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

111–120 of 237 posts

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

#111

Post by pdonis »

daveguy wrote: post #87
pdonis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the impact of this proposed EPA ruling on ordinary people disposing of ordinary household items like those you describe? Will we all need to have hazmat plants installed in our sewage lines? Will we no longer be able to wash our clothes in washing machines? Will we have to segregate all our trash and pay for our community to have a hazmat disposal truck come around along with the regular trash truck?

No. No. And Maybe. Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or just disengenuously attacking regulatory agencies. If you're legitimately concerned, I apologize. On the bright side, you can rest easy.

> Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first.

Is this actual knowledge or just a prediction?

> If you're legitimately concerned

I am, but not just about the impact on me personally. I'm more generally concerned about whether the actual costs of such a regulation will be less than the actual benefits.

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

#112

Post by lazide »

naremu wrote: post #91
lazide wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you’re just being disingenuous. How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn’t been made yet? How do you decide it’s safe to create a large enough quantity of a chemical to figure out what even should be in that MSDS? How can you know if something is mutagenic without exposing it to DNA? Or cancer causing without exposing it to a living organism? Or causes reproductive harm without exposing it to organisms a…

So, let me get this straight: I've claimed reducing everything to "chemicals" is disingenuous, and in response, I'm immediately told "no, you" and then challenged with debates over topics or ideas I haven't actually talked about like >How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn’t been made yet? What argument that I've made do you present this logical fallacy to? > Deciding if ‘freezing’ it in place, or letting…

It doesn’t seem like you’re reading your comments or my replies?

The concern about the chemicals we’re talking about is that they are in the water you are using to water your lawn, anmong other things, and have been getting made at scale for over 50 years. And is a family of 6 million something chemicals, some of which we suspect now may be dangerous - including causing cancer - and some we have no idea.

We can only test for things we suspect are an actual issue and have a test for. And for which we actually test.

Which we don’t really have reasonable tests for ‘doesn’t bio degrade over decades+ and bio accumulates to potentially dangerous levels’ yet. Except watching nature, anyway, which is how we discovered this problem. There are millions more chemicals that this hasn’t happened either.

So what do you propose doing here besides freezing it until such tests can be put in place and developed?

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

#113

Post by bluGill »

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.

That isn't how it works. Oil wells cost a lot of $$$ upfront to get the first drop of oil. Every liter of oil after that is practically free - there is a little electric or gas needed to run the pumps, but that is so little it doesn't count. Most of the cost is in finding a spot to drill, getting permissions to drill there, and then drilling. (mineral rights are really complex, but generally whoever owns them gets a % of the sale value of the crude, so if the price goes down or the well produces less they get less money)

Which is to say oil wells don't shutdown when the profit goes negative because that never happens. Oil wells do shutdown (or more likely produce less because the pump is slowed) if the owner decides they want to control supply to bring the price up - but you have to have a lot of wells to even think about that. During the pandemic oil wells shutdown, but that was because there was no place to put store the oil - if you could store it there was plenty of value in pumping it (though it was an investment).

Refineries don't shutdown when the profit goes negative. Again, because the sunk cost in machinery is a large part of the cost. If the profit goes down they will often not remodel and eventually shutdown because the equipment it wore out. Many have shutdown because the right crude wasn't available (and they didn't want to invest in machinery to handle crude they can get) - and then reopened a decade later when someone started pumping the right crude again.

Yes of course if profit goes negative they will both shutdown. However long before profits go negative they will be managing things and so in practice they are shutdown for other reasons first.

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

#114

Post by callalex »

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 wash your dishes and clothes? Do you shower with soap?

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

#115

Post by kube-system »

bluGill wrote: post #108
kube-system wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but lower trending demand would also put more power into the hands of OPEC to crater prices and prop up demand any time alternatives start to threaten oil's dominance. They're not going to go out without a fight to the end because those economies depend on oil. I'm sure it will go on long after I'm gone from this world.

Will they though? A large consumer of oil is cars and EVs are coming fast. Even if we assume that 5% of cars will always be fuel burning ICE for "reasons" that is such large demand destruction that in 10 years I don't think OPEC will have any power - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if most of the world just embargo all OPEC countries: they are mostly middle east areas where there is a lot of conflict and the few non-…

> Even if we assume that 5% of cars will always be fuel burning ICE

By the time it gets that low, I agree, they're done. We're a very long way from that. 85% of cars being sold globally are still ICE, and the population of vehicles on the road lags sales figures by a couple of decades. And even with the increase in EV sales figures, oil demand is not dropping, because the total demand for cars is increasing.

