US Water Likely Contains More 'Forever Chemicals' Than EPA Tests Show (theguardian.com) 84
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: In May 2021, a celebration for Portsmouth, New Hampshire's new $17m water treatment facility drew local and national officials who declared the city's water free of toxic "forever chemicals." Firefighting foam from the nearby Pease air force base had polluted the water for decades with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and in recognition of the public health threat the US military funded the city's new filtration system. Officials said after implementing the upgraded filtration, testing no longer found detectable levels of PFAS chemicals in the water. They called the work in Portsmouth a "national model" for addressing PFAS water contamination. "We are here to celebrate clean water," Senator Maggie Hassan said at the time. But the water may not be clean after all.
A Guardian analysis of water samples taken in Portsmouth and from eight other locations around the United States shows that the type of water testing relied on by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- and officials in towns such as Portsmouth -- is so limited in scope that it is probably missing significant levels of PFAS pollutants. The undercount leaves regulators with an incomplete picture of the extent of PFAS contamination and reveals how millions of people may be facing an unknown health risk in their drinking water.
The analysis checked water samples from PFAS hot spots around the country with two types of tests: an EPA-developed method that detects 30 types of the approximately 9,000 PFAS compounds, and another that checks for a marker of all PFAS. The Guardian found that seven of the nine samples collected showed higher levels of PFAS in water using the test that identifies markers for PFAS, than levels found when the water was tested using the EPA method -- and at concentrations as much as 24 times greater. "The EPA is doing the bare minimum it can and that's putting people's health at risk," said Kyla Bennett, policy director at the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "PFAS are a class of chemicals used since the 1950s to make thousands of products repel water, stains and heat," notes the Guardian. "They are often called 'forever chemicals' because they don't fully break down, accumulating in the environment, humans and animals. Some are toxic at very low levels and have been linked to cancer, birth defects, kidney disease, liver problems, decreased immunity and other serious health issues."
"[W]hen it comes to identifying PFAS-contaminated water, the limitations of the test used by state and federal regulators, which is called the EPA 537 method, virtually guarantees regulators will never have a full picture of contamination levels as industry churns out new compounds much faster than researchers can develop the science to measure them," adds the report. "That creates even more incentive for industry to shift away from older compounds: if chemical companies produce newer PFAS, regulators won't be able to find the pollution."
A Guardian analysis of water samples taken in Portsmouth and from eight other locations around the United States shows that the type of water testing relied on by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- and officials in towns such as Portsmouth -- is so limited in scope that it is probably missing significant levels of PFAS pollutants. The undercount leaves regulators with an incomplete picture of the extent of PFAS contamination and reveals how millions of people may be facing an unknown health risk in their drinking water.
The analysis checked water samples from PFAS hot spots around the country with two types of tests: an EPA-developed method that detects 30 types of the approximately 9,000 PFAS compounds, and another that checks for a marker of all PFAS. The Guardian found that seven of the nine samples collected showed higher levels of PFAS in water using the test that identifies markers for PFAS, than levels found when the water was tested using the EPA method -- and at concentrations as much as 24 times greater. "The EPA is doing the bare minimum it can and that's putting people's health at risk," said Kyla Bennett, policy director at the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "PFAS are a class of chemicals used since the 1950s to make thousands of products repel water, stains and heat," notes the Guardian. "They are often called 'forever chemicals' because they don't fully break down, accumulating in the environment, humans and animals. Some are toxic at very low levels and have been linked to cancer, birth defects, kidney disease, liver problems, decreased immunity and other serious health issues."
"[W]hen it comes to identifying PFAS-contaminated water, the limitations of the test used by state and federal regulators, which is called the EPA 537 method, virtually guarantees regulators will never have a full picture of contamination levels as industry churns out new compounds much faster than researchers can develop the science to measure them," adds the report. "That creates even more incentive for industry to shift away from older compounds: if chemical companies produce newer PFAS, regulators won't be able to find the pollution."
What's the filtration system doing? (Score:2)
Is it actually removing any PFAS? What did the "other" test show on pre- and post-filtered water samples?
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly matters anymore. The EPA has been rendered toothless by the Supreme Court. May as well shut it down
The EPA may provide guidelines and recommendations, but does not have authority to create or enforce laws. The EPA can also run tests to see if a situation falls within its recommendations, but cannot impose fines or penalties. Congress can take EPA recommendations and codify them into law, including penalties.
There's an excellent movie about this (Score:5, Informative)
Dark Waters is a great movie about the whole situation. It's on Netflix too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
you'd think we'd learn a thing or two...
