They’re banning materials because they can’t be made without the toxic, easily spread, impossible to remove chemicals, and aren’t ever made without illegal dumping of the byproducts of their creation, according to the reporting….not simply because they share some chemistry.
Everything in the universe shares some chemistry with everything else, chemistry is the mechanism through which matter functions….it gives matter it’s properties.

Lead paint shares chemistry with other lead products….and a chemical. It’s that chemical’s toxicity that makes it appropriate to ban substances that contain it. Same thing here. These materials share a toxic substance (or toxic variant of the same substance). Less toxic substance than lead, sure, but still toxic, and much more widely spread. Contaminating the entire planet. As if we weren’t already in a mass extinction, we feel the need to create more toxic pollution for a tiny bit of convenience.

Perhaps you aren’t bothered by having every waterway near any manufacturer that uses these chemicals becoming toxic for animals and humans forever…most people are bothered by that kind of permanent environmental destruction or degradation.

That’s why humans don’t deserve to survive. As a species, we’re so irresponsibly self centered it’s going to kill the planet and us with it, all for nothing worth having.

Our society also cant handle cow burps.

Releasing dangerous chemicals, knowingly against established rules, into water, is one thing (a crime).

Banning materials just because they share some chemistry with said chemicals is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Howdy - I don't know if "addressed" is the right word. Commented on, but not given sufficient perspective. Having said that, the problem is incredibly complex, so there should be no expectation that Mr. Oliver's video or any other single thesis on the topic could possibly suffice.

Your "one chemical bond difference" is an appropriate consideration, but with recognition that once we reach on the order of C20-C40 length dispersable or emulsifiable molecules as surfactants / surface energy modifiers, the insoluble polymers come into play, with not 30'ish bonds growing one at a time, but leaping to 20,000 or more. No doubt the pool has already been irreversibly pissed into by the irresponsible producers that convert small molecules into very, very large ones, but with some control, responsibility, and integrity in our industrial process owners (yes, hell just froze over) there is no reason why we could not safely continue to produce the polymeric forms of PFAS. We do so for substantially more toxic chemical conversion processes today.

It's interesting to note the (usual) examples brought forward by others in this post (Teflon cookware), just waiting for someone to mention Gore-Tex, but by far the biggest impact won't be on consumer goods that we all touch regularly and recognize the name brands of, but will be on the industrial / commercial uses of these polymeric families that are pervasive in the systems / processes that we all derive benefit from every day. Ironies exist, that perhaps confuse the "all PFAS are bad" premise ... consider - effectively every seal, gasket and control valve in a water purification plant is most commonly made of a PFAS polymeric compound, PTFE included, all tested to rigorous specifications and compliance by specific agencies that do nothing other than deal with potable water (thankfully not the EPA - it's National Sanitation Foundation (the other NSF), or Water Research Advisory Scheme (WRAS) in the UK etc.) .

So my contention and the view of many in the end user community is that it's not the final form of some of these compounds that are bad, it's the horrendous messes we leave producing them. We can't unwind our Clock of Dumb, but killing the entire crop just to get rid of the long ago seeded weeds doesn't solve the actual problem, it makes it much, much larger.

Thanks for your comments.

To be fair, most of your complaints were addressed in the piece.

For instance, medical implants, fairly stable, yes, but not in extreme heat like cremation, so as used they’re toxic to the environment despite being considered stable and inert.

The reason to ban them all was also explained, banning one toxic substance at a time means one chemical bond difference and the company can go ahead with Cancer causer 2.0 for a decade until it’s banned for being toxic, and then repeat. It’s how they’ve operated for decades.

I’m fine with outlawing the entire class and putting the onus on the chemical companies to prove any new variants are safe instead of forcing the hamstrung epa to prove they’re unsafe. I also think any company that dumped it into waterways should be instantly and completely forfeited to pay for cleanup. No company has the funds to pay for cleanup, but their assets are at least a start.

