US Drinking Water Widely Contaminated With 'Forever Chemicals' (reuters.com) 314
The contamination of U.S. drinking water with man-made "forever chemicals" is far worse than previously estimated. with some of the highest levels found in Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans, said a report on Wednesday by an environmental watchdog group. From a report: The chemicals, resistant to breaking down in the environment, are known as perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Some have been linked to cancers, liver damage, low birth weight and other health problems. The findings by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) show the group's previous estimate in 2018, based on unpublished U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, that 110 million Americans may be contaminated with PFAS, could be far too low. "It's nearly impossible to avoid contaminated drinking water from these chemicals," said David Andrews, a senior scientist at EWG and co-author of the report.
Oh, great. (Score:5, Funny)
Things were going so great for the environment, and now this...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oh, great. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh, great. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder, do your normal water filters catch these things, like the ones you have in your fridge for filtering the cold water dispensers?
No they do not.
I live in the suburbs of Philadelphia and I have PFOS and PFAS in my drinking water. The contamination stems from fire fighting chemicals (foams) used in training drills at a local Naval air base. At first they said don't worry, then people started testing the water. The levels came back well above the EPA safe levels. So they fixed the problem by doubling the EPA safe limit on the chemicals...
My local water authority has been closing wells and getting water from alternate sources. At first they put a surcharge on my water bill. I sent them a note indicating that I was not pleased with being charged for them having fed me poisoned water for the past 30 years. Especially considering we know where the pollutants came from. They have since removed the charges, but as far as I understand it the U.S. Navy has done little to nothing to remedy the problem. There was a community meeting and they handed out some bottled water. It was akin to trump throwing paper towels at Puerto Ricans.
I have been using a water cooler and buying 5 gallon bottles of water for the past few years.
Re: Oh, great. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Oh, great. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Activated carbon only works with chemically active substances. PFAS and PFOS chemicals are neutral like a Nobel gas they don't react pretty much with anything, which is why they were used to fight fires. Activated Carbon isn't going to remove them. Just about the only way to get rid of them is steam distillation, and I'm not positive they wouldn't aerolize and recombine with the distillate.
These are some really stable really bad chemicals that were used for decades in fire fighting at airports. They are bas
Re: (Score:3)
The must react with something. Otherwise they would not be toxic.
Re:Oh, great. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's great until you realize that your bottled water comes from 'PWS'
Re: Oh, great. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder, do your normal water filters catch these things, like the ones you have in your fridge for filtering the cold water dispensers?
Short answer: No
Longer answer: The small filters in a fridge, under sink are carbon filters and they may remove some PFAS, but an insignificant amount. Carbon filtration is a contact sport and you need larger filters to increase the amount of contact and time in contact with the carbon. If you want to filter PFAS you need household two-stage carbon filtration system, or reverse osmosis system, and maintain the system properly.
Tangentially, the average person is exposed to PFAS from more sources than just dr
Re: Oh, great. (Score:2)
and now this...
Relax; if you're just now figuring out that "innovative, designer molecules" are a threat to human health, you've got far bigger problems - and BTW, don't drown when it rains...
Anti-science Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article
In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.
I don't think there's been a more anti-science administration in the post WWII era.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Really?
You don't think it is the socialist, bat shit crazy far left leanings that his opponents have been putting forth as the "new path" for America which goes against pretty much everything the US is supposed to be about?
I mean, frankly, if there were a sane 3rd party candidate that was more middle of the road in all, had maybe slightly left leaning social polic
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:2)
Yah, I cringe when I see Trump but it's either him or batshit crazy leftist moonbats.
Gotta have one to have the other, and vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
The American left would be considered, in any other country, to be center-right. The *far* left in America would be just barely left of center in any other country.
Most of you seem so terrified of a government that might spend money to help someone who is not exactly like you. (You seem comfortable spending insane amounts of money on military and corporate welfare and subsidies, and agricultural welfare, but god forbid that someone with slightly off-white skin should get to see a doctor without paying.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Again, this keeps being said and it means exactly NOTHING...if we wanted to be like Europe, we'd be like Europe and would have been long ago.
How we feel about left/right here has nothing to do with the rest of the world. If you want to be that way, more power to you, but it means squat in an argument about US politics.
That's the nice thing abo
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
You do not speak for all Americans.
Iâ(TM)m a born-and-raised American. I completely agree that our choices are basically between center-right Democrats and batshit-crazy-far-right Republicans, and Iâ(TM)m not happy about it.
