9 ms·

Seeing people ask why PFAS hasn’t just been immediately banned. Like a lot of things, “it’s complicated.” 1. These compounds are extremely good at what they do

by JCM9 4y ago

Seeing people ask why PFAS hasn’t just been immediately banned. Like a lot of things, “it’s complicated.” 1. These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From lubrication to fire retardants there’s a reason these compounds are everywhere. 2. The press and many activists tend to treat things in a binary manner but science doesn’t really work like that. It’s clear that very high levels of these compounds are bad. It’s less clear that lower levels are bad. Lots of things (like vitamins) are toxic at high levels and actually good at low levels. Not saying PFAS is good, but it’s not as simple as just saying any is terrible either. 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much better over the years. We’re now talking parts per trillion measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything. A lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to measure things combined with “2” above around any detection being slated as terrible. 4. Both the reporting and public’s reactions tend to be illogical. PFAS found at a nearby factory? Shut it down. Sue everyone. However a growing body of evidence is finding PFAS in things like synthetic turf playing fields and yet with rare exception most school districts seem perfectly happy having these instead of plain old grass. As such the amount of “outrage” is often rooted in the convenience of it supporting existing activist movements (close the factory!) than it is based in any science or defensible reality. Not for a moment trying to suggest we shouldn’t pay attention to this, and we probably should look for alternative compounds. But the near hysteria from some corners creates more of a distraction than actually helping anything.

