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

311–320 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#311

Post by shigawire »

hollerith wrote: post #225
nielsbot wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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

I struggle to find a topic where they don't think this. It seems the burden of "proof" is too high. They don't believe in risks to health, the environment, climate, or even functional democracy itself. They think all are fake and profit is more important.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#312

Post by kbrkbr »

scarface_74 wrote: post #268
tomrod wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely did, because many listen to the absokutely rank propaganda the right puts out and seek no real sources of information.

You didn’t need “sources of information”. Trump was in office for four years before he was re-elected. It’s copium to think that people aré ignorant when in actuality, they are actively hostile to minorities, non straight, the college educated and non Christians. They would rather feel the fallout of Republican policies as long as it doesn’t help or actively hurts people not like them. In my former home state GA, the…

I think it's rather the choice we are given at this moment in history. But I may be wrong.

If you abstract away any other problems and boil it down to environment, health and work protections on the one hand, and restriction of unlimited immigration from countries with very different sets of values no matter the sociological developments that will likely follow you can only choose one.

I just tried to summarize what we hear and see from voters in analyses as fairly as I could, not present my own opinion. If that did not work out, let me know.

But in this case you choose the one problem that appears bigger or makes you more angry probably.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#313

Post by GenerocUsername »

scarface_74 wrote: post #233
mandeepj wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Where we set our eyes don’t matter. The US electorate has shown we care more about “owning the libs”, “anti-woke” and what bathroom people use than our own health and welfare. Absolutely no one who voted for this mess went in blind.

Well then maybe it's time to cut some dead weight from the left platform... Many centrists want clean water and sane society and bathrooms and woke ideology maybe needs to take a back seat in discourse for a while

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#314

Post by amluto »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #226
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…

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.

You can go to the EU and generally find things like unsweetened granola. In the US these products basically don’t exist.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#315

Post by softwaredoug »

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.

True but doesn’t PFAS impact ecosystems and agriculture as well?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#316

Post by MaxRegret »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #263
Workaccount2 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Incorrect. There is more fructose in HFCS used in Coke, HFCS 55. Fructose is metabolized in the liver, and stored as fat there. Glucose is directly metabolized by cells throughout the body. Also there is no single reason that HFCS is demonized, there are multiple good reasons why it is harmful in the US. It is also not a singular cause to all US diet related pathologies. Staying on topic, the chemicals the EPA will n…

It turns out the acidic environment in most beverages inverts the sucrose in cane sugar to form a 50:50 mix of fructose and glucose. In the end, the fructose/glucose ratio in cane-sugar-sweetened drinks becomes similar to high-fructose corn syrup, which is about 55:42. And the reaction is quick: about half the sucrose gets inverted in about three weeks. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY66qpMFOYo

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#317

Post by joemaniaci »

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…

I'm American and I've decided at least with cookware that I'm only buying European made products. I don't have a choice with ingredients but at least I can buy European pots and pans knowing it's more regulated.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#318

Post by yepitwas »

shigawire wrote: post #304
hedora wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right managed to succeed with their electoral reforms. Gerrymandering is legal, and the president is now above the law. The left should use the same tactics: Focus on state and local elections then use those positions to fix elections so that the national majority of voters decide who runs the federal government (instead of the current 25-30% of voters). Doing this is completely legal now that the Supreme Court h…

As a democratic voter I don't like this either. I vote because I want rule of law. It's not as clear cut to me that discarding rule of law to beat the GOP is the best option. There is a chance they can be defeated without undermining having a functional electoral system

This went out the window as a viable approach when McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat. We’re at minimum-two justices being on the take, post a coup attempt with the leader of said attempt back in the Oval Office, and Republicans have already declared intent to gerrymander their way to victory with no roadblocks to that in sight. And this is not an exhaustive list of ailments.

You can’t go in with legal gloves and no hitting below the belt et c. while your opponent is bare-knuckle and going for nut shots and headlocks. You’ll just get your ass kicked, every time, no matter how morally pure you feel about it.

Meanwhile, fixing gerrymandering almost certainly means getting Republican votes to do so. The only way to do that, in this environment, is going to be to make them believe their odds are better without gerrymandering, than with it. That means using it against them, until it’s made illegal.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#319

Post by hollerith »

shigawire wrote: post #311
hollerith wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>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 I struggle to find a topic where they don't think this. It seems the burden of "proof" is too high. They don't believe in risks to health, the environment, climate, or even functional democracy itself. They think all are fake and profit is more importan…

What you say is true in general, but there are execeptions: for example, the Republicans judge the harm done by heroin, fentanyl, amphetamine and cocaine to be very high -- probably higher than the average estimate of the harm as judged by the Democrats. Ditto street crime.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#320

Post by iamtedd »

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.

That's such a good idea. Why didn't the people of Flint, Michigan just do that in their homes? /s
Post reply on HN