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

131–140 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#131

Post by overtonwhy »

jraby3 wrote: post #121
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.

The risks of dehydration are way overstated imo. And I live in a warm weather country. Whole being thirsty isn’t optimal the actual risk of something serious happening is negligible. Especially since I monitor my urine color and other signs. It’s more convenience and the habit of convenience we’re all so used to these days.

What about the benefits of high levels of hydration?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#132

Post by concordDance »

jraby3 wrote: post #66
runnerup wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Why try and minimise single use plastic? That's oil going straight back into the ground (landfill) rather than being refined into petrol and burnt!

Single use plastic is way better than recycled plastic at slowing global warming.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#133

Post by concordDance »

worldsayshi wrote: post #93
runnerup wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Calculate the hidden cost. Slap a proportional tax on the products that cause the cost. Then split the tax income evenly to the population. Is it really that hard or are we making it hard?

Calculating the hidden cost isn't simple "hard", it's nigh impossible. We've spent billions trying to calculate the externalities of a single gas (CO2) and we're still incredibly uncertain with giant error bars even with a ton of assumptions.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#134

Post by saiya-jin »

mrpopo wrote: post #128
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 need to stop thinking about bringing your own footprint ever closer to zero, you must also stop thinking that doing so is a powerful revolutionary act, and join or create organized groups vowing to bring about social change. Be it in your family, your neighbourhood or your municipality. Forget shorter showers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2TbrtCGbhQ

Yes, unfortunately the core item that more hardcore evangelists for topic XYZ seem to be unable to grasp, maybe due to being too close/deep in the subject. If I had a NFT every time somebody on HN stated 'we need to abandon cars, or abandon plastics altogether' and similar, I would be drowning in a lot of useless tokens.

The thing is, the motivation for given topic is always fair and just, and so are the goals, so its normal to want to do more and more. But at one point they move so far from general population they are seen as extremists, and whatever good their push is trying to achieve is completely blocked by this extreme approach and negative emotions it sparks.

Get engaged in politics, create groups, figure out who has real deciding power and apply soft pressure there... this is how good changes are done in timely manner. Other way is to wait till SHTF and there is reaction, but damage is already done like in this topic. Otherwise society just heads to division and conflict on many levels, and as for example covid showed us if you push big part of population hard/long enough they will eventually move to some outright non-smart positions that will be then very hard to abandon.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#135

Post by missedthecue »

pigsty wrote: post #78
missedthecue wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will happen is that the PFAS pan becomes $26 instead of $20. PFAS is not the most expensive part of the pan, only a minor component. A doubling or tripling of PFAS prices is unlikely to price anyone out of getting that pan or raincoat. It's just going to make middle and lower class people cumulatively billions of dollars poorer.

Iron pans are ridiculously cheap these days and they last forever if you bother to read the 3 line instructions included with them. Teflon isn’t as great as people were deceived into believing. Even if you’re absolutely meticulous with care, it’ll have a noticeable lack in non-stick abilities within months and be noticeably sticky after 2 years, and rapidly degrading into useless territory. An iron pan starts out abo…

I mean pans are only one thing. PFAS are used in many products. Yes you can make inferior substitutions but again this reduces standard of living.

This is not to mention its widespread use in military applications. There is already concern about China's lock on the global supply of rare earths and other raw materials like silicon and magnesium (80%+ market share). What happens when the US can't make fighter jets because a belligerent China refuses to export PFAS?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#136

Post by EastLondonCoder »

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.

Is it really that hard though? On the top of my mind I can come up with several success stories of solving tragedy of the commons type of problems. For example:

Global regulation around CFCs made the ozone hole shrink

The don't mess with texas anti littering campaign and similar outreach programs worldwide reduced littering

In general taxing negative externalities seems to have an effect

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#137

Post by thereisnospork »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #51
legitster wrote: post #42

"Forever chemicals" is clearly a scary term devoid of context. Please help me ground it. Is this a health or environmental risk? Is it potential or realized? What's the nearest comparison?

Dec 20 (Reuters) - U.S. industrial conglomerate 3M Co (MMM.N) on Tuesday set a 2025 deadline to stop producing PFAS, the "forever chemicals" used in anything from cell phones to semiconductors that have been linked to cancers, heart problems and low birth weights. Perfluoralkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) do not break down quickly and have in recent years been found in dangerous concentrations in drinking w…

>dangerous concentrations

Those words need context, otherwise this reads a lot like scaremongering. Dangerous as in close to an LD50? A minimum measured effect? Or in layman: how much worse/better are exposure to those concentrations than say time-equivalent exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke? Or first-hand.

>in drinking water, soils and foods.

Routes of introduction to people and environment are also important to understand to eliminate hazards while minimizing damage. Is the contamination a production 'sloppiness' issue? Resulting from correct or incorrect application of non-durable goods (e.g. lubricants, firefighting foam). A wear of durable goods issue (rubbers, PTFE, etc.)?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#138

Post by HPsquared »

Gud wrote: post #122
jonasdegendt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Tap water is vastly different depending on where it is sourced. In my experience, most countries have pretty bad tap water.

After a few rounds of filtration it's all going to be the same.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#139

Post by stuaxo »

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.

We should remember that the original tragedy of the commons didn't happen, the idea was based on false assumptions around how greedy people are.

We could start by looking at how people managed systems sustainably including the original commons.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#140

Post by maeln »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #73
bwi4 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, Blackrock and Vanguard own the means of production. We gave them the capital to do so through our pensions and 401(k)s. My 401(k) menu doesn't include ESG funds, but those that exist have higher expenses and lower performance than an indiscriminate index fund. If the regulators have been captured by lobbying and revolving doors to industry, the only option left is to vote with your wallet, but that's eas…

> the only option left is to vote with your wallet I know it’s not popular here but I’ll say it: class analysis. You can vote with your fingers and bones. You can vote with your personal dignity. Your investment portfolios are just part of capitalism and it isn’t predestined.

And voting with your wallet means that if you are poor, you have no voice.
Post reply on HN