The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
1–10 of 237 posts
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#2Good step, but companies will find untested alternatives.
“9 out of 12,000”
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#3Original EPA proposal here: https://www.epa.gov/hw/proposal-list-nine-and-polyfluoroalky...
Where they outline the nine PFAS are: - Perfluorooctanoic acid. - Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid - Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid. - Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid. - Perfluorononanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid. - Perfluorodecanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanoic acid. - Perfluorobutanoic acid.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#4It does seem to be determined that these pose some degree of hazard.
Two problems:
1) defining the class sufficiently broadly to encompass the entire set so mfgrs can't just dodge the regulations by rearranging the molecule a bit and making the regulators play whack-a-mole, and possibly making things worse
2) not making the regulations too onerous, such as a sudden total ban. Yes, a lot of disposable uses should be discouraged or contained, and it may be reasonable to phase out all use to develop better alternatives.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#5Good step, but companies will find untested alternatives. “9 out of 12,000”
[flagged]
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#6As a society we're going to have to have a come to Jesus moment about all of these estrogenic chemicals that make up the plastics we consume.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#7We really need a concept of scale when it comes to branding a chemical "toxic". Small amounts for particular purposes are not harmful. Being everywhere may cause some problems.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#8We really need a concept of scale when it comes to branding a chemical "toxic". Small amounts for particular purposes are not harmful. Being everywhere may cause some problems.
I don't follow. Are you saying we should hold off laws that deem e.g. teflon toxic, until there's teflon everywhere?
The government: There's almost no teflon in the ground, so that's good.
The market: Hold my beer.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#9Good step, but companies will find untested alternatives. “9 out of 12,000”
[flagged]
Its not just the rich and powerful, its the knowledgeable experts and powerbrokers that facilitate and actually build out the power structure that enables the rich to take advantage of these opportunities.
As long as one of the most lucrative and prestigious routes to success for exceptionally talented people lie in the power structures that require the compromise of society, the rich will have abundant opportunity to harvest the wealth that lies in damaging the world we live in and make money on the "solutions".
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#10We really need a concept of scale when it comes to branding a chemical "toxic". Small amounts for particular purposes are not harmful. Being everywhere may cause some problems.
I don't follow. Are you saying we should hold off laws that deem e.g. teflon toxic, until there's teflon everywhere? The government: There's almost no teflon in the ground, so that's good. The market: Hold my beer.
No, he's saying we shouldn't use PFAS for carpet or military firefighting, but we should for semiconductor manufacturing where we have control over waste streams.