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

U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 413 posts

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#31

Post by mrfusion »

saiya-jin wrote: post #29
mrfusion wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think britAs and the like work somewhat at removing pfas. They’re large organic molecules and they excel at removing those.

Based on internet it seems zerowater filters are much more effective than brita, but they cost a bit more to run (because, well, they filter out more stuff).

Hmm I got to the conclusion that zero water was way better at filtering out smaller chemicals like lead. I’m still think both types of filters are good for pfas. Zero water could be a little better though.

I could still be wrong. It was hard to find any good studies or tests last time I looked into it.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#32

Post by wayoutthere »

raxxorrax wrote: post #17
bronlund wrote: post #6

"The United States has among the cleanest air and drinking water on Earth."

Large country, so probably true for the most remote locations.

Honestly, no. Many of the remote areas with water are contaminated from a century and a half of resource extraction -- often moreso than the cities because enforcement is lax when people don't live nearby. Most of the industrial revolution happened after the US had expanded to the Pacific.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#33

Post by CryptoBanker »

anoplus wrote: post #28

I would be interested to know what is the current trust level of the residents on the gov and EPA in the different states. Not far from my living area a new gas rig started operating where the gov, contractor company and EPA (EPA of my country that is) argue the chemical emissions doesn't pose health risks (same for sea water pollution risk), while self-funded environmental organizations argue otherwise and show inco…

Taxes are the original crowd funding

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#34

Post by yomly »

claudeganon wrote: post #25
forgotmypw wrote: post #13

If there was a magical way of convincing every single person in the U.S. to stop buying X, what would we have to stop buying to stop this pollution?

Industrial pollution like this is the lived reality of Capitalism and it’s inability to meaningfully account for the environmental degradation and destruction it causes. The problem isn’t “stop buying X” it’s that we need to “stop buying.”

I don't know why you get downvoted for this. The current assumption that GDP must always grow (and consumption must keep increasing) seem to be in direct contradiction to the idea that we must stop consuming so much if we want to save the environment.

Perhaps "capitalism" is a lazy proxy for this but I think it's more lazy to downvote you than engage with the discussion

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#35

Post by wayoutthere »

modriano wrote: post #9
CaptainZapp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This quote appears nowhere in the article. Mind clearing up what you want to say here or is that just a bad bout of dishonesty?

Donald Trump has made the claim on several occasions.

His entire base has built their identity around American exceptionalism, so he makes these kinds of claims often regardless of their truth.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#36

Post by turk73 »

st3fan wrote: post #5

> In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.

Philadelphia, Miami, New Orleans--all run by Democrats for decades. Huh...

"The EPA has known since at least 2001 about the problem of PFAS in drinking water but has so far failed to set an enforceable, nationwide legal limit. The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on two of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS."

Funny how the article doesn't say the White House squelched publication of this information. But here we go with "The White House" bullshit. Stop with the smug little "See! I told you Trump is bad" nonsense, it simply isn't true.

We need to focus on fixing what is wrong, not playing stupid fucking gotcha games about the one Administration that has been trying to enact necessary reforms and is being prevented from doing so. You don't see how dangerous the runaway bureaucracy is, or how dangerously rogue these Federal agencies have become. For all you know the Administration that was sitting on these reports was Obama's! Enough.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#37

Post by dmxt »

saiya-jin wrote: post #20
raxxorrax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large country, so probably true for the most remote locations.

With that 'logic', Russia is way cleaner - bigger, much more remote, much less population. Anyway we talk about country as a whole, and TBH I think there are cleaner countries but would love to see some proper stats.

It's not recommended to drink water from the tap without boiling or purifying in any form in the Russia Federation outside of Moscow city and the region.

Had a water poisoning from the tap in Gelendzhik, Russia Federation vacation break from Moscow in 2008

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#38

Post by MichaelApproved »

GrumpyNl wrote: post #23

Lets thank dupont for that

Another example of privatization of profits and socializing losses.

I live on Long Island (New York) and we have water problems from old factories that polluted the ground water.

My water bill will now include $80/year charge for new filtering plants that are supposed to clean up the contaminated water.

At best, the companies should’ve never been allowed to pollute the water. At worst, the cleanup cost should’ve been charged to the polluters immediately.

Instead, they get a subsidy from my neighbors and me while we drink contaminated water.

New York is trying to sue some companies to recover costs [1] but we can never be made whole. I doubt they’ll recover the full cost of the cleanup and I know they’ll never recover the cost to our health.

[1] https://libn.com/2019/12/23/new-york-ready-to-fight-polluter...

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#39

Post by ryanmercer »

knorker wrote: post #27

So next time I go to the US I should bring a LifeStraw? This is an actual question: How much do these filters help against the type of contamination that's in US drinking water?

Products like the LifeStraw/Sawyer/Katadyn won't filter most chemicals. To remove some chemicals you need to use distillation and distillation is only good if the boiling point of a given chemical is higher than that of water.

LifeStraw even states

>Chemicals, salt water, heavy metals and viruses will not be removed.

http://help.lifestraw.com/en/articles/2507813-does-the-lifes...

Sawyer states

>Taste

>The Sawyer filter removes taste that comes from bacteria, dirt, and green matter.

>Chemicals

>The Sawyer filter does NOT remove iron, sulfur, other chemicals, or simple compounds. Taste can be masked by using flavor additives like Gatorade or crystal light (filter needs to be cleaned immediately after using them).

>Heavy Metals

>The Sawyer filters are not made with charcoal. While other portable filters have charcoal, they lack in amount of media and adequate dwell time. Therefore, they only remove small amounts of heavy metals, pesticides, etc. (when used in real life applications). Try using better sources of water, if possible.

https://sawyer.com/water-filtration/faqs/

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#40

Post by anoplus »

CryptoBanker wrote: post #33
anoplus wrote: post #28

I would be interested to know what is the current trust level of the residents on the gov and EPA in the different states. Not far from my living area a new gas rig started operating where the gov, contractor company and EPA (EPA of my country that is) argue the chemical emissions doesn't pose health risks (same for sea water pollution risk), while self-funded environmental organizations argue otherwise and show inco…

Taxes are the original crowd funding

Right, but I think modern crowd-funding is inherently designed for trust, otherwise people won't fund. Taxes are not an option for the payer - for a reason - but still I think its lacking on the trust element, which is fundamental to a functioning society. Maybe then the crowd-funded bodies are meant to keep an eye on the government to do its job.
Post reply on HN