Live data from Hacker News

EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

earthjustice.org

331–340 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#331
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.

But they were open about wanting to do this stuff.

They were extremely open. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

This works just like holocaust denial, and there's a reason that's criminalized in Germany and a lot of other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#332

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.

> 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.

That side is consistently good at pushing uneducated voters to care about nothingburger issues like transgender bathrooms and mass immigration.

the reality is that the average american is an uninformed moron made complacent through excess and enteratinment but thats not something that can be easily fixed.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#333
This is what I find so interesting about the MAHA "movement". Kennedy is making some good (and many bad) points about food and nutrition. But then he is part of an administration that promotes pollution and wants to remove safeguards against chemicals that harm people. I have no idea how this is supposed to fit together but in today's political climate it's not necessary for things to make sense.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#334

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…

PFAS is short for 'Per- and poly- FluoroAlkyl Substances'. The Teflon that's used on your pans, which are 'poly-' materials, comes in extra long chains (hundreds of thousands of molecules). Most of its chemical bonds are hidden behind the extremely reactive Fluoride atoms (so if Fluoride is bonded onto that position, it's hard to take it off) and are extremely inert, so they don't interfere with typical biological reactions, thus are perfectly safe.

C8 is known as PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). Per for its chained molecule shape (no carbon side chains), 'fluoro' for the F part, 'octanoic' for the 8 carbon atoms, and 'acid' for its chemical property. Unlike Teflon:

  - C8 has a really small molecular mass, making it easier to flow around your body participating in all kinds of biological operations;
  - It is an acid (having the carboxylic '-COOH' group) and can pretend to be all kinds of acids and actively take part in reactions. Once they start to get inside, the consequences can be unpredictable and devastating.
  - All other atoms on C8 except for the last -COOH group are covered by fluoride atoms. This means that C8 is not biodegradable (no enzyme can break apart the C-F covalent bond since it's bond energy is really too high), and when it gets into the environment, it stays that way.
C6 has a highly similar chemical property akin to C8 (it's a carboxylic acid, and has all atoms covered by fluoride), so is equally harmful.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#335

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?

They can force foreign countries into importing by threatening tariffs. Though I guess they cannot force-feed it to international consumers in the end.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#336

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?

Reducing pollution in the environment is good, but this discussion is about water quality mandates for drinking water. These are more at the water treatment facility level whereas reducing the environmental levels would happen upstream of this process.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#337

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.

Harris lost the popular vote by less than 2%. I know that popular vote is not what gets a president elected, but you make it sound like nobody voted for Harris and the entire American electorate liked Trump's views and voted for him.

That's the thing. Trump would be eminently beatable if the democrats bothered running good candidates and had the courage to stand for something. But they are perfectly content collecting tons of money which probably goes to connected "consultants" who then spend 20 million on figuring out how to talk to people.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#338

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.

Only ~60% of people eligible to vote in 2024 did vote with ~30% of eligible voters voting for the idiotscape we currently have.

So, I think OP message was for the folks who didn't vote. Especially given the people against going backwards on environmental protection is a large majority of the population.

If everyone voted, we wouldn't be dealing with this. Excluding future success of social media propaganda campaigns.

We all need to fucking vote. Otherwise you get folks like Stephen Miller, Elon Musk, Laura Loomer puppetting an orange shell.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#339

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…

So TL;DR,

1. Any substance that has most atoms covered by Fluoride are 'PFAS'. 2. C8 is strictly speaking PFOA (by-definition). 3. C6, and all other acids that has similar chemical properties to C8, can all be generically classified as PFOA-like materials. But for ease of communication people also call them PFOAs or just short for PFOA.

4. PFOAs are crucial for manufacturing Teflon. 5. The problem is manufacturers just dump waste water from PFAS production plants (containing PFOA) without post-processing into natural water bodies and let these toxic substances participate in the food chain and eventually land in our own bodies.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rolling back PFAS protections would not simply affect "the other half of the team", it would affect everybody. If there isn't some context missing here, this is an action that would be ubiquitously unpopular, let alone when contrasted against the goals of MAHA.

The beauty of gerrymandering is that the gerrymanderers don't need to be popular. Also the baseline GOP today exists in a different reality (e.g. where Trump won the 2020 election and Democrats did the COVID lockdowns)

Gerrymandering has no effect on the Senate or Presidency making this largely a non sequitur. Furthermore, administrators of independent agencies (such as the EPA) need to confirmed by the Senate. Up until 2013, appointees could be blocked by a minority with a filibuster. That rule was changed in 2013 by a Democrat majority Senate under Obama, to make it such that a simple majority could force through any appointee.

That was one of countless examples of where powers passed by one side with a majority invariably end up coming back to bite then when they become the minority. The Founding Fathers designed our political system to be largely dysfunctional without widespread consensus. That was clearly wiser than the path we are increasingly choosing in modern times.

Post reply on HN