The trusty quarterback trending arrow points up for Dak Prescott and down for Josh Allen.

Plus, Brock Purdy is back, people! (Even though he never really went anywhere.) So is Russell Wilson, I think?

And who wouldn’t be excited for some Patrick Mahomes–Jalen Hurts and Lamar Jackson–Joe Burrow matchups in Week 11?

Here’s my weekly look at how quarterbacks stand using traditional statistics like passer rating, along with advanced metrics like Expected Points Added per dropback, via TruMedia, to provide a number-based outlook of the state of the position.

I’ll also give a sneak peek at the upcoming matchups using EPA per dropback for the quarterbacks and the defenses they will face in Week 11. A warning that there are plenty of unexpected names and question marks throughout that chart.

GO DEEPER

NFL midseason QB EPA rankings: Joe Burrow trending up, Brock Purdy trending down

Nos. 1-8

The San Francisco 49ers passer pulled off the best passer rating of his career in the team’s Week 10 thrashing of the Jacksonville Jaguars. That’s saying something since it’s the third time Purdy produced a passer rating north of 140.0 in 17 NFL starts. Maybe it helped to have Deebo Samuel and Trent Williams back in the lineup.

Prescott is having one of the better stretches in his career. The Dallas Cowboys quarterback led the league in EPA rate (0.33) and passer rating (125.1) during Weeks 6-10 (four games, Dallas had a bye in Week 7). Oddly, he’s done it while being the fourth-most-sacked quarterback in the span (13).

A weird couple of weeks for the Los Angeles Chargers’ Justin Herbert. In Week 9, he yielded the second-worst passer rating (65.4) and fifth-worst EPA rate (-0.20) of his career against the New York Jets. The Chargers won that game. In Week 10, he put up outstanding numbers against the Detroit Lions. Los Angeles lost that one. Herbert’s Week 10 EPA rate was the highest for a losing quarterback this season.

I promise I’m not trying to downplay the success of C.J. Stroud. He’s helping the Houston Texans become a playoff contender. Take Week 9’s awesome performance away for a second. Stroud’s last four games outside of that, Stroud compiled a 0.04 EPA rate and 85.6 passer rating. The most encouraging aspect of that is how those numbers seem to be his floor.

Things are spiraling for the Buffalo Bills’ Allen, and now there’s a new offensive coordinator in Buffalo after Ken Dorsey was ousted this week. Allen’s Week 10 EPA rate in the loss to the Denver Broncos was his worst since Week 14 in 2019. Allen produced consecutive negative EPA rates for the first time in the regular season since Weeks 1-2 in 2021. The swoon dropped him from third to seventh in this season’s overall EPA rankings.

Nos. 9-16

Lions running backs David Montgomery and Jahmyr Gibbs rushed for nearly 200 yards and three touchdowns and Jared Goff amassed his best EPA rate of the season in the win over the Chargers. A nice bounce-back outing for Goff after the bye. He struggled a bit in Weeks 7-8 with a -0.15 EPA rate and 76.9 passer rating.

Baker Mayfield has left that Week 6-8 stretch behind (-0.11 EPA rate, 77.1 passer rating). In the last two games, Mayfield tallied a 0.29 EPA rate and 111.1 passer rating. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers QB is easily having his best season since 2020 when he went to the playoffs with the Browns.

Geno Smith rebounded from the worst EPA rate and passer rating of his Seattle Seahawks career in Week 9 to propel the team to a last-second win over the Washington Commanders in Week 10. It was his third 100.0-plus-passer rating performance of this season.

In the last five Green Bay Packers losses, Jordan Love has yielded a -0.10 EPA rate and 67.8 passer rating. Love also possesses the league’s lowest completion percentage at 58.7 percent. All that said, Love has produced a 0.10 EPA rate or better in three of his last four games.

Coincidence that an AFC North foe was the last team to slow down the Baltimore Ravens’ Jackson this season? The numbers from Jackson’s Week 10 outing in a loss to the Cleveland Browns resembled his performance in a Week 5 loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers (-0.31 EPA rate, 65.2 passer rating). His 56.5 completion percentage in Week 10 stands as a season low.

