4 ms·

Don't we need to stop using PFAS all together for this stuff to make a difference?

by candiddevmike 4y ago

callalex 4y ago
When it comes to the environment, everything helps. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  But this is wasting electricity and other resources for a somewhat pointless cause as PFAS production will outpace this. To me, that's a net negative to the environment without any real gain? Why can't we stop producing PFAS?
  - thfuran 4y ago
    If PFAS in the environment is bad, why is reducing the taste at which PFAS accumulates in the environment pointless?
  - jchw 4y ago
    As long as spending electricity and other resources on PFAS destruction doesn't inadvertently cause even more PFAS production than it prevents, then this concept seems to make sense at some level. That doesn't mean it's ideal, but we're going to need this anyways even if PFAS winds up being fully phased out.
  - excalibur 4y ago
    > But this is wasting electricity and other resources for a somewhat pointless cause as PFAS production will outpace this. To me, that's a net negative to the environment without any real gain? Insufficient != pointless. What if we made a bunch more of these and offset the electrical consumption by banning utterly useless and wasteful cryptocurrencies? That sounds like an environmental win/win. > Why can't we stop producing PFAS? Good question, let's do that too.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    The world is full of nasty stuff I dont want to drink. Filters are good. Increasing production without filtration = increasing contamination in drinking water. Increasing production + filters? well, if the filters are 100% effective, then my water is clean.
    - CapstanRoller 4y ago
      There are other creatures that live in/on/near the water or require water for survival, and they don't have filters. Vegetables grown with contaminated water don't have filters either. There are numerous ways you can ingest that contaminated water besides drinking it directly. You are part of an ecosystem, and you need that ecosystem to function in order to stay alive. This applies to all humans, not just you. >well, if the filters are 100% effective, then my water is clean Translation: "fuck you, got mine"
  - loeg 4y ago
    > Why can't we stop producing PFAS? PFAS are pretty useful chemicals.
    - nerdbert 4y ago
      So was Agent Orange.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 4y ago
Blood levels where higher in the US 20 years ago, the decline is due to a phase out of production. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.html https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.... I guess the compounds in landfill effluent can be coming from things manufactured overseas, but collecting and destroying them is a good way to avoid releasing them into the environment or having to deal with them later.
elihu 4y ago
Probably, but even if we do that it's still good to have technology to deal with the PFAS already out there. Apparently 3M has announced that they're going to stop making PFAS by the end of 2025. So, that's progress I guess even if it's happening a lot slower than it probably should.
- layman51 4y ago
  That actually sounds pretty fast. Not to be a downer or anything, but I have a nagging feeling that maybe they will stop making PFAS but the replacement will be a very similar, substitute compound that may or may not have the same effects. We just don’t know because it hasn’t been studied. In other words, a very similar situation to the BPA-free reusable water bottles, which sound nice, but might still have a harmful substitute.
  - rogerkirkness 4y ago
    This already happened with C8 -> C6 which bioaccumulates in water rather than in the physical form. Fundamentally, making something immune to water requires also making it immune to the normal way that things break down in the environment. So the performance qualities are really the thing we may need to phase out, but there are applications (e.g. in surgery instruments) that are more or less essential.
bsder 4y ago
Well, we need to stop using PFAS in things like drinking straws and footgear. However, we still need PFAS for certain things like semiconductor manufacturing. The systems are closed, but neverthless you still need some.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  The problem is, we started putting pfas in drink straws because the old normal plastic (PET?) Straws got banned in Europe. The new paper ones have to be coated in pfas to stop them from soaking. Of course banning straws would work too but they are extremely useful especially if you have sensitive teeth.
  - rleigh 4y ago
    What was wrong with the old method of using waxed paper? Non-toxic and waterproof. They did of course eventually go soggy at the ends but it's somewhat incredible that we go for known toxic coatings instead of previously-used non-toxic alternatives.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    It's always seemed unfortunate that they're going after high-volume but mostly inert and harmless plastics like PE/PP/PET in bans, causing them to be replaced by alternative materials which need to be augmented with much worse substances.

