the chemicals may interfere with the body’s hormones, raise cholesterol levels, affect fertility and increase the risk of certain cancers, according to the EPA."

  • nexusband@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    You do realize, many of those “forever chemicals” have no alternative? PFOA for example is essential for modern production, because there is no other material known to withstand the temperatures and pressures needed in the production processes? So the alternative is either not to use them at all, with ALL the consequences - or we have use a proper way to dispose them.

    Purification Plants are the same argument analogy.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      there is no other material known to withstand the temperatures and pressures needed in the production processes?

      Production of what, exactly?

      • nexusband@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        for example production of base chemicals that are used in various other follow up products, lot’s of efficiency due to special membranes and so on.

        • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          …you really do need to be specific. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re claiming that “the production processes” (of what, everything? all products in the entire economy?) require PFOAs- and that’s plain bullshit.

          Yes, there are some products for which there aren’t equivalent inputs, and you don’t need to be vague and generalize over all of productive everything in the economy in order to make that point- but given the opportunity to be specific, you specified “production of base chemicals that are used in various other follow-up products” and that’s not a straight or specific answer to a direct question.

    • dustycups@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Is there really no alternative in shampoo & disposable coffee cups?

      I understand that these chemicals do have some outstanding properties but that doesn’t mean unfettered production & use. Any risk assessment of a potential use really should include 100% resource recovery & disposal or recycling. This could have been done years ago but if industry can’t self regulate then bans it is.

      These chemicals make silent spring look like, um, er, weekend at Bernie’s?

      • nexusband@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Is there really no alternative in shampoo & disposable coffee cups?

        There is - but i personally think it’s up to customers to not just grab what’s on the shelf and do at least some basic research, because PFAS generally have to be marked on the bottle. Disposable coffee cups are just stupid all together.

        This could have been done years ago but if industry can’t self regulate then bans it is.

        I get the sentiment, but why not regulate stuff, before just banning it? And while we’re at it, how about educating the customer?

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          People any afford rent and groceries anymore. You expect them to voluntarily look up what’s going on with all the brands they are thinking about buying so they can choose the more expensive option? The only way to cut these oit is heavy regulation and punishment to corporations using these chemicals unnecessarily.

          • nexusband@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’ve been wondering for quite some time why everything is going to shit. Now I think I get the picture. Thanks for the enlightenment.

            And yes, I fucking expect people to think about their decisions and take responsibility serious - even if they don’t have the means to get caviar or Champagne all the time. But hey, I’ll probably be labeled as boomer in the next few years, so whatever floats your boat!

            Judging by all these downvotes, I guess that ship has sailed a long time and maybe I shouldn’t care so much 🤔

            • BakerBagel@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              You’re getting downvoted for being a moron who thinks that the free market will get ride of dangerous substances and business practices. The general public hates pretty much every major company, yet they all keep getting bigger and stronger because most people simply cant avoid it. There is still slavery at every step of coffee production despite literal decades of “fair trade” branding on coffee. Hell, people have known for 60 years that cigarettes cause cancer, yet millions of people have been born, started smoking, and died of lung cancer since all cigarettes are required to be labeled with “smoking causes cancer”. But you expect the average consumer to stop buying products that don’t directly harm them and cause damage to the environment instead.

              The only solution is governments stepping in and regulating when PFAS and other forever chemicals can be used. If 3M decides to outsource production to countries that allow for those chemicals, punish them and forbid those products from being imported. We have 40 years of proof that neoliberalism and free markets are useless for anything other than making the most powerful corporations shit tons of money. The only systemic problems that we managed to solve in that time are acid rain and the ozone depletion from CFC pollution, and those were only solved by government mandated phaseouts of dangerous chemicals.

        • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          You’re just shifting responsibility to the population that has no real control over the matter. That’s completely unethical.

          • nexusband@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            And you are arguing that customers become mindless drones that don’t need to think about any consequences when they consume. Which is exactly why we have fucked up the climate.

            Coming back to the purification plant, that’s the same thing if everyone would go shit in the Neighbors garden and flushing down anything down the toilet. We don’t do that, because we know it would fuck up the purification plant, clogg the toilet and turn the garden in to a literal dump.

            Choosing what you buy is also the same thing as choosing what to eat. Sure, if you don’t know any better you may just eat junk food all day long. But the consequences are going to haunt you very much.