Industry groups said the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as PFAS, are linked to cancer and health risks.
            • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
              21·
              12 days 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.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              15·
              12 days 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.

              • tyler@programming.dev
                6·
                12 days 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.

                • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  2·
                  12 days ago

                  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.

              • Maeve@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                11 days ago

                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.

          • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
            16·
            12 days 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

            • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
              6·
              12 days 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.

          • ceiphas@lemmy.world
            1·
            11 days ago

            hopefully a land where these chemicals are not produced or its dumping into rivers is forbidden

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          4·
          12 days ago

          No they can’t. Do you know where fancy spring water brands get their water? The fucking tap, that’s where.

  • 5oap10116@lemmy.world
    141·
    12 days 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.”

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      28·
      12 days 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@lemmy.world
        6·
        12 days 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@lemmy.world
    79·
    12 days ago

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

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      56·
      12 days 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.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldMEnglish
          19·
          12 days 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.

        • Wahots@pawb.social
          7·
          12 days ago

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

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldMEnglish
          19·
          12 days 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.

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
    67·
    12 days 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@lemmy.world
      32·
      12 days 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!”

      • jaspersgroove@lemm.ee
        171·
        12 days 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.

  • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    61·
    12 days 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.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    28·
    12 days ago

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

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      18·
      12 days 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.”

  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    25·
    12 days 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?

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      2·
      12 days ago

      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.

  • gibmiser@lemmy.world
    21·
    12 days 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!

  • TurtlePower@lemm.ee
    2·
    12 days ago

    Take those chemical makers, hold them down, and force their forever chemicals down their fucking throats. I’m sick of these shitlords killing us.

    • silence7OP
      1·
      12 days ago

      You don’t want to do that — these chemicals don’t break down in the environment after they die, but keep on circulating basically forever.