EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections | Hacker News Reader

EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

earthjustice.org

387 pointsenraged_camel473 comments

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

Any new regulation the EPA introduces results in litigation. Some of the previously introduced PFAS regulations weren't done in accordance with how the Safe Drinking Water Act says they should be (regulations were introduced without the necessary public consultation), so they're applying to partially vacate the previous ruling. Notably, they're _not_ applying to vacate the regulation of PFAS chemicals where they say the process was followed correctly.

So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error. I also suspect that being seen to roll back some regulations likely gives Lee Zeldin (the EPA admin) some political room to maneuver. He's historically be associated with anti-PFAS efforts (in Congress he represented a district with contamination problems and he voted for anti-PFAS legislation), but he's also part of an administration with a strong anti-regulation agenda, so he needs to walk a fine line.

> So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error.

But they didn't start proper administrative procedures to reestablish the regulations, proving that these regulations are being removed on principle, whatever that is, while the "administrative error" is just an excuse.

Thanks for this balanced take. This makes more sense.

There's a lot of outrage inducing judicial rulings that boil down to poor rule following. The main question winds up being: do we get to a good end point eventually or do these rulings look like steps backwards?

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...

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.

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.

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

Well shit, we can really lower water bills by getting rid of all clean water regulations and simply stop water treatment.

Think of the cost savings!

Stricter (but not looser) standards can be imposed on state level. Canada has no binding national drinking water law, they leave it to territories/provinces to decide how to implement guidelines.

Watersheds don't follow political boundaries.

sometimes they do.

the Alberta/British Columbia border is defined by which direction water drains off the mountains

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?

I would guess normal corruption. Companies making a profit here simply fund the politicians in power and are getting their kickbacks.

Corruption is normally illegal. There is nothing normal about this legalized form of corruption. It is a core structural failure.

Most elected representatives are too old for this to affect them personally, and nobody else is a real person.

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...

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...

This is the reason. My city is struggling to fix its water supply that was broken over a decade ago (our water supply comes from a temporary system) since FEMA sent our funds to other things under the first trump admin.

They don't want to put the cost on the consumer, but there is no other choice. If our government was smart (it's not) they would make these rules and fund the changes.

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!

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

[flagged]

Also known as the, "I got mine. F*** you." philosophy. Maximize exploitation in the short run because by the time the long run comes around, they'll already be dead.

It doesn't speak well of their feelings about their own children, but, well, there isn't a lot speaking that well of them in general.

Ironically, PFAS levels have been found to be higher in wealthy people. People with money own more furniture and clothing with stain resistant treatments, for example.

Also brand new items versus used items. When you buy a used item, someone else has already absorbed the PFAS, and the depreciation for that matter.

I'm not convinced that this is the correct answer. These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).

An examination of the individuals in the EPA pushing this change might reveal something. Perhaps it's ideological? I don't know, I'm at a complete loss.

>These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).

They get to move to whatever enclave they want and buy expensive RO filters.

Or, they don't believe in science broadly and believe they won't be impacted. If scientists are so smart, why aren't they rich like me and exploiting everyone and everything to the maximum potential profit??

This debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really does not lend itself to getting to the root of issues and finding what compromise is.

In my opinion this added nothing to the conversation when in theory the op asked for a real answer.

I understand this may look dismissive or blamey, but sometimes (actually a shocking amount) there aren’t equal merits to both sides…

I’ve looked into this a lot and there isn’t any strong argument I’ve seen that this is good for humanity, and let’s not pretend every political action is a sincere attempt to improve the world for all equally.

If you look into all the abuse heaped upon the man who discovered leaded gasoline was bad it helps give context on just how far some people will go for their own profits.

Or the companies selling cigarettes. The only positive is that cigarettes alleviate the stress caused by being addicted to cigarettes.

There is also a social water cooler like aspect. Historically brakes were only provided to those that smoke so people took up smoking so they could get a brake. Some companies still follow this asinine ideology and do not provide brakes to non-smokers.

Well, the facts are that this administration will always, without fail, without a single exception, do the opposite of what has been shown to be good for the US people. This isn't a property of authoritarianism either, no other authoritarian state is so uniformly across the board against science, medicine, and technology.

If you have any other suggestion than the reason they do this is something related to money, please be my guest and volunteer. Because otherwise it is the most baffling and self destructive policy making that has ever been documented in the history of humankind.

The populist wave is global and its causes are complex. But in the case of the US on top of it all, our populists happen to be clowns and morons.

I think the reasonable mind struggles to deal with the current obvious stupidity even within a populist frame, and hunts for a hidden explanation. It’s a lot scarier to believe that the world’s biggest economy and military and nuclear arsenal are somehow in the hands of not just authoritarians, but crooks and morons.

But it’s true. Britain did it too, it happens.

So why do they do it? To play out some idiotic meme-driven culture war, reduced through these people’s small minds to caricature. They don’t think about second order effects, they lack the sophistication for that.

It’s terrifying.

Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules. Now re-read your comment and look how politically biased you are so much as to be seen as crazy.

Here is the statement from the organization pushing for this.

It really wasn't hard to find either.

https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

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. Putting aside allegations of "political bias," can you point to a source which clearly indicates the PFA limits were put in place by the current administration? Would like to learn if I'm wrong.

[1]: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration...

The first administration had some people acting in good faith even if you disagreed with them. This second term does not.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that one side of a issue is not acting in good faith. If that's the case, compromise isn't really a viable option; trying to work with someone within a system doesn't work if they literally don't support the system itself. Obviously not everyone agrees that's what's happening here, but not everyone agrees with your premise that there's guaranteed to be some reasonable compromise to every possible issue either.

In some ways, you're kind of arguing the same thing but in reverse by claiming that the comment you're responding to isn't being made in good faith. You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but only because of the exact same logic that entitles the parent commenter to hold the opinion that they express in the first place (and for what it's worth, I don't think it's actually being made in bad faith; not everyone will agree about where to draw the line, but at least to me it seems like we're long past the point of giving the benefit of the doubt on policies like the one described in TFA).

It's not a debate style, this is the actual explanation.

Do you think you have a better one?

Ok, what is your counter argument?

I think it is just venting, rather than debate. Realistically we’re locked in for about a year and a half of full Republican control of every branch of government before literally anything at all can be changed (and even then the main achievable goal for the midterms would be for Democrats to take the House, right? Which gives them at least some ability to do some oversight, but is pretty limited).

And this is in part why these things are happening.

People will dismiss it as "talking points" or "too ridiculous".

And then they will continue to do it, fully aware that people will just not believe what is happening.

Im sorry if you’re naive about life but the Republican Party has shown nothing but contempt for life in general. Ideological coherency is not something they have cared about, hence debating them as if their arguments has any weight whatsoever is not useful.

Whenever they propose something, just ask yourself which lobbyist stands something to gain. That will be a sufficient explanation.

Thanks for calling this out. I share your frustration.

As a non-american it's becoming more and more difficult to tell the two sides apart with all the shit flinging going on.

The media would have a much harder time collecting ad dollars if they didn't use strawman arguments and misrepresentation to lock in an audience.

Ask a liberal about conservatives or a conservative about liberals and they have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what the ideals of the other side are. None whatsoever. Thanks silo'd media.