The Republican party does *not* stand for small government or fiscal responsibility. Their actions over the last 40 years prove otherwise. Theyâ(TM)re getting closer and closer to straight-up fascism. Corruption and collusion are apparently perfectly okay now. It is the party of doublethink.
Given the choice between that and *any* Democrat, Iâ(TM)ll take the Democrat. Iâ(TM)d prefer a more progressive option but I know how to be pragmatic.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, this keeps being said and it means exactly NOTHING...if we wanted to be like Europe, we'd be like Europe and would have been long ago.
it very much means something. It shows how full of shit certain American conservatives are when they claim Democrats are communists and their policies hopelessly too far to the Left to ever work. There's very little about Sander's or Warren's policies that haven't been shown to work in dozens of other countries.
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:3)
...in any other country, to be center-right
By "any other country," you mean Western Europe or one of three Crown Colonies (everywhere else still has death penalties, for fuck's sake).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do you think it is normal to wear that hood? I'm not buying it.
Re: (Score:2)
And what it means to the rest of the world means exactly fuck all....nothing.
If we wanted to be like Europe, we'd not have left Europe.
What's right/left here has always been different on the scale from much of the world, and that's a good thing.
Choice...we like it. the way it is here and to keep repeating that crap is useless and meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
To those of us who do interact with people in other parts of the world, it means quite a bit. Our family is preparing to move to Europe, and we'll be taking our educations, our businesses, and our assets with us. You can have your false choice of "far-right" or "slightly right of center". Enjoy!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the wonderful thing about choice and free will and the ability to travel.
People are free to live where the government and environment are more to their choosing.
This is a great reason that the US stat
Re: (Score:2)
The American Revolution happened because people wanted to get away from an authoritarian ruler who was not constrained by laws. Remind you of anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that you have left Europe because you prefer to be stuck in an echo chamber with like minded people, which somehow results in actual choice which you find good unless the choice is being more like the rest of the world, which would be abominable.
Right.
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:3)
No, that's not how it works.
If Trump has reason to think Biden is involved in illegal activities, he asks the AG to start an investigation. He cannot preasure another country to do it because he lacks the evidence to do it at home.
Re: (Score:2)
What you call "crazy leftist moonbats" is what the rest of the world calls "slightly conservative". But down the Fox News and back away slowly. Everything will be OK.
I could be mistaken but does the rest of the world have a problem where the largest group of people is actively told that they are not OK? When someone write 'it's OK to be white' but the response that we see clearly says no, it's not ok. That's the most racist thing I can imagine and the charge is led by white "crazy leftist moonbats". Sorry but if I'm not considered ok why on Earth would I vote for you?
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the majority in the US are far from either extreme, but are forced to choose between what they see as the lesser of two evils.
^ This
Couldn't agree with you more. The far left and far right extremes are ridiculous.
Where I differ is that I see any reasonable adult as being better than trump. And until that magical charismatic 3rd party candidate emerges and vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for trump.
I am left with only one option.
Re: (Score:2)
And your attitude is why the Democratic Party pretty much ignores the voters and decides on a very unlikable candidate. They know you have no other choice, so they can put a corporate stooge in front of you and you'll vote for them over Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
I never said Trump was any less of a stooge. If anything he's a stooge for his own corporation...
Candidate likability is relevant, but it's not the sole factor. There are plenty of people I'd have a beer with that I don't want running the country, but there aren't any people I want running the country that I wouldn't be willing to have a beer with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem for the impeachment by the House is that it's partisan. Totally partisan.. Why do you now complain that the trial is partisan? You just wave your hand and dismiss what the House did as irrelevant?
Reading the discussions of the framers on Impeachment, it's obvious they didn't intend it to be used for this kind of thing. You may or may not like Trump, you may or may not like what you think he did, but everybody needs to realize that unless this whole mess has some kind of actual mismanagement,
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Withholding the military funding (even though he eventually gave in) was a crime according to the GAO. His actions clearly go far beyond the limits set forth in the Constitution. And if he isn't held accountable, next time it will be much worse.
Re: (Score:3)
That's like saying that it is OK to kick in the doors of the guilty without bothering with things like search warrants as they're guilty.
The justice system, including due process, is supposed to work the same for everyone, and everyone is presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law.
Just like the Chief of Police can't kick in your door without a warrant, even if you are guilty, the President is supposed to follow laws.
