Knightfox

It's not even a dent in the list of all effected products. For the no known replacement there should be a preface, we can generally make things without PFAS still, but PFAS is a major reason why the item is desirable.

For example, we can go back to lye and castile soap but we probably won't be able to have laundry or dish detergent. The alternatives exist, they just don't function well enough to be replacements. Without detergents you would need to pre-wash your dishes and laundry (or completely skip using) before using your washing machine and dish washer (hand wash everything). This says nothing about industrial usage of surfactants which is also really important.

We'd still have plastics, but we probably wouldn't have any plastics which are naturally "slippy," smooth, or soft. Hard brittle plastics only.

An example I used earlier, we could still have metal coating/plating, but it would probably look more like something from the early 1800s. PFAS is used in the process to suppress fumes and also to protect against corrosion, staining, and weathering.

I don't know enough to say how far back it would set us with computers. I have the sense they'd still exist, but we'd be set back several decades.

The big one is airplane fires, AFFF is the best foam for putting out a jet fuel fire.

The problem is that the industry has already made replacements and the replacements were bad too. Gen X was a replacement for PFOS and PFOA, all 3 are PFAS compounds. Either we have to completely abstain, greatly limit usage, find a magic way to treat it, or replace it. Odds are whatever wonder replacement we invent will be found to be the next super bad thing in 20 years.

Non stick pans, fire retardant mattresses, nonslip shoes, many forms of plastic, stain resistant shirts, water proof jackets, fume suppressants, metal coating/plating, high quality surfactants (ie lots of soaps), many types of pipe and the joining compounds used in plumbing, and the list goes on.

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.

The situation is much more nuanced than that. PFAS chemicals are in (almost literally) everything. Your nonslip shoes, your water proof jacket, your stain resistant table cloth, and your fire retardant mattress. On top of that the list of PFAS chemicals that the EPA is looking at is around 70 compounds long and only scratches the surface of all the compounds. The test to detect PFAS is in its 4th draft and can't reliably detect low enough to reach the levels of concern, except in nearly pristine waters, so you can't even detect if you have it in most water. The levels of concern that are being discussed are in the single digit PPT for individual compounds or 70 PPT total PFAS for some health advisory levels. Detection levels on normal waste water are generally somewhere between 50 and 4000 because the test is so sensitive other compounds fry the machine and it has to be diluted.

Another problem is that the thresholds are so low that it's hard to draw any conclusions definitively. It's associated with so many things you could write a novel: altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes, cancer, decreased birth weight for infants, infertility, and more. The thing is that the only way to make a more conclusive connection is observing high exposure areas where people were drinking it at thousand times higher than the risk levels, so interpolating down smaller values has a lot of theoretical connections, but few smoking guns.

In general industries are trying to move away from PFAS, but the areas where they can't include things like AFFF foam used for fighting jet fires. Some areas, particularly the military, are unlikely to make concessions as they want the best option available even if a close substitute is available. Your average PFAS using company; however, is moving away from PFAS in general.

EDIT: also the quantity of PFAS in most items is so small that it actually is below the threshold on an SDS for requiring it be reported, so trying to find out if a product you use has PFAS means you have to call the manufacturer. Maybe they can tell you, maybe they don't want to tell you, or maybe they don't know because it's not listed on the SDS for the raw ingredients they use. In the industry it's gotten into a near legal situation where companies are telling their suppliers and vendors to look for PFAS and certify that their products don't have it, only for the vendor to turn around and do the same for their vendors and suppliers. The portion at the end of the article captures this well, an example would be, "Well we don't use PFAS, but our machine has gaskets which probably have PFAS. This doesn't touch the final product so are we able to use it?"

You...didn't get the joke at all.

McHenry is a piece of shit. Also he was running campaign ads on YouTube back in June, fucking 11 months before the primary.

There is something to be said about the suburb or even country life. I used to live in the city and I really liked it, but I moved for work and wanted a house rather than an apartment. I used to have bars on my back door and a front door camera. I used to hear gun fire in the middle of the night. The cops were actively in my neighborhood because one of my neighbors was a known drug dealer (they would watch his place and pick up customers). One of my neighbors regularly had EMS and the fire department because she was a coke head suicidal mess that wouldn't seek or accept help.

Living in the country I'm further from the cultural amenities I used to have, though I still have commercial items I need. On the other hand I've left my shed, car and back door unlocked on accident and never had a break in. I miss living in the city, but I wouldn't have what I have now in the city.

I wish people would talk about this, but Elon really isn't that smart and he certainly isn't a genius. I learned a long time ago that smart is relative and really shouldn't be foisted onto people. Elon has a BA in Physics from a school known for business degrees. He also got a BS in Business, but UPenn and Wharton are known more for how hard it is to get in than how hard the classes are.

The website CollegeVine says UPenn is known as the "Social Ivy" and "UPenn’s admissions is highly-selective, but students applying to the UPenn College of Arts & Science (CAS) will find it less academically competitive than schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford (although exceptional academics are still a must)."

By the way, he started college in 1990, transfered to UPenn in 1992, and states he graduated in 1995, but UPenn refutes that saying he graduated in 1997. This is a school where 96% of those who are accepted graduate within 150% of the degree time (4 year degree within 6 years) (https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/215062/university-of-pennsylvania/graduation/).

Musk of course says he completed the courses in 1995, but there was some sort of mixup with an English and History credit that delayed the degree by 2 years.