What are the current ideals of so-called conservatives? Being a libertarian who can entertain both left and right approaches to problems, I thought I had a decent handle on where they were coming from. But then they seemingly went bat-shit insane during Covid. I try to appeal to what I thought were some of the underlying values (eg belief in institutions, America as a force for good in the world, individual liberty, slow and measured change), and always get written off like I just don't understand or something. But never any explanation for what I'm actually missing. The best I've been able to come up with is that they've set aside actually living those values in favor of thinking that we need some massive societal cataclysm to get back to a place where those values have more of a draw, but that's clearly not itself conservative.

these are fascistic decisions. fascism is well understood, and it is the root of the issue here.

a confused, sickened and desperate population is easier to control and manipulate. end of story.

This nonsense meta comment is pretty frustrating to me. Use a counter argument rather than wringing your hands and whining with no apparent critique other than “I don’t like that this person is being mean”

Take one step backwards. Do cockroaches debate with the boot heel that comes to squish them? The billionaires are not “debating” anything with the “little people”

I don't get the environmental poison stuff. These rich people and their families breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else. Why would they poison themselves and their families with environmental pollution?

Also, there's likely to be a few years between the policy being enacted and people having health issues, so the chances are that the people pushing for this won't be around to catch the blame.

> As for people getting sick and dying, they either don’t care, or they want people to get sick and die.

Healthcare providers and insurance companies are corporations too: you can get rich by treating more people.

An insurance company CEO was famously shot in broad day light just before he went into a meeting to celebrate his accomplishment of denying people healthcare for his company's profits. Nobody felt bad except other CEOs and the people they directly pay because everyone has a story of the insurance company putting profit over people. They did not get rich by treating more people.

USA HealthCare insurance companies are the _Death Panels_, run by CEO, accounts, and investors, that work to maximize profit over keeping people health. They pay _specialist_ to contradict the actual practicing doctors on why some procedure or medicine is needed.

A firm's sole responsibility is to increase profit and a maximize returns for shareholders. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

Wrt to insurance companies: You can get rich by insuring more people. Treatment is not profitable.

I'd argue the insurance companies prefer to collect premiums and not treat people.

Then you'd be wrong. Insurance companies are limited to the amount they can collect without paying back out.

It's a fixed percentage. That means the more expensive treatment gets, the higher they can raise rates, and the more revenue they get from that fixed percentage.

> Then you'd be wrong. Insurance companies are limited to the amount they can collect without paying back out.

So they go buy the providers and clinics and pharmacies so they can raise the prices and juice that percentage.

[flagged]

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.

Environmental protection is woke. Real American men drink plastic straight from the bottle.

Look to a better source for some nuance. You may still disagree, and the court might as well, but there is more complexity here than "Trump bad, Zeldin worse, poison everyone".

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/us-seek...

While the reason is not stated, Occam's razor demands we look for the simplest explanation that ties together all actions of this administration.

And that seems to be dismantling the US as a military and technological superpower - a self-inflicted Morgenthau plan, if you will. We are left to speculate why a US government would want to dismantle the US, and who would benefit.

The reason is stated! The source article links to the request they sent to the court, explaining in detail why the EPA is doing this. Perhaps you think they’re not being honest, but Occam’s Razor doesn’t demand that we should spin grand unifying theories of government behavior in preference to evaluating the stated motivations of individual actions.

If you want to know, just look at the list of nations exempt from the current tariffs.

As EU and it's love of regulation demonstrated - you can regulate too much, with harmful effects.

Strangling economic growth also kills, as indirectly as PFAS in drinking water.

Neither "regulate everything" nor "allow everything" is a good idea.

(no opinion about this specific one, I had no motive nor opportunity to build informed opinion on this specific one)

Veritasium had video explaining about PFAS and environment protections that were needed to keep people/animals from being sick. Somewhere around minute 23 in video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2eSujzrUY

Minute Earth has one that’s more concise: https://youtu.be/H3aFzQdWQTg

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 walk it back and say it's only a few chemicals. Actually your Teflon pan is safe. But then say thing "Blah blah was used to make waterproof..." is it in the final product? or is it part of the chemical procedure to make the product?

Is the problem the final consumer goods? Or is the problem the chemical manufacturing? (and subsequent dumping in the environment) Is this residue from after making the Teflon-like material?

The last parts I couldn't follow at all b/c it was a acronym soup of a ton of chemicals that aren't really explained. At this point I'd lost all faith in the presenters impartiality. Seems like he's just trying to stoke outrage for engagement

(the central point may still be right!)

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 reactions, thus are perfectly safe.

C8 is known as PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). Per for its chained molecule shape (no carbon side chains), 'fluoro' for the F part, 'octanoic' for the 8 carbon atoms, and 'acid' for its chemical property. Unlike Teflon:

  - C8 has a really small molecular mass, making it easier to flow around your body participating in all kinds of biological operations;
  - It is an acid (having the carboxylic '-COOH' group) and can pretend to be all kinds of acids and actively take part in reactions. Once they start to get inside, the consequences can be unpredictable and devastating.
  - All other atoms on C8 except for the last -COOH group are covered by fluoride atoms. This means that C8 is not biodegradable (no enzyme can break apart the C-F covalent bond since it's bond energy is really too high), and when it gets into the environment, it stays that way.

C6 has a highly similar chemical property akin to C8 (it's a carboxylic acid, and has all atoms covered by fluoride), so is equally harmful.

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)

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 just dump waste water from PFAS production plants (containing PFOA) without post-processing into natural water bodies and let these toxic substances participate in the food chain and eventually land in our own bodies.

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

Because it’s “forever chemical”. Factories release it into environment, it never chemically degrades, it gets into drinking, water, into animals and fish. You eat the animals and fish, etc.

Give it couple of decades of these cycles and you get trace amounts of those chemicals everywhere. Even where human may haven’t been.

https://youtu.be/-ht7nOaIkpI

Same as CO2 (and other gasses) affect not only immediate area of the factories and cities, but globally.

You will notice other links in this discussion and suggested in the video - that consumer products are contaminated with these chemicals. As far as I understand these chemicals are supposed to be purely part of the manufacturing process. Is it in products or not..? Or only the non-dangerous long chains are in products? The whole discussion is muddled and unclear - and designed to spark outrage (click and subscribe! and don't forget to check NordVPN)

> Give it couple of decades of these cycles and you get trace amounts of those chemicals everywhere. Even where human may haven’t been

I skeptical this is factory run-off that goes down the rivers, dilutes in the vast gigantic ocean, and then ends up in a polar bear. Maybe that's what's happening.. but they're not dumping gigatons of this stuff and the ocean is infinitely large in volume. You'd have vastly different orders of magnitude for anyone near the river vs at the north pole..

So things aren't adding up. I'm not saying these chemicals aren't a problem. I'm just saying the discussion is disingenuous and just doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.

> As far as I understand these chemicals are supposed to be purely part of the manufacturing process. Is it in products or not..?

Video clearly states - factories did not care about cleaning it as it was uneconomical. I assume with existing “chemical whack-a-mole” current plant will not care as long as substance is not obviously banned. Secondly, video also states that even if those products are collected - they leach from landfills.

Personally I could bet that trace amounts of chemicals from “manufacturing process” still end up in final product anyways.

> Or only the non-dangerous long chains are in products?

