EPA To Limit Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' in Drinking Water (apnews.com) 75
The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed the first federal limits on harmful "forever chemicals" in drinking water, a long-awaited protection the agency said will save thousands of lives and prevent serious illnesses, including cancer. From a report: The plan would limit toxic PFAS chemicals to the lowest level that tests can detect. PFAS, or per- and polyfluorinated substances, are a group of compounds that are widespread, dangerous and expensive to remove from water. They don't degrade in the environment and are linked to a broad range of health issues, including low birthweight and kidney cancer.
"The science is clear that long-term exposure to PFAS is linked to significant health risks," Radhika Fox, assistant EPA administrator for water, said in an interview. Fox called the federal proposal a "transformational change" for improving the safety of drinking water in the United States. The agency estimates the rule could reduce PFAS exposure for nearly 100 million Americans, decreasing rates of cancer, heart attacks and birth complications. The chemicals had been used since the 1940s in consumer products and industry, including in nonstick pans, food packaging and firefighting foam. Their use is now mostly phased out in the U.S., but some still remain.
"The science is clear that long-term exposure to PFAS is linked to significant health risks," Radhika Fox, assistant EPA administrator for water, said in an interview. Fox called the federal proposal a "transformational change" for improving the safety of drinking water in the United States. The agency estimates the rule could reduce PFAS exposure for nearly 100 million Americans, decreasing rates of cancer, heart attacks and birth complications. The chemicals had been used since the 1940s in consumer products and industry, including in nonstick pans, food packaging and firefighting foam. Their use is now mostly phased out in the U.S., but some still remain.
Re: (Score:1)
They keep on harping on "forever chemicals", even though they have a half-life on the order of twenty or so years.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Lead water pipes will do that to a person.
Re: (Score:3)
One A/C makes a comment satirising American conservatives in the most over the top way possible, and an actual conservative A/C comes along 7 minutes later and tops him with actual real stupidity.
And people say that irony is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's satire that isn't far from the pages of the history books. The inventor of the anti-knock gasoline additive TEL did a demonstration along those lines, by intentionally exposing himself to the chemical.
He got lead poisoning.
Expensive water (Score:4, Interesting)
So, in other words, potable water is about to get a whole lot more expensive, and increasingly expensive the more our environment is polluted.
From the article:
This is not a one time thing, its an ongoing concern and eventually costs will have to rise because of it - you cant perpetually hide the costs from district A within district B, because district B will soon have its own costs and all you are doing is preemptively raising theirs to deal with an immediate concern.
And the quote also concentrates on metropolitan areas - what about other areas? Their costs are going to be much higher.
So, water is about to get a whole lot more expensive - add in to that the fact that these regulations are almost certainly going to find their way into downstream products (ie you cant continue to sell those almonds grown with well water which is also contaminated but not covered because its not being sourced from a water supply company for drinking, or a similar situation for cattle etc) and a lot of products are about to see price rises as a result.
Someone once said that the next large scale conflict will be over water, and we are definitely seeing our issues pivot that way as we see more droughts, more pollution and more regulations restricting unfettered use of water.
Re:Expensive water (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't understand this line of reasoning. We shouldn't have clean water because infrastructure upgrades might cost money?
Re: (Score:3)
No, we should, but people have to expect it to get more expensive and thus deal with the issues more expensive water brings.
But thats the underlying problem - people do not think water is an expensive resource, because we have been using it with wanton abandon up to now. We mine aquifers for everything we need, we dam and divert rivers to form reservoirs that struggle to get refilled, and we have for the entirety of human existence dumped our waste into the water ways.
As a result, and as with everything th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I really don't understand this line of reasoning. We shouldn't have clean water because infrastructure upgrades might cost money?
Uh, no.
It more comes down to not punishing those who are actually causing the problem, and instead spreading that cost across customers and taxpayers, while dozens of overpaid bureaucrats are hired to oversee the stability and security of this new system, which probably won't remain secure due to incompetence and cost-cutting in the worst way (see History).
