4 ms·

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

by 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.

by sam345 4y ago

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.