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

441–450 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#441

Post by UmGuys »

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.

Going to? We do. Virtually all red states are poor, uneducated and unhealthy compared to blue states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

Regarding vaccines, if you live in a red state you probably won't be able to get one unless your a senior citizen, travel to another state, or possibly with a doctor's prescription.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#442

Post by estearum »

somenameforme wrote: post #340
estearum wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

This is true in a world of balanced power between Congress, the judiciary, and the executive.

It is not true anymore, as all power is centralized in the parties. The House’s impeachment power will essentially never be used against the dominant party’s President, which allows POTUS to act with impunity and strongly incentivizes him to secure his party’s House dominance — a dynamic we’re seeing very explicitly at play over the last few months.

POTUS keeps the House reps in power, the House reps let POTUS do whatever he wants. Both win by severing their need to have popular policies in order to hold political power, so that’s what they work to do. Gerrymandering is an absolutely critical tool in this effort which is why POTUS has been publicly pressuring “members of different parts of the government” to pursue it (and they are!)

So no, it’s not a non-sequitur.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#443

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #391
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden day 1 executive order was over 4 fucking years ago. About a week ago a bunch of Koreans were rounded up and deported out of the country. Less than 48h ago republicans were saying the Charlie Kirk killer was a trans and his body wasn’t even cold yet. Cmon bro, these are not comparable. The democrats simply don’t do red meat shitfest fight stuff.

It's not comparable because you agree with the Democrats' positions! When it comes to immigration, for example, I'm sure you'd agree with me that Trump's efforts to end various TPS designations are "red meat shitfest fight stuff" - if he succeeds, he'll get to deport quite a lot of people. But Biden's extensions of those very same TPS designations (some of which have been "temporary" for decades now) weren't "red mea…

No I don’t agree with the positions I just literally don’t see them throw shitfest red meat for their base at all. Biden is over, bro, what are the democrats doing right now it’s been over 9 months. I hear things constantly from republicans about the trans issue, immigrants, etc. Seriously, point me to the same volume of laws being passed in blue states banning Christians books from school or something the way republicans are banning woke stuff from school. Or blue states banning white people or arguing white rich people need to be rounded up in camps the way republicans are doing to poors or immigrants. Idk. NYC has a ton of finance bros, arrest a bunch of them for being racist and declare you’re eliminating racism from nyc.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#444

Post by Teever »

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

I think it's a combination of things.

Some people are genuine psychopaths who derive satisfaction from destroying things or by hurting people who don't want them to destroy things.

Others are driven to destroy because they believe that there's some sort of higher purpose to this destruction, either religious or political in nature.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#445

Post by tensor »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #405
colinmorelli wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Trumps first term and his second term are entirely different beasts. His first term, although widely regarded as bad, still had mostly competent people across the board running things. This term is absolute lunacy, with tv show hosts cosplaying as government officials.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#446

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #443
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not comparable because you agree with the Democrats' positions! When it comes to immigration, for example, I'm sure you'd agree with me that Trump's efforts to end various TPS designations are "red meat shitfest fight stuff" - if he succeeds, he'll get to deport quite a lot of people. But Biden's extensions of those very same TPS designations (some of which have been "temporary" for decades now) weren't "red mea…

No I don’t agree with the positions I just literally don’t see them throw shitfest red meat for their base at all. Biden is over, bro, what are the democrats doing right now it’s been over 9 months. I hear things constantly from republicans about the trans issue, immigrants, etc. Seriously, point me to the same volume of laws being passed in blue states banning Christians books from school or something the way republ…

Again, the problem is that this concept of "shitfest red meat" definitionally excludes anything the Democratic base actually supports. The median Democratic voter doesn't want to ban Christian books or round white people up in camps.

California, for example, is currently pursuing a lawsuit (https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont...) seeking to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. That's a controversial position on a high-profile issue whose opponents consider it to be outrageous persecution. Would you say this is an example of "shitfest red meat"? Or do you think that it's just an ordinary lawsuit, because you're not personally outraged by it, because you think California's position is reasonable?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#447

Post by UncleMeat »

tyleo wrote: post #131
adrr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what purity tests are those?

A visible example is the ACLU questionnaire which covers support for transgender medical care with state resources for detained immigrants. Harris’s written support was turned into an ad campaign for Trump. You can agree or disagree with the policy but it isn’t a great hill to die on if you want to win elections. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris-gender-surgeries-ja...

It wasn't a hill to die on. If it was she would have made support for trans rights a central part of her campaign. Trump made it a central part of his campaign.

"Never say anything that the right can play in an ad" is not my idea of effective campaign strategy.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#448

Post by UncleMeat »

tyleo wrote: post #195
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly it read to me more like Harris had a totally moderate response that was blown up by the right as something she is a die hard believer in. No one is dying on the hill of trans rights except for trans people as far as I see on the political stage. Republicans talk way more about trans people than democrats. Republicans pass way more laws about trans people than democrats. Republicans raise way more money on tra…

I agree that she had a moderate response. I think it appeared that she was dying on the this hill because she didn’t address it in her 2024 campaign yet it received so much air time in Republican ads. I also agree that it feels like Democrats don’t stand for anything. But I think by leaving that space open they let ads like this paint what they stand for.

Do you believe that if she had gone on camera and said "I was wrong, trans people shouldn't receive this care in prison" that it would have stopped the GOP ad campaign? No chance.

To die on a hill means that you stand on the hill and get killed rather than leave it. It means having a conviction so strong that you will never walk it back. That's the polar opposite of the establishment dems right now.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#449

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

nozzlegear wrote: post #428
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If Harris had been a good candidate she would have gone on different podcasts without hesitation. That’s where the audience is these days. Her TV interviews were so scripted and inauthentic it wasn’t even funny. Despite all these she almost got half of the votes so imagine how a more likeable and authentic candidate would have done.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#450

Post by amluto »

archagon wrote: post #420
amluto wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Cookware Sustainability Alliance, an industry group formed by major cookware companies, urged lawmakers to oppose the bill. “The proposal risks taking safe, affordable, and reliable kitchen essentials off the shelves, leaving customers with fewer options for the products they use every day,” the group said in a statement. > The alliance says PFAS is a category that includes some chemicals—such as fluoropolymers…

Do restaurants even use Teflon? I get the sense that most restaurants use stainless steel, carbon steel, or cast iron for practically everything, because nonstick pans will last all of a week under heavy use. (And if you’re a good cook, you definitely don’t need nonstick for an omlette.)

I’ve seen Teflon-looking omelette pans at diners and hotels quite frequently.
Post reply on HN