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

21–30 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#21

Post by themitigating »

missedthecue wrote: post #13
vouaobrasil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will cont…

PFAS are used because there isn't a better alternative. A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

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.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#22

Post by yannis »

glasss wrote: post #10
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.

I have no experience or advanced education in chemistry or material sciences. Do you think it's possible that a ban would spur innovation? I imagine our modern world has use cases that can't just disappear or settle for something not as effective.

A ban does stimulate innovation, as the banning of CFs shows (See Montreal protocol), It spurs innovation for alternatives as there is good money in it and it also spurs innovation by end-users. It is a long and slow process though.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#23

Post by p1necone »

missedthecue wrote: post #13
vouaobrasil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will cont…

PFAS are used because there isn't a better alternative. A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

> A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

Which is great. Higher prices = less usage.

We don't have to eradicate them entirely before we see any benefit.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#24

Post by themitigating »

missedthecue wrote: post #12
themerone wrote: post #5

I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.

I feel like in 10 years we will be reading panicky articles asking why the important production of PFAS and other synthetic organofluorines was offshored to an increasingly belligerent China.

Products can be banned in countries so even if China creates them they can't sell them outside China.

I don't get your argument, it's like "someone is going to do bad things therefore it's ok for me"?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#25

Post by photochemsyn »

For a deep dive into the world of fluoropolymers (Teflon etc.) and their breakdown products:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c03244

> "We here distinguish between fluoropolymer substances, fluoropolymer products, and fluoropolymers in finished articles. A fluoropolymer substance such as PTFE, FEP, and PFA is a material of known chemical structure. A fluoropolymer product is the actual material produced and sold by a chemical manufacturer (e.g., Chemours, Solvay, Daikin, Asahi Glass, etc.), it comes in different grades (e.g., Teflon-granulate, Teflon-fine powder, etc.), and may contain impurities from the production process. These fluoropolymer products are sold to manufacturers of finished articles (e.g., PTFE tape, waterproof clothing with a PTFE membrane, PTFE-coated cookware, etc.) who incorporate the fluoropolymer products in their finished articles. The distinction is important, as there are many different processes of making fluoropolymer products..."

TLDR: The authors generally conclude consumer products made with fluoropolymers are going to leach PFAS & similar eventually via waste disposal, and suggest restricting use to closed-loop industrial processes (where fluoropolymer plastics are often used to contain highly corrosive substances in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing processes).

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#26

Post by wkat4242 »

Centigonal wrote: post #15
missedthecue wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PFAS are used because there isn't a better alternative. A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

...which is a good thing! we should stop taking $20 teflon pans, nonstick fast food containers, and $40 raincoats with negative externalities for granted. We did fine without PFAS, we'll be okay with expensive PFAS (where externalities are internalized and built into the cost) too.

Does paying for the pollution really help fix the problem? Will the government use that money to filter rivers for PFAS?

I think a lot of this need also comes from other supposedly environmental choices. My work banned plastic cups and now has paper cups with PFAS which are more toxic. I think the plastic ones were the better choice if recycled properly.

And raincoats were really really horrible before Gore-Tex.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#27

Post by RyanShook »

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?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#28

Post by [deleted] »

missedthecue wrote: post #13
vouaobrasil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the prisoner's dilemma situation. Everyone would benefit more from a reduction, but if only one company does it, they benefit (in the short term) even more. I think the signalling is also valuable -- humans have a remarkable tendency to adopt attitudes over time, and I think every contribution towards the attitude that we should not harm the environment is a good one. I for one currently support and will cont…

PFAS are used because there isn't a better alternative. A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

[deleted]

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#29

Post by baxtr »

themerone wrote: post #5

I'm not sure this is a win for the environment or human health. 3M is gifting sales to it's competition to avoid future liabilities. Chinese companies are ready to pick up the slack. 3M is certainly developing safer alternatives, but until they are as good and as cheap, companies will buy their toxins elsewhere.

This is often solved for by imposing import restrictions.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#30

Post by p1necone »

themitigating wrote: post #21
missedthecue wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PFAS are used because there isn't a better alternative. A globally coordinated reduction in production only increases the price of products for consumers.

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 be non stick without either of those downsides, and even regular stainless steel is perfectly fine as long as you let it heat up properly before using it.

Post reply on HN