabl 4y ago
  > It is my understanding that currently you're allowed to manufacture a completely new chemical and put it into your product with essentially no testing of the long term effect of that compound. Pretty much. There's also a fairly long history of a compound being found to be harmful and banned, only for industry to come up with a very similar compound to replace it, but since it's not the same compound the previous ban doesn't affect it. Then after some time the new compound is found to be harmful as well, rinse and repeat. The counter-argument is that requiring each chemical to be extensively studied before it can be taken into use would drastically slow down the rate of innovation. So to an extent there's a conflict between safety and innovation. But of course it's not black and white, and I think there's good reasons to turn the lever more towards the safety end.
  - bjelkeman-again 4y ago
    The EU will ban 200 PFAS compounds based on common properties in 2023. Maybe this is a start of a useful trend. https://chemsec.org/eu-puts-200-pfas-out-of-business-but-thousands-remain/ https://chemsec.org/eu-puts-200-pfas-out-of-business-but-tho...
  - streamlining 4y ago
    It's illuminating that there's the Federal Analogue Act used to go after recreational drugs users but nothing equivalent for chemicals that are environmental hazards.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Requiring a long term study for each new chemical used would almost completely progress in a huge variety of industrial fields. This includes things like solar panel and battery tech we're relying on to get out of the co2 hole.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Life is unfortunately more complex than policy suggestions that fit into HN comments can address.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- wcoenen 4y ago
  > spent a century producing literal mountains of plastic Plastic production is growing at 3.5% annually. This implies a doubling of annual plastic production about every 20 years (because 1.035^20 ≈ 2). And because of how exponential functions work, this also means there has been about a doubling of the total amount of plastic in the world over the last 20 years. So most of the problem has been created in the recent past. And it will get twice as bad in the next 20 years.
forum_ghost 4y ago
DDT lasts decades in the biosphere. It's a known carcinogen. It's not just endocrine disruptors. Those are just most salient to us because we are species with sexual reproduction. You could also have forever carcinogens, forever mutagens, forever neurotoxins, anything you like.

adrianN 4y ago

Metals, ceramics and glasses also exist naturally and we have thousands of years of evidence that they are okay (heavy metals excluded of course). Polymers and plastics, well, evidence is mounting that microplastics are not particularly healthy and it would be better if we hadn't spent a century producing literal mountains of plastic. It is my understanding that currently you're allowed to manufacture a completely new chemical and put it into your product with essentially no testing of the long term effect of that compound. That doesn't seem very wise to me, but maybe I'm misinformed about this topic.

jabl 4y ago
> It is my understanding that currently you're allowed to manufacture a completely new chemical and put it into your product with essentially no testing of the long term effect of that compound. Pretty much. There's also a fairly long history of a compound being found to be harmful and banned, only for industry to come up with a very similar compound to replace it, but since it's not the same compound the previous ban doesn't affect it. Then after some time the new compound is found to be harmful as well, rinse and repeat. The counter-argument is that requiring each chemical to be extensively studied before it can be taken into use would drastically slow down the rate of innovation. So to an extent there's a conflict between safety and innovation. But of course it's not black and white, and I think there's good reasons to turn the lever more towards the safety end.
- bjelkeman-again 4y ago
  The EU will ban 200 PFAS compounds based on common properties in 2023. Maybe this is a start of a useful trend. https://chemsec.org/eu-puts-200-pfas-out-of-business-but-thousands-remain/ https://chemsec.org/eu-puts-200-pfas-out-of-business-but-tho...
- streamlining 4y ago
  It's illuminating that there's the Federal Analogue Act used to go after recreational drugs users but nothing equivalent for chemicals that are environmental hazards.
concordDance 4y ago
Requiring a long term study for each new chemical used would almost completely progress in a huge variety of industrial fields. This includes things like solar panel and battery tech we're relying on to get out of the co2 hole.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Life is unfortunately more complex than policy suggestions that fit into HN comments can address.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
wcoenen 4y ago
> spent a century producing literal mountains of plastic Plastic production is growing at 3.5% annually. This implies a doubling of annual plastic production about every 20 years (because 1.035^20 ≈ 2). And because of how exponential functions work, this also means there has been about a doubling of the total amount of plastic in the world over the last 20 years. So most of the problem has been created in the recent past. And it will get twice as bad in the next 20 years.

forum_ghost 4y ago

DDT lasts decades in the biosphere. It's a known carcinogen. It's not just endocrine disruptors. Those are just most salient to us because we are species with sexual reproduction. You could also have forever carcinogens, forever mutagens, forever neurotoxins, anything you like.