3 ms·

I'd he interested in some facts ? And cost/ benefit discussion? I know nothing about PFAS but the above comment reads like a lobbying screed. It sounds like PF

by sam345 4y ago

I'd he interested in some facts ? And cost/ benefit discussion? I know nothing about PFAS but the above comment reads like a lobbying screed. It sounds like PFAS has been in use for a long time. The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely.

zug_zug 4y ago
Definitely emotional, but overall right I think. A good place to start is the documentary "The devil we know". I think you'll come to the conclusion that what has happened here has been inexcusable.
- baliex 4y ago
  This is the article [0] that inspired the (brilliant) film [1]. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b... [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/
mschuster91 4y ago
> The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. That's the problem with carcinogens - it's hard AF to link cancers to pollutants, but e.g. airport firefighters have succeeded with these claims [1]. > There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely. On the part of consumers, similarly to our use of plastics, it's convenience. On the part of producers, the usual: money, bribery ehhh campaign donations and, in some cases, a lack of alternatives. [1] https://phys.org/news/2023-02-seattle-airport-legacy-pfas-chemicals.html https://phys.org/news/2023-02-seattle-airport-legacy-pfas-ch...
ecmascript 4y ago
Since it seems many of these chemicals takes hundreds if not thousands of years to break down, I think it's safe to say that the benefits of making them illegal outweighs the costs.
GeoAtreides 4y ago
> I know nothing about PFAS but the above comment reads like a lobbying screed. If you knew nothing about smoking and read a long rant on smoking's health effects, would you dismiss it as easily as you dismissed this one? Probably yes -- but you would be deadly wrong. It's interesting to me how people, although saying they know nothing about a subject, they still have opinions about what's true or false on that subject. What can one say about something they know nothing about except: I don't know. Maybe: "this opinion (GP's) seems aggressive, is it warranted? I don't know". Just say: I don't know. > The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely. Smoking was dropping people like flies left and right. And indeed there was a reason why it was still on the market and used widely.
- sam345 4y ago
  You must have misread my comment.I gave no opinion because as I said I know nothing about PFAS. I certainly didn't say my mind was made up and I wasn't going to do any further research. To the contrary I was asking for facts and cost benefit analysis. For instance what are the alternatives and what are their environmental and health costs? OG did not address any of that.
  - hammock 4y ago
    PFAS are used in so many different applications it would be difficult to list the alternatives comprehensively. But it can be confidently said that, health and environmental costs aside, there are no better alternatives for their current use. Which is a huge part of the problem (similar to the BPA/BPS issue). PFAS in DWR / water resistant applications is being replaced with silicone-based tech and some other novelties. PFAS in coated paper goods can be replaced with silicones, sulfuric acid baths, etc. PFAS in machinery could be replaced with food-grade lubricants like mineral oil, etc. (or just more frequent cleaning) Give me some other common applications and I'll help think about the alternatives
  - GeoAtreides 4y ago
    >the above comment reads like a lobbying screed This is an opinion. "screed" and "lobbying" are not neutral words, they have negative connotations. >The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely. This is also an opinion. It uses hyperbole to cast shade on GP's original words, to imply a dreadful scenario that should be happening if those words are true; you then say, paraphrasing: this scenario is not happening, so then it follows GP's assertions are not true (to be clear: this is your inference, implied, not mine). This is how I read your comment; I admit, I might've gotten wrong and I apologize if that's the case.
jcampbell1 4y ago
PFAS is a huge family of long lasting fluorinated chemicals. The ones that are bio-absorbed typically are liquid at normal temperatures. Gasoline and plastic are both hydrocarbons, but gasoline is toxic and long chain polyethylene is not. So we are sort of in this state where some Hacker News savior is shouting “hydrocarbons dangerous!!!”, when the story is more like liquid PFAS is a problem, but Teflon is safe like polyethylene is safe. Don’t drink hexane, but the 200-ane found in polyethylene won’t be absorbed even when you eat it. Bottom line is that all the liquid PFAS has been pulled from the market. The last thing I have seen was some ski racing wax had these liquid PFAS compounds, and they got fined pretty heavily.
hammock 4y ago
>a lobbying screed Who do you suggest is doing the lobbying and for what cause?

