6 ms·

environmental safety science has a messaging problem. it’s too polarized - “forever chemicals”… actually aren’t forever - plastic never degrades… until we fou

environmental safety science has a messaging problem. it’s too polarized - “forever chemicals”… actually aren’t forever - plastic never degrades… until we found the right enzyme for it - were “past the point of no return” for greenhouse gasses temp increases… until we find a solution for it the way these problems are communicated are done in a way it seems to scare people into thinking a certain way. but i think it reinforces the echo chamber for those who already believed it and just erodes trust instead for the rest

woodruffw 4y ago
I don’t think it’s polarized, but there’s a language barrier: when environmental scientists speak, you should probably suffix everything they say with “in the environment.” Forever chemicals are indeed forever, in the environment, because there are virtually no natural processes that break them down on human timescales. Many plastics similarly do not degrade in the environment on human scales. It’s incumbent upon you, as a lay person, to understand that science isn’t categorical in nature. When scientists use phrases like “forever,” they’re making statements relative to the domain of interest.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > When scientists use phrases like “forever,” That'll be journalists, not scientists.
  - magicalhippo 4y ago
    Indeed. Scientist calls them "persistent"[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutant
yellow_lead 4y ago
I think that's a bit ridiculous - obviously science and the scope of human knowledge changes as we move forwards. Yes there was no solution, yes there now may be a solution. I would hope people can understand that reporting is based on current knowledge and is subject to change in the future - especially in science.
8note 4y ago
Tipping points are about hysteresis. You can't go back the way you came, reducing emissions again, even bringing the global temperature back down won't recreate the glaciers. Even if you get the temperature much lower, glaciers may not form at the same location again
excalibur 4y ago
I'm just sick of the phrase "forever chemicals" because everyone who uses it sounds like they're dumbing their message down for us. We have mortgages, we can handle grownup words.
- brianwawok 4y ago
  Marketing is an important part of getting public buyin of this stuff. Use the wrong term and no one cares.
mikro2nd 4y ago
You're looking at it from the vantage point of "the future". For some span of time, "plastic never degrades". Then someone discovers something new, and after that plastic degradation becomes possible (though not widespread). What we know changes.
- voiper1 4y ago
  >What we know changes. This may be a bit pedantic, but: it's not that what we know changes, per se. We weren't mistaken in thinking that plastic doesn't degrade. We mean: as of now, we have no possible method to make plastic degrade. It _may be_ we will develop such a method in the future, but it's reckless to rely on the _possibility_ of a future discovery.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  I might be wrong but I think parent is referring too the fact that, this incorrect messaging causes a huge amount of stress for little gain and it also kind of looks silly when it turns out to be wrong thus diminishing the credibility of SCIENCE! To call something a "forever chemical" is talking in absolutes, and we should know that most things aren't absolute.
awestroke 4y ago
* Forever chemicals are a huge problem, and even TFA does not give any hope at all in reducing the insane amounts of PFAS and related chemicals in the environment. We need to stop releasing mind-boggling amounts of it before we come up with nifty techniques to destroy a few millilitres of it * We have found enzymes that degrade PET, which is highly recyclable anyway. There are no hints at all that we would be able to first find enzymes for the hundreds of other plastics, and then manufacture and release enough into the environment to make a difference. * The seriousness of climate change has been communicated in every single way across the spectrum of possible approaches. Our civilization is simply not equipped to handle a problem of this magnitude. We are past the point of no return, and if you actually looked into our energy usage and what it would take to solve this with technology, you would come to the same conclusion. But feel free to keep denying it, makes no difference in the end.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
If they don't press, if they don't do the scaremongering, do you think the world's governments and sciences would put money and time into solving the issue? Probably not; it's only thanks to continued activism and policy changes that e.g. CO2 emissions in Europe have been reduced to the degree they are. Of course, it's a force that also has to compete with population increase.

woodruffw 4y ago

I don’t think it’s polarized, but there’s a language barrier: when environmental scientists speak, you should probably suffix everything they say with “in the environment.” Forever chemicals are indeed forever, in the environment, because there are virtually no natural processes that break them down on human timescales. Many plastics similarly do not degrade in the environment on human scales. It’s incumbent upon you, as a lay person, to understand that science isn’t categorical in nature. When scientists use phrases like “forever,” they’re making statements relative to the domain of interest.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> When scientists use phrases like “forever,” That'll be journalists, not scientists.
- magicalhippo 4y ago
  Indeed. Scientist calls them "persistent"[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutant

yellow_lead 4y ago

I think that's a bit ridiculous - obviously science and the scope of human knowledge changes as we move forwards. Yes there was no solution, yes there now may be a solution. I would hope people can understand that reporting is based on current knowledge and is subject to change in the future - especially in science.

8note 4y ago

Tipping points are about hysteresis. You can't go back the way you came, reducing emissions again, even bringing the global temperature back down won't recreate the glaciers. Even if you get the temperature much lower, glaciers may not form at the same location again

excalibur 4y ago

I'm just sick of the phrase "forever chemicals" because everyone who uses it sounds like they're dumbing their message down for us. We have mortgages, we can handle grownup words.

brianwawok 4y ago
Marketing is an important part of getting public buyin of this stuff. Use the wrong term and no one cares.

mikro2nd 4y ago

You're looking at it from the vantage point of "the future". For some span of time, "plastic never degrades". Then someone discovers something new, and after that plastic degradation becomes possible (though not widespread). What we know changes.

voiper1 4y ago
>What we know changes. This may be a bit pedantic, but: it's not that what we know changes, per se. We weren't mistaken in thinking that plastic doesn't degrade. We mean: as of now, we have no possible method to make plastic degrade. It _may be_ we will develop such a method in the future, but it's reckless to rely on the _possibility_ of a future discovery.
bamboozled 4y ago
I might be wrong but I think parent is referring too the fact that, this incorrect messaging causes a huge amount of stress for little gain and it also kind of looks silly when it turns out to be wrong thus diminishing the credibility of SCIENCE! To call something a "forever chemical" is talking in absolutes, and we should know that most things aren't absolute.

awestroke 4y ago

* Forever chemicals are a huge problem, and even TFA does not give any hope at all in reducing the insane amounts of PFAS and related chemicals in the environment. We need to stop releasing mind-boggling amounts of it before we come up with nifty techniques to destroy a few millilitres of it * We have found enzymes that degrade PET, which is highly recyclable anyway. There are no hints at all that we would be able to first find enzymes for the hundreds of other plastics, and then manufacture and release enough into the environment to make a difference. * The seriousness of climate change has been communicated in every single way across the spectrum of possible approaches. Our civilization is simply not equipped to handle a problem of this magnitude. We are past the point of no return, and if you actually looked into our energy usage and what it would take to solve this with technology, you would come to the same conclusion. But feel free to keep denying it, makes no difference in the end.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

If they don't press, if they don't do the scaremongering, do you think the world's governments and sciences would put money and time into solving the issue? Probably not; it's only thanks to continued activism and policy changes that e.g. CO2 emissions in Europe have been reduced to the degree they are. Of course, it's a force that also has to compete with population increase.