- Posts
- 2,800
- Likes
- 5,230
ErichPryde
·I'm not in favor of a ban. Because people like the OP are incapable of understanding nuance, hysterical activists/lobbyists will demand a total ban (in part because it helps them raise funds), and politicians will gradually go along with it, for political reasons, not for scientific reasons. We see similar silly bans for many technologies that are entirely safe and proven, just because certain political parties and lobbying groups have successfully created fear. Year after year, decade after decade, we hear the same tired mantra, "you can't prove that it's 100% safe."
A more measured approach that regulates their use more carefully would be much more appropriate. Toxicology involves the thoughtful and scientific balance of risk versus benefit, not an automatic total ban of anything that has any measurable level of risk.
Certainly we should avoid them in applications where they are spilled in massive amounts into the environment and people are necessarily exposed in ways that they can be ingested (e.g. firefighting foam), especially if there are viable alternatives. However, there are other applications where perfluorocarbon coatings perform in ways that can't be duplicated and risk to the user is minimal, e.g. lightweight waterproof breathable membranes.
I agree with all of this- and I apologize for speaking for "everyone" with such a short sentence. At this point I'm a bit.... burned out on debating this with the OP, who has not come to the discussion table in a reasonable or intellectually straight (scrupulous?) way.
My post should have been a lot more complex, because logically if we get to the "full ban" state, we likely would have already done lots of reducing of use in other industries, found a (hopefully better for us) alternative, Done even more scientific research to determine that it REALLY is harmful in watch straps and other relatively non-reactive rubbers, &c &c &c. For the sake of rational conversation with everyone else... that's what I should have said.
