Researchers found low concentrations of so-called forever chemicals in various “eco-friendly” straws, raising doubts about whether they’re an appropriate alternative.

    • stealthnerd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      This bot is terrible and I wish it would be banned. It’s basically just randomly selects snippets and it leaves out very important details.

      The actual article says that the concentrations are very low and they don’t even know if the manufacturer is intentionally putting them there or if they’re finding their way in from other sources during manufacture. Also says the bamboo straws may have been grown in soil containing PFAS.

      They even found PFAS on most of the glass straws.

      It’s concerning sure but the levels are so low that straws are the least of our concern when it comes to PFAS exposure.

      • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It no longer uses ChatGPT for some reason, the algorithm it’s using now seems to be picking what it thinks is most important (turns out in an article of 1k words, it’s chosen the opening, introductions of important-sounding people, and a summary)

        It could benefit from a delete-on-many-downvotes like system, where that also notifies a human reviewer to look at the article, ultimately with the aim of improving the summarisation algorithm.

        I am biased in the sense that I like the bot, especially its ability to retrieve paywalled articles and negate the need to see cookie popups by visiting the site etc. With this article though it’s blatantly missed the mark.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s important to keep in mind that 75% of plastic straws also contain PFAS.

      The truth is, the PFAS stuff is independent of the main material of the straw* (yeah there’s an asterisk, sec on that). It just so happens that PFAS are really good when we need to have a material not stick to food stuff too well and become unhygienic during its intended use time.

      *: Straws from glass and metal are an exception because those materials naturally do not bind well to grease, liquids and stains. They don’t need an extra PFAS coating. But plastic, paper, bamboo, they virtually all do.

      That is to say, I would split the problem: We got the main material part done now, we’re no longer using plastic for it. Now to get the coating done and use something that degrades very quickly.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Absolutely not someone in that or any adjacent industry, so I would not know whether that’s a usable solution. Could work, I mean it is used for gummi bears. But there might also be a thing about how it only lasts in closed packs I would imagine, and unlike gummi bears - which are gone ~11,5 seconds after opening a pack - straws are often kept around for months after a few have been used. No clue. There’s probably a better solution than PFAS coating though, granted.