You must log in or register to comment.

goodwilhuntingseason t1_jcf45hp wrote

I don’t care if it takes “hundreds of billions of dollars” to meet these standards, there is excuse for the richest country in the world to not have perfect drinking water. I’m not even a big gov spender person but clean drinking water is basically the most essential thing humans need.


nixstyx t1_jcfaqb7 wrote

I can see the governor's concern, and I'm concerned it won't even be possible to meet the new limits. Several brands of bottled water have levels higher than the new limits. I don't know how many public water supplies in NH have higher levels, but I know many do. The bigger problem is testing. There aren't that many labs capable of testing for the presence of PFAS at levels this low.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have water with zero PFAS. I just don't see how we get there with what we currently have.

And, to another commenter's point, our food supply is also contaminated. Eliminating PFAS in drinking water does nothing to address the PFAS absorbed by plants and animals that we eat.

If the science shows it's dangerous at even these low levels then it needs to be banned everywhere, not just drinking water.


mattd121794 t1_jcfetya wrote

Seems like a first step in a series that will eventually lead to the ban of PFAS. As the saying goes "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good." This is still progress and will push us forward towards both discontinuing the use of PFAS and better and more testing for PFAS in various areas of the NH ecosystem.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcfw43u wrote

See, this is not "a good first step" if it immediately sets the standard so high it's almost impossible to reach. A "good first step" would be setting the standard high, but within what's realistically possible or practical, and then pushing for it to increase more later.


Relleomylime t1_jcffzpk wrote

I work in ag and we're following this closely as the biggest issue is they want to regulate PFAS under CERCLA aka Superfund. The reason PFAS is in your food is because ag was licensed to spread fertilizer made from waste water treatment plants on their fields before anyone thought PFAS was an issue. Unless you scrape all of the top soil off all of your local farms it will continue to leech into the local water regardless of eliminating any local chemical manufacturing run off.


nixstyx t1_jcg6spn wrote

Agree. There's also an additional source of PFAS in food, and that's ongoing air and water pollution. In my town, Saint Gobain rendered many private wells unfit for use, due to airborne PFAS that settled or otherwise precipitated out of the atmosphere into the soil and water. Around the country we're also finding trace amounts of PFAS miles from any known source, the theory being it spread through air or rainwater.


nblastoff t1_jcgxxd0 wrote


Hi Five for being screwed by st gobain! i got a pfas removal system put in my house that brought my water from 17 parts per trillion to undetectable


the_nobodys t1_jcffbjz wrote

Especially since what we'd be cleaning to make the drinking water clean, is a chemical we humans added to it in the first place.


[deleted] t1_jcf7b6v wrote



FlyingLemurs76 t1_jcf7m4i wrote

To clarify: You believe the US funds the UN and that prevents New Hampshire from clean drinking water?

Edit, since it got deleted, this was the follow up to the deleted yes

Well, generally, people that hold similar political beliefs as the ones you seem to convey also prefer state spending over federal funding. Perhaps some one can weigh in but I understood our water treatment to be facilitated locally, which in turn would reduce the strength of your argument.

I think its also noting that the most of US contributions to the Ukraine was outdated stockpiles of weaponry. We can agree that the US industrial military complex needs drastic reductions and restructuring though.


akcattleco t1_jcf6laa wrote

What about our lakes and rivers and food supplies?? Our fish are full of them too and so is pretty much everything else that we eat. PFAS should be banned.


dojijosu t1_jcfjk0d wrote

How is this a partisan issue? Why is it only being championed by Democrats? Do Republicans not drink water?


photostrat t1_jcfsjtm wrote

Seriously. The type of people against this will only care when they or their children have cancer, in which case they'll scream why did you yet this happen to me.


dojijosu t1_jcg3uqn wrote

I don't know, man. COVID took out the second most prominent Republican in the state, and they accused the medical examiner of fraud (which they then did not investigate, though controlling both houses and the governor) and doubling down on reducing COVID protocols.

I don't think we live in the era of Dick Cheney changing his stance on LGBT when his daughter comes out anymore. For the NHGOP the poison is hitting the bloodstream.


dfresh429 t1_jckk7mp wrote

Because that is 100% on brand for republicans - they exhibit ZERO empathy - unless they experience an issue personally, they believe it doesn't exist.


XEssentialCryIceIs t1_jcfxezj wrote

Because money.


dojijosu t1_jcfybdr wrote

But you can't drink money. I just don't get it.


XEssentialCryIceIs t1_jcg1tdm wrote

But if you have enough money you can buy all the clean, PFAS free, drinking water you and your family could ever need and leave the contaminated stuff for the plebs.


dojijosu t1_jcg2m6a wrote

Sure, but wouldn't it be better, from a purely self-serving perspective, to spend taxpayer money to make the water you already get safe?


XEssentialCryIceIs t1_jcg47v0 wrote

I'm not convinced the extremely wealthy drink tap water.

