▲ 777 ▼ oops (mander.xyz) submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 64 points 1 year ago (21 children) It is. Along with PFAS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -41 points 1 year ago (20 children) The PFAS/PFOA controversy, is mostly about banning these commodity products so that the proprietary, non-commodity alternatives by western companies can become the only high temperature dry lubricant on sale. Maybe in another 60 years we'll have the same controversy about them ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 1 year ago (9 children) No it isnt, its about the production precursors being literal poison for anything they get into with no chance of breaking down. Its a unusually harmful and persistive compound. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -27 points 1 year ago* (8 children) And the current goal is to ban them all https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp Leaving us only able to buy the proprietary alternative of an oligopoly, instead of regulating the production of this commodity. End result, we pay for it all and get a degradation in quality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 year ago (2 children) Hey friend you know the chemicals they make those things from are like WILDLY carconogenic right? And that PFAs and their cousins last forever and don't break down in the environment? These chemicals are being banned because humans got too good at making super stable fuck-you-big molecules that just so happen to be wildly incompatible with anything that has DNA. These chemicals are literally everywhere with water treatment facilities having acceptable limits 2ppb or less. Yea, B, Billon. The thing with that amount though, is even THAT isn't safe, its just regulable. Here's an oversimplified video on the subject by Veritasium, the clickbait headline is just that. I believe this is also on nebula if you'd prefer to avoid youtube. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -11 points 1 year ago (1 child) They should stop dumping it in the rivers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago You should really watch that video. It addresses that point exactly. In short, they mostly aren't, that isn't the problem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) What's the proprietary alternative? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago More PFAS, but with a secret formula so nobody has to worry permalink fedilink source parent [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) some ptfe/ceramic/titanium/diamond metamatrial that tolerates way high temperatures, which you can use metal utensils on and is not as good as regular ptfe at stopping eggs from sticking to the pan. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago But PTFE is used for more than nonstick pans. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stratoscaster@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* Dude it's literally poison what do you want??? It also leeches into the environment extremely easily. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 year ago (9 children) Did you at some point read about how some of them, such as the ones used in frying pans, are unlikely to cause problems in the human body, and then completely stopped looking into it further? It's a massive group of compounds, some of which currently look to be quite safe, but a significant number of which also have fully verified dangers (especially some compounds required for production). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (8 children) Yes, I read about it and the teflon on frying pan is explicitely NOT the problem. I understand that pointing to frying pans and saying "PTFE !!" is the attention grabbing thing to do. But there is no danger here. The problem is the manufacturing plants leaking PFOA/PFAS into their surrounding environment ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago (7 children) Maybe lead with that, instead of the conspiracy angle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago (6 children) That's been well known for over 50 years, why do you think now, all of a sudden, this is becoming an issue now ? This is because there are new coatings, silicon based PTFE-free coatings and PTFE-based metamaterial that combine titanium, ceramic and/or PCD. As the manufacturer invest in this new technology, they either restrict PTFE commodity manufacturers out of their market or merely stop funding lobbying that protects the PTFE. This is not a conspiracy theory, simple emergent interests that do not require a coordination. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* Abestos was used for millenias, and was known the miners a thousands years ago would succumb to a mysterious illness after working years in the mines... and it was just banned in the US in checks notes. Last year. Must've been big fiberglass behind it! permalink fedilink source parent [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Cool. But the reason you're being downvoted, is that instead of commenting this, you made a comment that sounded like you were dismissing the dangers of PFAS, and dismissing it as the modern-day equivalent to lead, asbestos, and the like. Which is what it is, and you clearly agree that it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The difference with leaded gasoline and asbestos, is that everyone everywhere was being exposed to those. And the current trajectory regarding PFAS is, a complete ban https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. This is what sloppy statements like plastics and teflon are tantamount to the widespread lead and mercury poisoning. That's just not the case but acting like it is, is exactly how industry initiate regulatory capture. I see it the same as the big tech giants pushing hard FOR regulation, because ultimately the rules, written with their impetus will become their motes and we will all pay for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children) But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. So screw the local environment and the people that live there? If the manufacturer could capture and destroy pfoa's before release, why havent they done so? If they could and didnt, then they brought the ban unpon themselves. This is like arguing "oh, but the oil spill was in a remote part of the ocean and would never effect my house, so keep on drilling baby!