People who frequently eat meals prepared at home have lower levels of PFAS chemicals in their blood compared to those who often eat fast food, takeout, or restaurant meals, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/to-reduce-pfas-levels-in-food-cook-at-home/

fyi Consumer Reports found toxic PFAS chemicals in several popular water brands, especially carbonated ones
https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/whats-really-in-your-bottled-water/

*promote the end bit by Danny DeVito

Agreed. I found it very calming and somehow satisfying. I would love to know what it is about the video that triggers (i assume) a chemical cocktail in my grey matter that has this effect. Any psychologist and neuroscientists out there that can help? *promote

I'm from Texas. I support Abortion. No contraceptive is 100% effective, not even if you combine them. If you don't understand that, study how percentages work.

Secondly, kids are hormonally driven creatures. They are literally under the influence of natural chemicals driving them to procreate.

Not every school or parent teaches them about contraceptives. In fact, you will find most 'Christians" only support abstinence. This is the equivalent of telling a chemically dependent addict to "Just Say No!" How well did that work in the drug war back in the day? (Hint: However, despite DARE's bold claims, research has shown that the program has failed spectacularly.)

Third, the people who are most affected by this new law are the people that can least afford the better contraceptives or having a child in a non-stable family environment. This won't bother a middle class or rich family at all, they can just send the kid off to an "aunt" in another state until the issue is resolved. Those kids from poor families will just be forced to have the kid and likely it will ruin their lives. This doesn't even take into account that the new law doesn't have ANY exceptions for rape or incest.

Fourth, the USA was founded on religious freedom. In other words, you get to believe what you want and others get to do the same. This means that if a religious person tells another person that something they are doing is forbidden due to morality contained in their religion, that other person can tell you to fuck right off. Church and State are supposed to be separate, but the Christian right think they should be able to legislate their religious ideas on others. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

I'm nominally a conservative. Sadly that means that I get lumped in with you ultra far right wackos that want to turn the USA into a religious state like Iran or Afghanistan. I'm not leaving my home state because some religious nut jobs think it is OK to kill adults by lethal injection but that it is BAD to kill some cells that are multiplying.

Btw, the cardiac activity detected on ultrasound at six weeks is not a true heartbeat. It results from electrical activity, but the valves of the heart have not yet formed. And the sound does not indicate the pregnancy is viable. Women typically don't notice they are pregnant until they miss a period. So if they are unlucky, they may already be close to four weeks pregnant. That leaves them two weeks to confirm it with a doctor, since home tests are not 100%, get together money for the abortion, find a clinic, and schedule an appointment that falls within the remaining time period. Since this law will cause even more clinics to close in Texas, you can add travel and patient backlog to the time. A teen could do everything right and still miss out on the lottery for an appointment, dramatically changing their life for years.

But at least some smug religious person can sip their coffee and be proud they enforced their morality on some evil women that dared sleep around out of wedlock.

Here's the thing: if average citizens didn't have guns, I'd be right pissed if the cops carried them.

I can't speak for the whole of whatever the fuck you think "liberals" encompasses, but here's my take on guns & cops: the constitution allows for guns within well-regulated militias. It was just worded really, really poorly. I mean, read 2A - it's practically authentic frontier gibberish. But the words "well-regulated militia" are definitely in there. And it makes sense - they were trying to secure a bold new type of governance. They needed to be able to defend that, and there was no immediate plan for a standing army. So local, reasonably well-supplied militias, which weren't a bunch of bumblefucks shooting at whatever whenever, were a pretty real need. Where we're at *now* with guns is so fucking far from what the founders could've possibly conceived, that to think they'd approve of it is absurd. I mean, maybe a few of them (they were quite the diverse bunch of white male landowners, in all sincerity), but those with solid military experience likely would've been horrified.

Having said that, it's fantasy-land nonsense to think the prospect of completely eliminating recreational guns in the US in the near term is viable. Hunting armaments will (and perhaps should) remain common for a long while, so be it. I see handguns and non-hunting long arms (or those that are excessive for it) as of significant negative value to society, they can all fuck right off into a metal recycling center or the armory of a well-regulated militia. Perhaps keep some at firing ranges for recreational target practice, with competent professional supervision, and with reasonable regulations in place.

