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

41–50 of 237 posts

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

#41

Post by richardw »

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.

The auto industry is a competing use of oil, isn’t it? So halving demand is more likely to reduce prices.

Car industry obviously helped to build the infrastructure but I think now that it’s there, fair chance there’s going to be a lot of oil supply looking for a use. Infrastructure won’t disappear overnight.

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

#42

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #24
newZWhoDis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then what is the alternative? Going back to metal and wood consumer goods at the scale western consumerism exists today versus the pre 1960s would probably be impossible and really throw gasoline on the entire climate crisis.

Some of those plastics would be well-replaced by metals. How many plastic spatulas fill landfills? An adult probably goes through a dozen or more in their lifetimes if they're careful with them, and far more if they burn them leaving them in pans.

A single stainless steel one has to be better, unless I'm just off on the math.

We make so many things that, even if they're not disposable they are "disposable" when they do not have to be.

Finding a good without plastic in it is actually one of my criteria for kitchenware. Glass, metal, wood... nothing else should touch food if I can help it (some exceptions when truly warranted, silicone can be useful).

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

#43

Post by krisoft »

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.

> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period.

Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are you willing to take the consequences which follow from that proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 “dump chemicals in air”)

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

#44

Post by kube-system »

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.

Oil supply is fairly demand inelastic, if demand for oil drops, we'll almost certainly see cheaper oil. And if OPEC sees the writing on the wall they're going to price aggressively as long as they can.

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

#45

Post by bigbillheck »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #10
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.

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.

> we should for semiconductor manufacturing where we have control over waste streams

Note that this has not historically been the case, see for example all those superfund sites in SV.

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

#47

Post by efitz »

efitz wrote: post #35

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…

[flagged]

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

#48

Post by sitkack »

krisoft wrote: post #43
edgyquant wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are you willing to take the consequences which follow from that proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 “dump chemicals in air”)

> Everything is chemicals.

This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.

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

#49

Post by llbeansandrice »

TylerE wrote: post #37
littlestymaar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

That's a very bad faith paraphrase of their single comment in this thread:

> 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.

Hardly the extremism you're implying.

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

#50

Post by mrob »

TylerE wrote: post #36
jdietrich wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The maximum safe temperature for PTFE is uncertain, with many conflicting sources. Depending on your risk tolerance, you might accept anywhere from 200C to 250C. The former is easy to exceed by accident (personally tested using an IR thermometer), the latter is only likely to happen if you use incorrect technique, e.g. trying to sear meat on it, or leaving a hot pan unattended. PTFE is only suitable for gentle cooking.

The quality of the pan also makes a difference; cheap ones often use very thin metal that doesn't spread the heat well, resulting in hot spots.

I recommend using an IR thermometer to learn how your personal cooking setup behaves.

Post reply on HN