▲ 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 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