6 ms·

Water contamination is one of the main day-to-day sources of health hazards that people face today, the others being air and food contamination. These health ha

Water contamination is one of the main day-to-day sources of health hazards that people face today, the others being air and food contamination. These health hazards exist in varying levels all over the world, some places more than others, in some cases less, much thanks to environmentalist organizations that have put pressure on governments to regulate and install the required sewage cleaning etc. While a spontaneous and completely sane reaction to this is to save oneself by privately installing filters, buying organic etc. these are problems that ultimately and obviously require collective solutions, i.e. by government and through treaties between governments. But if the last year has taught us anything, it is that any government action is likely to be met with equal and opposite reaction (in the west), a reaction that seems to stem in large part and primarily from a section of society that lives by the adage "Après moi, le déluge", and secondarily from the section of the populace that has been spoon-fed conspiracy theories (by the former?) about the government and its nefarious nature. I suspect there are readers here that might disagree with the above, and it's not my intention to start a flame war. Instead I'd be interested to hear if there are any rational reasons why the government should not be given adequate means to regulate and follow up that regulation with the required inspections to make sure toxins are not released into the general environment that forms the basis of our, as well as other biological, present and future, life.

sneak 6y ago
> But if the last year has taught us anything, it is that any government action is likely to be met with equal and opposite reaction (in the west), a reaction that seems to stem in large part and primarily from a section of society that lives by the adage "Après moi, le déluge", and secondarily from the section of the populace that has been spoon-fed conspiracy theories (by the former?) about the government and its nefarious nature. I think this is perhaps a vast oversimplification, driven by a desire to attribute to nilhilism and idiocy/impressionability what may actually be deeper philosophical differences, held sincerely by intelligent people. It seems pretty common these days to ascribe people's differing philosophical viewpoints to misinformation, conspiracy theories, foreign influence, or whatever. It's possible that reasonable, intelligent people, just like you, simply disagree on the best ways to address these problems, and that it's not as simple as that they've been "spoon-fed conspiracy theories". (Source: I'm one of the people in that camp. Government regulation is one tool in the drawer, but it's not a very good one for causing sweeping societal change, IMO. Tesla, for example, did vastly more for the move to automotive electrification than all of the previous US government attempts up to that point.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- stareatgoats 6y ago
  > Government regulation is one tool in the drawer, but it's not a very good one for causing sweeping societal change So you at least acknowledge a role for the government in this. Just as I acknowledge that private companies can have a positive impact. Maybe what we both need to do is to isolate the hardline extremists in each camp (people that can only see government solutions in one, and people that can only see private solutions in the other), and find rational solutions to the problem. Which is sort of what I want to accomplish with this thread, sorry if it was over the top provocative.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > So you at least acknowledge a role for the government in this. No. I mean, "attempt to kill everyone who doesn't agree precisely with me, and take over the whole world and run it precisely the way I see fit" is also a tool in the drawer. Acknowledging the fact that some people choose to take that path, and that it is a tool that this tool-using species uses sometimes, does not in any way signal my acceptance or endorsement of such a choice. I don't think that everyone that is entirely opposed to government-based solutions to the problem (or even entirely opposed to the concept of a government or a state in general) is a "hardline extremist".
    - stareatgoats 6y ago
      Aha, I see. Well, extremism is a relative term, depending on environment. In certain cryptocurrency circles I'm sure your stance is normal, in society at large it's rather extreme though, as is equating "kill everyone who doesn't agree with me" with government action in any way. The problem with this line of argument from my point of view is you oppose and obstruct highly needed government action on principle, without providing an alternative solution. The plan to offer billionaires a new start on other planets doesn't count as an alternative, sorry. But as mentioned before, if you have an alternative solution to the problem of the constantly accumulating toxins in the environment that subtracts government action from the equation up your sleeve, I'm all ears.
wuschel 6y ago