IMHO, we should drop “non-dangerous” as a myth from teflon commercials of the 70s. As also from the video - due to heat you can consume harmful chemicals, even with acute consequences.

PFAS, from my understanding is a group of thousands of chemicals, most of them with no research on harmfulness. Though we know that some of them are directly linked to increasing some cancers or some other illnesses.

> they're not dumping gigatons of this stuff and the ocean is infinitely large in volume.

As per videos - we are talking about ridiculously miniscule amounts. Amounts in terms of couple parts per trillion of PFAS are considered harmful.

There were examples - PFAS is everywhere. Food packaging, hygiene products, tooth floss, fire extinguishers, clothes, kitchen appliances, etc. It’s manufactured all over the globe in multiple factories for seemingly everything.

It gets into the water cycle and trace amounts of PFAS is now found in polar circles and remote mountain tops from rain and snow.

We are exposed to it through water and through the things we use that contains it.

If you look for it in Mariana trench - maybe you won’t find it, but everywhere we do find it and that’s just a fact.

My personal biggest takes are:

- It’s not only c6/c8 that are harmful, there’s GenX and others thar also are and a plethora that haven’t even been tested, and they all are under PFAS umbrella;

- Most of those chemicals accumulate and don’t deteriorate. You get part per quadrillion there, part per trillion there, maybe permille next to a factory or a landfill. Give it 70 years and all animals and humans have >1 ppb of most harmful known PFAS in their blood. When we know that at 30ppb you get double chance of getting kidney cancer (and that’s just one cancer);

- The nature of indestructability is the main problem of cleaning it up. It doesn’t matter if something is “only used in manufacturing process”. It’s already somewhere, in the product, on the packaging, in the water that cleans the factory, in the landfill that collects it;

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.

Exactly. Just like the pressure of being the last state in basically every single metric has empowered Mississippi to turn things around. Oh wait what? Mississippi is more fucked up than ever and shows zero signs of ever joining a civilized nation? Maybe they just haven’t hit rock bottom quite hard enough. Surely then conservative politics will turn things around!

Like it or not - Mississippi is doing what their citizens want as they demonstrate at their own ballot box. It's not up to me to decide what's best for them. And in the worst case, if a person there really feels strongly about some particular issue - it's not THAT hard for them to simply move to a more agreeable state.

We should embrace diversity and mutual respect - not simply assume that other people doing things differently are wrong and need to be fixed/corrected.

That could lend itself well to studies about the effects of some of these regulations. Maybe not the most ethical way to approach this, though.

Why would this not be ethical to study? It's not like the researchers are taking an active role in creating this situation. In fact, I would say it is more unethical not to research this, given that we already know the PFAS will readily migrate out of the red-flag states.

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.

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.

> 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 used to coat nonstick cookware—that have been deemed safe for uses in food preparation by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority.

> “They are non-toxic and inert, they do not bioaccumulate, and importantly, they are not water soluble,” the alliance stated.

Wow, what a lie-by-outrageous-omission. I would believe that the fluoropolymers in nonstick cookware are, in their intact state, inert and rather harmless (if quite persistent). I would even believe that most of the definitely-not-safe stuff that’s used in manufacturing them don’t end up in the pan.

But these things are in cookware, where they are regularly heated to high temperatures, and a lot of fluoropolymers start to degrade at temperatures that are well within the reach of the average stove. Have any of these people ever contemplated the state of an omelette pan at a restaurant? Or basically any Teflon pan that has gotten any sort of regular use without extreme care taken not to overheat it? Heck, overheated PTFE is so non-inert that it rather imfamously kills birds.

I will he delighted to see Teflon pans phased out at California restaurants. You can buy perfectly fine PFAS-free “ceramic”-coated pans these days at reasonable prices. (You can also buy non-PFAS-free “ceramic” pans these days — read labels carefullly, consider looking up the listed patents, and keep in mind that if it doesn’t see its PFAS-free then it probably isn’t. PFOS/PFOA-free does not mean free if other PFAS.)

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.

I am suddenly quite bullish on California real estate. The “good people” will flock from all around the world so that they can be in one place with the other “good people”. It’s about shared values. California will be the last refuge for people around the world who have these shared values.

> for people around the world who have these shared values

The US of A are not "the World".

There are countless places around the World that make California look like a conservatism heaven.

> California will be the last refuge for people around the world who have these shared values.

You'll be glad to hear it already is!

Now please stick to your containment zone, and NEVER leave. We have enough of your ilk that have fled to neighboring states already.

What about EU

I assure you there are places in the world with good people and shared values outside of one state in one particular country. Pretty wild comment frankly...

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 anecdotally cancers here are insanely high in prevalence.

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.

So the Environmental Protection Agency is now asking the courts to help them... not protect us?

Zeldin in March[0], announcing climate change rule rollbacks:

> "We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more"

Does any of that list look like the goals of an Environmental Protection Agency?

[0] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregu...

No. EPA merely concedes that the process used to establish the new rules was not lawful. TFA implies that EPA means to restart the rulemaking process and -presumably- make roughly the same rules as before.

At this point we should just create programs to promote RO filtration at home. If it's not lead then it's PFAS or some other thing. Then we have the issues with the chlorine and chloramine byproducts inhernet even in properly treated water - stuff that we already know as possible, probable, or known carcinogens.

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 issue nation wide.

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.

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.

The gold standard for air filtration might be a military grade gas mask or a compressed oxygen tank, but if everyone had to wear those to breathe the air outside, I'd consider it a band aid solution.

How is that a reasonable comparison? You don't have to carry the RO filter on your back. You think about it maybe a couple times a year when you replace the filter. Plenty of people use water filters every day. If you told them that was like wearing a gas mask whenever you go outside, they'd look at you funny.

Like all of those yummy chemicals introduced to your well water after your neighbors allowed gas wells to be drilled on their property.

Until you remember that now nobody is going to be able to drink water from restaurants or their workplace or the tap at the park. And that you can't filter the vegetables you eat that have been watered with contaminated water.

Keep in mind, these restrictions have nothing to do with the environmental pollution but only the water treatment. So those veggies would still be contaminated with or without the regulation. If we moved to a paradigm of point of use purification, then the park, work, restaurant, etc would all have filters too.

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.

To eliminate the distribution network risks.

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.

And how do you treat water that needs to travel through questionably maintained pipes without chlorine etc? Seems a much cheaper and efficient fix to utilize point of use filtration.

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.

True but doesn’t PFAS impact ecosystems and agriculture as well?

Reducing pollution in the environment is good, but this discussion is about water quality mandates for drinking water. These are more at the water treatment facility level whereas reducing the environmental levels would happen upstream of this process.

That's such a good idea. Why didn't the people of Flint, Michigan just do that in their homes? /s

This is what I find so interesting about the MAHA "movement". Kennedy is making some good (and many bad) points about food and nutrition. But then he is part of an administration that promotes pollution and wants to remove safeguards against chemicals that harm people. I have no idea how this is supposed to fit together but in today's political climate it's not necessary for things to make sense.

It’s hard to take Kennedy and the MAHA movement seriously about food and nutrition when they attack vaccines, which are basically as close to a home run you can get with medicine for saving lives.

Elections have consequences, many people say both sides are the same, but there's one side that constantly does things like this, on top of giving tax cuts to rich people that need it the least. Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this.

Let’s set our eyes on 2026 first, so that we can end this madness sooner.