I’ve been pretty harsh on Wilson for his empty stats and a career-worst game (in terms of EPA) during this season. Wilson’s EPA rate probably should’ve been higher given how often the Broncos began possessions inside Bills territory in Week 10. But … Wilson looked the part again in a thrilling win. During the Broncos’ current three-game winning streak, Wilson has amassed a 0.05 EPA rate and 115. passer rating.

Nos. 17-24

Plenty of teams could use a Sam Howell-type quarterback right now. Too bad the Commanders squandered very good outings for Howell in Week 8 and 10 losses to the Philadelphia Eagles and Seahawks, respectively. Howell totaled a 0.18 EPA rate and 111.8 passer rating in those two games.

You might not know this, but Josh Dobbs ranked ninth in EPA rate (0.12) and 10th in passer rating (99.4) during the first four weeks of the season while starting for the Arizona Cardinals. So I’m not totally stunned by the success he’s having in Minnesota. It’s more about how quickly he’s acclimated himself with the Vikings.

Burrow and Derek Carr possess very similar overall numbers, and I wouldn’t have imagined that to be the case more than halfway through the season. It feels so much better for the Cincinnati Bengals’ signal caller, though. despite the setback in Week 10 against the Texans. The Carr seemed too unsettled in Week 10 — and sustained a concussion and right shoulder re-injury — despite coming off a 0.22 EPA rate and 119.6 passer rating in Weeks 8-9.

The Indianapolis Colts’ Gardner Minshew made it the ninth time this season in which a quarterback guided a team to a win this season with a passer rating south of 70.0.

The Las Vegas Raiders are 2-0 since Aidan O’Connell took over as the starter in Week 9. O’Connell didn’t set the world on fire in the team’s Week 10 win over the New York Jets with a -0.27 EPA rate and 72.0 passer rating. O’Connell had more success against the New York Giants in Week 9 (0.25 EPA rate, 90.3 passer rating).

Justin Fields is expected to start this week for the Chicago Bears after missing the last month with a right thumb injury. Rookie Tyson Bagent kept the Bears viable with a 2-2 mark as a starter despite posting lackluster rates.

Nos. 25-33

We’re only two weeks removed from the Tennessee Titans’ Will Levis yielding a 0.13 EPA rate and 130.5 passer rating in his first start in a win over the Atlanta Falcons in Week 8. Last two weeks for Levis: -0.16 EPA rate, 59.8 passer rating.

Current Falcons starter Taylor Heinicke isn’t passer-rating qualified yet so he’s not listed in the rankings. In three appearances, Heinicke has produced a 0.02 EPA rate and 84.2 passer rating. His Week 10 numbers in a loss to the Cardinals: -0.25 EPA rate, 84.0 passer rating.

No hyperbole here with the Jags’ Trevor Lawrence. He compiled the worst EPA rate and third-worst passer rating of his career in the blowout loss to the 49ers. Quite the way to halt consistency. During Jacksonville’s five-game winning streak, Lawrence tallied a 0.04 EPA rate and 100.2 passer rating.

The Browns and Steelers both stand at 6-3 and are very much in the thick of the AFC playoff race. This despite their respective quarterbacks Deshaun Watson and Kenny Pickett continuously near (or in) the basement of these rankings. Watson picked up his biggest win as Browns QB in Week 11 against the Ravens, but now he’s out for the year with a right shoulder injury. As for Pickett, he hasn’t thrown a pick since Oct. 1.

Mac Jones’ time as the New England Patriots’ starter may be nearing an end with Bailey Zappe replacing Jones on the final drive in the Week 10 loss to the Colts.

Would you have ever thought this statistic would exist? So far, undrafted rookie Bagent has pushed the Bears to more wins in four starts this season than 2023 No. 1 pick Bryce Young has for the Carolina Panthers.

I see little point in examining the New York quarterbacks, but since the Giants’ Tommy DeVito doesn’t qualify for overall rankings, here you go: -0.30 EPA rate, 67.8 passer rating vs. Cowboys in Week 10.

