5 ms·

Let me make sure I understand this correctly, because you're saying this is a good thing, and I'm thinking we need to track down whoever wrote this regulation a

Let me make sure I understand this correctly, because you're saying this is a good thing, and I'm thinking we need to track down whoever wrote this regulation and put them in an assisted living facility because I don't think they should be trusted to dress themselves. The EPA has wide unilateral authority to ban new uses, for which we have little to no usage data for. But if we start executing those uses and get actual usage data that a substance is harmful, the EPA is toothless? And that's a good thing why exactly? > You’ll never get a law that says “EPA can ban anything it wants, costs be damned.” Yet we do, they apparently can only do it based on wild guesses though. Data and informed decisions be damned; well just let them keep making PFAS, and have the citizens pay for the externalities through health insurance premiums, the true blue American way. > Inhance has been using this same fluorination process for 40 years. The EPA itself has repeatedly told companies doing flourination they’re not covered by PFA orders. The EPA changed its mind based on new science, for probably reasonable reasons. But it’s entirely fair to make it go through the processes in the law for banning a longstanding use, instead of trying to use its authority over new uses to get at the same thing. Quick, someone tell the tobacco lobby, they're gonna love this! Something something long standing usage something something loss of jobs something something market cap something something, you can't regulate cigarettes!

NickM 3y ago
you're saying this is a good thing I don't think the parent comment said that. They just said that the rules were set this way deliberately, and that it's not just a loophole, which is an interesting and informative thing to point out. I don't like the outcome, nor do I like the system that enabled it, but it's useful to have a deeper understanding of why things are the way they are.
- everforward 3y ago
  > But it’s important to understand that Inhance is also relying on a rule that was deliberately incorporated into the law we have, decades ago, for good reasons. It's like right at the top of that post. And > But it’s entirely fair to make it go through the processes in the law for banning a longstanding use, instead of trying to use its authority over new uses to get at the same thing. At the bottom. It's capped on both ends with calling it a good thing. > I don't like the outcome, nor do I like the system that enabled it, but it's useful to have a deeper understanding of why things are the way they are. Sure, but questions about whether the rule is deliberate or not are answering "how", not "why". In fact, it's mostly trying to distract from the "why" to answer "how".
rayiner 3y ago
> The EPA has wide unilateral authority to ban new uses, for which we have little to no usage data for. But if we start executing those uses and get actual usage data that a substance is harmful, the EPA is toothless? It’s not toothless, but it has to use that data to make a stronger showing of harm balanced with economic impact. You’re looking at it only from the point of view of avoiding harm from pollination. But the economic side of that dichotomy is that it’s less pain to ban something that nobody is using yet than something that’s widely used and people rely on.

NickM 3y ago

you're saying this is a good thing I don't think the parent comment said that. They just said that the rules were set this way deliberately, and that it's not just a loophole, which is an interesting and informative thing to point out. I don't like the outcome, nor do I like the system that enabled it, but it's useful to have a deeper understanding of why things are the way they are.

everforward 3y ago
> But it’s important to understand that Inhance is also relying on a rule that was deliberately incorporated into the law we have, decades ago, for good reasons. It's like right at the top of that post. And > But it’s entirely fair to make it go through the processes in the law for banning a longstanding use, instead of trying to use its authority over new uses to get at the same thing. At the bottom. It's capped on both ends with calling it a good thing. > I don't like the outcome, nor do I like the system that enabled it, but it's useful to have a deeper understanding of why things are the way they are. Sure, but questions about whether the rule is deliberate or not are answering "how", not "why". In fact, it's mostly trying to distract from the "why" to answer "how".

rayiner 3y ago

> The EPA has wide unilateral authority to ban new uses, for which we have little to no usage data for. But if we start executing those uses and get actual usage data that a substance is harmful, the EPA is toothless? It’s not toothless, but it has to use that data to make a stronger showing of harm balanced with economic impact. You’re looking at it only from the point of view of avoiding harm from pollination. But the economic side of that dichotomy is that it’s less pain to ban something that nobody is using yet than something that’s widely used and people rely on.