Chemicals, chemicals! We are in thrall to our chemicals. While this article focuses on industrial chemicals, (and how we love our teflon!) there are many other dangerous categories in our 85,000 and growing chemical arsenal. How about anti-biotics? Overused to the point antibiotic resistance is found in house mice! What humans ingest is shortly showered onto the neighborhood, and mixed with the 84,999 other chemicals floating around. And no one has any idea what kind of cocktail we are creating. But the canaries in the coal mine are sounding the alarm, such as the recent discovery that 75% of insects have been destroyed https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/oh-no/543390/
Or the reports that 1 of 10 bird species are in the bulls-eye of extinction. https://abcbirds.org/spring-appeal-2018/
And I haven't even mentioned frogs yet, where studies show males are turned into females via pesticides. https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male-frogs-females.html 6 years later, atrazine is still available at Walmart so your lawn won't be plagued with pestky weeds! Google www.walmart.com Hi-Yield-Atrazine-Weed-Killer
The writing on the wall is clear. Are we blind??
19
President Trump is weakening the Presidency and transferring power from the Fed to the States.
Exactly as the founders planned for treacherous executives.
8
This certainly is a topsy-turvy world now---it used to be the Republicans who said states were the best judges of what they need!
It was the Dem's fed laws that would protect American's who lived in states that wanted to pollute, discriminate, and deny healthcare etc. to it's own citizens.
This is where it pays to be able to evolve, which the Rep. by nature seem incapable, fossilized in the past.
6
Why would anyone want to poison their own family?
10
It shouldn't be faster and easier to undo laws than it took to create and pass those laws to begin with. Trump and friends, and this nasty man Pruitt, are dismantling fiscal, judicial, social and environmental protections at a violently fast pace.
12
It is very important that the Federal Government dale the lead in protecting our environment. It is the only way to keep a level playing field so states are competing against each for business or busy suing each to lay blame on cleanup costs. The States would be the most capable to act as the police of their environment based on the laws of the land. Read the article also in today’s Times about the out of control pollution in Poland. The times demand firm across the board legislation to protect our environment before it is too late.
2
All chemicals, even similar chemicals, are not created equal.
How toxic in an acute exposure?
How toxic in a long exposure?
How much does it change the likelihood of cancer (testicular, kidney, etc)?
If we say all "chemicals" are bad than we are making a demonstrably stupid statement. Don't just pat yourself on the back for writing about PFAS and PFOA when you haven't put them in context.
3
Oklahoma with Pruitt and pals-- still low income, fracked, no responsibility from his oil buddies. And over 3. quakes?
2010 - 41 earthquakes
2015 - 888 earthquakes
Now he's everybody's problem. Good luck to all.
25
Protecting the environment is a shared responsibility of all of the citizens. States and industries should do what they are supposed to and not wait for Scott Pruitt. Each of us individually should do our part by reducing our own carbon foot print and reporting polluters an boycotting their goods and services if they show reckless disregard to the safety and purity of the environment. We the people need to take charge and not wait for politicians, Pruitt or Paris to do the right thing.
13
The post-WW2 generations are leaving their descendants not only with plastic pollution in drinking water AND ocean water, but with all kinds of formerly rare or even non-existent cancers, plus hormonal and genetic anomalies and diseases.
I've never understood how chemical companies were allowed to churn out thousands of mystery chemicals without having a clue what those chemicals would do to the environment and to people's bodies.
I would love to see chemical companies be forced to take back every particle of styrofoam they've foisted upon us without even asking.
It just seems so overwhelmingly stupid that our leaders - and the voters who put them in control - would permit such dangerous practices. But then I look at the current batch of idiots running the country and realize that human stupidity is not unusual but the norm. I suppose those chemicals have effects on the brain that make us too stupid to understand what's happening to us.
Still, you'd think we'd be a little more concerned about the kind of planet we're passing on to our descendants. Too bad we won't be around to read the denunciations of our stupidity.
20
Would you marry the close relative of a psychopath or a sociopath? Neither would I. Nor would I vote for one to be my President.
16
Bravo to the states which are taking on this vital task of monitoring, investigating, and planning regulation of environmental hazards. Perhaps it is s way, since different states may have different problems to address and citizens may have more influence on local officials.
