5 ms·

There are nine thousand known PFAS. They are essential to many products and processes. Many don't have a clear alternative. Other countries will continue to pro

There are nine thousand known PFAS. They are essential to many products and processes. Many don't have a clear alternative. Other countries will continue to produce them. But 3M is going to ban them all without any discernment. Am I missing something?

zdragnar 4y ago
A few years back, 3M entered a near-$1 billion settlement with Minnesota for PFAS groundwater contamination. I suspect they have been working on a replacement since 2010 or not long after (when the legal action first started up) and, given the two year timeline to phase them out, I'm thinking they've got the replacement already and just need to get it to market.
runnerup 4y ago
3M isn't banning them, they're discontinuing production. Other companies can pick up the slack still.
Jolter 4y ago
Can you one product or process where it’s indispensable? I’m not being argumentative, just curious, as I’m not a chemist. I know it’s already being replaced in ski waxes and I’m pretty sure they have alternatives for firefighting foams?
- adrian_b 4y ago
  In a typical consumer home, there are very few, if any, uses where fluoropolymers are indispensable. On the other hand, for most kinds of chemical manufacturing and of chemical analyses fluoropolymers are truly indispensable. Before the invention of the fluoropolymers, some of the chemical reactions that are done now in vessels made of fluoropolymers could not be done at all, while the others were done in platinum vessels. Even the platinum was slowly dissolved, so the cost of the equipment was huge and such chemical reactions could not be used in mass manufacturing. Even the simplest transistor or integrated circuit cannot be made without fluoropolymers. Without them there cannot be any semiconductor industry. Besides the containment of corrosive substances, other applications for which there are no good alternatives to fluoropolymers are in vacuum equipment (also indispensable for the semiconductor industry) and in insulators with low dielectric constant and with low losses at high frequencies. None of the industrial uses of fluoropolymers can cause significant pollution. However using them in things like kitchenware, or worse, in packaging, makes no sense.
  - Jolter 4y ago
    Thank you for obliging me, that's very interesting!
  - rocqua 4y ago
    > None of the industrial uses of fluoropolymers can cause significant pollution. However using them in things like kitchenware, or worse, in packaging, makes no sense. I presume it is possible for these industrial uses to cause significant pollution, but you mean that it is not difficult to prevent pollution from these processes because they happen in controlled locations? Contrasting that against PFAS in kitchenware, packaging, or rain-coats where pollution is incredibly difficult to prevent because low-level leakage occurs everywhere? I believe a lot of PFAS contamination comes from the production process itself. Especially looking at the 3M plant in Belgium. To what degree can the production process be made contamination free?
    - kortex 4y ago
      > I presume it is possible for these industrial uses to cause significant pollution, but you mean that it is not difficult to prevent pollution from these processes because they happen in controlled locations? Fluoropolymers don't really leach in significant quantities on commercial timescales. That would sort of defeat their purpose of being inert. So there is a huge difference between "these teflon o-rings in this chemical plant leach 0.1 ppb of small molecule PFAS per day" and "millions of teflon pans go into the landfill each year". And further still to "we produce railcars worth of volatile fluoropolymer monomers for producing teflon and viton". > I believe a lot of PFAS contamination comes from the production process itself. This exactly. Low-molecular-weight PFAS are much more mobile than high weight, thus more polluting. Once "bound" in a polymer, the leaching is minimal. The problem is the production process, where you have primarily the small molecules, which inevitably get into the environment.
saiya-jin 4y ago
No, thats it. What should be the next logical step for any government that actually values lives and health of its population is to gradually/immediately ban products containing them too. If china or india want to drown (and kill) themselves in pfas we unfortunately can't stop them but we should certainly not support it. I hope 3M will be fined to hell (possible) and responsible managers will rot in jail (unprobable as always). I mean that's sole role of any manager - being responsible for all the crap happening under their command, good or bad. 'I didn't know' is not an excuse when we know 3M knew damn too well and dumped superbad waste anyway.
Tepix 4y ago
Are you overlooking the fact that PFAS made the rain water of the entire planet unfit for consumption§?! In my book that is several orders of magnitudes more important than "many products and processes". -- § PFAS: Rainwater contains unsafe levels of 'forever chemicals' https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/pfas-in-rainwater-what-it-means-for-health#How-PFAS-end-up-in-drinking-water https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/pfas-in-rainwater-...

zdragnar 4y ago

A few years back, 3M entered a near-$1 billion settlement with Minnesota for PFAS groundwater contamination. I suspect they have been working on a replacement since 2010 or not long after (when the legal action first started up) and, given the two year timeline to phase them out, I'm thinking they've got the replacement already and just need to get it to market.

runnerup 4y ago

3M isn't banning them, they're discontinuing production. Other companies can pick up the slack still.

