As lawmakers around the world weigh bans of 'forever chemicals,” many manufacturers are pushing back, saying there often is no substitute.

As lawmakers around the world weigh bans of 'forever chemicals,” many manufacturers are pushing back, saying there often is no substitute.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    8 months ago

    So saying “we can’t replace all” is completely irrelevant.

    I think it’s relevant to the person you were replying to as well as the original point of the article.

    PFAS are critical to some modern technologies. In some cases, they cannot be replaced. Any time we replace cars with buses, we will need PFAS to electrify the buses. And likely we will need more PFAS in the future than we are using today.

    • darq@kbin.social
      2·
      8 months ago

      I think it’s relevant to the person you were replying to

      I was the top comment. So no.

      as well as the original point of the article

      Which is why I was talking about reduction in cases where elimination isn’t feasible.

      Bloody hell man.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        8 months ago

        You’re right, you were quoting the article not another person.

        Regardless, you asked for a critical look at the necessity of PFAS and whether it is possible to reduce usage. My original answer is the same, namely:

        One of the main uses for PFAS is electric vehicle batteries. So if “modern day life” means reducing CO2 emissions, then it will inevitably mean increased use of PFAS.