6 ms·

EPA plans to limit or eliminate salmon-killing tire chemical found in Alaska

133 points by goplayoutside 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
owenversteeg 3y ago
It’s always interesting when you have a highly effective chemical that vastly improves performance or lifespan of something and it turns out it gives everyone cancer or seriously damages the environment. Asbestos is an amazing insulator, CFCs are amazing refrigerants, TBT-based antifouling is like magic, but they all have devastating health or environmental consequences. The other day I helped haul a boat out of the water that had illegally used TBT-based antifouling. Holy fucking shit, it was like magic. All the other boats I had hauled out had modern antifoulings and significant marine growth, which significantly impacts performance in the water. That boat was practically spotless. The difference was immediately obvious. Any boat owner knows the increase in speed and fuel economy from a clean hull is massive - and now you can’t get anything nearly as effective as TBT. In the US it’s a felony and a quarter million dollar fine and rightly so, it’s toxic to marine life. Does anyone know how effective 6PPD is? Would tires without it be significantly worse?
- signalToNose 3y ago
  Micro plastic from tires is one of the biggest sources of micro plastic. And its quite toxic too. We need less cars in urban environments
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Synthetic textiles also produce a lot of microplastics in the form of indoor dust.
  - Racing0461 3y ago
    minute amount of microplastics seems like a worthwhile tradeoff to getting stabbed by a drug addict on a bus.
- herbst 3y ago
  Is it really about being better or about being very cost effective but poisonious options?
  - owenversteeg 3y ago
    In a lot of these cases yes, it is truly the best chemical for the job at any price. I’m not aware of any nontoxic antifoulings that come anywhere close to TBT. If you produced anything nearly as good you could very easily sell a few gallons for _ten thousand dollars_ and I’m just talking what some small scale fisherman or guy with a boat will pay, simply because it will save them more in fuel+paint+haulouts, not even some crazy performance yachts or whatever which would pay FAR more.
    - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
      You could sell it at thousands of dollars per gallon, sure, but could you sell it at a price which would support 30 years of mitigation of its effects on the marine ecosystems where the boats go? If it was popular enough to go on enough boats to kill off ten-thousand-year-old coral reefs, could you possibly charge enough to reverse that? If you don't pay for that, you're not charging the full cost of the chemical and instead stealing those funds from the rest of society.
  - ryukoposting 3y ago
    Both, sort of. TBT is effective because nothing grows on it. It's kinda like deet. Being bad for the environment isn't just an unintended side effect, it's a direct contributor to its effectiveness.
    - meepmorp 3y ago
      DEET isn't especially toxic, and while it does have negative effects on some marine life, doesn't bioaccumulate. Also, DEET doesn't rely on toxicity for its effects - it (probably) works by interfering with mosquitoes' sense of smell, and possibly also being noxious should a mosquito actually land on someone. Which is to say, DEET is not a huge problem for the environment and any impact on the environment is not part of its effectiveness.
- xoa 3y ago
  Yeah externalities in particular, like with CFCs or tributyltin, mess up incentives. A lot of individual benefit can be derived from pushing costs onto the general world and when the cost is individually hard to observe and/or spread out over time/space but magnified across massive numbers in total it can go on a long time. That said sometimes it's only "temporary" (which granted can be years or decades) until R&D catches up and figures out alternatives that still work but are just plain better. Like: >Any boat owner knows the increase in speed and fuel economy from a clean hull is massive - and now you can’t get anything nearly as effective as TBT. As far as I know there's been a lot of interesting progress on alternatives in just the last decade, even if that's not at all evenly distributed yet. I remember reading "Fouling Release Coatings: A Nontoxic Alternative to Biocidal Antifouling Coatings" [0] a decade ago as an interesting overview, and looking around seems like there has been significant progress since then. Advances in fluoropolymer brushes [1] looks pretty promising for example. Some of these may be more costly, but again the issue with the originals being "cheaper" is that they don't actually price in their true costs. That said it would probably be more effective if there was a solid international framework and norms so that bans could be better coupled with future capital support for transition to more effective options once they come out (or best of all of course if they already exist). Including dealing with incentives around IP. If some new non/low-toxicity coatings appear that is easy for rich country users to immediately apply but folks in the Caribbean can't afford saying not merely "TBT is banned" but "we'll arrange you to get this replacement for cheap/free" might significantly reduce/eliminate ban evasion. 0: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr200350v https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr200350v | https://sci-hub.st/10.1021/cr200350v https://sci-hub.st/10.1021/cr200350v 1: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b00695 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b00695
