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

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#171

Post by tombert » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:53 PM UTC

sedawkgrep wrote: post #153

tombert wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still kind of baffles me that people voted for this, ostensibly to somehow lower grocery price by raising tariffs. Or, you know, they actually had really racist reasons and are using the grocery prices thing as an excuse. Who's to say?

I think it's much bigger than racism. Take a look at the administration's first term and all the involvement and ties (financial, political, etc.) there are to Russia (and Russian-related objectives like Ukraine). It sounds bonkers, but the more you dig in and see how closely tied the relationships have been, and then see how totally soft Trump has been towards Putin/Russia - including direct actions towards Ukraine…

I have no doubt that the administration's motivation are weird and Russia-oriented.

I was referring to the voters. I think a lot of the voters claimed grocery prices were the reason, but a lot of them really wanted to get rid of Mexicans. Trump used a lot of racist rhetoric during all three of his campaigns.

The fact that conservatives seem unwilling to condemn the president and ICE for detaining naturalized citizens indicates this to me.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#172

Post by yaroslavvb » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:54 PM UTC

sgnelson wrote: post #67

yaroslavvb wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Balancing protection against water bills - https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-it-will-keep-...

Well shit, we can really lower water bills by getting rid of all clean water regulations and simply stop water treatment. Think of the cost savings!

Stricter (but not looser) standards can be imposed on state level. Canada has no binding national drinking water law, they leave it to territories/provinces to decide how to implement guidelines.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#173

Post by preisschild » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:54 PM UTC

Atlas667 wrote: post #44

When people en masse remember what capitalist policies do

It would actually be good if this Administration would enact capitalist free trade policies, because they often lead to more growth and better quality of life for everyone.

Many of this administration's policies are more like Maoism

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#174

Post by Havoc » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:55 PM UTC

supportengineer wrote: post #141

Ozarkian wrote: post #68

The State of California is moving in the exact opposite direction: banning these things completely. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/california-lawmakers-propos...

I am suddenly quite bullish on California real estate. The “good people” will flock from all around the world so that they can be in one place with the other “good people”. It’s about shared values. California will be the last refuge for people around the world who have these shared values.

I assure you there are places in the world with good people and shared values outside of one state in one particular country. Pretty wild comment frankly...

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#175

Post by rvba » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:55 PM UTC

hobs wrote: post #128

whatever1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Adam Smith's thought is more about 1 000 000 farmers farming the same commodity pototatoes

In 2025 winner takes all ans monopolizes all

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#176

Post by staminade » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:56 PM UTC

he0001 wrote: post #4

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

Any new regulation the EPA introduces results in litigation. Some of the previously introduced PFAS regulations weren't done in accordance with how the Safe Drinking Water Act says they should be (regulations were introduced without the necessary public consultation), so they're applying to partially vacate the previous ruling. Notably, they're _not_ applying to vacate the regulation of PFAS chemicals where they say the process was followed correctly.

So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error. I also suspect that being seen to roll back some regulations likely gives Lee Zeldin (the EPA admin) some political room to maneuver. He's historically be associated with anti-PFAS efforts (in Congress he represented a district with contamination problems and he voted for anti-PFAS legislation), but he's also part of an administration with a strong anti-regulation agenda, so he needs to walk a fine line.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#177

Post by adrr » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:56 PM UTC

flkiwi wrote: post #136

recursive wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the identity politics stuff if I had to guess.

Identity politics. Rejecting identity politics for economic justice. Rejecting economic justice for economic revolution. It goes on and on. There are so many overlapping and contradictory purity tests among the various branches of the left, that meaningful opposition from the left is more of a coincidence than anything one can plan for.

Name a purity test. Stop dancing around the question.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#178

Post by yndoendo » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:56 PM UTC

throwaway173738 wrote: post #119

zug_zug wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand this may look dismissive or blamey, but sometimes (actually a shocking amount) there aren’t equal merits to both sides… I’ve looked into this a lot and there isn’t any strong argument I’ve seen that this is good for humanity, and let’s not pretend every political action is a sincere attempt to improve the world for all equally. If you look into all the abuse heaped upon the man who discovered leaded gaso…

Or the companies selling cigarettes. The only positive is that cigarettes alleviate the stress caused by being addicted to cigarettes.

There is also a social water cooler like aspect. Historically brakes were only provided to those that smoke so people took up smoking so they could get a brake. Some companies still follow this asinine ideology and do not provide brakes to non-smokers.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#179

Post by thomasmg » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:56 PM UTC

spankalee wrote: post #85

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.

Our system is not set up to be able to resist things like this. Once one party has control over all three branches of the federal government, all we can do at the federal level is wait for elections. States can try to do some things in some cases, but the Supreme Court will get in the way and now the National Guard and Marines.

Right. My fear is that the rules of the elections will be significantly changed as well soon, by this party.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#180

Post by zdragnar » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 3:57 PM UTC

AHatLikeThat wrote: post #154

throw0101a wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'd argue the insurance companies prefer to collect premiums and not treat people.

Then you'd be wrong. Insurance companies are limited to the amount they can collect without paying back out.

It's a fixed percentage. That means the more expensive treatment gets, the higher they can raise rates, and the more revenue they get from that fixed percentage.