Eat that China. We are also willing to take grave safety risks in the name of ramping up industry productivity.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
110 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
87598 readers
3967 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You joke but Maga dad says we should be like China every time we talk. And he gets his news from that Oan whatever you call it.
Last conversation, "Your son get job yet? " "Nope got 3 months of high school left." "In China they send kids to work when they are 6." "Okay dad but this isn't China."
"Well we should work like they do, and they willing to work for way less."
Fucker really thinks we can bring jobs back to America if we are willing to work for the same pay and hours that they do in China.
He's not wrong, though. If people were willing to work for slave wages, they'd bring the jobs back. Outsourcing and shipping finished products across the world would be more expensive at that point.
The problem is that it requires people being willing to work for slave wages.
It also said that “the chemicals may present an ‘unreasonable risk’ to workers and the public.”
Dear god, don't put me in the position where ibhave to defend the EPA, please.
"It is said" is a horrible argument. Come with facts or go away. They don't even knoenwhich chemicals exactly will be used, so how about you start there?
I beg to differ. It should be required that manufacturers of such chemicals do the research to show that their product is safe before they allow its manufacture and workers to be exposed and the chemical to be dumped into the environment.
From the Guardian article linked to in OP's article:
The EPA acknowledged in its approvals that it does not know the level at which the chemicals are “acutely lethal” or cause other serious health damage, but the agency still approved them anyway, said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, an attorney with the Earthjustice nonprofit, which filed the suit.
The EPA knows that the chemicals are harmful, but doesn't know how harmful yet approved them anyway. As for the facts, that's kind of hard to get since:
The two compounds approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for import and immediate use in facilities across the US are photoacid generators that also appear to be Pfas “forever chemicals”, though it is unclear because much of the EPA documents are redacted . Some Pfas are commonly used in the production of semiconductors.
Emphasis mine. They've approved chemicals for use in manufacturing and have redacted much of the approval notice so that no one can double check their work. If this lawsuit fails, we may not know how bad these chemicals are until they are sickening and killing workers and wildlife.
What could possibly go wrong?