In other words, parent is correct regarding future conflict. We'll be bullied into tolerating the continued infection of Woke politics in our leadership
Re: (Score:1)
PFAS chemicals are already pretty much banned in Maine, California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. Hawaii and Vermont have banned it in any products that touch food. That's at least 70 million people that live in locations where there shouldn't be much new exposure, meaning that the work that needs doing is cleaning up what's already in the environment.
How would you propose that we figure out which PFAS chemicals came from which polluter, so they can pay? And won't that just end up in a years-long
Re: (Score:2)
Or is "woke" the new pejorative we apply to things we don't like, much as idiot teenage boys in the 90s called everything they didn't like "gay"?
Teens today still talk like that in real life. Us adults just think they've stopped because you can get kicked off XBL for talking like that now.
Must be something in the water.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be something in the water.
I see what you did there!
Re: (Score:2)
How would you propose that we figure out which PFAS chemicals came from which polluter, so they can pay?
I wish I could find the article I recently read but there are existing processes used in litigation over pollution that attempts to allocate such costs appropriately. It's research intensive, but is based on looking at how much of a pollutant overall is generated, then allocating it to the various polluters according to whatever weighting is the most reasonable. The strategy has apparently been quite successful in the courts.
It's not unlike the work done by Kenneth Feinberg in administering the 9/11 Victi
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. And I'm all about "polluter pays" solutions to things like this, but the payment always comes years after the problem has been identified, and we can't wait years to clean up the huge mess made by polluters, especially when those polluters have so much money to spend on lawyers because they spent years polluting instead of responsible disposal.
I'm seriously interested in hearing other options besides what is being done here - phase out the use of these chemicals wherever possible, and start installin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you please define "woke" for me, so that we know what the fuck you're on about? Or is "woke" the new pejorative we apply to things we don't like, much as idiot teenage boys in the 90s called everything they didn't like "gay"?
Unfortunately you sound like someone who actually voted for the current leadership and still thinks they're doing a good job and are just "misunderstood" instead of plain incompetent. Woke policy put them in charge. No point in trying to explain it if you're still that lost in the weeds. Our new voting priorities and resulting leadershit will make it crystal clear to you a decade and 3x over Clean Water Act budgets from now, which will likely progress about as fast as turning on a new nuclear reactor. A
Re: (Score:3)
You continue to use "woke" without defining it so it can mean literally anything, and that way your argument can't be challenged.
No point in trying to explain it if you're still that lost in the weeds.
Nice try. You're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These people are getting tiresome. Woke this. Woke that. Woke, woke, woke. Their sad little cult is withering on the vine.
Fine. Pick a different word. How about dumbshit instead? Seems fitting. Changing the word doesn't magically eradicate the underlying problem and you know it. In fact, the woke philosophy of simply re-defining words is yet another fine example of this dumbshit ideology the overwhelming majority cannot stomach because it often makes zero sense.
The Supreme Court doesn't know what a "woman" is anymore, so you might as well throw Womens Rights in the damn toilet. Won't be long before we can't define what
Re: (Score:2)
You again used the word "woke" three times, without defining it, even though you quoted me asking you to define "woke" so we know what the hell you're talking about, and how it relates to getting poison out of our water.
Thank you for self-identifying as an indoctrinated fool who just repeats bullshit demagoguery and propaganda blindly without actually knowing what you're saying.
Re: (Score:1)
You again used the word "woke" three times, without defining it, even though you quoted me asking you to define "woke" so we know what the hell you're talking about, and how it relates to getting poison out of our water.
Thank you for self-identifying as an indoctrinated fool who just repeats bullshit demagoguery and propaganda blindly without actually knowing what you're saying.
Fine. Go ask the Supreme Court of the United States what a "woman" is. I'll wait while you experience for yourself a fine example of "woke" ideology.
Then you can get back to me as to how you've become so indoctrinated to assume that moron of a Vice President earned that role without woke politics putting incompetence in a position where both Republicans and Democrats fear an actual impeachment of her brain-dead boss.
Perhaps when California actually passes the vote to pay reparations to every black person f
Re: (Score:2)
So to you, "woke" is a trendy way to describe things you don't like, or don't agree with; all with a light peppering of racism. Not unlike what the other poster surmised.
