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

EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

earthjustice.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#121

Post by natebc »

Insanity wrote: post #82
estebarb wrote: post #34

I 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?

In EU we by and large don’t eat what America produces though. The same products like Doritos etc will have different ingredients in EU compared to US. US typically gets the cheaper and worse option (less safe). Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar. Americans will regularly consume chemicals that are potentially carcinogenic and banned in EU. EDIT: I meant high fructose corn syrup, not cane sug…

> Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar.

American Coke is sweetened with Corn Syrup. Maybe it's just me being a dumb American probably fooled by some green washing but isn't Cane Sugar better? What's "actual sugar" in the EU?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#123

Post by cluckindan »

avazhi wrote: post #100
cluckindan wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you own shares in companies which are in the chemical manufacturing business? Or are you somehow otherwise invested in having ultra-lax environmental regulations? Genuine question. The other explanation for not wanting to call a spade a spade is in the category of actually hating other people and wishing them to die a prolonged, painful death.

I own no shares, nor do I work in any industry that would be affected by this. I'm fully against PFAS and related chemicals being used in consumer/cooking products or being released in the environment. They should be outlawed and not used, end of story. Now that that's out of the way, I don't think corporations are actively trying to make consumers sick so they can recoup the profits through their investments in the…

1. The executives know that chemicals are poisonous to wildlife, plants and humans

2. The executives don’t care because proper disposal would be costly and they are heavily incentivized to increase profits as much as possible

3. Executives order chemicals to be dumped or vented into the environment

4. Company gets caught

5. Executives order a coverup

6. Company eventually pays for cleanup, but the executives are already long gone

7. Nobody goes to jail

What part of this scenario is not intentionally poisoning people?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#124

Post by Implicated »

recursive wrote: post #113
Insanity wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In EU we by and large don’t eat what America produces though. The same products like Doritos etc will have different ingredients in EU compared to US. US typically gets the cheaper and worse option (less safe). Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar. Americans will regularly consume chemicals that are potentially carcinogenic and banned in EU. EDIT: I meant high fructose corn syrup, not cane sug…

Where does actual sugar come from?

Def not sugar canes :D

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#125

Post by testaccount28 »

CaptArmchair wrote: post #96
the__alchemist wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also a key part of it. People should explore the complexity instead of treating this as team sports. I think we have a genetic disposition to this sort of thinking, but can overcome it.

From the posted article: > EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections > The move continues to expose communities across the country to toxic forever chemicals in tap water If this really were a "team sport", one half of the team wouldn't be set on undermining the health of the other half of the team.

hi there! i'm not sure you read the comment you're replying to!

i guess you reject their request to stop trying to defeat the other team. but you also object to the use of the word "team" to describe a political party?

could you explain?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#127

Post by avazhi »

zzzeek wrote: post #109
avazhi wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You told me to go read a satirical work of fiction to understand why real life executives might make certain decisions. This is like telling me to read Lord of the Rings to understand, by analogy, what insert politician you hate here is thinking and how it's informing his use of policy.

Fiction is fiction. I prefer non-fiction for informing what I think about other (actual) people and their decision making processes.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#128

Post by hobs »

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 market isn't free, so it cannot decide - even Adam Smith was pretty freaking clear about this. And I don't mean we need less regulation, I mean companies have complete control over laws, whether or not there's an even playing field, and about their transparency to customers - there's no market at all.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#129

Post by nulld3v »

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.

The "Palestine" issue is single-issue on the surface, but it is often used because it is a succint way to package a broad set of desired foreign policy changes: more cooperation with the Islamic world, less aggression/hegemony, and less money fed to insatiable MIC.

Personally I do not see how we can afford to maintain the MIC for much longer, so these issues are very important to me.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#130

Post by throwaway173738 »

suby wrote: post #115
thrance wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's up to debate here? It's crystal clear: they removed important health regulations so that a few companies could make slightly more money not having to clean up after themselves. What's not to hate there?

It is frustrating. Rolling back forever chemical regulations is analogous to reintroducing leaded gasoline. Should we be expected to debate and weigh the pros and cons of leaded gasoline? Some things require nuance, but some things are clearly and unambiguously bad. PFAS have well known health risks, they're persistent, bio-accumulative, and linked to cancers and endocrine disruption. We should err on the side of cau…

That’s the argument—yes. Consumers are supposed to educate themselves about all the industries in their backyard before buying a house to make sure that none of them have ever dumped PFAS in the last 100 years. And also they need to move to a place where it doesn’t rain, because PFAS is also in the water cycle. If nobody does that then the free market has spoken.
Post reply on HN