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

  • Clegko
    link
    78 months ago

    So you’re OK with EV batteries no longer being made, along with numerous other things?

    • deaf_fish
      link
      fedilink
      118 months ago

      It’s kinda hard to tell. I would need to find a specific list of things that we could no longer produce with the specific laws.

      If it’s just that we no longer get non-stick pans, I am fine with losing those if we get less cancer.

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

        The list is so long you can’t fathom how much it impacts. Pretty much anything with anti- or resistant used to describe it has some sort of PFAS compound. We can live without PFAS, but we would need to do like people used to do and give up a lot of creature comforts.

        One thing it’s commonly associated with is surfactants, so no fancy shampoo, but also probably no washing machine because it doesn’t scour your clothes well enough. Plumbing uses it to join pipes. Any sort of metal finishing/coating uses so no more chrome or nickel plating unless you want it to look like you dug it up at a 500 AD site. One of the higher containing things I’ve seen was women’s make up.

        • @RubberElectrons
          link
          108 months ago

          The point is being missed. We shouldn’t use pfas for convenience items like pans and such. If we keep them well contained in EV batteries, that’s probably ok.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            48 months ago

            I concur. Plastic makes great electrical insulation, but not great disposable cups. Petroleum is very versatile feedstock but not a good energy source.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            I do wonder if cooking in nonstick pans without oil is less risky than cooking with oil in conventional pans.

            • Clegko
              link
              28 months ago

              I don’t think there’s really any measurable difference, assuming the nonstick pan isn’t scuffed enough to cause bits and pieces to flake off into your food.

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

                Cooking oil decomposes into carcinogens. Especially low smoke point oils.

                (Admittedly the increased risk from either is pretty low)

        • deaf_fish
          link
          fedilink
          28 months ago

          I don’t know. We stop cars, cancer goes away pretty quickly. Forever chemicals are well… Forever.

          That is why I need specifics. You deserve specifics too.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            We stop all cars. Build nanomachines to cure cancer and enable cold fusion. Abolish capitalism . It’s all so easy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      68 months ago

      There’s a great conversation going on under this comment that I totally agree with. There’s probably valid uses for which an exception could be made, but these largely do not belong in mass produced consumer goods.

      To answer your direct question, though: In a rational world, EVs would not be a thing, or would be a very limited thing for special use cases like farm work or accessibility. They will not solve our problems, only mass transit and better planning can solve things.