this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
961 points (98.7% liked)

Buy European

7830 readers
86 users here now

Overview:

The community to discuss buying European goods and services.

Matrix Chat of this community

Rules:

  • Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. No direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments.

  • Do not use this community to promote Nationalism/Euronationalism. This community is for discussing European products/services and news related to that. For other topics the following might be of interest:

  • Include a disclaimer at the bottom of the post if you're affiliated with the recommendation.

  • No russian suggestions.

Feddit.uk's instance rules apply:

  • No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
  • No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
  • No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
  • Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
  • Do not spam or abuse network features.
  • Alt accounts are permitted, but all accounts must list each other in their bios.
  • No generative AI content.

Useful Websites

Benefits of Buying Local:

local investment, job creation, innovation, increased competition, more redundancy.

European Instances

Lemmy:

Friendica:

Matrix:

Related Communities:

Buy Local:

Continents:

European:

Buying and Selling:

Boycott:

Countries:

Companies:

Stop Publisher Kill Switch in Games Practice:

Banner credits: BYTEAlliance

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
maam@feddit.uk
alex@jlai.lu
circledot@feddit.org
Argyle13@lemmy.world
buyeuropean@lemmy.ca
buyeuropean@feddit.org
Lazycog@sopuli.xyz
meldrik@lemmy.wtf
Sunshine@piefed.ca
Kjell@lemmy.world
961
Their goods just got a whole lot less appealing (feddit.uk)
submitted 3 weeks ago by maam@feddit.uk to c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk
234 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] goldfndr@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

From the first article:

Worse, there is no firm definition of exactly what a PFAS is—at least in the United States. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which works with 38 member nations including the U.S. to foster international cooperation and economic growth, defines PFAS as industrial chemicals that have at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom—which is a carbon atom with two or three fluorine atoms attached to it. There are about 15,000 species of chemicals that meet that standard. But the EPA has pushed back, broadening the definition to two fully fluorinated carbon atoms. “The final definition does not include substances that only have a single fluorinated carbon,” the agency wrote in its formal report in 2023—during Joe Biden’s presidency. That change is worrying.

A minimum of 2 fully fluorinated carbon atoms instead of 1 is NOT broadening the definition. That's narrowing it.

[–] somewhiteguy@reddthat.com -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

A minimum of 2 fully fluorinated carbon atoms instead of 1 is NOT broadening the definition. That’s narrowing it.

Think of the definition as a sluice gate. When you allow more things through, you're opening it wider, therefore broadening the definition. I know it's counter-intuitive sometimes to think of it like that. Narrowing the definition would be to let fewer things through, thus closing the gate.

Edit: Reading through the discourse below, I think I see the points made. It might should be reversed.

[–] Leavingoldhabits@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

But wouldn’t requireing two fluoridated carbon atoms instead of just one to qualify as PFAS, encompass less chemicals, thus narrowing the definition?

[–] goldfndr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Allowing more things through, if I understand your analogy correctly in this case, is broadening the exceptions -- things not matched by the definition.

But, I'll bite, let's dive in. In a Venn diagram, substances with a minimum of 2 fully fluorinated carbon atoms is a subset of substances with a minimum of 1fully fluorinated carbon atoms, yes? Similarly, M&Ms with only red and green colors is a subset of M&Ms of any color, yes? If a person was to change their personal definition of acceptable M&Ms from any color to only red and/or green, would you call that broadening that definition?

[–] Limonene@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

The EPA definition would exclude chemicals like trifluoroethanol, so the EPA's definition is narrower, not broader.

From a strict organic chemistry perspective, trifluoroethanol contains a perfluorinated methyl group, and methyl is a type of alkyl, therefore it must be considered a PerFluoro Alkyl Substance.