actionfromafar 4y ago
Any widespread message must be simple. Even a moderate, sane movement will have hysteria on the fringes, just owing to it being large enough to have a fringe.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  So then why is HN, a community full of people who are much more educated than average and much more frequently employed in fields where logic and reason are key, so constantly receptive to the "hysteria on the fringes" take on such issues? Reddit, 4cham, other cesspools like that I get, but why HN? This community fancies itself as having a little more rationality and self awareness than that. So either there's an explanation for why those takes gain as much traction here or... (this is a serious question)
  - saiya-jin 4y ago
    Smarter people on average != less emotional ones. What parent is complaining are emotional reactions. Here we have a proof that even HN readers do have emotions and sometimes they get the best and worst out of us, just like everybody else.
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    Well it's not like HN is a council of Vulcans debating logic all day, we're all as human as the next guy.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Speak for yourself
      - moffkalast 4y ago
        Well it's not like I'm a council of Vulcans debating logic all day.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > fields where logic and reason are key, so constantly receptive to the "hysteria on the fringes" take on such issues? Many on HK has emotional intelligence id an edgy highschool student, plus often they live in a buble. This leads to poor grasp of social issues. 'Average' places like reddit are actually better in this regard.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >'Average' places like reddit are actually better in this regard. That might be true in that niche subreddit you subscribe to, but it's clearly not true for /r/all.
  - Brybry 4y ago
    Is more education and being employed in a field of logic and reason likely to make one less receptive to fringe beliefs? For example, engineers are probably overrepresented amongst Islamic extremists[1] and, from what few studies there are, may be skewed conservative and religious compared to other higher education fields. [1] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29836/1/Why_are_there_so_many_Engineers_among_Islamic_radicals_%28publisher%29.pdf https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29836/1/Why_are_there_so_many_Engi...
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  You basically want reality to be simple? Well, it isn't. How about denying megaphones to the hysterical fringes?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    "Don't let children work in sweatshops" and "let women vote" were once the "hysterical fringes" of public policy. There's often a benefit to exploring the edges of the Overton window.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      Eugenics was controversial too. What's your point? No naive rules of thumb like "well if the public health experts like it then it must be good" or "bigger overton window = better" will ever come close to being a viable replacement for critical thinking on any specific policy matter. If the extreme fringes can't convert people to their cause then is their cause really that worthy?
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > Eugenics was controversial too. What's your point? Eugenics is fringe now. It wasn't in the early 1900s. The point is that "no megaphones for the fringe" can also be a bad thing.
        dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        Eugenics absolutely was fringe in the early 1900s. To claim otherwise is revisionist. The fact that they got as far as they did, even passing laws in some states, is testament to what happens when people outsource their thinking to the experts and the experts engaged in extreme policy not supported by the people. Make no mistake, the policy would have worked but the end did not justify the means outside of the circle jerk in which the "experts" and were living. The fact that the fringe was unable to convert the broader public is why the overwhelming majority of eugenics policy was unilaterally adopted by institutions (government or otherwise) vs being legislated by politicians and that's because people didn't really want it en-masse.
- specialist 4y ago
  Yes and: Message simplicity, discipline, and repetition, to maybe somewhat mitigate the inevitable and very effective nutpicking by corporate media (and other shills) for the purpose of discrediting any reform, accountability, etc. -- "The practice of sifting through the comments of blogs, email threads, discussion groups and other user generated content in an attempt find choice quotes proving that the advocates for or against a particular political opinion are unreasonable, uninformed extremists." https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nutpicking https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nutpicking
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Every person that has ever fought for improvement p of any kind, against power, was accused of extremist or worse, terrorism. If you weren't, you never made enoufg waves to be noticed.
- kshahkshah 4y ago
  Is that empirically the case? Maybe in the marketing world but policy tends to get debated with more vigor. From my view 'defund the police' seems to have severely backfired.
yunohn 4y ago
Just like plastic… Everyone wants to ban it, but it’s ubiquitous for a reason.
- 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
  yes: it's cheap...
