4 ms·
> "cover up the existence of poisonous chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-elected officeholder to have. I'm not sure i
by at-fates-hands 7y ago
> "cover up the existence of poisonous chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-elected officeholder to have.
I'm not sure if you actually read the article, but the EPA has known about this since 2001. Attempting to make this all about the Trump administration is quite myopic.
From the article:
The EPA has known since at least 2001 about the problem of PFAS in drinking water but has so far failed to set an enforceable, nationwide legal limit. The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on two of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS.
The EPA said it has helped states and communities address PFAS and that it is working to put limits on the two main chemicals but did not give a timeline.
If you want to blame someone, blame the EPA for not doing anything for over 17 years.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoThen let's make it about the George W administration. They spent 8 years ceaselessly hammering TERRORISM and GAYS GETTIN MARRIED -- why take action on this? See also: "History of US Presidential Assaults on Modern Environmental Health Protection" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922215/
- deadEndDave 7y agoWhich the Obama Administration then spent 8 years reversing so what's your point? FYI gay marriage wouldn't be legal without the votes of two conservative supreme court judges.
- matthewdgreen 7y agoI was referring to this quote from the parent comment (and 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."