Where we set our eyes don’t matter. The US electorate has shown we care more about “owning the libs”, “anti-woke” and what bathroom people use than our own health and welfare.

Absolutely no one who voted for this mess went in blind.

They absolutely did, because many listen to the absokutely rank propaganda the right puts out and seek no real sources of information.

If they went in blind, they chose to.

Not giving enough of a shit to learn about… in some cases, seemingly anything, doesn’t mean you get to later claim “oh I didn’t want this, how could I have known?”

I’ve given a lot of leeway on that stuff over my life, and after this last election, that’s over. Anyone who doesn’t get it at this point has raised stupidity to such an art form that they’ve achieved immorality. That’s aside from the ones who just outright want bad things to happen, which is a lot of people.

But they were open about wanting to do this stuff.

You didn’t need “sources of information”. Trump was in office for four years before he was re-elected. It’s copium to think that people aré ignorant when in actuality, they are actively hostile to minorities, non straight, the college educated and non Christians.

They would rather feel the fallout of Republican policies as long as it doesn’t help or actively hurts people not like them. In my former home state GA, the Republican governor spent years and tens of millions of dollars trying to get the Hyundai plant to GA that would have created 8500 jobs directly and no telling how many indirect jobs.

ICE invaded the plant and the opportunity is now lost potentially. The governor still can’t bring himself to criticize the President and the Republicans in GA are cheering the raid. The engineers from Korea were training Americans.

Only ~60% of people eligible to vote in 2024 did vote with ~30% of eligible voters voting for the idiotscape we currently have.

So, I think OP message was for the folks who didn't vote. Especially given the people against going backwards on environmental protection is a large majority of the population.

If everyone voted, we wouldn't be dealing with this. Excluding future success of social media propaganda campaigns.

We all need to fucking vote. Otherwise you get folks like Stephen Miller, Elon Musk, Laura Loomer puppetting an orange shell.

Because of the electoral college. It didn’t matter who didn’t vote. If 0% more people voted in Mississippi or Alabama and every single eligible voter voted in New York and California, it wouldn’t have mattered.

> Absolutely no one who voted for this mess went in blind.

I think it depends. I suspect that political messaging has become so tailored that the Mercola/Natural News crowd that voted primarily because of RFK’s anti-vaxxing platform could have been getting so heavily hammered with the “this is the ’chemicals are bad’ administration” messaging that the anti-regulatory stuff seemed pretty quiet in comparison. And I’m pretty sure they also had things they disagreed with Harris about constantly rammed down their throats. I also think that democrat voters had negative things about Trump shoved down their throat, and that messaging difference is probably the main reason many on the right wing are absolutely mystified that people can hate Trump so much, even in spite of the ‘own the libs’ culture war garbage.

I have a list of news sources I hit weekly from Dissent and Jacobin to mainstream TV news and newspapers, to Hot Air and Town Hall. Most are pretty politically homogenous, but discuss all sorts of topics. Then I see how laser-focused a relative’s Facebook feed is on topics that are important to her… not just the political platform on a whole, but those specific things. It’s forgivable that she’d think her primary concerns were representative of most people’s primary concerns, and why she’s thinks people that are heavily focused on other topics are kind of weird.

The presidential debates were the most watched tv last year beating out football. Trump was in office for four years. No matter how filtered the news is, people knew exactly who Trump was.

Well then maybe it's time to cut some dead weight from the left platform... Many centrists want clean water and sane society and bathrooms and woke ideology maybe needs to take a back seat in discourse for a while

Isn't this what they have been doing? What nationally prominent democrats are vocal proponents of progressive social policies now? I certainly don't remember harris running on any of the things being implied here.

> cut some dead weight

This "dead weight" is the rights of minorities to participate in public life plain and simple. This is exactly why leftists are so skeptical or even hostile to "centrists." Once you're calculating whose rights you can drop for political convenience you share a lot more ideologically with the far right than with historic liberalism.

But then you alienate some of the most vocal part of the party and end up like in 2016 where they blame the Bernie bros instead of the dnc leadership.

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.

> but there's one side that constantly does things like this, on top of giving tax cuts to rich people that need it the least.

That side is consistently good at pushing uneducated voters to care about nothingburger issues like transgender bathrooms and mass immigration.

the reality is that the average american is an uninformed moron made complacent through excess and enteratinment but thats not something that can be easily fixed.

Kindly stop supporting a nation built on genocide and enslavement. The ethical path to engineering a system that's not intended to kill people is to stop it when it does and dismantle it, evolving the foundational principles used to design it in the first place. And to do all that without sacrificing more lives. Electoral reform is impossible because there's no way to say no to the entire system.

I live in the USA so I don't have the choice to just leave, at least not now. So I must do what I can to make this country better.

I live in the USA. You can put all your skills to work on designing systems of collective liberation to replace the existing systems of oppression this country was founded on & requires to persist. A collapse is coming, so now is the time to prepare so we have something liberatory to fill the predictable power vacuum with. The wealthy are already doing this.

Are the psychological disorders that result from oppression under collectivism better than those of capitalism?

The right managed to succeed with their electoral reforms. Gerrymandering is legal, and the president is now above the law.

The left should use the same tactics: Focus on state and local elections then use those positions to fix elections so that the national majority of voters decide who runs the federal government (instead of the current 25-30% of voters).

Doing this is completely legal now that the Supreme Court has gutted the rule of law.

For starters, all states should aggressively gerrymand. That’ll basically guarantee the house goes democrat in 2026:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/democrats-can-win-the-redistric...

If the democrats fail to do this, it’s not mere incompetence. It’s probably because their financial backers actually support the changes being made by Trump.

As a democratic voter I don't like this either. I vote because I want rule of law. It's not as clear cut to me that discarding rule of law to beat the GOP is the best option. There is a chance they can be defeated without undermining having a functional electoral system

This went out the window as a viable approach when McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat. We’re at minimum-two justices being on the take, post a coup attempt with the leader of said attempt back in the Oval Office, and Republicans have already declared intent to gerrymander their way to victory with no roadblocks to that in sight. And this is not an exhaustive list of ailments.

You can’t go in with legal gloves and no hitting below the belt et c. while your opponent is bare-knuckle and going for nut shots and headlocks. You’ll just get your ass kicked, every time, no matter how morally pure you feel about it.

Meanwhile, fixing gerrymandering almost certainly means getting Republican votes to do so. The only way to do that, in this environment, is going to be to make them believe their odds are better without gerrymandering, than with it. That means using it against them, until it’s made illegal.

They can be "defeated" that way in the sense of a classic Pyrrhic victory, exactly like in 2020, sure. That's the absolute worst out of all options available. "Losing" in 2020 would have been much better. You need to start thinking about the game, realpolitik, and the patterns that have been happening. And the long-term. You think you're thinking long-term by prioritizing the things you do, but it's the exact opposite.

The first thing you need to come to terms with is that losing in 2020 would've been better for the long-term. Once you've gained that freedom, realizing that simply winning an election can be the worse option, you can start thinking about what would instead be better.

One possible solution is to get all the liberal/progressive voters to register as Republicans and run liberal/progressive candidates as Republicans. Built on the Eisenhower platform of 1956 and his record as a military commander. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-p...

Granted, it's not ideal, but coming in the back door may be necessary.

