4 ms·

What will happen is that the PFAS pan becomes $26 instead of $20. PFAS is not the most expensive part of the pan, only a minor component. A doubling or tripling

What will happen is that the PFAS pan becomes $26 instead of $20. PFAS is not the most expensive part of the pan, only a minor component. A doubling or tripling of PFAS prices is unlikely to price anyone out of getting that pan or raincoat. It's just going to make middle and lower class people cumulatively billions of dollars poorer.

pigsty 4y ago
Iron pans are ridiculously cheap these days and they last forever if you bother to read the 3 line instructions included with them. Teflon isn’t as great as people were deceived into believing. Even if you’re absolutely meticulous with care, it’ll have a noticeable lack in non-stick abilities within months and be noticeably sticky after 2 years, and rapidly degrading into useless territory. An iron pan starts out about as sticky as a slightly used Teflon pan and feels like brand new Teflon after a few uses and stays that way for as long as a human lifespan.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  I mean pans are only one thing. PFAS are used in many products. Yes you can make inferior substitutions but again this reduces standard of living. This is not to mention its widespread use in military applications. There is already concern about China's lock on the global supply of rare earths and other raw materials like silicon and magnesium (80%+ market share). What happens when the US can't make fighter jets because a belligerent China refuses to export PFAS?
  - pigsty 4y ago
    Generally, matters of national security are exempt from consumer goods safety regulations. A typical company also can’t easily handle, say, plutonium, but if the military needs it, an exemption is granted. The typical consumer gets by without lead, asbestos, and so on. The consumer market will adapt.
    - missedthecue 4y ago
      But it doesn't look like a market of the government banning 3M from making it, they are exiting the market out of their own volition
shmageggy 4y ago
What will make people effectively poorer, not having non-stick coating on pans, or the large-scale poisoning of the natural world and our bodies?
- missedthecue 4y ago
  There is no proof that PFAS is causing large scale poisoning. Industrial workers with insufficient PPE may get increased risks of health effects if they are subject to prolonged exposure to concentrated amounts. But so does exposure to fertilizer and aspartame. The research is not anywhere near saying PFAS are causing large scale poisoning. It reminds me of the microplastics debate too. Lots of panic about it, little scientific evidence that it is causing large scale health problems.
  - shmageggy 4y ago
    I’m glad lawmakers, investors, businesses, and nearly everyone else are not waiting around for “proof”, since that is a nearly impossible standard. We know that these substances are everywhere, and there is evidence of it causing harm in animals and in humans > With many health effects noted for a relatively few example compounds and hundreds of other PFAS in commerce lacking toxicity data… [1] If we were to wait to run studies on all of those hundreds of substances, there will just be that much more pollutant in our environments and bodies that will be virtually impossible to clean up. The risk/reward tradeoff is pretty clear. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/

pigsty 4y ago

Iron pans are ridiculously cheap these days and they last forever if you bother to read the 3 line instructions included with them. Teflon isn’t as great as people were deceived into believing. Even if you’re absolutely meticulous with care, it’ll have a noticeable lack in non-stick abilities within months and be noticeably sticky after 2 years, and rapidly degrading into useless territory. An iron pan starts out about as sticky as a slightly used Teflon pan and feels like brand new Teflon after a few uses and stays that way for as long as a human lifespan.

missedthecue 4y ago
I mean pans are only one thing. PFAS are used in many products. Yes you can make inferior substitutions but again this reduces standard of living. This is not to mention its widespread use in military applications. There is already concern about China's lock on the global supply of rare earths and other raw materials like silicon and magnesium (80%+ market share). What happens when the US can't make fighter jets because a belligerent China refuses to export PFAS?
- pigsty 4y ago
  Generally, matters of national security are exempt from consumer goods safety regulations. A typical company also can’t easily handle, say, plutonium, but if the military needs it, an exemption is granted. The typical consumer gets by without lead, asbestos, and so on. The consumer market will adapt.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    But it doesn't look like a market of the government banning 3M from making it, they are exiting the market out of their own volition

shmageggy 4y ago

What will make people effectively poorer, not having non-stick coating on pans, or the large-scale poisoning of the natural world and our bodies?

missedthecue 4y ago
There is no proof that PFAS is causing large scale poisoning. Industrial workers with insufficient PPE may get increased risks of health effects if they are subject to prolonged exposure to concentrated amounts. But so does exposure to fertilizer and aspartame. The research is not anywhere near saying PFAS are causing large scale poisoning. It reminds me of the microplastics debate too. Lots of panic about it, little scientific evidence that it is causing large scale health problems.
- shmageggy 4y ago
  I’m glad lawmakers, investors, businesses, and nearly everyone else are not waiting around for “proof”, since that is a nearly impossible standard. We know that these substances are everywhere, and there is evidence of it causing harm in animals and in humans > With many health effects noted for a relatively few example compounds and hundreds of other PFAS in commerce lacking toxicity data… [1] If we were to wait to run studies on all of those hundreds of substances, there will just be that much more pollutant in our environments and bodies that will be virtually impossible to clean up. The risk/reward tradeoff is pretty clear. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/