the chemicals may interfere with the body’s hormones, raise cholesterol levels, affect fertility and increase the risk of certain cancers, according to the EPA."

  • krigo666@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    And now instead of stopping producing them, we will continue with the excuse ‘we have the cure for the disease!’

    • nexusband@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      You do realize, many of those “forever chemicals” have no alternative? PFOA for example is essential for modern production, because there is no other material known to withstand the temperatures and pressures needed in the production processes? So the alternative is either not to use them at all, with ALL the consequences - or we have use a proper way to dispose them.

      Purification Plants are the same argument analogy.

      • dustycups@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Is there really no alternative in shampoo & disposable coffee cups?

        I understand that these chemicals do have some outstanding properties but that doesn’t mean unfettered production & use. Any risk assessment of a potential use really should include 100% resource recovery & disposal or recycling. This could have been done years ago but if industry can’t self regulate then bans it is.

        These chemicals make silent spring look like, um, er, weekend at Bernie’s?

        • nexusband@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Is there really no alternative in shampoo & disposable coffee cups?

          There is - but i personally think it’s up to customers to not just grab what’s on the shelf and do at least some basic research, because PFAS generally have to be marked on the bottle. Disposable coffee cups are just stupid all together.

          This could have been done years ago but if industry can’t self regulate then bans it is.

          I get the sentiment, but why not regulate stuff, before just banning it? And while we’re at it, how about educating the customer?

          • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re just shifting responsibility to the population that has no real control over the matter. That’s completely unethical.

            • nexusband@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              And you are arguing that customers become mindless drones that don’t need to think about any consequences when they consume. Which is exactly why we have fucked up the climate.

              Coming back to the purification plant, that’s the same thing if everyone would go shit in the Neighbors garden and flushing down anything down the toilet. We don’t do that, because we know it would fuck up the purification plant, clogg the toilet and turn the garden in to a literal dump.

              Choosing what you buy is also the same thing as choosing what to eat. Sure, if you don’t know any better you may just eat junk food all day long. But the consequences are going to haunt you very much.

                • nexusband@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Maybe in the U.S., but not in Europe. We got the Nutri-Score, we got the animal wellfare labeling and we have open source databanks where you scan the barcode and get all the information about a product so you can actually make a decision.