Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Societal Cost of 'Forever Chemicals' About $17.5 Trillion Across Global Economy (theguardian.com) 62

Posted by BeauHD from the astronomical-costs dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The societal cost of using toxic PFAS or "forever chemicals" across the global economy totals about $17.5 trillion annually, a new analysis of the use of the dangerous compounds has found. Meanwhile, the chemicals yield comparatively paltry profits for the world's largest PFAS manufacturers -- about $4 billion annually. The report, compiled by ChemSec, a Sweden-based NGO that works with industry and policymakers to limit the use of toxic chemicals, partially aims to highlight how the "astronomical" cost of using PFAS is shouldered by governments typically forced to fund the cleanup of pollution and individuals who suffer from health consequences. "If you compare the profits that they make and the cost to society -- it's ridiculous," said Peter Pierrou, ChemSec's communications director.

PFAS are a class of about 15,000 chemicals often used to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. The chemicals are ubiquitous, and linked at low levels of exposure to cancer, thyroid disease, kidney dysfunction, birth defects, autoimmune disease and other serious health problems. They are called "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally degrade. The chemicals are thought to be contaminating drinking water for at least 200 million Americans, while watchdogs have identified thousands of industrial polluters. Similar widespread contamination persists throughout Europe.

ChemSec found 12 companies account for most of the world's PFAS production and pollution. Among them are 3M, Chemours, Solvay, Daiki, Honeywell, BASF, Merk and Bayer, though 3M this year announced it would discontinue making PFAS in part because of regulatory pressure and litigation. [...] The analysis broke down societal costs into four categories. Soil and water remediation are the most expensive, followed by healthcare costs and bio-monitoring of PFAS pollution. While the average market price of PFAS is [about $20.75] for each kilogram, the price spikes to about [$20,456.78] for each kilogram when societal costs are factored in. Beyond profits and pollution, the analysis also provides a closer look at how the chemicals are used across the economy, and whether those uses are "essential" or "non-essential." Banning non-essential uses would probably spell the end of the chemicals in most consumer goods and cut deeply into the industry's profits.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Societal Cost of 'Forever Chemicals' About $17.5 Trillion Across Global Economy More

Societal Cost of 'Forever Chemicals' About $17.5 Trillion Across Global Economy

Comments Filter:
  • 1) Chemours is a company spun off from Dupont, to isolate the bad stuff of PFAS from Dupont's good name. Don't be fooled. Most of this is really from Dupont.

    2) Having said that, this $17 trillion is way out of line. The horrors of PFAS are driven more by the prospects of lucrative settlements than actual science. The reason they hang around so long is that they are inert. Think about that for a bit. Inert!

    Just my opinion.

    • Re:2 things (Score:4, Informative)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday May 13, 2023 @03:18AM (#63518309)

      As to 2), you are obviously not familiar with basic chemistry. Ever heard of things like "catalysators"? They can massively influence chemical reactions but are themselves often unaffected. How easily something breaks down is not a valid measure for how much chemical (or medical) effect it has.

      • Ever heard of things like "catalysators"?

        I haven't. Although it is apparently a valid English word, I've only ever heard "catalyst."

        Your point still stands. Though in reality, it's much worse. PFAS can directly bind to estrogen, androgen, and thyroid receptors - this is the reason they are classed as endocrine disruptors. They directly affect hormone levels, steroid levels, and can lead to chronic inflammation and decreased immune function.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

        It's one of those things where trying to fearmonger at an accurate scale

        • Can estimate the losses in productivity, revenues/profits, taxes, etc., due to people being off work sick more often, medical costs, medical bankruptcies, people leaving work to care for sick family members, etc..

          But to me it's shocking that the press & politicians don't seem to care about quality of life. The harm that PFAS do the people & their families is horrific enough in & of itself. Horrified by 9/11? That's a drop in the bucket compared to the harm caused by PFAS. They've been around

          • to me it's shocking that the press & politicians don't seem to care about quality of life.

            The press ultimately works for the advertisers, and the politicians work for the corporations, and they're the same "people" — actually corporations, which not being living beings, can't have ethics or morality, only policies and procedures that they may or may not follow– or intend to follow. The press cannot continue to do even the part of their job they can get away with doing unless they remain employed.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            But to me it's shocking that the press & politicians don't seem to care about quality of life.

            Indeed. To me, that is the real evil being done here. Some moderate profits are considered worth more than all the pain and suffering caused. This is "indifferent evil" and should get those practicing it to any significant degree a firing squad to express to them an adequate appreciation of their contribution to society.

          • Can estimate the losses in productivity, revenues/profits, taxes, etc., due to people being off work sick more often, medical costs, medical bankruptcies, people leaving work to care for sick family members, etc..

            Not if you can't estimate how much of that is attributable to exposure to PFAS.

