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

121–130 of 237 posts

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

#121

Post by marshray »

pdonis wrote: post #75
throwaway920102 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways. Because of the "forever", small amounts add up…

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?

> 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?

We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos.

The superficial answer:

Yes, there are indeed times when human screwups necessitate hazmat disposal trucks in residential areas.

The deeper answer:

The optimal solution to a compounding problem is not to politicize it with absurd rhetoric.

It is to stop whatever's feeding into the compounding as quickly as possible. Because that is the only reliable way to reduce the long term costs that you'll ultimately have to pay.

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

#122

Post by marshray »

bawolff wrote: post #82
legulere wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chemicals are shorthand for synthetic chemicals. We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're usually not too harmful to us and get easily biodegraded. In this case it's about PFAS, a subgroup of organofluorine compounds. There's only 5 known organofluorine compounds produced by organisms.

> We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're usually not too harmful to us There are plenty of counter examples to this (and also pretty unclear what is meant by "natural") Lead is natural. Mercury is natural.

Jesus this is a stupid argument.

"Don’t dump chemicals in water or on land" is a perfectly logical and defensible statement.

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

#124

Post by cogman10 »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #102
daveguy wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It'll still exist, however, it's powers will be reduced to nothing with the death of Chevron deference in June.

This PFAs decision would be a prime example of something the EPA won't be able to regulate without a new congressional bill approving it.

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

#125

Post by efitz »

Nevermark wrote: post #69
efitz wrote: post #35

What are the benefits these chemicals have provided, and do the benefits outweigh the negative effects? Are these chemicals dangerous in the forms that they're found in the environment, e.g. there are unlikely to be many pools of acid. Are they chemically bonded to something that reduces bio-interactivity? I don't agree with the approach "you can't do anything new until you prove it's safe". I also am very skeptical…

> sorry, my exhalations are not "pollution" Try breathing in a bag. Air is 21% oxygen. On average, a resting adult breathes in about 250ml of oxygen per minute. Air is about about 0.04%. The average adult expels approximately 200ml to 250ml of carbon dioxide per minute. Roughly the same as the o then they intake. So the relative percentage of C02 increases extremely rapidly in any small volume of air, compared to rel…

> Try breathing in a bag.

Dumb argument. Is water a pollutant because of the drowning risk?

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

#126

Post by krisoft »

sitkack wrote: post #48
krisoft wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are you willing to take the consequences which follow from that proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 “dump chemicals in air”)

> Everything is chemicals. This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.

> This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.

It is not. Quite contrary. The thought it provokes is "what chemicals do you want to ban?" Do you want to ban water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports it? It is a chemical after all. One which is quite dangerous in many circumstances.

But surely that is not what edgyquant meant. Should we prohibit people selling soap? It is a chemical! But that is silly. We would probably lose more by banning that than by not banning it.

Should we ban plastics? Maybe? Which types? All types? All uses?

Should we sell hydrazine in grocery stores? Oh, we better not. Can we use hydrazine in special applications like fuelling satellites? If so what do we require from people who handle/store/dispose of it?

So many thoughts provoked by that simple observation.

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

#127

Post by pdonis »

marshray wrote: post #121
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?

> 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? We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos. The superficial answer: Yes, there are indeed times when human screwups necessitate hazmat disposal trucks in residential areas. The deeper answer: The optimal solution to a compounding problem is not to polit…

> We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos.

Indeed we could. And the answer we would find is that no, such requirements were not generally imposed on ordinary homeowners, but on manufacturers and construction firms, in the form of requirements not to use asbestos in future projects and to be forced to undertake remediation efforts when asbestos was found at an existing side that needed to be modified. And we would also find that, as a result, many of those same homeowners ended up with long term health issues from asbestos exposure because they were never informed of the risks or given any feasible way to mitigate them. Nor was any cost benefit calculation done in either case (homeowners or manufacturers/construction firms) to see whether the policy that was actually adopted could reasonably be argued to be a fair tradeoff.

Here at least we are being informed of the (claimed) risk. But there is still no cost benefit analysis being done that I can see.

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

#128

Post by heyoni »

barbazoo wrote: post #107
andersrs wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Doesn’t the DEA deal with the same thing with THC analogs? I could be wrong but I thought they got pretty quick about banning them. I want to look into this now…
Post reply on HN