No, moron. If you couldn't even understand my TL; DR, then read it again. And then do it a third and forth time for it to sink in. I don't give a shit about your "quasi-racist" delusions. I care about facts and truth.
You know, like the fact the SVB CEO sat on the fucking board of SF Fed responsible for enforcing regulation. Corrupt is corrupt, and it only takes facts to see how stupid your expected "racist" excuse is. Got any more bullshit excuses as to why SVB was handing out bonuses hours before co
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately you sound like someone who actually voted for the current leadership and still thinks they're doing a good job and are just "misunderstood" instead of plain incompetent. Woke policy put them in charge.
Woke policy didn't do shit. We could have put a literal potato on the ballot without any policy at all and it would have won over Trump. The past election was more about getting rid of that incompetent fuckwit than literally anything at all. As long as the potato didn't have a sign up saying "I'm a republican" it would have won.
Also we're all still waiting for your definition. But in case you don't want to define it maybe you can backup your claim. Which policy is both by your definition woke, and in your o
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately you sound like someone who actually voted for the current leadership and still thinks they're doing a good job and are just "misunderstood" instead of plain incompetent. Woke policy put them in charge.
Woke policy didn't do shit. We could have put a literal potato on the ballot without any policy at all and it would have won over Trump. The past election was more about getting rid of that incompetent fuckwit than literally anything at all. As long as the potato didn't have a sign up saying "I'm a republican" it would have won.
Also we're all still waiting for your definition. But in case you don't want to define it maybe you can backup your claim. Which policy is both by your definition woke, and in your opinion something that people give a shit about? I mean I can answer the first question for you, but the second part has proven impossible for everyone who has used your line of reasoning.
Can you buck the trend?
As I've already clarified, Woke is essentially the policy of prioritizing feelings above facts or truth.
Speaking of fucking potatos on the ballot, thanks for the example named Biden. Let's move one step down to an even better example, since you clearly missed it. Kamala Harris is one bad heartbeat or impeachment away from running the United States. Let me know how in the FUCK she got that position without woke policy pushing gender and skin color above actual qualifications.
And if you think people don't
Re: (Score:3)
What do you imagine is "woke" politics? Was Erin Brockovich woke? I'll spoil it for you, yes she was. Politics being aware of injustice is only a good thing, its bizarre how people have made it out to be a bad thing.
Holding polluters accountable for their actions is our best method of slowing down our march toward increasingly bad air and water. That includes car owners which has typically been done through mileage standards that Republicans like to kill over and over despite the fact that cars get more ex
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
We shouldn't have clean water because infrastructure upgrades might cost money?
Well yes, that is the republican/conservative position. Clean water is only for those who are rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden wants to make you drink woke water!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're really arguing in favor of allow harmful chemicals in our water. Wow. You're literally arguing in favor of protecting major health problems decreasing rates of cancer, heart attacks and birth complications that are directly linked to these chemicals. The costs to remove these chemicals is completely reasonable, but you're against it. Wow.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Where are you getting that from? The guy made a rather rational argument that water will get more expensive. I don't see anywhere where he said not to do it, just that it's going to be more expensive. Which probably isn't even wrong. He's calling out the bullshit of someone saying costs won't rise.
Is the strawman pretty much the mascot of Slashdot comments now? WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us how much more expensive water got in Michigan when they enacted these requirements already? So strange we haven't heard complaints from them about water prices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read for anything more than a sentence you thought would help your argument. That article shows the increases were NOT related to limiting PFAS. Your own link proved your claim wrong. Nice job.
Re: (Score:2)
Water got more expensive, its a fact.
You want an exact cost breakdown of the effect the regulations had, then go commission a report.
Until then, it remains a fact that cost of water in Michigan has risen, its causing hardship.
How about you prove that none of the rise in prices was because of the PFAS regulations.... I will wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Also in addition to the above, Great Lakes PFAS Action Network puts the PFAS cleanup costs and drinking water regulations state wide in Michigan at $139Million as of October 2021.
https://static1.squarespace.co... [squarespace.com]
There are quite a lot of direct costs associated to the PFAS regulations in there...
