1076
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
1076 points (98.9% liked)
Not The Onion
12718 readers
2045 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not just the use itself, but also how irresponsibly it is produced. Exposing pregnant workers to high levels, dumping it in community water supplies, on farmland etc.
Also the EU did ban them last september (effective in 2026) for essentially all of the uses you outlined, most of which I dont think are such a big deal and just minor inconveniences. It's not like the 60s were terrible in terms of living conditions.
We also used to use asbestos for a lot of the uses you outlined and we got rid of that without too much inconvenience, but you could have made similar arguments about it back then.
And any reduction is a good thing, it's not an all or nothing thing. DDT was banned, but can and is still used where there's no better alternative. And just categorically saying any alternative must be just as bad is just a non-sequitur, there's no reason that should be true. Cookware is a good example, cast iron works just as well, is not as bad, the only downside compared to teflon is weight. But it's not like sending us back to the stone age or anything...
You can have your own opinion here, but anything which performs like PFAS compounds, in the variety of uses that PFAS is used, will almost certainly be bad. In general when you make new compounds and materials which are more complex their potential health impacts are worse. PFAS is already an extremely complex material and while broad sweeping statements might not be 100% accurate, I wouldn't bet that it's replacement would be better for people.
It's another thing altogether if you are recommending going backward in the development chain, cookware is a good example here but it's limited case underlies the ubiquity of PFAS. Hell, PFAS is a major component in computer part manufacturing and is part of the reason computing technology has progressed as it has.