Jolter 4y ago

Can you one product or process where it’s indispensable? I’m not being argumentative, just curious, as I’m not a chemist. I know it’s already being replaced in ski waxes and I’m pretty sure they have alternatives for firefighting foams?

adrian_b 4y ago
In a typical consumer home, there are very few, if any, uses where fluoropolymers are indispensable. On the other hand, for most kinds of chemical manufacturing and of chemical analyses fluoropolymers are truly indispensable. Before the invention of the fluoropolymers, some of the chemical reactions that are done now in vessels made of fluoropolymers could not be done at all, while the others were done in platinum vessels. Even the platinum was slowly dissolved, so the cost of the equipment was huge and such chemical reactions could not be used in mass manufacturing. Even the simplest transistor or integrated circuit cannot be made without fluoropolymers. Without them there cannot be any semiconductor industry. Besides the containment of corrosive substances, other applications for which there are no good alternatives to fluoropolymers are in vacuum equipment (also indispensable for the semiconductor industry) and in insulators with low dielectric constant and with low losses at high frequencies. None of the industrial uses of fluoropolymers can cause significant pollution. However using them in things like kitchenware, or worse, in packaging, makes no sense.
- Jolter 4y ago
  Thank you for obliging me, that's very interesting!
- rocqua 4y ago
  > None of the industrial uses of fluoropolymers can cause significant pollution. However using them in things like kitchenware, or worse, in packaging, makes no sense. I presume it is possible for these industrial uses to cause significant pollution, but you mean that it is not difficult to prevent pollution from these processes because they happen in controlled locations? Contrasting that against PFAS in kitchenware, packaging, or rain-coats where pollution is incredibly difficult to prevent because low-level leakage occurs everywhere? I believe a lot of PFAS contamination comes from the production process itself. Especially looking at the 3M plant in Belgium. To what degree can the production process be made contamination free?
  - kortex 4y ago
    > I presume it is possible for these industrial uses to cause significant pollution, but you mean that it is not difficult to prevent pollution from these processes because they happen in controlled locations? Fluoropolymers don't really leach in significant quantities on commercial timescales. That would sort of defeat their purpose of being inert. So there is a huge difference between "these teflon o-rings in this chemical plant leach 0.1 ppb of small molecule PFAS per day" and "millions of teflon pans go into the landfill each year". And further still to "we produce railcars worth of volatile fluoropolymer monomers for producing teflon and viton". > I believe a lot of PFAS contamination comes from the production process itself. This exactly. Low-molecular-weight PFAS are much more mobile than high weight, thus more polluting. Once "bound" in a polymer, the leaching is minimal. The problem is the production process, where you have primarily the small molecules, which inevitably get into the environment.

saiya-jin 4y ago

No, thats it. What should be the next logical step for any government that actually values lives and health of its population is to gradually/immediately ban products containing them too. If china or india want to drown (and kill) themselves in pfas we unfortunately can't stop them but we should certainly not support it. I hope 3M will be fined to hell (possible) and responsible managers will rot in jail (unprobable as always). I mean that's sole role of any manager - being responsible for all the crap happening under their command, good or bad. 'I didn't know' is not an excuse when we know 3M knew damn too well and dumped superbad waste anyway.

Tepix 4y ago

Are you overlooking the fact that PFAS made the rain water of the entire planet unfit for consumption§?! In my book that is several orders of magnitudes more important than "many products and processes". -- § PFAS: Rainwater contains unsafe levels of 'forever chemicals' https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/pfas-in-rainwater-what-it-means-for-health#How-PFAS-end-up-in-drinking-water https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/pfas-in-rainwater-...