Not really a sign of the times. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a new concept. The burden of proof is on the people suing to show that PFAS both came from the fertilizer and is the cause of the issues.
The article mentions that microplastics was another theory. It's not encouraging when the leading theories appear to be plucked out of current trends for scary chemicals.
> The article mentions that microplastics was another theory
The mention of microplastics was in relation to why the piles of biosolids were smoking. Speculation that heat from composting was burning microplastic particles.
Breathing burning plastic and ingesting large amounts of PFAS can both be harmful at the same time. The 'micro' part is irrelevant, you don't want to breath burning plastic regardless of the size of the particles burning.
Polluting your neighbor's property IS NOT OK. Normally externalities are more ambiguous, but this is literally polluting your neighbor's land. This isn't just a failure of our laws, this a failure of a community.
It would have been interesting if the article if the article gave prior concentrations as a baseline, such as when cattle died in WV from PFAS. Without a baseline it's hard to say. However, the levels being referenced in the calfs and the timing of the fish kills seems to indicate that a preponderance of the evidence supports the claims. In civil trials, it just has to be more likely than not.
That's not really comparable because in the case of the flood, the damage was unambiguously tied to the dam bursting. That's not the case here. While I'm sure there's a non-zero amount of PFAS from the fertilizer that leeched into the nearby soil, it hasn't been established what its contribution was. This is closer to suing the local factory because you got lung cancer.
We should have discourse on people who are major players in the general Zeitgeist tho.... And as far as I know the terrorist charges being ABSURD is one the reasons he has so much public support....
Saying we shouldn't support ANYONE the government ACCUSES of being terrorists seems like a pretty nasty slippery slope...
>Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1]
>Modern terrorism, evolving from earlier iterations, employs various tactics to pursue political goals, often leveraging fear as a strategic tool to influence decision makers.
There is some debate on the fringes of the definition, but not all state actions are terrorism. For example, if a state military goal is simply to kill or disable your enemy by force, that isnt terrorism. Wars of extermination aren't terrorism either. That said, targeting non-combatants to hurt morale is a pretty common terrorism tactic. You could make a strong case that the bombing the civilians of London, Dresden, or Tokyo were acts of terrorism.
Outside of state militaries, it is pretty hard to imagine a principal that separates Luigi from abortion clinic bombers, The Weather Underground, or other domestic terrorists.
I’ll disagree and say all war is indeed terrorism. But I do actually think the term is meaningless and just made up so people can say their violence is righteous while others is bad.
This has become painfully obvious when groups like Hamas are labeled terrorists, but the guys slaughtering civilians with 1000lb bombs aren’t.
Or when Luigi offs a CEO it’s terrorism but when corporate policies cause the death of thousands or millions, it’s just capitalism baby.
It has a meaning and isnt just a synonym for ++BAD. Terrorism is crime of intent. It describes the purpose of the violence, specifically to instill fear and terror.
Nazis ushering jews into gas chambers wasn't terrorism. They didnt care what the jews thought. Does the fact that it wasnt terrorism mean it wasn't bad? Of course not.
Similarly, if you kill millions to make a buck, that isnt terrorism either, just because it is bad.
Of course the matter who gets officially designated a terrorist is political. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is true. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you disagree with usage doesn't mean that the entire concept and definition is meaningless.
>Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.
Killing the Jews was an ideological aim. So that was terrorism.
The profit motive is also ideological. So that’d be terrorism too.
In fact, pretty much everything we do is ideological. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you choose to ignore that doesn’t mean the word is meaningful.
Every protest. Every dissent. Every unauthorized breath must be terrorism. If everything is terrorism nothing is.... I mean terrorism got us civil rights and more no?
Maybe should not but as long as I can remember we have. Individual terrorists have always had a bit of a following on here.
The unabomber has always been popular here, I saw his manifesto mentioned as recommend reading several times over the years. When he died the comments were initially neutral-to-positive, some even openly admiring. Sentiment shifted but is still very very far from consensus condemnation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36272409
When israel booby trapped pagers and detonated them in public places, injuring thousands of civilians, HN came out overwhelmingly in favor of this attack. There is certainly some quibbling in the comments about the precise definition of "terrorism" vs "war crime" and people did fight against the consensus. But again it is extremely striking how favorably those actions were viewed here vs in less america- and tech-centric venues. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41567299https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41580205
Anyway just a couple of recent examples. I don't think this is a good thing, but for better or worse this is a place where quite a lot of people support (some) terrorists.
