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

431–440 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#431

Post by jemmyw »

smegger001 wrote: post #393
Workaccount2 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most people low and middle class people I have met my whole life drink unfiltered tap water unless there is a reason not to (safety or particularly foul taste). you might be in a bit of bubble. Not that it matter though as most bottled water is just bottled tap water anyway.

> Not that it matter though as most bottled water is just bottled tap water anyway.

With added microplastics!

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#432

Post by BoredPositron »

giantg2 wrote: post #243
BoredPositron wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pipes are also bad governance. If they are your own pipes you certainly can opt for filtration instead of replacing them but as I said sounds like a band-aid.

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.

Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria with Czechia and Poland also transitioning to a high source-water protection and multi-barrier treatment like ozone, UV, and carbon filtration system.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#433

Post by BoredPositron »

dylan604 wrote: post #281
BoredPositron wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't follow why would you opt for filtration in individual homes?

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.

That's also a bad governance problem.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#434

Post by Workaccount2 »

wk_end wrote: post #375
Workaccount2 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this a regional thing? AFAIK everywhere I’ve lived most people drink tap water. Certainly they cook or make coffee/tea with it. But I’ve been lucky enough to live in places with pretty good tap water.

Only about 25% of Americans drink straight tap water.

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2022/05/ewg-f...

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#435

Post by BoredPositron »

NewJazz wrote: post #221
BoredPositron wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a band-aid solution for bad governance.

No, it is not a band aid, it is the gold standard for water filtration. And not all water issues stem from bad governance. Sometimes there is just unwanted minerals in the water for natural reasons.

I still don't understand why you would opt for individual home filter systems. Doesn't make sense if you are not off the grid.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#436

Post by BobaFloutist »

8note wrote: post #407
sgnelson wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watersheds don't follow political boundaries.

sometimes they do. the Alberta/British Columbia border is defined by which direction water drains off the mountains

That sounds like the political boundary follows the watershed.

It also doesn't actually refute the actual point they were making.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#437

Post by DrewADesign »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #401
DrewADesign wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For a decade, the mainstream left has painted them like simple-minded maniacs foaming at the mouth driven by blind hate with no valid concerns or perspectives, while also fruitlessly attempting to not challenge them too much in the legislature, assuming that some day they’ll be kind and return our civilized decorum. We’ve simultaneously been marginalizing any populists that bubble up on the left, in a futile attempt to return to the Obama era status quo. We’ve seen where this approach takes us— repealed rights, messed up economy, etc etc etc.

Time for mainstream dems to challenge their assumptions.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#438

Post by BoredPositron »

binoct wrote: post #326
ajmurmann wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://utilityweek.co.uk/the-future-of-chlorine/

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#439

Post by stouset »

yaroslavvb wrote: post #20
he0001 wrote: post #4

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

Balancing protection against water bills - https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-it-will-keep-...

What if instead we could all collectively agree that access to some amounts of fresh, running water is a fundamental human need? We figure a number, and the first N units are free. Additional units cost money, and perhaps you have two or three usage tiers where heavy users are disincentivized through additional cost.

You calculate the figures such that the higher usage tiers subsidize the costs of the basic needs users.

Or would that be socialism?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#440

Post by Nifty3929 »

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.

I like this actually - let different states try different things, and see how they work out. As the results become more certain, states will feel pressure to adopt the policies that are working well. And there's still room for different states to retain different policies that are better suited to them individually.
Post reply on HN