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

Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 181 posts

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#121

Post by pierat »

phpisthebest wrote: post #113
tedivm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers). You might as well be pointing to the NYT Opinion section as your source. You can't be a strict constitutionalist and also use the words of the Federalist as a way to enhance or modify the constitution. These are contradictory viewpoints.

>>The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers) What??? While sure it is not legally binding the Federalist are looked to by historians and even the courts to understand the original context and intent of the constitution, No different than when courts look to the debate around a given law when they are attempting to understand what Cong…

> Further still I am strict orginalist. meaning I do not engage in the idea of "living document" and that the words should be interpenetrated as they mean today instead they should be used in the context of 1776. I and other orginalist do this by citing sources for that time period such as the Federalist papers to understand what the ORIGINAL MEANING of "General Welfare" was at the time it was written.

Strict originalist, you say?

So, regarding the second amendment, what class of weapons do you consider "Arms"? Weapons from 1776? 1787, when a majority of delegates signed? 1778, when it was ratified? 1779, when it was the law?

And, these weapons were common arms for the Rev war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_th... . Any arguments saying later on weapons would just be a non-originalist interpretation of the constitution.

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#122

Post by Clent »

tomxor wrote: post #88
myshpa wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we need to do is to prevent such occurrences from happening by enforcing regulations that require companies to demonstrate the safety of their products before manufacturing them for extended periods, instead of concealing data and facing minimal consequences.

> concealing data and facing minimal consequences. Yes, the delay in punishment is a huge problem. 3M is facing fines easily pushing them into bankruptcy... so even when the punishment is severe enough, it's too late, huge damage has already been done. The problem is that even this is not a disincentive, whether or not they know it, executives use these artificial constructs "companies" as vehicles to extract money,…

Until one can lose their MBA for an ethical violation, nothing will change.

I trust a lawyer more than a CEO because a lawyer has ethical obligations.

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#123

Post by phpisthebest »

tedivm wrote: post #116
phpisthebest wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers) What??? While sure it is not legally binding the Federalist are looked to by historians and even the courts to understand the original context and intent of the constitution, No different than when courts look to the debate around a given law when they are attempting to understand what Cong…

The Federalist papers literally argued against what became of Bill of Rights. > The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather…

>You're claim that this is what it meant back then is clearly wrong,

Not even in the slightest, you clearly do not understand the position of Hamilton if you believe his statements mean " clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare" which is the original comment I responded to.

All of those things would be spending *Local* not *General* Hamilton viewed the General Welfare to be more expansive sure but he was still in the realm of things that applied to all States equally, not sending money to particular cities / states that need "clean water" or to individuals that need food assistance, etc.

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#124

Post by phpisthebest »

pierat wrote: post #96
phpisthebest wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day I do not believe this is a national matter in the first place, No where in the Constitution does congress have the authority to regulate drinking water in the first place, outside the bastardization of the commerce clause So it should be left up to state regulators to set what they feel are the best for their states. EPA could play a role in ensuring One state does not pollute another state, but…

You ignored my other comment regarding how clean water is indeed a Constitutionally mandated power. Having a safe and secure access and usage of water is definitely part of the "general welfare" within Art 1 Sec 8. And no, water doesn't have to be explicitly listed. "General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. "General welfare" is also a way that th…

I already address the wrong interpretation of General Welfare here [1] it is a common tactic by Authoritarians to expand the scope of the federal government to be unlimited, when clearly the purpose of the constitution was to limit the government, If your understanding of that clause is correct then there is no reason to go on and list other powers as literally everything is included in "General Welfare" and the US Federal Governments power is unlimited. That is not the case

>>"General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase.

Ahh your a living document believer, that we should reinterpret the constitution under the lens of how words are used in common usage today, not the original intent of the provisions. I am an orginalist so no I do not agree that General Welfare powers expand as humanities standards increase

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#125

Post by vacuity »

gamblor956 wrote: post #50
phpisthebest wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bias is Anti-government. The best government is the smallest government, and I believe in strict interpretation of Article 1 Sec 8 powers. That said, where am I wrong, for the last several decades all the Democrats do is talk about how the Rich do not pay their "fair share" never defining what a fair share is.. and how we always need to tax them more... I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires"…

The best government is efficient government, whatever the size it needs to be to efficiently and successfully accomplish the tasks it has been given by its citizens.