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -41 points 1 year ago (20 children) The PFAS/PFOA controversy, is mostly about banning these commodity products so that the proprietary, non-commodity alternatives by western companies can become the only high temperature dry lubricant on sale. Maybe in another 60 years we'll have the same controversy about them ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 1 year ago (9 children) No it isnt, its about the production precursors being literal poison for anything they get into with no chance of breaking down. Its a unusually harmful and persistive compound. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -27 points 1 year ago* (8 children) And the current goal is to ban them all https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp Leaving us only able to buy the proprietary alternative of an oligopoly, instead of regulating the production of this commodity. End result, we pay for it all and get a degradation in quality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 year ago (2 children) Hey friend you know the chemicals they make those things from are like WILDLY carconogenic right? And that PFAs and their cousins last forever and don't break down in the environment? These chemicals are being banned because humans got too good at making super stable fuck-you-big molecules that just so happen to be wildly incompatible with anything that has DNA. These chemicals are literally everywhere with water treatment facilities having acceptable limits 2ppb or less. Yea, B, Billon. The thing with that amount though, is even THAT isn't safe, its just regulable. Here's an oversimplified video on the subject by Veritasium, the clickbait headline is just that. I believe this is also on nebula if you'd prefer to avoid youtube. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -11 points 1 year ago (1 child) They should stop dumping it in the rivers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago You should really watch that video. It addresses that point exactly. In short, they mostly aren't, that isn't the problem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) What's the proprietary alternative? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago More PFAS, but with a secret formula so nobody has to worry permalink fedilink source parent [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) some ptfe/ceramic/titanium/diamond metamatrial that tolerates way high temperatures, which you can use metal utensils on and is not as good as regular ptfe at stopping eggs from sticking to the pan. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago But PTFE is used for more than nonstick pans. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stratoscaster@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* Dude it's literally poison what do you want??? It also leeches into the environment extremely easily. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 year ago (9 children) Did you at some point read about how some of them, such as the ones used in frying pans, are unlikely to cause problems in the human body, and then completely stopped looking into it further? It's a massive group of compounds, some of which currently look to be quite safe, but a significant number of which also have fully verified dangers (especially some compounds required for production). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (8 children) Yes, I read about it and the teflon on frying pan is explicitely NOT the problem. I understand that pointing to frying pans and saying "PTFE !!" is the attention grabbing thing to do. But there is no danger here. The problem is the manufacturing plants leaking PFOA/PFAS into their surrounding environment ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago (7 children) Maybe lead with that, instead of the conspiracy angle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago (6 children) That's been well known for over 50 years, why do you think now, all of a sudden, this is becoming an issue now ? This is because there are new coatings, silicon based PTFE-free coatings and PTFE-based metamaterial that combine titanium, ceramic and/or PCD. As the manufacturer invest in this new technology, they either restrict PTFE commodity manufacturers out of their market or merely stop funding lobbying that protects the PTFE. This is not a conspiracy theory, simple emergent interests that do not require a coordination. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* Abestos was used for millenias, and was known the miners a thousands years ago would succumb to a mysterious illness after working years in the mines... and it was just banned in the US in checks notes. Last year. Must've been big fiberglass behind it! permalink fedilink source parent [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Cool. But the reason you're being downvoted, is that instead of commenting this, you made a comment that sounded like you were dismissing the dangers of PFAS, and dismissing it as the modern-day equivalent to lead, asbestos, and the like. Which is what it is, and you clearly agree that it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The difference with leaded gasoline and asbestos, is that everyone everywhere was being exposed to those. And the current trajectory regarding PFAS is, a complete ban https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. This is what sloppy statements like plastics and teflon are tantamount to the widespread lead and mercury poisoning. That's just not the case but acting like it is, is exactly how industry initiate regulatory capture. I see it the same as the big tech giants pushing hard FOR regulation, because ultimately the rules, written with their impetus will become their motes and we will all pay for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children) But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. So screw the local environment and the people that live there? If the manufacturer could capture and destroy pfoa's before release, why havent they done so? If they could and didnt, then they brought the ban unpon themselves. This is like arguing "oh, but the oil spill was in a remote part of the ocean and would never effect my house, so keep on drilling baby!