609
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/news
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ceiphas 210 points 1 week ago

"Stop forbidding us to poison poor people!"

[-] Retrograde 158 points 1 week ago
[-] ceiphas 36 points 1 week ago

But the rich can avoid the tap water...

[-] QuadratureSurfer 35 points 1 week ago

It's not just tap water, it's also the non-stick coating on a large number of pans (including Hex Clad which is one of the more expensive sets).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

Wait is all nonstick permanently canceled?!

[-] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago

Yes. Use stainless steel, cast iron, and carbon steel. You can cook everything with these just as easily once you learn some basic cooking skills.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

Laughs in seasoned cast iron

[-] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

Nonstick made with PFAS (like Teflon and most pans that have a dark cooking surface) all contain forever chemicals and none of them will have the nonstick coating last long term. The PFAS in it has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is either in your food or the local wastewater when you wash it. (You better hope you’re not making it airborne, anyway)

There are some types of pans, like ceramic, aluminum, and carbon steel pans, that are marketed as nonstick but don’t contain PFAS. Each have advantages and disadvantages, the YouTube channel Prudent Reviews has a pretty good video here about it.

If you want to avoid PFAS and aren’t sure if something you’re wanting to buy contains it, check the manufacturer site for compliance with California AB1200, which requires them to disclose whether or not an items is manufactured with PFAS. Usually it’s on a separate page, sometimes it just says “state compliance” or something like that at the bottom.

Personally I use stainless steel, which isn’t nonstick at all and has a learning curve, but that shit will last forever and you can abuse the fuck out of it.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

I watched a few of prudent reviews videos and he’s just not trustworthy, especially when he says that PFAS doesn’t matter, because you have to heat it up over a certain temperature to get it to degrade. It’s just completely glossing over the entire issue, which is the creation of the chemicals in the first place, and it’s also completely incorrect because studies have shown that the coatings degrade and offgass for the first few uses. Just so many things wrong. And he says it in every video too.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fedizen 6 points 1 week ago

there's some ceramic-titanium coatings that work ok

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MedicPigBabySaver 26 points 1 week ago

Funny thing is....everyone is poisoned. I absolutely guarantee it. No one escaped this shit.

[-] Jtotheb 16 points 1 week ago

You are very nearly correct in your guarantee., Per ProPublica’s reporting it has been found in basically everyone’s blood except some very isolated groups in rural China

[-] MedicPigBabySaver 7 points 1 week ago

And, whichever science group that interacted with that group also brought items that contaminated them.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

i, a bourgie, only use naturally carbonated pellegrino to flush my crystal toilets

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

A crystal toilet? Peasant. Mine is solid gold and I flush it with melted glacier water flown in just for that purpose.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Pff mine is a private jet and I flush it with liquid methane that combusts on disposal as it hits the exhaust fumes of the jet and I only fly over poor residential areas so the excrement rains down only on them.

It's like you're not even old money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Where do you think bottled water comes from?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 5oap10116 141 points 1 week ago

I do like how their argument basically boils down to "You obviously don't understand how much it will cost us to clean up the giant toxic mess we spent so much money trying to hide."

[-] SlopppyEngineer 31 points 1 week ago

Then they'll have to do what they say they do best: innovate and be efficient.

[-] RememberTheApollo_ 28 points 1 week ago

That’s always their argument.

Dumping trash in the ocean?

Asbestos?

Cigarettes?

Chemicals in the ground?

DDT?

Carbon in the atmosphere?

"You obviously don't understand how much it will cost us to clean up the giant toxic mess we spent so much money trying to hide."

[-] P1nkman 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Which also means line goes down. That is unprecedented, and it'd lower the quality of their lives. Think about the rich people!

So, when do we eat them?

[-] disguy_ovahea 79 points 1 week ago

They had decades to prepare their legal team for this. I don’t expect them to just roll over and accept responsibility.

[-] Blackbeard 56 points 1 week ago

The fact that they're leaning on the "arbitrary and capricious" argument means that they don't have another grounded legal theory for why it's an exceedance of EPA's authority. They're throwing A&C at the wall to see if it sticks because the alternative is willingly take on a liability that's going to potentially peek into the billions of dollars. It's a hail mary, plain and simple.

