Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MutantAndProud

(855 posts)
6. Define large
Thu May 25, 2023, 01:54 PM
May 2023

Is this not just another opening for another case?

*sigh*

Hydrology in soil is actually a fairly established science if I remember correctly. I guess by setting aside ‘large’ bodies that flow at a rate (undefined?) large enough to be unfiltered of novel human-created contaminants and concentrations of unearthed toxic substances they’re trying to target major offenders. But ‘small’ sources of contamination add up eventually if they’re in flood plains, historic inundation zones and river paths, or are attached to aquifer and wetlands feeding zones.

Also, as said in title, they need to define ‘large’ and ‘small’ in a way that isn’t going to ultimately destroy safe drinking water standards at the minimum. We do have the ability to measure all chemicals/products brought into an area and the amount that flows out…

I never understood the reluctance to run more testing labs in this country. Could be lots of jobs with sample collection, processing, and remediation if they wanted

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The US Supreme Court keeps showing us over and over: they hate America and Americans. Irish_Dem May 2023 #1
Overall it was unanimous - 9-0, and this case is kind of murky Amishman May 2023 #16
I wish I had some confidence the SC cares about Americans Irish_Dem May 2023 #18
... 2naSalit May 2023 #2
👇👇👇👁️👁️ Goonch May 2023 #3
Perfect! Scrivener7 May 2023 #9
The reasons aside it was a unanimous decision thatdemguy May 2023 #4
It was a 5-4 decision in its reasoning. Nevilledog May 2023 #7
yes but still unanimous that the epa went too far thatdemguy May 2023 #11
But it's important to evaluate for future challenges. Nevilledog May 2023 #12
This is going to piss off the environmental Republicans here in the OC. SleeplessinSoCal May 2023 #5
What, both of them? hatrack May 2023 #14
No. The educated Republican women of OC have issues with their own party SleeplessinSoCal May 2023 #19
Glad to hear it - hope they hurry up, because we don't have all that much time left . . . hatrack May 2023 #20
Define large MutantAndProud May 2023 #6
the culture wars are just a cover for this shit. mopinko May 2023 #8
Devastating. Absolutely heartbreaking Arazi May 2023 #10
To a point I think this case is good thatdemguy May 2023 #13
Why one might think that the justices PatSeg May 2023 #15
Well, beer-loving Brett is kinda wet, if ya know what I mean... Blue Owl May 2023 #17
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Samuel Alito's Assault on...»Reply #6