            • Yes, you can. You can calculate variation in exposure against variations in economic productivity & costs while controlling for other variables. It's correlational but if it's strong enough & there's no other feasible explanation...?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by methano ( 519830 )
        I got a PhD in Chemistry from Cornell in 1983 and have worked in the lab since 1975. Still do. I've never heard of "catalysators". Your signature is true.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Soo, because I occasionally mess up a translation (English is not my first language and I never lived in an English speaking country) you now have the audacity to conclude I am an idiot? Well, I guess you either never learned a second language or you never use it...

  • What about the profits by everyone else (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord Rust ( 8424069 ) on Friday May 12, 2023 @11:32PM (#63518105)

    While I hate defending the chem industry, I have to say that presenting the profit of the companies as the only benefit is quite misleading. Industry income would be a slightly better measure, although still a bad one. For example, salaries paid are not profit, but they are still definitely created value. Paid salaries do not just disappear in a puff of smoke. They are quite valuable to the workers and through them, the society.

    Also, the primary producers are not the only ones who benefit from these chemicals ... if primary production was the only source of profit, nobody would be buying then in the first place. Applying the same method of counting to the profits of the electronics industry, we would get a value of maybe a hundred million dollars: silicon production value was estimated at $6.3 billion in 2019, but profits are a thin slice of the value.

  • Sniff test failed (Score:4)

    by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Saturday May 13, 2023 @12:19AM (#63518129)

    I struggle to believe that even the wildest estimates put the annual cost of PFAS at 15% of global GDP. For comparison, healthcare only makes up 11% of global GDP. It's just not plausible.

    That the report is not available [chemsec.org] from the source makes the assertion downright laughable.

    • could this be estimate cost of cleanup?

      • Cleanup of forever chemicals is like cleanup of past coal plant emissions, essentially impossible. There are places where they're concentrated where we could focus efforts to prevent further widespread contamination, though.

    • From my understanding of the externalized costs, a good amount is healthcare. If healthcare is 11%, how is 15% for the whole thing not possible ? Everyone is in agreement that the numbers are most likely inflated, but I don't think it is downright laughable.

  • Two points contradict (Score:4, Insightful)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Saturday May 13, 2023 @02:36AM (#63518269)

    "Meanwhile, the chemicals yield comparatively paltry profits for the world's largest PFAS manufacturers -- about $4 billion annually."

    "Banning non-essential uses would probably spell the end of the chemicals in most consumer goods and cut deeply into the industry's profits."

    If the profits are a paltry $4B for all manufacturers combined, then how fucking "deeply" into their overall profits could whacking this $4B possibly be? Probably not even a rounding error on their combined balance sheet.

  • PFAS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RegistrationIsDumb83 ( 6517138 ) on Saturday May 13, 2023 @03:09AM (#63518299)
    I am shocked how many corporate shills are in the comments section today. Yes, PFAS is real, and yes, it's fucking people up. EPA has a whole site dedicated to it, but basically, you don't want that shit in your body. Stop defending these psychopath corps.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. This stuff is nasty. It is a statistical thing though, so many people are not smart enough to understand what it does, see also Covid and vaccination, for example.

      I doubt there are many corporate shills in here though. My take is these are mostly "useful idiots", i.e. they do not even get paid for their lies. I think many people are just intellectually incapable to deal with the facts of the upcoming and already happening environmental catastrophes and hence practice aggressive denial. Obviously, th

    • I can't wait for the day where the mass population wakes and realizes that corporations making money is not a holy given right. Tying the 401k pensions to corporations was a genius moves. no ones wants to risk their pensions.

  • So the chemicals have "Essential" uses. But it appears that the the writer is advocating banning non-essential uses.

    OK, this has been done before. DDT. Its use was banned generally. Mostly, it went unnoticed by the great majority of people. But those in malaria-bearing areas definitely noticed. Did they die by the 1000's, millions, or more? I don't know, but die they did, of malaria that was permitted to propagate in the mosquitos that were not killed for lack of DDT being spread. Oh, you s

    • Mosquitoes and malaria are far more visible and quantifiable than chronic illness and organ tissue damage. This is good for corporations because dangerous chemicals can affect millions or billions of people and it's way too easy to believe the harm is small because you can't see it.

      PFAS are very much like that. They bind to estrogen/androgen/thyroid receptors and make a mess with steroid production and hormone regulation. They mimic fatty acids in other ways and also affect glucose and lipid metabolism.

    • Situations like this usually drive innovation in alternatives. However, in this case, seems live they are going with worst: https://www.un.org/africarenew... [un.org].

      Seems like DDT never went out of fashion until recently though.

  • The report is from an activist NGO. I would put zero faith in the numbers. Has it been peer-reviewed? Hahahahaha, right.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close