[-] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago

There's no way this one ends up being only billions; they literally coated the entire surface of the ocean.

[-] Blackbeard 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah it's potentially a much higher cost, depending on how class-action lawsuits play out, but that study doesn't necessarily say it's coating the surface of the ocean. It's diluted into the ocean itself, and because it likes to stick to foam it tends to accumulate at higher concentrations close to the surface. That study is documenting that air particles have a much higher concentration than what's typically seen diluted in sea water, so it's essentially congregating in the air-water interface zone.

But yes, your point is well taken that they're facing catastrophic liability costs from a combination of past health impacts and future cleanup/removal.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Wonderful. I bet bivalve creatures are bioaccumulating tons of PFAS on the beach. Not to mention near-shore fish.

[-] disguy_ovahea 8 points 1 week ago

That’s somewhat reassuring. Thanks!

[-] Blackbeard 19 points 1 week ago

Yeah it's pretty squarely in their wheelhouse.

Does it do the following?

  • the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;

  • the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and

  • in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.

If so, then:

  • the Administrator shall publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate, by rule, national primary drinking water regulations under this subsection.

Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dohpaz42 67 points 1 week ago

It sounds like their only argument is “it’s expensive”, which I find somewhat comforting because then it sounds like they at least agree with the science.

It’s a shame lawmakers don’t put stipulations in that they cannot trickle down those costs to the consumers. It’s not our fault, and we shouldn’t be put in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t position.

Can we form a class-action lawsuit to sue anybody who raises our rates over this? Legit question.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's always their argument and try to spin it as a US problem.

"You'll remove a LOT OF JOBS and make everything more expensive if you ban child labor!"

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The conservatives ethos in a nutshell.

Doing the right thing is expensive, and the only thing in the world that actually matters is money, therefore we should be allowed to do the evil thing, otherwise you hate freedom…or something.

[-] madeinthebackseat 7 points 1 week ago

And they knew a long time ago it would be expensive and did it anyway.

[-] [email protected] 61 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This crime will last for generations - will its reward last generations too? These assholes should die penniless, and have literally nothing to leave their heirs. And those heirs should be audited for the source of any money they make.

Enough of letting these guys have a legacy. Their names should be dragged through the mud and their children sent to public school.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago

That's because these Big Corporations will LITERALLY do the Right Thing without ANY Government intervention or Regulations! CHECKMATE COMMUNISTS!

[-] Blackbeard 18 points 1 week ago

You laugh, but that's exactly what they're claiming, without a hint of irony:

"The businesses in our state, including those in manufacturing, have a proven track record of supporting North Carolina’s economic vitality and doing so responsibly. It is important that we do not hastily pass regulations without fully accounting for both the positive benefits and potential negative impacts proposed rules would have on the state and its business community."

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

"So long as there's a question, don't actually pass any laws" - Big Tobacco, plastics industry, Big Sugar, etc.

[-] Blackbeard 6 points 1 week ago

It's sad how true that is.

[-] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago

"If only the pesky government would stop intervening in the free market, we mega-corps would've all signed up years ago to voluntarily fix the pollution problems we've spent decades covering up... But because you're telling us to, we don't want to." /s

Paraphrasing of course, but this is basically their defence - which is just a tad bit shoddy if you ask me. If they didn't need this law to get their act together, then why is this law having to be made because they didn't get their act together?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gibmiser 21 points 1 week ago

You want us to stop poisoning the world? But that's too hard! I don't wanna! It's too much work! You can't make me!

[-] hark 18 points 1 week ago

These chemical makers should be sued to oblivion for poisoning us all.

[-] P1nkman 12 points 1 week ago

You misspelled tortured. Fuck these cynical assholes!

[-] FlyingSquid 18 points 1 week ago

"Can we at least keep doing the microplastics thing?"

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

How's it going there capitalism?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Burn_The_Right 14 points 1 week ago

Conservatives did this. And they will continue to do this until they are stopped.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago
[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Why won't the plants grow?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
609 points (99.5% liked)

News

21546 readers
4669 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS