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

421–430 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#421

Post by BryanBigs »

softwaredoug wrote: post #301
Ozarkian wrote: post #68

The State of California is moving in the exact opposite direction: banning these things completely. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/california-lawmakers-propos...

We’re going to end with a strong red/blue state divide on regulatory frameworks. I wonder if the vaccine guideline coalitions point to emerging regulatory consistency among blue states on this as well.

Well pre COVID, Silicon Valley had one of the highest non-vaccination rates amount kids in day-care. So at least then it wasn't a red/blue thing at all.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#422

Post by giantg2 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #419
BoredPositron wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a band-aid solution for bad governance.

It sounds like a great way to reduce the standard further with the justification that RO will solve the problems, leaving an even wider class divide having clean drinking water, creating haves and have nots in something so basic it's part of the table stakes to be considered a civilized country. I say this knowing that many developed nations still struggle with this in specific circumstances, but it shouldn't be an i…

Hence the part about programs to help facilitate it. I'd rather see RO systems being handed out in Flint, MI vs cases of bottled water for months.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#423

Post by colinmorelli »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #418
colinmorelli wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Firstly, this is a completely unnecessary comment. My searches were specifically regarding finding the enactment of specific PFA limits. I will acknowledge to not spending that…

You've lost sight of the comment I responded to, in which the poster asserts, in so many words, that there can be no explanation for easing any restrictions other than for profit and authoritarianism, etc. Right? Clearly there is an explanation if you search for a few minutes. So I stand by my allegations of bias against that comment specifically. Here, you've read and revised the approach to the issue. This last com…

Fair, but I'd like to clarify that in my comment I had asked specifically for any sources indicating that the PFA limits were put in place by the prior administration, since you had made the claim:

> Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules

Your response was what I perceived to be a snarky comment that if only I had bothered to look, I'd have found the evidence, followed by a link that didn't say what was suggested.

> Look how many people on this thread actually believe that the Trump administration is literally trying to poison them. That's not crazy to you?

The claims made all over the place are insane to me. Yes, I doubt the Trump administration is actually trying to kill me. The world is not as polarizing and extreme as people on the internet want to make it sound like it is. Most people are far more docile in the real world, but the collective hive of the internet exacerbates tension. I have no clue what side of the political aisle you're on, but my guess is we probably agree about more things than we disagree about, if we could detach bullshit labels from it all.

But FWIW, the allegation that I wasn't bothering to learn or see if I'm wrong just raised tension further. I was genuinely trying to determine if the claim was true, the evidence I had found suggested it wasn't, and it seems like it in fact wasn't quite true, but perhaps that wasn't the point you were trying to make anyway.

All fine. My hope is that we can all turn down the tension and hostility a level or two. Might be the only hope we have.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#424

Post by lelandfe »

The28thDuck wrote: post #165
wood_spirit wrote: post #3

In Sweden a local village near an airbase has been struggling with the long term effects of the PFAS from the fire fighting foam used in exercises. Although the connection to the awful health outcomes seems established I don’t think they are getting compensation.

The equivalent in the US is Vint Hill Farms, Virginia. Cold War CIA base used as a listening post primarily, but also to test things like fire suppression and rumored to be a home of Agent Orange. It was an EPA Superfund site (aka so horribly polluted that they needed to do something about it) decided to do nothing and then build a ton of home on and around the heavily contaminated area. I don’t have data but anecdot…

From the UK, the island of Jersey: https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news/focus-government-legal...

3M lied about the effects of PFAS and firefighting foam polluted their drinking supply. But the terms of the agreement forces the government to defend 3M.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#425

Post by trimethylpurine »

DaSHacka wrote: post #416
trimethylpurine wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a response to municipality associations' requests. People appear to have forgotten that Trump's EPA created these rules in his first term. Here is a summary directly from the organization pushing for this. https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

Trump's EPA introduces new rules: i sleep Trump's EPA pulls back the rules they themselves introduced: "This is proof Donald Trump is trying to weaken this country"

Yeah. LOL. They aren't even pulling them back, they are delaying them to allow time for municipalities to get funding and come into compliance.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#426

Post by cluckindan »

avazhi wrote: post #260
californical wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't impute intention without more evidence If I’m aware that eating too much chocolate will kill my dog. But it’s annoying for me to get up and walk to the trash can. So I just throw the chocolate scraps to my dog to avoid inconveniencing myself. Is this the same as wanting my dog to die? Being completely unbothered by the fact that I’m killing my dog sounds about equivalent to wanting it to die. I’m choosing…

I mean, if we're talking about intention then yes there's a huge difference, that's the entire point. But more to the point, your example is (as I'm sure you know) laughably simplistic. Cigarettes and PFAS play a probability game: the stats guys come to you and say, 'Hey boss, so if we sell 100,000 units of this product, there's a 20% chance than 5 people will be genetically susceptible to this particular novel molec…

PFAS were first determined to be harmful by internal industry scientists in the early 1960s, with documented evidence showing animal toxicity (including liver damage) and warnings of human health risks by the late 1960s and 1970s.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#427

Post by cprayingmantis »

Are there any labs in the US that a regular joe could use to get their water tested? I’ve got quite a few properties with natural springs and I can send the water to get tested for bacteria and mineral content but I don’t know of anywhere that tests for PFAS.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#428

Post by nozzlegear »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #337
nozzlegear wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think Harris was a good candidate who did stand for something, but she didn't get enough time to run her own campaign :)

But I'm not interested in having a "she wasn't pure enough for my brand of politics" debate, I was only pointing out that almost half of those who voted did in fact vote for her – not Trump.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#429

Post by sillyfluke »

DaSHacka wrote: post #414
sedawkgrep wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus. Then it can be seen as no longer a disparate collection of seemingly random political, social, and economic moves, but rather as a directed, intentional movement.

> If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus. And why would they want to do that? Bonus challenge: Without relying on antisemetic tropes

just purely as a thought experiment and devil's advocacy: to create new avenues of growth and control for the oligarchy. The fall of the Soviet Union, for example, turned out to be a boon for them and they were able to replace the politburo with their own fiefdoms. By destroying the US goverment functions they will be able to privatize the profits (for their companies) and socialize the costs (pollution and shitty water) for the rest of the population. The price of clean water will go up and the people that can afford it will buy whatever anti-PFAS tech they're selling (providing growth for their companies), and the poor well...who cares. They will obtain greater leverage with the US government because they will be seen as saviors since the government will have no competent agencies left, including the military. And the government will helplessly cede more and more power over to them.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#430

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

giantg2 wrote: post #422
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like a great way to reduce the standard further with the justification that RO will solve the problems, leaving an even wider class divide having clean drinking water, creating haves and have nots in something so basic it's part of the table stakes to be considered a civilized country. I say this knowing that many developed nations still struggle with this in specific circumstances, but it shouldn't be an i…

Hence the part about programs to help facilitate it. I'd rather see RO systems being handed out in Flint, MI vs cases of bottled water for months.

I agree that a flat of water bottles a month is a poor solution, but giving every house and apartment dweller a free RO system and then ensuring those system are maintained seems highly infeasible.
Post reply on HN