This attitude is exactly what the far right is banking on to make sure there is never another liberal gov elected fairly.

> If the democrats fail to do this, it’s not mere incompetence. It’s probably because their financial backers actually support the changes being made by Trump.

This has been clear for very long. Hence why they're still not doing it, and have for the last 9 years been and still[1] continue to push for Clinton-like candidates rather than whatever candidate has the biggest chance of winning elections. It isn't incompetence, and it hasn't been for ages. They're nearly just as captured. It's true that they're slightly less captured than R overall, but not to an extent that is actually meaningful.

Stating it as an "if" is copium. They have failed to, are failing to, and will continue to fail to do this, and it's intentional. What you're saying is so blindingly obvious that there is no other explanation - no Hanlon's razor for this one, the incompetence angle is not realistic.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/17/politics/2028-presidentia...

To liberals a “socialist” like Mamdani is way worse than conservatives like Trump. They are more than happy to support a sexual predator over a socialist. Trump and the DNC largely have the same donors to keep happy. Capitalism and how to make a select few fabulously wealthy isn’t a power either the democrats or republicans want to give up. Unfortunately due to the first past the post voting system we have to align to one of the two fucked up corporatist political parties. One which pretends to care about things like equality and fairness and one who has removed their mask and fully embraces all the worst aspects of humanity. I’d still much rather have a Target that pretended to care about things than a Target who fully embraces late stage capitalism.

The most frustrating thing about leftists is their focus on tearing down and self-flagellation over actually doing anything meaningful to make the world a better place.

There is a whole archetype of person that would rather verbally jerk off to thoughts of defeatism and disgust and criticizing everyone else than do anything useful themselves.

You could change left to right and that would be an honest statement.

Maybe it's not as dualistic as you portray things. I'm literally designing and building a system for collective liberation and meeting needs to replace systems of oppression.

Why people argue against that is beyond me

How will your system for collectivism differ from all those that have been tried so far and ended in dictatorship and mass murder?

>Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this.

Or if you want more of this also go vote.

If you want more of this, please vote in 2027 and 2029 instead.

Countless lives over the next decades are going to be lost due to decisions being made by this administration. Deaths and illnesses that otherwise would have prevented using existing frameworks and systems had they not been destroyed.

I don't understand why the left puts up with it. They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues. These are some of the most important issues facing the present and future of our civilization and biosphere. I wish I had a solution, or knew the step to take. I suspect one of the root causes is the narrative, e.g. from news agencies, is being controlled by the propagators of the problem.

Our system is not set up to be able to resist things like this. Once one party has control over all three branches of the federal government, all we can do at the federal level is wait for elections.

States can try to do some things in some cases, but the Supreme Court will get in the way and now the National Guard and Marines.

The last time you voted in The United States of America may be the last time you get a vote in The United States of America.

All three branches of The United States of America has been captured by a tyrannical government. Rights are being eroded for inhabitants of The United States of America, including its citizens.

You have no right to: safe medicine, safe food, safe water, vote.

The sooner the people recognize this and take action, the shorter it will be to reverse.

Americans have a duty to act, and act quickly: what's already been taken will take generations to regain.

Right. My fear is that the rules of the elections will be significantly changed as well soon, by this party.

The human brain can not handle social media. It has melted our brains and completely controls the Main Signal with its algorithms. The right is better at controlling the media in such a system, and is ascendant. We live in meme world now. Nothing is serious. It's all just memes.

It does feel like this. I remember this moment clicking for me with my dads family who was typically more rational. "did you hear California is going to outlaw bacon now"; everyone laughs.

I mention that sounds kind of click baity? look it up. California wants to impose more stringent minimum space standards for amimals bred to slaughter (prop 12). Seems maybe good, or at least worthy of a real discussion?

But everyone had moved on by then, ironically to how much they care about animal rights (spending significant time volunteering in shelters and such).

Its just too easy to dumb people down with memes.

Well, also our adversaries have a vested interest in tilting those systems toward MAGA in particular.

Trump reneging on NATO, turning military attention toward (checks notes) Venezuela, and isolating ourselves in global trade is just an absolute dream come true for China and Russia.

There have always been shitty conservatives in the world. The US fought a civil war against them. Civilized people fought against them and won civil rights and women’s suffrage and the right for gay folk to get married. These assholes have always existed in society and unfortunately always will. This is not a problem of social media but of acceptable antisocial behavior and beliefs.

The American left is one of the most impotent political entities.

The only purpose they seem to serve is strengthening the far right by imposing counter productive purity tests and pushing people to vote for the far right options over more centrist ones.

until people starting giving a shit to form alternatives, they're the only option that exists. Were not in a college classroom debating ideals, this is a real life triage situation

At least our "purity tests" don't end up with dead people. By the current state of information, the CK killer was a Nick Fuentes follower.

And hell, just look at how first the Tea Party and then MAGA managed to yeet a lot of what used to be "moderate" Republicans out of the party alright.

“The Left” as educated elites clustered in cities has and will always be fairly impotent (at least electorally, maybe not culturally)

“The Left” as defined by a broad, working class based coalition independent of urban/rural has historically been formidable. But as the closest example of this in recent history - Obama coalition - erodes, and GOP eats into working class voters, it becomes less formidable.

Really The Left (the Democratic Party) needs to rebuild an electorally successful coalition. The leaders that could lead that aren’t obvious to me yet.

This is hogwash.

The american left by and large is simply unrepresented. Democrats have represented center right positions since clinton.

If anything, it's those centrist democrats that use purity tests as much as possible to eject the left from the party.

As a good example of that, consider the case of Al Franken vs Andrew Cuomo. Franken was pretty progressive, so when it came out that he had a picture in bad taste where he mocked squeezing boobs, gone. 24/7 news about how he's really a monster and the worst person in the world.

Meanwhile, Cuomo has multiple credible allegations of sexual harassment and who does the party STILL back even after he lost the primary? He literally got endorsements from Democrats who shed tears because of the Al Franken photo.

The same thing happened to Bernie Sanders. The centrist dems and media started circulating garbage about how he was sexist over a comment he didn't make.

And what purity tests are those?

You're referring to very far left circles that definitely don't represent liberals or more moderate Dems. I agree though, those circles consist of single-issue voters (e.g. palestine) that harm actual progress.

Again with the left vs. right. Are you really that easy to divide into two diametrically opposed groups?

This is also a key part of it. People should explore the complexity instead of treating this as team sports. I think we have a genetic disposition to this sort of thinking, but can overcome it.

Due to gerrymandering, our elected officials are increasingly sorting themselves into left and right, whether that represents us or not.

i mean the right literally voted for epsteins BFF and also the most prominent partner in child trafficking. Hiring minor under pretense of internship, drugging/spiking then and then trafficking them to private island. The difference between right and left is like night and day.

in case someone's feeling got hurt. Throughout the history of world not USA, right ideology has also blindly supported deregulation that people will die but regulation will naturally take place( ? ) like free markert

The left doesn't hold power in any branch of government right now. The most they can do before midterms is cause a government shutdown, but that can backfire unless messaging/demands are perfect.

Messaging should probably be "follow the law". Until that happens, voting in the house is just charades.

What do you propose they do?

I would love to have an answer to your question!

Edit: Here's a start: Be more critical of the news. Content a bit; the scope of topics that are discussed more importantly.

