Decision from governor, eyeing presidential bid, could echo across US as similar bans considered in states like New York

  • BlueLineBae@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    I hate to break it to you but PFAs are in a lot more than just nonstick pans. They’re on literally anything that might be a tad bit on the non stick side such as dental floss or the cardboard under store bought cakes. They’re on nearly all water resistant products such as shoes, rain coats, and camping gear. They’re used as a fire retardant which means if you live near an airport, military base, or fire training facility your water supply is likely full of them. And even after all of this, we know that the factories that make and utilize these coatings don’t tend to dispose of them properly and taint the water supply in nearby areas. And if that wasn’t enough, these bonds have been found in water supplies and even rainwater around the world because they don’t break down easily.

    TLDR: PFAs are in loads of products you may not expect, have proliferated worldwide water supplies, and don’t break down easily. This is about far more than nonstick pans and people don’t have a say in being exposed to them.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Yes, but the controversy (and Newsom’s stated justification for his veto) seems to be primarily related to the ban on nonstick pans.

      • Cort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        “they’re trying to ban non-stick pans” is the same type of distraction as “they’re trying to ban gas stoves”.

        It’s an attempt to reframe curbs on pollution as attacks on personal freedoms.