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

331–340 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#331

Post by jraby3 »

dmd wrote: post #213
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…

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...

That’s a sunk cost. You can’t change the past and it shouldn’t affect your future decisions.

Plus someone in your position doing a great job could probably save a ton of carbon from hitting the atmosphere.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#332

Post by jraby3 »

latexr wrote: post #269
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 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.

I end up using the bags I get (from food delivery, shopping for fruits etc) as garbage bags or dog poop bags. So I reuse the ones I have. But they still last 1000 years in our environment to save me a minimal amount of convenience.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#333

Post by jraby3 »

Mistletoe wrote: post #211
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…

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.

I monitor my urine color and how I feel. If I feel bad I’ll grab a glass of water or even buy a plastic bottle, but that happens maybe once a year.

I really think that people aren’t that fragile and the bottled water industry has done an excellent job of making people think they need to constantly hydrate in order to not have a heat stroke.

Imo it’s enough to just pay attention to yourself and how you feel.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#334

Post by missedthecue »

shmageggy wrote: post #323
missedthecue wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will happen is that the PFAS pan becomes $26 instead of $20. PFAS is not the most expensive part of the pan, only a minor component. A doubling or tripling of PFAS prices is unlikely to price anyone out of getting that pan or raincoat. It's just going to make middle and lower class people cumulatively billions of dollars poorer.

What will make people effectively poorer, not having non-stick coating on pans, or the large-scale poisoning of the natural world and our bodies?

There is no proof that PFAS is causing large scale poisoning. Industrial workers with insufficient PPE may get increased risks of health effects if they are subject to prolonged exposure to concentrated amounts. But so does exposure to fertilizer and aspartame. The research is not anywhere near saying PFAS are causing large scale poisoning.

It reminds me of the microplastics debate too. Lots of panic about it, little scientific evidence that it is causing large scale health problems.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#335

Post by jraby3 »

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.

I really don’t worry too much. I’m lucky to be surrounded by the tech seen in Israel and just see so many innovative ideas and solutions to various problems on a daily basis.

It’s more that it just doesn’t seem worth it. We use a bag for a few minutes and it’s in our environment for 1000 years. It seems like such a bad trade to me.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#336

Post by guerrilla »

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.

Are you familiar with the work of Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win a Nobel Prize in economics, who won it for debunking the so-called Tragedy of the Commons in general and specifying where it applies in particular?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#337

Post by guerrilla »

Wronnay wrote: post #292
ToJans wrote: post #43

In Belgium there is a huge issue with pfas caused by 3M [1], having contaminated things like drinking water etc, so it's not even safe to eat vegetables from your garden or eggs from your chickens. It's a massacre TBH, mostly exposing the head-in-the-sand, umbrella using fingerpointing mentality of Belgian politics. I can imagine 3M has sites like these all over the world, so I would assume this only scratches the su…

There is a similar Issue caused by 3M in Gendorf, Germany - so this is really a problem all over the world - and 3M isn't the only producer of PFAS...

Multiple big cases here in Sweden, it's on the news almost weekly with a new one.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#338

Post by ClumsyPilot »

amluto wrote: post #284
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I once did a fair amount of experimentation and found titanium to impart a much stronger metallic taste than stainless steel. Aluminum is not an amazing food contact surface — it’s quite reactive. I would not use an uncoated aluminum bottle for anything other than plain water.

I have never tried titanium, surprused to hear it does that.

The aluminium bottle I have is likely coated, I wouldn't know - i do use it just for water, and it seems fine.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#339

Post by ClumsyPilot »

amluto wrote: post #284
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I once did a fair amount of experimentation and found titanium to impart a much stronger metallic taste than stainless steel. Aluminum is not an amazing food contact surface — it’s quite reactive. I would not use an uncoated aluminum bottle for anything other than plain water.

I have never tried titanium, surprused to hear it does that.

The aluminium bottle I have is likely coated, I wouldn't know - i do use it just for water, and it seems fine.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#340

Post by nebopolis »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #248
feet wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glass is an option

Glass is heavy and causes transportation tires to generate more micro plastics on the highway and has a higher co2 emission burden.

There exist industrial reaction vessels etc which are made of stainless steel with a bonded liner made of glass. That seems like the ideal "forever" food container material to me - chemically nonreactive and easy to clean, but lightweight and resilient to impact. The glass layer would be lost in recycling, but it shouldn't impede recycling the metal too badly as it'd just be a tiny bit more slag in the crucible.
Post reply on HN