609
Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of ‘Forever Chemicals’
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
609 points (99.5% liked)
News
23293 readers
5038 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. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
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
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.
There's no way this one ends up being only billions; they literally coated the entire surface of the ocean.
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.
Wonderful. I bet bivalve creatures are bioaccumulating tons of PFAS on the beach. Not to mention near-shore fish.
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:
Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
Happy 1-year anniversary on Lemmy! Mine's coming up in a couple of weeks.
😁