Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?
[flagged]
EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
31–40 of 508 posts
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#32So the Environmental Protection Agency is now asking the courts to help them... not protect us?
Zeldin in March[0], announcing climate change rule rollbacks:
> "We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more"
Does any of that list look like the goals of an Environmental Protection Agency?
[0] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregu...
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#33Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?
[flagged]
This debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really does not lend itself to getting to the root of issues and finding what compromise is.
In my opinion this added nothing to the conversation when in theory the op asked for a real answer.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#34I understand that these dumb decisions are mostly profit motivated. But nobody stops to think that the reaction abroad may be: do not eat anything produced at USA?
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> As for people getting sick and dying, they either don’t care, or they want people to get sick and die. Healthcare providers and insurance companies are corporations too: you can get rich by treating more people.
Wrt to insurance companies: You can get rich by insuring more people. Treatment is not profitable.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#36Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#37Countless lives over the next decades are going to be lost due to decisions being made by this administration. Deaths and illnesses that otherwise would have prevented using existing frameworks and systems had they not been destroyed.
I don't understand why the left puts up with it. They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues. These are some of the most important issues facing the present and future of our civilization and biosphere. I wish I had a solution, or knew the step to take. I suspect one of the root causes is the narrative, e.g. from news agencies, is being controlled by the propagators of the problem.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#38Do RO filters eliminate these chemicals?
They do, but the vast majority of fluids the average person consumes comes in products made elsewhere, along with restaurants, etc. So you can RO your home water, but unless you don't eat anything made elsewhere, water your own crops, etc, you need comprehensive protections to avoid them.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#39Countless lives over the next decades are going to be lost due to decisions being made by this administration. Deaths and illnesses that otherwise would have prevented using existing frameworks and systems had they not been destroyed.
I don't understand why the left puts up with it. They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues. These are some of the most important issues facing the present and future of our civilization and biosphere. I wish I had a solution, or knew the step to take. I suspect one of the root causes is the narrative, e.g. from news agencies, is being controlled by the propagators of the problem.
What do you propose they do?
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really does not lend itself to getting to the root of issues and finding what compromise is. In my opinion this added nothing to the conversation when in theory the op asked for a real answer.
Ok, what is your counter argument?