You could not bath in the river Rhein in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. That changed through the political green movement and the institutionalization of their ideas. Now you can bath again in those rivers, and drink water from a tap without being afraid - unfortunately, a lot of producing industries have moved on to greener, cheaper pastures, where ecologic and environmental, let alone human protection is not really at a high standard. The approach to deal with the "Après moi, le déluge" and conspiracy people is a tricky one. Only partly in can be covered with an economic (private jet tax, rejection of clinic entry/travel to people who are not vaccinated) and educational approach - but we are far from being close to an optimum here. Democracies need educated and politically mature people in order to be stable in the long term, and strong institutions that can bring forward a healthy discourse.
- oblio 6y ago
  Small nitpick: I think the verb in this context is "bathe", bath is the place. One of those "joys" of learning English as a second language.
  - anotherhue 6y ago
    Nitpick pile on: Bath (capital B) is a place. A bath is optionally an abbreviation of bath-tub, or some sort of past tense conjugation of bathe 'I had a bath' that I am insufficiently skilled in grammer to identify. "I had a bath in Bath" is ambiguous as to whether you previously owned a person sized water container, or made use of the city's famous roman bathing facilities.
    - adolph 6y ago
      Baths can be had and also taken. Unfortunately “I took a bath in Bath.” is triply ambiguous in that it might mean that you stole plumbing, that you cleaned yourself via water immersion or that you lost a significant amount of money.
      - AuthorizedCust 6y ago
im3w1l 6y ago
The government is inept, and will often do symbolic token gestures. Plastic is a big case in point. They are going for useless plastic bag bans, and plastic straw bans instead of the real issues. Clothes made from recycled plastic bottles (yay recycling(?) are shedding fibers into our waters as they are washed. How is that ok? Now just to be clear, one thing I saw in the US which I found pretty disturbing, was those small plastic bags used for fruits. Sometimes they were so low quality that they visibly shed little chunks of plastic. I'm fully behind banning those. But as flawed as government is, I guess it's still better than nothing.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > They are going for useless plastic bag bans Plastic ban bags have made a huge difference in many countries. In much of the developing world, it used to be the case that discarded plastic bags were lying everywhere, flying along, stuck en masse to any barbed-wire fence, etc. Once the bans came in, the level of such pollution has visibly dropped.
  - scrollaway 6y ago
    Indeed. Straws were symbolic and their ban has little effect, but the bag bans are amazing and in some countries the plastic cup bans are almost as effective at reducing trash on the street. There are environmentally beneficial effects to these but there are also significant effects on overall litter. It's like when soda can manufacturers switched their tab system to one that doesn't get discarded.
  - addicted 6y ago
    This! Plastic bag bans have been a massive quality of life improvement in nearly every city I visit regularly. I am not sure what the impact of plastic straw bans has been. Beyond just the symbolism, however, they would have been a useful step towards reconsidering the use of all single use plastic if COVID hadn’t picked up when it did.
  - ajurna 6y ago
    i totally agree. in Ireland we had a lot of grumbling about it at the time but the impact on plastic pollution in the streets and fields and roads has been massive. plastic straw ban has little impact mostly because people tend to leave their drinks in the fast food restaurant rather than take them home. it't not as obvious that it's helping and aren't the cups coated in plastic?
whoknew1122 6y ago
In the US at least, buying organic won't necessarily save you. Whether something's actually organic is highly dependent on whether the farmers and grocers actually adhere to the guidelines. You could theoretically be audited, but I never saw or heard of a single audit in the 4-5 years I worked in produce at a national grocery chain. Granted, this was over 10 years ago. But given the regulatory climate in over those years, I would be shocked if enforcement was made stricter. That's also ignoring the fact that non-organic farming began in part as a way to more cheaply and efficiently grow food, thereby supporting a larger population. It might be hard to unwind that clock simply because of the food demands of the current human population.
ryanmarsh 6y ago
But if the last year has taught us anything, it is that any government action is likely to be met with equal and opposite reaction We have yet to see government action that was thoughtful, well communicated, consistent, and devoid of politics. If the government could accomplish such a thing I see no reason why it would need to be met with equal and opposite reaction.
- supertrope 6y ago
  There will always be single issue voters and reactionaries who amplify agendas no deeper than a one line slogan.
ryandrake 6y ago
