nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

This should have been done long ago.

  • BertramDitore@lemm.eeEnglish
    38·
    1 month ago

    If the Supreme Court lets it stand. Reminder: executive agencies don’t have deference to independently interpret laws like the Clean Drinking Water Act anymore, so this new rule will stand until someone decides to challenge it, and until a court decides they’d rather continue poisoning future generations instead of allowing the experts to do their jobs, which is something SCOTUS would apparently prefer.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      1 month ago

      Literally EVERY red state will sue to keep those pipes.

      I mean, obviously not all of them, the rich neighborhoods will have their shit fixed quick, but damned if Tennessee will spend good money to fix pipes going to those people.

      • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        1 month ago

        I assume the rich neighborhoods will have already have had their pipes replaced, in which case it would only be those people who are affected. Not that I have anything to back that suspicion up.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      12·
      1 month ago

      Which is why it’s absolutely essential to elect enough Democrats in the Senate to enable court expansion.

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      5·
      1 month ago

      What was that quote? Americans will always do the right thing, after trying every other options.

  • Jagothaciv@kbin.earth
    8·
    1 month ago

    It’s crazy how shitty my parents end of the Boomers are at taking care of the country. It’s almost as if they’re completely incompetent (they are). They got the shit beat out of them by banks, petrochemical companies and religious weirdos.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    16·
    1 month ago

    Let the age of plastics, and the synthetic endocrine disruptors they produce (which have been variously linked to increases in autism [1], endometriosis [1], heart disease [1], and gender nonconformity [1], among other things), REIGN SUPREME!

    P.S, I’m aware some of what endocrine disruptors have been linked to might seem like controversial claims, but they do not invalidate the lived experiences attached to them. Someone with autism or gender non-conformity isn’t suddenly invalid just because synthetic hormone analogues might have acted as catalysts, anymore than someone with endometriosis will suddenly stop feeling pain just because plastic hormones were highlighted as one possible cause. The endo pains are still real, just as the identities are real… Just like in the previous century lead induced increases in crime and violence were real. The crimes and jail sentences weren’t somehow erased or invalidated just because lead may have been influencing people’s behavioural limits. We are sacks of chemicals, we changed as the composition of what’s in the sack does… Whether that change is from thoughts, education, practice, training, medicine, environmental conditions, habits, experiences, lifestyle, perceptions dreams, ideological shifts, or moods and foods… We’re still humans. All of these factors are involved in our human experiences of life.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      31·
      1 month ago

      Likewise you reading this comment, who you are, the life you’ve lived - some of it will be a product of chemicals you’ve encountered. Some of it will be from thoughts you’ve had, things you’ve learned from the external world. Thoughts are also biochemical processes, our existence and consciousness is …and from the foods our mothers ate, to the flesh that makes us up - it’s all chemicals. Very little of it came from the original sperm and egg, the vast majority came after that, from the external world. We are what we’ve been, what we’ve consumed, and what we’re made of. Regardless of whether it’s deemed synthetic or not. People just don’t like to admit that, so they downvote. Because that’s something bags of chemistry can choose to do!