We are soldiers in revolt for truth, And we have fought for our independence, When we spoke nobody listened to us, So we have taken the noise of gunpowder as our rhythm, And the sound of machine guns as our melody

Drop counterproductive and unpopular Culture War issues and instead fight about very stupid ideas pushed by Trump et all.

Part of problem is that the most unproductive and unpopular and poor ideas are the most loved ones among their elites.

> They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues.

I disagree.

The issue is there's about 1000 fires burning all with somewhat critical importance.

But further, the left and the politicians ostensibly representing the left simply are not aligned (at least in the US). It's a rock and a hard place. Generally the politicians positions are better than the right, but far less than what the left actually wants. So they rely heavily on "what are you going to do, let the other guys win?".

Meanwhile, the right has adopted nearly the opposite position. On most positions when the base says "jump" they say "how high?".

A big reason for that is money in politics. What the rightwing base wants is generally pretty compatible with monied interests. It's no skin off the nose of a rightwing politician if they want to ban books, that doesn't ultimately harm Disney's bottom dollar.

For the left, what they want in almost all ways will negatively impact monied interested. Better regulations makes rich polluters mad. Nationalized healthcare makes every business (except maybe small businesses) mad.

That's why "left" politicians tend to only support initiatives which effectively do nothing like recognizing a MLK or saying it's ok to be gay. And even then, they are happy to ditch those positions to win more rightwing base support because, shocker, that rightwing base is likely to care less about their inaction on climate change.

You are right, though, news is a big problem. And that's because mainstream media is corporate captured. That's why left policy positions no matter the channel are always framed in the absolute worst way possible. For example, whenever nationalized healthcare comes up I can guarantee you the framing will be "How will you pay for this very expensive program that will eliminate choice and cost a lot of money which might make everyone sad and probably will bankrupt everyone?"

The just-released MAHA report[1] mentions PFAS limits for drinking water to be enforced by EPA. Hopefully the unusually extreme contradictions in policy force a change.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-R...

I think because “The Left” in the US - The Democratic Party - is actually a big tent, center-left party with a lot of different issues and stakeholders. They look more like a political party has historically in the US (big, messy, inconsistent)

If you were an elderly high ranking Democrat, would you risk it all? Your power, your status?

It's called anacyclosis. A long cycle that has repeated throughout history. The US is the final step before the cycle repeats, Ochlocracy or "mob rule".

It blows my mind that people refuse to accept modern countries and societies still don't go through this cycle.

I truly think the US will have a Putin like dictator by 20230. (I don't think this is good or want that)

Short of some January-6th style insurrection, I'm not entirely sure what "the left" [1] could actually "do" here. I am absolutely not advocating for a January-6th domestic terrorism event, I think that would be a very bad idea, but I also have no idea what we could actively do.

It's easy to say "reject the news agencies", and sure that might be a good idea, but that carries the risk of "substituting bullshit with different, more dangerous bullshit". This has already been somewhat demonstrated; the conservatives spent decades undermining trust in news media and that led to the rise of assholes like Alex Jones and conspiracy theories becoming normalized by American conservatives. It's easy to say "well the left wouldn't do that", but you have no way of knowing that any better than I would.

I don't want to be cynical or hopeless, but I genuinely have no idea what I could do to help fix any of the shit going on right now.

[1] whatever that actually means, I've heard about a dozen definitions.

Normalize factual focused news that covers the topics that right (and center) news doesn't cover. This doesn't need to be biased and shouldn't be denigrating - I would like to believe that the liberal bias of reality is sufficient. Personally, I don't want to listen to angry people of any political bend. Name calling sounds childish.

As to conspiracy theories on the left, they're there. Some of the anti-vax conspiracies came from people who would be considered on the (I'm going to apologize of this is seen as denigrating considering my earlier statement) granola side of the left. There's a fair bit of populist anti-corporate conspiracies and attribution of active malice rather a dispassionate corporate approach to trying to maximize profits.

I would suggest instead considering that it isn't "left vs right" conspiracies (though they have their own spectrum) but rather that there exists a "prone to conspiracies demographic" that is swayed by the left or the right at a given time and those conspiracies that are most in line with the political ideology of the swaying are more likely to be normalized. Politicians agreeing with the conspiracies speeds up its normalization and helps sway the conspiracy minded demographic.

I believe that the pro-science, pro-space, climate change is real, vaccines work of... lets put a range of 2008 to say... 2020 (its not that Biden abandoned it but rather that that congress was not advancing policies and the focus was more on "don't have it break more") significantly alienated the prone to conspiracy demographic from the Democratic Party. The Republican Party has embraced this demographic with the claims of a stolen election, supporting anti-vaccination positions, and openly accepting support of the various anti-{race} groups.

It wouldn't take too much for anti-capitalism or anti-government conspiracies to be normalized and spoken openly by "the left" if that is one's target demographic. It's that left leaning and conspiracy leaning is a slim demographic to try to target. If the conspiracy demographic was decoupled from the current Republican Party, then I would expect to see more left leaning conspiracy theories be espoused openly.

I found this post useful in understanding this phenomenon: https://www.offmessage.net/p/how-liberalism-sabotages-itself

The basic gist is that the left is too generous in its understanding of others' intentions, assuming good intentions from all actors long past the point where that's rational.

They're also coopted by their donors and the thinking they can't be mean to their "colleagues", look at all the democrats saying they're "waiting for the republican party to come back". They want the same status quo they had in the past because it serves those already in power there, they can continue to collect donations and salaries if it all stays the same without doing much work.

Look at how desperate they all were to leave DC and go on vacation, these people are not serious and they don't think there will be any consequence to them.

There is no left in America, in any historical or contemporary manner.

If you look closely at the Ds they back Trumps policies, not that they come out and say so. Rather Bernie will come out and attack it. but Ds on so mnay fornts now remain silent and passive.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Currently, if there were any resistance, they would swiftly be gunned down in the street. Hasn't the orange goon made that clear enough to you? The problem is we didn't enforce justice after the civil war or the coup on January 6. The cult of domestic terrorists has a monopoly on violence.

Edit: Also, most of the politicians in both parties get money from the same interests (oil, Israel, tech). So the leadership of Democrats basically wants the same thing as GOP, so there's only voiced resistance.

My friend pointed out yesterday that the left has lost its "evangelical spirit". It seems to have become political dogma that you can't persuade people to your side -- you can only turn them out to vote.

But Charlie Kirk went to the most left places he could think of, debated people, and won some converts.

Who on the left does that? Why doesn't anyone drive out to rural football games or country music concerts, have conversations, and put them on YouTube?

I don't like him anymore because I think he's a perverted creep, but in the streaming space Destiny was reasonably good at this. I haven't watched him in years, but I remember reading about a few people that he managed to talk out of the more radical conservatism.

I’d add that the act of debate never convinces opponents, but serves as a performance which can make your ideas look good to an audience. Plenty of lefties do debates online, not to say that’s identical.

I think this is the core of the issue for the Democra)ts. Conservative groups are focused on figuring out what actions are effective in gaining power and executing on that. They don't shy away from unethical methods like spreading misinformation and gerrymandering. They've understood this for a very long time and have been planting seeds for decades, such as taking over AM radio to entrench a conservative mindset in rural populations.