9
This is not a conservative vs liberal issue. It is between those who have been bought off or duped by the fossil fuel industry, and those dealing with reality. We have seen this over and over again, such as when tobacco companies questions the link between smoking and cancer or addiction, or when the gasoline companies questioned the harm of lead. The "questions" are just an attempt to stall regulation, and make more profits, at the expense of the general public.
35
I am glad the states are moving forward and following the Paris climate rules since our worst President Trump and GOP in history will rather pollute our world than give it to the next generations in good shape. Shame on them and the uncaring people like Scott Pruitt they put in as the top boss.
22
Hooray for WA!
Down with DuPont.
Chemical engineers & Big Chem manufacturers may seem like magic geniuses, but more often than not it seems they are agents of the enemy of Life on Earth.
Ban them all. Ban Scott Pruitt & regulate Big Chem to smithereens.
Even if they're banned like nerve agents they'll still pop up somewhere, & those PFAS released are here forever, like nuclear waste.
At least start with a ban.
14
Trump keeps complaining that environmental laws and guidelines hinder business growth, but isn't it interesting that Silicon Valley is known as the capital of "Green Technology" and also one of the richest geographical areas in the world?
18
Isn't it interesting that nothing tangible is manufactured in Silicon Valley? The tech industry does all of their manufacturing in third world countries, indifferent to the pollution deposited there, absent any concern for the poorly paid workers. Mo money for the liberal elite.
California has the most polluted air in the country, but warning labels on coffee cups that coffee may be a carcinogen.
Green Technology is not about creating a healthy environment. The green refers to money.
6
California's air quality is due, in part, to its geographical topography. Because of this and the state's massive growth, California has one of the most stringent air pollution laws in the country. But now Scott Pruitt is attempting to create lower standards that even the car manufacturers don't want. And the big tech firms are requiring that the energy they buy comes from only renewable sources.
1
Wrong my friend.
As one living in California more than 35 years I believe I'm qualified to speak to the air in Los Angeles county. When I moved here in 1979 there was a near constant layer of brownish smog over the LA basin.
When driving from Santa Monica (by the ocean) to Pasadena (15 - 22 miles away depending) my eyes would start watering and burning the closer I got to Pasadena. (You see, the San Gabriel mountains form a barrier against the smog blowing east).
Then MUCH better stronger REGULATIONS toward environmental PROTECTION were passed. AND Detroit (in ordered to sell cars in the worlds largest market) had to go along with catalytic converters, improving fuel economy, etc.
Guess what, over the ensuing decades our LA air quality IMPROVED significantly. Even though population increased by millions. Dropping from worst air quality in the USA to perhaps 10th worst.
That is UNTIL more recent years when Republicans have done their best to weaken these environmental protections. California has millions more cars and trucks and people using the highways not to mention more industry than in the late 1970's.
Even so, our current air quality is still WAY better than it was in 1979 and the early 80's.
And I still drive to Pasadena on occasion and my eyes do NOT burn and water.
26
Important article. There are lots of chemicals the EPA has never examined and many that it has developed inadequate response to, such as PFOS. However, the dreadful state of regulation also includes the massive exposure of children in Flint to a known and heavily regulated neurotoxicant. Federal and state laws make it very hard to regulate, given the need of chemical manufacturers to put their profits ahead of child safety. Even the most obvious cases, such as removing lead from gasoline, involved endless wrangling, how are we going to protect high compression auto engines from something that everyone was sure caused insidious loss of IQ. I feel like many who do not want to battle endlessly about how desperately we need toxic fire suppressants that are getting into well water. Pruitt has a different calculus from the rest of us, and in his calculus protecting our health is not of high priority.
22
The city of Flint [10% democrat], along with the EPA, were aware the municipal water supply was toxic for six months before notifying the public. there were and are regulations in place requiring that municipal governments not poison their population. Democrats ignore regulations they find inconvenient.
NYC dumps a million gallons per year of raw sewage into the waterways every year and has done so for decades. That's against the law.
Pruitt is introducing the notion of applying scientific standards and enforcing the existing law.
If it has been known for twenty years that chemicals used to manufacture Teflon and fire suppression foam are toxic, why did the EPA under Obama do nothing for eight years?
