Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. Canada wants cities to start filtering toxic forever chemicals from public drinking water, but that’s no easy feat

Canada wants cities to start filtering toxic forever chemicals from public drinking water, but that’s no easy feat

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
18 Posts 10 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • R This user is from outside of this forum
    R This user is from outside of this forum
    randalthor@lemmy.ca
    wrote last edited by
    #1
    This post did not contain any content.
    H PxtlP T R R 5 Replies Last reply
    95
    • R randalthor@lemmy.ca
      This post did not contain any content.
      H This user is from outside of this forum
      H This user is from outside of this forum
      hikingvet@lemmy.ca
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      Wonder how many decades they are gonna waffle on that.

      F 1 Reply Last reply
      2
      • R randalthor@lemmy.ca
        This post did not contain any content.
        PxtlP This user is from outside of this forum
        PxtlP This user is from outside of this forum
        Pxtl
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        Sorry we’re too busy preventing you from having your own home, we can’t squeeze in not poisoning you.

        O 1 Reply Last reply
        17
        • R randalthor@lemmy.ca
          This post did not contain any content.
          T This user is from outside of this forum
          T This user is from outside of this forum
          StinkyFingerItchyBum
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          Have we stopped the global production of PFAS? It is non-biogradable and thus cumulative in the environment and due to earth’s natural hydrological cycle, it doesn’t respect borders.

          Filtering our drinking water while not banning it entirely and leading the charge to a global ban is just whistling past the graveyard.

          B 1 Reply Last reply
          17
          • PxtlP Pxtl

            Sorry we’re too busy preventing you from having your own home, we can’t squeeze in not poisoning you.

            O This user is from outside of this forum
            O This user is from outside of this forum
            outlierblue@lemmy.ca
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            They’re also too busy handing over our private data to the US

            Link Preview Image
            Canada’s Bill C-2 Opens the Floodgates to U.S. Surveillance

            The Canadian government is preparing to give away Canadians’ digital lives—to U.S. police, to the Donald Trump administration, and possibly to foreign spy agencies.Bill C-2, the so-called Strong Borders Act, is a sprawling surveillance bill with multiple privacy-invasive provisions. But the thrust...

            favicon

            Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org)

            PxtlP 1 Reply Last reply
            7
            • H hikingvet@lemmy.ca

              Wonder how many decades they are gonna waffle on that.

              F This user is from outside of this forum
              F This user is from outside of this forum
              fireretardant@lemmy.world
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              Those chemicals are not easy to remove, especially compared to traditional water treatments. New solutions need to be developed or a new, uncontaminated source found for some areas. Reverse osmosis could probably reduce the toxic chemicals, but reverse osmosis is expesnive to install and operate and very energy intensive. Getting the toxic chemicals out is easier said than done.

              H 1 Reply Last reply
              1
              • T StinkyFingerItchyBum

                Have we stopped the global production of PFAS? It is non-biogradable and thus cumulative in the environment and due to earth’s natural hydrological cycle, it doesn’t respect borders.

                Filtering our drinking water while not banning it entirely and leading the charge to a global ban is just whistling past the graveyard.

                B This user is from outside of this forum
                B This user is from outside of this forum
                Badabinski
                wrote last edited by
                #7

                Banning the production of all PFAS will take time. There are no alternatives to Teflon in many contexts, and many medical devices would simply not work if not for Teflon. A hard and immediate end to PFAS production would be devastating for medical care. It’s a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

                1 Reply Last reply
                6
                • T This user is from outside of this forum
                  T This user is from outside of this forum
                  StinkyFingerItchyBum
                  wrote last edited by
                  #8

                  True, but medical devices are probably very very minor sources of pollution compared to textiles and firefighting foam. 80/20 rule is a clear step forward. Let’s not artificially invent uneccessary arguments to stall progress.

                  B 1 Reply Last reply
                  10
                  • T This user is from outside of this forum
                    T This user is from outside of this forum
                    teppa
                    wrote last edited by
                    #9

                    We are going to need that medical care… On account of all the cancer.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    2
                    • T StinkyFingerItchyBum

                      True, but medical devices are probably very very minor sources of pollution compared to textiles and firefighting foam. 80/20 rule is a clear step forward. Let’s not artificially invent uneccessary arguments to stall progress.

