Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’
cnn.com
cnn.com
Surely, clean water—something we all need—should be an apolitical bipartisan issue, right? ...right?
Republicans will reject any funding methods that add to the national debt, or taxes businesses
Democrats will reject any funding methods the come with strings attached to reduce or pull funding from other programs, or that does not excessively and punitively tax business and "the rich"
So with such an impasse nothing will get done
So it should be left up to state regulators to set what they feel are the best for their states.
EPA could play a role in ensuring One state does not pollute another state, but there are and should be limits on what is a "federal issue" even if people today seem to think everything should be under the umbrella of the federal government.
"General welfare" is also a way that the EPA can run, and actually mandate strong changes to reverse massive pollution, and act strongly against climate change. Having high humidity and heat can and will make areas unlivable for humans.
(And I do agree that the commerce clause being used everywhere is a load of garbage in much of its applications.)
Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare"
>>"General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase.
Ahh your a living document believer, that we should reinterpret the constitution under the lens of how words are used in common usage today, not the original intent of the provisions. I am an orginalist so no I do not agree that General Welfare powers expand as humanities standards increase
And I plainly read what was said in the constitution. You seem to be the one re-interpreting the document based on your own world-view.
/s, I think, but I'm not sure.
Your bias is showing a bit there.
That said, where am I wrong, for the last several decades all the Democrats do is talk about how the Rich do not pay their "fair share" never defining what a fair share is.. and how we always need to tax them more...
I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club
Yes you can clearly see that by the highest quality of life being in countries like The Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore.. all countries known for their small government bent.
> and how we always need to tax them more...
Because the wealth gap has been growing ever larger
> I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club
Or perhaps they’ve realized a lawyer that earns 300k a year still is working class?
It’s laughable how the same, folds-like-a-lawnchair arguments always keep being trotted out, as if they haven’t been proven wrong a million times over.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare"
Seems to strongly indicate that clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare".
And they do have a good point to re-scope government appropriately. And frankly, I believe this clause calls for single payer medical, amongst other things. In some ways, the framers of the constitution did a damned good job in the forward language they chose. Other areas, no so much.
In Federalist 41,Madison clearly states that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means.
In short it is about the General Welfare *of the United States* on the whole, to provide means for Congress to have revenue to enforce and discharge the powers granted therein.
It is NOT.. I repeat NOT a general statement of power to provide all individuals all people "general welfare" like people attempt to conflate it to mean in modern day and as your comment asserts.
You can't be a strict constitutionalist and also use the words of the Federalist as a way to enhance or modify the constitution. These are contradictory viewpoints.
What???
While sure it is not legally binding the Federalist are looked to by historians and even the courts to understand the original context and intent of the constitution, No different than when courts look to the debate around a given law when they are attempting to understand what Congress meant when they passed the law.
Further in this case Federalist 41 was written by Madison the person that wrote the general welfare statement, to say that is the same as citing a NYT Opinion is the height of idiocy
Further still I am strict *orginalist*. meaning I do not engage in the idea of "living document" and that the words should be interpenetrated as they mean today instead they should be used in the context of 1776. I and other orginalist do this by citing sources for that time period such as the Federalist papers to understand what the ORIGINAL MEANING of "General Welfare" was at the time it was written.
> The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.[citation needed]
Yet we have a bill of rights!
Yeah you can absolutely use the papers to get context about what their authors were thinking. However, as I've shown with just one of many examples, you should not use the papers to claim that all the founding fathers think that way.
Even one of the other Federalists, Hamilton, disagreed with your interpretation.
> Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists took a broader view. Hamilton famously argued that the Clause authorized spending, so long as “the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, must be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.” While Hamilton did not advocate a completely unbounded interpretation of “general welfare,” under which Congress could spend money for virtually any object it considers beneficial, he and the Federalists did believe that the Clause authorized a wide range of spending for purposes that go beyond Congress’s other enumerated powers, so long as they were sufficiently “general.”
