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."

  • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well it’s not really a decision between “either not use them at all, or have a proper way to dispose of them”

    Yes, there are applications we don’t have alternative materials that we can agree are essential like safety products. That being said, we should definitely cut down our use of PFAS for items like floss, cosmetics, etc while continuing to look for alternatives. We use it far too much just for added convenience, but that convenience could be doing a lot of harm.

    https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/say-goodbye-PFAS/97/i46

    Kinda like the idea in this article, seems like a good compromise

    • nexusband@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Oh i absolutely agree with you. Especially in cosmetics and other “day to day” products that are disposable.

      But that’s also exactly the argument - make companies and customers dispose of these products correctly, because banning PFAS outright will have devastating consequences. (Like 3M just shifting production to China from Europe. Europe had the highest safety and production standards for PTFE - now they are going to be produced in china with absolutely no standards )

      And if there is a proper way to recycle those PFAS, there is no need to shift production to places where there are no standards so you can get a porper goretex jacket (for example), because phasing out PTFE for something other that’s substitutable now has an incentive.