What products use PFAS whose absence would cause society to collapse? If you look at the major sources of PFAS by 3M, it's not like these were essential products. Here's a random list from wisconsin.gov:

Cleaning products. Water-resistant fabrics, such as rain jackets, umbrellas and tents. Grease-resistant paper. Nonstick cookware. Personal care products, like shampoo, dental floss, nail polish, and eye makeup. Stain-resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery, and other fabrics.

I think the biggest material impact for any curb on plastics would largely be felt in medicine. Disposability is huge in preventing infection. Also, many medical implants rely on the combination of elasticity and strength found in plastics.

Maybe focus on all the non-essential shit people buy every day then first.

Yes. Disposable plastic packaging should be banned.

Medical use of plactic is a minuscule minority of plastic use. The vast majority of disposable, single-use plastic is not actually necessary. I'd be shocked if less than 90% of single-use disposable plastic was from food containers. Hell, I'd be pretty surprised if it were less than 99%.

By "biggest material impact", I didn't mean the sector that uses the most material. I meant it was the sector that would experience the biggest impact in a real material way, which would be hard to mitigate.

Obbiosl computing would be radically altered as well but I'm not actually sure how much that would matter. Other than during the 90s, there just simply isn't much evidence for all this extra computing having a significant effect on growth.

Anything containing "rubber."

Doesn't rubber come from rubber trees? What does that have to do with PFAS?

Teflon is not rubber, as far as I know PTFE are petro- flourochemicals

Very little "rubber" is actual natural latex rubber. Balloons, certain hose, and some gloves are natural latex, as are about 40% of the material in tires. The rest is synthetic elastomer. EPDM and Buna-N/nitrile are probably the most common.

Teflon is not rubber, but viton is fluorinated elastomer, and it's used everywhere as well.

PFAS is used in the coolant for semiconductor production.

There are probably no products for individual consumers that contain large amounts of PFAS and that are indispensable.

Small amounts of hard to replace PFAS may be contained in devices such as antenna connectors for devices with WiFi (which cannot cause pollution unless destroyed in an inappropriate way).

Nevertheless PFAS are absolutely irreplaceable in various chemical equipment used in chemical analyses and in various fabrication processes, for instance in the fabrication of all semiconductor devices (because no other substances have comparable corrosion resistance). PFAS would also be very difficult to replace in a few other applications, e.g. vacuum seals and insulators for high-frequency applications (as no other materials have a similar combination of low dielectric constant and low losses).

In all such industrial applications the risks of pollution are much smaller than in mass-market applications. However, it is likely that after PFAS will hopefully no longer be used for mass-market applications their price for professional applications might increase a lot, causing some price increases in other products, e.g. electronic devices.

Just because you don't personally encounter it, doesn't mean it's non-essential.

Viton is essential in modern engines. Basically anywhere you are in contact with gasoline, you need fluoroelastomer.

The entire chemicals industry - everything from medicine to energy to commodity chemicals - would collapse overnight if you took away teflon, viton, and PVDF. That's not hyperbole, it's used everywhere and there are no drop in alternatives. Silicone can fit the bill for some purposes, but it has nowhere the compatibility and longevity of viton. We have no real non-fluoronated alternative to teflon.

> IF we eliminated all PFAS chemicals today, society would collapse.

I think this is a failure of imagination. The modern world, largely as we appreciate it today, existed in 1940 in Europe and the U.S. That is well before the widespread deployment of plastics. It was a world in which everyone, including the very rich did with a little less but still, a fairly high quality of life.

The only question that separates then from today, is whether we can scale that kind of material to the much larger global middle class.

In 1940, (with the exception of primitive point-contact radar diodes) there was no production of semiconductor devices.

Without PFAS there would be no production of modern electronic devices, so no computers and no mobile phones.

Nevertheless, unlike with PFAS used in things like clothes, kitchenware or packing, when PFAS are used in industrial processes or in electronic equipment (as high-frequency electrical insulators or in optical devices) it is much easier to avoid any pollution.

> Without PFAS there would be no production of modern electronic devices, so no computers and no mobile phones.

Uh, yup. That in no way contradicts what I said.

> Nevertheless, unlike with PFAS used in things like clothes, kitchenware or packing, when PFAS are used in industrial processes or in electronic equipment (as high-frequency electrical insulators or in optical devices) it is much easier to avoid any pollution.

Yeah, I'm not arguing for a ban. I'm arguing that from a historical perspective, civilization in no way hinges on plastics. They are ubiquitous so an abrupt end of plastics would obviously be very disruptive. But there was a pretty decent life to be had before they became so and I imagine we could figure out how to do that again.

Synthetic chemistry in the 40s was like alchemy compared to the processes today. There are myriad chemical techniques and reactions that exist today, that didn't exist in the 40s, and you flat out can't do without fluoropolymers, because the reagents used are way too aggressive on virtually everything else.

I didn't say a damn thing about the state of chemistry in the 1940s. My point was that it's silly to claim the absence of PFAS or plastics would cause societal collapse when we have a ready image of our civilization without plastics.

Metal, wood, resins, etc were just far more ubiquitous, doing many of the jobs plastics do now. Lots of things were a bit more expensive because of this. But none the less, people lived pretty decent lives.

Phasing out PFAS over a 5-10 year period or imposing a steady-increasing tax on its usage (to the point that eventually it became an apocalyptically high tax) would drive supply chains to adapt and move to alternatives. Paper, wood, metal, glass, etc. are materials that have worked fine for hundreds of years.

Oh no, less waterproofing, what will we ever do? Guess we should keep this cancer material around.

Oh no, we lose some classes of medications, guess we should just poison the Earth and generations to come because losing lipitor and prozac is just unacceptable.