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Because humans tend to think in the short term and for-profit entities are happy to oblige. It could be argued there are many things which we are morally obliged to stop using plastic for, as it only serves as a convenience. Disposable food trays and "silverware", straws, individually wrapped things, and so on. Society could adjust to bringing their own water bottles to be filled at restaurants/gas stations/work, but between laziness on the consumer and the profit motive of selling cheap plastic bottles for $3 by companies, we don't. Then there are plenty of things for which plastic is useful, durable; and instances where even single-use plastic can be justified. But on the whole, society is trading the environment tomorrow for convenience and money today.
__alexs 4y ago
You could say the same things about lead I think? But then maybe we are more scared of lead than we should be, there's just more alternatives to it now?
- moffkalast 4y ago
  And asbestos too. Fantastically good isolator, strong, cheap, and only dangerous when broken.
  - JCM9 4y ago
    Yes. People are often shocked when asbestos is found and the recommended response is to do nothing. Messing with it is likely to cause more issues than just letting it be. If it’s intact and unlikely to be disturbed it’s not going to hurt anyone. The public has been trained to think this stuff is so bad that any mention of it has people doing full blown evacuations running for the hills. Nuclear power has, unfortunately, suffered a similar fate.
    - speed_spread 4y ago
      Nuclear power has the particular disadvantage of having to be actively managed. You can't just "leave it alone".
    - rcme 4y ago
      Leaving asbestos "alone" or encapsulating it is the common advice. It can also terrible advice, especially if the material is non-friable. Take something like vinyl asbestos tile as an example. When exposed, it's pretty easy to get rid of. You can cut through the tile, into the sub-floor, and take out huge chunks of tile at a time. You do release some fibers via cutting, but overall a very manageable amount. Now let's say you decide to tile over instead, what happens? Well for starters, you've now hidden the danger. You might know what's underneath your new tiles, but what happens when you sell the home? Also, it's no longer easy or simple to remove the VAT now. For example, this guy dosed himself and his whole family with a large asbestos dose unknowingly: https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/comments/dyvj3u/so_i_messed_up_bad_real_bad_one_more_warning_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/comments/dyvj3u/so_... If you have a hazard in your home, just deal with it appropriately. "Cover it up until it's someone else's problem" is selfish and irresponsible.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Counter-example: ozone layer hole and CFC's (iirc), where the clear message of "this stuff causes this" led to a global ban and monitoring system on that generation of refrigerants.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  Why is that a counterexample? Isn’t the comment above saying that harm at low levels isn’t really known?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    It's a response to at least #1; CFCs were similarly widely used and good at what they did. It just turned out that "you're not allowed to use these any more" sparked some significant innovation in alternatives.
    - ericpauley 4y ago
      Interestingly there are still some CFCs for which no truly viable replacement exists. For instance aviation fire extinguishers still use reclaimed Halon largely produced before the ban.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Alternatives exist for aviation fire extinguishers; https://www.sportys.com/blog/which-fire-extinguisher-right-pilots/ https://www.sportys.com/blog/which-fire-extinguisher-right-p.... Halotron needs a larger extinguisher (2x the weight/size, but it's not gonna be the thing to break your weight/balance budget) but is otherwise very similar, with a 96% reduction in environmental impact.
        ericpauley 4y ago
        Interesting, wasn't aware Halotron had gotten any approvals. I imagine a lot of people will want to stick with their existing Halon ones since they're already there and, in the event of a fire, they'll want the most effective/maneuverable product available.
unethical_ban 4y ago
Until recently (according to reporting) these compounds could not be filtered and are not ever expected to break down naturally in nature or the body. You can't get overexposed and be fine over time. It seems you're presuming all the exposure people are getting is "probably fine" ala astbestos in the walls. Then, there is the behavior of the factories producing it, which you brush off. Drinking supplies in certain areas are permanently destroyed, and producers aren't in jail. Yes, strict liability should apply when indestructible chemical compounds ruin regional drinking supplies and give people cancer.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Absolutely, you dont get to release unknown irremovable shit into encironment for 10 years while someone else spends money on reasearch to proove you are poiaoning them
giantg2 4y ago
The calls the shut down the factories are rational. They might not be reasonable, but that is debatable. Typically, if you find someone is lying or manipulating repeatedly, you jump to stricter outcomes. If you ban a specific substance in cookware and they just create a slightly different, untested, one... If they promise that waste won't escape the facility because there are safe ways to handle it, yet it continues to happen... It's like having a child that continually pushes the limits of the rules and repeatedly causes trouble. At some point you must realize they are lying and will hurt themselves or others. You can't play with that ball responsibly? Guess what, it's gone.
- _adamb 4y ago
