Technology

59448 readers

3628 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

206

Scientists find a simple way to destroy 'forever chemicals' — by beheading them (www.livescience.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well it's not really a decision between "either not use them at all, or have a proper way to dispose of them"

Yes, there are applications we don't have alternative materials that we can agree are essential like safety products. That being said, we should definitely cut down our use of PFAS for items like floss, cosmetics, etc while continuing to look for alternatives. We use it far too much just for added convenience, but that convenience could be doing a lot of harm.

https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/say-goodbye-PFAS/97/i46

Kinda like the idea in this article, seems like a good compromise

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Oh i absolutely agree with you. Especially in cosmetics and other "day to day" products that are disposable.

But that's also exactly the argument - make companies and customers dispose of these products correctly, because banning PFAS outright will have devastating consequences. (Like 3M just shifting production to China from Europe. Europe had the highest safety and production standards for PTFE - now they are going to be produced in china with absolutely no standards )

And if there is a proper way to recycle those PFAS, there is no need to shift production to places where there are no standards so you can get a porper goretex jacket (for example), because phasing out PTFE for something other that's substitutable now has an incentive.