381–390 of 423 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zojirushi also makes them without the liner. It’s a choose-your-poison situation: the lined ones seem to perform much better with green tea.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. What do you mean by "perform" here?
https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Vision/Vision/Internationa...
Yep, it’s water plus various non-polymer perfluoro compounds.
I get why fluoropolymers are extremely useful (and probably fairly safe for their end users). I get why PFCs are useful in industrial processes. But why on Earth is it acceptable to intentionally use PFCs as the primary ingredients in a spray bottle intended to be used near people’s faces?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are some truly tiny and thin metal flasks. Even a little water is surely better than none.
Yes, but if you're sipping out of one at, say, the dog park, don't be surprised if people give you funny looks.
Life's too short to be worried about funny looks.
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. We do get it. Sometimes the costs aren't known in advance, and you can't include every potential future issue in the cost/benefit calculus. Isn't that literally what the article is pointing at? Shareholders put pressure on the company to stop this, and they are. Sounds like a success story.
Free markets are generally bad at handling pollution because the costs are so diffuse and long term; there's often a way to increase profits at the expense of someone else's health in a manner that can't be precisely quantified immediately.
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 :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
We just gloss over, or hyperfocus on areas based on current fashions.
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 :)
That's true. It's also an entirely different tragedy of the commons. If nobody has children, we are going to be screwed when our generation is too old to work.
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.
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.