> The debate between the Madisonian and Hamiltonian views continued throughout much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a general rule, Democratic presidents and members of Congress tended to adopt positions similar to Madison’s, or slightly broader. Thomas Jefferson, Madison, James Monroe, James Polk, James Buchanan, and Grover Cleveland all opposed bills authorizing spending on local infrastructure and disaster relief projects, citing constitutional objections. By contrast, the Federalists, the Whigs, and the Republicans tended to take a broader view of congressional power, closer to Hamilton’s position. Whig leader Henry Clay, for example, argued that the Clause authorized his proposal for a wide-ranging “American System” of canal and roadbuilding.
You're claim that this is what it meant back then is clearly wrong, since even back then people like Hamilton disagreed with Madison. That's why using Madison as your only guide for interpreting the constitution is, well, not really a great argument at all.
Not even in the slightest, you clearly do not understand the position of Hamilton if you believe his statements mean " clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare" which is the original comment I responded to.
All of those things would be spending *Local* not *General* Hamilton viewed the General Welfare to be more expansive sure but he was still in the realm of things that applied to all States equally, not sending money to particular cities / states that need "clean water" or to individuals that need food assistance, etc.
So you acknowledge that your original statement was wrong, and that the general welfare statement even at that time was considered more expansive by some of the founding fathers than the Federalist paper you quoted argued?
Strict originalist, you say?
So, regarding the second amendment, what class of weapons do you consider "Arms"? Weapons from 1776? 1787, when a majority of delegates signed? 1778, when it was ratified? 1779, when it was the law?
And, these weapons were common arms for the Rev war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_th... . Any arguments saying later on weapons would just be a non-originalist interpretation of the constitution.
Under your premise you would have wanted all Slaves to be counted as whole persons. This is exactly what many slave owners wanted, they wanted to have the slaves counted as whole persons so their states would have more power.
The Abolitionists wanted the slaves not to be counted at all
3/5ths was a compromise and directly lead to the eventual abolishment of slavery completely.
I’d love to see less government interference in people’s reproductive rights, in education like the massive censorship around US history of slavery and genocide and the slightest mention of lgbtq people. Imagine Germany fighting tooth and nail against teaching about the world wars in school - would be a bit of a red flag, no?
Government protecting corporations from their responsibilities to the safety of the public and toward our ecosystems is extremely oppressive toward us, our children, and I see as interference. Defining government enforcing such protections as “interference” is an obvious sleigh of hand. Another example is extending copyright to longer than 7-15 years and enforcing this insanity for the robbing of the public domain.
People keeping their fair share of their labor is a similar one. I’d like to see a cap on exploitation of 99% of people, not constant reductions on the taxes that the 1% earn while they sleep - mostly at the cost of the rest not having livable wages.
East access to healthcare and great education makes a strong nation. Encouraging prosperity for all instead of creating moats around the wealth of the richest extractors also makes a strong nation.
I want to see the US as a strong healthy nation, very very much.
I think we’re on the same page, would you agree?
I bet I can test your resolve to both of them and show you really do not want more freedom, you just want different government controls than "the other team"
For example Education. Do you support backpack funded school choice, putting the power of what schools people go to in the hands of the parents?
Reproductive Rights.. How about "Financial Abortion" or Default Joint Custody with no support to either parent? Or mandatory DNA validation before entering names on birth certificates.
>Government protecting corporations from their responsibilities to the safety of the public and toward our ecosystems is extremely oppressive
Corporations are a creation of government, the entire purpose of a corporation is to protect them from liberality. That is really the sole reason for their existence. I always love when strong government supports rail on and on about corporations when strong government is the source of power for corporations.
The stronger the government the stronger the corporations. The more centralized the government, the larger the corporations.
Since We have been putting more and more regulation an power under the pervue of the federal government the largest corporations have gone from about 20% market share on average to 80% market share on average.