You're technically right, but it may be that the ideal model of government tends towards a certain size; perhaps size significantly affects the extent of corruption? In any case, the more pressing matter is how to turn an inefficient government into an efficient one, heh. (Or even before that, getting consensus on the fundamental responsibilities to the citizens.)

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#126

Post by pierat »

phpisthebest wrote: post #124
pierat wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ignored my other comment regarding how clean water is indeed a Constitutionally mandated power. Having a safe and secure access and usage of water is definitely part of the "general welfare" within Art 1 Sec 8. And no, water doesn't have to be explicitly listed. "General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. "General welfare" is also a way that th…

I already address the wrong interpretation of General Welfare here [1] it is a common tactic by Authoritarians to expand the scope of the federal government to be unlimited, when clearly the purpose of the constitution was to limit the government, If your understanding of that clause is correct then there is no reason to go on and list other powers as literally everything is included in "General Welfare" and the US F…

You were also quoting what amounts to 1700's blog articles (Federalist) as evidence of an originalist thought.

And I plainly read what was said in the constitution. You seem to be the one re-interpreting the document based on your own world-view.

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#127

Post by tedivm »

phpisthebest wrote: post #123
tedivm wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Federalist papers literally argued against what became of Bill of Rights. > The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather…

>You're claim that this is what it meant back then is clearly wrong, Not even in the slightest, you clearly do not understand the position of Hamilton if you believe his statements mean " clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare" which is the original comment I responded to. All of those things would be spending *Local* not *General* Hamilton viewed the General Welfare to be more expans…

>Hamilton viewed the General Welfare to be more expansive

So you acknowledge that your original statement was wrong, and that the general welfare statement even at that time was considered more expansive by some of the founding fathers than the Federalist paper you quoted argued?

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#128

Post by boringg »

za3faran wrote: post #109
boringg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your bar for "proven facts" is very low - you might want to reconsider what you read as truth and put a bit more of a filter on. I say this for your own benefit - as nothing you do bears on my life.

> as nothing you do bears on my life. Life on earth is a highly interconnected system, otherwise, what's the point of educating people on issues like pollution, climate change, alcohol, etc.?

It is connected however my advice for this individual has no direct bearing on my life and am merely hoping for their own benefit they are more discerning about their ability to comprehend information. Yes you can argue that a society that is more discerning has an impact - though that's a bit too hand wavy.

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#129

Post by kelipso »

lisasays wrote: post #92
kelipso wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fluoride lowering IQ is not a conspiracy theory, it's a proven fact. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-020-0973-8

That isn't what the article says. It isn't even evaluation of other people's research, let alone novel research in itself. It's a "perspective" article commenting on human behavior. Meanwhile researchers who have conducted proper meta-analyses of the literature have come to a negative conclusion on this topic: In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not…

There have been a lot of studies done, dose-response studies too. It gets ignored in the US because of left-right polarization. Here are a few below. Believe what you want I guess but this is basically overwhelming evidence to me.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-children...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/08/20/fluoride-an...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18695947/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31424532/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285601/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S08920...

Re: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’

#130

Post by purpleblue »

mcherm wrote: post #70
purpleblue wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who was a life-long liberal, but worked their ass off to become a 1%er, I 100% believe that the Democrats are using people like me as scapegoats and it makes me furious. I worked and studied when my classmates or coworkers were partying, made good choices, and now I enjoy a nice life because of it. But now all of a sudden, because I make over $400,000 I "don't pay my fair share of taxes", according to Eliz…

I don't want to talk you out of opposition to the Democratic party or to vilification of ANYONE, including the wealthy. But I DO have a perspective you might be missing: You write: > As someone who [...] worked their ass off to become a 1%er [...] I worked and studied when my classmates or coworkers were partying, made good choices, and now I enjoy a nice life because of it. I, like you, work fairly hard and have bec…

I worked in factories, I worked minimum wage jobs, I paid for my own college through scholarships and part-time jobs. I came from a lower-middle class background, and we never went on trips and we never ate out. KFC was considered a special treat. I manufactured my entire career and where I am in life, the fact that there are some people who weren't able to match me is orthogonal to any of that and I won't feel guilty about it. I don't look down on them one bit, life is tough and unfair, but I also won't feel guilty or self-flagellate myself because I worked hard and took advantage of whatever opportunities I either got or created for myself.
Post reply on HN