  - jabl 3y ago
    Newer review of silicone based FRC's: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03926 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03926
  - hedora 3y ago
    At this point, there are very, very few new toxic products like this that are actually necessary. TBT was only in use for 40 years, ending in about 1980. I'm sure whatever paint naval vessels used during the run-up to WWII is still good enough for most use cases today. Similarly, I can't figure out why today's paper straws are soaked in PFAS instead of being coated in food-grade wax, as they were during the ~ 80 years before plastic straws were invented. Wax coated paper straws suck, but then, so do pfas coated paper straws, so that's not the reason.
- jabl 3y ago
  Of course, the copper based antifouling that replaced TBT isn't exactly benign either. Though the new generation of siloxane based antifouling that work by being slippery and hard for organisms to attach rather than being poisonous seems promising. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03926 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03926
  - hinkley 3y ago
    When I last went in for brake pads I got to chatting with the manager and he said they’ve phased copper out of brake pads for environmental concerns. This EPA announcement says reduce to <5% by 2021, which to me means there wasn’t a little copper but rather it was a major ingredient. https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative If the copper is bound to the hull paint well enough, maybe it’s fine? Or maybe fine in fresh water.
    - jabl 3y ago
      > If the copper is bound to the hull paint well enough, maybe it’s fine? Or maybe fine in fresh water. If it's bound up in the paint matrix it's kind of hard for it to poison those pesky critters, no? AFAIU all biocide based anti fouling paints work by being more or less ablative, continually exposing fresh biocide to the surface.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  > it’s toxic to marine life I mean... working as intended? It's marine life that makes up the growth.
  - reportingsjr 3y ago
    The intent isn't to destroy marine life. The intent is to prevent things from sticking to and growing on the bottom of ships.
    - moffkalast 3y ago
      ... by destroying marine life before it can stick on. The oldest antifouling were copper plates as they're an effective biocide. Lots of paints still use it today.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Plastic could be a similar case. Microplastics in the air and drinking water are possibly a health hazard, yet biodegradable alternatives are more expensive or not as durable. Similar points could apply to chemicals like Bisphenol A and PFAS. A lot of substances are highly suspicious but aren't phased out because they can't be replaced easily.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hinkley 3y ago
    Many types of plastic are also sponges for other nasty chemicals, like PCBs. So if you eat plastic from your environment you might not just be getting a dose of plastic. You might be getting a little transformer fluid, transmission fluid or dioxin in the bargain.
- bilsbie 3y ago
  Have we tried periodically charging the hull the repel barnacles? Or perhaps encourage a beneficial species to grow on the hill that won’t impede water flow (Eg special bacteria)
  - hinkley 3y ago
    There was a Canadian scientist in the 70’s and 80’s who thought he’d figured out how to electroplate limestone out of seawater. I just a couple months ago found a little documentary from the 00’s that said someone was still giving him money to try to built artificial atolls somewhere out off of Madagascar. At https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative some point between the two I came across someone who thought that what was really happening is that the electricity attracted coral polyps. So I’m wondering if charging the hull would cause very different problems? But strictly speaking don’t sacrificial anodes already charge the hull? Doesn’t seem to slow them down much.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > interesting when you have a highly effective chemical that vastly improves performance or lifespan of something and it turns out it gives everyone cancer or seriously damages the environment There might be a causative link. Life is parsimonious. If there is a niche, it will tend to exploit it. That means taking advantage of as many chemical pathways as possible. Effective materials alter their environment—that is what makes them effective. But when released, uncontrolled, to disrupt the broader status quo, it follows that they are likely—somewhere—to alter a pathway critical to a life form. The solution is containment. Effective materials should be shielded and reclaimed wherever possible. We know we can do this, because we do for chemicals toxic or very valuable to humans.
