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

251–260 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#251

Post by dralley »

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.

The most frustrating thing about leftists is their focus on tearing down and self-flagellation over actually doing anything meaningful to make the world a better place.

There is a whole archetype of person that would rather verbally jerk off to thoughts of defeatism and disgust and criticizing everyone else than do anything useful themselves.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#252

Post by [deleted] »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #193
tensor wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the facts are that this administration will always, without fail, without a single exception, do the opposite of what has been shown to be good for the US people. This isn't a property of authoritarianism either, no other authoritarian state is so uniformly across the board against science, medicine, and technology. If you have any other suggestion than the reason they do this is something related to money, ple…

Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules. Now re-read your comment and look how politically biased you are so much as to be seen as crazy. Here is the statement from the organization pushing for this. It really wasn't hard to find either. https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

[deleted]

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#253

Post by jackmottatx »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #241
vincnetas wrote: post #19

Veritasium had video explaining about PFAS and environment protections that were needed to keep people/animals from being sick. Somewhere around minute 23 in video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2eSujzrUY

What a muddled video For the first half he seems to constantly mix up C8 and Teflon. After a long section explaining that C8 is some carrier molecule used to make Teflon - he then explain C8 is used in factories and kills cows. But it's not clear C8 is anywhere other than the factory and the town around it They then extrapolate from two chemical (C8 and C6) to just anything that remotely similar (PFAS) Later they wal…

[dead]

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#254

Post by overfeed »

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?

Perhaps they are strictly traditionalist and only accept beet sugar, and none of that new-world cane stuff that doesn't grow well in European climes ./s

In all likelihood, they meant to say corn syrup.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#255

Post by [deleted] »

vixen99 wrote: post #201
Implicated wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar. I think you meant high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar (which is real sugar)

Exactly. To remind us - it's the fructose which is a metabolic problem in amounts over a certain value - worth checking out why. Cane sugar and beet sugar both contain sucrose which is one glucose linked to one fructose molecule so you get half the fructose.

[deleted]

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#256

Post by jackmottatx »

ReptileMan wrote: post #240
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.

>Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this. Or if you want more of this also go vote.

[dead]

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#257

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

tyleo wrote: post #223
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The people making up that appearance are actually republicans, though, and I think it is utterly bizarre to feed into that appearance as the fault of democrats. It’s the republican strategy to say and do extreme histrionic shit as red meat for their base and then blame the democrats for doing it.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#258

Post by colinmorelli »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #193
tensor wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the facts are that this administration will always, without fail, without a single exception, do the opposite of what has been shown to be good for the US people. This isn't a property of authoritarianism either, no other authoritarian state is so uniformly across the board against science, medicine, and technology. If you have any other suggestion than the reason they do this is something related to money, ple…

Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules. Now re-read your comment and look how politically biased you are so much as to be seen as crazy. Here is the statement from the organization pushing for this. It really wasn't hard to find either. https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

It seems like the PFAS rules were set in prior administrations [1]. In fact, even in the article you've linked above, the text states:

> retaining its maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS but pulling back on its use of a hazard index and regulatory determinations for additional PFAS

Key word being "retaining," indicating the maximum contaminant levels were already in place prior to the change mentioned here. Putting aside allegations of "political bias," can you point to a source which clearly indicates the PFA limits were put in place by the current administration? Would like to learn if I'm wrong.

[1]: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration...

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#259

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

vixen99 wrote: post #201
Implicated wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar. I think you meant high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar (which is real sugar)

Exactly. To remind us - it's the fructose which is a metabolic problem in amounts over a certain value - worth checking out why. Cane sugar and beet sugar both contain sucrose which is one glucose linked to one fructose molecule so you get half the fructose.

You don’t get half because nobody’s sweetening things with 100% fructose. The most common HFCS compositions are 42% and 55% fructose.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#260

Post by avazhi »

californical wrote: post #235
avazhi wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> you can't impute intention without more evidence If I’m aware that eating too much chocolate will kill my dog. But it’s annoying for me to get up and walk to the trash can. So I just throw the chocolate scraps to my dog to avoid inconveniencing myself. Is this the same as wanting my dog to die? Being completely unbothered by the fact that I’m killing my dog sounds about equivalent to wanting it to die. I’m choosing…

I mean, if we're talking about intention then yes there's a huge difference, that's the entire point.

But more to the point, your example is (as I'm sure you know) laughably simplistic. Cigarettes and PFAS play a probability game: the stats guys come to you and say, 'Hey boss, so if we sell 100,000 units of this product, there's a 20% chance than 5 people will be genetically susceptible to this particular novel molecule we're using, and 1 of them has a 10% chance of going on to develop bone cancer within 25 years. Should we sell it anyway?'

If you put it that way it isn't so obvious what the answer is. Most products have the potential to cause harm to some segment of the population. It's absolutely true that cigarettes and PFAS are two examples where the harms are much more rigorously established (especially with cigarettes, going back half a century), but the point stands: it's not a matter of chucking a chocolate bar at your dog. Again, you could plug the actual numbers in for the potential harms of PFAS and I don't think you'd be able to say that Dupont 'intended' to harm anybody, notwithstanding that they were clearly negligent.

Post reply on HN