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

331–340 of 413 posts

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

#331

Post by DenisM »

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?

Fjällräven is relying on wax that you need to reapply seasonally.

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

#332

Post by knodi123 »

papito wrote: post #234
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.

I don't know. I've always scoffed at the Socialist paradise of Western Europe, but I've changed my mind after traveling to Denmark a few months ago. The government employs a lot of people, and they seem to make sure that they themselves work for the public good. The public . You know, people who all live in the country. Everything is clean and the trains are on time. Let's not bundle everyone under "Democracy". Our s…

> Just hold a rifle next to your fellow citizen for a bit

But, importantly, next to a random smattering of citizens from diverse locations, not next to a bunch of dudes from your neighborhood.

Xenophobia usually doesn't survive exposure to the xenos.

> The Chinese have a team. We don't have one.

We're a confederation of states. That legacy has really, really had a lasting impact. But IMO, after the outcome of the civil war, we should have formalized that we were one nation first and foremost, and that our states were nothing but administrative subdivisions. But that opinion is on much shakier footing than some of my other opinions, so don't ask me to defend it. :-)

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

#333

Post by munk-a »

thewebcount wrote: post #263
shmerl wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's supposed to be a joke?

No, it's a legitimate question. Think of it this way. If we stop using Teflon coatings on pots and pans, will that, for example, increase the amount of cooking oil used in cooking? And if so, will that cause other health effects such as more oil being aerosolized and getting in people's lungs more? Will it cause more oil to clog up pipes (think London's "fatbergs" for example)? Will it cause more oil to go into landf…

The issue is that the historical arguments lean toward using oil - we know that our ancestors used cooking oils and lards for greasing and survived with it, there may be quite legitimate questions about the ability to scale that approach up to our current population but I think it's reasonable to put the burden of proof on Teflon to guarantee it's no worse for humans, the environment and our plumbing than lard and oil... this also logically extends to exotic oils like avocado oil and palm oil. I think our cavalier attitude toward food additives is proven to be an incorrect stance by the utterly massive obesity crisis in America - there literally couldn't be a clearer sign that we're doing something seriously wrong. In the defense of Teflon there's nothing that directly signals it's chemicals on cookware and most research is pointing toward sugars, but it's an ongoing problem we all recognize and are not fixing.

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

#334

Post by Supermancho »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #68
Frost1x wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

" If by "democracy" we mean the form which the Third Estate as such wishes to impart to public life as a whole, it must be concluded that democracy and plutocracy are the same thing under the two aspects of wish and actuality, theory and practice, knowing and doing. It is the tragic comedy of the world-improvers' and freedom-teachers' desperate fight against money that they are ipso facto assisting money to be effect…

What a fantastic verse. I have never read this author.

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

#335

Post by munk-a »

rayiner wrote: post #293
jokoon wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is speculative > and you may just be trading one poison for another one or a worse one. What poison exactly? This almost is whataboutism.

It's not at all speculative. At the very least, getting rid of PFAS will cost money and reduce convenience. Those things are valuable. People will accept some level of risk in order to have comfort and convenience and save money--and to do so is completely rational. That's why people drive, eat red meat, etc.

That's a very valid point to bring up but I think it makes a big mistake in assuming that people would rationally respond to the risk.

People are pretty terrible at rationally evaluating risk and participate in provably harmful actions all the time - going to vegas or playing the lottery to spend some money and feel like a rich person for a while is totally valid, but playing the slots or the lottery to make money for your retirement is completely irrational. And yet, folks will play the lottery in the hopes they can retire more comfortably - even when their financial situation isn't so dire that structured saving wouldn't give them their desired level of comfort.

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

#337

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #266
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…

> 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.' I disagree, and I think you need to take a look at three sets of poll results to understand why. (For all the poll results, keep in mind that voters skew more conservative than the overall population.) 1) A recent Gallup poll shows that the vast majority of Americans prefer…

> Aside from a brief dip during 9/11, a majority of the country listed "big government" as the "biggest threat" since the late 1980s. ...

In part that's due to the incessant, implacable drumbeat from the you're-not-the-boss-of-me right wing (and their cheering sections in the wealthy and wannabe-wealthy) that government is always the problem and never part of the solution; that if we just leave people alone they'll act virtuously and civically, and so the invisible hand would supposedly take care of everything if we would just let it. Which of course is delusional.

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

#338

Post by ip26 »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #310
troyvit wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow I had no idea. Here's a link that talks about makers of outdoor gear and their relationship with DWR. http://www.detox-outdoor.org/ It doesn't look like there is a lot of choice. Maybe I'll just stay wet :)

The whole breathable/gore-tex thing is overrated as they all rely on liberal use of DWR chemicals that tend to be waterproof only for a while. So regular retreatment, which never seems to be as good, or acceptance of wetness is needed. :) I'm surprised to see Patagonia in the worst of that site's categories, considering their stance on sustainability.

Gore-tex does stay waterproof. It just can't breathe once the outer fabric soaks through, which results in clamminess. DWR delays this & keeps it breathable for longer in wet conditions. Gore is not a great solution if you'll be drowning in rain but for intermittent showers, meltwater and snow it has time to dry out. Especially if you're moving & generating heat.

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

#339

Post by munk-a »

unishark wrote: post #183
coldtea wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think democracy was always problematic. Its original form, direct democracy, was vulnerable to the tyranny of the masses. Who deemed that a problem? The elites wanting specific decisions out of the masses.

Rule by elites is a problem for 99 percent or the people (though presumably when things get too lopsided, the masses rise up, so elites still need to keep a decent percentage in their favor). Democracy is a problem for 49 percent of people.

Only if a problem is reduced to a binary state. A lot of folks here on HN work with computers where true is true and false is false and there is nothing in the middle - but that's not how the world works, nearly everything we deal with is non-binary in nature, both SF and Houston have housing regulations, but those regulations are vastly different and if you tried to group housing regulations by severity you'd have to be extremely reductionist to end up with two categories.

This isn't actually unique to democracy and might be less achievable in a democratic system but all of politics is supposed to be about compromise, those housing regulations might get loosened up, but that might lower land values and decrease the amount of spending allocated to law enforcement or park maintenance or a wide array of things.

I'd prefer a short summary of democracy to read closer to:

> Democracy, some people win, some people lose, most people grump.

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

#340

Post by munk-a »

logfromblammo wrote: post #159
jb775 wrote: post #129

I've seen this issue trending on HN multiple times within the past year, search "PFAS contamination" for more info online. I moved into a new house last year near 2 closed down USAF military bases (known to have been previously contaminated by firefighter foam) and did a ton of research on the issue since the house water comes from a well (free water!). I ended up getting a professional water filtration system instal…

> "...you can't put a price on clean water." Is that... is that not exactly what you just did? $5k capital expense and $1500/yr operational expense. That system is almost certainly more than enough for your own household needs, so you could probably sell the excess capacity to your neighbors at near cost to cover some of the operational expenses.

And since it's priceable, doesn't it become an ethical question if the neighborhood should require such systems and possibly try and get federal subsidies to install them since they are required as a result of the military's actions? (And, specifically, completely non-essential actions - asking the military to clean up contamination caused by active national defense is a slightly different question)
Post reply on HN