5 ms·

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.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    There is a big difference between using a substance to save life and limb. And putting it on every random consumer product whwre it has no need to be
    - dylan604 4y ago
      This is a valid point until you killed it with hyperbole. I know this from experience. This forum is probably okay for the hyperbole, but I always used the hyperbole even on non-friendly forums which caused me to "cede the higher ground". If a product was being used where it "has no need to be", that would mean the manufacturer is doing something that is costing them money (the PFAS isn't free nor is the application of it) which ultimately cuts into the bottom lines. So if they are using it, maybe it is that something is needed in that fashion and they already have a large investment in it so use it vs let's just put this stuff everywhere because it's freeeeee.
      - ldh0011 4y ago
        I think the "no need" is referencing the lack of a societal or consumer need, not the "need" of the company to make more money.
        dylan604 4y ago
        i read the "no need" like there's no functional need for it to be there. benefit of doubt on my part that it is needed even if the "no need" commenter doesn't understand the need.
      - 6510 4y ago
        For cardboard packaging and cans they use to use some (more expensive) edible plant based wax. I see a video one time from someone with some healthy canned food business trying to return to it. Lack of demand drove up the prices even further. I suppose food is just to cheap?
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Here is an example- companies deliberately adding mocroplastics to toothpaste and beaty products: https://treadingmyownpath.com/2019/08/22/microbeads/#:~:text=Microbeads%20are%20tiny%20solid%20plastic%20particles%2C%20measuring%201mm,%E2%80%98gloss%E2%80%99%20and%20as%20fillers%20to%20bulk%20out%20products https://treadingmyownpath.com/2019/08/22/microbeads/#:~:text.... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/02/uk-government-to-ban-microbeads-from-cosmetics-by-end-of-2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/02/uk-gover...
- gruez 4y ago
  >It just turned out that "you're not allowed to use these any more" sparked some significant innovation in alternatives. Source? My impression was that alternatives were already being developed prior to widespread ban. A quick wikipedia search confirms this. The montreal protocol was signed in 1987 and came into effect in 1989, but by that time alternatives already existed. "DuPont began producing hydrofluorocarbons as alternatives to Freon in the 1980s." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon
  - gnatman 4y ago
    >Source? My impression was that alternatives were already being developed prior to widespread ban. A quick wikipedia search confirms this. The montreal protocol was signed in 1987 and came into effect in 1989, but by that time alternatives already existed. The Montreal Protocol was signed in '87 but things had been underway since the 70s, including a partial ban on aerosols in in US in '78. DuPont saw the writing on the wall. "In 1976 the United States National Academy of Sciences released a report concluding that the ozone depletion hypothesis was strongly supported by the scientific evidence. In response the United States, Canada and Norway banned the use of CFCs in aerosol spray cans in 1978." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Rowland-Molina_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Rowland-Molina...

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.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  There is a big difference between using a substance to save life and limb. And putting it on every random consumer product whwre it has no need to be
  - dylan604 4y ago
    This is a valid point until you killed it with hyperbole. I know this from experience. This forum is probably okay for the hyperbole, but I always used the hyperbole even on non-friendly forums which caused me to "cede the higher ground". If a product was being used where it "has no need to be", that would mean the manufacturer is doing something that is costing them money (the PFAS isn't free nor is the application of it) which ultimately cuts into the bottom lines. So if they are using it, maybe it is that something is needed in that fashion and they already have a large investment in it so use it vs let's just put this stuff everywhere because it's freeeeee.
    - ldh0011 4y ago
      I think the "no need" is referencing the lack of a societal or consumer need, not the "need" of the company to make more money.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        i read the "no need" like there's no functional need for it to be there. benefit of doubt on my part that it is needed even if the "no need" commenter doesn't understand the need.
    - 6510 4y ago
      For cardboard packaging and cans they use to use some (more expensive) edible plant based wax. I see a video one time from someone with some healthy canned food business trying to return to it. Lack of demand drove up the prices even further. I suppose food is just to cheap?
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Here is an example- companies deliberately adding mocroplastics to toothpaste and beaty products: https://treadingmyownpath.com/2019/08/22/microbeads/#:~:text=Microbeads%20are%20tiny%20solid%20plastic%20particles%2C%20measuring%201mm,%E2%80%98gloss%E2%80%99%20and%20as%20fillers%20to%20bulk%20out%20products https://treadingmyownpath.com/2019/08/22/microbeads/#:~:text.... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/02/uk-government-to-ban-microbeads-from-cosmetics-by-end-of-2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/02/uk-gover...
gruez 4y ago
>It just turned out that "you're not allowed to use these any more" sparked some significant innovation in alternatives. Source? My impression was that alternatives were already being developed prior to widespread ban. A quick wikipedia search confirms this. The montreal protocol was signed in 1987 and came into effect in 1989, but by that time alternatives already existed. "DuPont began producing hydrofluorocarbons as alternatives to Freon in the 1980s." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon
- gnatman 4y ago
  >Source? My impression was that alternatives were already being developed prior to widespread ban. A quick wikipedia search confirms this. The montreal protocol was signed in 1987 and came into effect in 1989, but by that time alternatives already existed. The Montreal Protocol was signed in '87 but things had been underway since the 70s, including a partial ban on aerosols in in US in '78. DuPont saw the writing on the wall. "In 1976 the United States National Academy of Sciences released a report concluding that the ozone depletion hypothesis was strongly supported by the scientific evidence. In response the United States, Canada and Norway banned the use of CFCs in aerosol spray cans in 1978." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Rowland-Molina_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Rowland-Molina...