As lawmakers around the world weigh bans of 'forever chemicals,” many manufacturers are pushing back, saying there often is no substitute.

  • @atzanteol
    link
    -108 months ago

    Sooo, as a counterpoint lets say we needed to replace “water” with something else for human consumption.

    What do you imagine the cost and probability of success for that would look like?

    I’m not saying it’s the same here - but people seem to think that “scientists” can just magic-up new chemicals for everything.

    • Lightor
      link
      fedilink
      118 months ago

      We can exist without forever chemicals and have, we cannot exist and have not ever existed without water.

      Lemme pose another extreme then. If water killed people after drinking it for 20 years would you just say we can’t replace it and accept that reality? Or would you at least make a strong effort to replace it?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      “Forever chemicals” arent water. We have survived without it. It is currently just really inconvenient to do so again given what these substances are used for. I am a chemist. We have replaced things before and were almost certainly going to do it again. Companies just have to give a shit enough to make use of our inginuity to do so. But unfortunately they dont care unless they have a legal gun to their head so here we are

      • @atzanteol
        link
        -58 months ago

        “Forever chemicals” arent water. We have survived without it

        Uh. Yeah. Way to avoid my point completely. But sure - we don’t consume “forever chemicals” out of necessity. Guess that chemistry degree is really paying off.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          78 months ago

          My degree is directly relevant to the topic at hand. I am qualified to have an informed opinion on the feasibility of replacing forever chemicals. You on the other hand, are not.

          • @atzanteol
            link
            -38 months ago

            And? Are there easy replacements?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              58 months ago

              There are replacements but none as cheap and easy to manufacture (yet… which is the whole point of R and D) which is why companies use them. There is very little pressure forcing companies to switch to alternatives and as long as that is the case, they will still use them rather than do the work needed to phase them out. This is not a problem because we cannot phase them out but because there is no economic driving force to use alternatives.

              Making things dirt cheap IS NOT an acceptable excuse to fuck up the environment. We have one planet to live on. This is like pissing in the same office water cooler you drink out of because it costs 50 cents to use the bathroom.

    • Franzia
      link
      fedilink
      28 months ago

      In almost every case I can think of there is an older solution, it was better, but its less profitable. They’re pushing cheap junk out. PFAS chemicals are not the best solution to much. Lightweight waterproofing, maybe?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      I’m not saying it’s the same here

      “I’m not saying the example I just used in this situation is an example that should ever be used in this situation.”

      And if scientists can’t “magic” new chemicals, I wonder how they came up with the ones addressed in this article? Besides, isn’t capitalism supposed to “drive innovation” and all that? Amazing how that suddenly goes right out the window the minute anyone questions the status quo or, god forbid, the profit that comes from destroying the earth and the people on it.

      • @atzanteol
        link
        -28 months ago

        Your view of the world is very pedantic and black/white. Not worth discussing.