by sam345 4y ago

zug_zug 4y ago

Definitely emotional, but overall right I think. A good place to start is the documentary "The devil we know". I think you'll come to the conclusion that what has happened here has been inexcusable.

baliex 4y ago
This is the article [0] that inspired the (brilliant) film [1]. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b... [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/

mschuster91 4y ago

> The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. That's the problem with carcinogens - it's hard AF to link cancers to pollutants, but e.g. airport firefighters have succeeded with these claims [1]. > There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely. On the part of consumers, similarly to our use of plastics, it's convenience. On the part of producers, the usual: money, bribery ehhh campaign donations and, in some cases, a lack of alternatives. [1] https://phys.org/news/2023-02-seattle-airport-legacy-pfas-chemicals.html https://phys.org/news/2023-02-seattle-airport-legacy-pfas-ch...

ecmascript 4y ago

Since it seems many of these chemicals takes hundreds if not thousands of years to break down, I think it's safe to say that the benefits of making them illegal outweighs the costs.

GeoAtreides 4y ago

> I know nothing about PFAS but the above comment reads like a lobbying screed. If you knew nothing about smoking and read a long rant on smoking's health effects, would you dismiss it as easily as you dismissed this one? Probably yes -- but you would be deadly wrong. It's interesting to me how people, although saying they know nothing about a subject, they still have opinions about what's true or false on that subject. What can one say about something they know nothing about except: I don't know. Maybe: "this opinion (GP's) seems aggressive, is it warranted? I don't know". Just say: I don't know. > The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely. Smoking was dropping people like flies left and right. And indeed there was a reason why it was still on the market and used widely.

sam345 4y ago
You must have misread my comment.I gave no opinion because as I said I know nothing about PFAS. I certainly didn't say my mind was made up and I wasn't going to do any further research. To the contrary I was asking for facts and cost benefit analysis. For instance what are the alternatives and what are their environmental and health costs? OG did not address any of that.
- hammock 4y ago
  PFAS are used in so many different applications it would be difficult to list the alternatives comprehensively. But it can be confidently said that, health and environmental costs aside, there are no better alternatives for their current use. Which is a huge part of the problem (similar to the BPA/BPS issue). PFAS in DWR / water resistant applications is being replaced with silicone-based tech and some other novelties. PFAS in coated paper goods can be replaced with silicones, sulfuric acid baths, etc. PFAS in machinery could be replaced with food-grade lubricants like mineral oil, etc. (or just more frequent cleaning) Give me some other common applications and I'll help think about the alternatives
- GeoAtreides 4y ago
  >the above comment reads like a lobbying screed This is an opinion. "screed" and "lobbying" are not neutral words, they have negative connotations. >The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely. This is also an opinion. It uses hyperbole to cast shade on GP's original words, to imply a dreadful scenario that should be happening if those words are true; you then say, paraphrasing: this scenario is not happening, so then it follows GP's assertions are not true (to be clear: this is your inference, implied, not mine). This is how I read your comment; I admit, I might've gotten wrong and I apologize if that's the case.

jcampbell1 4y ago

PFAS is a huge family of long lasting fluorinated chemicals. The ones that are bio-absorbed typically are liquid at normal temperatures. Gasoline and plastic are both hydrocarbons, but gasoline is toxic and long chain polyethylene is not. So we are sort of in this state where some Hacker News savior is shouting “hydrocarbons dangerous!!!”, when the story is more like liquid PFAS is a problem, but Teflon is safe like polyethylene is safe. Don’t drink hexane, but the 200-ane found in polyethylene won’t be absorbed even when you eat it. Bottom line is that all the liquid PFAS has been pulled from the market. The last thing I have seen was some ski racing wax had these liquid PFAS compounds, and they got fined pretty heavily.

hammock 4y ago

>a lobbying screed Who do you suggest is doing the lobbying and for what cause?