6 ms·

Pocket change. This is not accountability for infecting the worlds population with these nasty chemicals.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
PFAS technology was top secret WW2 research output. Then the military discovered that they had amazing properties to fight extremely dangerous fires in missile warehouses and were eventually required to use them to maximize safety decades ago. Prozac, Lipitor, Flonase and about 30% of upcoming new pharmaceutical drugs are PFAS, so they aren't going away completely, because society has determined that they are valuable even if they can reach toxic levels if not disposed of properly (every chemical is toxic after a certain human concentration, including water). Companies wouldn't be able to manufacture semiconductors without PFAS as well, or high temperature components for warfare. Now that we are smarter, we know how to mitigate risk and reduce concentrating materials to keep below relevant ppb thresholds. If America isn't educationally sophisticated enough to handle this manufacturing and risk, it will just be done in zero regulation geographies like China and the world will be worse off.
- bluedays 3y ago
  PFAS is not used in pharmaceutical drugs.
  - ok_computer 3y ago
    They listed prozac that is fluorinated https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine But I’m unsure the line where perfluoralkylated is reached. I’d think if the compound had alkylated chains instead of a fluorine-linked head group.
  - nate_meurer 3y ago
    They absolutely are. My favorite antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) is unambiguously a PFAS.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  What about we first find out how much of it is actually toxic (which seems rather 1/1000th of current official numbers) and then start using them in processes which actually respects that? It still doesn't cover accumulation in bodies over time though. You don't gain any longterm competitive advantage by poisoning half of your population, giving them wonderful cancers, infertility, massive amount of birth defects etc. You just destroy society and bankrupt medical insurance. This isn't some economics and plying with abstract numbers, these are people out there and messing this up badly will have massive negative impacts for many generations.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > because society has determined that they are valuable even if they can reach toxic levels if not disposed of properly Society never decided this one way or another. Rich and powerful corporations did.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    One could say this about all chemistry.

PFAS technology was top secret WW2 research output. Then the military discovered that they had amazing properties to fight extremely dangerous fires in missile warehouses and were eventually required to use them to maximize safety decades ago. Prozac, Lipitor, Flonase and about 30% of upcoming new pharmaceutical drugs are PFAS, so they aren't going away completely, because society has determined that they are valuable even if they can reach toxic levels if not disposed of properly (every chemical is toxic after a certain human concentration, including water). Companies wouldn't be able to manufacture semiconductors without PFAS as well, or high temperature components for warfare. Now that we are smarter, we know how to mitigate risk and reduce concentrating materials to keep below relevant ppb thresholds. If America isn't educationally sophisticated enough to handle this manufacturing and risk, it will just be done in zero regulation geographies like China and the world will be worse off.

bluedays 3y ago
PFAS is not used in pharmaceutical drugs.
- ok_computer 3y ago
  They listed prozac that is fluorinated https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine But I’m unsure the line where perfluoralkylated is reached. I’d think if the compound had alkylated chains instead of a fluorine-linked head group.
- nate_meurer 3y ago
  They absolutely are. My favorite antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) is unambiguously a PFAS.
saiya-jin 3y ago
What about we first find out how much of it is actually toxic (which seems rather 1/1000th of current official numbers) and then start using them in processes which actually respects that? It still doesn't cover accumulation in bodies over time though. You don't gain any longterm competitive advantage by poisoning half of your population, giving them wonderful cancers, infertility, massive amount of birth defects etc. You just destroy society and bankrupt medical insurance. This isn't some economics and plying with abstract numbers, these are people out there and messing this up badly will have massive negative impacts for many generations.
JohnFen 3y ago
> because society has determined that they are valuable even if they can reach toxic levels if not disposed of properly Society never decided this one way or another. Rich and powerful corporations did.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  One could say this about all chemistry.