Cops should have firearms in their armory, up until such time as we're living in a Star Trek-like utopia of blissful peace. Humans are largely cool, but some of us are dangerous fucksticks. Have cops pull guns for calls that seem like they'll be needed, and rely on less-lethal options as much as possible. Oh, and stop using the less-lethal options as fucking compliance-obtaining shortcuts. Don't fucking tase or use chemical spray when it isn't needed, they're not for the cops' convenience but to avoid more severe harms from occurring. Officer Friendly should be the order of the day, and any substantial deviation from that should be met with termination and arrest, with consequences no less severe than a non-police citizen would see. No more bad apples, no spoiled bunch.

Hey, thanks for the rant opportunity! Us liberals need to practice our high horsing from time to time. And just like God, we all love you. You specifically, you goddamn sexy hater.

One arrested for assault with a caustic chemical, assault and battery, and violation of the health and safety code, one expected to turn herself in on similar charges.... sounds like maybe no charges for the girl in the middle.

Update: second girl arrested for violating covid mandates, battery on a transit employee, conspiracy to commit a crime and the big one, first degree robbery! That charge alone could be 9 years upstate because robbing a taxi/uber/lyft/bus driver is a special circumstance in California that adds 3 years.

Had buddy who was a chemical engineer with a petroleum background---After the British Petroleum blow out in the Gulf, he told me that he knew it was going to happen; that it was always going to happen--because BP had always underspent on maintenance. He explained it like owning a boat. If you aren't spending 10% of the cost of the boat on maintaining it every year, you're doing it wrong. That includes maintenance, downtime, and prevention/OSHA/Worker safety.

Last names as a way to determine ethnic diversity, lost me there.

Cool though, that makes my sister latin american.

Too bad I am stuck with a name thats probably German in origin.

Diversity is fine. It was the tolerance of the society to entertain the notion that feeding a bunch of good for nothing intellectuals was a noble idea that made a golden age possible. Also the possibility to travel and communicate, the spread of information was helpful. Language barriers came down. That tolerance ended around 1250. Muslim lands were still ethnically diverse after that, but no more tolerance for science.

So tolerance of different ideas, customs, religions, foreigners and races seems more important than attempting to induce diversity artificially.

Tolerance naturally leads to diversity - you can see this in areas like scientific teams, hi-tech companies, or top sports teams. If you want the best people you arrive at not evaluating their race, but their abilities. That is if the society around you lets you do that.

My friends son just spent 6 months working in a chemical lab in Sweden. Met few Swedes, mostly worked with people from all over the world. So he helped with a Swedish project, he can now go back to work on his own project and he knows all these people from around the world who work on similar stuff. No one gives a damn about what ethnicity any of the people involved are or if the lab was "diverse". They all concentrate on the project. If a commision goes in and starts counting how many Laplandian scientists are filling a quota the scientists would show the (imaginary) commision their collective middle finger or just leave.

So i would argue that ethnically diverse scientific teams are not more succesful because they are diverse, they are more successful because they are open and tolerant (and that has led to their diversity).

Forcing diversity will not bring the same result.

Long? Sorry.

They have tanks that can pump the chemicals or iron oxide into the holding tank.

It's usually just water or coloured water. Sometimes it has foaming agents, wetting agents, and other fun chemicals mixed in which are toxic.

Humans have been using drugs since the first person ate the wrong plant and got high instead of dying.

If you look at most drugs in nature, it is almost impossible to OD on them IN THEIR NATURAL FORM.

It's only when we alter that using chemicals, heat, or modifying the plant's genetic code via cross-pollination that we get drugs that destroy people.

Conversely, drugs that have been distilled from natural sources have also saved millions from death or from chemical imbalances in their bodies.

Man made drugs keep me on a (mostly) even keel. Without them my life is hell. Not from addiction, but because my body's chemicals are out of whack.

Yet some man made drugs are poison and should not be used (or extremely rarely). Most opioids fall directly into that category. Still, it is the corporate greed and misuse of these drugs that make them an ignored epidemic.

I could go on, but TL;DR

Natural drugs are a gift to humankind. Man Made drugs are a mixed bag.