Strong Central Governments weakens and prohibits competition in the market place, history proves this time and time again
>>People keeping their fair share of their labor is a similar one. I’d like to see a cap on exploitation of 99% of people, not constant reductions on the taxes that the 1% earn while they sleep - mostly at the cost of the rest not having livable wages.
"A world that is safe for today’s rich will never be safe for the rest of us. Not until the rich’s massive fortunes, and the state power propagating them, is destroyed will we be safe. Smashing the state and eating the rich are two sides of the same coin." [1]
>I want to see the US as a strong healthy nation, very very much. I think we’re on the same page, would you agree?
I want to see a Federalist nation of 50 semi-independent States joined in a common economic union under a single National Defense Apparatus where the bulk of out government interactions are at the state and local level, and most people never even think about the federal government who simply ensures we are not invaded from the outside, that States do not fight each other, and that we can trade freely on the world stage.
But now all of a sudden, because I make over $400,000 I "don't pay my fair share of taxes", according to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden? They can go fuck themselves. Until the Democrats stop vilifying people like me, I'm going to hold my nose and vote anti-Democrat across the board. Everyone that I talk to feel the exact same as me.
Honestly I actually don't like the "tax the rich to make them pay their fair share" narrative either because it implies that taxes are what pays for the social programs, which is reductive at best (at least with current US monetary theory). I don't make more than $400,000/year [1], but I have traditionally done pretty well in total comp, and I still vote left because I my viewpoints don't change just because some people were to demonize me.
Also, wasn't Elizabeth Warren's "pay their fair share" tax for people making like more than $10 million?
[1] I actually make $0/year right now due to layoffs.
They simply prioritize their well-being and not being vilified over the social causes you view as $very_important; and I’d suggest that since you bring up issues such as minority rights, you examine why you think they should accept being othered and vilified, when clearly you object to that behavior in other contexts.
Why is that particular example of social abuse something they need to “sit down and shut up” about?
You didn’t explicitly say that because you know your own behavior is inappropriate — and pretend to condemn it in other contexts.
But Democrats are commonly hypocritical — eg, claiming to protect minority rights while being frothing mad they’re told they can’t use 1950s arguments about “too many Asians and Jews” to engage in systemic racism at universities.
I've personally always hated when certain groups are "not allowed" to have an opinion on given topics, for whatever reason, and I have pretty actively said as much when people have told others to "sit down and shut up", so in your particular case you're responding to a straw man and assigning attributes to me that are not true.
EDIT:
You edited your response after the fact and didn't disclose that. I'm responding to your edits now.
> You didn’t explicitly say that because you know your own behavior is inappropriate — and pretend to condemn it in other contexts.
Do I know my own behavior is inappropriate? What behavior is that exactly?
> But Democrats are commonly hypocritical — eg, claiming to protect minority rights while being frothing mad they’re told they can’t use 1950s arguments about “too many Asians and Jews” to engage in systemic racism at universities.
I have very mixed feelings in regards to the way that universities do their recruiting, and even in regards to the recent supreme court decision. Again, you're assigning labels to me that don't really apply. I tend to vote left, so I guess it's fair to lump me in with Democrats in a consequentialist sense.
I think perhaps the reason you had that thought of writing it explicitly was because it was the mentality behind your entire comment.
Ie, it was what you wanted to write; but you knew that was wrong, so you made a bad faith personal attack instead. (The one I called out.)
But the purpose of that bad faith reply is to shame them into sitting down and shutting up about being othered and vilified.
Edit:
> I tend to vote left, so I guess it's fair to lump me in with Democrats in a consequentialist sense.
I’m applying your standard:
You support institutional Asian hate in the same sense that the person you replied to supports the things you accused them of supporting.
If you don’t think you support institutional Asian hate by voting for Democrats, why would you make the accusations you did?
What is the motivation?