(The Cardinals’ Kyler Murray will be ranked once he’s passer-rating qualified. Murray returned from his knee injury with a -0.12 EPA rate and 71.0 passer rating in the team’s Week 10 win over the Falcons.)

Week 11 defense vs. QB EPA matchups

*Injury uncertainty heading into Week 11

(Photo of Dak Prescott; Cooper Neill / Getty Images)

The post NFL QB EPA rankings: Dak Prescott transferring up, Josh Allen transferring down and is Russell Wilson again? appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Decades after officials banned lead in gasoline for new cars and stopped the sale of lead paint — huge steps toward eliminating lead exposure to the public — there are still an estimated 500,000 U.S. children with levels of lead in their blood that are considered high, and experts say lead in drinking water is one important reason.

Now, the Environmental Protection Agency is aiming to further reduce lead levels in drinking water and tighten a rule that failed to prevent drinking water crises in cities like Flint, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey. Although the specifics aren’t public, the agency says it will propose requiring that utilities actively replace harmful lead pipes.

President Joe Biden has already called for eliminating the country’s estimated 9.2 million lead pipes, lines that connect water mains under the street to homes and businesses and are responsible for most of the lead that gets into drinking water.

But it’s costly to send out workers to dig up the pipe, lay new ones and replant damaged landscaping. In many cities, homeowners are expected to pay to deal with the pipe on their property.

“Across the population, this has huge effects,” said Ronnie Levin, a former EPA researcher who now teaches at Harvard University’s school of public health.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Kids are especially sensitive to lead exposure and high doses significantly reduce intelligence, impair coordination and disrupt a student’s ability to focus and learn. Behavior can deteriorate. Federal officials say there is no safe level of lead for children — even small amounts can reduce IQ scores.

The updated rules will arrive as the federal government attacks lead on several fronts, with announcements about the dangers in aviation fuel and proposed stricter limits on dust from lead-based paint in older homes and child-care facilities.

Some officials remain more focused on the danger from sources like paint dust, but attention to the danger in water grew after Flint.

Decades of work have drastically reduced childhood blood lead levels in the U.S., but many kids are still being exposed to the toxic metal “and the expectation is that a fair amount of that is from lead in water,” said Dr. Aaron Bernstein, a Boston-based pediatrician who this year became the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s environmental health programs.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Bernstein said he is hopeful “that as we remove lead pipes, we’re going to see the numbers continue to fall. And that will be really wonderful.”

Lead is a nightmare to regulate because unlike other water contaminants it enters drinking water through pipes and plumbing fixtures after the water has already come out of the treatment plant. It also can vary widely – a family consuming dangerous amounts of lead may live next door to a house with no lead at all.

Levin was part of a contingent known as the “lead mafia.” The group pushed for strong lead regulations, arguing that many people would benefit, so even small health improvements were worthwhile.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Others at EPA believed Levin’s analysis exaggerated the benefits of new regulations and some CDC officials argued that focusing on drinking water would take away from the fight against lead paint, according to a book about the science at EPA by Mark Powell.

But finally in 1991, EPA completed its lead rule.

“It was a tough fight within EPA,” Levin remembered.

The agency did not force utilities to eliminate lead in drinking water, but instead required them to test for lead in homes and add anti-corrosive chemicals.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

The EPA set an action level of 15 parts of lead per billion parts water, but allowed 10% of samples to be above that threshold. Utilities that tested above that could be forced to replace their pipes.

The rules have significantly reduced lead in drinking water, contributing to the nation’s 95% decline in young children’s blood lead levels over roughly the last half-century.

The CDC’s Bernstein said, “Our own lead program at CDC lost funding before Flint, as if we had finished the lead problem in this country.” But Flint brought renewed attention to the problem, and new investment in lead poisoning prevention, he said.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Other crises erupted in 2016 in Newark, New Jersey, and in 2018 in Benton Harbor, Michigan.

Joe Cotruvo, a former director of the Drinking Water Standards Division at EPA, said the existing regulations do work, they just aren’t properly enforced.