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 1 year ago (9 children) No it isnt, its about the production precursors being literal poison for anything they get into with no chance of breaking down. Its a unusually harmful and persistive compound. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -27 points 1 year ago* (8 children) And the current goal is to ban them all https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp Leaving us only able to buy the proprietary alternative of an oligopoly, instead of regulating the production of this commodity. End result, we pay for it all and get a degradation in quality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 year ago (2 children) Hey friend you know the chemicals they make those things from are like WILDLY carconogenic right? And that PFAs and their cousins last forever and don't break down in the environment? These chemicals are being banned because humans got too good at making super stable fuck-you-big molecules that just so happen to be wildly incompatible with anything that has DNA. These chemicals are literally everywhere with water treatment facilities having acceptable limits 2ppb or less. Yea, B, Billon. The thing with that amount though, is even THAT isn't safe, its just regulable. Here's an oversimplified video on the subject by Veritasium, the clickbait headline is just that. I believe this is also on nebula if you'd prefer to avoid youtube. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -11 points 1 year ago (1 child) They should stop dumping it in the rivers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago You should really watch that video. It addresses that point exactly. In short, they mostly aren't, that isn't the problem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) What's the proprietary alternative? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago More PFAS, but with a secret formula so nobody has to worry permalink fedilink source parent [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) some ptfe/ceramic/titanium/diamond metamatrial that tolerates way high temperatures, which you can use metal utensils on and is not as good as regular ptfe at stopping eggs from sticking to the pan. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago But PTFE is used for more than nonstick pans. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stratoscaster@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* Dude it's literally poison what do you want??? It also leeches into the environment extremely easily. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -27 points 1 year ago* (8 children) And the current goal is to ban them all https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp Leaving us only able to buy the proprietary alternative of an oligopoly, instead of regulating the production of this commodity. End result, we pay for it all and get a degradation in quality. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 year ago (2 children) Hey friend you know the chemicals they make those things from are like WILDLY carconogenic right? And that PFAs and their cousins last forever and don't break down in the environment? These chemicals are being banned because humans got too good at making super stable fuck-you-big molecules that just so happen to be wildly incompatible with anything that has DNA. These chemicals are literally everywhere with water treatment facilities having acceptable limits 2ppb or less. Yea, B, Billon. The thing with that amount though, is even THAT isn't safe, its just regulable. Here's an oversimplified video on the subject by Veritasium, the clickbait headline is just that. I believe this is also on nebula if you'd prefer to avoid youtube. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -11 points 1 year ago (1 child) They should stop dumping it in the rivers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago You should really watch that video. It addresses that point exactly. In short, they mostly aren't, that isn't the problem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) What's the proprietary alternative? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago More PFAS, but with a secret formula so nobody has to worry permalink fedilink source parent [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) some ptfe/ceramic/titanium/diamond metamatrial that tolerates way high temperatures, which you can use metal utensils on and is not as good as regular ptfe at stopping eggs from sticking to the pan. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago But PTFE is used for more than nonstick pans. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stratoscaster@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* Dude it's literally poison what do you want??? It also leeches into the environment extremely easily. