3 ms·
The term of art is “persistent organic pollutants” which I think falls on the diametric opposite end of the spectrum: it’s far too clinical to covey any informa
by throwup238 2y ago
The term of art is “persistent organic pollutants” which I think falls on the diametric opposite end of the spectrum: it’s far too clinical to covey any information to laymen. “Forever chemicals” at least somewhat conveys the core problem to the masses.
- kragen 2y agotaken literally, though, 'forever chemicals' would seem to apply equally well to helium, neon, xenon, zircon, alumina, and maybe silica silica could even be described as a 'carcinogenic forever chemical'. inhaling silica dust is almost certainly worse for you than inhaling teflon dust. should people who want to avoid forever chemicals move someplace without naturally occurring silica? to the extent that they're actually 'forever' they're pretty inert and not much of a problem. the likely pollution problem is not teflon (though maybe it behaves differently as nanoparticles) but the much less inert species like pfoa, which have significant toxicity precisely because they're less stable