I also didn't make "accusations", I said that I thought it was bizarre that someone would change their political positions just because someone was mean to them. I stand by that...I think that's a weird thing to do. If Bernie Sanders personally sent me a message saying "Tombert is a real douchebag", I'm not going to suddenly start going to MAGA rallies, because my political opinions aren't about people liking me.
The inference they changed their opinion on those topics, rather than prioritized something else (eg, not being vilified) is a bad faith inference directly contradicted by their post, which explains why they changed their vote explicitly.
If I were to use your logic, then I’d conclude that you are personally racist towards Asians — because you vote for a party that is. But that would both be incorrect and an act of bad faith.
Elizabeth Warren is not talking about you. Actual rich people are laughing all the way to the bank at people like you for voting for policies for which they will get 99% of the benefit.
Also, "the Democrats" != Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
The US and EU country GDP's per capita are very similar like around €60k. The inequality is what is different. $400k is just insane in European country.
But your money is still small fry, billionaires own like 30% of everything in the US. Politicians are probably hiding behind taxing your class, rather than the real issue, billionaires.
You write: > As someone who [...] worked their ass off to become a 1%er [...] I worked and studied when my classmates or coworkers were partying, made good choices, and now I enjoy a nice life because of it.
I, like you, work fairly hard and have become quite well-compensated. What I'd like to point out is that there are probably two categories of folks who are NOT "1%ers". There are those who were "partying" and making poor choices and therefore have a lower income. But there are also those who worked VERY hard but never had the opportunity to be rewarded for that work.
It is easy for me to feel entitled about my distinguished-software-engineer-level income if I think only of the first group, but if I compare myself to the second group I have to remember that many of them never had the chance to go to college, never had the opportunities I had and aren't in any way "undeserving". You probably already know everything I am saying here, but I wanted to share that this perspective is one I keep in mind when making statements so I don't come out sounding unreasonably entitled.
A lot of people seem to think of themselves as self-made, without realizing the number of folks who worked just as hard as they think they did without seeing anywhere near the same success.
Maybe something will happen at some point to make them open their eyes, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Why do you feel the need to lie about the position of politicians when they are so easily available?
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax
Specifically:
> Zero additional tax on any household with a net worth of less than $50 million (99.9% of American households)
So unless you're sitting on a fat nest egg, Sen. Warren thinks that you are indeed paying your fair share of taxes. I'm sure Sanders and Biden agree. Stop lying.
Why not the existing EPA Superfund program? Discovering pollution from industry decades after the contamination took place isn't a new problem.
It goes deeper than that. Much of the narrative rejects the validity of claims, or files solutions in the "woke" category, to be fought out of principle.
Fluoride is an actual chemical, and the Alex Jones "turning the frogs gay" comment was about a study that linked the presence of atrazine (a pesticide legal in the US but banned in the EU) in a water supply with the demasculinization of frogs
(FWIW there's been replication issues when other people ran the same experiment).
Would love to see the differences.
It is silly to be worried about things because the talking heads on the radio and tv told you to be afraid or worse because read it on the internet.
If you don't trust talking heads on TV or radio, what about scientists on youtube? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu0IXMTFY9Q
That debate is definitely going on and has no consensus as evidenced by the fact that some cities are still removing flouride from their water and some are adding it.
This is the internet and you could be a Phd whose researched flouride your entire life but the internet, and some very respectable sources at that, just straight up disagree with you.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34597567/#:~:text=Excess%20a....
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluor...
> In November 2019, the National Toxicology Program released a draft report on fluoride concluding that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard.
> fluoride intake levels (0.93 [0.43] vs 0.30 [0.26] mg of fluoride per day; P = .001).
> Children had mean (SD) Full Scale IQ scores of 107.16 (13.26), range 52-143, with girls showing significantly higher mean (SD) scores than boys: 109.56 (11.96) vs 104.61 (14.09); P = .001.