From my observations the liberal and progressive groups seem to take on strategies where they claim the moral high ground and treat anyone not following their way of thinking as opponents and not as potential allies/converts. So even in cases where they are technically or morally "correct" in their stance, they aren't effective in bringing outsiders to their side. One example was the "recognize your (white) privilege" thing. While it was arguably based on sound ideas, proclaiming an entire demographic is receiving more than they earn is never going to bring people over to your side.

I don't have much confidence that the Democrats will be able to turn things around in short order. The Democratic leadership seem stuck in their ways with no long term vision

> Who on the left does that?

Sanders and AOC. Look at the stops on their Fighting Oligarchy Tour. It’s just that the DNC leadership will do everything in their power to fight actual progressives.

It’s okay though, as some brilliant minds have said, the price of a few deaths is acceptable for less regulation!

This is a form of political violence.

Ever since you were born, the factory bagging the food you eat have been lubricated with PFAS. Also perhaps youve seen the HDPE label on plastic food containers? That’s fluorinated. Basically everything is and always has been. It’s only recently there’s been a move to say hey this is probably bad for us. We can stop. But it’s expensive and there’s no good alternative so things are just going back to the way they always were.

This administration can’t end soon enough.

Do RO filters eliminate these chemicals?

They do, but the vast majority of fluids the average person consumes comes in products made elsewhere, along with restaurants, etc. So you can RO your home water, but unless you don't eat anything made elsewhere, water your own crops, etc, you need comprehensive protections to avoid them.

Bit of research suggests even counter top filters help, though with very wide range of opinions as to how much it helps and which PFAS it does work against (there are thousands)

https://www.epa.gov/water-research/identifying-drinking-wate...

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.

I understand that these dumb decisions are mostly profit motivated. But nobody stops to think that the reaction abroad may be: do not eat anything produced at USA?

In EU we by and large don’t eat what America produces though. The same products like Doritos etc will have different ingredients in EU compared to US.

US typically gets the cheaper and worse option (less safe). Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar.

Americans will regularly consume chemicals that are potentially carcinogenic and banned in EU.

EDIT: I meant high fructose corn syrup, not cane sugar. My bad!

Cane sugar and corn syrup are both just sugar. Your health isn't going to be any better drinking cane sugar coke than corn syrup coke.

The reason corn syrup is demonized is because it is cheap, enabling lots of foods to pack sugar without much cost. The health concerns remain consistent across all forms of sugar.

> The reason corn syrup is demonized is because it is cheap, enabling lots of foods to pack sugar without much cost.

This !

The OP made a bad point using coke as an example.

The actual point is the HFCS and the fact that HFCS is used extensively in the US, often in places you would not expect it.

In bread products for example its common to find HFCS in it in the US.

The Europeans rarely put any form of sugar in their bread doughs unless they are explicitly baking a sweet product. And even then, the concentration is lower.

Incorrect. There is more fructose in HFCS used in Coke, HFCS 55. Fructose is metabolized in the liver, and stored as fat there. Glucose is directly metabolized by cells throughout the body.

Also there is no single reason that HFCS is demonized, there are multiple good reasons why it is harmful in the US. It is also not a singular cause to all US diet related pathologies.

Staying on topic, the chemicals the EPA will no longer enforce the laws for pollution for are demonstrably harmful.

The EPA has unilaterally decided not to do its job because it doesn't care about the health of the citizens of the US.

You can go to the EU and generally find things like unsweetened granola. In the US these products basically don’t exist.

> Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar.

I think you meant high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar (which is real sugar)

Exactly. To remind us - it's the fructose which is a metabolic problem in amounts over a certain value - worth checking out why. Cane sugar and beet sugar both contain sucrose which is one glucose linked to one fructose molecule so you get half the fructose.

Woops, my bad, you are right!

> Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar.

American Coke is sweetened with Corn Syrup. Maybe it's just me being a dumb American probably fooled by some green washing but isn't Cane Sugar better? What's "actual sugar" in the EU?

no opinion on the rest, but at least in western europe, "normal" white sugar derives from sugar beets.

I think they meant to say corn syrup.

Fun fact: high fructose corn syrup has almost the same sugar content as honey.

> In EU we by and large don’t eat what America produces though.

The trouble is you do still find US products, and they should be avoided like the plague.

US-grown nuts for example. Pesticides galore.....

That’s fair, but alternatives are usually pretty easy to find.

Doritos even have different ingredients between EU countries.

I have tested this in Denmark, Poland, Cyprus, Ireland and Germany.

That's pretty interesting. Were there different flavors in each country as well? My friend brought me some paprika pringles from iceland and they were delicious. So good that we ordered them online but the online versions shipped terribly and were delivered as pringles dust. I used it to bread chicken which still was pretty good. But if you are in iceland get the paprika pringles!

That is mostly because the same brand made for Eastern europe tastes like shit compared to the stuff for western. Worst offenders are nutella and coca cola. but there are many others.

I'm American and I've decided at least with cookware that I'm only buying European made products. I don't have a choice with ingredients but at least I can buy European pots and pans knowing it's more regulated.

> US typically gets the cheaper and worse option (less safe)

Yes. EU has the precautionary principle: you may market the product after documenting its safety. In the US, it’s often the other way around: you can market the product unless/until someone can show it to be unsafe.

This is often a point of conflict e.g. when negotiating free trade agreements between US and EU, as the US often sees this as a technical barrier to trade and protectionism.

I was with you until you said cane sugar vs corn syrup. What do you think the actual benefits or drawbacks of one over the other is?

Where does actual sugar come from?

Def not sugar canes :D

Perhaps they are strictly traditionalist and only accept beet sugar, and none of that new-world cane stuff that doesn't grow well in European climes ./s

In all likelihood, they meant to say corn syrup.

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.

I'm an American who's been living outside the US for a very long time. I always check where food is from at the grocery store before I buy it. Whenever possible, the US is one of a few countries where I avoid almost all ingredients. When it comes to meat, it's a 100% absolute refusal to purchase. The quality is so different that the taste is immediately obvious, and it's not good.

Yeah, but we’re doing great at avoiding mad cow disease recalls.

Every time a sample comes up positive, we cut the sample percentage by an order of magnitude.

Problem solved.

See also: Tainted meat from Boar’s Head.

We also have the “nitrate free” and “uncured” labels, which means the nitrate (pink curing salt) is called “celery salt” in the ingredient list, and the manufacturer is exempt from federal caps on the amount they added. (Celery salt is the same exact chemical, but with a different production process.)

That is already a prevailing opinion

They can force foreign countries into importing by threatening tariffs. Though I guess they cannot force-feed it to international consumers in the end.

I think there’s a deep fundamental psychosis of the right wing to get the world back to “survival of the fittest”. If you die of PFAs, poverty, other pollution, well then that’s just bad luck for you.

They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.

Survival of the fittest should apply to businesses above anything. If a business can't handle the regulations to not pollute water then it's a clear cut case.

This is all the symptom of laziness of the mind. There is resistance to change, adapt and make the world a better place not just for this, but future generations.

There is no leadership in the US, no vision, no drive. The excessive wealth has created a leading class that happily rests on the laurels of prior generations while squandering the future.

This problem extends to all citizens, beyond the weak and needy, and permeates all levels of government from small to big.

I live in one of the best school districts in the US, and when I see the food the children are served I am surprised this is acceptable.