  Can you explain more? It seems like you're arguing with yourself. You say if we ban one substance, they'll just come out with a less tested, less understood, and likely worse new one. I probably agree with this! Then you say we have to just take it away, like a kid who is being irresponsible with a ball. I understand this means you think we should ban the materials. -- If we ban these substances, won't research just pour all the more heavily into the new ones, causing the 1st scenario you mentioned? Are you suggesting we ban research into _any_ new materials whatsoever?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Are you suggesting we ban research into _any_ new materials whatsoever?" Quite the opposite. I'm saying the items should be tested/researched. Hence my use of untested, as you also point out. Essentially, stop trusting the company because they are acting like a child. You ban that class of chemicals until they can prove they are responsible and the chemical can realilistically be handled safely (unlikely for consumer products since the waste at product life end would be unmanageable). You can do this through a strict certification and surveillance program as well as limiting the use of the product to industrial applications where no alternatives exist. But the only real point I was trying to make is that people are more likely to support bans on a rational basis that the companies have fucked up before and lied/manipulated and are likely to cause more harm like that in the future. The stuff we are discussing at this point is a little outside of that as we are getting into what people would debate considering what is reasonable.
for1nner 4y ago
> But the near hysteria from some corners creates more of a distraction than actually helping anything. US media and politics in a nutshell.
blablabla123 4y ago
The comparison with Vitamins seems absurd. But really, what are "very high levels" then in ppm and exposure time? Also the public's reaction is logical since information has been kept from the public for decades to hinder proper regulation. I think the successful class action lawsuit speaks for itself.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  PFAS were the highest level national security secrets during WW2 due to their amazing properties (which haven’t been improved upon due to the periodic table/fundamental properties of fluorine), so it’s not a surprise the information was kept from the public for many decades.
  - blablabla123 4y ago
    Do you have a link for this? In the movie about it which plays around 2000 the corporate lawyer has a hard time finding someone who can say anything meaningful about it. That would be more than half a century later.
diob 4y ago
I think I'd be more comfortable with it if the folks using PFAS had to pay into a fund to handle cleanup / treatment of folks affected. Right now they get all the upside with none of the downside.
alexpotato 4y ago
> These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From lubrication to fire retardants there’s a reason these compounds are everywhere. You could make the same argument about asbestos (and people probably did at the time). You could also argue that it took class action lawsuits to finally push the cost of using it from "wonder product" to "only when really needed" to "not worth it" to "it's now illegal". (Granted the last step is not 100% tied to the financial cost).
- s0rce 4y ago
  And DDT, CFCs and tetra-ethyl lead...
hammock 4y ago
> 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much better over the years. We’re now talking parts per trillion measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything. A lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to measure things combined with “2” above around any detection being slated as terrible. Unfortunately, unlike many other common toxins, PFAS is actually toxic at parts per trillion levels. It’s not just a matter of “we detected trace amounts.” > 4. Both the reporting and public’s reactions tend to be illogical. PFAS found at a nearby factory? Shut it down. Sue everyone. However a growing body of evidence is finding PFAS in things like synthetic turf playing fields and yet with rare exception most school districts seem perfectly happy having these instead of plain old grass Shutting down a factory is logical. Using a PFAS turf field is illogical. Is that what you meant? Or did you really mean to imply that we shouldn’t shut down the factory until we remove the turf field as well?
cptskippy 4y ago
> 1. These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From lubrication to fire retardants there’s a reason these compounds are everywhere. > 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much better over the years. We’re now talking parts per trillion measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything. A lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to measure things combined with “2” above around any detection being slated as terrible. People don't understand how pervasive these chemicals are. When field testing for levels of PFAS, those doing the testing are given a list of things they need to avoid and not carry into the field because they will contaminate the results. This includes certain makeup, stain or water resistant clothing, certain types of paper, and lots of other things people would never consider.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Can’t make computer chips without PFAS, and many normal things would wear down so much faster we would spend a lot more energy/CO2 emissions replacing things faster. PFAS have orders of magnitude differences in half lives, understanding which are bad and how to destroy them when needed is all that is required.
tinus_hn 4y ago
Sound like the old matter of it being a big problem if somebody else has to fix it, not worth the effort if I have to fix it.
eurasiantiger 4y ago
Your points 2 and 3 are connected, but not in the way they are portrayed: scientists had to devise more accurate measurements for PFAS because the epidemiological data was suggesting that PFAS were causing diseases in humans at way below the previous detectable limit.

