Let's be clear. Conservatives allowed this. Not the U.S... Conservatives (including neo-liberals) have always allowed corporations to kill Americans in whatever manner they choose.
This will never end unless conservatism is extinguished.
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
236 points (96.5% liked)
World News
31452 readers
1109 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Who is the US but the people who run it?
Their victims???
Why not both?
You mean Africa?
The US is a State. Dont confuse the State with the people who happen to live within that States so-called borders
Is something wrong with comments? You asked who lives in the US??
No. I didn't. Re-read my comments. The US is the people who make up the State, which is distinct from the people who live in the States so-called boarders.
There's a difference.
Conservatives allowed this. Not the U.S… Conservatives (including neo-liberals) have always allowed corporations to kill Americans in whatever manner they choose.
Who do you see in US politics as not conservatives? And second question, what about Conservatism is pro-pollution? Are you sure that's a feature of conservatism?
Agree, 100%.
Ah yes, because conservatives are subhuman and definitely not something like half of the US voterbase.
This is a US problem, plain and simple.
Liberalism allowed this, what Americans understand as conservativatism is included under that umbrella. Capitalism and its ideology liberalism are killing us and the planet.
The Graduate - 1967
This one word is how they allowed toxic chemicals to seep into our lives.
The scene is even more strange considering Dustin Hoffman was a chemist for Maxwell House before becoming an actor. If anyone might have been familiar with the dangers of plastics at that point, it might have been someone like Hoffman.
The poster children of "forever chemicals", PFASs, are not plastics. I'm not defending plastics as utterly harmless, but it's wrong to point the finger solely at plastics.
The first thing the article cites was related to platic products like water bottles.
But sure lets play platics police instead of reading the article.
It's an article about a boatload of products, and plastics absolutely are referenced and fit in that category of products.
The first thing the article cites is perfluorooctanoic acid, a PFAS compound, and their examples of its use are pans, carpets, shoes, and coats.
An example in a category isn't the same as your original claim of "this one word is how they allowed toxic chemicals to seep in". And you're confusing the drinking water contaminated with PFASs with the plastic contaminated with phthalates and PCBs.
Most plastics are not inherently toxic.
And not every toxic chemical is from plastic.
A Small price to pay for the holy profit
Blessed be the quarterly earnings reports!
What? Would you rather the ultra rich be only super rich? Communists!
TLDR:
$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$$. $$$ $$ $$$ $$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But in recent years, scientists have accumulated enough data to conclude with confidence that humans face significant health risks from exposure to common commercial chemicals, and that regulations designed to protect them are failing.
Premature babies in intensive care units appear to have higher amounts of plastics chemicals called phthalates in their bodies, likely from exposure to breathing equipment, according to a 2020 paper authored by Chris Gennings, director of the division of biostatistics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues.
Although the EPA told the Examination it agrees that TSCA “largely failed to serve its purpose” over its first four decades, it said the 2016 update allows the agency to “effectively protect human health and the environment” through a slew of new mandates and regulatory authorities.
“Despite facing a massive increase in responsibilities and statutory deadlines from the most significant piece of environmental legislation enacted in a generation, the [Trump] administration never asked for any additional resources to implement TSCA,” the agency said.
Vogel says that over the past several decades, advancements in the understanding of the human genome, microbiome and other bodily systems have allowed researchers to begin developing a better picture of these types of non-cancer risks from exposure to even very small amounts of chemicals.
“The agency is focused on improving its ability to address multiple chemicals at once, thereby accelerating the effectiveness of regulations, enforcement actions, and the tools and technologies needed to remove PFAS from air, land and water,” the EPA said.
The original article contains 3,079 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 92%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Safety is written in B L.O O D...gaurd rails don't go up until someone falls over. Fire exits did not exist until entire buildings with people burned down, and just like military contractors who are chosen at the lowest bidder, the Minimal safety features are generally implemented. How many people can escape down a fire ladder? just One At A Time. Not very useful when fire is at your back and the entire floor needs to go that way...