Coronavirus has convinced me that most of the world (and the USA in particular) totally lack the ability and will to act boldly and collectively in response to an emergency. The Climate Change folks were making this exact point for years but I only started believing it after seeing government after government fail to control the pandemic. Most governments were either too slow or too cowardly to make and enforce major societal behavior changes for the good of everyone. We should consider ourselves lucky that it was “only” a moderately-deadly disease, and not something worse. I can imagine government’s reaction to a space alien invasion: Day 100, after most cities are destroyed, government is still weighing the pros and cons of taking action, and debating whether or not to write a resolution condemning the alien attack.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  It's not just the public health measures thethey were bad at. After more than six months, the US still could not do better than direct payments to individuals and businesses. During that time, a competent organization would have found targeted and efficient ways to stimulate the economy. All the Feds know how to do at this point is dump cash.
  - andrei_says_ 6y ago
    The political friction is so high that the political institutions literally produce smoke and fire before doing anything meaningfully useful.
- yes_man 6y ago
  > We should consider ourselves lucky that it was “only” a moderately-deadly disease, and not something worse. A lot of people think that the governmental reactions are slow and lame because covid isn’t a disease morbid enough to threaten civilization, as something like a full blown ebola pandemic for example could be. Which is probably true to extent. But I agree 100% with you and people are crazy to think that governments would somehow suddenly be competent in handling a worse disaster than covid, given the complete (almost) worldwide failure to curb this plague. From initial downplaying and silencing scientists and doctors in China, to rise of anti-mask and anti-vaccine crowds and even voices in governments, to our incapability as a global world to handle the production and logistics of the vaccinations... when a disaster worse than covid strikes in the future, it will be the same shitshow, only with higher stakes
zug_zug 6y ago
Oof I think you couldn't be more wrong on this point. I think environmental contamination is the issue that most strongly can unite both left and right. Believing more in conspiracy is actually a great reason to mistrust the water supply. Given that men's testosterone and sperm rates have been falling for decades (with no cause known, but best hypothesis is chemicals in environment)[1], I particularly expect there to be a common ground. After all, Alex Jones (right-wing, conspiracy theory nut) has been concerned about a herbicide named atrazine that arguably can change the gender of frogs (he mistakenly said turn them gay). "A 2010 Hayes study concluded that atrazine rendered 75% of male frogs sterile and turned one in 10 into females,"[2] and atrazine is just one of many such man-made "xenoestrogens" [3]. In fact, I'm a bit shocked how slow both sides are to start caring about this issue. 1 - https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-counts-continue-to-fall/572794/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-cou... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen#Common_environmental_estrogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen#Common_environmen...
slibhb 6y ago
There should be government regulations (perhaps including more regulation of drinking water). But the torturous political process that is currently required to enact those regulations is a good thing and the gist of your post, "just sweep aside all the nihilistic whiners stonewalling and fix the problem," is the wrong approach. My perspective is liberal: there are no good, simple solutions, there's no such thing as a "general will," people don't agree, have good reasons to not agree, and therefore the political squabbling, as tiring as it is, is healthy. Buried within your perspective is, I believe, the incorrect and somewhat dangerous idea that there is a way to harmonize society if only we'd grant the right powers to the right people. I think civilization is best thought of as a tragic compromise and attempts to make it something else never end well. None of that is to say you're wrong to advocate for more and better regulations. Only that there are valid reasons to argue for fewer regulations or to be skeptical about the government's ability to regulate this or that.
- datavirtue 6y ago
  There is regulation. You have to print a warning on the package when you sell people PCBs at Menards.
heimatau 6y ago
> Water contamination is one of the main day-to-day sources of health hazards that people face today, the others being air and food contamination. I'll second this. I'm on the path at spending about $20 per month for fairly clean water and $20 a month for the air. I haven't solved the food contamination problem as I didn't have my sights on it but I'll include it now (I have been trying to cook at home more over the past two years, so maybe I've been taking baby steps here without realizing it). As for the government, re:regulation, I'm trying to shy away from the politics because (at least for America) it's burdened down by identity politics instead of policy focused discussions. As for me and my house, we're doing our part to bare the costs of personal responsibility.

