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

231–240 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#231

Post by lyind »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #215
jmathai wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems like there are many usable substances which are hydrophobic (usable as a water repellent). Not so many alternatives which are oleophobic (oil repellent).

I am sure proper research is being conducted to find replacements.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1904/1/...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#232

Post by Robotbeat »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #150
rich_sasha wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal cheap, nuclear expensive.

Nuclear objectionable due to the highly toxic waste product for which no accepted solution has been implemented yet. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of nuclear energy as a CO2-less high potential source of energy, it's just that they're fucking around with the waste too much and umming and arring about it while it just sits near the nuclear power plants, instead of just burying it in a mountain like they do i…

It’s pretty safe being stored near nuclear power plants. The folks keeping it from being buried in a mountain are folks opposed to nuclear energy… ironically due to (overblown) waste concerns. They don’t WANT the waste problem to be solved.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#233

Post by adrian_b »

Jolter wrote: post #84
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?

Can you one product or process where it’s indispensable? I’m not being argumentative, just curious, as I’m not a chemist. I know it’s already being replaced in ski waxes and I’m pretty sure they have alternatives for firefighting foams?

In a typical consumer home, there are very few, if any, uses where fluoropolymers are indispensable.

On the other hand, for most kinds of chemical manufacturing and of chemical analyses fluoropolymers are truly indispensable.

Before the invention of the fluoropolymers, some of the chemical reactions that are done now in vessels made of fluoropolymers could not be done at all, while the others were done in platinum vessels. Even the platinum was slowly dissolved, so the cost of the equipment was huge and such chemical reactions could not be used in mass manufacturing.

Even the simplest transistor or integrated circuit cannot be made without fluoropolymers. Without them there cannot be any semiconductor industry.

Besides the containment of corrosive substances, other applications for which there are no good alternatives to fluoropolymers are in vacuum equipment (also indispensable for the semiconductor industry) and in insulators with low dielectric constant and with low losses at high frequencies.

None of the industrial uses of fluoropolymers can cause significant pollution. However using them in things like kitchenware, or worse, in packaging, makes no sense.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#234

Post by cyxxon »

jraby3 wrote: post #118
beezlewax wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have used the Stash bottle from Hydrapak [1] for a few years now, that one is the definition of light, and very versatile. The interesting thing is that the opening fits the filter by Katadin made for their BeFree bottles [2], so you could even take that on hikes where you are not entirely sure of the water quality (filters particles and bacteria, but not viruses). I actually carry and use this combo, not related to the companies.

[1] https://hydrapak.com/collections/water-bottles/products/stas... [2] https://www.katadyngroup.com/us/en/8019641-EZ-Clean-Membrane...

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#235

Post by tartoran »

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 do too and have to remind myself to drink water otherwise I find myself in a lethargic state.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#236

Post by guelo »

citrin_ru wrote: post #169
Reason077 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing wrong unless it is used to store food or water and contains some BPA-like compound (AFAIK it includes most plastic produces nowadays even so called BPA-free).

The BPA replacements are probably just as toxic as BPA but it will take 20 years of science to prove it conclusively enough to get them banned.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#237

Post by Eisenstein »

wjnc wrote: post #208
SoftTalker wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you know if that metallic taste is considered (in-)healthy? I have no clue and actually like that taste and must admit that in the steel for everything department I’m following the trends as well (steel for cooking - no PFAS; steel for drink containers - no plastics).

Stainless steel has nickel and chromium in it which can leach out, but I don't think incredibly tiny amounts have been shown to be bad.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#239

Post by dsfyu404ed »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #210

About a quarter of new pharmaceuticals are PFAS, and we can’t make modern chips, autos, or airplanes without them. Once politicians learn that the half life for “forever” chemicals varies by 7 orders of magnitude, we will have more nuance about the issue.

>Once politicians learn that the half life for “forever” chemicals varies by 7 orders of magnitude, we will have more nuance about the issue.

So long as they can use an issue to lead the line of lemmings into the polling place you will never see nuanced opinion from politicians on an issue.

Politicians in Texas know full well how rare and irrelevant late term abortions that aren't medically necessary are. Politicians in California know full well how rare and irrelevant murders by people wielding military style arms are. But they still spew falsehoods because that is what is politically useful.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#240

Post by zug_zug »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #210

About a quarter of new pharmaceuticals are PFAS, and we can’t make modern chips, autos, or airplanes without them. Once politicians learn that the half life for “forever” chemicals varies by 7 orders of magnitude, we will have more nuance about the issue.

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm like 95% sure we could choose to chemically break down PFEs instead of dumping them into rivers, it might double the cost of some plastic, there must be dozens or hundreds of ways to prevent it.
Post reply on HN