Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?
Environmental protection is woke. Real American men drink plastic straight from the bottle.
EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
471–480 of 508 posts
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a muddled video For the first half he seems to constantly mix up C8 and Teflon. After a long section explaining that C8 is some carrier molecule used to make Teflon - he then explain C8 is used in factories and kills cows. But it's not clear C8 is anywhere other than the factory and the town around it They then extrapolate from two chemical (C8 and C6) to just anything that remotely similar (PFAS) Later they wal…
PFAS is short for 'Per- and poly- FluoroAlkyl Substances'. The Teflon that's used on your pans, which are 'poly-' materials, comes in extra long chains (hundreds of thousands of molecules). Most of its chemical bonds are hidden behind the extremely reactive Fluoride atoms (so if Fluoride is bonded onto that position, it's hard to take it off) and are extremely inert, so they don't interfere with typical biological re…
I'm not sure why you're summarizing what's explained in the video.
It's clear PFAS contains chemicals that are likely dangerous (like C8) and chemicals that are likely not - like Teflon. So, unless I'm misunderstanding, as an umbrella term for dangerous chemicals it's useless from the get go.
I understand the potential danger of C8 and similar acids.. it's explained in detail. But the part that's not explained is why is it in final consumer products. It seems like a chemical that only forms a step in the processes of making Teflon (and I'm guessing other similar products). Is the problem they were just dumping it into the soil at the plant? How is it getting to polar bears? (they keep talking about polar bears)
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a muddled video For the first half he seems to constantly mix up C8 and Teflon. After a long section explaining that C8 is some carrier molecule used to make Teflon - he then explain C8 is used in factories and kills cows. But it's not clear C8 is anywhere other than the factory and the town around it They then extrapolate from two chemical (C8 and C6) to just anything that remotely similar (PFAS) Later they wal…
So TL;DR, 1. Any substance that has most atoms covered by Fluoride are 'PFAS'. 2. C8 is strictly speaking PFOA (by-definition). 3. C6, and all other acids that has similar chemical properties to C8, can all be generically classified as PFOA-like materials. But for ease of communication people also call them PFOAs or just short for PFOA. 4. PFOAs are crucial for manufacturing Teflon. 5. The problem is manufacturers ju…
So the problem isn't PFAS or Teflon. It's the dumping of intermediary chemicals during manufacturing? This is the part that just comes off as fear mongering
How is the PFOA ending up in food? Is it from contaminated groundwater near the plant? Isn't the solution to not consumer agricultural products from that limited area?
And.. how is it ending up in polar bears?
The video just seems sensationalist. Somme chemical use in a step to make teflon is pretty toxic.. big surprise. But then it's ending up everywhere... somehow? And it's never really explained. But lots of hangwringing
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
How do you suggest this is implemented for mains water supply? Should miles and miles of new water pipe be laid down for every new water supply company on the area and the customer is given a key from Water Corp to turn on their Water Corp supply valve and Water 4 U Corp sends a guy to turn off their valve? Have you ever even paid a water bill in your life or spent a few seconds thinking about how water is actually s…
First you need to create a market. Aka have multiple players. The network will be one(many) companies that will be bidding usage to wholesale companies. This(these) network companies will be using the proceedings to improve the network.
The wholesale companies will then have their own pricing strategy for the end customer. But they will be paying both the network operators and the local gov.
Since water is municipal resource, the players should be paying the muni/city/state for the resource they are utilizing. The proceedings will be used by the muni to maintain the water availability.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#475Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm personally unconvinced that getting her on Rogan and other manosphere podcasts would've won her the election. It's easy to look back and attribute little misses like skipping an interview with Rogan to her loss, though it lines up with the popular misconception ¹ that young voters voted for Trump over Harris.
Instead all signs point to her loss being something as mundane as the economy:
> Further, nonvoting Democrats were more than twice as likely as voting Democrats to report feeling the economy is worse now than a year ago (46 percent vs. 22 percent) or that their incomes had recently decreased. And, perhaps not surprisingly given their economic precarity, Democratic nonvoters were substantially more likely than voters to support increased state welfare spending (61 percent vs. 52 percent). These class characteristics show nonvoting Democrats’ economic attitudes in a clearer light.
Source: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democratic-nonvot...
¹ Have young voters really abandoned the Democrats? https://sites.tufts.edu/cooperativeelectionstudy/2025/04/17/...
Edit: I think we both dislike Trump and would have preferred anybody would have won over him, so all of this speculation on what she could have done differently is probably just navel gazing now. If going on podcasts could have won her the election then I'm all for it.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It’s actually the opposite. Immediately after Kamala got the nod there was an enormous amount of energy surrounding her nomination that she managed to entirely squander. If Kamala had less time as the main candidate she would have done better. She ran a shit campaign and bled support the entire time. I can’t imagine why anyone wasn’t impressed with her promises to maintain the status quo and her ability to campaign w…
Opinions are like assholes, I've got mine and you've got yours. Like I said, I think she was a good candidate who didn't get to run a full campaign like her opponent did – and the one she did run was micromanaged by Biden campaign staffers until the last minute – so I guess we'll never know :)
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no doubt that the administration's motivation are weird and Russia-oriented. I was referring to the voters. I think a lot of the voters claimed grocery prices were the reason, but a lot of them really wanted to get rid of Mexicans. Trump used a lot of racist rhetoric during all three of his campaigns. The fact that conservatives seem unwilling to condemn the president and ICE for detaining naturalized citizens…
Can you explain the growth in Republican Latino votes?
There’s actually a fair amount of internalized racism in a lot of Hispanic cultures in the US.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually about tribal belonging. https://bigthink.com/articles/how-tribalism-overrules-reason...
I didn’t realize until after social media how a lot of people’s whole lives revolve around the community of the church and how lost they would be without their church community. That’s not by itself meant to be an insult. But I saw it in real time with her. Everything I knew about her as a person was at odds with her support of the current MAGA movement. I thought she would be bemoaning that Republicans didn’t choose…
Yeah well my experience is a lot of conservatives seem completely normal until you start dating a black girl. That's when you see how racism/tribalism works.
Try a fun experiment: ask your guy friend about ARPA-E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPA-E They usually love that government program after learning about it. Then ask him about government investment into education, and watch his tune change. Education is one of the highest ROI govt programs, just below like roads and plumbing. Way higher than ARPA-E. But no, they only see poor black people using it.
Hope I'm wrong about your male friend specifically, but overall there's a reason Trump is the president. Your female friend's perspective is usually how it goes in my experience.
Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
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”
You are completely missing the point because you are pushing an agenda. Go back and read a little more carefully. And see if you can comprehend this concept: when there's a 60% consensus on a topic and everyone votes for it, that topic wins overwhelmingly. There are a lot of those issues like that in the Trumpty Dumpty clown show. That's why they're trying to choose their voters with gerrymandering.
Damn Skippy, people in Alabama and Mississippi are going to be voting more blue in 2026 and 2028.