Could it be that rather than devoting resources to preventing and eliminating pollution, the EPA under Obama concentrated on social justice and attempting to raise energy costs in red states rather than protecting the residents of even blue cities.
In red states, even the residents of blue cities are not permitted to foul their own nests. In blue cities in blue states, the government does not pay to clean up the environment or protect its citizens.
1
The lead poisoning of Flint was carried out under a Republican Governor who installed an unelected Republican emergency manager in Flint who switched the water supply from the Detroit River to the Flint River and excluded an anti-corrosive chemical from the water treatment to save money, which corroded the lead pipes in the city's water supply.
California has long had a law, Proposition 65, enacted directly by voters that requires the identification of cancer-causing and other harmful chemicals in products sold in the state. Environmental and consumer advocates have been very successful in using Prop. 65 in class action suits to get harmful chemicals out of a wide variety of products and recompense victims. That may be why California is a more expensive state, but is probably a healthier one.
People want the environment and their health protected, Scott Pruitt.
20
It's difficult if not impossible to get "definitive studies" regarding chronic toxicity for most of the synthetic chemicals we are exposed to at fairly low levels. (Tests for acute toxicity have been around for a long time and are very different). The bar needs to be raised much higher for the introduction of synthetic chemicals into the environment, perhaps based on evidence of necessity, not convenience or profit.
20
Exactly. I'd like for the chemical companies to be require upon proposal of a given substance, had to provide peer-reviewed evidence (just show me the data, and not solely in-house 'research') that it did not cause the documented problems the author notes. As a long-time research behavioral or environmental endocrinologist and one who's taught endocrinology, parallels can be drawn to to the revelations some decades ago now, of the effects of compounds categorized as environmental estrogens, xeno-estrogens, xenobiotics (or more generally as endocrine disrupters), etc. What was learned about the profoundly negative impacts on human and non-human animals speaks to the author's reference to being able to infer, in-part by compounds structural and chemical similarities ("closely related chemical"s), shared undesirable outcomes.
7
Is this a parody? We need a government bureaucracy (EPA) to write and enforce laws to protect us from another government bureaucracy (Naval Airline Station). Maybe we just need a third bureaucracy to protect us from the government.
5
So your recommendation is what? Rely on the social consciences of the chemical companies to forgo profits on a promising new chemical for years until costlly studies (which they would voluntarily pay for) are completed?
10
typical Republican ad hominem argument.
the government, despite decades of right wing brainwashing, in NOT the problem. the government is NOT the enemy of the people.
willful ignorance and avarice beyond all reason is the problem.
12
Interesting, but a bit off the main environmental grid of global warming caused by "the axis of pollution" from the carbon-based fuels: coal, gas, and oil. The states need to take the lead here. In Puerto Rico, abandoned by the Trump administration, there is a growing movement to replace its out-dated, dysfunctional oil-burning electric grid with solar that has gone mostly unnoticed. Similarly, California is fighting back against the loosening of rules by the E.P.A. But the states can do more. California, the home of Tesla the premier all-electric auto maker, could and should take the lead by requiring, as many European countries already have, that all cars and small trucks sold there by 2035 should be electric. California has also been the lead in banning plastic bags that end up polluting our landfills and our oceans. We need to increase the ban on plastics to bottles--one of the major pollutants world-wide (along with, surprisingly, plastic chop sticks). The states need to step up now that Trump E.P.A. is stepping down. Our very survival depends on it.
28
Trump is "seemingly getting the federal government out of the business of cleaning up the environment...?" That's one narrative. Another way of looking at it is that it's time for a long-overdue correction to the EPA's unlimited bureaucratic overreach that was at its zenith in the Obama years. If you were a small business owner facing arbitrarily ruinous EPA fines, your only appeal was to an intra-agency EPA court, presided over by an EPA adminstrative judge who was a salaried EPA employee. Kafka would be proud. That's too much, and was long overdue for reform.
1
You could be right that the EPA is overly bureaucratic (I have only your word for that). If we could have a thoughtful, reasoned discussion about what mechanisms we could use to take environmental protection seriously while allowing small businesses to make a living, then I'd be all for it. But that's not what's happening here, is it? This is just about gleefully tearing down the whole house, never mind the consequences.
21
Please point to some real, unbiased data.
