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

3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#111

Post by quickthrower2 »

runnerup wrote: post #46
DoreenMichele wrote: post #36

3M has been facing a raft of litigation that has prompted the move Generally speaking, toxic substances are only "cheap" due to externalizing many of the costs involved, like increased healthcare costs and lost productivity. If you do a thorough analysis of the costs of using such chemicals, they aren't cheap at all. Maybe someday humans will get that.

I always thought that if our universe is actually a simulation, it's one of countless simulations trying to determine a solution to the Tragedy of the Commons. I suspect it's one of the hardest problems to solve in any universe.

Look out mother mature in general. It is brutal. Can we socially evolve like the Vulcans?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#112

Post by jonasdegendt »

wirrbel wrote: post #95
jraby3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try really hard not to use single use plastic. Especially plastic bags, plastic bottles, etc. This frequently means I’ll be extremely thirst throughout some days but will wait till I get home or to work to drink filtered water out of the tap. I went to Las Vegas about a year ago on a work trip and realized that the hotel I stayed at uses more plastic bottles in an hour than I would use in my lifetime with no though…

I recently mail-ordered rice, and because I wanted to buy two different styles I did not opt for the 3kg (like 6 lbs) bag but 2 packs of 1.8kg. Turns out 1.8kg were packed in 3 bags of 600g, so now I have 6 bags at 600g rice, that on first glance look like they are paper, but its actually plastic coated paper. Its really hard to avoid at times. As for avoiding bags I have two wicker baskets like this https://www.amaz…

Most bottled mineral water is just filtered tap water with some different minerals added to give it flavor.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#113

Post by Reason077 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #100
wjnc wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dehydration is more of a risk to you than the environmental risks you marginally save on others. Still I applaud the effort since the economists view is too restricted. Get a stainless steel container and hydrate for a lifetime.

Stainless steel containers are often lined with plastic, since people don't like the metallic taste that the steel imparts.

In general there is nothing wrong with long-life plastic products. Plastic is a really useful and important material when used appropriately!

It's the insane amount waste and environmental pollution that single-use plastic generates that is the problem.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#114

Post by adrianN »

p1necone wrote: post #30
themitigating wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better solution ? Let's take one example. Teflon coated cookware. As an alternative there are cooking sprays, butter, oils, or stiring the contents of the pan more frequently. In this case it's not a nessacity but a convenience. Why don't we start by restricting the use of PFAS to those products in which there are no alternatives and are a nessacity.

In my experience non stick pans are pretty awful, basically anything else is a better alternative. You can't get them hot enough to sear a steak properly without damaging the non stick coating, and the non stick coating is oleophobic which means that oil pools rather than spreading out so you can't get proper browning on anything even if you do cook it at an appropriate temp. Seasoned cast iron and carbon steel will…

Nonstick pans are not meant for searing steaks. They're meant for making things like creamy scrambled eggs that are difficult to get right on cast iron.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#115

Post by adrianN »

Jolter wrote: post #81
xvilka wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a chemist I am not sure it's even possible to create matching alternatives. The stronger links inside molecules and outside, the more they are "alien" to life and environment. While reducing their usage is a good strategy, an outright ban strips technology of useful materials.

Can you name one essential application where PFAS is really necessary? Something where society would actually be substantially worse without it. I’m not talking about ski wax here.

They are great in lubricants.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#116

Post by Jolter »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #105
Jolter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name one essential application where PFAS is really necessary? Something where society would actually be substantially worse without it. I’m not talking about ski wax here.

Only reasonable example is AFFF fire fighting foam. But realistically the amount of liquid fuel fires that you have to fight in this world probably pale in comparison with the production volumes of unnecessary anti-stick cookware and gore-tex fabrics.

Right, I suspected that one ... There seems to be some products on the market already: https://firestopperus.com/pfas-free-firefighting-foams/

Hopefully they don't contain something even more toxic than PFAS?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#117

Post by adrianN »

worldsayshi wrote: post #109
adrianN wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calculate the hidden cost. Tell the companies that you'll either vote for a tax or accept a lucrative post in their board of directors after your term is over. Profit! Calculate the hidden cost. Spend half of the cost on a marketing campaign to sway public opinion against a tax. Profit!

Maybe one way to mitigate is to have a separate branch of the political system dedicated to calculating the costs. Then make the methods for calculating as publicly available as possible so that they can be reproduced by non-profits. We have managed judicial systems. We can manage this too.

I don't see how that helps. For example there are many publications available that calculate the cost of CO2, eg [1] from the German government. Yet global warming is still a problem.

[1] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/14...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#118

Post by jraby3 »

beezlewax wrote: post #110
jraby3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try really hard not to use single use plastic. Especially plastic bags, plastic bottles, etc. This frequently means I’ll be extremely thirst throughout some days but will wait till I get home or to work to drink filtered water out of the tap. I went to Las Vegas about a year ago on a work trip and realized that the hotel I stayed at uses more plastic bottles in an hour than I would use in my lifetime with no though…

You can carry a water bottle in a small backpack or if you're in a city with fountains use them. Or buy water that comes in cartons though I'm not sure it's easy to find these or if they're actually plastic free.

I realize that. It’s definitely a choice since I like to travel light and walk a lot.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#119

Post by jraby3 »

Reason077 wrote: post #85
jraby3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try really hard not to use single use plastic. Especially plastic bags, plastic bottles, etc. This frequently means I’ll be extremely thirst throughout some days but will wait till I get home or to work to drink filtered water out of the tap. I went to Las Vegas about a year ago on a work trip and realized that the hotel I stayed at uses more plastic bottles in an hour than I would use in my lifetime with no though…

> "This frequently means I’ll be extremely thirst throughout some days" Why not carry a reusable water bottle? I have a great double-wall steel bottle (Hydro Flask), which is much better than a plastic bottle because it keeps water cold all day long and is basically indestructible. In most places I travel to it's not difficult to find sources of clean, cold water to refill it. Worst case, I will buy a large bottle of…

It’s definitely a choice. I prefer to travel light even if it means I’ll be thirsty sometimes.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#120

Post by rich_sasha »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #36

3M has been facing a raft of litigation that has prompted the move Generally speaking, toxic substances are only "cheap" due to externalizing many of the costs involved, like increased healthcare costs and lost productivity. If you do a thorough analysis of the costs of using such chemicals, they aren't cheap at all. Maybe someday humans will get that.

Coal cheap, nuclear expensive.
Post reply on HN