Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

homeostasis3434 t1_j0s0xf1 wrote

This is similar to treatment systems that destroys other tough to eliminate chemicals that persist in the environment, like 1,4 dioxane. They've been around for a few decades but it's good to hear the technology can be applied for PFAS.

Currently PFAS treatment is mostly through activated carbon or resins specially designed to remove it. It's getting more and more difficult to manage this increasing waste stream of the exhausted filter material.

There will be a bigger upfront cost to build these treatment systems, but there will be a point where it's more expensive to just keep using the activated carbon or resin if they exhaust that filter material too quickly.

25

CleanCeption t1_j0s8wqw wrote

Cost shouldn’t be a factor as St Gobain will gladly cover it.

16

ralettar t1_j0rfudw wrote

Well that would be awesome

13

LELANDYEE t1_j0rh2dt wrote

Now do my blood.

13

sndtech t1_j0sa895 wrote

Just donate blood. The PFAS will be removed and you make more blood.

4

ZacPetkanas t1_j0z91d5 wrote

> Just donate blood. The PFAS will be removed and you make more blood.

According to this article, plasma donations can also reduce PFAS levels. Since one can donate plasma much more frequently than whole blood, the optimal strategy would be to donate plasma regularly. :D

2

Lords_of_Lands t1_j0uh545 wrote

Unless you do power red / double red donations. Then they give the PFAS back to you.

1

TimDRX t1_j0vlacs wrote

I'm not allowed to donate blood in this country. :<

1

ralettar t1_j0rll8i wrote

Maybe some kind of apheresis process could be developed to do that?

1

Lumpyyyyy t1_j0rqzjs wrote

If apheresis is similar to dialysis, that would probably be the approach with the most immediate promise.

3

ralettar t1_j0s6u9w wrote

Im not knowledgeable enough to say for sure. Maybe that’s a better comparison too

0

lantonas t1_j0t9igy wrote

And in 20 years we'll find out that this process creates ______ the most harmful toxin known to man.

1

5nd t1_j0rkt3l wrote

Scientists: this production is safe

Scientists: this production process is not safe, and it's producing forever chemicals

Scientists: they aren't forever chemicals and we can destroy them with no undesirable consequences

−26

homefone t1_j0rmk2w wrote

You have just discovered that science is a continuous process, and that what the theories we accept are likely to eventually change.

In other words, welcome to freshman year bio.

66

Parzival_1775 t1_j0ufczt wrote

No, you see what he has actually done is prove to us that the "so-called experts" don't really know anything, and the opinion of a random twit on social media should be given equal (or even more) credence compared to professionals who have dedicated lifetimes to understanding complex subjects.

Remember kids: vaccines cause autism and facemasks trap in CO2.

1

JoeInNh t1_j0v2ouo wrote

Hmmm, untested with no trials, yet grant full immunity, hid side effects, wait two years, start releasing side effects, start releasing data showing it was no where near as effective as promised. Yet, in the name of science, question any of that got people shunned.

1

dj_narwhal t1_j0sikwl wrote

You misspelled oil lobby in every one of your sentences.

26

GreatGrandaddyPurp t1_j0s7gx5 wrote

I think you misunderstood the term "forever chemical". That nickname stems from the fact that these carcinogenic compounds will never leave your body once ingested.

19