3 ms·

Let me preface this with: I'm not advocating for continuing to use pfas. That being said, why are we still calling them forever chemicals? Didn't we come up wi

by tw04 3y ago

Let me preface this with: I'm not advocating for continuing to use pfas. That being said, why are we still calling them forever chemicals? Didn't we come up with a way to break down the majority of existing pfas already? https://www.verywellhealth.com/cleaning-pfas-from-water-6500768 https://www.verywellhealth.com/cleaning-pfas-from-water-6500...

chmod600 3y ago
"Forever" is understood to be an exaggeration. And even if we are finding new artificial ways to break it down, the fact remains that there's a lot of it out in nature now and natural processes take a long time to break them down.
mjhay 3y ago
PFAS exists everywhere in the biosphere. It's impossible to clean all that up.
- themaninthedark 3y ago
  Mercury exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. Lead exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. Freon exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. Plastic exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. CO2 exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. If we declare the situation hopeless then nothing will change.
  - dmm 3y ago
    I think they were explaining the "Forever chemical" name, not giving up.
abeppu 3y ago
That article specifically discusses water filtration plants that are handling concentrated PFAS after filtering them away from drinking water. That the small fraction of them flowing through water treatment facilities can be broken down with special handling (which that article also says will not be ready for the market for some time) does not negate the fact that in the environment / our bodies, they are extremely slow to break down. I think it's obvious even to laypeople that the label is not literally true (nothing lasts forever), but it's still an apt descriptor. Even if municipal water can filter them out and break them down, these chemicals will be literally in our bodies and environments for the rest of our lives.
zucked 3y ago
As others have alluded to, this works fine for municipal drinking water, but we're finding PFAS in our food supply now (they're in lakes, streams, rivers, vegetables, meat, etc). We cannot feasibly clean all the surface water and soil, so the best idea is to stop introducing them in the first place.
loeg 3y ago
> why are we still calling them forever chemicals? Because it's a useful political slogan for the anti-PFAS advocates.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
Because it bio-accumulates and doesn't break down, and there's no way to remove it from entire aquifers or a huge chunk of land and the stuff is still leeching into aquifers? How are small towns supposed to pay for these treatment processes? How are individual home owners, since in many areas everyone is on a well? What are all the marine critters (and everything that eats them, and everything that eats those critters, etc.) supposed to do? All so McDonalds can make a Big Mack container that doesn't get soggy?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by tw04 3y ago

chmod600 3y ago

"Forever" is understood to be an exaggeration. And even if we are finding new artificial ways to break it down, the fact remains that there's a lot of it out in nature now and natural processes take a long time to break them down.

mjhay 3y ago

PFAS exists everywhere in the biosphere. It's impossible to clean all that up.

themaninthedark 3y ago
Mercury exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. Lead exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. Freon exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. Plastic exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. CO2 exists everywhere in the biosphere, it is impossible to clean up. If we declare the situation hopeless then nothing will change.
- dmm 3y ago
  I think they were explaining the "Forever chemical" name, not giving up.

abeppu 3y ago

That article specifically discusses water filtration plants that are handling concentrated PFAS after filtering them away from drinking water. That the small fraction of them flowing through water treatment facilities can be broken down with special handling (which that article also says will not be ready for the market for some time) does not negate the fact that in the environment / our bodies, they are extremely slow to break down. I think it's obvious even to laypeople that the label is not literally true (nothing lasts forever), but it's still an apt descriptor. Even if municipal water can filter them out and break them down, these chemicals will be literally in our bodies and environments for the rest of our lives.

zucked 3y ago

As others have alluded to, this works fine for municipal drinking water, but we're finding PFAS in our food supply now (they're in lakes, streams, rivers, vegetables, meat, etc). We cannot feasibly clean all the surface water and soil, so the best idea is to stop introducing them in the first place.

loeg 3y ago

> why are we still calling them forever chemicals? Because it's a useful political slogan for the anti-PFAS advocates.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

Because it bio-accumulates and doesn't break down, and there's no way to remove it from entire aquifers or a huge chunk of land and the stuff is still leeching into aquifers? How are small towns supposed to pay for these treatment processes? How are individual home owners, since in many areas everyone is on a well? What are all the marine critters (and everything that eats them, and everything that eats those critters, etc.) supposed to do? All so McDonalds can make a Big Mack container that doesn't get soggy?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]