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

51–60 of 237 posts

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

#51

Post by pimlottc »

pkaye wrote: post #21
VyseofArcadia wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe". You can still progress technologically without being reckless.

> My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. Which countries do it that way?

The EU uses a whitelist approach for food additives, vs the US's blacklist approach:

> Europe has chosen a precautionary approach in regulating, while the U.S. governing bodies tend to be more reactive. In other words, in the United States, food additives are innocent until proven guilty, while in Europe, only those additives proven not to be harmful are approved for use.

http://www.germinalorganic.com/2018/02/eu-versus-us-a-closer...

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

#53

Post by varelse »

VyseofArcadia wrote: post #19
mensetmanusman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe". You can still progress technologically without being reckless.

There are a ton of contaminants in our drinking water that the EPA recommends you remove and we know they are harmful but they are not mandated to do so. Get yourself a water filter because they're not going to filter it for you.

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

#54

Post by tersers »

efitz wrote: post #47
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]

I dunno man lead was pretty great at a bunch of stuff so by your logic we should use it again, just like asbestos

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

#55

Post by RetpolineDrama »

kube-system wrote: post #44
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.

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.

Really? Because I would think refineries/wells start shutting down the second their profit goes negative.

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

#56

Post by amluto »

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.

Is it? The reference I found quickly suggests that PTFE needs to be heated a bit above 530F before it starts to cause problems, and that’s not a normal cooking temperature for basically any purpose other than pizza.

Unfortunately, most stoves do no adequately control temperature, and it’s easy to reach that temperature by accident.

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

#57

Post by kube-system »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #55
kube-system wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? Because I would think refineries/wells start shutting down the second their profit goes negative.

The high-cost suppliers in countries where cartels are illegal do. Which is why fracking busts and booms in the US as prices change around the world for other reasons. But there's enough places in the world where oil flows with minimal effort to sustain low prices in a world where demand is decreasing.

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

#58

Post by RetpolineDrama »

richardw wrote: post #41
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.

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.

>So halving demand is more likely to reduce prices.

1) Halve demand

2) Price plummets

3) Sources shut off

4) Prices climb again, _but at lower volume_

Plastification requires $x/barrel oil _at insane volume_ to work.

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

#59

Post by lazide »

sitkack wrote: post #48
krisoft wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)?

All of these have hazards in specific circumstances, and huge benefits in others. All are chemicals.

All are well known and characterized. Many other compounds are too new for that level of knowledge and characterization. They are chemicals too.

If we allow someone to make new chemicals (it’s hard to stop, frankly!), either we say ‘no, not until they are fully understood and characterized’, or ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too hazardous’.

Saying no first is a bit of a catch-22 since how are you going learn anything and characterize the dangers if you don’t make and use it a bunch?

If you say ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too dangerous’ then we learn a huge amount quite quickly - but inevitably have something too dangerous causing problems.

It’s a fundamentally conservative vs liberal development strategy debate.

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

#60

Post by s1artibartfast »

llbeansandrice wrote: post #49
TylerE wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are quite literally proposing a total ban. And then following it with some simplistic and emotionally charged rhetoric.
Post reply on HN