3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
reuters.com
3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
1–10 of 423 posts
Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
#2Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
#3Ideally, before mass producing alternatives, they "close the loop" on replacements life cycles. Otherwise we'll just be reading a new variant of this article in 20 years.
Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
#4I understood leach also cannot be transformed when I reaches the environment, and that water treatment plants --- when effective --- are in constant trouble because of it. Can someone clarify?
Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
#5I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health.
3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack.
3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.
Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
#6I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.
As a chemist I am not sure it's even possible to create matching alternatives. The stronger links inside molecules and outside, the more they are "alien" to life and environment. While reducing their usage is a good strategy, an outright ban strips technology of useful materials.
Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
#7I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.
> companies will buy their toxins elsewhere
This is where legislation needs to come in.
Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
#8I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.
This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more.
I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one.
I for one currently support and will continue to support companies with sustainable environmental practises even if the cost is higher, and I encourage everyone to do the same. For, that increased cost is like a payment for that piece (however small) of the environment that I otherwise would not have, and I think that's worth it.
Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
#9I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.
I'm curious - if companies knowingly continue to use PFAS for purely financial reasons, would they also risk liability? It's becoming increasingly clear from studies that PFAS are toxic to humans.
There was that huge settlement by tobacco companies, despite the fact that tobacco is still legal, because they ignored clear science for years in order to make a profit.
Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output
#10I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.
As a chemist I am not sure it's even possible to create matching alternatives. The stronger links inside molecules and outside, the more they are "alien" to life and environment. While reducing their usage is a good strategy, an outright ban strips technology of useful materials.
I have no experience or advanced education in chemistry or material sciences. Do you think it's possible that a ban would spur innovation? I imagine our modern world has use cases that can't just disappear or settle for something not as effective.