Others disagree. Current rules do a bad job of monitoring for lead and cities haven’t done enough to push lead levels as far down as possible, said Michael Schock, a recently retired EPA chemist who worked on lead for decades.

“The public health implication is that there was a lot of lead exposures that would have been somewhat preventable” if utilities had been forced to do more, Schock said. Too many people at EPA still don’t want to significantly tighten standards, Schock said.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Take the crisis that unfolded in Newark. Because it had a history of low lead levels, only small numbers of tests were required every three years. Officials would have been more likely to catch rising lead levels sooner if they had sampled more sites, more often, according to a 2022 journal article.

The crises in Newark and in Benton Harbor eventually received a more energetic official response. Lead pipes in both cities were rapidly removed and lead levels dropped.

Levin said removing pipes now and beginning to address lead-leaching plumbing in homes will cost money.

“But, you know, we’ve been diddling around for 30 years.”

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

The post EPA to strengthen lead protections in consuming water after a number of crises, together with Flint appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

(Adds details of judgment and background, paragraphs 3-12)

By John Kruzel and Nate Raymond

May 25 (Reuters) – The US Supreme Court on Thursday again limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory influence, ruling in favor of an Idaho couple who have long tried to build a home on property the EPA classified as hazardous classified as a protected wetland under a landmark federal pollution control law.

In a 9-0 decision, the judges overturned a lower court’s ruling against couple Chantell and Mike Sackett, which upheld the EPA’s finding that their property contained wetlands near a lake that are protected by the Clean Water Act from 1972 were protected. However, the judges unanimously agreed to overturn the lower court’s decision, differing in their reasoning.

The ruling was the latest instance in which the court supported a challenge to the extent of EPA’s ability to regulate environmental issues under applicable law. In a 6-3 ruling last June, supported by its conservative judges, the court limited the EPA’s powers to pass broad regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal and gas-fired power plants under another environmental law, the Clean Air Act enacted .

The case decided Thursday stemmed from the Sacketts’ purchase of a vacant lot in 2004 about 300 feet (90 meters) from Priest Lake, one of the largest lakes in Idaho, near the US-Canada border. In 2007, the couple began preparations for the construction of a house.

However, after the EPA filled in sand and gravel on the property, it issued an administrative order stating that the property contained wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act and that they needed a building permit, which they however, had not received.

This law bans the discharge of pollutants, including rocks and sand, into “United States waters,” which regulators have said for decades cover not only navigable waters but also adjacent wetlands such as swamps, marshes, and berms.

The story goes on

For decades, courts and regulators have debated the extent to which a property must be connected to a waterway in order to require a permit. The Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2006 that created further uncertainty.

Four judges at the time said the law governed land with a “continuous surface connection” to a waterway, while Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the deciding vote in the 5-4 case and is now retired, said the law extended further to areas in which it was a “significant connection” to a waterway.

The Sacketts had asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the matter after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied on Kennedy’s test to uphold a judge’s finding that the Sacketts’ property contained wetlands.

The dispute previously made its way to the Supreme Court when the judges unanimously ruled in 2012 that the couple could challenge the EPA’s compliance order in court, facing financial penalties if they failed to comply.

Thursday’s court ruling came after President Joe Biden’s administration passed a rule in December that expands the definition of waterways protected by the Clean Water Act — a reversal from the era of former President Donald Trump. Biden in April vetoed a move by Congress aimed at repealing the rule.

A federal judge in North Dakota on April 12 temporarily blocked implementation of the rule in 24 states in response to a lawsuit by mostly Republican-run states. In a separate ruling on March 19, a Texas federal judge blocked enforcement of the rule in Texas and Idaho at the request of Republican attorneys general amid legal challenges to the new rule. Also in Kentucky, the ruling was stopped by the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 10 while the state appealed a lower court’s decision. (Reporting by John Kruzel; additional reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; editing by Will Dunham)

The post UPDATE 1-U.S. Supreme Courtroom guidelines in opposition to EPA in wetlands regulation problem appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The morning meeting with Al Tompkins is a daily Poynter briefing with story ideas to consider and a more contemporary context for journalists, written by Al Tompkins, Senior Faculty. Sign up here to have it delivered to your inbox every weekday morning.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to limit some of the so-called “forever chemicals” in US drinking water.