6
It will clearly be up to each individual state to undertake what's best to not only preserve their environment, but to protect the welfare of their residents since Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. and indeed, this current administration shows no interest in doing so.
That much became evident when Mr. Pruitt wasted no time in repealing every Obama-era law put into place to ensure Americans would have clean air and safe drinking water.
And then there's the fact that as Attorney General of his own home state of Oklahoma, he managed to turn it into a earthquake zone in order to maintain good standing amongst his fossil fuel lobbyist friends.
There's a chemical warfare going on right here in the U.S. and most people don't even realize it.
45
It's been obvious for years that California, for example, can and does put the breaks on grinning GOP deregulation fantasies affecting corporate decisions in many or most other states. The other significant factor affecting this Trump administration, as opposed to the (temporarily) more credible Cheney administration, is that from Day One it's looked like a ridiculous anomaly and historical blip, and businesses are not going to make decisions affecting business operations into the next decade on the basis of anything a Trumperoo Cabinet or Agency officer does.
11
This seems to be one more way in which individual states are re-asserting their Tenth Amendment rights to act independently from the once-"federal" national government. The more paralyzed by parochialism, ideology, and inertia that the national government is, the more this trend can be expected to grow.
27
It has been suggested many times that regulations be revised to shift the burden of proof onto companies, requiring them to show that chemicals they propose to use are safe, instead of making government prove that they are harmful.
89
You focused on PFAS chemicals, Nicholas Kristof recently had a column detailing other chemicals we are exposed to and how the chemical industry adapts to bans. Mr Kristof mentioned 'BPA free' plastics that substitute equally harmful cousins of BPA. The core problem is that corporations effectively own our government, and their quest for profits override any concerns for the environment or health. As a nation, we need to wake up to the fact that higher corporate profits at the expense of our health and environmental sustainability is a losing proposition.
51
Why am I reminded of the CEOs of Big Tobacco testifying before Congress that they had no evidence that smoking caused cancer? Of course they did.
The same cabal of "scientists" and experts shows up for every corporate battle with the environment and public health: climate change, processed foods, carbon dioxide, antibiotics, food packaging, lead, air and water pollution, etc.
The problem with totalitarian capitalism is they have no moral compass. They are willing to do harm to make money and they influence government against the public good.
We could fix a lot of problems with strict campaign finance reform. Nobody should be able to buy a vote.
69
Without a functioning US EPA, states won't have much authority to keep sources of pollutants from polluting the environment located in other states. A good example of this is Lake Michigan. Chicagoland gets its drinking water from the lake. Much of the heavy industry like refineries, steel mills, chemical plants, nuclear power plants, etc are located in Indiana along the southern shore of the lake. Illinois EPA is getting gutted down to nothing by the most business friendly of private equity governors, Bruce Rauner. Also, Illinois is a heavy manufacturing and industrial agriculture state so it tends to see the drinking water glass as half clean. Indiana department of environmental management is headed up by the friends of Mike Pence. Illinois could sue Indiana, which they have. But it will always be after the fact or after the spill. At some point the facts of contamination will be beyond a quick fix. Lawyers will benefit, though. As long as their families have home water treatment systems that only a family living on a lawyer's salary can afford.
64
Can one state sue another?
1
As an environmental scientist working to clean up the actions of the past, it saddens me that Pruitt is allowed to undo the laws which improve our lives. His actions are indicative of someone looking out for his pocket and not the country he is supposed to protect.
Pruitt needs to go.
Kudos to the states who protect their constituents from the actions of industries.
118
If only we had been this divisive about asbestos and lead. Instead we waited until they became a crisis to act and people needlessly suffered and died. Kudos to Washington for listening to the doctor and taking decisive action.
Trump is forcing us to think about what kind of country we want to live in with his abysmal cabinet picks. We love our environment but we've grown complacent about preventative measures because the EPA took care of it for us.
69
I think you mean decisive.
6
Unless we all are Nuked, THIS will be the lasting legacy of the Trump Regime, the degradation of our Environment. States must take up the slack. Those that won't will have to live with local damage and hazards, it's that simple. Thanks, GOP. November.
120
Scott Pruitt is ONLY interested in himself, and amassing as much CASH as possible, before the gig is up. That's just how he operates. Unfortunately, he now has the perfect enablers, Trump and his Collaborators.
Thanks, GOP. November.
93