In practice, this means 3M is continuing to create harm from the risks they spent decades covering up
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!
They had decades to prepare their legal team for this. I don’t expect them to just roll over and accept responsibility.
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.
Happy 1-year anniversary on Lemmy! Mine’s coming up in a couple of weeks.
😁
There’s no way this one ends up being only billions; they literally coated the entire surface of the ocean.
Wonderful. I bet bivalve creatures are bioaccumulating tons of PFAS on the beach. Not to mention near-shore fish.
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.
That’s somewhat reassuring. Thanks!
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.
-
Conservatives did this. And they will continue to do this until they are stopped.
“Stop forbidding us to poison poor people!”
Oh mate, they’re poisoning literally everyone
But the rich can avoid the tap water…
No they can’t. Do you know where fancy spring water brands get their water? The fucking tap, that’s where.
Wrong. The rich uses lab-grown water, clean from all the chemicals!
Reverse osmosis, which wastes a lot.
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).
Wait is all nonstick permanently canceled?!
there’s some ceramic-titanium coatings that work ok
They all seem to scratch and flake
Laughs in seasoned cast iron
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.
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.
I haven’t watched any of his other videos to be honest, that one was just helpful for me when deciding whether I should try carbon steel or ceramic pans instead of stainless steel.
Yes it does. I just gave a tfal stainless skillet to a buddy who complained he’d burned his no-stick up, by falling asleep while cooking on low (obviously I can’t vouch for the veracity of this). He cooked once in it and promptly burned food onto it and bought a cheap, non-stick electric skillet. He has the funds to afford better, too.
I hung on to my well -seasoned cast iron.
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.
Where do you think bottled water comes from?
hopefully a land where these chemicals are not produced or its dumping into rivers is forbidden
Yeah, think again
Funny thing is…everyone is poisoned. I absolutely guarantee it. No one escaped this shit.
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
And, whichever science group that interacted with that group also brought items that contaminated them.
i, a bourgie, only use naturally carbonated pellegrino to flush my crystal toilets
A crystal toilet? Peasant. Mine is solid gold and I flush it with melted glacier water flown in just for that purpose.
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.
The bubbles help clean stains!
These chemical makers should be sued to oblivion for poisoning us all.
You misspelled tortured. Fuck these cynical assholes!
Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.
I’m glad I’m on a well
Unless your well is drawing from an uncontaminated aquifer that isn’t recharged by rainwater, that doesn’t really help you. This class of chemicals wound up pretty much everywhere.
I was referring to the utilities response not the pollution itself. You’re not wrong.
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.
And they knew a long time ago it would be expensive and did it anyway.
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!”
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.
That’s because these Big Corporations will LITERALLY do the Right Thing without ANY Government intervention or Regulations! CHECKMATE COMMUNISTS!
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.”
“So long as there’s a question, don’t actually pass any laws” - Big Tobacco, plastics industry, Big Sugar, etc.
It’s sad how true that is.
But its what we crave!
Why won’t the plants grow?
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.
And their children made to drink from public water supply**
How’s it going there capitalism?
…yea.
“Can we at least keep doing the microplastics thing?”
deleted by creator
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.”
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.”
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?
Then they’ll have to do what they say they do best: innovate and be efficient.
“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?
The government could just auction off the rights to pollute and make sure that the amount up for auction is within nature’s carrying capacity. Then let the companies bid and let the markets do their thing. Then the government can say the market has spoken and come down hard on those polluting to much and defrauding the market.
