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

181–190 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#181

Post by spockz »

sammalloy wrote: post #130
jraby3 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The risks of dehydration are way overstated imo I’m not so sure about that. Some people are more susceptible to it than others. There’s also some weird trait that makes some people drink less water than others. Both my father and myself seem to share this trait. We have to force ourselves to drink water. For whatever reason, I could go an entire day without drinking water. Not sure why it is, but it causes problems…

I have the same thing. I have to “force” myself to drink. Especially in Warmer weather. My daughters have the same. I’m not sure whether it is genetic or nurture.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#182

Post by Tepix »

RyanShook wrote: post #27

There are nine thousand known PFAS. They are essential to many products and processes. Many don't have a clear alternative. Other countries will continue to produce them. But 3M is going to ban them all without any discernment. Am I missing something?

Are you overlooking the fact that PFAS made the rain water of the entire planet unfit for consumption§?! In my book that is several orders of magnitudes more important than "many products and processes".

--

§ PFAS: Rainwater contains unsafe levels of 'forever chemicals'

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/pfas-in-rainwater-...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#183

Post by w1nst0nsm1th »

bboygravity wrote: post #163
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…

The amount of plastic ending up in oceans/nature from "The Western world" is not very significant relative to the total. There are entire continents that essentially dump most of their (plastic) trash straight into rivers (and thus oceans). Looking at you (South East) Asia...

Where does it end then ? Burned in the air ? I don't know if it is worse or better, I have no data about it. But I suppose it's neither neutral.

Recycling plastic is very hard as a single product is often a combinaison of different kind of 'plastics', which happen to be a generic name for different materials, and which impose different kind of treatment for each of them. Colored plastics add up to the issue as you can't recycle different colored plastic of the same kind together...

For example, a single coca-cola bottle is typically made of 3 kind of plastics : the bottle itself (transparent), the cap(red with white or black scripting), and the wrapping around of the bottle (made of 2 or 3 different colors).

And that's nothing compared to toothpaste tubes, which was taken as an example in a recent 'Der Spiegel' issue to illustrate the ecologic nightmare plastics represent. And let's not forget ketchup plastic bottles, which is also some kind of marvel of assembled plastic enginering.

Plastic recycling is currently more a matter of vertue signaling than a reality as only 1 to 5 percent of plastic (I don't know the exact numbers) is curently recycled worldwide.

In western world (or at least in europe), most of them are incinerated in electricity thermal generators or buried in waste dumps.

Until recently, american waste (plastics) were send to China to be buried or burned, until the chinese government made it illegal.

The real indicator should be some kind of a 'plastic consumption index' by countries and/or companies and/or household, used to monitor the amount we produce it, use it and get rid of the waste.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#184

Post by snovv_crash »

the_third_wave wrote: post #147
wkat4242 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But waxed fabrics don't breathe. That was the huge advantage of Gore-Tex. Being able to be dry and yet not get soaked in your own sweat was a really amazing invention.

Waxed fabrics do "breathe" more or less as much as much as Gore-Tex does and - important - keep on doing so as long as you keep them waxed enough but not too much. Don't make the coat look like a waxed cheese, you're using too much wax. Use enough to get the fabric to reject dripping or flowing water, no more. Gore-Tex was made to imitate this characteristic without the need for wax but once the membrane is damaged i…

This isn't true. The Gore-Tex layer isn't damaged like this. You're referring to the DNW coating, and there's no reason this can't be a waxed layer like old-school rain jackets. In fact a lot of companies started offering wax based DNW coatings in the name of environmental responsibility.

The actual "Gore-Tex" layer, now no longer under patent and produced by many under names such as Dermizax, H2No, Sympatex and many others, is a thin, flexible, *fragile* PTFE membrane. This allows air through, and via a heat-pump-like mechanism drives water on its surfaces from the warm side to the cool side. There is no 'old school rainjacket' equivalent for this.

Usually when your Gore-Tex jacket stops working it is because the DNW layer is gone. If you used a wax replacement the actual Gore-Tex would still be fine and your rain jacket would still be miles better than anything available 100 years ago.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#185

Post by snovv_crash »

haswell wrote: post #69
cityofdelusion wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love my cast iron, stainless, and carbon steel pans, but calling them nonstick is a stretch. In fact, their stickiness is pretty much their valuable property in getting good browning on food. You can definitely cook delicate fish and scrambled eggs on say, cast iron, but you will either be scraping hard during clean up or using an absurd amount of oil to cook. I don't mind it myself, but its clear why nonstick is p…

A high quality, well seasoned cast iron pan will allow you to fry an egg while said egg slides around the pan as if nonstick. Not every pan is capable of this, and meticulous care is required to keep it in shape, but I became a believer in non stick cast iron when I first met a pan that could do it. I had used plenty of "stickier" cast iron pans before and my perspective shifted a bit.

Cast iron is useless for food with starch, eg. hash browns. The starch absorbs the seasoning and you end up with an unseasoned pan with burnt pieces stuck everywhere.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#186

Post by yourapostasy »

smilekzs wrote: post #94
Reason077 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

For me, there's always a metallic residual taste in my water whenever I use a stainless steel bottle. Got tired and returned to using normal mugs.

If you’re sensitive to metallic residual taste, then look for containers made from a type of stainless that meets your needs. There are many kinds [1], I prefer 316 but you might need 321 for example. Some day I’ll engage a machinist to fab one up for me that uses standard gaskets I can get from any MRO firm in the world.

[1] https://www.brikksen.com/home/page/blog?p=the-different-grad...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#187

Post by DoreenMichele »

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?

Money is just a proxy here for the harm it does. Some people would rather not get a check for having lost body parts, a la that scene from Erin Brockovich. They would rather not endure the harm to begin with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C029muI7bFw

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#188

Post by hoseja »

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.

It's only hard if you care about individual rights. Otherwise your multicellular self is a good example of a solution.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#189

Post by ClumsyPilot »

smilekzs wrote: post #94
Reason077 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

For me, there's always a metallic residual taste in my water whenever I use a stainless steel bottle. Got tired and returned to using normal mugs.

Stainless steel starts with a metallic taste, but after first week of use it is usually gone. Also there is titanium and aluminium.

Or just get a reusable plastic one, perfect can be an enemy of good.

Individual use of plastic is not relevant, as long as it goes to landfil and not ends up in the ocean througg recycling fraud. In UK most plastic ends up sent to poland, where it's burnt or sent onwards to Turkey where it becomes untraceable. I stopped recycling plastic because the system cannot be trusted - at least if it stays in UK you know it wont be hurting anyone.

Half of plastic waste in the ocean waste is discarded fishing nets.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#190

Post by donatj »

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.

I would say it varies pretty widely on a much smaller than country level, moreso by source. Water from an aquifer almost always tastes much better than water from a river.
Post reply on HN