8 ms·
Cleaning up? With what? We've barely figured out how to even detect a tiny portion of PFAS, and even then can't quantify it, we don't have any way of removing
by tomxor 3y ago
Cleaning up? With what?
We've barely figured out how to even detect a tiny portion of PFAS, and even then can't quantify it, we don't have any way of removing PFAS specifically, the best general purpose technology we have is reverse osmosis which is not economical. If it's in the ground water it will be in the drinking water.
What we need to do (as in the human race because this stuff just propagates around the globe), is to stop manufacturing them, immediately, because this stuff accumulates. The mentality of "shoot and ask questions later" in the name of industry, technological progress and "my wallet" needs to stop. Prevention is the answer, not more technology to fix a technology that should have already have been deprecated over a decade ago - and to be clear i mean all PFAS, until individual formulas can be proven ecologically and biologically safe.
To prevent history from repeating itself new chemicals beyond the thousands of PFAS should go through ecological and biological testing before allowing them to be manufactured at scale and released into the environment. In the same way we test products for human consumption, we need to learn that the environment is an extension of us, and if we disregard it, it will come back to bite us.
- myshpa 3y agoWhat we need to do is to prevent such occurrences from happening by enforcing regulations that require companies to demonstrate the safety of their products before manufacturing them for extended periods, instead of concealing data and facing minimal consequences.
- tomxor 3y ago> concealing data and facing minimal consequences. Yes, the delay in punishment is a huge problem. 3M is facing fines easily pushing them into bankruptcy... so even when the punishment is severe enough, it's too late, huge damage has already been done. The problem is that even this is not a disincentive, whether or not they know it, executives use these artificial constructs "companies" as vehicles to extract money, the smart ones play hot potato to prevent personal liability once they see what's ahead, instead of blow the whistle - it's immoral, I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps the only way is education, even MBAs need to be made to appreciate the value of environment and the potential ecological and biological consequences of their negligence - I think most of them probably down play it even in their own mind, as a kind of "gotta break some eggs to make an omlet" mentality, that there is always an environmental cost, but lacking the historical knowledge and imagination of how such costs can vary qualitatively and quantitatively with orders of magnitude in separation.
- Clent 3y agoUntil one can lose their MBA for an ethical violation, nothing will change. I trust a lawyer more than a CEO because a lawyer has ethical obligations.
- autoexec 3y agoAnd even lawyers get away with far far more than they should without losing their license to practice. It seems like accountability is at an all time low everywhere and we're all paying the price.