Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?
Any new regulation the EPA introduces results in litigation. Some of the previously introduced PFAS regulations weren't done in accordance with how the Safe Drinking Water Act says they should be (regulations were introduced without the necessary public consultation), so they're applying to partially vacate the previous ruling. Notably, they're _not_ applying to vacate the regulation of PFAS chemicals where they say…
EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
371–380 of 508 posts
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
The buyer doesn’t know which company is responsible and which company’s suppliers are responsible etc. This is why we need legislation and enforcement. Imagine another scenario. You are my neighbour. I spill some poison on the ground. Your child gets ill. Am I at fault?
The companies who care will fund 3rd party certification orgs that will check whether the standards are met. They do it already for car safety, responsible raw materials sourcing, recycled content etc. If it is a feature the customers care about they will market it. But frankly customers just want a better price today.
A number of markets have few competitors which means it's beyond easy for all the companies to externalize everything.
Further, some products have deep supply chains that are easy to mix. Consider copper as an example. A responsible company will want to use recycled copper as much as possible because it's cheaper. However, can anyone realistically validate that none of that copper came from stolen cables or bad mining practices?
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You're giving something away by suggesting that a balanced framing is: (1) destruction of our world, health, and lower/middle classes vs. (2) brown people bypassing an insane bureaucracy that prevents us from effectively receiving the tired, poor, huddled masses that we explicitly invite on the country's figurative doormat. You can be against the latter, sure, but suggesting these sides are anything close to equal is…
Democrats correctly understand that immigrants are out-group benefactors. But they have blind spots too. We all do.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 insensitiv…
It's actually about tribal belonging. https://bigthink.com/articles/how-tribalism-overrules-reason...
But I saw it in real time with her. Everything I knew about her as a person was at odds with her support of the current MAGA movement. I thought she would be bemoaning that Republicans didn’t choose another of the candidates last year like Pence who was a traditional religious conservative Christian and she would at least admit that she held her nose and voted for Trump because she thought Kamala was worse. I could have respected that if not agreed with it.
I do have a good friend who is slightly on the other side of the aisle than I am. But he doesn’t demonize anyone. He is the good ol’ boy that I could have a beer with.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#375Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?
The answer is likely that the treatment is expensive, and most people aren't drinking tap water anyway. My town completed it's pfas filtering system and water bill costs increased about 25% to cover it. I don't know one person in this town though who doesn't drink filtered water. That being said, I do still support the filtering.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably a big part of it. Environmentalists are not their voters. Basically attacking everything "leftists" are for, whether it's a good idea or not. It used to be that environmental conservation was a part of conservative ideology, but MAGA isn't anything like what conservatism used to be in the US.
Wasn't the EPA started by Nixon? Why are they so against it? It doesn't seem like some hyper-woke thing to me, but I guess I'm a dumb lefty.
Get enough money and you can buy a party position.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#377The State of California is moving in the exact opposite direction: banning these things completely. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/california-lawmakers-propos...
> The alliance says PFAS is a category that includes some chemicals—such as fluoropolymers used to coat nonstick cookware—that have been deemed safe for uses in food preparation by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority.
> “They are non-toxic and inert, they do not bioaccumulate, and importantly, they are not water soluble,” the alliance stated.
Wow, what a lie-by-outrageous-omission. I would believe that the fluoropolymers in nonstick cookware are, in their intact state, inert and rather harmless (if quite persistent). I would even believe that most of the definitely-not-safe stuff that’s used in manufacturing them don’t end up in the pan.
But these things are in cookware, where they are regularly heated to high temperatures, and a lot of fluoropolymers start to degrade at temperatures that are well within the reach of the average stove. Have any of these people ever contemplated the state of an omelette pan at a restaurant? Or basically any Teflon pan that has gotten any sort of regular use without extreme care taken not to overheat it? Heck, overheated PTFE is so non-inert that it rather imfamously kills birds.
I will he delighted to see Teflon pans phased out at California restaurants. You can buy perfectly fine PFAS-free “ceramic”-coated pans these days at reasonable prices. (You can also buy non-PFAS-free “ceramic” pans these days — read labels carefullly, consider looking up the listed patents, and keep in mind that if it doesn’t see its PFAS-free then it probably isn’t. PFOS/PFOA-free does not mean free if other PFAS.)
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#378Earlier 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.
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.…
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
Because of the electoral college. It didn’t matter who didn’t vote. If 0% more people voted in Mississippi or Alabama and every single eligible voter voted in New York and California, it wouldn’t have mattered.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#380Earlier 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…
This is the full quote of the parent: > As for people getting sick and dying, they either don’t care, or they want people to get sick and die.
Lets break it down. Lets say some of your actions are causing harm, there's basically three options: 1. you don't know this is happening 2. you know, but continue because you don't care, and you can make money not caring 3. you know, and somehow this is beneficial to you, unlikely but possible
(The default option, which is always available, is to stop operations, which they have obviously also not done.)
Since DuPont obviously knew this was causing harm, #1 is out, so #2 and #3 remain. This is just deduction by elimination, not a value judgement.
No amount of spinning this argument is going to change this. I think your last line here makes it obvious who's straw-manning.