by JCM9 4y ago

actionfromafar 4y ago

Any widespread message must be simple. Even a moderate, sane movement will have hysteria on the fringes, just owing to it being large enough to have a fringe.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
So then why is HN, a community full of people who are much more educated than average and much more frequently employed in fields where logic and reason are key, so constantly receptive to the "hysteria on the fringes" take on such issues? Reddit, 4cham, other cesspools like that I get, but why HN? This community fancies itself as having a little more rationality and self awareness than that. So either there's an explanation for why those takes gain as much traction here or... (this is a serious question)
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  Smarter people on average != less emotional ones. What parent is complaining are emotional reactions. Here we have a proof that even HN readers do have emotions and sometimes they get the best and worst out of us, just like everybody else.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Well it's not like HN is a council of Vulcans debating logic all day, we're all as human as the next guy.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Speak for yourself
    - moffkalast 4y ago
      Well it's not like I'm a council of Vulcans debating logic all day.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > fields where logic and reason are key, so constantly receptive to the "hysteria on the fringes" take on such issues? Many on HK has emotional intelligence id an edgy highschool student, plus often they live in a buble. This leads to poor grasp of social issues. 'Average' places like reddit are actually better in this regard.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >'Average' places like reddit are actually better in this regard. That might be true in that niche subreddit you subscribe to, but it's clearly not true for /r/all.
- Brybry 4y ago
  Is more education and being employed in a field of logic and reason likely to make one less receptive to fringe beliefs? For example, engineers are probably overrepresented amongst Islamic extremists[1] and, from what few studies there are, may be skewed conservative and religious compared to other higher education fields. [1] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29836/1/Why_are_there_so_many_Engineers_among_Islamic_radicals_%28publisher%29.pdf https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29836/1/Why_are_there_so_many_Engi...
marcosdumay 4y ago
You basically want reality to be simple? Well, it isn't. How about denying megaphones to the hysterical fringes?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  "Don't let children work in sweatshops" and "let women vote" were once the "hysterical fringes" of public policy. There's often a benefit to exploring the edges of the Overton window.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Eugenics was controversial too. What's your point? No naive rules of thumb like "well if the public health experts like it then it must be good" or "bigger overton window = better" will ever come close to being a viable replacement for critical thinking on any specific policy matter. If the extreme fringes can't convert people to their cause then is their cause really that worthy?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > Eugenics was controversial too. What's your point? Eugenics is fringe now. It wasn't in the early 1900s. The point is that "no megaphones for the fringe" can also be a bad thing.
      - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        Eugenics absolutely was fringe in the early 1900s. To claim otherwise is revisionist. The fact that they got as far as they did, even passing laws in some states, is testament to what happens when people outsource their thinking to the experts and the experts engaged in extreme policy not supported by the people. Make no mistake, the policy would have worked but the end did not justify the means outside of the circle jerk in which the "experts" and were living. The fact that the fringe was unable to convert the broader public is why the overwhelming majority of eugenics policy was unilaterally adopted by institutions (government or otherwise) vs being legislated by politicians and that's because people didn't really want it en-masse.
specialist 4y ago
Yes and: Message simplicity, discipline, and repetition, to maybe somewhat mitigate the inevitable and very effective nutpicking by corporate media (and other shills) for the purpose of discrediting any reform, accountability, etc. -- "The practice of sifting through the comments of blogs, email threads, discussion groups and other user generated content in an attempt find choice quotes proving that the advocates for or against a particular political opinion are unreasonable, uninformed extremists." https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nutpicking https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nutpicking
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Every person that has ever fought for improvement p of any kind, against power, was accused of extremist or worse, terrorism. If you weren't, you never made enoufg waves to be noticed.
kshahkshah 4y ago
Is that empirically the case? Maybe in the marketing world but policy tends to get debated with more vigor. From my view 'defund the police' seems to have severely backfired.

yunohn 4y ago

Just like plastic… Everyone wants to ban it, but it’s ubiquitous for a reason.

0xbadcafebee 4y ago
yes: it's cheap...
unethical_ban 4y ago
Because humans tend to think in the short term and for-profit entities are happy to oblige. It could be argued there are many things which we are morally obliged to stop using plastic for, as it only serves as a convenience. Disposable food trays and "silverware", straws, individually wrapped things, and so on. Society could adjust to bringing their own water bottles to be filled at restaurants/gas stations/work, but between laziness on the consumer and the profit motive of selling cheap plastic bottles for $3 by companies, we don't. Then there are plenty of things for which plastic is useful, durable; and instances where even single-use plastic can be justified. But on the whole, society is trading the environment tomorrow for convenience and money today.

__alexs 4y ago

You could say the same things about lead I think? But then maybe we are more scared of lead than we should be, there's just more alternatives to it now?

