8 ms·

It's always surprising to me how quick we are to go from discovering a chemical to mass-producing it. We're only just figuring out all of the negative externali

It's always surprising to me how quick we are to go from discovering a chemical to mass-producing it. We're only just figuring out all of the negative externalities of things like PFAS, and they're in absolutely everything (packaging, clothes, pizza box linings, food cans, cookware...)

flashback2199 3y ago
Leaded gasoline will really blow your mind, at least it did for me Edit: Figuratively not literally, haha!
- mcast 3y ago
  Vertasium has a great video on the invention of leaded gasoline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA
- kzrdude 3y ago
  It was known to be harmful back in 1920s when it was introduced
  - justinator 3y ago
    But it solved a problem that got in the way of selling you things! It's also still used in most every prop engine that flies over my house everyday at a normal schedule, so we still haven't solved the problem of leaded gas. We never will (in my lifetime).
    - freedomben 3y ago
      > It's also still used in most every prop engine that flies over my house everyday at a normal schedule, so we still haven't solved the problem of leaded gas. We never will (in my lifetime). Do you know why? I was under the impression that avgas (aka leaded gas for airplanes) was being forced out (albeit slowly) by EPA
      - justinator 3y ago
        Engines don't work on unleaded fuel.
        sacnoradhq 3y ago
        Untrue. G100UL is a drop-in replacement for 100LL. TEL should be banned because 70% of all airborne lead is a result of piston-driven general aviation.
        justinator 3y ago
        It probably works as drop-in replacement, but until there's actual QA, we can't be sure enough. Unless you want planes falling from the sky. Maybe a little more on the table than releasing something to prod and finding a speling mistake. And to be clear: I don't want the dozens of airplanes that fly over me daily to be running leaded gas. Politics is gunna politics I guess.
        flashback2199 3y ago
        I don't want planes falling out of the sky, but currently lead is falling out of the sky instead, and I don't want that, either :/
        justinator 3y ago
        The smart thing to do would be to ground airplanes that use leaded fuel, but we don't do that because?
      - sacnoradhq 3y ago
        The problems are a lack of leadership to subsidize it at the pump and a timeline to ban it. G100UL currently costs 70% more than 100LL. A certification process is required to fuel with G100UL (no engine changes are required, but it's the aviation industry and it creates an orderly transition process with more paperwork) and it's currently difficult to find. If you want to get G100UL now, look for general aviation flight schools. https://stc.g100ul.com https://stc.g100ul.com
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Scheduled flights almost all use turbine engines, even prop ones (turboprop). They use Jet-1 which is unleaded kerosine. Only the smallest GA planes like Cessna 172s still use leaded fuel. Turbodiesel alternatives are present aftermarket but they need to be replaced every once in a while unlike the old gas engines which can be revisioned. Unlike a car engine an aircraft engine spends a lot of its life at 100% power which makes them age quicker.
- wcedmisten 3y ago
  Interestingly, the inventor of leaded gasoline also invented freon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
  - askiiart 3y ago
    Citation Needed, by The Technical Difficulties, has a great episode on him (and Chris's pope infestation.) https://youtu.be/4og8wG8VQWM https://youtu.be/4og8wG8VQWM
  - nielsbot 3y ago
    Smithsonian Magazine has an article about that angle "One Man Invented Two of the Deadliest Substances of the 20th Century" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-man-two-deadly-substances-20th-century-180963269/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-man-two-deadly...
justinator 3y ago
3M knew about the negative "externalities" of PFAS 50 years ago, they just decide YOU didn't nee to know. https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p... It's the same with oil companies having studies on climate change privately, while discounting climate scientists publicly. Profits over People is the way of Capitalism!
- no_butterscotch 3y ago
  I'm always surprised by this when it's "50 years ago". Certainly the scientists and analysts at 3M who collected and analyzed the data would have thereafter known of it's extremely harmful effects. And I don't mean to open this up to "heh yea well they made bank!" I don't think they did relatively speaking. My main question, is that certainly those scientists would have been advising their friends and families to stay away from X, Y, and Z products because they contain PFAS?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    It's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of things when you get a big payday by doing so. This is why analyzing clinical trial data is so obscenely hard. There are bad actors, there are liars, and there are scientists who are really, really hoping to achieve a breakthrough. All of them are liable to end up putting forth bad information.
    - justinator 3y ago
      > It's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of things when you get a big payday by doing so. Is it easy to turn a blind eye, when factory workers in your own company were dying, or is what we're describing called at best criminal, and at worst psychotic? They were literally just dumping these chemicals down the river. They were fined a small fraction of their profits (of billions) and told pretty please to not do it again. This is obvious corruption on so many levels.
      - 3y ago
aio2 3y ago
Yes, "We've" figured out the dangers of PFAS just now, but when companies started producing them back over 50 years ago, company 3M knew it (to say the least) wasn't good. I'm pretty sure the scientists who dealt with these chemicals even warned against using it, but some higher ups still let it pass
sacnoradhq 3y ago
Worrying about aspartame is bikeshedding about minutia. The arbitrary grandfathering of thousands of chemicals under TSCA and lack of precautionary principle are far bigger risks to public health in America. Multiple companies knew about the health dangers of certain "forever chemicals" including PFAS and intentionally did nothing because money. It's a repeat of the cigarette debacle.