dmm 3y ago
When something is labeled "BPA Free!" it means that the BPA has been replaced by something even worse, like BPS. Is there a mechanism to prevent something similar in this case?
- willis936 3y ago
  Using what's simple and what you know is safe: 304 stainless steel. Some more details after I wanted to check my own assumptions [0]. This paper is an awesome read. Chromium comes with the asterisk that hexavalent chromium is quite dangerous even in small quantities. I haven't found anything on the form of Chromium leeched from (relatively) cold temperature cooking or room temperature containing. Everything I've seen is in the context of worker exposure during hot work (welding). 0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284091/
  - glimshe 3y ago
    Glass, for containers.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - hedora 3y ago
    Stainless leaks a tiny amount of chromium when brand new. The latter stages of manufacturing bind in or eliminate most of the nasty stuff. After that, the release follows an exponential decay (unlike with plastics, where once the outer layer is abraded, leaching speeds up).
  - coryrc 3y ago
    I was recently reading why stainless things have a prop 65 warning, and it seemed people once believed they needed it because of the chromium, but a ruling said it was no longer needed because it wasn't in hexavalent form. Might help if you wanted to look into it further.
  - amluto 3y ago
mike_hock 3y ago
So that's why wild salmon are harvested in Alaska. Easier to catch cause they're already dead from 6PPD.
bilsbie 3y ago
It’s time we rethought tires from first principles. I have to think we can do better. Why live in fear of nails and spend a thousand dollars every 20-40k miles?
- nielsbot 3y ago
  Michelin tried.. (is still trying?) with the “tweel” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel
  - hedora 3y ago
    I used to get 50k mile michelins, and they typically exceeded that. They don’t make them for my EV though, The OEM (bridgestone) ones last under 10K miles for me, and are $1200-$1500 a set installed. Nails are obviously an issue with both, but I’m going to avoid cars with uncommon tire geometries moving forward! (edit: bridgestone tires. I had the wrong brand before)
    - galangalalgol 3y ago
      What is uncommon about the geometry of your current tires?
      - hedora 3y ago
        They are extra narrow. Also, I made a typo above. The terrible ones are by bridgestone (down to metal bands in 9k miles). Apparently, a few other options are available in Europe, and a subset of them are imported into the US: https://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17880 https://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17880 Will need to look into this in approximately 10 months, since I put new tires on last week.
        amluto 3y ago
        I drive a RWD EV (about the worst possible configuration for tire longevity) and I get much better tire life than that. Are you picking unusually sticky race tires? Is your alignment wrong? Are you flooring it from every stop sign because it’s fun? Are you under inflating the tires?
hedora 3y ago
Despite my normal skepticism of such things, this seems to be an example of most parties behaving well. 6PPD isn’t toxic to fish, but it transforms to something that is as the tires wear. This seems like an honest mistake on the part of the industry. Many manufacturers already voluntarily phased it out based on early scientific results. The replacements are used as food preservatives for human edible products, and are presumably mostly fine. The regulators are swiftly banning 6PPD anyway (as they should). Hopefully, moving forward, the regulators will further mandate that manufacturers measure the environmental impact of their newly proposed tire dust (instead of tire ingredients) moving forward.
pard68 3y ago
I'm always skeptical of these types of things without a few decades of review. "It's safe" just means the cancer it causes take 30 years to be realized.
amelius 3y ago
Meanwhile Teflon™ still kills birds. https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware-bakeware/safety/bird-safety https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware...
- ars 3y ago
  So does oil. All those guidelines apply to cooking with oil on plain metal as well. At high temperatures oil is worse than Teflon for birds.
wkat4242 3y ago
Would they do the same if it didn't involve a delicious and commercially-interesting fish?

