Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States News

US Drinking Water Widely Contaminated With 'Forever Chemicals' (reuters.com) 314

The contamination of U.S. drinking water with man-made "forever chemicals" is far worse than previously estimated. with some of the highest levels found in Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans, said a report on Wednesday by an environmental watchdog group. From a report: The chemicals, resistant to breaking down in the environment, are known as perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Some have been linked to cancers, liver damage, low birth weight and other health problems. The findings by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) show the group's previous estimate in 2018, based on unpublished U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, that 110 million Americans may be contaminated with PFAS, could be far too low. "It's nearly impossible to avoid contaminated drinking water from these chemicals," said David Andrews, a senior scientist at EWG and co-author of the report.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Drinking Water Widely Contaminated With 'Forever Chemicals'

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, great. (Score:5, Funny)

    by sgage ( 109086 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @09:19AM (#59647110)

    Things were going so great for the environment, and now this...

    • I wonder, do your normal water filters catch these things, like the ones you have in your fridge for filtering the cold water dispensers?
      • Re:Oh, great. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ryzilynt ( 3492885 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @09:46AM (#59647230)

        I wonder, do your normal water filters catch these things, like the ones you have in your fridge for filtering the cold water dispensers?

        No they do not.

        I live in the suburbs of Philadelphia and I have PFOS and PFAS in my drinking water. The contamination stems from fire fighting chemicals (foams) used in training drills at a local Naval air base. At first they said don't worry, then people started testing the water. The levels came back well above the EPA safe levels. So they fixed the problem by doubling the EPA safe limit on the chemicals...

        My local water authority has been closing wells and getting water from alternate sources. At first they put a surcharge on my water bill. I sent them a note indicating that I was not pleased with being charged for them having fed me poisoned water for the past 30 years. Especially considering we know where the pollutants came from. They have since removed the charges, but as far as I understand it the U.S. Navy has done little to nothing to remedy the problem. There was a community meeting and they handed out some bottled water. It was akin to trump throwing paper towels at Puerto Ricans.

        I have been using a water cooler and buying 5 gallon bottles of water for the past few years.

        • Re: Oh, great. (Score:5, Informative)

          by BytePusher ( 209961 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @09:56AM (#59647258) Homepage
          Reverse osmosis works.
          • RO doesn't "work or not work;" purity (effectiveness) scales with the amount of waste water you're willing to generate/sacrifice.
        • Re:Oh, great. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bengie ( 1121981 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @12:10PM (#59647770)
          The issues with the safety levels is these chemicals by their very nature inert. The way they poison people is they tend to be bioaccumulative and high enough concentrations can interfere with normal biological processes.And bioaccumulation has a non-linear relationship with environment concentrations. One of those things that the only way to find out is to try, and now we can't take it back. Science! Sometimes wish science had a QA environment separate of production.
      • You're kidding, right??
      • by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

        I wonder, do your normal water filters catch these things, like the ones you have in your fridge for filtering the cold water dispensers?

        Short answer: No

        Longer answer: The small filters in a fridge, under sink are carbon filters and they may remove some PFAS, but an insignificant amount. Carbon filtration is a contact sport and you need larger filters to increase the amount of contact and time in contact with the carbon. If you want to filter PFAS you need household two-stage carbon filtration system, or reverse osmosis system, and maintain the system properly.

        Tangentially, the average person is exposed to PFAS from more sources than just dr

    • and now this...

      Relax; if you're just now figuring out that "innovative, designer molecules" are a threat to human health, you've got far bigger problems - and BTW, don't drown when it rains...

  • by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @09:22AM (#59647122)

    From the article

    In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.

    I don't think there's been a more anti-science administration in the post WWII era.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      These chemicals and their effect on critical thinking and general sense of right and wrong are probably the only thing keeping Trump in office.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

        These chemicals and their effect on critical thinking and general sense of right and wrong are probably the only thing keeping Trump in office.

        Really?

        You don't think it is the socialist, bat shit crazy far left leanings that his opponents have been putting forth as the "new path" for America which goes against pretty much everything the US is supposed to be about?

        I mean, frankly, if there were a sane 3rd party candidate that was more middle of the road in all, had maybe slightly left leaning social polic

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Kreplock ( 1088483 )
          Yah, I cringe when I see Trump but it's either him or batshit crazy leftist moonbats. It's a demonstration of how entrenched the two party system is that someone reasonable can't come along as a third choice. The level of propagandizing required for this political landscape should come with a prescription drug warning. And remember, the rethugs didn't want Trump either but their candidates were so bad they had Donald forced upon them. Trump is one hell of a side-effect, rly.
          • Yah, I cringe when I see Trump but it's either him or batshit crazy leftist moonbats.

            Gotta have one to have the other, and vice versa.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • The American left would be considered, in any other country, to be center-right. The *far* left in America would be just barely left of center in any other country.

