While I agree that the clean water and air acts are certainly good things, I truly wonder if they’ve done as much good as people like to think. Not trying to say this as fact - it’s an honest question. Those acts, along with other environmental legislation (again not making any value judgements on any of the legislation in and of itself) essentially pushed manufacturing and therefore the environmental problems overseas to Asia, namely China. In other words, both of these regulations/acts are basically NIMBY acts IMO that haven’t reduced or eliminated pollution, they’ve just redistributed it. And in return, we get junk that doesn’t last and ends up in landfills leeching God knows what info the soil and water and are almost entirely dependent on them to maintain the level of consumerism that we’ve grown accustomed to - myself included. Nothing is ever really going to change until we as a society can get away from such gross over consumption and corporate greed.
PFOS & PFAS Levels In Lake Erie Walleye
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Joined
·
775 Posts
Abolish the irs & go back to import taxes and that will bring the jobs back to this country. Then you can control the pollution. Mexico is a great polluter too.
Joined
·
745 Posts
I retired from the steel industry last March after 43 years. The environmental regulations made a major improvement to water quality. Some industrial production moved to other countries not as strict but it is not that simple. Many US mfg companies failed to invest in better technology until forced to as there was no $economic$ return. I am not in favor of arbitrary regulations but sometimes they create the economic drive to create better technologies. The USA steel industry is the cleanest in the world today by all measures such as CO2 or NOX, or water pollutants per ton of steel produced. Farming practices are changing to reduce dissolved phosphorus and siltation. We all need to promote good practiced and recycle wherever possible. 380 million occupants in USA can have personal impact. Use glass and wash it instead of disposable products, etc.
Joined
·
1,758 Posts
Mn4 - if environmental regulations had any role in the offshoring of American manufacturing it was a minor one. Greed, and policies putting corporate interests over citizen interests are/were much larger factors.
But, this conversation isn't about "what abouts" it is about what is in front of us now. How we understand the present issues and how we react to them.
While I believe we should all be skeptics at times, the current atmosphere of denialism and using politics and key buzz words to spin and blindly support or oppose anything based on political filters and who we perceive is telling a story - from flea farts to national sovereignty - is flat out foolish.
Some people are having more thought and conversation on meaningless topics like fireball/fireball whisky or getting fired up about banning gas stoves and discounting real issues that may very well have lasting society wide effects - like forever chemicals... Why? Because it is uncomfortable, it is complicated, technical, they don't have a basic understanding of it.... and they don't like to admit that we just don't know enough.....it is easier to reduce it to a boogy man threat, point fingers, deflect, stick our heads in the sand, and claim blissful ignorance.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
But, this conversation isn't about "what abouts" it is about what is in front of us now. How we understand the present issues and how we react to them.
While I believe we should all be skeptics at times, the current atmosphere of denialism and using politics and key buzz words to spin and blindly support or oppose anything based on political filters and who we perceive is telling a story - from flea farts to national sovereignty - is flat out foolish.
Some people are having more thought and conversation on meaningless topics like fireball/fireball whisky or getting fired up about banning gas stoves and discounting real issues that may very well have lasting society wide effects - like forever chemicals... Why? Because it is uncomfortable, it is complicated, technical, they don't have a basic understanding of it.... and they don't like to admit that we just don't know enough.....it is easier to reduce it to a boogy man threat, point fingers, deflect, stick our heads in the sand, and claim blissful ignorance.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
Joined
·
745 Posts
I’ve been doing a little research when I can to better understand these issues. Found this article interesting and informative. Best short explanation in layman’s terms that I’ve found so far.
What You Need to Know About PFAS, PFOA, and PFOS | Naperville Injury Lawyers
Free Consultation - Call (630) 527-1595 - Collins Law Firm is dedicated to providing our clients with legal services in Injury and Accident cases. What You Need to Know About PFAS, PFOA, and PFOS - Naperville Injury Lawyer
www.collinslaw.com
Joined
·
745 Posts
Here is another article.
amp.cancer.org
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), and Related Chemicals
The possible effects of PFOA (and similar chemicals such as PFOS) on cancer risk are not completely understood. Learn more about these chemicals here.
amp.cancer.org
Completely agree that the overarching reason is greed - environmental regulations (both the good and the ridiculous), paying workers a livable wage (sweatshops are definitely a big boost to the bottom line), taxes, etc. are all contributors. What bothers me is when people point to the Clean Water Act as some sort of huge environmental victory and use it as support to create/force through environmental policy that is dubious at best when the mass exodus of US manufacturing for whatever the reason has probably had more to do with air and water quality improvements than the actual legislation.