Re: (Score:1)
Dark Waters is a great movie about the whole situation. It's on Netflix too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Another good one is The Devil We Know, also on Netflix. I had a classmate move up to Parkersburg to work at Dupont's waterworks plant and died of cancer the year this came out.
Bottled water industry (Score:4, Interesting)
If tap water is safe to drink, then the bottled water industry will lose a lot of business...
On the other hand, as long as enough people *think* that tap water is not safe to drink, then the bottled water industry basically becomes a tax upon every American, and the industry would have lots more money for campaign contributions...
Um.... what should the EPA do? Decisions, decisions....
Re: Bottled water industry (Score:2)
Re:Bottled water industry (Score:5, Informative)
"Bottled Water" can also included regular tap water that has been either filtered or subjected to Ozonation and sold as "Purified Water". Water does NOT have to come from a spring or well to be sold as Bottled Water.
For example, Dasani is sold as "Purified Water" but many people buy it thinking it is somehow better than common filtered tap water.
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/... [fda.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A rusty lead pipe? That would be a trick.
Then again, you are talking.about brand name water, I suppose they had to distinguish themselves some how.
Re: (Score:2)
Lead oxide is sweet (Score:3)
That's why it's such a problem in paint: children discover that the peeling paint tastes sweet and will eat even more than they otherwise would.
Re: (Score:3)
"Bottled Water" can also included regular tap water that has been either filtered or subjected to Ozonation and sold as "Purified Water".
And then the plastic bottles leach a load of chemicals into it.
Re: (Score:3)
The EPA said it was safe.
The Guardian (as in the news media organisation) is saying that the EPA isn't doing enough and the amount of pollutants is harmful.
Your conspiracy theory makes no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
The EPA said it was safe.
The Guardian (as in the news media organisation) is saying that the EPA isn't doing enough and the amount of pollutants is harmful.
Your conspiracy theory makes no sense.
Then why didn't EPA come out and vehemently set the record straight, and widely publicize that tap water is safe for drinking? With inflation coming strong and hard, be able to save some money from buying bottled water got to be welcomed news, right?
By letting people continue to *think* tap water is not safe, while maintain tap water quality that is safe to drink *on their records*, EPA get to justify their existence and keep their funding, at the same time let politicians continue to receive money from in
Re:Bottled water industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, if the EPA was in the pocket of "big bottled water" for donations, they would have skipped right to the part where they are the ones that say the water isn't safe.
The other interested party in water safety is all the industries that cause the pollution, and the governments that could be liable for giving people unsafe drinking water, and the EPA's lack of funding for being able to detect these new pollutants. (Per the article it's a bunch of new PFAS that the EPA's testing doesn't cover).
But upon seeing all this you say that the EPA hasn't responded to a day old news article, it must be because they're waiting for a bribe from Evon.
> What made no sense is Americans continue to waste tax dollars on maintaining potable tap water quality while at the same time drink only bottled water.
Only drinking bottled water?! You think Americans ONLY drink bottled water and therefore maintaining drinkable water is a waste of tax?
I'm sorry that you've been polite during this discussion and I'm losing my cool, but so much of society is making the insane reach for the opposite of what a reasonable interpretation of the facts say and it's maddening.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, if the EPA was in the pocket of "big bottled water" for donations, they would have skipped right to the part where they are the ones that say the water isn't safe.
And thereby admit they have been negligent and/or incompetent? Have you ever met anyone working in a govt job?
I never said EPA was in anyone's pocket. I am saying politicians benefit from bottled water industry making profits, and politicians have influence over how EPA do their job. EPA staff have interest in keeping their jobs.
Everyone is just looking after their own interests, no conspiracy needed at all. I leave it to the readers to think how each would behave.
If you like to insist that everyone is
Re: (Score:2)
the pay check comes from the industrial polluters who need the narrative that water is not quite dead yet.
"politicians benefit from bottled water industry" that is just beer and pizza money, mostly beer because the shariah court of the US has a beer fan on board.
Re: (Score:3)
> If you like to insist that everyone is working primarily toward public's best interest, I am not going to waste time waking you up from your dream.
I'm not insisting that at all.
But I am insisting that presented with:
* The Guardian performs new water tests around America and finds they have large amount of chemicals that the EPA doesn't have specific tests for.
The logical conclusion is NOT:
* Therefore the water is safe to drink and the EPA don't want to correct them because of bottled water donations.
Re: (Score:2)
In most areas of the USA, tap water is not safe to drink.
Even we non americans know that.
What made no sense is Americans continue to waste tax dollars on maintaining potable tap water quality while at the same time drink only bottled water.
