4 ms·

They’re used for: - lab equipment since they’re extremely non reactive - semiconductor manufacturing for the same reason as above - coatings inside engines/h

They’re used for: - lab equipment since they’re extremely non reactive - semiconductor manufacturing for the same reason as above - coatings inside engines/hot, high wear areas, far prolonging their lives - rubber seals preventing chemical leaks (oil, gas, antifreeze, etc) … the list goes on. Yeah they’re a non stick coating for pans but they’re also used in an incredible number of other places.

thsksbd 3y ago
Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives. Some industries really dont have alternatives. How about we get rid of nonstick pans, gore Tex jackets and significantly reduce fluorine chemisty?
- Vecr 3y ago
  > Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives. Like what? I don't think you can turn PEEK or UHWMPE into a rubber like substance...
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    None of the materials you listed are fluorinated polymers. EDIT: If you meant that I cant turn PEEK into a plastic (as in having plasticity) - sure. But read my comment carefully. Im not saying fluorinated polymers don't have their use cases. Im just saying that for many (but not all!) applications of perfluorinated polymers, there are alternative ways of doing things. For example wool and stainless steel make excellent alternatives for jackets and frying pans. Should nuclear (re)processing plants ditch teflon when dealing with UF6? Probably not. Should my gas fittings need teflon tape? No, alternatives exist.
flagrant_taco 3y ago
Justifying the damage caused by their production and use by pointing to the usefulness of the final product seems very risky. There are plenty of ends we might value, but they don't inherently justify the means.
- nightski 3y ago
  I'd argue though that the customers are just as guilty/responsible as the company making the product that they demand/buy and maybe they should share in the financial burden of damages if that is the path we are on.
  - hedora 3y ago
    This would be true if the products were clearly labelled, and safer existing alternatives weren’t pulled off the market by centralized decision makers at large companies. As it is, if you buy a “ceramic” pan, you get some teflon knockoff instead of Le Creuset style stuff.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    I'm not sure how that would work exactly, but sure if customers were properly informed and knew what they were buying had such bad side effects some of the blame would land on them. That'd be a hard sell though since it seems like part of the issue was manufacturers burying research and denying any knowledge of problems while selling these chemicals as a miracle cure of sorts

thsksbd 3y ago

Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives. Some industries really dont have alternatives. How about we get rid of nonstick pans, gore Tex jackets and significantly reduce fluorine chemisty?

Vecr 3y ago
> Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives. Like what? I don't think you can turn PEEK or UHWMPE into a rubber like substance...
- thsksbd 3y ago
  None of the materials you listed are fluorinated polymers. EDIT: If you meant that I cant turn PEEK into a plastic (as in having plasticity) - sure. But read my comment carefully. Im not saying fluorinated polymers don't have their use cases. Im just saying that for many (but not all!) applications of perfluorinated polymers, there are alternative ways of doing things. For example wool and stainless steel make excellent alternatives for jackets and frying pans. Should nuclear (re)processing plants ditch teflon when dealing with UF6? Probably not. Should my gas fittings need teflon tape? No, alternatives exist.

flagrant_taco 3y ago

Justifying the damage caused by their production and use by pointing to the usefulness of the final product seems very risky. There are plenty of ends we might value, but they don't inherently justify the means.

nightski 3y ago
I'd argue though that the customers are just as guilty/responsible as the company making the product that they demand/buy and maybe they should share in the financial burden of damages if that is the path we are on.
- hedora 3y ago
  This would be true if the products were clearly labelled, and safer existing alternatives weren’t pulled off the market by centralized decision makers at large companies. As it is, if you buy a “ceramic” pan, you get some teflon knockoff instead of Le Creuset style stuff.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  I'm not sure how that would work exactly, but sure if customers were properly informed and knew what they were buying had such bad side effects some of the blame would land on them. That'd be a hard sell though since it seems like part of the issue was manufacturers burying research and denying any knowledge of problems while selling these chemicals as a miracle cure of sorts