2 ms·
The (mis) perception of plastic recycling and its effect on production + consumption is point I'm trying to make. I'm not speaking to the dangers of plastic it
by chiefalchemist 4y ago
The (mis) perception of plastic recycling and its effect on production + consumption is point I'm trying to make.
I'm not speaking to the dangers of plastic itself. Only the the problem takes a back seat if most believe we recycle most plastic. We do not recycle much at all.
From Big Plastic's POV it's a case of "problem solved".
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry-insiders-reveal-the-truth-about-recycling/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry...
- dataflow 4y agoI understood what you were saying; I was trying to answer your question. What I was saying was that the answer to your question of "why might the situation turn out any different with PFAS than plastics" is that one of them appears far more dangerous than the other. i.e. With PFAS the question for consumers is no longer "how do I (re?)use it efficiently" (as with plastics and recycling), but rather "how do I not use it at all".
- chiefalchemist 4y agoAnd ironically, the more dangerous one...most people - including elected officials and other regulators - know nothing about. Plastic isn't regulated because we have recycling. I fear PFASs - to your point, far more dangerous - will enjoy the same ignorance is bliss freedom.