What makes no sense is that you call a basic human right: having drinking water, a waste of tax money.
Re: (Score:2)
In most areas of the USA, tap water is not safe to drink.
Even we non americans know that.
What made no sense is Americans continue to waste tax dollars on maintaining potable tap water quality while at the same time drink only bottled water.
What makes no sense is that you call a basic human right: having drinking water, a waste of tax money.
Where does this "basic human right" to "have drinking water" come from?
Re: (Score:2)
Where does this "basic human right" to "have drinking water" come from?
a) from being a human
b) human rights charta of the united nations
Do you learn nothing in school? Or have no moral standards?
Re: (Score:2)
Where does this "basic human right" to "have drinking water" come from?
a) from being a human
b) human rights charta of the united nations
Do you learn nothing in school? Or have no moral standards?
That's a lovely philosophical sentiment, but it doesn't answer the question of what it means to "have drinking water" and where that comes from.
1) It is 1897. You are a Bedouin roaming the desert around Al Tag, Libya. Where does your "basic human right" to "have drinking water" come from? Which humans are obligated to provide water to you?
2) It is 1849. For centuries your tribe has lived adjacent to the most convenient access point for a small river in northern California, which has always met all your need
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest to google that your self.
Obviously if you choose to travel the deserts, it is your own obligation to take care that you have enough water.
So: what has that to do with people living in a majour American city?
Obviously nothing. However if your school kids can not drink safely from tap water ... 3rd world country, actually I would call it 4th world.
Re: (Score:1)
yeah, it's not in the constitution, therefor it is not a right, right ? XD
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, it's not in the constitution, therefor it is not a right, right ? XD
If you are referring the the U.S. Constitution, the opposite is true. The US government is a creation of its Constitution, which explicitly says that all rights are reserved to the people living in the various states. Thus, the right of people to "have drinking water" falls within the existing Constitution.
But let's put aside the political euphemisms -- none of this discussion is actually about an individual's "right" to "have" drinking water. It's about an individual's obligation to spend your labor and r
Re:Bottled water industry (Score:5, Informative)
No it won't. Your is great example of why we need to go back to poll tests and taxes.
The ruling says nothing of the sort. It basically says the EPA can't just declare anything to be pollution. CO2 being a natural and large portion of our atmosphere already was not something considered pollution at the time.
That is not even the IMPORTANT or MAJOR reason the EPA lost though - they lost because the Affordable Clean Power Plan was a regulatory regime that forced operators of coal fired plants to subsidize alternative energy sources - which has FUCK ALL to do with regulating emissions. It was essentially a system of taxation and redistribution. Do you really think the EPA should have the ability to levy taxes? Really? You think that is what the people's representatives intended when they enacted the Clean Air Act?
If the EPA wanted to put coal out of business - they could have - they could have identified some other flue gas component that actually isnt already a large and normal part of the atmosphere. They could have set a PPM or PPB threshold low enough that coal fire would be impossible to use industrially. They have that power TODAY - even after this ruling! They would however likely have to apply it more equally - ie if my coal plant can't emit more than X in Y your natgas plant or solar panel manufacturing facility can't either! That is a good thing though - its not the EPA's job to decide what types of industry can exist!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 being a natural and large portion of our atmosphere already was not something considered pollution at the time.
CO2 is not a large portion of the atmosphere.
It is a trace gas.
Re:Bottled water industry (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, most of the bottled water people buy is just tap water. It's bottled from the same municipal supply the tap water comes from.
There are a few brands that aren't, you might known ones like Evian, and Perrier which are bottled in France and exported, and likewise command higher prices.
The rest of it is pretty much unregulated - a lot of it just tap water unadulterated. Sometimes it's sent through some filtration. Sometimes it's water untreated from the same reservoirs and called "spring water".
The bottled water industry will survive - the profits are immense because you can produce cases of bottled water for pennies - 90%+ margins are typical
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, most of the bottled water people buy is just tap water. It's bottled from the same municipal supply the tap water comes from.
The brand I buy for emergencies doesn't get its water from my city's water supply. I've been to 10+ states and can tell the difference in tap water. Some tap water is better tasting than others. My city's water is so hard I try not to drink it without filtering it first.
Re: (Score:1)
filtering does not remove hardness, btw
Re: (Score:2)
filtering does not remove hardness, btw
I have a whole house water softener which removes minerals such as magnesium. I then have a reverse osmosis (RO) for my kitchen sink and fridge's water / ice hookup. This filter removes chlorine, VOCs, etc. RO can reduce water hardness by removing dissolved solids. I should have been more explicit in my comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Around here the tap water is safe to drink, it's just really horrible. Tastes bad, destroys all your appliances because it's so hard. You either buy bottled or a filter, and even then your appliances get wrecked by it. You clothes can never be cleaned properly, can't take a decent shower.
