this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
278 points (99.3% liked)

News

23259 readers
4174 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
278
EPA imposes first national limits on 'forever chemicals' in drinking water (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

PFAS is a class of chemicals that can linger almost permanently in air, water and soil. Research suggests they are associated with a variety of health issues, including cancer.

For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency has established national limits for six types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water.

The substances, known by the initialism PFAS, are nicknamed "forever chemicals" because they barely degrade and are nearly impossible to destroy, so they can linger permanently in air, water and soil. 

As a class of chemicals, PFAS have been associated with a higher risk of certain cancers, heart disease, high cholesterol, thyroid disease, low birth weight and reproductive issues, including decreased fertility. 

Most people in the U.S. have PFAS in their blood, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Has SCOTUS struck down Chevron yet like I'm thinking they probably will?

Enjoy having your blood be 50% PFAS.

[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

No, the case is still pending: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Thanks. I didn't think they had, but I still think they will.

[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

FWIW the most recent analysis I came across from a law professor makes me think the emergence of the "major questions doctrine" is more concerning:

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the US Supreme Court will decide whether to overrule one of its most frequently cited precedents—its 1984 opinion in Chevron v. NRDC. The decision in Loper may change the language that lawyers use in briefs and professors use in class, but is unlikely to significantly affect case outcomes involving interpretation of the statutes that agencies administer. In practice, it’s the court’s new major questions doctrine announced in 2021 that could fundamentally change how agencies operate.

…

I am much more concerned about the court’s 2021 decision to create the “major questions doctrine” and to apply it in four other cases than I am about the effects of a potential reversal of Chevron in Loper. Lower courts are beginning to rely on the major questions doctrine as the basis to overturn scores of agency decisions. That doctrine has potential to make it impossible for any agency to take any significant action.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/courts-new-chevron-analysis-likely-to-follow-one-of-these-paths

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

The major questions doctrine is a principle of statutory interpretation applied in United States administrative law cases which states that courts will presume that Congress does not delegate to executive agencies issues of major political or economic significance.

(2000): "[W]e must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency."

There are at least two versions of the doctrine,[2] a narrow version (a limitation on Chevron deference) and a broad version (a clear statement rule). Under the narrow version, the doctrine serves only to say that, when an agency asserts that it has authority to decide major questions, courts should independently determine whether the agency's interpretation of its statutory authority is the most reasonable reading of the statute. Under the broad version, the doctrine says that courts must not interpret statutes as delegating major questions to agencies unless Congress clearly said so.