Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 237 posts

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#31

Post by the8472 »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #11
tankaiji wrote: post #2

Good step, but companies will find untested alternatives. “9 out of 12,000”

This is the inevitable process of humanity's understanding of technology.

Not inevitable at all. It's entirely feasible to specify categories of chemicals. E.g. see the german law on novel psychoactive substances[0] that lumps substituted molecules together with their primitive variants.

One could even go a step further and mandate outcomes instead of means, that substances must be proven to either have a low environmental half-life or to not bio-accumulate.

[0] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/npsg/anlage.html

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#32

Post by tehjoker »

toss1 wrote: post #4

It 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 d…

For what it's worth, depending on the harms, a sudden total ban is not out of the question as being beneficial to humanity as a whole. It would just be disruptive to enterprise, boo hoo. We don't need to always treat bad actors with kid gloves.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#33

Post by edgyquant »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #11
tankaiji wrote: post #2

Good step, but companies will find untested alternatives. “9 out of 12,000”

This is the inevitable process of humanity's understanding of technology.

No we overcomplicate it with overly complex regulations. It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Assuming chemicals are totally fine until proven otherwise is backwards as hell and clearly corrupt.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#35

Post by efitz »

What are the benefits these chemicals have provided, and do the benefits outweigh the negative effects?

Are these chemicals dangerous in the forms that they're found in the environment, e.g. there are unlikely to be many pools of acid. Are they chemically bonded to something that reduces bio-interactivity?

I don't agree with the approach "you can't do anything new until you prove it's safe". I also am very skeptical of the EPA ever since they declared CO2 a pollutant (sorry, my exhalations are not "pollution").

Like every sane person I want a clean environment. Like any rational person, I want to understand the trade-offs of regulations before I support or oppose them.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#36

Post by TylerE »

jdietrich wrote: post #20
kreeben wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Teflon (PTFE) is not toxic. It is approved by the FDA for use in implantable medical devices. At normal working temperatures, it is one of the most chemically and biologically inert materials known to exist. PTFE has a number of unique properties that make it an irreplaceable material in a wide variety of applications. Some of the feedstock chemicals used to produce PTFE are likely toxic. The most concerning of these…

You’re overselling it a bit. Teflon cookware at normal cooking temperature can be very harmful To birds and reptiles.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#37

Post by TylerE »

littlestymaar wrote: post #15
mensetmanusman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody is talking about banning them outright for all purpose here though.

People here, like tehjoker, are proposing total bans in this very thread.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#38

Post by amarant »

edgyquant wrote: post #33
mensetmanusman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the inevitable process of humanity's understanding of technology.

No we overcomplicate it with overly complex regulations. It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Assuming chemicals are totally fine until proven otherwise is backwards as hell and clearly corrupt.

Do you know what the word "chemical" means?

We do need to be a bit more specific than that, or we're not gonna get anywhere.

Also, once we've specified which chemicals shouldn't be dumped, I'd like to include the atmosphere in the list of places where one shouldn't dump them. Seems to be a very popular place to dump really harmful stuff, we should stop that.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#39

Post by throwaway920102 »

chaxor wrote: post #23
vavooom wrote: post #3

Original 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.

I'm a bit confused here. These are recognized as being harmful. It's written all over the msds for these. What is the real change that is going to occur? I remember dealing with these substances in tiny quantities in the lab, and they were treated as carefully as cholorosifonic super acids. A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. One problem is making methods that can detect waste streams at under ppt leve…

> A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle.

Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways.

Because of the "forever", small amounts add up, perpetually and over time could become not-small amounts.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#40

Post by waterhouse »

newZWhoDis wrote: post #14
freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #6

As 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.

This is one thing I’m hopeful about for EVs. Plastic is cheap because of massive demand scaling the oil industry, collapse the demand for oil and plastic becomes more expensive.

How does that work? If it were simply "oil can be turned into fuel or turned into plastic", then lowered demand should lower the price. Is it that turning oil into fuel produces plastic (or plastic precursors) as a byproduct?
Post reply on HN