sneak 6y ago

> But if the last year has taught us anything, it is that any government action is likely to be met with equal and opposite reaction (in the west), a reaction that seems to stem in large part and primarily from a section of society that lives by the adage "Après moi, le déluge", and secondarily from the section of the populace that has been spoon-fed conspiracy theories (by the former?) about the government and its nefarious nature. I think this is perhaps a vast oversimplification, driven by a desire to attribute to nilhilism and idiocy/impressionability what may actually be deeper philosophical differences, held sincerely by intelligent people. It seems pretty common these days to ascribe people's differing philosophical viewpoints to misinformation, conspiracy theories, foreign influence, or whatever. It's possible that reasonable, intelligent people, just like you, simply disagree on the best ways to address these problems, and that it's not as simple as that they've been "spoon-fed conspiracy theories". (Source: I'm one of the people in that camp. Government regulation is one tool in the drawer, but it's not a very good one for causing sweeping societal change, IMO. Tesla, for example, did vastly more for the move to automotive electrification than all of the previous US government attempts up to that point.)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stareatgoats 6y ago
> Government regulation is one tool in the drawer, but it's not a very good one for causing sweeping societal change So you at least acknowledge a role for the government in this. Just as I acknowledge that private companies can have a positive impact. Maybe what we both need to do is to isolate the hardline extremists in each camp (people that can only see government solutions in one, and people that can only see private solutions in the other), and find rational solutions to the problem. Which is sort of what I want to accomplish with this thread, sorry if it was over the top provocative.
- sneak 6y ago
  > So you at least acknowledge a role for the government in this. No. I mean, "attempt to kill everyone who doesn't agree precisely with me, and take over the whole world and run it precisely the way I see fit" is also a tool in the drawer. Acknowledging the fact that some people choose to take that path, and that it is a tool that this tool-using species uses sometimes, does not in any way signal my acceptance or endorsement of such a choice. I don't think that everyone that is entirely opposed to government-based solutions to the problem (or even entirely opposed to the concept of a government or a state in general) is a "hardline extremist".
  - stareatgoats 6y ago
    Aha, I see. Well, extremism is a relative term, depending on environment. In certain cryptocurrency circles I'm sure your stance is normal, in society at large it's rather extreme though, as is equating "kill everyone who doesn't agree with me" with government action in any way. The problem with this line of argument from my point of view is you oppose and obstruct highly needed government action on principle, without providing an alternative solution. The plan to offer billionaires a new start on other planets doesn't count as an alternative, sorry. But as mentioned before, if you have an alternative solution to the problem of the constantly accumulating toxins in the environment that subtracts government action from the equation up your sleeve, I'm all ears.

wuschel 6y ago

You could not bath in the river Rhein in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. That changed through the political green movement and the institutionalization of their ideas. Now you can bath again in those rivers, and drink water from a tap without being afraid - unfortunately, a lot of producing industries have moved on to greener, cheaper pastures, where ecologic and environmental, let alone human protection is not really at a high standard. The approach to deal with the "Après moi, le déluge" and conspiracy people is a tricky one. Only partly in can be covered with an economic (private jet tax, rejection of clinic entry/travel to people who are not vaccinated) and educational approach - but we are far from being close to an optimum here. Democracies need educated and politically mature people in order to be stable in the long term, and strong institutions that can bring forward a healthy discourse.

