EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

Post by kilroy123 » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 4:13 PM UTC

the__alchemist wrote: post #37

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.

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.

Post by scarface_74 » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 4:13 PM UTC

mandeepj wrote: post #218

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.

Let’s set our eyes on 2026 first, so that we can end this madness sooner.

Post by californical » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 4:14 PM UTC

avazhi wrote: post #146

cluckindan wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alre…

> or they want people to get sick and die. This is the part I've been referring to from the original comment. Also, once again, you should be careful how you use intention here. Even in the case where they knew about the harms or the risk, you can't impute intention without more evidence. Without that evidence, you should stick to negligence, since that's what it would be and indeed that is what separates a simple ne…

Post by scarface_74 » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 4:15 PM UTC

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…

Post by bee_rider » Sun, Sep 14, 2025, 4:16 PM UTC

the__alchemist wrote: post #42

Filligree wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you propose they do?

I would love to have an answer to your question! Edit: Here's a start: Be more critical of the news. Content a bit; the scope of topics that are discussed more importantly.