I thought we believed in the principle of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a jury of one's peers.
If you don't, that's fine, but I'm going to label you as a terrorist since you clearly see no problem doing it.
So here we go: by fiat, you're a terrorist. Congrats! Hopefully other astute readers will perform their civic duty and report you to local and federal LEOs. /s
This doesn't address the underlying problem, but if this is something you'd like to avoid as a consumer, it's worth noting that sewage sludge is not permitted for use in growing organic produce:
> A very important part of the process-based regulatory framework is the prohibition of certain methods in organic production and handling. Methods like irradiation, sewage sludge, and genetic engineering are all expressly prohibited from being used when growing or processing organic foods.
And it can be used upfield though so the groundwater carries the dirt into organic fields. Many of these "rules" are written like physics stops at some arbitrary line. To be honest "organic" is a bit of a joke in the farming community , as their fields tend to "hug" coventional fields to prevent a fungi overgrowth .
And we all know agrarian traders who get certified "organic" stuff from countries were any seal or certificate is just a bribe away.
All plants i know get fungi, especially late in the dry and ripen stage.It reduces yield, is toxic and carcinogenic. So fungizides are deployed during the plants lifetime to keep the contamination in check and the product healthwise unproblematic. Organic farming does not have that option. So the fungi rate of some organic farms approaches a total loss. So they hug conventional farms to get the fungizide floatsome for a better result.
Not a lawyer and I didn't read with a fine-tooth comb, but I didn't see any smoking gun.
The complaint shows high quantities of PFAS measured on a farm, then it jumps to a section that says those PFAS were "also found" in a sample of the fertilizer used. The catch is that the concentration of those PFAS is measured in parts per trillion (ppt). Not a lawyer, but I feel like this is an uphill battle to show that the "smoking fertilizer" that caused the breathing problems is linked to PFAS contamination in groundwater at a different site at high concentrations.
Something to keep in mind is that modern equipment is very good at finding very small quantities of compounds. When you're able to measure down to parts per trillion you can start finding some level of various compounds in basically every water sample you test.
Near as we can tell, the levels of PFAS (depending on the compound!) or microplastics to actually be causitively fatal to a farm animal - especially on the timescales of their typical lifespan - would be mind boggling. Like drinking-from-the-outlet-of—a-teflon-factory likely wouldn’t even do it.
The concern everyone has been having is that these compounds may be (evidence at current known exposure levels still iffy!) causing long term cancer risk increases or interfering with hormones.
That is not even in the same ballpark of ‘dies in 3-5 years’.
> the levels of PFAS (depending on the compound!) or microplastics to actually be causitively fatal to a farm animal - especially on the timescales of their typical lifespan - would be mind boggling. Like drinking-from-the-outlet-of—a-teflon-factory likely wouldn’t even do it.
Ah, sorry. Basically the most famous lawsuit involving PFAS in the US began because a farmer's cattle were dying downstream of a DuPont/Chemours plant in West Virginia that was dumping PFOA into the water. Dupont settled for hundreds of millions of dollars after an independent scientific review found probable links between the dumping and a variety of human ailments in the area. DuPont's own internal research suggested that the material is harmful to animals.
> Synagro has denied that its fertilisers have harmed the health of farmers or livestock and is contesting the lawsuit.
Sign of the times. Deny, deny, deny, and maybe all the people suing you will die or run out of money.
> Sign of the times. Deny, deny, deny,
Not really a sign of the times. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a new concept. The burden of proof is on the people suing to show that PFAS both came from the fertilizer and is the cause of the issues.
The article mentions that microplastics was another theory. It's not encouraging when the leading theories appear to be plucked out of current trends for scary chemicals.
> The article mentions that microplastics was another theory
The mention of microplastics was in relation to why the piles of biosolids were smoking. Speculation that heat from composting was burning microplastic particles.
Breathing burning plastic and ingesting large amounts of PFAS can both be harmful at the same time. The 'micro' part is irrelevant, you don't want to breath burning plastic regardless of the size of the particles burning.
Polluting your neighbor's property IS NOT OK. Normally externalities are more ambiguous, but this is literally polluting your neighbor's land. This isn't just a failure of our laws, this a failure of a community.