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden was sent there by the congress specifically to pressure the Ukraine to fire that prosecutor. Trump decided to withold that funding after the DOD and State department had certified that Ukraine had made the requisite changes to reduce corruption, and congress had voted to give them the funds, illegally exceeding his authority to do so.
You seem to have a very muddled idea about what actually happened, you might want to educate yourself [justsecurity.org] on how it all actually played out.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem for the impeachment by the House is that it's partisan. Totally partisan.. Why do you now complain that the trial is partisan? You just wave your hand and dismiss what the House did as irrelevant?
Reading the discussions of the framers on Impeachment, it's obvious they didn't intend it to be used for this kind of thing. You may or may not like Trump, you may or may not like what you think he did, but everybody needs to realize that unless this whole mess has some kind of actual mismanagement, corruption or self enrichment at it's core that can be proven beyond a doubt, this isn't what they intended.
IMHO the impeachment of Clinton was a bridge too far. Yea, they had him on lying under oath pure and simple so there was an actual crime there which was provable (he actually paid a price for it) but in his case wasn't about his actions as a president. The case being used to impeach Trump is far less relevant and is based solely on opinion. Nobody ever heard Trump actually SAY what was alleged he said, it's all reading between the lines and assumptions. This isn't a bride too far, it's a bridge to nowhere... Not that it matters, everybody knows how this episode turns out, Trump will serve out the rest of his first term, maybe more.
IF you choose to dismiss what was done totally along partisan lines in the House as irrelevant, fair enough. But, if you do that, you really cannot fault the Senate for doing basically the same thing.
It's only partisan because the republican party is allowing a criminal to keep power because they don't want to lose control. Foreign assistance , suppression of votes, erosion of trust in intelligence and news agencies. Misinformation. Whatever it takes.
Real republicans (for the most part) think trump is a scumbag , just like everyone else with an I.Q. over 110.
Re: (Score:3)
As a Republican, I can assure you Trump is a scumbag.. But I can also assure you that Democrats are too, they just hide it. But my personal feelings about folks don't really matter all that much here, unless of course I work for them, they for me or they live next door.
What option do I have, other than support Trump who, despite how I feel about him personally, actually is enacting policies and making efforts which I approve of greatly - Unlike many so called republicans who shall remain nameless who made me similar promises.
Trump is just an easy target because he's not hiding who his is. Everybody knows about him and his past eventful life, nobody should be surprised by how brash he is at times, that's who he is.
Using your personal feelings to justify an impeachment just doesn't make sense any more than thinking some nice looking guy cannot be guilty of a crime because you like his suit and how he smiles.
The Mueller report did not exonerate trump, in fact it was quite the opposite. If trump were any other United states citizen he would be in jail right now.
I don't like him because he is a criminal. I don't like him because he is actively undermining the national security of the united states ( read : alienating our long standing allies while praising dictators and human rights violators). I don't like him because he represents a clear and present danger.
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Informative)
The Mueller report did not exonerate trump, in fact it was quite the opposite. If trump were any other United states citizen he would be in jail right now.
I don't like him because he is a criminal. I don't like him because he is actively undermining the national security of the united states ( read : alienating our long standing allies while praising dictators and human rights violators). I don't like him because he represents a clear and present danger.
It is not the place of a criminal investigation to exonerate anyone, the only role of a criminal investigation is to recommend prosecution or not.
The investigation recommended against prosecution because it did not find evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anything else referenced in the report was outside the authority of the investigation and should either be ignored or censured.
As the investigation found no evidence against the prospective defendant stronger than hear-say, not prosecuting was the only possible recommendation.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I personally do not believe that any other political figure on the national stage could survive an investigation with the scope and funding of the Muller investigation without anything prosecuteable being found for the primary target.
Trump may be a jack-ass, but he is a surprisingly clean one, legally speaking.
The -only- reason prosecution was not recommended is because in 1973 the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Council concluded that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Since Mueller was working for the DOJ in his capacity as Special Counsel he could not recommend prosecution. If not for the overwhelming obstruction of justice demonstrated by the trump administration there would have been far more evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
They literally can not. Mueller's mandate ended at the report he provided to congress. He can not "recommend prosecution", that is literally what impeachment is, the recommendation by congress of a sitting president for trial in the senate. That is a power of congress, not the justice department.
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody ever heard Trump actually SAY what was alleged he said, it's all reading between the lines and assumptions.