I know, first world problems, but the point I am getting to is that water is so cheap that there isn't much incentive to even fix leaks, let alone make sure it's good quality.
Re: (Score:3)
Around here the tap water is safe to drink, it's just really horrible. Tastes bad, destroys all your appliances because it's so hard. You either buy bottled or a filter, and even then your appliances get wrecked by it. You clothes can never be cleaned properly, can't take a decent shower.
I know, first world problems, but the point I am getting to is that water is so cheap that there isn't much incentive to even fix leaks, let alone make sure it's good quality.
So, no water softener then? Are there regulations against using salt or something?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is the place we are currently renting won't allow us to fit one. We will move soon I think.
That said, you aren't supposed to drink the softened water, especially in places where it's as hard as this. The sodium is bad for you.
Re: Bottled water industry (Score:3)
Around here leaks in sprinklers can result in a nearly 4 figure water bill in a 2 months billing period. And you won't even know about it until you get the bill. Plenty of incentives to fix those leaks. I installed a $200 Flume water meter last month, that lets me see minute by minute water usage. It will pay back for itself in just 2 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Around here leaks in sprinklers can result in a nearly 4 figure water bill in a 2 months billing period. And you won't even know about it until you get the bill. Plenty of incentives to fix those leaks. I installed a $200 Flume water meter last month, that lets me see minute by minute water usage. It will pay back for itself in just 2 months.
My sprinklers use irrigation water instead of culinary. As of now, irrigation water isn't metered in my city, but we are 10 years of severe water regulations (watering a third time in the week can earn you a $500 fine). Both my whole house water softener and RO units are smart. They give me daily usage reports, warn me when more salt (or filter exchange) is needed, and a continuous flow warning.
Re: (Score:2)
How can irrigation water not be metered ? Do you get 2 different water hookups from utilities, one potable, and one non-potable ?
Around here, the fine for over watering is up to $10,000 . But there is practically no enforcement.
Which smart units do you have ? My 2 RO units are not smart.
The softener tells me when to add salt, but nothing about filter. I don't think there is a replaceable filter in it. Which model do you have ? I have an AO Smith 450T.
Re: (Score:1)
some places with not a lot of water do have a grey water system.
Re: (Score:2)
How can irrigation water not be metered ? Do you get 2 different water hookups from utilities, one potable, and one non-potable ?
BINGO! Yes, here we get two water hookups to each house. It is agains the law to use culinary water for sprinkler systems.
Around here, the fine for over watering is up to $10,000 . But there is practically no enforcement.
That's a steep fine, but means nothing if it's not enforced. If non-potable water is metered, it'd be trivial to enforce.
Which smart units do you have ? My 2 RO units are not smart.
My water softener ("water refiner") is an ERR3702R30 [ecowater.com]. The Ecowater app tells me my family normally uses 226 gallons per day. My current status tells me I'll be out of salt in 36 days. It also gives me continuous water flow warnings. My RO unit is a HERO-375PLUS [ecowater.com]. My RO
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany the water bill for a whole year is rarely topping 3 figures and most certainly not touching 4 figures unless you refill your pool every second day and water a garden as big as football field every day.
I think my yearly water bill is 40 EURO. Not sure ... could be 80 ...
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you are not enjoying the wonderful benefits of having a privatized water company.
If I used no water at all, just for the privilege of being connected to the water company, it would cost me about $100 for a 2-months billing period, or $600/year.
Under normal circumstances, with no leaks, and keeping within the drought limits on water usage, that adds another $100 per 2-months billing period. So, it's about $1200/year for water, best case.
If you have leaks you don't know about, such as in the sprinkl
Re: (Score:2)
In most (all?) parts of Europe water is managed by communities and federal states.
They "sell" water at cost.
However quality varies - in Germany the quality is usually superb, in other countries it depends on region, but it is always potable.
We do not even have separate meters in my house per household (5 households, 10 people in total - from which 4 are 90% of the time not here), the total water is just split per person and added on the "end of the year payment" for each renter to the landlord - which trans
Re: Bottled water industry (Score:2)
And as to the issues with the appliances and plumbing, a water softener is required. Mine stopped working last year for a month and that caused tons of damage during that time I was unaware. Turns out birds had set up a nest and ruined the electronics. My softener is outdoors. My new one is a smart model. I also put an energy monitoring smartplug on it which I monitor with Homeassistant. I should know if there is an issue with it again, hopefully.
