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

81–90 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#81

Post by Jolter »

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.

Can you name one essential application where PFAS is really necessary? Something where society would actually be substantially worse without it. I’m not talking about ski wax here.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#82

Post by upon_drumhead »

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.

While it's not 3M, American Scandal (Podcast) did a season on a coverup by DuPont that's totally worth listening to.

https://wondery.com/shows/american-scandal/season/41/

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#83

Post by upon_drumhead »

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.

Honestly, I try to buy 3M stuff more then existing alternatives, even with the higher price, largely cause 3M stuff tends to work a lot better and my time not dealing with crappy stuff is worth the cost. That won't change with the increased cost of safer alternatives. If anything, I'll buy more 3M products.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#84

Post by Jolter »

RyanShook wrote: post #27

There are nine thousand known PFAS. They are essential to many products and processes. Many don't have a clear alternative. Other countries will continue to produce them. But 3M is going to ban them all without any discernment. Am I missing something?

Can you one product or process where it’s indispensable?

I’m not being argumentative, just curious, as I’m not a chemist. I know it’s already being replaced in ski waxes and I’m pretty sure they have alternatives for firefighting foams?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#85

Post by Reason077 »

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…

> "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 water to refill it from, which at least is cheaper and generates less waste than using multiple small plastic bottles throughout the day.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#87

Post by lobochrome »

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.

This is just not true. For many of the products there are no quick and dirty replacements from China and even if they would field a product it’s not just a 1:1 replacement. Qualification is complicated.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#89

Post by krab »

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.

They'll lobby for a ban of these chemicals, showing there's a safer alternative. That's a risk for the competitors and their customers.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#90

Post by runnerup »

standardUser wrote: post #79
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…

Nothing government regulations with decent enforcement couldn't stop. We just need to elect governments that pass those regulations. The thing is, the majority of voters in most societies don't want those regulations.

Actually the tragedy of the commons cannot be stopped by one government. If USA chooses to tax all externalities perfectly, both our production capacity and consumption will be a tiny sliver of its current quantities. By GHG alone we'd lose 80% of our economy, but that doesn't take into account the potential cost of removing dioxin and PFAS from our groundwater, remediating lithium mines, cleaning our air of fly ash, preventing any toxic chemical leaks, making our rivers and lakes and ponds drinkable again, etc. I believe that would reduce us to about 1% of our current GDP.

Assuming we didn't riot ourselves to rubble, other nations will quickly outstrip us. Eventually we'd be a vassal state of another superpower. Either because they'd buy our politicians, use crises of supply shortages to force us into free trade deals which axe our externality taxes, or via outright force.

Other nations would do to us what the USA did to Latin America when those nations wanted to throttle their development for ecological reasons in the 60's and 70's.

Sustainably, we probably wouldn't even be able to keep and train a competitive military -- 6% of our nations carbon emissions are from our military, accounting for 52% of federal carbon footprint, and our military emits more GHG than 140 countries (individually/separately).

Post reply on HN