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

221–230 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#221

Post by NewJazz »

BoredPositron wrote: post #215
giantg2 wrote: post #161

At this point we should just create programs to promote RO filtration at home. If it's not lead then it's PFAS or some other thing. Then we have the issues with the chlorine and chloramine byproducts inhernet even in properly treated water - stuff that we already know as possible, probable, or known carcinogens.

Sounds like a band-aid solution for bad governance.

No, it is not a band aid, it is the gold standard for water filtration. And not all water issues stem from bad governance. Sometimes there is just unwanted minerals in the water for natural reasons.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#222

Post by [deleted] »

DrewADesign wrote: post #199
righthand wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean insinuating that a sect of a political party is “extremist” or “far” into some ideology because they see the current political atmosphere is futile is not discussing politics in good faith. Most lefists/extreme right/far-left/far-right are not the “far right” or “far left” caricatures depicted by the media, internet comments, or the mouth of the political party conventions. > I can probably guess your next is…

People we call “far left” in the US would be mainstream labor candidates in most European political environments.

[deleted]

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#223

Post by tyleo »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #213
tyleo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that she had a moderate response. I think it appeared that she was dying on the this hill because she didn’t address it in her 2024 campaign yet it received so much air time in Republican ads. I also agree that it feels like Democrats don’t stand for anything. But I think by leaving that space open they let ads like this paint what they stand for.

Right, that’s what I’m saying. This is the opposite of a democrat dying on a hill. They cede everything and are killed for it on the spin. My issue with what you said is the claim is not a hill to die on. They are not dying on any hills at all .

Fair enough. It’s the appearance of dying on hills.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#224

Post by sunsetSamurai »

coliveira wrote: post #16
he0001 wrote: post #4

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

[flagged]

Many european, asian and african countries benefited handsomely from exploiting other human beings and many of these countries have better environmental protection laws. So I don't think this is the reason.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#225

Post by hollerith »

nielsbot wrote: post #212
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?

I think there’s a deep fundamental psychosis of the right wing to get the world back to “survival of the fittest”. If you die of PFAs, poverty, other pollution, well then that’s just bad luck for you. They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.

>They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.

There is some truth to that, but I don't think that explains their position on PFAS because too much PFAS will disable even a strong healthy person. In this particular, it's more that they think that the harm is being exaggerated and that the actual, non-exaggerated degree of harm does not justify putting restrictions on business and commerce.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#226

Post by Workaccount2 »

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…

Cane sugar and corn syrup are both just sugar. Your health isn't going to be any better drinking cane sugar coke than corn syrup coke.

The reason corn syrup is demonized is because it is cheap, enabling lots of foods to pack sugar without much cost. The health concerns remain consistent across all forms of sugar.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#227

Post by estearum »

tyleo wrote: post #220
estearum wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again: this is not in any "politician's" hands. It's in SCOTUS's. Inmates have a right to medical care in this country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estelle_v._Gamble

That link refers to decisions made based the US Code and the constitution. Politicians write those. Courts have responsibility in interpreting them. It’s still a politicians job to take a stance and decide what they should be.

Correct, which as I said: "At least a SCOTUS decision," where "amend the Constitution" is a significantly higher bar to meet.

If you think we're going to amend the Constitution to ban gender affirming care for inmates you're living in outerspace, but I suppose your position is that politicians are supposed to just say shit that has the correct hate-valence and then it's as-good-as-accomplished?

Inmates received this care under Trump 1 (because USG is obligated to provide it, Constitutionally): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/us/politics/trump-prisons...

They've tried stopping it in Trump 2 but have been enjoined by courts (because USG is obligated to provide it, Constitutionally): https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-judge-temporaril...

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#228

Post by adrr »

cardamomo wrote: post #197
cogman10 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hogwash. The american left by and large is simply unrepresented. Democrats have represented center right positions since clinton. If anything, it's those centrist democrats that use purity tests as much as possible to eject the left from the party. As a good example of that, consider the case of Al Franken vs Andrew Cuomo. Franken was pretty progressive, so when it came out that he had a picture in bad taste…

I agree with this assessment, and Mamdani's popularity in NYC provides some credence to this. Voters have wanted the Dems to move left since at least 2016, but the Democratic establishment routinely punishes those who aren't moving rightward.

Party has moved been moving left since Clinton. Clinton was more conservative than George W Bush. Balance Budgets(fired a bunch government workers), welfare reform,NAFTA etc.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#229

Post by avazhi »

californical wrote: post #203
avazhi wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or they want people to get sick and die. Actually this is what he said, and what I was referring to.

Isn’t “doing something that causes people to get sick and die for your own small financial gain” exactly that?

If I run a business that produces pollution through a pair of smokestacks, and I know that the pollution is harmful and will give a few of the surrounding residents lung cancer, is that the same thing as intending that they will get the cancer? Or would it be reasonable for me to see the harm as an unfortunate externality that I wish could be avoided but can't be given whatever technological limitations there are currently.

So no, it's not 'exactly that'. You guys hate corporations so much that you are going a step beyond mere negligence and pretending that they are actually out to harm people as the very raison d'etre for their products, as opposed to the harm being a byproduct of their business. I'm not saying PFAS should be legal (they definitely shouldn't be); I'm saying it's lazy thinking that lacks evidence to suggest the harm itself is somehow the motivation, which is what the original commenter suggested.

Do you guys also think all the old asbestos manufacturers hoped/intended that their miners and others working with their sheeting would get mesothelioma?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#230

Post by sunsetSamurai »

crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #219
sunsetSamurai wrote: post #196

Elections have consequences, many people say both sides are the same, but there's one side that constantly does things like this, on top of giving tax cuts to rich people that need it the least. Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this.

Kindly stop supporting a nation built on genocide and enslavement. The ethical path to engineering a system that's not intended to kill people is to stop it when it does and dismantle it, evolving the foundational principles used to design it in the first place. And to do all that without sacrificing more lives. Electoral reform is impossible because there's no way to say no to the entire system.

I live in the USA so I don't have the choice to just leave, at least not now. So I must do what I can to make this country better.
Post reply on HN