The water never tasted bad, even without softener, though. I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Around here the tap water is safe to drink, it's just really horrible. Tastes bad, destroys all your appliances because it's so hard. You either buy bottled or a filter, and even then your appliances get wrecked by it. You clothes can never be cleaned properly, can't take a decent shower.
I know, first world problems, but the point I am getting to is that water is so cheap that there isn't much incentive to even fix leaks, let alone make sure it's good quality.
That's why I bought a whole house water softener then installed an RO for my kitchen sink and water / ice dispenser. My water softener makes a world of difference.
Re: (Score:2)
If tap water is safe to drink, then the bottled water industry will lose a lot of business...
Wrong target. Bottled water isn't any more free from PFAS than tap water, and critically tap water in many western countries has stricter safety standards than bottled water.
Re: (Score:2)
If tap water is safe to drink, then the bottled water industry will lose a lot of business...
On the other hand, as long as enough people *think* that tap water is not safe to drink, then the bottled water industry basically becomes a tax upon every American, and the industry would have lots more money for campaign contributions...
Um.... what should the EPA do? Decisions, decisions....
My tap water meets federal guidelines for consumption. HOWEVER, tap water in my city is notoriously hard. I have a full-house water softener and an RO filter for my kitchen sink and fridge / freezer water and ice dispenser. At this point it's about taste more than safety to consume.
I do maintain quite a bit of bottled water (about 25 cents per 16 oz bottle at Costco) in case of emergencies. It's rare, but cities near me have been issued boil mandates due to the water supply being contaminated. I rotate my w
Re: (Score:2)
I often wonder what the difference is between bottled water (not spring water though some would argue that it's a distinction without a difference) and city tap water. Why does city tap water have to taste like chlorine? Are city water distribution systems so flawed (yeah, yeah, Flint, Michigan) that the water from the source to the sink (no pun intended) can get contaminated along the way? Why can't it be filtered like bottled water at the source?
Not Relevant (Score:1)
Why is this on Slashdot ?
Re: (Score:2)
It's "news for nerds", not "nerdy news". Think about it for a while, you'll figure it out. I'm not even playing semantic games, Slashdot has always made it clear that this is the way things are.
Beyond that, there's a lot of talk about PFAs and CFAs and stuff that puts laymen to sleep when they read it. Teflon and it's ilk are problems created by a combination of nerds and greedy MBAs. The solutions involve nerds and effective governance. It's nerds all the way down.
Does this water pollution explain (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. That's a slightly more complicated issue. TV->Internet->Social Media->Politics as identiy->identity as politics->herp derp cannaspel fringes
Necessary steps (Score:4, Funny)
Be sure to light your water, so that the harmful gases burn off.
Re: (Score:2)
Exxon will probably bill you for gas usage.
Bad science reporting, as per usual (Score:5, Insightful)
To their credit (Score:3)
So is it bad if the latest development doesn't solve the problem once and for all [youtube.com]? At least NH is investigating the problem and doing something about it. Most communities aren't even testing, and can't tell you their level of exposure.
Surprised? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just use an RO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the US and I've never been afraid of drinking my tap water....?
Re: (Score:2)
You had me until "probably." (Score:1)
You had me until the word "probably."
Come back when you can remove the word "probably" from your problem statement.
The ultimate irony (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be ironic if GOP-backed pollution turned out to be creating more LGBTQ+ people due to hormonal disruption. (It's only a theory right now.)
PFASs are everywhere... (Score:2)
I just found out that the compost I had delivered from a local composting facility for my garden (that was certified up the whazoo, and supposedly tested all their inputs, but apparently not for PFASs) was just discovered to have contaminated groundwater in the surrounding areas with "PFASs at the highest level recorded in a well in the history of PFAS testing in the state" -- granted it's only been since about 2018 that they have been testing for it, but it's scary high at 2.5 times higher than the *previo
Re: (Score:1)
As long as you don't mind paying a few grands, it should be relatively easy to find a national lab that you can ship some samples too. If you have a university nearby, the may actually do this for free for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was thinking that... UMASS has a program, but they're only testing water supplies at his point, not soil. If it was a few hundred, I'd consider it, but thousands would break my budget.
Re: (Score:1)
get clean water ( RO ideally ) and steep the soil in it, then bring the water to them ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Cyclopure says I can send a soil sample to them and they'll dissolve it in methanol and run a mass spec on the solution. Their standard test kit is $79, which sounds like a bargain to me. I will probably do just that.
Re: (Score:1)
Thats pretty cool and affordable. Update us when you get the results!
An old Cree Prophecy: (Score:1)