flashback2199 3y ago

Leaded gasoline will really blow your mind, at least it did for me Edit: Figuratively not literally, haha!

mcast 3y ago
Vertasium has a great video on the invention of leaded gasoline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA
kzrdude 3y ago
It was known to be harmful back in 1920s when it was introduced
- justinator 3y ago
  But it solved a problem that got in the way of selling you things! It's also still used in most every prop engine that flies over my house everyday at a normal schedule, so we still haven't solved the problem of leaded gas. We never will (in my lifetime).
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > It's also still used in most every prop engine that flies over my house everyday at a normal schedule, so we still haven't solved the problem of leaded gas. We never will (in my lifetime). Do you know why? I was under the impression that avgas (aka leaded gas for airplanes) was being forced out (albeit slowly) by EPA
    - justinator 3y ago
      Engines don't work on unleaded fuel.
      - sacnoradhq 3y ago
        Untrue. G100UL is a drop-in replacement for 100LL. TEL should be banned because 70% of all airborne lead is a result of piston-driven general aviation.
        justinator 3y ago
        It probably works as drop-in replacement, but until there's actual QA, we can't be sure enough. Unless you want planes falling from the sky. Maybe a little more on the table than releasing something to prod and finding a speling mistake. And to be clear: I don't want the dozens of airplanes that fly over me daily to be running leaded gas. Politics is gunna politics I guess.
        flashback2199 3y ago
        I don't want planes falling out of the sky, but currently lead is falling out of the sky instead, and I don't want that, either :/
        justinator 3y ago
        The smart thing to do would be to ground airplanes that use leaded fuel, but we don't do that because?
    - sacnoradhq 3y ago
      The problems are a lack of leadership to subsidize it at the pump and a timeline to ban it. G100UL currently costs 70% more than 100LL. A certification process is required to fuel with G100UL (no engine changes are required, but it's the aviation industry and it creates an orderly transition process with more paperwork) and it's currently difficult to find. If you want to get G100UL now, look for general aviation flight schools. https://stc.g100ul.com https://stc.g100ul.com
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Scheduled flights almost all use turbine engines, even prop ones (turboprop). They use Jet-1 which is unleaded kerosine. Only the smallest GA planes like Cessna 172s still use leaded fuel. Turbodiesel alternatives are present aftermarket but they need to be replaced every once in a while unlike the old gas engines which can be revisioned. Unlike a car engine an aircraft engine spends a lot of its life at 100% power which makes them age quicker.
wcedmisten 3y ago
Interestingly, the inventor of leaded gasoline also invented freon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
- askiiart 3y ago
  Citation Needed, by The Technical Difficulties, has a great episode on him (and Chris's pope infestation.) https://youtu.be/4og8wG8VQWM https://youtu.be/4og8wG8VQWM
- nielsbot 3y ago
  Smithsonian Magazine has an article about that angle "One Man Invented Two of the Deadliest Substances of the 20th Century" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-man-two-deadly-substances-20th-century-180963269/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-man-two-deadly...

justinator 3y ago

3M knew about the negative "externalities" of PFAS 50 years ago, they just decide YOU didn't nee to know. https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p... It's the same with oil companies having studies on climate change privately, while discounting climate scientists publicly. Profits over People is the way of Capitalism!

no_butterscotch 3y ago
I'm always surprised by this when it's "50 years ago". Certainly the scientists and analysts at 3M who collected and analyzed the data would have thereafter known of it's extremely harmful effects. And I don't mean to open this up to "heh yea well they made bank!" I don't think they did relatively speaking. My main question, is that certainly those scientists would have been advising their friends and families to stay away from X, Y, and Z products because they contain PFAS?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  It's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of things when you get a big payday by doing so. This is why analyzing clinical trial data is so obscenely hard. There are bad actors, there are liars, and there are scientists who are really, really hoping to achieve a breakthrough. All of them are liable to end up putting forth bad information.
  - justinator 3y ago
    > It's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of things when you get a big payday by doing so. Is it easy to turn a blind eye, when factory workers in your own company were dying, or is what we're describing called at best criminal, and at worst psychotic? They were literally just dumping these chemicals down the river. They were fined a small fraction of their profits (of billions) and told pretty please to not do it again. This is obvious corruption on so many levels.
    - 3y ago

aio2 3y ago

Yes, "We've" figured out the dangers of PFAS just now, but when companies started producing them back over 50 years ago, company 3M knew it (to say the least) wasn't good. I'm pretty sure the scientists who dealt with these chemicals even warned against using it, but some higher ups still let it pass

sacnoradhq 3y ago

Worrying about aspartame is bikeshedding about minutia. The arbitrary grandfathering of thousands of chemicals under TSCA and lack of precautionary principle are far bigger risks to public health in America. Multiple companies knew about the health dangers of certain "forever chemicals" including PFAS and intentionally did nothing because money. It's a repeat of the cigarette debacle.