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.

  • darq@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year 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·
      1 year 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.