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

211–220 of 237 posts

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

#211

Post by legulere »

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.

Notice the word usually I used. It's about probabilities, and with vastly different probabilities come different burdens of proof. If you had the choice to put something random from the forest in your mouth or something from a chemistry lab?

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

#212

Post by hcurtiss »

paulmd wrote: post #207
hcurtiss wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. If nitrogen and water are OK, then the directive is plainly wrong. What else would be OK? And how would we make that decision?

> I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. classic bad-faith interpretation, using the classic bad-faith slogan. No, you’re not “just trying to understand” anything, and GP is absolutely correct about that. We are not dying for content here without your “hurr durr don’t you know water is a chemical posts, and we generally try to maintain a higher level of discourse her…

How about anhydrous ammonia? Or phosphate? I’m sorry, but there is no generous interpretation of “don’t dump chemicals on land.” It’s an empty statement that amounts to little more than value signaling. And it was presented with righteous indignation. I thought it best to counter that extreme position with obvious and irrefutable exceptions in an effort to open the door to a more thoughtful conversation. Unfortunately, on environmental issues, it seems for some there is only dogma.

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

#213

Post by hcurtiss »

littlestymaar wrote: post #210
hcurtiss wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think there’s piles stacking up all over the place. We’re talking parts per trillion, or smaller. The sun may burn out before we encounter quantities sufficient to be harmful.

This is misinformation. There are already plenty (literally hundreds) of places where the amount accumulated in the environment already exceeds safe limits (mostly in the immediate vicinity of chemical plants processing them, or fire departments which use them extensively). You said you cared about science in the first message but you obviously don't.

Still waiting on that study showing harmful effects due to bioaccumulation. Of course acute exposure can be harmful. The same is true of oxygen. The question is whether there are harmful bioaccumulative pathways. I’ve seen no science to support that.

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

#214

Post by TylerE »

paulmd wrote: post #206
1over137 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>…would be quickly washed away There is no “away”. “away” is our waterways and soil.

It’s been washed outside the environment

Please let me know where your sink that drains directly into the sun is. It would prove rather handy for the large quantity of nuclear waste I need to dispose of.

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

#215

Post by TylerE »

littlestymaar wrote: post #197
s1artibartfast wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally declared that the only harms are to enterprise and are trivial. >For what it's worth, depending on the harms, a sudden total ban is not out of the question as being beneficial to humanity as a whole. Total ban should be considered against harms. >It would just be disruptive to enterprise, boo hoo. Harms are trivial because they are to enterprise. >We don't need to always treat bad actors with kid glove…

Yes, that's what they said. And I'm not giving my opinion on their take here. But they said nothing about PFAS, and made no proposal to ban them. Again, this is an abstract statement that says “stop shying away from punishing those bastards when they kill people”, not a proposal to ban PFAS in particular in this situation.

They said nothing about punishment or consequences. You’re twisting their words, like, a lot.

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

#216

Post by edgyquant »

krisoft wrote: post #43
edgyquant wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we overcomplicate it with overly complex regulations. It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Assuming chemicals are totally fine until proven otherwise is backwards as hell and clearly corrupt.

> 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”)

No you’re being pedantic and proving my point. Everyone, every single person, knows when you’re doing something that could potentially devastate an environment and if you have to ask if it could don’t be dumping. Why should anyone be allowed to dump anything at all into the local environment?

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

#217

Post by edgyquant »

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.

Neither lead nor mercury are chemicals that naturally exist in large quantities in a typical human habitat.

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

#218

Post by edgyquant »

hcurtiss wrote: post #151
marshray wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is water a chemical? How about nitrogen, which comprises 3/4 of our atmosphere?

You know what was meant and this question is the perfect example of someone who is bad faith actor and we should jail for pretending to not get it. Water is a necessity to life and what humans drink, toxic chemicals aren’t. It’s simple, if it isn’t water don’t dump it, period.

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

#219

Post by edgyquant »

hcurtiss wrote: post #189
marshray wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Bose–Einstein condensate a chemical? How about Neutronium? See how that works? Real productive mode of conversation, huh.

I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. If nitrogen and water are OK, then the directive is plainly wrong. What else would be OK? And how would we make that decision?

Nah you’re playing stupid in bad faith.

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

#220

Post by defrost »

edgyquant wrote: post #217
bawolff wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Neither lead nor mercury are chemicals that naturally exist in large quantities in a typical human habitat.

Aside from the evidence of > 2,000 years of lead and mercury poisoning, of course.

Humans have been naturally digging these things up and refining them since at least the Roman Empire [1] in the west and the earliest Chinese Dynasties in the East [2].

[1] https://sites.dartmouth.edu/toxmetal/more-metals/lead-versat...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_the_First_Qin_Emp...

Post reply on HN