oblio 6y ago
Small nitpick: I think the verb in this context is "bathe", bath is the place. One of those "joys" of learning English as a second language.
- anotherhue 6y ago
  Nitpick pile on: Bath (capital B) is a place. A bath is optionally an abbreviation of bath-tub, or some sort of past tense conjugation of bathe 'I had a bath' that I am insufficiently skilled in grammer to identify. "I had a bath in Bath" is ambiguous as to whether you previously owned a person sized water container, or made use of the city's famous roman bathing facilities.
  - adolph 6y ago
    Baths can be had and also taken. Unfortunately “I took a bath in Bath.” is triply ambiguous in that it might mean that you stole plumbing, that you cleaned yourself via water immersion or that you lost a significant amount of money.
    - AuthorizedCust 6y ago

im3w1l 6y ago

The government is inept, and will often do symbolic token gestures. Plastic is a big case in point. They are going for useless plastic bag bans, and plastic straw bans instead of the real issues. Clothes made from recycled plastic bottles (yay recycling(?) are shedding fibers into our waters as they are washed. How is that ok? Now just to be clear, one thing I saw in the US which I found pretty disturbing, was those small plastic bags used for fruits. Sometimes they were so low quality that they visibly shed little chunks of plastic. I'm fully behind banning those. But as flawed as government is, I guess it's still better than nothing.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> They are going for useless plastic bag bans Plastic ban bags have made a huge difference in many countries. In much of the developing world, it used to be the case that discarded plastic bags were lying everywhere, flying along, stuck en masse to any barbed-wire fence, etc. Once the bans came in, the level of such pollution has visibly dropped.
- scrollaway 6y ago
  Indeed. Straws were symbolic and their ban has little effect, but the bag bans are amazing and in some countries the plastic cup bans are almost as effective at reducing trash on the street. There are environmentally beneficial effects to these but there are also significant effects on overall litter. It's like when soda can manufacturers switched their tab system to one that doesn't get discarded.
- addicted 6y ago
  This! Plastic bag bans have been a massive quality of life improvement in nearly every city I visit regularly. I am not sure what the impact of plastic straw bans has been. Beyond just the symbolism, however, they would have been a useful step towards reconsidering the use of all single use plastic if COVID hadn’t picked up when it did.
- ajurna 6y ago
  i totally agree. in Ireland we had a lot of grumbling about it at the time but the impact on plastic pollution in the streets and fields and roads has been massive. plastic straw ban has little impact mostly because people tend to leave their drinks in the fast food restaurant rather than take them home. it't not as obvious that it's helping and aren't the cups coated in plastic?

whoknew1122 6y ago

In the US at least, buying organic won't necessarily save you. Whether something's actually organic is highly dependent on whether the farmers and grocers actually adhere to the guidelines. You could theoretically be audited, but I never saw or heard of a single audit in the 4-5 years I worked in produce at a national grocery chain. Granted, this was over 10 years ago. But given the regulatory climate in over those years, I would be shocked if enforcement was made stricter. That's also ignoring the fact that non-organic farming began in part as a way to more cheaply and efficiently grow food, thereby supporting a larger population. It might be hard to unwind that clock simply because of the food demands of the current human population.

ryanmarsh 6y ago

But if the last year has taught us anything, it is that any government action is likely to be met with equal and opposite reaction We have yet to see government action that was thoughtful, well communicated, consistent, and devoid of politics. If the government could accomplish such a thing I see no reason why it would need to be met with equal and opposite reaction.

supertrope 6y ago
There will always be single issue voters and reactionaries who amplify agendas no deeper than a one line slogan.

ryandrake 6y ago

Coronavirus has convinced me that most of the world (and the USA in particular) totally lack the ability and will to act boldly and collectively in response to an emergency. The Climate Change folks were making this exact point for years but I only started believing it after seeing government after government fail to control the pandemic. Most governments were either too slow or too cowardly to make and enforce major societal behavior changes for the good of everyone. We should consider ourselves lucky that it was “only” a moderately-deadly disease, and not something worse. I can imagine government’s reaction to a space alien invasion: Day 100, after most cities are destroyed, government is still weighing the pros and cons of taking action, and debating whether or not to write a resolution condemning the alien attack.

