+ HEALTH Background Discharge letters are essential for continuity of care, yet patients often misunderstand their con…± HEALTH Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) glass slide preparation is fundamental to histopathology. Pathologists' expertise…+ CLIMATE Traditional soil heavy metal risk assessments suffer from fragmented indices and poor logical integration. Co…± HEALTH Background Neonatal pneumothorax can progress rapidly, yet detection on supine chest radiographs remains chal…+ HEALTH T cell exhaustion has widespread implications for the progression and treatment of chronic diseases including…+ HEALTH Background Standard pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) risk models may not fully apply to PAH associated w…+ HEALTH Objectives To map and synthesize the scientific evidence regarding the use of Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixe…± HEALTH Objective To examine whether the outputs of machine learning algorithms designed to predict risk of cardiovas…
TruaceTracing the truth around AIMonday, September 14, 2026
Subscribe
Climate·P Space·Evidence-backed problem·Published 2026-09-14

‘Tidal wave’ of Pfas being launched to satisfy AI industry, campaigners warn

Abstract: Pfas companies are launching a “tidal wave” of forever chemicals production to meet demand from the AI industry, a campaign organisation has warned. Despite alarm over the chemicals, which have been linked to cancer, a survey of the 10 biggest manufacturers found most had plans to increase production. Many frame their investments around the “AI revolution”, because of the role Pfas play in semiconductor production and next-generation datacentre cooling systems. But opponents warn that the chemicals, which never…

TRV-2026-1074JournalismPermanent record — cite & verify
‘Tidal wave’ of Pfas being launched to satisfy AI industry, campaigners warn
The quick read

On 14 September 2026 The Guardian reported a ChemSec survey of the 10 biggest PFAS manufacturers finding nearly all plan to increase production at sites in Europe, Asia and North America to meet AI industry demand. Companies frame investments around the AI revolution, citing PFAS use in semiconductor fabrication and in two-phase immersion cooling where servers are immersed in low-boiling-point PFAS fluid.

The expansion matters because PFAS never degrade in nature and have been linked to cancer, creating a trade-off between touted datacentre efficiency gains and long-term contamination. Campaigners warn the boom risks undermining nascent restriction efforts in Europe, the UK and parts of the US, while the scale of actual future emissions and health impacts remains uncertain and dependent on regulatory response.

Main points
  • ChemSec survey of 10 biggest PFAS manufacturers found nearly all plan to increase production at sites in Europe, Asia and North America.
  • Companies including Daikin, Arkema with $60m Kentucky unit, and Chemours cite AI revolution, datacentre cooling and semiconductor manufacturing as drivers.
  • Two-phase immersion cooling immerses servers in low-boiling-point PFAS that boils to draw heat away and condenses on water-cooled coil.
Problem

Expanding PFAS production to meet AI datacentre and semiconductor demand risks creating a new tidal wave of persistent forever chemicals that never degrade and undermines emerging restrictions.

The rundown

ChemSec, the Swedish chemicals watchdog, warned that manufacturers are launching a tidal wave of forever chemicals, with executive director Anne-Sofie Bäckar saying governments must insist on rapid phaseout. The survey identified Daikin launching a datacentre hub, Arkema building a $60m production unit in Kentucky to follow rapid expansion of datacenters' cooling needs, and Chemours expanding for advanced datacenters and AI hardware.

PFAS are also used in semiconductor fabrication and in coatings and binders for lithium-ion batteries cited as parallel growth by firms like Gujarat Fluorochemicals. Exceptions noted were Archroma switching to PFAS-free alternatives and BASF planning to exit PFAS production by 2028, while Chemours was recently ordered to pay $450m to settle a lawsuit over PFAS discharges.

Sources

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

The debate