Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 413 posts

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#131

Post by Raugharr »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #114
nck4222 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Democracy is mostly a facade in the US anyway. But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or exi…

> "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H.L. Mencken, The Smart Set (1915) > Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work Until the letter and spirit of the law are ironed out, it's hard to interpret what laws mean, specifi…

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a misquote

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#132

Post by Cerium »

jtdev wrote: post #93
zachware wrote: post #87

Not to ignore the democracy problem but solely on the localized health issue, if you can afford a Berkey Water Filter, get one.

I looked on the Berkey website but couldn't find specifics about the mechanism that these filters use; is it simply reverse osmosis?

I helped a relative assemble theirs, they appear to be gravity fed activated carbon blocks.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#133

Post by intopieces »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #117

A reminder that you can remove these and many other contaminants from your water with a simple undersink RO filter. They are quite inexpensive and start at about $160 on Amazon for a lifetime of clean drinking and cooking water. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/list-of-household-filters-appr...

How many gallons of water do you have to throw away to get 1 gallon of pure water with this system?

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#134

Post by lcfcjs2 »

Frost1x wrote: post #57
matthewdgreen wrote: post #48

It is constantly amazing to me that "cover up the existence of poisonous chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-elected officeholder to have. What a world we live in.

Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, we haven't gone completely south to a dictatorship--there are many protections in place to keep things from falling apart but nonetheless I feel as though we're in the decline in the respect of being democratic. The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests…

Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately.

Good english.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#135

Post by goda90 »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #117

A reminder that you can remove these and many other contaminants from your water with a simple undersink RO filter. They are quite inexpensive and start at about $160 on Amazon for a lifetime of clean drinking and cooking water. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/list-of-household-filters-appr...

Out of curiosity, I looked up maintenance costs on RO filters. It looks like the filters that need replacing annually are $20-$30 for the set, and the membrane that needs to be replaced every 2-5 years is $30-$50.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#136

Post by dsfyu404ed »

quotemstr wrote: post #94
MichaelApproved wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > The chemicals, resistant to breaking down in the environment, are known as perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Some have been linked to cancers, liver damage, low birth weight and other health problems.

"linked to" is a weasel phrase. It means nothing. How big is the effect size? How robust is the evidence? What's the dose-response curve?

The person your replying to proclaims in a comment earlier today that he has no problem using less than precise language in order to further his ideology. I don't think the nuances of the statement "linked to" are very high on his priority list.

I really hate dredging up past comments/opinions (since it invites ad hominess dismissals of valid points) but felt it was warranted in this case since it is directly related to your comment question of source robustness.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#137

Post by at-fates-hands »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #48

It is constantly amazing to me that "cover up the existence of poisonous chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-elected officeholder to have. What a world we live in.

> "cover up the existence of poisonous chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-elected officeholder to have.

I'm not sure if you actually read the article, but the EPA has known about this since 2001. Attempting to make this all about the Trump administration is quite myopic.

From the article:

The EPA has known since at least 2001 about the problem of PFAS in drinking water but has so far failed to set an enforceable, nationwide legal limit. The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on two of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS.

The EPA said it has helped states and communities address PFAS and that it is working to put limits on the two main chemicals but did not give a timeline.

If you want to blame someone, blame the EPA for not doing anything for over 17 years.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#139

Post by [deleted] »

nck4222 wrote: post #118
banads wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or existing republics/democracies to base their new government on. They had plenty of examples to base their design on; democracy had been invented more than a thousand years before the US was formed. Like the vast majority of social institutions though, it was in the end based on fallible guesswork -- p…

>it was in the end based on fallible guesswork Right, that was my point. I wasn't suggesting they invented democracy.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#140

Post by nck4222 »

lubujackson wrote: post #105
nck4222 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Democracy is mostly a facade in the US anyway. But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or exi…

I am not so sure it is far from its intentions. The founders knew and expected most politicians operating as fronts for various groups and making bad faith arguments and backroom deals. That is nothing new! Most of what they did was try to prevent the government from being wholly brigaded by one minority perspective, and if so it would be moved along after a short time. So far, so good, despite warning signs to the c…

Well they didn't foresee the formation of political parties. That alone upended a great deal of how the different bodies were supposed to interact.

Half of congress is now lead by the executive branch, which completely undermines the checks/balances between them, which is the basis on how the government is supposed to be function. Never mind the judicial branch, which also frequently votes on partisan lines.

Post reply on HN