moffkalast 4y ago
And asbestos too. Fantastically good isolator, strong, cheap, and only dangerous when broken.
- JCM9 4y ago
  Yes. People are often shocked when asbestos is found and the recommended response is to do nothing. Messing with it is likely to cause more issues than just letting it be. If it’s intact and unlikely to be disturbed it’s not going to hurt anyone. The public has been trained to think this stuff is so bad that any mention of it has people doing full blown evacuations running for the hills. Nuclear power has, unfortunately, suffered a similar fate.
  - speed_spread 4y ago
    Nuclear power has the particular disadvantage of having to be actively managed. You can't just "leave it alone".
  - rcme 4y ago
    Leaving asbestos "alone" or encapsulating it is the common advice. It can also terrible advice, especially if the material is non-friable. Take something like vinyl asbestos tile as an example. When exposed, it's pretty easy to get rid of. You can cut through the tile, into the sub-floor, and take out huge chunks of tile at a time. You do release some fibers via cutting, but overall a very manageable amount. Now let's say you decide to tile over instead, what happens? Well for starters, you've now hidden the danger. You might know what's underneath your new tiles, but what happens when you sell the home? Also, it's no longer easy or simple to remove the VAT now. For example, this guy dosed himself and his whole family with a large asbestos dose unknowingly: https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/comments/dyvj3u/so_i_messed_up_bad_real_bad_one_more_warning_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/comments/dyvj3u/so_... If you have a hazard in your home, just deal with it appropriately. "Cover it up until it's someone else's problem" is selfish and irresponsible.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

Counter-example: ozone layer hole and CFC's (iirc), where the clear message of "this stuff causes this" led to a global ban and monitoring system on that generation of refrigerants.

dan-robertson 4y ago
Why is that a counterexample? Isn’t the comment above saying that harm at low levels isn’t really known?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  It's a response to at least #1; CFCs were similarly widely used and good at what they did. It just turned out that "you're not allowed to use these any more" sparked some significant innovation in alternatives.
  - ericpauley 4y ago
    Interestingly there are still some CFCs for which no truly viable replacement exists. For instance aviation fire extinguishers still use reclaimed Halon largely produced before the ban.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Alternatives exist for aviation fire extinguishers; https://www.sportys.com/blog/which-fire-extinguisher-right-pilots/ https://www.sportys.com/blog/which-fire-extinguisher-right-p.... Halotron needs a larger extinguisher (2x the weight/size, but it's not gonna be the thing to break your weight/balance budget) but is otherwise very similar, with a 96% reduction in environmental impact.
      - ericpauley 4y ago
        Interesting, wasn't aware Halotron had gotten any approvals. I imagine a lot of people will want to stick with their existing Halon ones since they're already there and, in the event of a fire, they'll want the most effective/maneuverable product available.

unethical_ban 4y ago

Until recently (according to reporting) these compounds could not be filtered and are not ever expected to break down naturally in nature or the body. You can't get overexposed and be fine over time. It seems you're presuming all the exposure people are getting is "probably fine" ala astbestos in the walls. Then, there is the behavior of the factories producing it, which you brush off. Drinking supplies in certain areas are permanently destroyed, and producers aren't in jail. Yes, strict liability should apply when indestructible chemical compounds ruin regional drinking supplies and give people cancer.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Absolutely, you dont get to release unknown irremovable shit into encironment for 10 years while someone else spends money on reasearch to proove you are poiaoning them

giantg2 4y ago

The calls the shut down the factories are rational. They might not be reasonable, but that is debatable. Typically, if you find someone is lying or manipulating repeatedly, you jump to stricter outcomes. If you ban a specific substance in cookware and they just create a slightly different, untested, one... If they promise that waste won't escape the facility because there are safe ways to handle it, yet it continues to happen... It's like having a child that continually pushes the limits of the rules and repeatedly causes trouble. At some point you must realize they are lying and will hurt themselves or others. You can't play with that ball responsibly? Guess what, it's gone.

_adamb 4y ago
Can you explain more? It seems like you're arguing with yourself. You say if we ban one substance, they'll just come out with a less tested, less understood, and likely worse new one. I probably agree with this! Then you say we have to just take it away, like a kid who is being irresponsible with a ball. I understand this means you think we should ban the materials. -- If we ban these substances, won't research just pour all the more heavily into the new ones, causing the 1st scenario you mentioned? Are you suggesting we ban research into _any_ new materials whatsoever?
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Are you suggesting we ban research into _any_ new materials whatsoever?" Quite the opposite. I'm saying the items should be tested/researched. Hence my use of untested, as you also point out. Essentially, stop trusting the company because they are acting like a child. You ban that class of chemicals until they can prove they are responsible and the chemical can realilistically be handled safely (unlikely for consumer products since the waste at product life end would be unmanageable). You can do this through a strict certification and surveillance program as well as limiting the use of the product to industrial applications where no alternatives exist. But the only real point I was trying to make is that people are more likely to support bans on a rational basis that the companies have fucked up before and lied/manipulated and are likely to cause more harm like that in the future. The stuff we are discussing at this point is a little outside of that as we are getting into what people would debate considering what is reasonable.