                      B This user is from outside of this forum
                      B This user is from outside of this forum
                      Badabinski
                      wrote last edited by badabinski@kbin.earth
                      #10

                      I’m all for phasing out PFAS, especially in textiles. I want the firefighting foam gone too, now that effective alternatives have been developed. I apologize if I misunderstood your intent. I just read this as calling for all complete and immediate halt to all PFAS production, which includes Teflon and its manufacturing aids:

                      while not banning it entirely and leading the charge to a global ban

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      3
                      • F fireretardant@lemmy.world

                        Those chemicals are not easy to remove, especially compared to traditional water treatments. New solutions need to be developed or a new, uncontaminated source found for some areas. Reverse osmosis could probably reduce the toxic chemicals, but reverse osmosis is expesnive to install and operate and very energy intensive. Getting the toxic chemicals out is easier said than done.

                        H This user is from outside of this forum
                        H This user is from outside of this forum
                        hikingvet@lemmy.ca
                        wrote last edited by
                        #11

                        There are ways that we can currently do it, not putting an imperfect system in where there currently is none is waffling. How long till we see imperfect implemented to mitigate?

                        I’m not touching on cost or complexities as I don’t think that would be useful in this particular conversation.

                        F 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • T This user is from outside of this forum
                          T This user is from outside of this forum
                          StinkyFingerItchyBum
                          wrote last edited by
                          #12

                          Complete, yes, eventually. Immediate, yes, now would be great.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          3
                          • H hikingvet@lemmy.ca

                            There are ways that we can currently do it, not putting an imperfect system in where there currently is none is waffling. How long till we see imperfect implemented to mitigate?

                            I’m not touching on cost or complexities as I don’t think that would be useful in this particular conversation.

                            F This user is from outside of this forum
                            F This user is from outside of this forum
                            fireretardant@lemmy.world
                            wrote last edited by fireretardant@lemmy.world
                            #13

                            Cost is an important factor. Someone has to pay for installation, maintenance etc. It needs to be clear how much is going to fall on municipalities, provinces, and feds to tackle this issue. Dumping all the costs on a municipality is unreasonable.

                            A partial solution could be something like a rebate for in home RO installations for drinking and cooking water. This tackles the biggest health concern while only treating a small fraction of the total water a city pumps.

                            H 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • F fireretardant@lemmy.world

                              Cost is an important factor. Someone has to pay for installation, maintenance etc. It needs to be clear how much is going to fall on municipalities, provinces, and feds to tackle this issue. Dumping all the costs on a municipality is unreasonable.

                              A partial solution could be something like a rebate for in home RO installations for drinking and cooking water. This tackles the biggest health concern while only treating a small fraction of the total water a city pumps.

                              H This user is from outside of this forum
                              H This user is from outside of this forum
                              hikingvet@lemmy.ca
                              wrote last edited by hikingvet@lemmy.ca
                              #14

                              Like I said we don’t need those sorts of details when there is only the smell of a plan.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • F This user is from outside of this forum
                                F This user is from outside of this forum
                                fireretardant@lemmy.world
                                wrote last edited by
                                #15

                                The irony is, teflon is used extensively in water treatment and plumbing as well.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                1
                                • R randalthor@lemmy.ca
                                  This post did not contain any content.
                                  R This user is from outside of this forum
                                  R This user is from outside of this forum
                                  reddig33@lemmy.world
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #16

                                  No one said it would be easy. Start doing it anyway.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  12
                                  • R randalthor@lemmy.ca
                                    This post did not contain any content.
                                    R This user is from outside of this forum
                                    R This user is from outside of this forum
                                    randomgal@lemmy.ca
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #17

                                    Yes it’s difficult. That’s why it’s a federal mandate. Otherwise I’d do it myself in my kitchen. Wtf Trash writing is this?

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    3
                                    • O outlierblue@lemmy.ca

                                      They’re also too busy handing over our private data to the US

                                      Link Preview Image
                                      Canada’s Bill C-2 Opens the Floodgates to U.S. Surveillance

                                      The Canadian government is preparing to give away Canadians’ digital lives—to U.S. police, to the Donald Trump administration, and possibly to foreign spy agencies.Bill C-2, the so-called Strong Borders Act, is a sprawling surveillance bill with multiple privacy-invasive provisions. But the thrust...

                                      favicon

                                      Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org)

                                      PxtlP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      PxtlP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      Pxtl
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #18

                                      While that’s awful that’s not really a municipal issue like housing and water treatment.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0

                                      Reply
                                      • Reply as topic
                                      Log in to reply
                                      • Oldest to Newest
                                      • Newest to Oldest
                                      • Most Votes


                                      • Login

                                      • Login or register to search.
                                      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                      • First post
                                        Last post