It would have been interesting if the article if the article gave prior concentrations as a baseline, such as when cattle died in WV from PFAS. Without a baseline it's hard to say. However, the levels being referenced in the calfs and the timing of the fish kills seems to indicate that a preponderance of the evidence supports the claims. In civil trials, it just has to be more likely than not.
[flagged]
Your broccoli has always had Freedom Flavor
Broccoli, now fortified with PFAS. Now that’s a marketing strategy!
This is not new.
Ref: The Johnstown Flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood
That's not really comparable because in the case of the flood, the damage was unambiguously tied to the dam bursting. That's not the case here. While I'm sure there's a non-zero amount of PFAS from the fertilizer that leeched into the nearby soil, it hasn't been established what its contribution was. This is closer to suing the local factory because you got lung cancer.
[flagged]
We should not support terrorists on Hacker News.
We should have discourse on people who are major players in the general Zeitgeist tho.... And as far as I know the terrorist charges being ABSURD is one the reasons he has so much public support....
Saying we shouldn't support ANYONE the government ACCUSES of being terrorists seems like a pretty nasty slippery slope...
How are they absurd?
Seems like a significant number of people, especially the 'supporters', believe the goal is to change health policy by instilling fear.
That seems like a classic example of terrorism.
The term is useless then. Every state military action is terrorism by that definition.
That is the consensus definition from the start. What did you think it was?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
>Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1]
>Modern terrorism, evolving from earlier iterations, employs various tactics to pursue political goals, often leveraging fear as a strategic tool to influence decision makers.
There is some debate on the fringes of the definition, but not all state actions are terrorism. For example, if a state military goal is simply to kill or disable your enemy by force, that isnt terrorism. Wars of extermination aren't terrorism either. That said, targeting non-combatants to hurt morale is a pretty common terrorism tactic. You could make a strong case that the bombing the civilians of London, Dresden, or Tokyo were acts of terrorism.
Outside of state militaries, it is pretty hard to imagine a principal that separates Luigi from abortion clinic bombers, The Weather Underground, or other domestic terrorists.
I’ll disagree and say all war is indeed terrorism. But I do actually think the term is meaningless and just made up so people can say their violence is righteous while others is bad.
This has become painfully obvious when groups like Hamas are labeled terrorists, but the guys slaughtering civilians with 1000lb bombs aren’t.
Or when Luigi offs a CEO it’s terrorism but when corporate policies cause the death of thousands or millions, it’s just capitalism baby.
It has a meaning and isnt just a synonym for ++BAD. Terrorism is crime of intent. It describes the purpose of the violence, specifically to instill fear and terror.
Nazis ushering jews into gas chambers wasn't terrorism. They didnt care what the jews thought. Does the fact that it wasnt terrorism mean it wasn't bad? Of course not.
Similarly, if you kill millions to make a buck, that isnt terrorism either, just because it is bad.
Of course the matter who gets officially designated a terrorist is political. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is true. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you disagree with usage doesn't mean that the entire concept and definition is meaningless.
Huh? I was using your definition posted:
>Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.
Killing the Jews was an ideological aim. So that was terrorism.
The profit motive is also ideological. So that’d be terrorism too.
In fact, pretty much everything we do is ideological. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you choose to ignore that doesn’t mean the word is meaningful.
Every protest. Every dissent. Every unauthorized breath must be terrorism. If everything is terrorism nothing is.... I mean terrorism got us civil rights and more no?
Maybe should not but as long as I can remember we have. Individual terrorists have always had a bit of a following on here.
The unabomber has always been popular here, I saw his manifesto mentioned as recommend reading several times over the years. When he died the comments were initially neutral-to-positive, some even openly admiring. Sentiment shifted but is still very very far from consensus condemnation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36272409
When israel booby trapped pagers and detonated them in public places, injuring thousands of civilians, HN came out overwhelmingly in favor of this attack. There is certainly some quibbling in the comments about the precise definition of "terrorism" vs "war crime" and people did fight against the consensus. But again it is extremely striking how favorably those actions were viewed here vs in less america- and tech-centric venues. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41567299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41580205
Anyway just a couple of recent examples. I don't think this is a good thing, but for better or worse this is a place where quite a lot of people support (some) terrorists.
For what it's worth I believe Luigi is a murderer, but by far not a terrorist.
Do you think he wanted to scare other health executives?
I thought we believed in the principle of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a jury of one's peers.
If you don't, that's fine, but I'm going to label you as a terrorist since you clearly see no problem doing it.
