Biden EPA to push reckless ban of critical manufacturing chemical, which would likely to disrupt supply chains

submitted by SoCo from (theguardian.com)

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]scornedandsedated 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Biden hasn't crippled the US economy enough yet.

[–]SoCo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

After Obama tried to ban certain uses of this critical manufacturing chemical, the industry had to send a stern letter warning :

  • This chemical is already strictly controlled and its manufacturing use heavily regulated.
  • This chemical is critical to manufacturing and the supply chain.
  • The Obama EPA attempted ban was illegal, did not follow the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, did not give time for public comment.
  • The studies used to warrant the banning could not be verified and had so-called "secret data"

It seems that there is a strong attempt to confuse the public about this chemical, its uses, and maybe even mislead them into confusing it with Carbon Tetrachloride, a well know previously banned dry-cleaning chemical with some similarity in uses and much more health risk. Instead, this chemical had been used as a gas for anesthesia for decades, back in the day, by being safer than Chloroform.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

good. it's toxic

fuck your supply chains

[–]SoCo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Quite frankly, we would be back to the stone age without it....but of course, we'd just fall back to less efficient and more dangerous methods and chemicals, instead.

We use a lot of toxic stuff every day and have learned to use them largely safely and responsibly. If only our regulatory bodies weren't corruptly used to abuse the market and prop up monopolies, but instead to protect the public and environment.

I'm not sure we could make very many things out of metal without it, at least not precision machined parts. Plastics, adhesives, X-ray film, and ton of chemical manufacturing require it. They all have alternatives, which we've previously stopped using because this was the safest and most efficient.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

stone age? maybe pre industrial age. even then I don't think it's so necessary. But it'd be more costly to do business without it. read your whole article. The headline is " EPA to push ban of toxic chemical found in US drinking water"

Oh well, too bad about the supply chain but fuck it.

[–]SoCo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yeah, I've read the article and dozens more on the same topic, since Obama pulled his stunt. The article strait up lies by saying the Trump administration "undid those" those restrictions. The courts undid the illegal Obama Admin rule. It doesn't mean Obama's intentions weren't good, just they were not accomplished legally through democratic methods.

The water contamination that they are talking about happened between 1950 and the 1980's, where the military based poisoned its people, not really manufacturers. The article dishonestly makes it seem like water contamination is still happening, happened recently, and that factories poisoned military personnel, which isn't true.

This chemical is MASSIVELY regulated now. People who use it typically wear exposure cards. It is treated more strictly than nuclear materials ... to some degrees.

It is just an attempt to mislead the public, pander fake virtuousness, pretend to erase Trump actions, all while hurting Americans and driving prices up. People are much more submissive, when desperate and struggling.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

lol no you didn't Or why would you post an article that disproves your original point?

[–]SoCo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This article doesn't disprove "my point" at all, that is ridiculous.

My only point was adding a decade missing and misrepresented context to why this government action the article is describing is bad, doesn't help the environment, hurts the already crippled supply chain for critical needs, and is not even feasible. They would need to immediately make emergency exceptions as they learn of more stuff they forgot, when blanket-banning bad sounding things we already slammed with strict regulations. It would be like Biden full blanket-banning lead...now....having just learned leaded gas wasn't good for everyone.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

yes it does

always read your own links first

[–]SoCo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, it doesn't. You seem to misunderstand the article and what I have said.

Have a nice day, but I'm not here to argue.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

true good point

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In 2025 President Trump will fire all of them.