But this is what the US is, extract as much money from people while providing sub standard service. All in-the name of the free market and shareholder value.

People are an exploitable reaource.

> Survival of the fittest should apply to businesses above anything. If a business can't handle the regulations to not pollute water then it's a clear cut case.

See, there you go again, over regulating free enterprise out of existence. /s

To the main point—I guess we agree. Also: the right wing political movement in the US is an amalgam of conservative religiosity and (MFing) libertarianism. It’s frantic and fear-driven.

>They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.

There is some truth to that, but I don't think that explains their position on PFAS because too much PFAS will disable even a strong healthy person. In this particular, it's more that they think that the harm is being exaggerated and that the actual, non-exaggerated degree of harm does not justify putting restrictions on business and commerce.

>that they think that the harm is being exaggerated and that the actual, non-exaggerated degree of harm does not justify putting restrictions on business and commerce

I struggle to find a topic where they don't think this. It seems the burden of "proof" is too high. They don't believe in risks to health, the environment, climate, or even functional democracy itself. They think all are fake and profit is more important.

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:

- had the EPA held to its previous position the court could have found the rulemaking process illegal and forced the EPA to start over

- the EPA retains the ability to restart this rulemaking and this time comply with the applicable acts of Congress.

TFA says:

> Separately, EPA previously announced that it will seek to extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS standards by two years from 2029 to 2031.

Well, yes hello!! Take these two bits of news in combination and what do we have? We have this:

- the EPA concedes that the previous rulemaking was illegal

- the EPA indicates that it wants to restart the process and get to roughly the same rules with compliance deadlines in 2031, and this delay is presumptively due of the delay in rulemaking due to the previous rulemaking process having been illegal.

And TFA and the commenters here are all screaming their heads off that Zeldin (and Trump) are trying to kill us all or something.

Maybe look at the details first? TFA certainly doesn't mention the details! After a fairly obscure first two paragraphs it launches into a diatribe.

Fortunately TFA did link the EPA filing, and the very first paragraph of that filing tells us the first half of the story: that the Biden EPA did not follow lawful process. Surely one could debate the lawfulness of the process followed by the Biden EPA, but if the court was on its way to ruling as much then the EPA getting ahead of it was a good thing. The second part of the story is less* clear from just TFA and this filing, but TFA gives us a clue that the EPA apparently intends to restart the rulemaking process, which presumably will lead to roughly the same rules.

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 air of erudite smugness about them that can only come from a person completely without doubt of their convictions - even while being completely devoid of any value to the conversation.

The title is at best hyperbolic and at worse at outright lie - in any case the pattern of the title was intended to stoke whatever mental illness we see at play here: "I speculate endlessly on my own world view to the theme of the article title so I can signal to my peers that I'm doing righthink.".

But this is what makes the article get engagement, so to hell with communicating ideas, let's stoke division and get those clicks!

This isn't about Chevron deference. This is about the APA.

For those looking for the rest / other side of the story: the Trump EPA is actually the same EPA that established these PFAS rules to begin with. Municipal water associations have pushed back because they need more time to comply with some of the rules. EPA is responding to that, still adding additional requirements, but giving more time to comply with others.

https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

Looks like the EPA is now determined to protect corporations instead of protecting citizens.

This is absolutely outrageous

How can you measure the amount of PFAS in your body?

can you, do your own homework like just a google search ?

Nice job everybody. Totally owned the libs with this one

MAHA! The US admin is 5 special interest groups in a trench coat.

===

To be clear, some of the Make America Healthy Again goals are quite reasonable to me. I wish they had started with those.

Dear god. Why is this administration actively trying to fuck everything up? Like, how does it hurt anyone to require companies to, you know, not fucking poison us?

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.

Still kind of baffles me that people voted for this, ostensibly to somehow lower grocery price by raising tariffs.

Or, you know, they actually had really racist reasons and are using the grocery prices thing as an excuse. Who's to say?

I think it's much bigger than racism.

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

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 indicates this to me.

Dismantling the us in its current state would be a massive opportunity to gain more power/wealth/control/etc.

Risk reward is dead simple. You’re already rich and powerful, you fail and become slightly less rich and powerful. You succeed and have absolute control over the most powerful country in the world

Sure but how much longer could it be the most powerful? There's a mass exodus of our scientists leaving to other countries where the funding is.

I love America, and despite my wife being a naturalized citizen we are still tentatively looking to evacuate (basically determined by if the supreme court decides that the president can overturn the Fourteen Amendment with an executive order) because we are genuinely concerned that she might still be detained because of this administrations idiotic ICE quotas and overtly racist policies.

You might argue that me leaving is no significant loss, and that's fair, but I am college and graduate educated, and I work in a technical field, and I doubt I'm the only one considering this.

Shooting yourself in the foot "to own the libs"

Is protecting people socialism? Do they want people to be free enough to do their own water testing? "Make up their own minds?"

Would have been better titled “EPA politicized leadership seeks to…”. I’m sure the actual workforce at the EPA doesn’t appreciate its hard work being trashed by the current leadership taking its orders from Trump and his minions.

So much for MAHA

When people en masse remember what capitalist policies do

It would actually be good if this Administration would enact capitalist free trade policies, because they often lead to more growth and better quality of life for everyone.

Many of this administration's policies are more like Maoism

This is a such a false dichotomy, mate.

The capitalists see PFAS policies as anti-free-trade because it imposes "artificial" limits on production. They see PFAS policies as "big govt overreach". And that if consumers don't want PFAS they should vote with their dollars to remove it. This is their pro-capitalist justification for de-regulation.

And what you're doing is you want to conflate their money making policies, such as removing PFAS protections, with the exact opposite of what it is. You're confusing it with anti-capitalist policies when it is, in fact, benefiting plastic producers and was probably recommended by plastic producers and manufacturers in the first place.

Needless to say it cannot be both. This is not maoism, THIS is capitalism.

You drank the kool-aid on anti-govt thought and now you think the government is anti-capitalist when the capitalists hold almost a total monopoly on government functions and officials and have always had, since they control most of the nations wealth and production and can employ it to serve them. The capitalists control the government outright.

To further elucidate your position: the fact is you hate free trade policies because they put you and your loved ones in danger, but you have been convinced that they are, theoretically, better for all of us. That is because in pro capitalist theory/propaganda anything that helps them is seen as benefiting the population because of two things:

1. Capitalist see themselves as part of the population (even though they are the minority). 2. They conflate the "invisible hand" metaphor with literal evolution without even giving a forethought to how these dynamics play out. Especially in a monopolized environment.

They espouse these ideas through their think tanks and media outlets because it benefits them.

They teach this double-think through total hate of govt policies because they see many govt policies as hindering them.

Think about how our broke asses can influence government. Very slim pickings.... Now think about how a billionaire can influence government. Capitalists have always controlled government.

This country is so fucked. Thanks everyone who voted for trump. I truly hope your stock gains and lower taxes were worth it.

Someone get RFK Jr. over there.

He’s pro disease, and this will increase disease. Can’t see him doing anything but cheerleading here.

Wouldn't it be nice if the various cranks could at least slow each other down a bit?

Not how that works, sadly.

sincerely hope this is sarcasm

Forever chemicals are conspiracy-adjacent. I would think he'd be for getting rid of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com