133 points by goplayoutside 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

It’s always interesting when you have a highly effective chemical that vastly improves performance or lifespan of something and it turns out it gives everyone cancer or seriously damages the environment. Asbestos is an amazing insulator, CFCs are amazing refrigerants, TBT-based antifouling is like magic, but they all have devastating health or environmental consequences. The other day I helped haul a boat out of the water that had illegally used TBT-based antifouling. Holy fucking shit, it was like magic. All the other boats I had hauled out had modern antifoulings and significant marine growth, which significantly impacts performance in the water. That boat was practically spotless. The difference was immediately obvious. Any boat owner knows the increase in speed and fuel economy from a clean hull is massive - and now you can’t get anything nearly as effective as TBT. In the US it’s a felony and a quarter million dollar fine and rightly so, it’s toxic to marine life. Does anyone know how effective 6PPD is? Would tires without it be significantly worse?

signalToNose 3y ago
Micro plastic from tires is one of the biggest sources of micro plastic. And its quite toxic too. We need less cars in urban environments
- cubefox 3y ago
  Synthetic textiles also produce a lot of microplastics in the form of indoor dust.
- Racing0461 3y ago
  minute amount of microplastics seems like a worthwhile tradeoff to getting stabbed by a drug addict on a bus.
herbst 3y ago
Is it really about being better or about being very cost effective but poisonious options?
- owenversteeg 3y ago
  In a lot of these cases yes, it is truly the best chemical for the job at any price. I’m not aware of any nontoxic antifoulings that come anywhere close to TBT. If you produced anything nearly as good you could very easily sell a few gallons for _ten thousand dollars_ and I’m just talking what some small scale fisherman or guy with a boat will pay, simply because it will save them more in fuel+paint+haulouts, not even some crazy performance yachts or whatever which would pay FAR more.
  - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
    You could sell it at thousands of dollars per gallon, sure, but could you sell it at a price which would support 30 years of mitigation of its effects on the marine ecosystems where the boats go? If it was popular enough to go on enough boats to kill off ten-thousand-year-old coral reefs, could you possibly charge enough to reverse that? If you don't pay for that, you're not charging the full cost of the chemical and instead stealing those funds from the rest of society.
- ryukoposting 3y ago
  Both, sort of. TBT is effective because nothing grows on it. It's kinda like deet. Being bad for the environment isn't just an unintended side effect, it's a direct contributor to its effectiveness.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    DEET isn't especially toxic, and while it does have negative effects on some marine life, doesn't bioaccumulate. Also, DEET doesn't rely on toxicity for its effects - it (probably) works by interfering with mosquitoes' sense of smell, and possibly also being noxious should a mosquito actually land on someone. Which is to say, DEET is not a huge problem for the environment and any impact on the environment is not part of its effectiveness.
xoa 3y ago
Yeah externalities in particular, like with CFCs or tributyltin, mess up incentives. A lot of individual benefit can be derived from pushing costs onto the general world and when the cost is individually hard to observe and/or spread out over time/space but magnified across massive numbers in total it can go on a long time. That said sometimes it's only "temporary" (which granted can be years or decades) until R&D catches up and figures out alternatives that still work but are just plain better. Like: >Any boat owner knows the increase in speed and fuel economy from a clean hull is massive - and now you can’t get anything nearly as effective as TBT. As far as I know there's been a lot of interesting progress on alternatives in just the last decade, even if that's not at all evenly distributed yet. I remember reading "Fouling Release Coatings: A Nontoxic Alternative to Biocidal Antifouling Coatings" [0] a decade ago as an interesting overview, and looking around seems like there has been significant progress since then. Advances in fluoropolymer brushes [1] looks pretty promising for example. Some of these may be more costly, but again the issue with the originals being "cheaper" is that they don't actually price in their true costs. That said it would probably be more effective if there was a solid international framework and norms so that bans could be better coupled with future capital support for transition to more effective options once they come out (or best of all of course if they already exist). Including dealing with incentives around IP. If some new non/low-toxicity coatings appear that is easy for rich country users to immediately apply but folks in the Caribbean can't afford saying not merely "TBT is banned" but "we'll arrange you to get this replacement for cheap/free" might significantly reduce/eliminate ban evasion. 0: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr200350v https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr200350v | https://sci-hub.st/10.1021/cr200350v https://sci-hub.st/10.1021/cr200350v 1: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b00695 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b00695