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 year ago (2 children) Hey friend you know the chemicals they make those things from are like WILDLY carconogenic right? And that PFAs and their cousins last forever and don't break down in the environment? These chemicals are being banned because humans got too good at making super stable fuck-you-big molecules that just so happen to be wildly incompatible with anything that has DNA. These chemicals are literally everywhere with water treatment facilities having acceptable limits 2ppb or less. Yea, B, Billon. The thing with that amount though, is even THAT isn't safe, its just regulable. Here's an oversimplified video on the subject by Veritasium, the clickbait headline is just that. I believe this is also on nebula if you'd prefer to avoid youtube. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -11 points 1 year ago (1 child) They should stop dumping it in the rivers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago You should really watch that video. It addresses that point exactly. In short, they mostly aren't, that isn't the problem. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -11 points 1 year ago (1 child) They should stop dumping it in the rivers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago You should really watch that video. It addresses that point exactly. In short, they mostly aren't, that isn't the problem. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago You should really watch that video. It addresses that point exactly. In short, they mostly aren't, that isn't the problem. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (3 children) What's the proprietary alternative? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago More PFAS, but with a secret formula so nobody has to worry permalink fedilink source parent [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) some ptfe/ceramic/titanium/diamond metamatrial that tolerates way high temperatures, which you can use metal utensils on and is not as good as regular ptfe at stopping eggs from sticking to the pan. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago But PTFE is used for more than nonstick pans. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago More PFAS, but with a secret formula so nobody has to worry permalink fedilink source parent
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) some ptfe/ceramic/titanium/diamond metamatrial that tolerates way high temperatures, which you can use metal utensils on and is not as good as regular ptfe at stopping eggs from sticking to the pan. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago But PTFE is used for more than nonstick pans. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago But PTFE is used for more than nonstick pans. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stratoscaster@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* Dude it's literally poison what do you want??? It also leeches into the environment extremely easily. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 year ago (9 children) Did you at some point read about how some of them, such as the ones used in frying pans, are unlikely to cause problems in the human body, and then completely stopped looking into it further? It's a massive group of compounds, some of which currently look to be quite safe, but a significant number of which also have fully verified dangers (especially some compounds required for production). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (8 children) Yes, I read about it and the teflon on frying pan is explicitely NOT the problem. I understand that pointing to frying pans and saying "PTFE !!" is the attention grabbing thing to do. But there is no danger here. The problem is the manufacturing plants leaking PFOA/PFAS into their surrounding environment ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago (7 children) Maybe lead with that, instead of the conspiracy angle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago (6 children) That's been well known for over 50 years, why do you think now, all of a sudden, this is becoming an issue now ? This is because there are new coatings, silicon based PTFE-free coatings and PTFE-based metamaterial that combine titanium, ceramic and/or PCD. As the manufacturer invest in this new technology, they either restrict PTFE commodity manufacturers out of their market or merely stop funding lobbying that protects the PTFE. This is not a conspiracy theory, simple emergent interests that do not require a coordination. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* Abestos was used for millenias, and was known the miners a thousands years ago would succumb to a mysterious illness after working years in the mines... and it was just banned in the US in checks notes. Last year. Must've been big fiberglass behind it! permalink fedilink source parent [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Cool. But the reason you're being downvoted, is that instead of commenting this, you made a comment that sounded like you were dismissing the dangers of PFAS, and dismissing it as the modern-day equivalent to lead, asbestos, and the like. Which is what it is, and you clearly agree that it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The difference with leaded gasoline and asbestos, is that everyone everywhere was being exposed to those. And the current trajectory regarding PFAS is, a complete ban https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. This is what sloppy statements like plastics and teflon are tantamount to the widespread lead and mercury poisoning. That's just not the case but acting like it is, is exactly how industry initiate regulatory capture. I see it the same as the big tech giants pushing hard FOR regulation, because ultimately the rules, written with their impetus will become their motes and we will all pay for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children) But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. So screw the local environment and the people that live there? If the manufacturer could capture and destroy pfoa's before release, why havent they done so? If they could and didnt, then they brought the ban unpon themselves. This is like arguing "oh, but the oil spill was in a remote part of the ocean and would never effect my house, so keep on drilling baby!