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

361–370 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#361

Post by eternityforest »

titzer wrote: post #262
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.

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…

It's not even a case like lithium batteries where my lifestyle would be significantly impacted if I had to go without.

To some degree prioritizing tech makes sense, if the tech is replacing some other thing that harms living beings more. I doubt an LED factory is environmentally perfect, but the alternative would probably be people using oil lamps in many places.

And some things are just too convenient to give up for 1 in a million possible risks, like WiFi.

But things that only benefit a small enthusiast community in nonessential ways with large costs to everyone else are just too much.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#362

Post by tremon »

simondotau wrote: post #354
triceratops wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might be the same future though.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think any (serious) high CO2 predictions involve the extinction of our species, but rather extensive displacement as a changing climate changes zones of habitability on our planet.

We're currently running a simulation to refute or confirm your assumption. Check back in some 150-200 years to see if your assumption was true.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#363

Post by eternityforest »

thereisnospork wrote: post #18
glasss wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately probably not much - the relevant properties come from the element itself (fluorine) where there literally doesn't exist an alternative. It is possible that some alternatives will come to light, but there is a limited design space and it's not as if people haven't been looking for cheaper[0] and better solutions. I'm curious as to the scope of this, and what end products are effected. A lot of the best-i…

For consumers goods there are already many alternatives though. Ceramic nonstick and nanotech based water repellents come to mind. They are good enough for average people who aren't avid hikers or foodies.

I wouldn't be surprised if they started using other plastics in frying pans one day, meant to be used with some fancy temperature control induction system. Lots of stuff is slippery enough for food applications, you just need one that's safe at the temperature oil gets to.

I doubt my life would be affected much at all without any fluoropolymers in goods I directly own.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#364

Post by willio58 »

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.

Agreed. If we could force companies to pay for externalized costs we could get to a net-zero earth immediately. Suddenly investments in green energy would increase 1000x

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#365

Post by jnwatson »

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 :)

To optimize, you should aim to kill as many people as possible. Bonus points for killing children of wealthy individuals, since they have the highest potential for future CO2 usage.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#366

Post by [deleted] »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #189
smilekzs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, there's always a metallic residual taste in my water whenever I use a stainless steel bottle. Got tired and returned to using normal mugs.

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…

[deleted]

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#367

Post by Reason077 »

dtgriscom wrote: post #358
Reason077 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It ends up getting washed (or dumped) into the ocean Not where I live (northeastern USA), where the vast majority of discarded plastic ends up in landfills. Virtually none gets "washed (or dumped) into the ocean"; the minor exception is trash dropped by thoughtless people.

> "the minor exception is trash dropped by thoughtless people."

In many parts of the world, this is completely normal, unfortunately, not a "minor exception". Even here the UK, canals and rivers are often full of floating plastic bottles, bags, and other litter. I know because I've volunteered to clean it up: the quantities we pull out is insane. And a few weeks later, it's all back again. Frustrating and sad.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#368

Post by bernawil »

devnullbrain wrote: post #300
cj wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 :)

Murder is even more effective.

vote for Genghis Khan of the Green Party!

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#369

Post by mcronce »

jnwatson wrote: post #365
cj wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 :)

To optimize, you should aim to kill as many people as possible. Bonus points for killing children of wealthy individuals, since they have the highest potential for future CO2 usage.

The real lifeprotip is always in the comments

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#370

Post by tcmart14 »

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...

In one sense it may never, but in another sense it will. In that other sense, you know a mistake to avoid and perhaps can enlighten those around you not to make the same sense. Accidents happen, but you make up for them by making sure those accidents don't happen again or are very likely to be repeated.
Post reply on HN