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

321–330 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#321

Post by shigawire »

e2le wrote: post #102
Apreche wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm not convinced that this is the correct answer. These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume). An examination of the individuals in the EPA pushing this change might reveal something. Perhaps it's ideological? I don't know, I'm at a complete loss.

>These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).

They get to move to whatever enclave they want and buy expensive RO filters.

Or, they don't believe in science broadly and believe they won't be impacted. If scientists are so smart, why aren't they rich like me and exploiting everyone and everything to the maximum potential profit??

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#322

Post by joemaniaci »

natebc wrote: post #121
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…

> Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar. American Coke is sweetened with Corn Syrup. Maybe it's just me being a dumb American probably fooled by some green washing but isn't Cane Sugar better? What's "actual sugar" in the EU?

Fun fact: high fructose corn syrup has almost the same sugar content as honey.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#323

Post by m_fayer »

tensor wrote: post #166
chung8123 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really does not lend itself to getting to the root of issues and finding what compromise is. In my opinion this added nothing to the conversation when in theory the op asked for a real answer.

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…

The populist wave is global and its causes are complex. But in the case of the US on top of it all, our populists happen to be clowns and morons.

I think the reasonable mind struggles to deal with the current obvious stupidity even within a populist frame, and hunts for a hidden explanation. It’s a lot scarier to believe that the world’s biggest economy and military and nuclear arsenal are somehow in the hands of not just authoritarians, but crooks and morons.

But it’s true. Britain did it too, it happens.

So why do they do it? To play out some idiotic meme-driven culture war, reduced through these people’s small minds to caricature. They don’t think about second order effects, they lack the sophistication for that.

It’s terrifying.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#324

Post by Filligree »

groby_b wrote: post #26
he0001 wrote: post #4

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

While the reason is not stated, Occam's razor demands we look for the simplest explanation that ties together all actions of this administration. And that seems to be dismantling the US as a military and technological superpower - a self-inflicted Morgenthau plan, if you will. We are left to speculate why a US government would want to dismantle the US, and who would benefit.

If you want to know, just look at the list of nations exempt from the current tariffs.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#325

Post by dawnerd »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #313
scarface_74 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But then you alienate some of the most vocal part of the party and end up like in 2016 where they blame the Bernie bros instead of the dnc leadership.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#326

Post by binoct »

ajmurmann wrote: post #293
giantg2 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me a nation with perfectly maintained pipes that doesn't use chlorine etc. If you can't show me that, then your proposed solution is invalid.

In Germany chlorine is used to treat water in the plant but it's removed before it goes into the pipe. There is a tiny residue but that's residue and not intentional to prevent issues with the pipes.

What does Germany use to manage microorganism growth in it's water distribution system? As I understand cloramine/chlorine is used to keep the small amounts of microorganisms that will always be present in water and pipes from growing into a problem while it travels/sits in the distribution system.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#327

Post by dawnerd »

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 attitude is exactly what the far right is banking on to make sure there is never another liberal gov elected fairly.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#328

Post by rickydroll »

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

One possible solution is to get all the liberal/progressive voters to register as Republicans and run liberal/progressive candidates as Republicans. Built on the Eisenhower platform of 1956 and his record as a military commander. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-p...

Granted, it's not ideal, but coming in the back door may be necessary.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#329

Post by californical »

avazhi wrote: post #229
californical wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cur…

> You guys hate corporations so much

Sorry I don’t know who you’re grouping me with, but I don’t hate corporations. I hate people intentionally harming others for their own profit.

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

Again, not speaking for a group here since I’m just some guy. But I think when evidence started to appear that “holy crap this is killing people like crazy”, then choosing to allow it to continue - yes is equivalent to killing people intentionally.

I don’t consider “disguising your killing through statistics” to be a reasonable defense. If I have 100 miners that I’ve hired in a room, and I know that 10 of them will die as a direct result of my actions, such as not taking precautionary safety measures… It doesn’t matter which 10 it is, I’ve still chosen to kill 10 of those people.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#330

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

yepitwas wrote: post #305
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.

If they went in blind, they chose to. Not giving enough of a shit to learn about… in some cases, seemingly anything , doesn’t mean you get to later claim “oh I didn’t want this, how could I have known?” I’ve given a lot of leeway on that stuff over my life, and after this last election, that’s over. Anyone who doesn’t get it at this point has raised stupidity to such an art form that they’ve achieved immorality. That…

One of my “friends” on Facebook who is a devout evangelical Christian that I went to school with between elementary school at a private Christian elementary school, a magnet middle school and she was one of the few white people at my majority black high school and even one of the fewer that didn’t segregate herself and made friends with everyone claimed that Charles Kirk was a good Christian and said I was insensitive for quoting his words after his death.

I honestly had never heard of him before he was shot and looked up things about him thinking from all of the things said about him by her and other conservatives was that he was a traditional pre 2016 Republican who I might disagree with around the edges. But I could have a beer with him.

I then looked up some of the things he said, showed her with links to videos, verified sources etc and she refused to even read the links because they would have forced her to confront her cognitive dissonance.

For the record, she isn’t one of the fire breathing conservatives and 99% of her posts are quoting scriptures and family oriented.

Post reply on HN