The chemicals that will be restricted, commonly referred to as PFAS, are named PFOA, PFOS, GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. First used in the 1940s, they are all around us, in our clothing, packaging and food, and they are ubiquitous in tap water.

Because they are so widespread, PFAS can enter the environment from multiple sources. Because they break down very slowly, over time concentrations of PFAS can accumulate in people, animals and the environment, and enter the water sources you depend on.

The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators warns that while the new guidelines are a “step in the right direction,” you may have to pay higher water bills to remove the chemicals. Water authorities would also have to notify the public if they found PFAS levels higher than permitted. The federal government is providing $9 billion through the bipartisan Infrastructure Act to help cover costs, particularly in disadvantaged areas of the country.

The EPA says:

We now know that some PFAS can cause serious health problems if you are exposed to them – even in small amounts – over a long period of time. Drinking water is one of several ways people can be exposed to PFAS, and reducing PFAS in drinking water helps reduce the health risks of PFAS. Exposure to PFAS, which the EPA proposes to regulate, can increase the risks of a number of health effects, including:

• Effects on fertility such as increased high blood pressure in pregnant women
• Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, bone variations, or behavioral changes
• Increased risk of some cancers, including kidney and testicular cancer
• Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infection, including reduced vaccine effectiveness
• Affecting the body’s natural hormones, including thyroid hormones
• Elevated cholesterol level
• liver damage

In announcing the proposed rules, the EPA said, “Over time, if fully implemented, the rule will reduce tens of thousands of PFAS-related illnesses or deaths.”

The National Resources Defense Council says:

Many of these problems, including kidney cancer and thyroid disease, surfaced in the C8 studies, which monitored the health of approximately 69,000 people in West Virginia who were exposed to certain PFAS in their drinking water. The major adverse effects of some PFAS were known to chemical industry scientists decades ago, but have not been reported to the US Environmental Protection Agency or the public.

For example, the EPA fined manufacturer DuPont millions of dollars because the company had “a number of failures to provide the EPA with information regarding a significant risk of harm to human health or the environment” from the PFAS perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8) Report to. Now, numerous independent studies show that PFAS can be toxic to adults, and especially children, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable. Some PFAS are even known to build up in a child before birth. Alarmingly, PFAS were found in the breast milk, cord blood, or blood of 98 percent of participants in a national health and nutrition survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, note in the C8 report how many conditions were suspected to be linked to the “forever chemicals” but the evidence did not.

Other sources say the link to human cancer is less clear, but there is an established link in lab rats. Poison.org (which originates from the non-profit National Capital Poison Center and is not a government agency) notes:

Due to their persistence in the environment, PFAS chemicals are found in drinking water, dust, air and food. PFAS are also found in the bloodstream of almost every adult living in the United States. Widespread human exposure to PFAS has raised questions about the potential health effects of these chemicals. In studies in rats, PFAS exposure has been associated with cancer. However, the meaning of this is unclear. Rat bodies are not the same as human bodies, and the pathways involved in the growth of cancer cells in rats often differ from those in humans. In addition, the body’s processing of PFAS compounds is different in humans than in some other animals. Because of this, it can be difficult to establish a strong association between PFAS exposure and cancer.

EPA rules specify “maximum contaminant levels” for the chemicals. Ten states (New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and Vermont) did not wait for the federal government and set their own borders.

The Environmental Working Group says more than 200 million Americans may now have these chemicals in their drinking water. A few years ago, the Environmental Working Group released drinking water data from dozens of cities across the country that showed levels of “forever chemicals” far in excess of what would be allowed under this new regulation:

(working group environment)

The EWG has been tracking this issue for almost two decades with little progress up to this week:

The limits, known as Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs, are the highest levels of contamination permitted in drinking water. The announced MCLs are 4 parts per trillion or ppt for PFOA and 4 ppt for PFOS. For the other four PFAS, the agency proposes the use of a “hazard index,” which is a tool used to address cumulative risks from mixtures of chemicals.