- jabl 3y ago
  Newer review of silicone based FRC's: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03926 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03926
- hedora 3y ago
  At this point, there are very, very few new toxic products like this that are actually necessary. TBT was only in use for 40 years, ending in about 1980. I'm sure whatever paint naval vessels used during the run-up to WWII is still good enough for most use cases today. Similarly, I can't figure out why today's paper straws are soaked in PFAS instead of being coated in food-grade wax, as they were during the ~ 80 years before plastic straws were invented. Wax coated paper straws suck, but then, so do pfas coated paper straws, so that's not the reason.
jabl 3y ago
Of course, the copper based antifouling that replaced TBT isn't exactly benign either. Though the new generation of siloxane based antifouling that work by being slippery and hard for organisms to attach rather than being poisonous seems promising. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03926 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03926
- hinkley 3y ago
  When I last went in for brake pads I got to chatting with the manager and he said they’ve phased copper out of brake pads for environmental concerns. This EPA announcement says reduce to <5% by 2021, which to me means there wasn’t a little copper but rather it was a major ingredient. https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative If the copper is bound to the hull paint well enough, maybe it’s fine? Or maybe fine in fresh water.
  - jabl 3y ago
    > If the copper is bound to the hull paint well enough, maybe it’s fine? Or maybe fine in fresh water. If it's bound up in the paint matrix it's kind of hard for it to poison those pesky critters, no? AFAIU all biocide based anti fouling paints work by being more or less ablative, continually exposing fresh biocide to the surface.
moffkalast 3y ago
> it’s toxic to marine life I mean... working as intended? It's marine life that makes up the growth.
- reportingsjr 3y ago
  The intent isn't to destroy marine life. The intent is to prevent things from sticking to and growing on the bottom of ships.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    ... by destroying marine life before it can stick on. The oldest antifouling were copper plates as they're an effective biocide. Lots of paints still use it today.
cubefox 3y ago
Plastic could be a similar case. Microplastics in the air and drinking water are possibly a health hazard, yet biodegradable alternatives are more expensive or not as durable. Similar points could apply to chemicals like Bisphenol A and PFAS. A lot of substances are highly suspicious but aren't phased out because they can't be replaced easily.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hinkley 3y ago
  Many types of plastic are also sponges for other nasty chemicals, like PCBs. So if you eat plastic from your environment you might not just be getting a dose of plastic. You might be getting a little transformer fluid, transmission fluid or dioxin in the bargain.
bilsbie 3y ago
Have we tried periodically charging the hull the repel barnacles? Or perhaps encourage a beneficial species to grow on the hill that won’t impede water flow (Eg special bacteria)
- hinkley 3y ago
  There was a Canadian scientist in the 70’s and 80’s who thought he’d figured out how to electroplate limestone out of seawater. I just a couple months ago found a little documentary from the 00’s that said someone was still giving him money to try to built artificial atolls somewhere out off of Madagascar. At https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative some point between the two I came across someone who thought that what was really happening is that the electricity attracted coral polyps. So I’m wondering if charging the hull would cause very different problems? But strictly speaking don’t sacrificial anodes already charge the hull? Doesn’t seem to slow them down much.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> interesting when you have a highly effective chemical that vastly improves performance or lifespan of something and it turns out it gives everyone cancer or seriously damages the environment There might be a causative link. Life is parsimonious. If there is a niche, it will tend to exploit it. That means taking advantage of as many chemical pathways as possible. Effective materials alter their environment—that is what makes them effective. But when released, uncontrolled, to disrupt the broader status quo, it follows that they are likely—somewhere—to alter a pathway critical to a life form. The solution is containment. Effective materials should be shielded and reclaimed wherever possible. We know we can do this, because we do for chemicals toxic or very valuable to humans.