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (8 children) Yes, I read about it and the teflon on frying pan is explicitely NOT the problem. I understand that pointing to frying pans and saying "PTFE !!" is the attention grabbing thing to do. But there is no danger here. The problem is the manufacturing plants leaking PFOA/PFAS into their surrounding environment ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago (7 children) Maybe lead with that, instead of the conspiracy angle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago (6 children) That's been well known for over 50 years, why do you think now, all of a sudden, this is becoming an issue now ? This is because there are new coatings, silicon based PTFE-free coatings and PTFE-based metamaterial that combine titanium, ceramic and/or PCD. As the manufacturer invest in this new technology, they either restrict PTFE commodity manufacturers out of their market or merely stop funding lobbying that protects the PTFE. This is not a conspiracy theory, simple emergent interests that do not require a coordination. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* Abestos was used for millenias, and was known the miners a thousands years ago would succumb to a mysterious illness after working years in the mines... and it was just banned in the US in checks notes. Last year. Must've been big fiberglass behind it! permalink fedilink source parent [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Cool. But the reason you're being downvoted, is that instead of commenting this, you made a comment that sounded like you were dismissing the dangers of PFAS, and dismissing it as the modern-day equivalent to lead, asbestos, and the like. Which is what it is, and you clearly agree that it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The difference with leaded gasoline and asbestos, is that everyone everywhere was being exposed to those. And the current trajectory regarding PFAS is, a complete ban https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. This is what sloppy statements like plastics and teflon are tantamount to the widespread lead and mercury poisoning. That's just not the case but acting like it is, is exactly how industry initiate regulatory capture. I see it the same as the big tech giants pushing hard FOR regulation, because ultimately the rules, written with their impetus will become their motes and we will all pay for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children) But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. So screw the local environment and the people that live there? If the manufacturer could capture and destroy pfoa's before release, why havent they done so? If they could and didnt, then they brought the ban unpon themselves. This is like arguing "oh, but the oil spill was in a remote part of the ocean and would never effect my house, so keep on drilling baby!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago (7 children) Maybe lead with that, instead of the conspiracy angle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago (6 children) That's been well known for over 50 years, why do you think now, all of a sudden, this is becoming an issue now ? This is because there are new coatings, silicon based PTFE-free coatings and PTFE-based metamaterial that combine titanium, ceramic and/or PCD. As the manufacturer invest in this new technology, they either restrict PTFE commodity manufacturers out of their market or merely stop funding lobbying that protects the PTFE. This is not a conspiracy theory, simple emergent interests that do not require a coordination. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* Abestos was used for millenias, and was known the miners a thousands years ago would succumb to a mysterious illness after working years in the mines... and it was just banned in the US in checks notes. Last year. Must've been big fiberglass behind it! permalink fedilink source parent [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Cool. But the reason you're being downvoted, is that instead of commenting this, you made a comment that sounded like you were dismissing the dangers of PFAS, and dismissing it as the modern-day equivalent to lead, asbestos, and the like. Which is what it is, and you clearly agree that it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The difference with leaded gasoline and asbestos, is that everyone everywhere was being exposed to those. And the current trajectory regarding PFAS is, a complete ban https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. This is what sloppy statements like plastics and teflon are tantamount to the widespread lead and mercury poisoning. That's just not the case but acting like it is, is exactly how industry initiate regulatory capture. I see it the same as the big tech giants pushing hard FOR regulation, because ultimately the rules, written with their impetus will become their motes and we will all pay for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children) But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. So screw the local environment and the people that live there? If the manufacturer could capture and destroy pfoa's before release, why havent they done so? If they could and didnt, then they brought the ban unpon themselves. This is like arguing "oh, but the oil spill was in a remote part of the ocean and would never effect my house, so keep on drilling baby!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago (6 children) That's been well known for over 50 years, why do you think now, all of a sudden, this is becoming an issue now ? This is because there are new coatings, silicon based PTFE-free coatings and PTFE-based metamaterial that combine titanium, ceramic and/or PCD. As the manufacturer invest in this new technology, they either restrict PTFE commodity manufacturers out of their market or merely stop funding lobbying that protects the PTFE. This is not a conspiracy theory, simple emergent interests that do not require a coordination. