I think in the case of PFAS it’s very reasonable. There’s no real harm done in avoiding them except possibly making less money and having to figure out other ways to do certain things - which cannot even be compared to the the potential danger they pose to the whole ecosphere
Well if we have evidence of that sure, but in the case of PTFE for example (which is a PFAS) we don’t have that, so banning it seems just as nonsensical. Yos be banning it because it might be harmful.
But the thing is, if it turns out to be harmful, it’s too late if we have used it - we can’t get it out of nature anymore. Which is a fucking big risk to take considering the effects research has already proven with the other PFAS. That’s kinda the whole problem with persistent organic pollutants
I think in the case of PFAS it’s very reasonable. There’s no real harm done in avoiding them except possibly making less money and having to figure out other ways to do certain things - which cannot even be compared to the the potential danger they pose to the whole ecosphere
That kind of thinking applies to any chemical though, surely
Only if they are persistent organic pollutants as well
Well if we have evidence of that sure, but in the case of PTFE for example (which is a PFAS) we don’t have that, so banning it seems just as nonsensical. Yos be banning it because it might be harmful.
But the thing is, if it turns out to be harmful, it’s too late if we have used it - we can’t get it out of nature anymore. Which is a fucking big risk to take considering the effects research has already proven with the other PFAS. That’s kinda the whole problem with persistent organic pollutants