dmm 3y ago

When something is labeled "BPA Free!" it means that the BPA has been replaced by something even worse, like BPS. Is there a mechanism to prevent something similar in this case?

willis936 3y ago
Using what's simple and what you know is safe: 304 stainless steel. Some more details after I wanted to check my own assumptions [0]. This paper is an awesome read. Chromium comes with the asterisk that hexavalent chromium is quite dangerous even in small quantities. I haven't found anything on the form of Chromium leeched from (relatively) cold temperature cooking or room temperature containing. Everything I've seen is in the context of worker exposure during hot work (welding). 0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284091/
- glimshe 3y ago
  Glass, for containers.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- hedora 3y ago
  Stainless leaks a tiny amount of chromium when brand new. The latter stages of manufacturing bind in or eliminate most of the nasty stuff. After that, the release follows an exponential decay (unlike with plastics, where once the outer layer is abraded, leaching speeds up).
- coryrc 3y ago
  I was recently reading why stainless things have a prop 65 warning, and it seemed people once believed they needed it because of the chromium, but a ruling said it was no longer needed because it wasn't in hexavalent form. Might help if you wanted to look into it further.
- amluto 3y ago

mike_hock 3y ago

So that's why wild salmon are harvested in Alaska. Easier to catch cause they're already dead from 6PPD.

bilsbie 3y ago

It’s time we rethought tires from first principles. I have to think we can do better. Why live in fear of nails and spend a thousand dollars every 20-40k miles?

nielsbot 3y ago
Michelin tried.. (is still trying?) with the “tweel” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel
- hedora 3y ago
  I used to get 50k mile michelins, and they typically exceeded that. They don’t make them for my EV though, The OEM (bridgestone) ones last under 10K miles for me, and are $1200-$1500 a set installed. Nails are obviously an issue with both, but I’m going to avoid cars with uncommon tire geometries moving forward! (edit: bridgestone tires. I had the wrong brand before)
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    What is uncommon about the geometry of your current tires?
    - hedora 3y ago
      They are extra narrow. Also, I made a typo above. The terrible ones are by bridgestone (down to metal bands in 9k miles). Apparently, a few other options are available in Europe, and a subset of them are imported into the US: https://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17880 https://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17880 Will need to look into this in approximately 10 months, since I put new tires on last week.
      - amluto 3y ago
        I drive a RWD EV (about the worst possible configuration for tire longevity) and I get much better tire life than that. Are you picking unusually sticky race tires? Is your alignment wrong? Are you flooring it from every stop sign because it’s fun? Are you under inflating the tires?

hedora 3y ago

Despite my normal skepticism of such things, this seems to be an example of most parties behaving well. 6PPD isn’t toxic to fish, but it transforms to something that is as the tires wear. This seems like an honest mistake on the part of the industry. Many manufacturers already voluntarily phased it out based on early scientific results. The replacements are used as food preservatives for human edible products, and are presumably mostly fine. The regulators are swiftly banning 6PPD anyway (as they should). Hopefully, moving forward, the regulators will further mandate that manufacturers measure the environmental impact of their newly proposed tire dust (instead of tire ingredients) moving forward.

pard68 3y ago

I'm always skeptical of these types of things without a few decades of review. "It's safe" just means the cancer it causes take 30 years to be realized.

amelius 3y ago

Meanwhile Teflon™ still kills birds. https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware-bakeware/safety/bird-safety https://www.teflon.com/en/consumers/teflon-coatings-cookware...

ars 3y ago
So does oil. All those guidelines apply to cooking with oil on plain metal as well. At high temperatures oil is worse than Teflon for birds.

wkat4242 3y ago

Would they do the same if it didn't involve a delicious and commercially-interesting fish?