Bullshit. You either have your head in the sand or you rely on Trump-supporting pseudo-news sites, or your Twitter feed, for your 'news' -- or you're a Trump supporter and anything that isn't Republican vetted is automatically assumed to be false by you. There's transcripts that make it amply clear, and Trump doesn't even deny what was said, he just denies that it was wrong, because he thinks 'President' equals 'Dictator' or 'King'. He is of course completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Poverty?
Of all the things to blame Trump for.. LOL..
IF you actually look at the numbers, it is the low end of the economic scale folks who have benefitted the most from the economic situation over the last few years. They are making more money, more of them are employed, they are working more hours and things are generally improving for the folks who where once in poverty. The Welfare roles are dropping as more folks find work. How's that poverty?
Re: (Score:3)
Did Fox News tell you that? AmericanThinker? One American Network?
Because it's not true. Wages have not risen in real terms. The welfare roles are dropping as people are forced off welfare.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not Fox... Poverty is less and less of an issue in the Trump economy.
And 3% wage growth is higher than inflation which is tracking at 2.3% so REAL wages ARE going up and they are going up at the low end faster.
I don't know where you are getting your lies from, but you need to check your sources again.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a viable 3rd party candidate like I describe in my original post, I'd be first in line to vote for them.
Again, if there were one, this would be one of the first times in a long time that he would have a real chance to win, which would be nice and shake up our entrenched 2 part
Re: (Score:2)
These chemicals and their effect on critical thinking and general sense of right and wrong are probably the only thing keeping Trump in office.
Keep it up.
The smug, self-righteous, pompous left are going to hand him a second term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can agree that's not smug. That's childish.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:2)
It was, however, the smug folks that helped the idiot get elected, and who will probably get him reelected. The left cannot ignore, and certainly can't continue to insult the people in the "heartland". It seems to be the only culture they do not have a disproportionate "respect" for. They have no choice but to vote for a "blunt weapon" that most of them wouldn't have otherwise let onto their doorsteps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument comes down to the ridiculous idea that a minority of people who live in rural counties should have control of government policy, overruling the majority.
Those rural folk voted for someone who is currently impoverishing them, which is probably the best reason they should be ignored: they don't know what's good for them.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that they vote for Trump out of spite? How exactly is this not stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
So Americans don't care that the 'best economy' is being paid for entirely by taking trillions out of the deficit? They don't care that the jobs being created aren't really great jobs even though there are plenty of them? Still the original point stands.
They don’t care either that this roaring economy mostly benefits about 10% of the population. The US treasury is being looted by the wealthiest 10% and none of it is benefitting the remaining 90%. How many regular working Americans are actually experiencing an income bonanza because the stock market is surging and it’s easier to hire a financial management firm to cheat on your taxes than ever before? Working Americans don’t have access to those kinds of services even if they had a few extra bucks squirrelled away to invest which most of them don’t.
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:2)
Fact is, we need to get ppl in office that have a backbone
Better make 'em assasination-resistant...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bernie Sanders.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I dislike a lot of things Clinton did, like NAFTA, but he was the GOAT of deficit shrinking. He cut the fat, not the meat. I'm all for starving the beast, if by "the beast" we mean the military-industrial-media-consultant complex.
It's really simple: government is just we, the people. Government is good. Corruption of government is bad. Let's not imagine we can cure the patient by killing him. Cut out the rot, then let the body politic heal.
You know who wants to get rid of our representative democracy/republ
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
True story, last election cycle I wanted to talk to my elected officials. My representative, I met with him over lunch, we chatted for about an hour and a half, he let me have more time because he wanted to hear what I had to say.
Then I tried making an appointment with my senators.
Their staff told me that they were too busy to talk to constituents, so they could probably fit me in to talk with a staff member in 6 -8 weeks.
A few days later I called back, I (lying) told them a fake name and that I was a new Lobbyist working for Lockheed Martin, could I chat with the Senator? I got half an hour two days later.
I did not go to the appointment because I knew I would be thrown out when I showed my id and id didn't match the fake name I had given.
so you see who runs my senators? I bet yours are exactly the same.
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:2)
So Americans don't care that the 'best economy' is being paid for entirely by taking trillions out of the deficit?