            Most of you seem so terrified of a government that might spend money to help someone who is not exactly like you. (You seem comfortable spending insane amounts of money on military and corporate welfare and subsidies, and agricultural welfare, but god forbid that someone with slightly off-white skin should get to see a doctor without paying.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

              The American left would be considered, in any other country, to be center-right. The *far* left in America would be just barely left of center in any other country.

              Again, this keeps being said and it means exactly NOTHING...if we wanted to be like Europe, we'd be like Europe and would have been long ago.

              How we feel about left/right here has nothing to do with the rest of the world. If you want to be that way, more power to you, but it means squat in an argument about US politics.

              That's the nice thing abo

              • by Firedog ( 230345 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @11:56AM (#59647714)

                You do not speak for all Americans.

                Iâ(TM)m a born-and-raised American. I completely agree that our choices are basically between center-right Democrats and batshit-crazy-far-right Republicans, and Iâ(TM)m not happy about it.

                The Republican party does *not* stand for small government or fiscal responsibility. Their actions over the last 40 years prove otherwise. Theyâ(TM)re getting closer and closer to straight-up fascism. Corruption and collusion are apparently perfectly okay now. It is the party of doublethink.

                Given the choice between that and *any* Democrat, Iâ(TM)ll take the Democrat. Iâ(TM)d prefer a more progressive option but I know how to be pragmatic.

              • by skam240 ( 789197 )

                Again, this keeps being said and it means exactly NOTHING...if we wanted to be like Europe, we'd be like Europe and would have been long ago.

                it very much means something. It shows how full of shit certain American conservatives are when they claim Democrats are communists and their policies hopelessly too far to the Left to ever work. There's very little about Sander's or Warren's policies that haven't been shown to work in dozens of other countries.

            • ...in any other country, to be center-right

              By "any other country," you mean Western Europe or one of three Crown Colonies (everywhere else still has death penalties, for fuck's sake).

        • I believe the majority in the US are far from either extreme, but are forced to choose between what they see as the lesser of two evils.

          ^ This

          Couldn't agree with you more. The far left and far right extremes are ridiculous.

          Where I differ is that I see any reasonable adult as being better than trump. And until that magical charismatic 3rd party candidate emerges and vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for trump.

          I am left with only one option.

          • And your attitude is why the Democratic Party pretty much ignores the voters and decides on a very unlikable candidate. They know you have no other choice, so they can put a corporate stooge in front of you and you'll vote for them over Trump.

      • These chemicals and their effect on critical thinking and general sense of right and wrong are probably the only thing keeping Trump in office.

        Keep it up.

        The smug, self-righteous, pompous left are going to hand him a second term.

        • by DogDude ( 805747 )
          It's not smug to point out an idiot is an idiot.
          • I can agree that's not smug. That's childish.

            • by DogDude ( 805747 )
              Ok, so the alternative is to say that stupid things are happening because really brilliant people are making the decisions? Whatever you need to get through the day, bro. Whatever you need.
          • It was, however, the smug folks that helped the idiot get elected, and who will probably get him reelected. The left cannot ignore, and certainly can't continue to insult the people in the "heartland". It seems to be the only culture they do not have a disproportionate "respect" for. They have no choice but to vote for a "blunt weapon" that most of them wouldn't have otherwise let onto their doorsteps.

            • by DogDude ( 805747 )
              People who are wrong are going to get their feelings hurt. That's sad. You can call it "smug" if you'd like.
            • Your argument comes down to the ridiculous idea that a minority of people who live in rural counties should have control of government policy, overruling the majority.

              Those rural folk voted for someone who is currently impoverishing them, which is probably the best reason they should be ignored: they don't know what's good for them.

            • So you are saying that they vote for Trump out of spite? How exactly is this not stupid?

    • From the article

      In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.

      I don't think there's been a more anti-science administration in the post WWII era.

      Uh, try not to confuse science with pure unadulterated greed, which is the usual motivation behind shit like this.

      We no longer have to speculate if roles have reversed, and the government is a representative of corporations now. It's obvious.

    • by G00F ( 241765 )

      The link source is BS, scary sounding blame trump with no real info. Lets look at the scary forever chemicals, Perfluoroalkyl substances , https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]

      Associations between PFAS and metabolic syndrome are inconsistent within and across studies.

      IE, more science needs to be done, but with reporters and libtards spreading FUD all because orange man bad.

      And more data from a source that would lean against anything not organic: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]

      Evidence for cancer is limited to manufacturing locations with extremely high exposures and insufficient data are available to characterize impacts of PFAS exposures on neurodevelopment. ...limited data should not be used as a justification to delay risk mitigation actions for replacement PFASs.

      Again, suggesting more science needed, but conclude with not wanting for data. We now have a baseline of "safe" concerning

      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        The link source is BS, scary sounding blame trump with no real info.

        You didn't read the article or my quote from it at all did you?

