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

451–460 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#451

Post by tyleo »

UncleMeat wrote: post #448
tyleo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Idk where you’re getting that quote from. No one would say that.

There are many things Harris could have done to improve the situation like publicly stating a balanced position. Doing nothing was dying on the hill.

What do you think she should have done?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#452

Post by tyleo »

UncleMeat wrote: post #447
tyleo wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was a hill to die on in the sense that her campaign was getting killed and she said nothing. The ad was actively damaging her campaign so doing nothing was dying.

Why do you think she didn’t say anything?

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#453

Post by sedawkgrep »

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

Take a look at the administration's first term and all the involvement and ties (financial, political, etc.) there are to Russia (and Russian-related objectives like Ukraine). It sounds bonkers, but the more you dig in and see how closely tied the relationships have been, and then see how totally soft Trump has been towards Putin/Russia - including direct actions towards Ukraine like removing the long-term diplomats, stopping weapons sales and aid, and recently killing USAID (whose #1 beneficiary was Ukraine) - it all coalesces into a single coherent view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#454

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #446
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Tha…

Yes I think this is fine red meat stuff. It’s probably less extreme of declaring the catholic hospitals to be murdering women by denying them care or whatever histrionics would be comparable but sure. Thanks. I just don’t see nearly the same sorts of things happening. Your example was from over a quarter ago back in May. Whereas I can point to stuff happening within 48h comparatively (again, calling Charlie Kirk’s killer a trans, although I think that’s the killer’s roommate now or something; either way pinning the assassinations on the trans people)

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#455

Post by wk_end »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #434
wk_end wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's from a non-representative online poll for people already searching the internet for information about whether or not their tap water was safe to drink.

> Those are findings from a recent survey of 2,800 visitors to EWG’s landmark Tap Water Database, updated in late 2021 [...] Although EWG ran the survey for only a few days, responses came from 2,800 people in about 1,580 unique ZIP codes in all 50 states and D.C., and even some from Canada and Mexico.

Here's an article, also from 2021, based on an academic study which suggests "Nearly 60 million Americans don't drink their tap water", which (US population being 331.9M in 2021) would still leave over 80% who do.

[0] https://theconversation.com/nearly-60-million-americans-dont...

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#456

Post by giantg2 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #430
giantg2 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Replacing the pipes can take years. There needs to be some sort of good medium-term solution. I think it's reasonably feasible to use bottles as a very short term solution while implementing the RO systems for a medium-term solution. It's possible that you could even focus on providing apartment buildings with commercial RO systems for the whole building if the pipes inside the building are not lead. The maintenance is not that much of a concern with the filter life indicators. It would seem the people who couldnt stay up on replacing filters would also not be able to plan for how many water bottles they need, meaning they likely have (or need to have) someone to help them with their life.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#457

Post by giantg2 »

BoredPositron wrote: post #432
giantg2 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ozone has similar concerns as the chlorine with the formation of potentially hazardous by products. Carbon plus UV is probably sufficient as long as you can guarantee the pipes are fine through the whole distribution system. We will see how that plays out.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#458

Post by BoredPositron »

giantg2 wrote: post #457
BoredPositron wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ozone has similar concerns as the chlorine with the formation of potentially hazardous by products. Carbon plus UV is probably sufficient as long as you can guarantee the pipes are fine through the whole distribution system. We will see how that plays out.

It played out pretty will since 2016...

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#459

Post by p_j_w »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #274
he0001 wrote: post #4

Does 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.

I never drink tap water. I cook with it, though, and would still very much like for that to be filtered.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#460

Post by cryptonector »

coolhand2120 wrote: post #403
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 a…

This isn't about Chevron deference. This is about the APA.
Post reply on HN