EPA Announces First-Ever National Regulations For 'Forever Chemicals' in Drinking Water (cbsnews.com) 49
For the first time ever, the Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday it is issuing a national regulation limiting the amount of certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, found in drinking water. From a report: Commonly called "forever chemicals," PFAS are synthetic chemicals found nearly everywhere -- in air, water, and soil -- and can take thousands of years to break down in the environment. The EPA has stated there is no safe level of exposure to PFAS without risk of health impacts, but now it will require that public water utilities test for six different types of PFAS chemicals to reduce exposure in drinking water. The new standards will reduce PFAS exposure for 100 million people, according to the EPA, and prevent thousands of deaths and illnesses.
"Drinking water contaminated with PFAS has plagued communities across this country for too long," EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement Wednesday. For public water utility companies to comply with the new drinking water standards, the EPA is making $1 billion available to states and territories to implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems. That money is part of a $9 billion investment made possible by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to assist communities impacted by PFAS contamination.
"Drinking water contaminated with PFAS has plagued communities across this country for too long," EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement Wednesday. For public water utility companies to comply with the new drinking water standards, the EPA is making $1 billion available to states and territories to implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems. That money is part of a $9 billion investment made possible by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to assist communities impacted by PFAS contamination.
Chemicals in water (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to keep these regulations do not vote for Trump this Autumn.
Re:Good news (Score:4, Informative)
Note to people with mod points: Posting true statements is not "flamebait".
It'll get shot down in the courts (Score:1, Troll)
They could care less what the law says. Some of the excuses they've come up with to shoot down laws are insane. It's likely that the filibuster will get eliminated next cycle (Adam Shiff opposes it, and he's on his way to the Senate) but it's going to be like playing whack-a-mole with new laws as the crazy ass courts like the 5th circuit keep firing off increasingly unhinged rulings.
What we really need is for the Supreme Co
Re: (Score:2)
be like playing whack-a-mole with new laws
I think this is actually really the key since really the excuse the Court is using for so many of these cases is "this requires legislation" so in a lot of cases I agree, let's dump the filibuster and call them on their bluff. Pass a law and if it's overturned modify it and pass it again.
So while I have my doubts the Dem's are retaking the Senate if they do I 100% support dumping the filibuster, I think the fears around it going away are extremely overblown and more legislation has to be the path since I d
Re: (Score:3)
Retaking? The dems have the senate right now. It's the house they don't have. This is why people are calling for Sotomayor to resign.
Re: (Score:2)
Something something semantics, my mistake but you know what I meant. While it's a hair majority now they are not expected to hold that through 2024 or really every have a favorable map for the foreseeable future, Senate is pretty tilted to the R's which is primarily why I hope the Electoral College gets ousted at some point as well as House expansion.
A man can dream...
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Tell me you subsist on a diet of lead paint and paint thinner w/out telling me. Your plan for a unicameral legislature with simple majorit
Re: (Score:2)
will lead to a lot of very bad outcomes
And yet you didn't think to point out, I dunno, maybe a single one?
learned anything from thousands of years of governance
Democracy as we know it hasn't existed that long? Maybe you should try reading history? The Magna Carta wasn't until 1215... the US Constitution wasn't until 1776, in case you were not aware.
but when they go too far?
They shouldn't because it's a democracy and they are there to represent.
but when they go too far?
Again, democracy, their very re-election relies upon approval from their constituents. Do you not know how this works? And I'm supposed to be the one drinking paint thinner here?!
Ve
So I take it you're not American (Score:2)
Otherwise the filibuster rule allows any senator to block legislation
Re: (Score:2)
Wait
In your first statement, you complain about courts being "packed". In your final statement, you wish for the Supreme Court to be "rebalanced", which is an idea that's as old as FDR [constitutioncenter.org].
You've gone from 0 to self-contradiction in record time!
Thank you Rob! (Score:1)
Thank you Robert Bilott. Your fight has been worthwhile.
Dark Waters is an interesting movie, if anyone is interested.
Re: (Score:2)
Why modded offtopic?
Robert Bilott is the lawyer who spent 30 years (so far) in various court bringing DuPont to responsibility for dumping PFAS in the environment.
Dark Waters is the movie presenting this in an abridged manner.
get ready (Score:2)
Get ready for your water bill to double quick as a brown fox as water agencies struggle to control nano concentrations of non-reactive substances.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh darn, i wanted cheaper water that kills me.
Re: (Score:2)
True, I can imagine the city council meeting already...
Water commissioner: "Requesting $6M for upgraded chemical water treatment equipment, this will filter PFAS and other chemicals but may result in a 0.07c per kilo-gallon increase in prices but will...."
Citizen: "NO GOD! PLEASE NO!!! NOOOOOOOOOO" [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the 230M people who aren't currently affected by these chemicals?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if I'm affected, really. But my property isn't on served by a public water utility; nor are half of the people in this county. Perhaps that's what you mean.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, gee, then the obvious answer is to de-privatize water companies, so that there's no execs getting big salaries, bonuses, and dividends to big investors.