The average IQ of people in the UK is 99.12 and in Canada 99.52 [3]. Let us suppose that the hypothesis is true; it is expected then that in a country with higher average consumption of fluoride, we would, consistently, see lower average IQ.
> Above-average consumption of tea, as recorded in Great Britain, could result in fluoride intakes as high as 8.9 mg per day [4];
We observe that the average consumption of Fluoride is about an order of magnitude larger in the UK, yet, IQs are almost identical. Which hints that if such a relationship exists, it is not as pronounced (5 IQ points) as the article claims.
Maybe somehow women in the UK consume 20x less Fluoride when they are pregnant (what's the prob of this?), maybe people in the UK are just built different and their superior genes compensate and without the Fluoride they'd be at 104-105ish. Given history and similarity between societies, this looks unlikely.
So until a causal mechanism is found, I am inclined to disagree over the "proven fact" statement.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-020-0973-8
[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
[3] https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country...
[4] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.2740340...
There are an unbelievable number of confounders here. Rich countries add fluoride to their water!
Ecological comparisons are towards the bottom of the evidence hierarchy because there are any number of cofounders at play.
For example you could accidentally conclude that smoking is healthy because smoking tracks with affluence in poorer countries.
So I would reject the notion that we should or shouldn’t see IQ differences in very different populations which is why you want to do controlled research on different cohorts in the same population.
Finally, a causal mechanism is only a cherry on top but it’s not necessary for strong causal inference. Our mechanistic explanations are repeatedly wrong and/or inexhaustive. Fortunately, we can perform good quality studies instead like mendelian randomization.
At this point I think fluoride falls firmly into the category of "needs more research", but if you're pregnant it seems like actively trying to reduce your intake of fluoride is a sensible precaution since that's unlikely to have any negative effect on you or the kid, but if fluoride does cause problems you could dodge a bullet before the science catches up.
I don't understand your holier-than-thou tone about fluoride. Sadly, the fluoride stuff is still up for discussion. Why is it a "taboo" to discuss this? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-020-0973-8
Meanwhile researchers who have conducted proper meta-analyses of the literature have come to a negative conclusion on this topic:
In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-children...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/08/20/fluoride-an...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18695947/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31424532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285601/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S08920...
That said, let's note please that these are all associational, rather than cause-and-effect findings. The matter should definitely be explored further - but in my book I would need significant evidence of a causative relationship to check the "overwhelming evidence" box.
Life on earth is a highly interconnected system, otherwise, what's the point of educating people on issues like pollution, climate change, alcohol, etc.?
Clearly fluoride has health risks if my local water municipality had to get federal assistance building out a fluoride removal plant to treat its ground water supplies, but as always the dose makes the poison...
Unless there's a way to get very rich from doing it, it won't get done in the contemporary US.
We've barely figured out how to even detect a tiny portion of PFAS, and even then can't quantify it, we don't have any way of removing PFAS specifically, the best general purpose technology we have is reverse osmosis which is not economical. If it's in the ground water it will be in the drinking water.
What we need to do (as in the human race because this stuff just propagates around the globe), is to stop manufacturing them, immediately, because this stuff accumulates. The mentality of "shoot and ask questions later" in the name of industry, technological progress and "my wallet" needs to stop. Prevention is the answer, not more technology to fix a technology that should have already have been deprecated over a decade ago - and to be clear i mean all PFAS, until individual formulas can be proven ecologically and biologically safe.
To prevent history from repeating itself new chemicals beyond the thousands of PFAS should go through ecological and biological testing before allowing them to be manufactured at scale and released into the environment. In the same way we test products for human consumption, we need to learn that the environment is an extension of us, and if we disregard it, it will come back to bite us.
Yes, the delay in punishment is a huge problem. 3M is facing fines easily pushing them into bankruptcy... so even when the punishment is severe enough, it's too late, huge damage has already been done.