Joined
·
2,214 Posts
How many of you looked at the raw data from the study to apply your reasonable conclusions from this data?
What conclusions would you draw from the data?
We have plenty of smart people on this site and my point is it doesn't take a PHD or higher level college education to look at data objectively to see if you are concerned.
Too many scientists are paid to or manipulated to draw conclusions to support the study.
To me the data along with the conclusions drawn have very little correlation. It stinks to manipulative science which I hope we are all SICK of at this point. Our world is full of manipulative science and evil persons who are trying to take away the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. If I am oversensitive to this, I can live with that. I hope that you will stop taking the word of all scientists as laws of physics.
A wise man once said "trust but verify." I know who said it but too many people would think that is political. I prefer to verify before I trust now anyways.
Rickerd
What conclusions would you draw from the data?
We have plenty of smart people on this site and my point is it doesn't take a PHD or higher level college education to look at data objectively to see if you are concerned.
Too many scientists are paid to or manipulated to draw conclusions to support the study.
To me the data along with the conclusions drawn have very little correlation. It stinks to manipulative science which I hope we are all SICK of at this point. Our world is full of manipulative science and evil persons who are trying to take away the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. If I am oversensitive to this, I can live with that. I hope that you will stop taking the word of all scientists as laws of physics.
A wise man once said "trust but verify." I know who said it but too many people would think that is political. I prefer to verify before I trust now anyways.
Rickerd
Joined
·
745 Posts
I am not concerned. The risk appears neglible for me and my family. I plan to eat as many walleye and steelhead as I can from Lake Erie fishing trips
Joined
·
4,210 Posts
As long as someone is trying to make money we will be faced with pollution. As long as anyone is trying to make their standpoint known for their reasons we will have biased information.
After following several of the links throughout several of the studies and given the publicity these chemicals have already received I believe those chemicals are present in many of the fish I eat.
I will continue to eat them and probably do nothing about those that put the chemicals into our systems as I feel mostly powerless.
I hope “someone” will take care of these issues soon.
Does anyone know “someone’s” phone number? If so, please call him/her and ask them to do “something”.
In the meantime, I guess I’ll get back to my walleye dinner…
In all seriousness, what are you (any of us) going to do tomorrow to change this?
After following several of the links throughout several of the studies and given the publicity these chemicals have already received I believe those chemicals are present in many of the fish I eat.
I will continue to eat them and probably do nothing about those that put the chemicals into our systems as I feel mostly powerless.
I hope “someone” will take care of these issues soon.
Does anyone know “someone’s” phone number? If so, please call him/her and ask them to do “something”.
In the meantime, I guess I’ll get back to my walleye dinner…
In all seriousness, what are you (any of us) going to do tomorrow to change this?
Joined
·
90 Posts
As a person eating my first Erie fish at 15 yrs.old and have been the last 55 yrs. I am more worried about lead poisoning from a 20 yr old jealous husband. 
I'll wait for a report from Fauic.
I'll wait for a report from Fauic.
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
You can eat it but you have to wear a mask.
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
Agreed. Let's tamper the agenda/political side jokes. The "sky isn't falling" but nothing wrong with being aware of what our grandkids are eating at summer fish fry's.
Kip
Joined
·
1,758 Posts
Just last week the US EPA released draft drinking water standards for PFAS at 4 parts per trillion (ppt). As a comparison, the primary drinking water MCL (maximum contaminamt level) for benzene (one of the main carcinogens in gasoline) is 5 parts per billion (ppb) and vinyl chloride is 4 ppb.
So, if/when this goes into effect, the required drinking water levels for PFAS/PFOS will be ~ 1,000 times lower than the level for vinyl chloride. That isn't trivial, political, biased science, or biased reporting. Should show many of us how serious these forever chemicals are being taken.
www.epa.gov
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
So, if/when this goes into effect, the required drinking water levels for PFAS/PFOS will be ~ 1,000 times lower than the level for vinyl chloride. That isn't trivial, political, biased science, or biased reporting. Should show many of us how serious these forever chemicals are being taken.
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | US EPA
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and drinking water
www.epa.gov
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
Joined
·
745 Posts
So the question is what level of these contaminants is shown to increase risk of what health concerns based on what scientific and statistical studies? Admittedly, I have only reviewed links provided here and a few other websites. From what I’ve seen, there is reason for concern mostly because these chemical compounds don’t breakdown in nature. There are a lot of things we ingest that don’t breakdown, just pass through. I don’t have a problem finding alternatives, but implementing drinking water standards based on fear of the unknown that may not be achievable without large cost is not scientific. Please provide the science if you have links for all of us to become more knowledgeable. Thanks
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
