UK Nature and Environment

395 readers

15 users here now

General Instance Rules:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
Do not spam or abuse network features.

Community Specific Rules:

Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.

Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.

Our autumn banner is a shot of maple leaves by Hossenfeffer.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Cost of dealing with PFAS problem sites ‘frightening’, says Environment Agency (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The number of sites identified as potentially having been polluted with banned cancer-causing “forever chemicals” in England is on the rise, and the Environment Agency (EA) says it does not have the budget to deal with them.

A former RAF airfield in Cambridgeshire and a fire service college in the Cotswolds have joined a chemicals plant in Lancashire and a fire protection equipment supplier in North Yorkshire on the agency’s list of “problem sites” for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

In total, according to a report compiled for the agency, there could be more than 10,000 locations in England contaminated with PFAS – substances that have been linked to a wide range of diseases including cancers, and which do not break down in the environment, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals”. But to date the agency is only taking action on four sites.

top 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] stembolts 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well, according to capitalism the appropriate thing to do is to solve it for the ultra rich and let everyone else be contaminated and die of awful cancers.

It's only rational. The alternative would be banding together to make the world better for everyone but that is just silly. I mean, it would be expensive, and by expensive I mean that as a world we've de-incentivized any action that doesn't generate wealth for the capital owners. Should we change this paradigm? No, rich people would be mad.

How will we know who is better than others if we can't have children inherit unearned wealth which allows them to be smug cunts to everyone their whole life?

People who are born without wealth are just worse people, clearly. And there is nothing to be done.about it. If your parent ever made a questionable financial decision, the appropriate thing to do is have that mistake ripple through dozens of generations causing untold trauma. As it should be.

Edit: /s is obvious. No?

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks 3 points 1 month ago

Even more frightening: PFAS.