But if demand for oil starts to drop due to EV adoption, OPEC is for sure going to make sure it's cheap as hell to operate an oil burning car, and people in the majority of the world where it's still legal will have a huge incentive to keep buying them.

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

#116

Post by bluGill »

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.

We can make plastics from bio sources. It is more expensive, and those plastic biodegrade (sometimes a positive, but sometimes a negative)

We can make any oil from the basic atoms (mostly carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen - but some molecules may want something else). However this process costs a lot more energy (read $) vs pumping oil from the ground and so it is rarely done. This is how synthetic oils are made so if you know the cost of car oil you can get a good picture of the difference in costs.

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

#117

Post by littlestymaar »

TylerE wrote: post #101
littlestymaar wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they aren't! This comment isn't proposing anything! They are arguing that even total bans should not be dismissed by default, and that there can exist situations “ depending on the harms ” that justifies a total ban. And they did not say that in a vacuum, but as an answer to another comment that straight out dismissed total ban as an option. This comment is in no way advocating for a total ban of PFAS in particula…

They are outlining a scenario where they would consider such a ban desirable. How is that not proposing it?

For that scenario to be a proposal, the hypothesis of the said scenario should be asserted first. They just said: “should this be a big enough harm to humanity as a whole we should not shy away from a total ban”, but he's not arguing that there is a big enough harm at stake here.

And they aren't even talking specifically about PFAS in this comment in the first place! They're answering, in the abstract, to a commenter that argues against total bans as a matter of principle. All they're saying is “I disagree that we should always dismiss the option of a total ban, there are situations where it is justified”. This isn't a proposal for a total ban of PFAS in any way.

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

#118

Post by throwaway920102 »

pdonis wrote: post #75
throwaway920102 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So what is the impact of this proposed EPA ruling on ordinary people disposing of ordinary household items like those you describe? Will we all need to have hazmat plants installed in our sewage lines? Will we no longer be able to wash our clothes in washing machines? Will we have to segregate all our trash and pay for our community to have a hazmat disposal truck come around along with the regular trash truck?

In an ideal world, manufacturers would begin to phase out the use of PFAS as waterproofing, which many already are. An alternative would be Nikwax, waxed canvas, or polyurethenate-coatings or TPU coatings. These alternatives are already used in many goods! For containers (not wearables), you can get aluminum, stainless steel, TI, or glass waterproof cans and jars and bottles that have threaded, screw on caps with silicone o-rings to create watertight seals.

For outdoor goods like backpacks or bags that you want to stay waterproof, I personally recommend PU and TPU coated drybags. For clothing like pants or shirts, I'd recommend opting for non-water-resistant/non-waterproof versions, and just buy an umbrella or raincoat with a PU or TPU coating to shield you rather than trying to wear clothing that will have water bead. Waxed canvas clothing is another option but it can be heavy. Cool if you are into it though, Fjallraven is famous for it, as is Filson.

I don't think you'll be too sad if your disposable food packaging gets a little soggier. You'll probably be a little more sad if you get cancer :(

So over time, hopefully you own fewer and fewer goods that are destroying the planet! Happy friday.

Eg:

https://www.polartec.com/news/polartec-announces-full-use-of...

https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/06/pfas-tox...

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

#119

Post by lazide »

bawolff wrote: post #109
naremu wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the colloquial definition of chemicals which if we're not being pedantic, we know brings up ideas of substances damaging to other substances or life itself. From the comment you're responding to. Damage is quantifiable, if it wasn't, the OP (EPA proposing hazardous substance classification) wouldn't even exist.

one presumes it is not when there is any quantifiable damage, no matter how slight. I assume nobody is proposing banning water, etc. But even plain water can result in large amounts of environmental damage in certain contexts. If the point is just to ban things when the risks outweigh the benefits, that is simply the status quo.

The challenge is, one can usually only make that kind of trade off when something is well known enough to know the risks and benefits in a wide variety of environments.

The first real problematic PFAS compounds were in fire fighting foam used to put out aircraft fires for example, and took decades for their problems to show up.

Which requires either extremely exhaustive (or essentially impossible economically) testing, or yolo’ng it. Or only using already known compounds.

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

#120

Post by mtsr »

throwaway920102 wrote: post #39
chaxor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There’s no could about it. Dutch food advisory is already to limit eating fish to once a week because of PFAS.

And eggs from chickens kept in your own yard are considered unsafe to eat, in a pretty big area. Unless you want to have them tested regularly at ~€600 each time.

Post reply on HN