The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday designated a pair of widely used industrial chemicals as hazardous substances under the country’s Superfund program, accelerating a crackdown on toxic compounds known as “forever chemicals.”

The rule will require companies to report leaks of two of the most commonly used per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and help pay to clean up existing contamination.

The EPA separately last week announced its first-ever drinking water standards to guard against PFAS pollution.

The new rule targets contamination from two PFAS known as PFOA and PFOS.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      92·
      7 个月前

      We’re now hazardous waste sites, so are the companies that produced these compounds going to pay to clean us up?

      something something … but that’s not how unfettered capitalism works!

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        34·
        7 个月前

        Has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Just look at what the absolute fuck the USSR did. Or China now.

        • jmanes@lemmy.worldEnglish
          72·
          7 个月前

          China of today is capitalist in the same way the USA is, with minor differences. Major corporations owning almost everything with government backing and influence.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
            41·
            7 个月前

            Same with Russia. How else would Putin’s oligarchs survive if he didn’t allow them to continue to buy up every formerly state-owned business?

    • Karyoplasma
      4·
      7 个月前

      No, they are too busy researching the next dangerous chemical that can help boost their profit margins to new heights.

    • zik@lemmy.world
      3·
      7 个月前

      A lot of plastics have PFAS in them and I don’t think it’s likely they’ll be rushing to remove them. I wonder how this is going to play out.

  • highduc@lemmy.ml
    6·
    7 个月前

    All of the sudden? Have to say I wasn’t expecting this but I’m glad it’s happening.
    It’ll matter more what they do about it rather than what they say. Will they forbid the use of these chemicals in common products like waterproof clothing for example?
    Regarding any corporation being made to pay - lol, I strongly believe that will never ever happen.
    But I hope this will also motivate the EU to take action.

  • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
    3·
    7 个月前

    We should really start holding companies and manufacturers responsible for all the single use items they produce. Too much do manufactures and companies create items and then put the burden of cleanup and disposal on tax payers, society, and the environment.

    Simple things like a single-use coffee cup costs nothing for the manufacturer, but the cost is “transferred” to the city in garbage and recycling costs. And when that coffee cup becomes litter on the street, or ends up in an ocean or pond, it cost society both cleanup cost and indirectly healthcare costs (when the plastics end up inside us).

    Cities and governments should for example start charging the full cost of public waste and recycling collection.

    Manufacturers should also be legally responsible to receive back all packaging and products they produce and they should be responsible for the disassembly and recycling of those products.

    This could have the added benefit of stopping things like fast fashion, and planned obsolescence in everyday items and appliances.

    Think of how beer and liquor stores take back and recycle their bottles, this should also include the cardboard and packaging.

    Some cheerful news!

    Shout out to staple for now taking back all recyclable waste. More companies should start doing this!!

    Check out their list here! https://www.staples.com/stores/recycling#workingtowardsabrightertomorrow

    https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/staples-electronics-recycling-program-rewards/

  • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    3·
    7 个月前

    Crazy, something might actually get done for this? This would affect just about every military installation (and the water on the that everyone “knows” not to drink), wouldn’t it?