So here we go: by fiat, you're a terrorist. Congrats! Hopefully other astute readers will perform their civic duty and report you to local and federal LEOs. /s
This doesn't address the underlying problem, but if this is something you'd like to avoid as a consumer, it's worth noting that sewage sludge is not permitted for use in growing organic produce:
> A very important part of the process-based regulatory framework is the prohibition of certain methods in organic production and handling. Methods like irradiation, sewage sludge, and genetic engineering are all expressly prohibited from being used when growing or processing organic foods.
https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/organic-101-what-o...
And it can be used upfield though so the groundwater carries the dirt into organic fields. Many of these "rules" are written like physics stops at some arbitrary line. To be honest "organic" is a bit of a joke in the farming community , as their fields tend to "hug" coventional fields to prevent a fungi overgrowth .
And we all know agrarian traders who get certified "organic" stuff from countries were any seal or certificate is just a bribe away.
> fungi overgrowth
Can you elucidate ?
All plants i know get fungi, especially late in the dry and ripen stage.It reduces yield, is toxic and carcinogenic. So fungizides are deployed during the plants lifetime to keep the contamination in check and the product healthwise unproblematic. Organic farming does not have that option. So the fungi rate of some organic farms approaches a total loss. So they hug conventional farms to get the fungizide floatsome for a better result.
https://r.jordan.im/download/organic/lazzaro2015.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32835995/
it also depends on a lot of other factors (weather and crop rotation , but the key reasons are discussed )
Especially with all the junk (including meds) that goes down a sewer, I wouldn't want sewage sludge used.
The actual complaint is available here: https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024.02.27-First...
Not a lawyer and I didn't read with a fine-tooth comb, but I didn't see any smoking gun.
The complaint shows high quantities of PFAS measured on a farm, then it jumps to a section that says those PFAS were "also found" in a sample of the fertilizer used. The catch is that the concentration of those PFAS is measured in parts per trillion (ppt). Not a lawyer, but I feel like this is an uphill battle to show that the "smoking fertilizer" that caused the breathing problems is linked to PFAS contamination in groundwater at a different site at high concentrations.
Something to keep in mind is that modern equipment is very good at finding very small quantities of compounds. When you're able to measure down to parts per trillion you can start finding some level of various compounds in basically every water sample you test.
Near as we can tell, the levels of PFAS (depending on the compound!) or microplastics to actually be causitively fatal to a farm animal - especially on the timescales of their typical lifespan - would be mind boggling. Like drinking-from-the-outlet-of—a-teflon-factory likely wouldn’t even do it.
The concern everyone has been having is that these compounds may be (evidence at current known exposure levels still iffy!) causing long term cancer risk increases or interfering with hormones.
That is not even in the same ballpark of ‘dies in 3-5 years’.
> the levels of PFAS (depending on the compound!) or microplastics to actually be causitively fatal to a farm animal - especially on the timescales of their typical lifespan - would be mind boggling. Like drinking-from-the-outlet-of—a-teflon-factory likely wouldn’t even do it.
Counterexample: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/07/11/persistent-farmer-...
Paywall :(
Ah, sorry. Basically the most famous lawsuit involving PFAS in the US began because a farmer's cattle were dying downstream of a DuPont/Chemours plant in West Virginia that was dumping PFOA into the water. Dupont settled for hundreds of millions of dollars after an independent scientific review found probable links between the dumping and a variety of human ailments in the area. DuPont's own internal research suggested that the material is harmful to animals.
Here is Wikipedia on that lawsuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bilott#Initial_actions_...
Thanks! So apparently drinking directly from the plant is enough. Impressive.
Johnson County is not in the middle of nowhere, Texas. It’s just about 30 minutes south of DFW.
It is well known that biosolids are full of PFAs and that they bio accumulate and cause organ failure.
The science is clear.
The mass deregulation the Trump admin is proposing is just going to make this worse for everyone.
PFAS and microplastics are not good, and likely bad.
But the sheer quantity that would be required to actually kill livestock in anything resembling a clear and causative timeframe is mind boggling.
Like 10% by weight or something, likely, if not more.
That seems either really unlikely to be true, or such gross malfeasance that it’s gonna be hell to pay.
pulls out popcorn
[dead]
[dead]
a cow could drink a can of 80s scotch guard and not die from the pfas, what a nonsense article