3 ms·
This is the comment I made in the other thread [1]: It's nonsense, for example there is no "I used pure water in the input to the process" exemption; why would
by foobarqux 2y ago
This is the comment I made in the other thread [1]:
It's nonsense, for example there is no "I used pure water in the input to the process" exemption; why would there be, the output is what matters. And I believe even unprocessed potable water can be illegal to dump due to the presence of chlorine/fluorine.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229100
- mlindner 2y agoWhether it has chlorine or not depends on the treatment system used. The document states only 0.2 micrograms of chlorine per liter of water.
- foobarqux 2y agoI didn't claim that there was chlorine in the dumped water, I said it was no defense to claim use of "potable water" in itself. But this is missing the point entirely which is that you must demonstrate to the EPA that you are not going to dump toxins into the water before you start a process that might do so. Not doing that is reckless disregard for the most basic public health concerns (not risking having your food and water poisoned). You are addressing a different question which is have they already illegally dumped toxins into the water. I don't know but as I said in a different comment, given his history I would take anything he says with a high-degree of skepticism.