EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections • Hacker News Board

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#101

Post by cloverich » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:37 PM UTC

odie5533 wrote: post #73

the__alchemist wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The human brain can not handle social media. It has melted our brains and completely controls the Main Signal with its algorithms. The right is better at controlling the media in such a system, and is ascendant. We live in meme world now. Nothing is serious. It's all just memes.

It does feel like this. I remember this moment clicking for me with my dads family who was typically more rational. "did you hear California is going to outlaw bacon now"; everyone laughs.

I mention that sounds kind of click baity? look it up. California wants to impose more stringent minimum space standards for amimals bred to slaughter (prop 12). Seems maybe good, or at least worthy of a real discussion?

But everyone had moved on by then, ironically to how much they care about animal rights (spending significant time volunteering in shelters and such).

Its just too easy to dumb people down with memes.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#102

Post by e2le » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:37 PM UTC

Apreche wrote: post #7

he0001 wrote: post #4

Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?

[flagged]

I'm not convinced that this is the correct answer. These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).

An examination of the individuals in the EPA pushing this change might reveal something. Perhaps it's ideological? I don't know, I'm at a complete loss.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#103

Post by trehalose » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:37 PM UTC

avazhi wrote: post #47

Apreche wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

So why did Dupont and 3M cover up their own evidence of PFAS toxicity for decades? (This is a known fact. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever... ) Why did they do that, if not for their own profits?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#104

Post by PartiallyTyped » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:37 PM UTC

aaviator42 wrote: post #11

Countless 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.

It’s okay though, as some brilliant minds have said, the price of a few deaths is acceptable for less regulation!

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#105

Post by avazhi » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:37 PM UTC

cluckindan wrote: post #98

avazhi wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether I have a reasonable explanation for this change or not doesn't change the fact that that comment was a simplistic caricature. I never claimed to know the full answer. But I am nearly certain it doesn't begin with those evil corporations literally trying to make people sick. Merchants of Doubt, which is a great book related to this subject, is full of stories about how cigarette and PFAS corporations like Dupo…

DuPont pulled shady shit because executives were heavily incentivized to maximize profits in the short term.

Ok? No shit?

That's not the same thing as literally trying to make people sick, as the original commenter said and as I was replying to initially. Being negligent is not the same thing as being malicious; intent matters. Even if I try to cover up a harm, that doesn't mean the harm itself was my intention. If you guys can't understand the nuance there then I dunno what to tell you.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#106

Post by VerminOctopus1 » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:37 PM UTC

chung8123 wrote: post #33

Apreche wrote: post #7

Earlier 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.

This nonsense meta comment is pretty frustrating to me. Use a counter argument rather than wringing your hands and whining with no apparent critique other than “I don’t like that this person is being mean”

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#107

Post by saghm » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:37 PM UTC

chung8123 wrote: post #33

Apreche wrote: post #7

Earlier 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.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that one side of a issue is not acting in good faith. If that's the case, compromise isn't really a viable option; trying to work with someone within a system doesn't work if they literally don't support the system itself. Obviously not everyone agrees that's what's happening here, but not everyone agrees with your premise that there's guaranteed to be some reasonable compromise to every possible issue either.

In some ways, you're kind of arguing the same thing but in reverse by claiming that the comment you're responding to isn't being made in good faith. You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but only because of the exact same logic that entitles the parent commenter to hold the opinion that they express in the first place (and for what it's worth, I don't think it's actually being made in bad faith; not everyone will agree about where to draw the line, but at least to me it seems like we're long past the point of giving the benefit of the doubt on policies like the one described in TFA).

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#108

Post by wood_spirit » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:37 PM UTC

whatever1 wrote: post #66

he0001 wrote: post #4

Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?

[flagged]

The buyer doesn’t know which company is responsible and which company’s suppliers are responsible etc. This is why we need legislation and enforcement.

Imagine another scenario. You are my neighbour. I spill some poison on the ground. Your child gets ill. Am I at fault?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#109

Post by zzzeek » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:38 PM UTC

avazhi wrote: post #91

zzzeek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

read Orwell's "Animal Farm". then ask yourself if the pigs had any "nuance" to what they were doing.

Not sure how telling me to read a satirical work of fiction, by an avowed Socialist by the way, is particularly helpful here. I'm a fan of Orwell, but I don't think he'd have such a simplistic view of the actual (as opposed to fictional) world either.

if someone thinks Animal Farm is a "simplistic work of fiction" that teaches nothing due to its author being an "avowed Socialist", that's a pretty poor "fan" of Orwell. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism no matter what the purported ideology is.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#110

Post by DrewADesign » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:38 PM UTC

hypeatei wrote: post #89

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American left is one of the most impotent political entities. The only purpose they seem to serve is strengthening the far right by imposing counter productive purity tests and pushing people to vote for the far right options over more centrist ones.

You're referring to very far left circles that definitely don't represent liberals or more moderate Dems. I agree though, those circles consist of single-issue voters (e.g. palestine) that harm actual progress.

Yeah the centrist dems— the vast majority of currently elected democrats— are really knocking it out of the park. It’s the tiny handful of actual progressives that snuck through the DNC’s fortress walls that are messing everything up with their pesky fringe principles… that also poll extremely well with the general public.