News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Could the world go PFAS-free? Proposal to ban ‘forever ch... by s1artibartfast on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @03:07PM (#36960935)
Most of the contamination is from firefighting foams. Government agencies decided that the pollution was an acceptable cost for their added benefit to saving lives and property.

PFAS firefoam is still widely used, as governments still deem it necessary. However, training with real PFAS fireform is now more restricted than it once was.

Re:Could the world go PFAS-free? Proposal to ban ‘forever ch... by mrguyorama on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @05:03PM (#36962866)
Ah yes, it's totally the fault of the occasional use of firefighting foam, and not the fault of literally every single food package being covered in the stuff.

Do you have numbers to back up your assertion?

Re:Could the world go PFAS-free? Proposal to ban ‘forever ch... by TylerE on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @05:51PM (#36963634)
Food packaging? Do you have a citation for that? Cookware yes, but packaging?
Re:Could the world go PFAS-free? Proposal to ban ‘forever ch... by TedDoesntTalk on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @07:41PM (#36964857)
Absolutely used in food packaging. Even the inside of microwave popcorn bags has it. Just google "PFAS food packaging" and you'll lots of info.
Re:Could the world go PFAS-free? Proposal to ban ‘forever ch... by s1artibartfast on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @07:30PM (#36964750)
If we're talking about groundwater contamination, then yes, the major contributor is firefighters and US Government facilities based on the numbers I've seen. It's not food packaging making it hundreds of feet underground and leaching out into rivers.

Scroll through these 180 pfas contamination Superfund sites and count how many are government facilities versus private companies.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/superfund-sites-...

Re:Could the world go PFAS-free? Proposal to ban ‘forever ch... by mrguyorama on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @03:12PM (#36975614)
I'm mostly talking about breadth of harm, ie that PFAS is quite literally everywhere, rather than depth of harm, ie a couple hundred rivers have been made into poison. If the damage was exclusively contained to these rivers, the cleanup would be obscenely expensive, but possible. Currently cleanup is basically impossible.
Re:Could the world go PFAS-free? Proposal to ban ‘forever ch... by gausswho on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @10:55PM (#36966445)
I live on the site of a building rebuilt 13 years after a fire that was attempted to be put out by firefighters. Would that foam have contaminated the well water I drink from?