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* Abestos was used for millenias, and was known the miners a thousands years ago would succumb to a mysterious illness after working years in the mines... and it was just banned in the US in checks notes. Last year. Must've been big fiberglass behind it! permalink fedilink source parent [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Cool. But the reason you're being downvoted, is that instead of commenting this, you made a comment that sounded like you were dismissing the dangers of PFAS, and dismissing it as the modern-day equivalent to lead, asbestos, and the like. Which is what it is, and you clearly agree that it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The difference with leaded gasoline and asbestos, is that everyone everywhere was being exposed to those. And the current trajectory regarding PFAS is, a complete ban https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. This is what sloppy statements like plastics and teflon are tantamount to the widespread lead and mercury poisoning. That's just not the case but acting like it is, is exactly how industry initiate regulatory capture. I see it the same as the big tech giants pushing hard FOR regulation, because ultimately the rules, written with their impetus will become their motes and we will all pay for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children) But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. So screw the local environment and the people that live there? If the manufacturer could capture and destroy pfoa's before release, why havent they done so? If they could and didnt, then they brought the ban unpon themselves. This is like arguing "oh, but the oil spill was in a remote part of the ocean and would never effect my house, so keep on drilling baby!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* Abestos was used for millenias, and was known the miners a thousands years ago would succumb to a mysterious illness after working years in the mines... and it was just banned in the US in checks notes. Last year. Must've been big fiberglass behind it! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Cool. But the reason you're being downvoted, is that instead of commenting this, you made a comment that sounded like you were dismissing the dangers of PFAS, and dismissing it as the modern-day equivalent to lead, asbestos, and the like. Which is what it is, and you clearly agree that it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The difference with leaded gasoline and asbestos, is that everyone everywhere was being exposed to those. And the current trajectory regarding PFAS is, a complete ban https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. This is what sloppy statements like plastics and teflon are tantamount to the widespread lead and mercury poisoning. That's just not the case but acting like it is, is exactly how industry initiate regulatory capture. I see it the same as the big tech giants pushing hard FOR regulation, because ultimately the rules, written with their impetus will become their motes and we will all pay for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children) But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. So screw the local environment and the people that live there? If the manufacturer could capture and destroy pfoa's before release, why havent they done so? If they could and didnt, then they brought the ban unpon themselves. This is like arguing "oh, but the oil spill was in a remote part of the ocean and would never effect my house, so keep on drilling baby!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The difference with leaded gasoline and asbestos, is that everyone everywhere was being exposed to those. And the current trajectory regarding PFAS is, a complete ban https://www.wcl.org.uk/transitioning-to-a-pfas-free-economy.asp But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. This is what sloppy statements like plastics and teflon are tantamount to the widespread lead and mercury poisoning. That's just not the case but acting like it is, is exactly how industry initiate regulatory capture. I see it the same as the big tech giants pushing hard FOR regulation, because ultimately the rules, written with their impetus will become their motes and we will all pay for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children) But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. So screw the local environment and the people that live there? If the manufacturer could capture and destroy pfoa's before release, why havent they done so? If they could and didnt, then they brought the ban unpon themselves. This is like arguing "oh, but the oil spill was in a remote part of the ocean and would never effect my house, so keep on drilling baby!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children) But they're not a problem everywhere, they're a problem of containment at the manufacturer. So screw the local environment and the people that live there? If the manufacturer could capture and destroy pfoa's before release, why havent they done so? If they could and didnt, then they brought the ban unpon themselves. This is like arguing "oh, but the oil spill was in a remote part of the ocean and would never effect my house, so keep on drilling baby!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Or make sure they don't have spills again, doesn't seem that hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Right... like how hard is it not crash a ship into a bridge? Even good stewards have accidents. So if there something better and less destructive to the environment, it should be strongly prefered. permalink fedilink source parent
