6 ms·
Possible breakthrough to destroy PFAS using sodium hydroxide
- kazinator 4y ago... Easy-Off with PFAS: and that's no lye!
- samstave 4y agoJeasus christ, thats a dystopian DALLE2 prompt if I ever heard one... --- The 80s was chock full of weird chemical propaganda. Twinkies are a wholesome breakfast.
- superchroma 4y agoWell, that's some good news, now we need to stop making this crap and getting it in the global water cycle.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- datavirtue 4y agoI thought we had quit making PCBs until I accidentally bought a tube at the hardware store last year. Our governments' chemical regulation has barely gotten off the ground in the last 100 years. Once it's out there, that's it. Everything gets "grandfathered."
- threatofrain 4y agoDiscussion from today. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32515511 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32515511
- beeforpork 4y agoCan I rid my body of these nasty chemicals by eating lye bread?
- orangepurple 4y agoRemoving your blood from your body can reduce PFAS/PFOA. Typically done with a blood donation.
- shaky-carrousel 4y agoPity that donating blood makes me faint.
- orangepurple 4y agoSame with me. Get yourself checked for anemia.
- shaky-carrousel 4y agoI'll check that just in case, thanks for the advice.
- mekkkkkk 4y agoWouldn't that that in turn increase the PFAS levels of the recipient of said blood?
- ironmagma 4y agoProbably better than dying of blood loss.
- the8472 4y agoAnd replacing the water in your body with an aprotic solvent such as DMSO.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoI hope this works. Unfortunately the skeptic / realist in me is concerned it will be the new recycled plastic. That is, we recycle a very small percentage. But we rationalize increasing our dependence on plastic by believing "oh, we'll just recycle it." In fact, I believe there were rumours of Big Plastic promoting and manipulating the narrative around recycling to its advantage. Why would PFASs be any different?
- dataflow 4y ago> Why would PFASs be any different? Aren't PFAS actually dangerous on their own, regardless of their persistence in the environment? Far more so than plastics. I can't speak for others, but when I avoid PFAS, it's entirely due to the dangers; I don't think about the persistence at all when I'm trying to avoid PFAS (though this isn't to say I don't care about it).
- dtech 4y agoThat is not the scientific consensus, although a position taken by some. Much more people agree that bio-accumilation is dangerous to health and nature, also because that ends up in humans when they eat things.
- dataflow 4y agoThe lack of "scientific consensus" on proven dangers is borderline irrelevant to me. There've been enough indications of their likely dangers already. If science ever comes to the consensus that it's safe, then it might mean something to me. Not the other way around. The apparent effects on cattle are worth reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
- aaomidi 4y agoAgreed. We need to assume negative rather than positive with new stuff that is going to be produced at such a large scale.
- Yaa101 4y agoNice if it be done in the lab, and then? How do you take it out of the full environment without a successive contamination do to cleanup chemicals?
- giantg2 4y agoI agree. This process may help prevent further contamination, but won't help clean up current levels. Even then, we would have to start treating PFAS containing materials as hazardous waste to collect and remediare the items, which is highly unlikely.
- eurasiantiger 4y agoAnother one of these stories… again, seems like PR damage control by chemical corporations.
- 7speter 4y agoSo all it takes is the stuff that makes pretzels pretzel-ly?