The EWG says many of the states that haven’t waited for the federal government have set higher levels than the new federal rules:

New Jersey was the first to set a maximum pollutant limit for the compound PFNA of 13 ppt and has proposed standards of 13 ppt for PFOS and 14 ppt for PFOA.

(working group environment)

The EPA’s proposal is just that. It’s open to public comment before it becomes the norm. Once the proposal is posted to the Federal Register, the public has 60 days to comment. The EPA says it expects to finalize the rule by the end of this year.

The list includes:

• Most indigenous peoples in the United States do not have access to important government records within their own tribes. There are 574 federally recognized sovereign tribal governments in the United States. The Native American Journalists Association reports that fewer than five tribes have freedom of information laws granting their citizens the right to access government documents or consultations. How can a government be there for the people if the people don’t know what is happening to their government?
• The Missouri legislature is considering legislation that would significantly weaken the Missouri Sunshine Law.
• Two Washington state bills would make it harder for applicants to appeal denials and allow courts to penalize applicants.
• In Hawaii, legislators are considering legislation to keep household documents and other records private.
• Arizona state lawmakers passed new rules in January that protect their own records from disclosure under the state’s Open Records Act.
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision in 2022 that weakened claimants’ right to recover fees from unruly agencies.
• In Iowa, state lawmakers are considering a measure that could cause significant delays in public record litigation in court.
• In Georgia, lawmakers have pushed legislation that would “require the redacting of names and property rights from state databases of law enforcement personnel, politicians and hundreds of thousands of other government officials,” the Georgia Recorder reported.
• Virginia state lawmakers last month rejected a proposal that would have required state agencies that use taxpayer-funded credit cards to disclose the names of government officials.
• New Mexico state lawmakers are considering legislation that would reduce the transparency of the government’s hiring process for executive positions.

Details on all of these can be found here.

Twice in the past few days I’ve heard people who should know better call the failed bank in California the “Silicone Valley Bank.” So let’s take a moment to remember the difference between “silicon” and “silicone”.

Silicon is a naturally occurring chemical element. You can find it as the 14th element on the periodic table. It is the second most abundant element in the earth’s crust (after oxygen).

PolymerSolutions says:

Pure silicon rarely occurs in nature. It is often combined with oxygen to form silicic acid or silicon dioxide. If you’re a beach bum, chances are you’ve felt silica between your toes — since it’s a key ingredient in sand. Its richness makes it a great building material for a variety of uses.

(PolimerSolutions.com)

But why do we have Silicon Valley or Silicon Valley Bank? Because silicon is widely used in electronics and computer technology because it conducts electricity. Live Science explains:

Silicon has many industrial uses: As a silicic acid, silicon is an important component of bricks, concrete and glass. In its silicate form, the element is used to make enamel, pottery, and ceramics.

Elemental silicon plays an important role in modern electronics as it is an ideal semiconductor for electricity. When heated to a molten state, silicon can be formed into semiconducting wafers that serve as the basis for integrated circuits (microchips).

In fact, Silicon Valley, the southern region of the San Francisco Bay Area, earned its name due to the region’s high concentration of computer and electronics companies that produce silicon-based semiconductors and chips.

Silicone is a synthetic substance that also contains silicone. Normally, silicone is a rubbery substance that has low toxicity and tolerates heat well. Live Science says, “In the medical field, silicone can be found in implants, catheters, contact lenses, dressings, and a multitude of other things. You can also find silicone in a range of personal care products, including shampoos, shaving cream and personal lubricants.”

Plumbers use silicone to make pipe joints watertight. Perhaps part of the confusion is that silicone is also widely used in electronics, but as insulation.

ZMEScience sums it up:

So the difference between the two should be obvious by now. They are both useful to the global economy, but one is a naturally occurring chemical element while the other is an artificial polymer.

Associate silicon with: chemistry, geology, computers, chips, semiconductors, Silicon Valley, cement, brick, glass.

Connect silicone to: insulation, molding, foam, coatings, cookware, fire protection.

The post What are the ‘endlessly chemical substances’ that the EPA is limiting? appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.