Don't we need to stop using PFAS all together for this stuff to make a difference?

callalex 4y ago

When it comes to the environment, everything helps. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

candiddevmike 4y ago
But this is wasting electricity and other resources for a somewhat pointless cause as PFAS production will outpace this. To me, that's a net negative to the environment without any real gain? Why can't we stop producing PFAS?
- thfuran 4y ago
  If PFAS in the environment is bad, why is reducing the taste at which PFAS accumulates in the environment pointless?
- jchw 4y ago
  As long as spending electricity and other resources on PFAS destruction doesn't inadvertently cause even more PFAS production than it prevents, then this concept seems to make sense at some level. That doesn't mean it's ideal, but we're going to need this anyways even if PFAS winds up being fully phased out.
- excalibur 4y ago
  > But this is wasting electricity and other resources for a somewhat pointless cause as PFAS production will outpace this. To me, that's a net negative to the environment without any real gain? Insufficient != pointless. What if we made a bunch more of these and offset the electrical consumption by banning utterly useless and wasteful cryptocurrencies? That sounds like an environmental win/win. > Why can't we stop producing PFAS? Good question, let's do that too.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  The world is full of nasty stuff I dont want to drink. Filters are good. Increasing production without filtration = increasing contamination in drinking water. Increasing production + filters? well, if the filters are 100% effective, then my water is clean.
  - CapstanRoller 4y ago
    There are other creatures that live in/on/near the water or require water for survival, and they don't have filters. Vegetables grown with contaminated water don't have filters either. There are numerous ways you can ingest that contaminated water besides drinking it directly. You are part of an ecosystem, and you need that ecosystem to function in order to stay alive. This applies to all humans, not just you. >well, if the filters are 100% effective, then my water is clean Translation: "fuck you, got mine"
- loeg 4y ago
  > Why can't we stop producing PFAS? PFAS are pretty useful chemicals.
  - nerdbert 4y ago
    So was Agent Orange.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

maxerickson 4y ago

Blood levels where higher in the US 20 years ago, the decline is due to a phase out of production. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.html https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.... I guess the compounds in landfill effluent can be coming from things manufactured overseas, but collecting and destroying them is a good way to avoid releasing them into the environment or having to deal with them later.

elihu 4y ago

Probably, but even if we do that it's still good to have technology to deal with the PFAS already out there. Apparently 3M has announced that they're going to stop making PFAS by the end of 2025. So, that's progress I guess even if it's happening a lot slower than it probably should.

layman51 4y ago
That actually sounds pretty fast. Not to be a downer or anything, but I have a nagging feeling that maybe they will stop making PFAS but the replacement will be a very similar, substitute compound that may or may not have the same effects. We just don’t know because it hasn’t been studied. In other words, a very similar situation to the BPA-free reusable water bottles, which sound nice, but might still have a harmful substitute.
- rogerkirkness 4y ago
  This already happened with C8 -> C6 which bioaccumulates in water rather than in the physical form. Fundamentally, making something immune to water requires also making it immune to the normal way that things break down in the environment. So the performance qualities are really the thing we may need to phase out, but there are applications (e.g. in surgery instruments) that are more or less essential.

bsder 4y ago

Well, we need to stop using PFAS in things like drinking straws and footgear. However, we still need PFAS for certain things like semiconductor manufacturing. The systems are closed, but neverthless you still need some.

wkat4242 4y ago
The problem is, we started putting pfas in drink straws because the old normal plastic (PET?) Straws got banned in Europe. The new paper ones have to be coated in pfas to stop them from soaking. Of course banning straws would work too but they are extremely useful especially if you have sensitive teeth.
- rleigh 4y ago
  What was wrong with the old method of using waxed paper? Non-toxic and waterproof. They did of course eventually go soggy at the ends but it's somewhat incredible that we go for known toxic coatings instead of previously-used non-toxic alternatives.
- userbinator 4y ago
  It's always seemed unfortunate that they're going after high-volume but mostly inert and harmless plastics like PE/PP/PET in bans, causing them to be replaced by alternative materials which need to be augmented with much worse substances.