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

211–220 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#211

Post by Mistletoe »

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…

You really shouldn’t do this. You are risking your health by becoming dehydrated. I’m not sure your avoidance of plastic at all costs even makes sense on any level.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#212

Post by nonethewiser »

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.

> Maybe someday humans will get that.

Clearly 3M has. What's unfortunate is the long feedback loop. It takes a lot of damage before it starts becoming expensive for suppliers.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#213

Post by dmd »

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…

About 20 years ago, I made a mistake at work which I later calculated put an extra 8500 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. (It had to do with the delay/routing of a cargo ship.)

There is literally nothing I could possibly do that could come even close to making up for that...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#214

Post by tim333 »

oblio wrote: post #175
stuaxo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Your article doesn't say what you're saying. Your article says that the tragedy of the commons does not have to happen, but we don't really have the numbers. Those examples could be cherry picking, and everyone's personal experience kind of says that the opposite is more common (commons mismanagement). That's why the original article was so influential: it gave a name to something we've always seen. It's great that w…

I live in Britain where the original commons were located and have yet to see a tragic one. The idea may apply to things like overfishing.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#215

Post by mensetmanusman »

jmathai wrote: post #38
rtpg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this argument not apply to everything? The counterfactual (where 3M continues to produce these) is ... obviously bad? Producing materials that are bad for the environment and human health! Now less is produced, at least in the short term. An example where your argument doesn't play out like you say: many chemicals manufacturers decided to no longer sell chemicals that would be used for administering the deat…

The benefit Is true of all investments. The payoffs are down the road. In this case, the environment and health will reap the benefits once 3M brings alternatives to market that can compete with the current “bad” options.

Nature has no replacement for the electronegativity of the fluorine atom.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#216

Post by concordDance »

Reason077 wrote: post #146
concordDance wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of it doesn’t just go into the ground. It ends up getting washed (or dumped) into the ocean where it pollutes beaches, and gets ground down into micro-plastic particles which poison sea life. Still more gets incinerated, creating local air pollution and contributing to carbon emissions.

If you're putting single use plastic in a non-recycling bin in the developed world its pretty much guaranteed to go to landfill, not the sea. More so than putting it in a recycling bin where they might transport it on a ship to China.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#217

Post by mensetmanusman »

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.

Orthogonal solvent used for making computer chips. I.e. nothing past the 100 nm node

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#218

Post by mensetmanusman »

themitigating wrote: post #24
missedthecue wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

PFAS are used to make parts that have none in the end product. Eg all modern computer chips.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#219

Post by mensetmanusman »

donatj wrote: post #194

We should really come up with a better less chemical fear based name than “forever chemicals”. Even “forever contaminants” would be a major improvement. Just being a chemical that hangs around isn’t a bad thing. By that definition water is a “forever chemical”. I am well aware this isn’t what’s meant by forever chemical but the naming should involve something implying the negativity other than the ignorant use of che…

“Forever chemicals“ have half-lives that range from a millisecond to 10,000 years, but this level of communication accuracy is expected from our media.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#220

Post by Mistletoe »

bwi4 wrote: post #104
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t done my homework but I find it strange that I hear so much about 3M while DuPont seems as bad — or worse — but it could simply be that I’ve read more about DuPont and I’m missing some inexhaustible list of atrocities 3M has committed.

DuPont discovered PTFE while exploring for new refrigerants. It was used in the Manhattan Project because it could resist flourine used in the gaseous diffusion of uranium, then marketed as Teflon after WWII. 3M discovered PFOS while developing rubber that wouldn't degrade when exposed to jet fuel, then marketed it as Scotchgard.

I shudder when I think about how I used to coat every new couch and my shoes with this stuff. No mask when applying. Skin contact for years…
Post reply on HN