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

The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 237 posts

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#101

Post by TylerE »

littlestymaar wrote: post #94
s1artibartfast wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are quite literally proposing a total ban. And then following it with some simplistic and emotionally charged rhetoric.

No they aren't! This comment isn't proposing anything! They are arguing that even total bans should not be dismissed by default, and that there can exist situations “ depending on the harms ” that justifies a total ban. And they did not say that in a vacuum, but as an answer to another comment that straight out dismissed total ban as an option. This comment is in no way advocating for a total ban of PFAS in particula…

They are outlining a scenario where they would consider such a ban desirable. How is that not proposing it?

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#102

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

daveguy wrote: post #87
pdonis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the impact of this proposed EPA ruling on ordinary people disposing of ordinary household items like those you describe? Will we all need to have hazmat plants installed in our sewage lines? Will we no longer be able to wash our clothes in washing machines? Will we have to segregate all our trash and pay for our community to have a hazmat disposal truck come around along with the regular trash truck?

No. No. And Maybe. Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or just disengenuously attacking regulatory agencies. If you're legitimately concerned, I apologize. On the bright side, you can rest easy.

This is assuming the EPA still exists in a year, which I'm giving 50/50 odds.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#103

Post by Semaphor »

reissbaker wrote: post #98
Semaphor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a list?

If you live in California you likely have an enormous amount of chloroform in your water (I tested my water, was horrified, and bought a whole-house water filter; apparently this is just generally true in the Bay Area, and I suspect SoCal as well since we pipe our water down there).

Yeah, I had a bit of a brain fart, the E in EPA made me think Europe, despite me actually knowing what it stands for. I luckily have nothing like that in my water.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#104

Post by kube-system »

marcosdumay wrote: post #95
kube-system wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil supply is fairly demand inelastic, if demand for oil drops, we'll almost certainly see cheaper oil. And if OPEC sees the writing on the wall they're going to price aggressively as long as they can.

For a while, yes. On longer timespans, the production is quite elastic as wheels dry and new ones have to be created all the time.

Right, but lower trending demand would also put more power into the hands of OPEC to crater prices and prop up demand any time alternatives start to threaten oil's dominance. They're not going to go out without a fight to the end because those economies depend on oil. I'm sure it will go on long after I'm gone from this world.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#105

Post by zug_zug »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #70
zug_zug wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's remotely inevitable. I think that's an outrageous mindset. Think of it like an engineer. We try to test products before deploying them to production (e.g. make all of humanity ingest it). If our tests are wrong some significant portion of the time, or if being wrong is much more damaging than we realized, then absolutely it's time to start the conversation of "How do we get better test coverage?" I…

Those tests exist already, but no ethical tests can determine the full truth. Also, tests where minute traces of anything, like coffee, are purified to extreme amounts and injected into animals to cause cancer only add confusion, especially when California considers adding cancer warnings to coffee.

> Those tests exist already

Do you actually know which tests the EPA runs and if so could you cite your source?

> no ethical tests can determine the full truth.

That's an all-or-nothing fallacy.

Also you didn't respond to the core of my remark, which is about increasing the financial incentives by an order of magnitude. Lastly I take your complaint about coffee as support my argument that the current testing mechanisms are likely too simple.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#106

Post by dundarious »

bawolff wrote: post #89
Zigurd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just synthetic chemicals. Humanity already can't undo the nuke test fallout layer and the lead from gasoline layer future archeologists will marvel at: "What arrogant dopes, leaving a mark on the entire planet out of negligence."

I mean, maybe not fully, but its mostly back to normal at this point https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Radiocar...

Why is 1955 the "normal" baseline? I could be convinced it's somewhat reasonable, but right now, I wouldn't assume it. More data would be the most convincing argument.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#107

Post by barbazoo »

andersrs wrote: post #99
satellite2 wrote: post #34

Title could be changed as "The EPA is proposing that nine PFAS be considered hazardous substances"

What a joke. Companies like 3M and Dupont just switch up a few atoms. Teflon becomes 'GenX'. One has to conclude that the EPA are complicit in this.

What should the EPA have done instead?

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#108

Post by bluGill »

kube-system wrote: post #104
marcosdumay wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a while, yes. On longer timespans, the production is quite elastic as wheels dry and new ones have to be created all the time.

Right, but lower trending demand would also put more power into the hands of OPEC to crater prices and prop up demand any time alternatives start to threaten oil's dominance. They're not going to go out without a fight to the end because those economies depend on oil. I'm sure it will go on long after I'm gone from this world.

Will they though? A large consumer of oil is cars and EVs are coming fast. Even if we assume that 5% of cars will always be fuel burning ICE for "reasons" that is such large demand destruction that in 10 years I don't think OPEC will have any power - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if most of the world just embargo all OPEC countries: they are mostly middle east areas where there is a lot of conflict and the few non-OPEC oil producers can supply the world's needs, so cutting them off from all money is a good thing for the world.

Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances

#109

Post by bawolff »

naremu wrote: post #93
bawolff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The line to be crossed is obviously at least a few blocks up the way from "what is the difference between water and hydrazine though". Do you actually have a line? We can't make a law out of people saying "you know what i mean".

> the colloquial definition of chemicals which if we're not being pedantic, we know brings up ideas of substances damaging to other substances or life itself. From the comment you're responding to. Damage is quantifiable, if it wasn't, the OP (EPA proposing hazardous substance classification) wouldn't even exist.

one presumes it is not when there is any quantifiable damage, no matter how slight. I assume nobody is proposing banning water, etc. But even plain water can result in large amounts of environmental damage in certain contexts.

If the point is just to ban things when the risks outweigh the benefits, that is simply the status quo.

Post reply on HN