Federal Debt is not like personal debt. More debt means the Dollar is weaker vs. foreign currencies, less debt makes it stronger. A weaker dollar means exports from the US are cheaper, so in many cases it's actually beneficial for the Dollar to not get too strong. It's more accurate to describe the debt as the taxpayers indirectly subsidizing Trade.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest problem with that is eventually the dollar becomes weak enough that nobody trusts it anymore and it loses its reserve currency status. That's what China has been pushing for (to have the yuan established as a reserve currency). At the point that the dollar is no longer trusted (or individuals, companies, or nations no longer wish to hold our debt or purchase our newly issued debt), then everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Look at many parts of the world where inflation is astronomic. Look b
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Which GREAT jobs? Easy to make that claim, harder to back it up. It's just skill and class shaming. You are implying there are no structural problems with our economy, and every single individual could be wealthy, if only they worked harder or got more skills. That is a lie.
If everyone become a doctor or lawyer, the economy would collapse. Saying everyone should just get more skills if they want more money is tantamount to saying "Although certain jobs are necessary to the function of the economy, we should not pay those jobs a living wage, and should exploit those workers for our own benefit." That's sociopathic.
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
When you say "the world isn't fair," I hope you realize that the primary reason humans organize together into societies is to make it more fair, right? You are engaging in a classic is/aught fallacy. You honestly seem to be arguing that we should not even try to make the world more fair. That's quite antisocial and perverse.
Very, very few people really want equality of outcome. Even sub par individuals tend to recognize that hard workers should be rewarded more. So your argument is a straw man. What you are really trying to claim with that argument is that we DO have equality of opportunity, and that people who claim otherwise actually want equality of outcome. This is deliberate propaganda: you are assuming the premise, and constructing an argument AS IF the premise were true. That's how propaganda works. Your communication style is dishonest and manipulative.
I'm a fifty year old white man with a good tech job. Don't fucking worry about me, pal. It may surprise you but in fact, many successful people want a better world for everyone, not just themselves. Not all motivations are selfish.
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:2)
Re: Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that, for the most part, wage growth hasn't happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well dumping $1 Trillion in deficit spending into the economy will tend to make the numbers better. And it will be well north of that for 2020 and 2021. So enjoy the good times before them chickens come home to roost. It will take only on mild inflation to raise interest rates before the budget really starts hemorrhaging. And SS and Medicare numbers are starting to scare even the alleged Administration. Another problem is that if the U.S. comes to be considered shaky, then interest rates will need to r
Re: (Score:2)
From the article
In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.
I don't think there's been a more anti-science administration in the post WWII era.
Uh, try not to confuse science with pure unadulterated greed, which is the usual motivation behind shit like this.
We no longer have to speculate if roles have reversed, and the government is a representative of corporations now. It's obvious.
FUD (Score:2)
The link source is BS, scary sounding blame trump with no real info. Lets look at the scary forever chemicals, Perfluoroalkyl substances , https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Associations between PFAS and metabolic syndrome are inconsistent within and across studies.
IE, more science needs to be done, but with reporters and libtards spreading FUD all because orange man bad.
And more data from a source that would lean against anything not organic: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Evidence for cancer is limited to manufacturing locations with extremely high exposures and insufficient data are available to characterize impacts of PFAS exposures on neurodevelopment. ...limited data should not be used as a justification to delay risk mitigation actions for replacement PFASs.
Again, suggesting more science needed, but conclude with not wanting for data. We now have a baseline of "safe" concerning
Re: (Score:3)
The link source is BS, scary sounding blame trump with no real info.
You didn't read the article or my quote from it at all did you?
My prior quote from the article:
In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.
But yeah, sure, the article offers no real data.
On top of that, also from the article.
The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on two of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS.
So we have two government agencies here agreeing that these things are a problem or at least have enough of a potential to be so that they should be limited..
IE, more science needs to be done, but with reporters and libtards spreading FUD all because orange man bad.
Absolutely, the article you didn't read literally agrees with you that more research needs to be done (although it didn't engage in your half-wit partisan slandering in doin
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think there's been a more anti-science administration in the post WWII era.
Just a reflection of the general population. In a democracy, a stupid leadership is always a sure indicator that there are too many stupid voters. In essence, the population is doing it to themselves.
Re:Anti-science Administration (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, I assumed most slashdotters didn't live under rocks. This is far from the first case of this administration attempting or actively censoring science that disagrees with its political goals.
https://eos.org/articles/trump... [eos.org]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/1... [nytimes.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/sc... [theguardian.com]
https://www.ucsusa.org/resourc... [ucsusa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, get back to me when one is actually built. After that, nothing you have said refutes that fact that this administration has made a habit of attempting to or activity silencing scientist and their research.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resourc... [ucsusa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the solution is grand conspiracy! The problem isn't the White House silencing scientists and their research, the problem is all of the scientists!