Re: (Score:2)
Public water utilities can and will still raise rates.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're implying that they're going to raise it more than the publicly-owned ones? I suggest you read about the UK's Themes Water Co, that supplies London... https://fortune.com/europe/202... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The original implication was that private utilities were going to raise rates while the public ones weren't. I offered contradictory commentary.
Over the long term, it will be a wash.
Re: (Score:2)
Get ready for your water bill to double quick as a brown fox as water agencies struggle to control nano concentrations of non-reactive substances.
Such as lead?
Re: (Score:2)
elemental lead isn't exactly non-reactive. There are lots of inexpensive re-agents that like sulfuric acid that react readily and would settle out of solution.
The lesser task (Score:5, Insightful)
Filtering our water if great, but in the meantime we're still filling the world with the stuff. Everything comes wrapped in plastic because it's inexpensive and easy... So long as you ignore the long term poisoning of our environment.
There are some interesting new biodegradable plastic replacements being developed, but we should be implementing bans on unnecessary plastic packaging.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything comes wrapped in plastic because it's inexpensive and easy... So long as you ignore the long term poisoning of our environment.
Thanks Temu and Alibaba [npr.org].
Re: The lesser task (Score:2)
AliExpress sellers tend to use minimal packaging because it saves them money. I get way more packaging on domestically shipped goods.
Re: (Score:1)
The replacement for plastic is a constraint-optimization problem:
1. Cost of producing the material per unit mass
2. Biodegradable factor of this material (0 - forever chemicals, 1 - Bamboo)
3. Cost of producing material (raw material input normalized with time to produce final product)
4. Cost of byproducts of production (COx, NOx, SOx emission and their cost of containment/refinement/elimination)
5. Maximize mechanical properties relative to plastic (conductivity, corrosion resistance, density, ductility, elas
Re: (Score:2)
There are some interesting new biodegradable plastic replacements being developed, but we should be implementing bans on unnecessary plastic packaging.
While this is true it doesn't even scratch the surface of the PFAS problem. PFAS are used for a myriad of things (I am sitting on an office chair where the fabric is certainly treated with a PFAS containing chemical, as is every office chair). Plastic packaging is not really the reason this shit is in your drinking water, years of chemical and industrial pollution containing PFAS being discharged into waterstreams is.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all plastics have PFAS added:
https://www.restaurantware.com... [restaurantware.com]
Show us the evidence against PFAS (Score:2)
We're told they're everywhere in massive concentrations, and we should be very, very scared. It's not clear what we should be scared of. We're already full of these things and, err... so? Is there genuine evidence that this is a hazard, or is someone just in the mood for a good health scare? I have not seen the stories of "PFAS cancer" or whatever the alleged problem is.
Re:Show us the evidence against PFAS (Score:4, Informative)
Forever means non reactive now? There’s plenty of forever substances that are also toxic.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, what? If it lasts "forever", that is literally the definition of non-reactive, aside from certainly types of catalytic action that do not apply here.
When chemicals react, they reaction products are by definition different that the original component, that is the definition of reactive.
Re: Show us the evidence against PFAS (Score:2)
It sounds like your entire premise is based on the article summary and the use of the colloquial "forever", rather than studies, science or investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
It hurts to read such purposeful ignorance, when our society has ready access to information. For example [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:3)
Much like micro plastics, we can’t do any studies because there isn’t a person on earth without detectable levels. So no control group.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Show us the evidence against PFAS (Score:4, Informative)
I have not seen the stories of "PFAS cancer" or whatever the alleged problem is.
Here you go [nih.gov].
Epidemiological studies have revealed associations between exposure to specific PFAS and a variety of health effects, including altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes, and cancer.
And now you can ignore it.
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the Wikipedia section [wikipedia.org] on it. Long story, short: Yes, there's documented health risks.
And because it's so inert your body can't eliminate it, so it builds up. Sort of the same reason that asbestos is so scary.
Molecules (Score:1)
The best solution I can think of to the problem of being surrounded by various compounds is to develop a paranoid schizophrenia towards all molecules. Plant tissue for example, contain thousands of various alkaloids with unpronounceable names only barely decipherable with an organic chemistry textbook. Most of which were specific developed by the plant to kill animals -- like humans. Who wants those inside them? Sure, in "ingredients" they say "mango puree" or something. Do you know all the compounds and t
In other news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That sounds great a PFAS detox charge. Can’t wait to pay for that alongside my cell phone’s universal service fee. Who keeps coming up with these things? Invent an imaginary problem and charge real money to make it go away. I prefer the mafia at least they would threaten you with real things that can happen to you if you don’t pay up. Seems more respectable in a way.
Good (Score:2)
A lot of the degeneracy in neural networks among the bipedal biologicals that we see today is related to poor air and water quality.
and that's why you want RFK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Both of them are looney. Biden is the least insane choice for president. Mind you, it's still very much a certifiably insane choice, but it's the least insane one and thus the most sane move to avert more insanity and cruelty.
Well, they need to do even more... (Score:1)