The problem is that even this is not a disincentive, whether or not they know it, executives use these artificial constructs "companies" as vehicles to extract money, the smart ones play hot potato to prevent personal liability once they see what's ahead, instead of blow the whistle - it's immoral, I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps the only way is education, even MBAs need to be made to appreciate the value of environment and the potential ecological and biological consequences of their negligence - I think most of them probably down play it even in their own mind, as a kind of "gotta break some eggs to make an omlet" mentality, that there is always an environmental cost, but lacking the historical knowledge and imagination of how such costs can vary qualitatively and quantitatively with orders of magnitude in separation.
I trust a lawyer more than a CEO because a lawyer has ethical obligations.
Not when one party is dedicated to destroying the EPA and anything related to it
Doubt we'd be able to prove it even if true.
It's a real shame because the Mississippi mercury levels were finally down enough to eat fish.
The EWG map of PFAS in fish[1] provides some specific measurements on fish in the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...
[1] https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_US_fish/map/
I mean, water naturally contains toxins like arsenic and lead. We don’t fret when it’s present (its present in most water) but only when the amounts cause toxicity.
Each state publishes them. Here is the one for Minnesota for example:
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/fish/...
"They also take into account findings of low levels of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in fish throughout Minnesota."
So I'm not sure how you could make a statement like "Eating a fish meal out of the Mississippi in Minnesota (by 3M) will give you a month's worth of PFOS if you were just drinking contaminated tap water."
I have a friend who loved sushi and she ate it at least once a week, if not more. Her daughter was born in the bottom 1% of size, so they took a blood test and her blood was poisoned with mercury from how much fish she consumed. She went through months of chelation therapy to bring it down, but the fact that she had to go through that is a testament to how fucked up our water is and how much we are killing the environment and ourselves.
Even in cities with good water, it makes sense to filter heavily and remineralize at home. This ended up helping me in myriads of ways due to natural disasters causing boil orders, finding out about chemical spills in the area that affected water supplies, etc. No worries at my home, thanks to significant filtration.
The Pacific Northwest of the US, aside from Portland, is looking pretty good, though.
Any sufficiently old DoD site is probably an environmental disaster that is known or waiting to be discovered. Like Hanford and Bremerton.
I live in an area with very hard tap water (500 ppm TDS); even without a water softener the output becomes ~80 ppm TDS, and the water hardness test strips check out at ~40 ppm. I then installed a water softener with its own sediment pre-filter, and now the overall RO output looks (TDS-wise) even more pure than your typical plastic-bottled water.
Realizing I should provide some source as I'm no expert. I don't think this is the original paper I stumbled upon, but I imagine it says much of the same...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367212337_The_antio...
USGS writeup: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-st...
The study itself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...
Map showing the regions with PFAS detected in tap water: https://d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/...
[1]: https://cleanwater.org/2020/07/29/bottled-water-human-health...
Asking seriously. I don't know how many I'd give, but it's definitely greater than 0.
> Asking seriously.
I know this will sound harsh, but this is probably a skill issue, not a hardware issue. I used to struggle a LOT with pans getting fouled up with whatever I was cooking.
The only thing that got me to figure it out was forcing myself to exclusively use the same cast iron pan for everything, and to practice cooking scrambled eggs on it every morning. Once you master the temperature, timing, etc., cleaning the pan literally takes 3 seconds (paper towel into trash can, pan on hook).
Regardless, teflon is not going to fix this in a meaningful way. If you are bad at temperature control, it might save the eggs from sticking but they're still gonna burn and you are risking vaporizing the coating. Cast iron isn't the best thing to get super hot either, but it is much safer if you do.
I think putting the oil in and letting it get hot before cooking is probably the way to go.
https://hanspremiumwater.com/reverse-osmosis/
Mention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36662101
And
> You can dramatically increase efficiency by adding a permeate pump, search Amazon, they can be had very cheaply, they recycle the concentrate, increasing recovery and filter effectiveness.