I personally am one of those dirty, pinko, commie-socialist types, so I believe everyone is entitled to clean air, clean water, healthy food, safe housing, and medical care.


ericools t1_jctk9ux wrote

I wouldn't drink the tap water even without the PFAS stuff. Under the sink RO is pretty cheap and easy to install. You get cheap good tasting pure water.

What you absorb through the shower / bath is a bigger problem. Whole house RO is crazy expensive and basically zero houses or apartments have any kind of easy way to run just shower water through a system. You are stuck filtering all the water you flush down the toilet or otherwise wasted water.

Edit: It's at least avoidable in drinking water. It's basically impossible to filter other goods for it. Not just food. Things like fabrics, containers, cleaning products, shampoo, floss, those face masks everyone was wearing for a couple of years, tampons. You could be getting as much exposure from other sources as from your water anyway.

I don't have a solution. Just pointing some things out. I don't know if a ban would have much real impact, especially if it wasn't a global 100% enforced ban. It seems likely we may be able to mitigate the harm through biotech advances long before we can get the stuff out of our supply chain, if it's even possible to get it out of our supply chain.


dj_narwhal t1_jcgai9a wrote

If you show that the government can be used for good the entire house of cards that conservatives has built begins to fail. Luckily they have been gutting education for 70 years so their base cannot think about 2 different things at the same time.


sirspidermonkey t1_jch3513 wrote

> How is this a partisan issue?

Profits over people. It's simple as that.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcfvu3e wrote

Presumably because the Democrats are pushing for levels that are not only nearly impossible to test for, but might be nearly impossible to actually achieve... Thus giving them the ability to say things like "Do Republicans not drink water" if the Republicans don't support it (because it's unrealistic).


dojijosu t1_jcfyobd wrote

I happen to know some of the "Water Warriors," and while I'm not an expert on the subject, I know the levels they are calling for are both testable and achievable.

But let's say they weren't. Then the reasonable Republican (of myth) would say "Woah there, my liberal friend. You've got the right idea, but you're doing it wrong. Watch how we conservatives do it right and get some progress where you got none."

That would be a huge win. But they just don't care.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcg0ezn wrote

>I happen to know some of the "Water Warriors," and while I'm not an expert on the subject, I know the levels they are calling for are both testable and achievable.

In a perfect world, they may be. If you don't consider the PFAS that's already in the soil from years and years of pollution, and if you don't consider the cost burden of building systems that could achieve those levels to the average homeowner's tap. Yes, it may, theoretically, be something that can be achieved and tested for. But it's not practical at this point. Most water test companies don't have equipment that can test for those levels. Such equipment does exist, certainly. But again, it's a matter of being realistic instead of idealistic.

>Then the reasonable Republican (of myth) would say "Woah there, my liberal friend. You've got the right idea, but you're doing it wrong. Watch how we conservatives do it right and get some progress where you got none.

And the reasonable Democrats (also of myth) would say "Oh, ok, that's a decent compromise."

But instead they can just come out and say that Republicans voted against their water protections and thus want no water protections whatsoever.


dojijosu t1_jcg0v4f wrote

A compromise would be nice, but unnecessary for the Republicans to steal a lap on the Democrats. All they would need is a more manageable plan. But note that they haven't even proposed an alternative solution, just a lot of shrugging. They're content to, pardon the pun, poison the well.


AMC4x4 t1_jcgxdib wrote

That's the GOP playback in a nutshell lately. When is the last time any Republicans in national office actually came up with a workable plan to address any issue facing their constituents? It's either tax cuts or culture wars and talk about "the evils of government," and that's all they got.


kitchinsink t1_jcfe0jh wrote

It should be applauded by everyone.


overdoing_it t1_jcf7bps wrote

How does this apply to well water? Groundwater contamination restrictions?


SheeEttin t1_jcfsssh wrote

Can we also maybe stop letting shit like this into the water in the first place?


XEssentialCryIceIs t1_jcfxu2r wrote

It's gonna be really hard without a global ban on PFAS and even if that was accomplished, these are substances that don't breakdown in the environment. They're known as "forever chemicals".,low%20birthweight%20and%20kidney%20cancer.


SheeEttin t1_jcg1p2b wrote

I've edited my comment because it's more than just PFAS. So much horrible shit gets leaked or dumped, and every few years it's a new set. We need stronger enforcement of environmental protection to keep it from happening in the first place.


AMC4x4 t1_jcgy1ti wrote

Yup. I remember as soon as they started talking about the dangers of BPA, suddenly there were 50 more "alternatives" that companies started using, some of which were actually worse. The plastics industry is gargantuan, and well funded politically. It feels hopeless, honestly. A forever game of whack-a-mole.

We are going to have to have a "come-to-jesus" moment with our love of cheap and useful plastics.


rudyattitudedee t1_jch6wwa wrote

Litchfield is finally doing a water study this year. It’ll take 6 months and I can literally see st gobain across the river from us so I wonder what they’ll find!! Maybe we can sue them into paying our water bills at least.


FitzTheGreat30 t1_jcgb8qr wrote

How about we go after the companies making PFAS? Not just use bandaids to fix the issue