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

401–410 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#401

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

DrewADesign wrote: post #346
scarface_74 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The presidential debates were the most watched tv last year beating out football. Trump was in office for four years. No matter how filtered the news is, people knew exactly who Trump was.

And one hundred million more people voted than watched that debate. And of the people that watched it, I’ll bet most people couldn’t name half the topics discussed that weren’t in their list of top voting issues. I’m not saying they were deceived or didn’t have access to the information, I’m saying that the things they didn’t care about were easily drowned out by what they did. That’s how the human brain works. Nobod…

We see that Trump is about a cult of personality. They didn’t care about the “issues”. He hates the sane people they hate

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#402

Post by bigbadfeline »

staminade wrote: post #176
he0001 wrote: post #4

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…

> So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error.

But they didn't start proper administrative procedures to reestablish the regulations, proving that these regulations are being removed on principle, whatever that is, while the "administrative error" is just an excuse.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#403

Post by coolhand2120 »

cryptonector wrote: post #350

This is what the EPA says in their filing: > Now, after further reviewing the statute pursuant to a publicly announced reconsideration process, EPA agrees with petitioners that parts of the rulemaking process were unlawful and parts of the Rule are thus invalid. This does NOT preclude lawfully making the same ruling later. It also does mean that Zeldin thinks we shouldn't reduce PFAS in our water. It does mean that:…

I'm not at all surprised that the majority of top level comments are saying things in the spirit of "Trump is trying to kill us to make money!" when if you were following along this _multi decade long regulatory battle_, and knew about the not-so-recent Chevron Deference rulings you could have predicted this. You wouldn't even need to leave HN to keep up, it gets posted here all the time!

And these comments have an air of erudite smugness about them that can only come from a person completely without doubt of their convictions - even while being completely devoid of any value to the conversation.

The title is at best hyperbolic and at worse at outright lie - in any case the pattern of the title was intended to stoke whatever mental illness we see at play here: "I speculate endlessly on my own world view to the theme of the article title so I can signal to my peers that I'm doing righthink.".

But this is what makes the article get engagement, so to hell with communicating ideas, let's stoke division and get those clicks!

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#404

Post by daveguy »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #383
daveguy wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some bullshit. If everyone voted the electoral college would be dwarfed across the board. If 50% more people vote the difference won't be in just AL, MS, CA, NY -- it will be across the board. Stop trying to fuck with our elections by discouraging people from voting.

Really? Do you not know how the electoral college works? What do you think happens if there was 30% more participation in Blue states?

If 30% more people vote it won't just be people in "blue states". That's the goddamn point. It'll mean we, as a country, get closer to the things we have 60%+ agreement.

You're discouraging voting with failures of logic, Mr 4 Month Raw Anon. "BuT wHaT iF tHeY OnLy vOtE iN bLuE sTaTeS?!" Seriously? ffs, a child could see through you.

To everyone else -- remember this. Vote in numbers that can't be eclipsed by nihilist propaganda asshats like this tool.

Let's make the margins huge in blue and purple states, miniscule to none in red states. The US can show the world a massive rejection of Trumpism if we all vote.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#405

Post by trimethylpurine »

colinmorelli wrote: post #258
trimethylpurine wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules. Now re-read your comment and look how politically biased you are so much as to be seen as crazy. Here is the statement from the organization pushing for this. It really wasn't hard to find either. https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

It seems like the PFAS rules were set in prior administrations [1]. In fact, even in the article you've linked above, the text states: > retaining its maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS but pulling back on its use of a hazard index and regulatory determinations for additional PFAS Key word being "retaining," indicating the maximum contaminant levels were already in place prior to the change mentioned here.…

Absolutely.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 02/documents/pfas_action_plan_021319_508compliant_1.pdf

Trump's first term. February of 2019. Andrew Wheeler's EPA.

You'll also notice that the document lays out planned action dates bleeding generously into Biden's term, and for which Biden later took credit in the document you shared. This is shameful, and sadly normal presidential behavior, taking credit for their predecessor's wins.

If you'd truly like to learn if you're wrong, it's recommended to seek information that disproves your hypothesis rather than proves it. Both this and the previous article I shared were very easy to find and within the first 2 or 3 results.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#406

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

daveguy wrote: post #404
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Do you not know how the electoral college works? What do you think happens if there was 30% more participation in Blue states?

If 30% more people vote it won't just be people in "blue states". That's the goddamn point. It'll mean we, as a country, get closer to the things we have 60%+ agreement. You're discouraging voting with failures of logic, Mr 4 Month Raw Anon. "BuT wHaT iF tHeY OnLy vOtE iN bLuE sTaTeS?!" Seriously? ffs, a child could see through you. To everyone else -- remember this. Vote in numbers that can't be eclipsed by nihilist…

If 30% more voted in Alabama , Mississippi, Texas or Florida, do you think they would have voted democratic? Do you have any evidence that the demographics of people who don’t vote are disproportionate to the people who do in any of those states?

If you know anything about American history, despite what Michelle Obama says “this is exactly who this country is”

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#407

Post by 8note »

sgnelson wrote: post #397
yaroslavvb wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stricter (but not looser) standards can be imposed on state level. Canada has no binding national drinking water law, they leave it to territories/provinces to decide how to implement guidelines.

Watersheds don't follow political boundaries.

sometimes they do.

the Alberta/British Columbia border is defined by which direction water drains off the mountains

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#408

Post by trimethylpurine »

Larrikin wrote: post #244
trimethylpurine wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules. Now re-read your comment and look how politically biased you are so much as to be seen as crazy. Here is the statement from the organization pushing for this. It really wasn't hard to find either. https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

The first administration had some people acting in good faith even if you disagreed with them. This second term does not.

Giving municipalities more time and money to enact change aligns just fine with what I think most people would call good faith. You just can't please some people, I guess.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#410

Post by dylan604 »

saulpw wrote: post #306
dylan604 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I have no say in the plumbing used to get the water from the source to my home. Some of that infrastructure is older than I am. Whole home RO systems would still possibly flow through plumbing I wouldn't be happy with. Undersink RO systems at the primary place providing water that I ingest seems like the best place for me knowing the details about the plumbing from this new source.

Just use your own well! Sheesh.

And drink the chenicals that have leeched in from all of the fracking going on? Not without me RO filter.
Post reply on HN