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

401–410 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#401

Post by wkat4242 »

the_third_wave wrote: post #328
snovv_crash wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true. The Gore-Tex layer isn't damaged like this. You're referring to the DNW coating, and there's no reason this can't be a waxed layer like old-school rain jackets. In fact a lot of companies started offering wax based DNW coatings in the name of environmental responsibility. The actual "Gore-Tex" layer, now no longer under patent and produced by many under names such as Dermizax, H2No, Sympatex and many…

A search says more than a 1000 words - and so do the countless questions it produces on just the problem of delamination. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gore-tex+delamination It might work fine for a weekend hike but the stuff does not hold up to repeated strain. Eventually it'll start to delaminate at the shoulders due to wear from backpack straps, cuffs and other exposed spots. This 'eventually' will depend on what you'…

That delamination doesn't happen for normal gore-tex where the membrane is one of the inner layers. It's only with the ultra-thin version used by cyclists that is hydrophobic on the outside. My gear usually starts ripping before the waterproofing is compromised.

But I replace my gear when needed anyway and recycle it. I do hike, but not very far from the civilized world. And previously I lived in a place where it rains every day in winter (western Ireland) so good breathing raingear is really a must have.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#402

Post by amluto »

selimthegrim wrote: post #320
atombender wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. What do you mean by "perform" here?

Could be the green tea is made with slightly lower temperature water so less likely to leach chemicals off of the liner

In theory the liner is PTFE (or maybe a different fluoropolymer) with nothing left to leach out. PTFE and its relatives are stable to temperatures well above that of boiling water, so leaching shouldn’t be an issue.

(One big problem with PTFE is that it starts to slowly decompose at a lower temperature than its melting point. This makes it messy to work with. As I understand it, the decomposition products are gasses, so this is a problem at the factory and for the environment, but I don’t think its a problem for end users.)

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#403

Post by SyzygistSix »

wkat4242 wrote: post #26
Centigonal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...which is a good thing! we should stop taking $20 teflon pans, nonstick fast food containers, and $40 raincoats with negative externalities for granted. We did fine without PFAS, we'll be okay with expensive PFAS (where externalities are internalized and built into the cost) too.

Does paying for the pollution really help fix the problem? Will the government use that money to filter rivers for PFAS? I think a lot of this need also comes from other supposedly environmental choices. My work banned plastic cups and now has paper cups with PFAS which are more toxic. I think the plastic ones were the better choice if recycled properly. And raincoats were really really horrible before Gore-Tex.

What was wrong with the old rubber raincoats?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#404

Post by wkat4242 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #401
the_third_wave wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A search says more than a 1000 words - and so do the countless questions it produces on just the problem of delamination. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gore-tex+delamination It might work fine for a weekend hike but the stuff does not hold up to repeated strain. Eventually it'll start to delaminate at the shoulders due to wear from backpack straps, cuffs and other exposed spots. This 'eventually' will depend on what you'…

That delamination doesn't happen for normal gore-tex where the membrane is one of the inner layers. It's only with the ultra-thin version used by cyclists that is hydrophobic on the outside. My gear usually starts ripping before the waterproofing is compromised. But I replace my gear when needed anyway and recycle it. I do hike, but not very far from the civilized world. And previously I lived in a place where it rai…

PS the fabric I refer to is called "Shakedry". But it's only one of the many types of gore-tex. The more traditional types don't have this issue.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#405

Post by SyzygistSix »

m463 wrote: post #397
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.

I would like to know when I'm buying toxins. Overheating teflon pans will kill any pet birds in the house. It's also not great for humans (but details have been suppressed by large corporate campaigns) But try to find a pan without teflon? impossible to determine (almost) I remember finding that hexclad alledgedly doesn't use teflon... until I found out they do ... and they put it on the OUTSIDE of the pan too. ugh.

Cast iron works just fine. And I never saw a teflon pan in any professional kitchen.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#406

Post by notRobot »

scrose wrote: post #400
Enginerrrd wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is literally nothing I could possibly do that could come even close to making up for that... I can say from personal experience this is not true! You can help fix other people's mistakes! I was an energy engineer for a while. You'd be amazed just how much low-lying fruit there is in terms of energy waste. I was also GOOD at this job. Instead of doing the brainless measures, I would really dig and do a lot of m…

Sorry for going off-topic, but would you mind sharing a bit more about this business? The domain sounds really interesting to me. My e-mail is also in my profile if that's better.

I would love to learn more about this too!

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#407

Post by meldyr »

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.

Your comment is overly defeatist.

The market signal on that using PFAS is imposes serious liabilities on a company is crystal clear. Even a giant like 3M is in rough waters because it cannot bear the liabilities.

It is common that large public companies deinvest some part of their business that cause bad PR. They usually sell a part of their business to a smaller/more anonymous/non-public company that is prepared to take the liabilities. In this case there is no indication of a possible sale of the 3M plants and a complete closure is the most likely scenario.

A second aspect is that many 3m-customers will be forced to reevaluate the decision to use PFAS. A good example is the usage in firefighting foam. Any producer of firefighting-foam is now fully aware that selling foam which is guaranteed to be released into the environment is a major liability.

There are even proposals to ban end-products that contain PFAS at the EU-level. Lobbying is not fully transparent, but I suspect 3M was one of the last strongholds that lobbied against such regulation.

Today, in many emerging markets environment law is weak or the enforcement is absent today. However, we see that all emerging markets are catching-up. In 5 to 10 years PFAS-producers will face a similar regulatory risk in some emerging markets.

The last element is that the market-share of 3M was huge. It is unlikely that competitors in emerging markets can fill that gap in 3 years.

In the short term, we will see some PFAS-producing companies in emerging markets making record profits because of this decision. However, I think it is unlikely that growth in emerging markets will come even close to filling this gap.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#408

Post by wkat4242 »

SyzygistSix wrote: post #403
wkat4242 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does paying for the pollution really help fix the problem? Will the government use that money to filter rivers for PFAS? I think a lot of this need also comes from other supposedly environmental choices. My work banned plastic cups and now has paper cups with PFAS which are more toxic. I think the plastic ones were the better choice if recycled properly. And raincoats were really really horrible before Gore-Tex.

What was wrong with the old rubber raincoats?

Sweatiness.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#410

Post by aperson_hello »

nightski wrote: post #324
TrickyRick wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the most environmentally conscious person in an industrialized nation will emit massive amounts of CO2 in their lifetime, provided of course that nobody invents a "quick fix" for CO2 emissions in their lifetime. Of course in theory the child could be that person to invent that quick fix, but the expected value is still that the child will contribute to a lot of CO2 emissions.

It doesn't matter. Climate change is happening. It doesn't matter what we do as individuals, the system can't be changed from individual action and it can't be changed via collective action as that would require full cooperation. There is no practical way we can achieve the goal of survival for all through reduction of CO2 emissions. It's a farce because we'll never get all parties to agree. The only path forward is…

The earth is on a trajectory for <2.5C just based on current technology and policies. The technology and policy path we're on (including developed but not yet implemented tech and policy) is likely to limit warming to <2C, but 1.5C is nigh-on unachievable. Assuming we don't hit any runaway conditions (which is an unknown unknown that we probably won't realize until we're already there)...the vast majority of the world will be just fine. And if governments can get their heads out of their behinds and pass marginally sensible immigration reform, the people who are displaced can move to locations where there are massive demographic bombs going off (most of the west) to stabilize their workforces.
Post reply on HN