4 ms·

Interestingly there are still some CFCs for which no truly viable replacement exists. For instance aviation fire extinguishers still use reclaimed Halon largely

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...

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...