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

261–270 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#261

Post by tomrod »

marssaxman wrote: post #251
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.

The idea of the "tragedy of the commons" is an ahistorical myth, promulgated quite recently by a racist, eugenicist, nationalist fearmonger: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-t... History offers many examples of human communities successfully managing their common resources, over generations.

This article is both an illuminating critique of the author but also an ad hominem to the argument.

Terrible people can be absolutely correct. In this case, the tragedy of the commons both exists and affects many things (like international fishing).

It is true that history shows examples of communities managing their common resources over generations. This need not be the default; when it isn't you get the tragedy of the commons. That is why its important to both understand it and to build community norms that encourage respect for common resources.

Would I be correct in my read of your take that you don't believe the tragedy of the commons exists? If it does, do the original author's other beliefs matter when discussing it?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#262

Post by titzer »

xvilka wrote: post #6
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.

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.

It's a question of priorities. Do you put human (and non-human) lifeforms' health and safety above technology, or not? If all you value is money and efficiency, then you end viewing things through the lens of what technology needs or wants, which is really just an extension of the economic policy of growth, growth, growth.

Before Teflon, people had pans, and they cleaned them. After teflon, people will have pans, and they will clean them.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#263

Post by bradstewart »

opan wrote: post #227
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…

>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. They actually dent quite easily. I have a 40oz Hydro Flask with a couple dents from an incident with a spider a couple years ago. I had my bottle on the counter top while I was eating and suddenly a spider was on it. In an attempt to kill the spid…

I've had the same hard plastic Nalgene water bottle for 10 years or so. Doesn't dent, doesn't break, costs about $10.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#264

Post by mensetmanusman »

lyind wrote: post #231
mensetmanusman wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

There are oleophobic alternatives, but nothing durable. Durability is proportional to the chemical bond strength.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#265

Post by dublin »

Eisenstein wrote: post #223
feet wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glass is an option

Glass with a silicone sleeve over it is surprisingly resilient. I have had a few glass bottles with silicone covers that I carry around (not all at once...) and have dropped them more times than I can recall and they always just bounce. Of course they can break, especially if you do something like put it in your shopping cart and drop something heavy on it (whoops).

The inertness of glass not only makes it always the first choice for food contact, it's also the most cleanly recycled material on the planet, when it does break. Unlike plastics (which for all practical purposes can't really be recycled), and metals, which require complex separation and realloying, glass can be easily separated visually and reused indefinitely. It is quite likely that the glass in your refrigerator right now contains glass first produced by the Romans.

(Of course, we should just reuse glass containers, like we did when I was a kid - a small deposit is a big motivator for kids to collect bottles for reuse!)

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#266

Post by paulryanrogers »

bilsbie wrote: post #230
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…

I would try not to worry too much though. It becomes a sickness at some point. Check out Scott Adam’s law of slow moving disasters if you want some optimism.

Doesn't look like much of a 'law' to me. His optimism ignores some fundamental facts, like living in a (nearly) closed system. So there must be a point at which oil production will decline because our usage far outstrips it's production. Humans are trying to adapt yet I don't think extraction from shale, fracking, and giant super buildings in the desert are going to solve the fundamental issues around sustainability.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#267

Post by starkd »

cj wrote: post #252
elevaet wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's in the range of 10x the CO2 an average human will produce in their lifetime. If you could find a way to get 20 people to cut their emissions in half, or 200 people to reduce it by 5%, or 1000 people by 1%, you could balance out your CO2 ledger :) Or, if you still work in the industry and can find a way to make the shipping routes more efficient, or prevent future mistakes like that, you could make it into the…

(Controversial comment warning) one way to save more than your lifetime’s worth of CO2 is to not have children. By not having children, you’re not just saving the CO2 output of the child itself, but the entire lineage that could have resulted from that single child. Obviously this advice is not good advice for anyone who wants to have children :)

yes, take away the single greatest potential joy people can have in their lives. Great plan for humanity, chief.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#268

Post by paulryanrogers »

swarnie wrote: post #75
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…

I've got to a similar conclusion as you but with a very different outcome. It makes absolutely no difference if i minimise my plastic or diligently sort them for recycling because a Vegas hotel will make all my efforts for naught. Climate change is already here and there is nothing the individual can do about it. The optimum play now is to accept that the group is useless and make individual steps to mitigate the eff…

Apathy guarantees failure. "All it takes for evil men to succeed..." and all.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#269

Post by latexr »

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…

> I try really hard not to use single use plastic. Especially plastic bags

People treat plastic bags as single use, but you can reuse them for years. I’m not saying you should seek them out, but don’t just throw them away after one use when you find yourself with some.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#270

Post by jtbayly »

brohee wrote: post #244
dmd wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You can plant 8500 trees. Various entities do it for as little as $1 per tree (e.g. https://onetreeplanted.org/ ). If that stops you sleeping that's possibly affordable.

Which would be dead or a worthless monoculture that killed a healthy ecosystem in a few years, right?
Post reply on HN