        My prior quote from the article:

        In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.

        But yeah, sure, the article offers no real data.

        On top of that, also from the article.

        The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on two of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS.

        So we have two government agencies here agreeing that these things are a problem or at least have enough of a potential to be so that they should be limited..

        IE, more science needs to be done, but with reporters and libtards spreading FUD all because orange man bad.

        Absolutely, the article you didn't read literally agrees with you that more research needs to be done (although it didn't engage in your half-wit partisan slandering in doin

    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @11:47AM (#59647690)

      I don't think there's been a more anti-science administration in the post WWII era.

      Just a reflection of the general population. In a democracy, a stupid leadership is always a sure indicator that there are too many stupid voters. In essence, the population is doing it to themselves.

  • Do they turn the friggin' frogs gay?

  • "It's nearly impossible to avoid contaminated drinking water from these chemicals,"

    If this stuff gets through our water filtration systems then it seems to me that we need to change how we filter water, potentially even fundamentally. It would be interesting to see if water vapor distillation systems are capable for keeping this stuff out.

    • Get a reverse osmosis system
      • Can you loan me the $12,000 to $18,000 it'll cost to install one in my home? [aquatell.com] Thanks in advance!
        • Whole home RO systems don't make a ton of sense. There's lots of water use (washing, toilets, etc) that doesn't need the same level of filtration as drinking/cooking water. You can get a single sink system for a under $400 that is sufficient to provide all of the drinking water needed for a family.

        • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @11:44AM (#59647682)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Oh, wait, this is in the US? Well, then this _must_ be fake news, nothing to worry about!

  • Bad science writing is bad.

    Also - don't live in cities if you want to enjoy a healthy environment. It's not just the water. At least make the trade-off consciously, but don't act shocked and surprised.

    A decade ago I had a water distiller at my city office that l ran overnight. Every morning I would have a gallon of water for drinking that day and a couple ounces of putrid orange sludge to pour down the drain.

    Don't put these kinds of things in your brain, if you value it.

  • Take a look at what you get with teflon/nonstick cookware.
  • Not that "forever" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @12:29PM (#59647852)

    Activated Charcoal and RO both remove PFAS. Ban the drugs, begin large scale strategic filtering. Better yet, run it through the charcoal inline (yes, the delay for filtering means clean water infrastructure will have be expanded overall to end with the same output that exists now) and it'll cost money but it's a drop in the bucket (he he he) compared to any other major issue on the table.

    I doubt many people will object to spending on a clean water supply. Being able to afford a whole house filter won't prevent these toxins from being in your food and in beverages while out or your children's drinks from the water fountain at school. You can't just spend your way into solving the problem for yourself without solving for everyone else. Even if you wanted to handle it with property taxes so you only paid for your own community, the water and contaminants are going to cross those lines. Also core infrastructure spending is one of the areas all the economists agree boosts the economy.

    This is a no-brainer for bi-partisan support. The only question is which level of government should fund it, since these are commercial bi-products which run off from one state to another unchecked, it is more or less a blanket issue nationally, and limiting or solving this issue is clearly in the interest of the general welfare it seems like this could reasonably be funded federally.

  • by SirMungus ( 6551692 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @03:01PM (#59648602)
    The EWG is not a science-based organization. They are an advocacy group funded for organic food organizations. Every six months or so, the EWG puts out press releases proclaiming widespread contaminations by some sort of chemicals. Invariably, they set an arbitrary level orders of magnitude less than the limit established in peer-reviewed scientific literature (in this case, 1ppt instead of the well-researched 70ppt). They never have any peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting their lower level. Even the smoking gun in the last paragraph ("In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends.") suggest nothing less than 7ppt as a safe level, and yet the EWG sets the level at 1ppt. The fact that people fall for this shows just how uninformed the general public is, even those that like to complain loudly about the Trump administration being anti-science. Note that the 70ppt threshold was established in May 2016 by the Obama administration (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminants_pfos_pfoa_11-20-17_508_0.pdf, page 4). Note also that the scientific estimate of the EPA is that 500ppt is associated with only a one-in-a-million increase in cancer risk (ibid).
  • by meburke ( 736645 ) on Friday January 24, 2020 @09:42AM (#59651656)

    I read a book back in 1973, "Survival of the Wisest" by Jonas Salk (You remember who he was, don't you?). https://www.amazon.com/Surviva... [amazon.com]

    This article totally depresses me. Dr. Salk was claiming in his book that the plastics we were using were going to hang around and kill us someday. If I remember correctly he focused mainly on Styrofoam, but I seem to recall that Teflon was also specifically named for breaking down into microparticles and circulating into the body.

    Crap! We could could have started mitigating the evil effects 'way back when. And since then we have a proliferation of similar plastics plus thousands of other plastics that are going to do tremendous damage until we either find a way to clean them up or mutate into something that thrives on them... Too late for me, though.

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...