CameronNemo 6y ago
It's not just the public health measures thethey were bad at. After more than six months, the US still could not do better than direct payments to individuals and businesses. During that time, a competent organization would have found targeted and efficient ways to stimulate the economy. All the Feds know how to do at this point is dump cash.
- andrei_says_ 6y ago
  The political friction is so high that the political institutions literally produce smoke and fire before doing anything meaningfully useful.
yes_man 6y ago
> We should consider ourselves lucky that it was “only” a moderately-deadly disease, and not something worse. A lot of people think that the governmental reactions are slow and lame because covid isn’t a disease morbid enough to threaten civilization, as something like a full blown ebola pandemic for example could be. Which is probably true to extent. But I agree 100% with you and people are crazy to think that governments would somehow suddenly be competent in handling a worse disaster than covid, given the complete (almost) worldwide failure to curb this plague. From initial downplaying and silencing scientists and doctors in China, to rise of anti-mask and anti-vaccine crowds and even voices in governments, to our incapability as a global world to handle the production and logistics of the vaccinations... when a disaster worse than covid strikes in the future, it will be the same shitshow, only with higher stakes

zug_zug 6y ago

Oof I think you couldn't be more wrong on this point. I think environmental contamination is the issue that most strongly can unite both left and right. Believing more in conspiracy is actually a great reason to mistrust the water supply. Given that men's testosterone and sperm rates have been falling for decades (with no cause known, but best hypothesis is chemicals in environment)[1], I particularly expect there to be a common ground. After all, Alex Jones (right-wing, conspiracy theory nut) has been concerned about a herbicide named atrazine that arguably can change the gender of frogs (he mistakenly said turn them gay). "A 2010 Hayes study concluded that atrazine rendered 75% of male frogs sterile and turned one in 10 into females,"[2] and atrazine is just one of many such man-made "xenoestrogens" [3]. In fact, I'm a bit shocked how slow both sides are to start caring about this issue. 1 - https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-counts-continue-to-fall/572794/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-cou... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen#Common_environmental_estrogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen#Common_environmen...

slibhb 6y ago

There should be government regulations (perhaps including more regulation of drinking water). But the torturous political process that is currently required to enact those regulations is a good thing and the gist of your post, "just sweep aside all the nihilistic whiners stonewalling and fix the problem," is the wrong approach. My perspective is liberal: there are no good, simple solutions, there's no such thing as a "general will," people don't agree, have good reasons to not agree, and therefore the political squabbling, as tiring as it is, is healthy. Buried within your perspective is, I believe, the incorrect and somewhat dangerous idea that there is a way to harmonize society if only we'd grant the right powers to the right people. I think civilization is best thought of as a tragic compromise and attempts to make it something else never end well. None of that is to say you're wrong to advocate for more and better regulations. Only that there are valid reasons to argue for fewer regulations or to be skeptical about the government's ability to regulate this or that.

datavirtue 6y ago
There is regulation. You have to print a warning on the package when you sell people PCBs at Menards.

heimatau 6y ago

> Water contamination is one of the main day-to-day sources of health hazards that people face today, the others being air and food contamination. I'll second this. I'm on the path at spending about $20 per month for fairly clean water and $20 a month for the air. I haven't solved the food contamination problem as I didn't have my sights on it but I'll include it now (I have been trying to cook at home more over the past two years, so maybe I've been taking baby steps here without realizing it). As for the government, re:regulation, I'm trying to shy away from the politics because (at least for America) it's burdened down by identity politics instead of policy focused discussions. As for me and my house, we're doing our part to bare the costs of personal responsibility.