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

251–260 of 413 posts

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

#251

Post by nate_meurer »

Marsymars wrote: post #238
nate_meurer wrote: post #214

Meanwhile, these same PFAS chemicals are sprayed liberally onto the surface of clothing that we all wear, and increasingly furniture as well, and this may account for far more human PFAS consumption than drinking water. PFAS chemicals are widely used for waterproofing fabrics. The industry term is DWR -- Durable Water Repellent. The chemicals are sprayed onto the surface and simply left there to rub off on your hands…

> As of 2019, only one large outdoor clothing company has abandoned PFC-based DWR finishes. Which one?

Paramo. There may a couple other smaller ones too. I haven't looked in a while.

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

#252

Post by nck4222 »

rukittenme wrote: post #158
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…

> the US government isn't functioning for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' American democracy was never meant to benefit just the majority. Which is why we have undemocratic institutions (such as the Judiciary). Minorities (both long-standing and ephemeral -- e.g. a race of people versus the losing party in an election) exist and should be protected from the majority and should be represente…

>The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this country

That only holds true if you believe that the two political parties accurately represent the views of the people.

Political views are a spectrum of opinions. Boiling them down to one of two parties means you lose the majority of views. In the end you vote with the party that most closely resembles your opinions, but because the US has two choices, the party you choose doesn't end up representing your beliefs in a lot of cases. It just represents your beliefs more frequently than the other one.

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

#253

Post by rootusrootus »

bilbo0s wrote: post #213
rootusrootus wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am betting Accujack was referring to boomers. And in particular, those of the conservative persuasion. I could be wrong, though.

I think Arethuza might have been asking which democracies have survived the self interest that was being discussed? (I assume s/he is looking for democracies that didn't end in chopped heads.)

That may be. The downside of ambiguous questions. I made my assumption based on the "not being snarky" qualification.

And even then, got downvoted for it ;-). People identify so strongly with their political party.

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

#254

Post by deadEndDave »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #154
at-fates-hands wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

Then let's make it about the George W administration. They spent 8 years ceaselessly hammering TERRORISM and GAYS GETTIN MARRIED -- why take action on this? See also: "History of US Presidential Assaults on Modern Environmental Health Protection" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922215/

Which the Obama Administration then spent 8 years reversing so what's your point?

FYI gay marriage wouldn't be legal without the votes of two conservative supreme court judges.

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

#255

Post by horsawlarway »

samatman wrote: post #90
anoplus wrote: post #28

I would be interested to know what is the current trust level of the residents on the gov and EPA in the different states. Not far from my living area a new gas rig started operating where the gov, contractor company and EPA (EPA of my country that is) argue the chemical emissions doesn't pose health risks (same for sea water pollution risk), while self-funded environmental organizations argue otherwise and show inco…

Air-quality safety (among other things) is assured by the EPA, and it's done a lot to undermine that trust in the last couple of decades. Electronics safety is assured by UL, a private company. To date, they've maintained the public's trust in their services. If Consumer Reports publishes an exposé of UL taking kickbacks to certify substandard equipment, I'd become very interested in buying gear certified by a compet…

I find this comparison dead on arrival. Full stop.

UL, a private company, can only exist because they charge manufacturers of electronics for their certification.

No one is manufacturing the air we breathe (at least not yet...) so there is no revenue source for this kind of testing outside of public funding.

Your whole comment is a classic example of attempting to apply market forces to a problem that has no market.

I'll be blunt - Capitalism is a nifty trick for situations where there's a market and low barrier to entry. IT IS NOT A SILVER BULLET.

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

#256

Post by briefcomment »

GrumpyNl wrote: post #23

Lets thank dupont for that

I'm a little confused at how this happens. Dupont is just made up of people. Those people need to live somewhere, drink water, and do normal people things. Do they not realize what they are doing as they are doing it, and only become aware it's a problem after the fact? Because if they knew it was problematic from the start, they would almost seem suicidal.

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

#257

Post by defterGoose »

rhacker wrote: post #185

It is insane. I've been looking at water quality over the past year. Look into EPA superfund sites. We only have so many permanent underground aquifers that are disconnected from each other. The industrial age of the 1950s with basically unchecked regulation really ruined our country's permanent aquifers.

| unchecked regulation

I think you mean "complete and utter lack of" regulation.

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

#258

Post by pw »

shmerl wrote: post #248
rayiner wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we have no idea whether the benefit from doing so would outweigh the loss of non-stick and stain-free products?

That's supposed to be a joke?

No, it’s not. He’s pointing out that there are legitimate trade offs here.

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

#259

Post by nybble41 »

rukittenme wrote: post #158
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…

> the US government isn't functioning for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' American democracy was never meant to benefit just the majority. Which is why we have undemocratic institutions (such as the Judiciary). Minorities (both long-standing and ephemeral -- e.g. a race of people versus the losing party in an election) exist and should be protected from the majority and should be represente…

> Minorities ... exist and should be protected from the majority.... Only long-term, widely-held political thoughts can truly dominate minorities in this country.

Indeed, which is why laws should be hard to pass and easy to repeal. The government should not be involved in anything which does not have the support of a clear supermajority. I would personally set the threshold at a minimum of 75-80% support required to enter a new law into the books, and at least 60% to keep it there following a formal challenge. I would also make the challenge automatic after about 20 years to ensure obsolete laws are pruned on a reasonable schedule.

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

#260

Post by jonahhorowitz »

shmerl wrote: post #240
nate_meurer wrote: post #214

Meanwhile, these same PFAS chemicals are sprayed liberally onto the surface of clothing that we all wear, and increasingly furniture as well, and this may account for far more human PFAS consumption than drinking water. PFAS chemicals are widely used for waterproofing fabrics. The industry term is DWR -- Durable Water Repellent. The chemicals are sprayed onto the surface and simply left there to rub off on your hands…

Why can't they be made illegal to use?

Corruption and regulatory capture.
Post reply on HN