for1nner 4y ago

> But the near hysteria from some corners creates more of a distraction than actually helping anything. US media and politics in a nutshell.

blablabla123 4y ago

The comparison with Vitamins seems absurd. But really, what are "very high levels" then in ppm and exposure time? Also the public's reaction is logical since information has been kept from the public for decades to hinder proper regulation. I think the successful class action lawsuit speaks for itself.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
PFAS were the highest level national security secrets during WW2 due to their amazing properties (which haven’t been improved upon due to the periodic table/fundamental properties of fluorine), so it’s not a surprise the information was kept from the public for many decades.
- blablabla123 4y ago
  Do you have a link for this? In the movie about it which plays around 2000 the corporate lawyer has a hard time finding someone who can say anything meaningful about it. That would be more than half a century later.

diob 4y ago

I think I'd be more comfortable with it if the folks using PFAS had to pay into a fund to handle cleanup / treatment of folks affected. Right now they get all the upside with none of the downside.

alexpotato 4y ago

> These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From lubrication to fire retardants there’s a reason these compounds are everywhere. You could make the same argument about asbestos (and people probably did at the time). You could also argue that it took class action lawsuits to finally push the cost of using it from "wonder product" to "only when really needed" to "not worth it" to "it's now illegal". (Granted the last step is not 100% tied to the financial cost).

s0rce 4y ago
And DDT, CFCs and tetra-ethyl lead...

hammock 4y ago

> 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much better over the years. We’re now talking parts per trillion measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything. A lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to measure things combined with “2” above around any detection being slated as terrible. Unfortunately, unlike many other common toxins, PFAS is actually toxic at parts per trillion levels. It’s not just a matter of “we detected trace amounts.” > 4. Both the reporting and public’s reactions tend to be illogical. PFAS found at a nearby factory? Shut it down. Sue everyone. However a growing body of evidence is finding PFAS in things like synthetic turf playing fields and yet with rare exception most school districts seem perfectly happy having these instead of plain old grass Shutting down a factory is logical. Using a PFAS turf field is illogical. Is that what you meant? Or did you really mean to imply that we shouldn’t shut down the factory until we remove the turf field as well?

cptskippy 4y ago

> 1. These compounds are extremely good at what they do. From lubrication to fire retardants there’s a reason these compounds are everywhere. > 3. The ability to detect these compounds has gotten much better over the years. We’re now talking parts per trillion measurements. At those levels you can find just about anything. A lot of the current panic is a combo of this ability to measure things combined with “2” above around any detection being slated as terrible. People don't understand how pervasive these chemicals are. When field testing for levels of PFAS, those doing the testing are given a list of things they need to avoid and not carry into the field because they will contaminate the results. This includes certain makeup, stain or water resistant clothing, certain types of paper, and lots of other things people would never consider.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Can’t make computer chips without PFAS, and many normal things would wear down so much faster we would spend a lot more energy/CO2 emissions replacing things faster. PFAS have orders of magnitude differences in half lives, understanding which are bad and how to destroy them when needed is all that is required.

tinus_hn 4y ago

Sound like the old matter of it being a big problem if somebody else has to fix it, not worth the effort if I have to fix it.

eurasiantiger 4y ago

Your points 2 and 3 are connected, but not in the way they are portrayed: scientists had to devise more accurate measurements for PFAS because the epidemiological data was suggesting that PFAS were causing diseases in humans at way below the previous detectable limit.