Well, the facts are that this administration will always, without fail, without a single exception, do the opposite of what has been shown to be good for the US people. This isn't a property of authoritarianism either, no other authoritarian state is so uniformly across the board against science, medicine, and technology.

If you have any other suggestion than the reason they do this is something related to money, please be my guest and volunteer. Because otherwise it is the most baffling and self destructive policy making that has ever been documented in the history of humankind.

▲

m_fayer 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The populist wave is global and its causes are complex. But in the case of the US on top of it all, our populists happen to be clowns and morons.

I think the reasonable mind struggles to deal with the current obvious stupidity even within a populist frame, and hunts for a hidden explanation. It’s a lot scarier to believe that the world’s biggest economy and military and nuclear arsenal are somehow in the hands of not just authoritarians, but crooks and morons.

But it’s true. Britain did it too, it happens.

So why do they do it? To play out some idiotic meme-driven culture war, reduced through these people’s small minds to caricature. They don’t think about second order effects, they lack the sophistication for that.

It’s terrifying.

▲

trimethylpurine 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules. Now re-read your comment and look how politically biased you are so much as to be seen as crazy.

Here is the statement from the organization pushing for this.

It really wasn't hard to find either.

https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

▲

colinmorelli 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It seems like the PFAS rules were set in prior administrations [1]. In fact, even in the article you've linked above, the text states:

> retaining its maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS but pulling back on its use of a hazard index and regulatory determinations for additional PFAS

Key word being "retaining," indicating the maximum contaminant levels were already in place prior to the change mentioned here. Putting aside allegations of "political bias," can you point to a source which clearly indicates the PFA limits were put in place by the current administration? Would like to learn if I'm wrong.

[1]: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration...

▲

trimethylpurine 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Absolutely.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 02/documents/pfas_action_plan_021319_508compliant_1.pdf

Trump's first term. February of 2019. Andrew Wheeler's EPA.

You'll also notice that the document lays out planned action dates bleeding generously into Biden's term, and for which Biden later took credit in the document you shared. This is shameful, and sadly normal presidential behavior, taking credit for their predecessor's wins.

If you'd truly like to learn if you're wrong, it's recommended to seek information that disproves your hypothesis rather than proves it. Both this and the previous article I shared were very easy to find and within the first 2 or 3 results.

▲

tensor 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Trumps first term and his second term are entirely different beasts. His first term, although widely regarded as bad, still had mostly competent people across the board running things. This term is absolute lunacy, with tv show hosts cosplaying as government officials.

▲

colinmorelli 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If you'd truly like to learn if you're wrong, it's recommended to seek information that disproves your hypothesis rather than proves it. Both this and the previous article I shared were very easy to find and within the first 2 or 3 results.

Firstly, this is a completely unnecessary comment. My searches were specifically regarding finding the enactment of specific PFA limits. I will acknowledge to not spending that much time looking at it, as you claimed to already have a source and I was curious to see what it was.

But to the point, this document does not outline or set limits on PFAS in drinking water. It's an action plan for measuring and creating limits, but does not itself enforce anything. In fact, every subsequent search I've done has shown that the 2024 Final Rule was the first point at which any limits were put into action.

Quoting directly, the document states that one of the steps being taken is:

> Initiating steps to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS);

In other words, it outlines a plan for the research that is used to 1) determine if MCL should be set, and 2) what, if any, it should be set to. Notably, it does it not itself set that limit or come to a conclusion about what it should be.

Further, this research appears to be a continuation of research released in 2016 [1], which was the first time that a guideline (but not a mandate) was set. This would, of course, be prior to Trump's first administration. This is suggested in the document itself, where it outlines that this document is part of a series of actions beginning in 2015/2016, as well as callouts to specific research in the 2016 article linked below.

So the facts seem to show that: 1) The first guideline was set in 2016. It was not a law at this time. 2) Research continued to identify next steps for setting a standard, which were codified and shared in the 2019 article you linked 3) The 2024 Final Rule put a MCL into action for PFAS.

Take from that chain of events what you will, but the initial accusations of "political bias" seem unfounded here.

[1]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/pf...

▲

trimethylpurine 17 hours ago | parent [-]

You've lost sight of the comment I responded to, in which the poster asserts, in so many words, that there can be no explanation for easing any restrictions other than for profit and authoritarianism, etc. Right? Clearly there is an explanation if you search for a few minutes. So I stand by my allegations of bias against that comment specifically.

Here, you've read and revised the approach to the issue. This last comment does not warrant any allegation of bias, and I make none about it.

The bigger picture is that both parties are interested in clean drinking water. I guess that's obvious to me, and I'm shocked that's not obvious to everyone. Look how many people on this thread actually believe that the Trump administration is literally trying to poison them. That's not crazy to you? It is to me.

	▲	colinmorelli 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair, but I'd like to clarify that in my comment I had asked specifically for any sources indicating that the PFA limits were put in place by the prior administration, since you had made the claim: > Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules Your response was what I perceived to be a snarky comment that if only I had bothered to look, I'd have found the evidence, followed by a link that didn't say what was suggested. > Look how many people on this thread actually believe that the Trump administration is literally trying to poison them. That's not crazy to you? The claims made all over the place are insane to me. Yes, I doubt the Trump administration is actually trying to kill me. The world is not as polarizing and extreme as people on the internet want to make it sound like it is. Most people are far more docile in the real world, but the collective hive of the internet exacerbates tension. I have no clue what side of the political aisle you're on, but my guess is we probably agree about more things than we disagree about, if we could detach bullshit labels from it all. But FWIW, the allegation that I wasn't bothering to learn or see if I'm wrong just raised tension further. I was genuinely trying to determine if the claim was true, the evidence I had found suggested it wasn't, and it seems like it in fact wasn't quite true, but perhaps that wasn't the point you were trying to make anyway. All fine. My hope is that we can all turn down the tension and hostility a level or two. Might be the only hope we have.

▲

Larrikin 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The first administration had some people acting in good faith even if you disagreed with them. This second term does not.

	▲	trimethylpurine 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Giving municipalities more time and money to enact change aligns just fine with what I think most people would call good faith. You just can't please some people, I guess.

▲

21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]