3 ms·

All PFAS is not created equal, the phrase 'pfas bad' is about as illustrative as 'nuclear bad' since pfas molecular half-lives range over 10 orders of magnitude

All PFAS is not created equal, the phrase 'pfas bad' is about as illustrative as 'nuclear bad' since pfas molecular half-lives range over 10 orders of magnitude in time (and probably more as people explore femtosecond chemistry ). Half of new pharmaceuticals are pfas for example, lipitor, xanax, flonase, etc.

hnta2023 3y ago
but in this particular case: The EPA move came after the agency determined that types of PFAS created during the fluorination process “are highly toxic and present unreasonable risks that cannot be prevented other than through prohibition of manufacture.” so using some legal loophole to work around the EPA in this case seems pretty "bad", no?
- hnta2023 3y ago
  just to argue against myself: from inhance's website: When Inhance first became aware of the potential for fluorination to unintentionally form miniscule quantities of certain PFAS impurities, the Company researched and developed treatment modifications to reduce these impurities in most instances to undetectable levels in the plastic packaging articles it fluorinates. Overall, Inhance’s treatment modifications have reduced unintentional formation of these impurities by more than 90%. To the extent any PFAS remains present, independent testing has verified that in treating 25 million pounds of plastic packaging articles annually, Inhance’s fluorination process forms less than 15 grams – equivalent to the weight of a few grapes – of PFAS impurities. That amount represents less than 0.00000002% of the approximately 85,000 tons of PFAS generated domestically by other industries every year. Nonetheless, Inhance continues to conduct research and identify additional treatment modifications to further reduce and eliminate PFAS impurities from the fluorination process. obviously they have a lot of bias and financial interest in this topic but it would be interesting to learn what the real deal is

hnta2023 3y ago

but in this particular case: The EPA move came after the agency determined that types of PFAS created during the fluorination process “are highly toxic and present unreasonable risks that cannot be prevented other than through prohibition of manufacture.” so using some legal loophole to work around the EPA in this case seems pretty "bad", no?

hnta2023 3y ago
just to argue against myself: from inhance's website: When Inhance first became aware of the potential for fluorination to unintentionally form miniscule quantities of certain PFAS impurities, the Company researched and developed treatment modifications to reduce these impurities in most instances to undetectable levels in the plastic packaging articles it fluorinates. Overall, Inhance’s treatment modifications have reduced unintentional formation of these impurities by more than 90%. To the extent any PFAS remains present, independent testing has verified that in treating 25 million pounds of plastic packaging articles annually, Inhance’s fluorination process forms less than 15 grams – equivalent to the weight of a few grapes – of PFAS impurities. That amount represents less than 0.00000002% of the approximately 85,000 tons of PFAS generated domestically by other industries every year. Nonetheless, Inhance continues to conduct research and identify additional treatment modifications to further reduce and eliminate PFAS impurities from the fluorination process. obviously they have a lot of bias and financial interest in this topic but it would be interesting to learn what the real deal is