For someone with a post signature about the evils of silencing free speech you seem very quick to jump on the liberal conspiracy bandwagon to defend the silencing of scientists.
In other words, if the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is wrong in this case then the White House shouldn't have to silence them.
There is only one question to ask. (Score:2)
Do they turn the friggin' frogs gay?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they turn the friggin' frogs gay?
No just the evangelical frogs.
Change required. (Score:2)
"It's nearly impossible to avoid contaminated drinking water from these chemicals,"
If this stuff gets through our water filtration systems then it seems to me that we need to change how we filter water, potentially even fundamentally. It would be interesting to see if water vapor distillation systems are capable for keeping this stuff out.
Re: Change required. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whole home RO systems don't make a ton of sense. There's lots of water use (washing, toilets, etc) that doesn't need the same level of filtration as drinking/cooking water. You can get a single sink system for a under $400 that is sufficient to provide all of the drinking water needed for a family.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's worth pointing out that RO is actually too good at filtering "contaminants" out of water. The resulting water is so pure (only distilled is purer) that it will draw minerals out of your teeth and body if you drink it. The same problem exists for piping pure RO water from desalination through pipes - it draws metals out of the pipe. So the last couple "filters" in an RO system are actually there to put back minerals for taste and to reduce the water's tendency to dissolve everything including the pipes it's traveling through.
We grew up in and our bodies are designed to cope with a dirty environment. Making the environment too clean actually puts our bodies outside the range they're designed to operate in, and will cause problems just as if the environment is too dirty.
No, just no.
This is so patently false, it's hilarious. Drinking distilled water is safe. If the minerals aren't in the water, then you're getting it from your food. /RO water, but no one is doing that.
Maybe if you were fasting while drinking distilled
Stop spreading misinformation.
Don't drink tap-water in the 3rd world! (Score:2)
Oh, wait, this is in the US? Well, then this _must_ be fake news, nothing to worry about!
Re: (Score:2)
Water is a Forever Chemical (Score:2, Interesting)
Bad science writing is bad.
Also - don't live in cities if you want to enjoy a healthy environment. It's not just the water. At least make the trade-off consciously, but don't act shocked and surprised.
A decade ago I had a water distiller at my city office that l ran overnight. Every morning I would have a gallon of water for drinking that day and a couple ounces of putrid orange sludge to pour down the drain.
Don't put these kinds of things in your brain, if you value it.
couple ounces from a gallon? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if you care... (Score:2)
Not that "forever" (Score:5, Interesting)
Activated Charcoal and RO both remove PFAS. Ban the drugs, begin large scale strategic filtering. Better yet, run it through the charcoal inline (yes, the delay for filtering means clean water infrastructure will have be expanded overall to end with the same output that exists now) and it'll cost money but it's a drop in the bucket (he he he) compared to any other major issue on the table.
I doubt many people will object to spending on a clean water supply. Being able to afford a whole house filter won't prevent these toxins from being in your food and in beverages while out or your children's drinks from the water fountain at school. You can't just spend your way into solving the problem for yourself without solving for everyone else. Even if you wanted to handle it with property taxes so you only paid for your own community, the water and contaminants are going to cross those lines. Also core infrastructure spending is one of the areas all the economists agree boosts the economy.
This is a no-brainer for bi-partisan support. The only question is which level of government should fund it, since these are commercial bi-products which run off from one state to another unchecked, it is more or less a blanket issue nationally, and limiting or solving this issue is clearly in the interest of the general welfare it seems like this could reasonably be funded federally.
EWG is a non-science-based advocacy organization (Score:5, Informative)
Totally depressing. Known since 1973? (Score:3)
I read a book back in 1973, "Survival of the Wisest" by Jonas Salk (You remember who he was, don't you?). https://www.amazon.com/Surviva... [amazon.com]
This article totally depresses me. Dr. Salk was claiming in his book that the plastics we were using were going to hang around and kill us someday. If I remember correctly he focused mainly on Styrofoam, but I seem to recall that Teflon was also specifically named for breaking down into microparticles and circulating into the body.
Crap! We could could have started mitigating the evil effects 'way back when. And since then we have a proliferation of similar plastics plus thousands of other plastics that are going to do tremendous damage until we either find a way to clean them up or mutate into something that thrives on them... Too late for me, though.
Re: (Score:2)