Re: (Score:2)
Before I'd be willing to put the costs down to "PFAS regulations", I'd at least like to see a spitball estimate of the costs of NOT regulating/reducing/eliminating PFAS.
IE if the costs for the regulations was $139M, but saved like $200M in medical costs, then the regulations actually saved money.
Re: (Score:2)
There may be some selection bias there - I'm pretty sure there's people in Michigan that would love the option of getting clean water at any price, but don't have that option because city, county, and state government has already failed them in that department for decades. You know, lead pipes and such.
Re:Expensive water (Score:5, Interesting)
Its crap like this that makes me want to walk away from Slashdot - people are very quick to read into comments arguments which aren't actually there, and then they will vehemently respond to those self-created points, and because of the nature of moderation and the confrontational style of this community, the respondents will get modded up and the original post will get modded down largely without being read.
Yes, I commented that costs will rise.
No, I never said or implied that the regulations should not happen.
Yes, I said that this would cause a rise in conflict. Thats pretty much inevitable - the younger generation have been left a planet which previous generations have shat on, and shat on cheaply. Those previous generations are not going to bear the costs of living on this ruined planet, nor are they going to pay for its cleanup.
As costs for clean food and water rise, so will the quest for reducing those costs - we used to get away with diluting the pollution, but thats no longer an option as water levels pretty much everywhere are routinely well below where they historically have been, so we are already seeing conflicts around the globe as nations put up more dams across major rivers in their territories, blocking downstream access to that water where the rivers cross borders. You are going to see this at the state level in the US, as states strive to keep ever decreasing rainfall in their own territories for their own use.
So, conflict.
But sure, mod me down because you think Im against regulations - Im not, Im pointing out the cost of those regulations that people are going to have to be prepared for. Water is going to get a lot more expensive - because it always should have been as the costs should have been front loaded and borne by the companies that polluted the water in the first place, same as the air we breathe should be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Water is going to get a lot more expensive - because it always should have been as the costs should have been front loaded and borne by the companies that polluted the water in the first place, same as the air we breathe should be safe.
The companies that are introducing this pollution should be paying for the clean up cost - the cost of water itself should not be impacted by this activity, otherwise you are continuing to socialise costs and privatise profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we just seize DuPont, break it up, sell it off and use the money to fund this scheme?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, what he actually said was "a whole lot" more expensive, which is quantitatively unqualified and probably hyperbolic, which places the argument squarely in the category of fear mongering.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Im not, I never argued about relaxing the regulations - you are reading into my comment something that isnt there.
What I am saying is that there are going to be knock on effects - its inevitable. Costs will rise, and a resource that we have until now considered a cheap resource we never have to think about is suddenly going to become a very expensive resource that is going to be one of our main concerns.
How is society going to handle that?
Simple, the same way it always has - conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
As the article says, places like Michigan have already added such requirements and the costs are reasonable. Doesn't seem a big issue to spend a reasonable cost to prevent the huge negative impacts those chemicals have on human health.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the Michigan limits, while being "the tightest standards of any state" are nowhere near the EPAs:
And those costs will rise as we restrict and regulate our water standards more and more.
No, Im not arg
Re: (Score:2)
The costs aren't anywhere near the costs we pay due to the negative health impacts of allowing these chemicals to remain in the water we all drink.
But hey, there were also those that argued that banning fully halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes was going to cause the price of air conditioning and refrigeration prices to rise. They didn't. There were those that said electronics prices would increase when we banned PCBs. They didn't. There were those that claimed dioxins would cause food price increases. It didn'
Re: (Score:2)
So whats your actual point? Why are you arguing?
Ive already stated MANY FUCKING TIMES Im not against regulation.
But to say that the costs will not rise is just plain stupid.
And for many of your examples, the costs did in fact rise, because the alternatives were not necessarily immediately better or equal to the things being banned. You just didnt notice it, thats all. For some of them, the costs might have not been immediately obvious such as in the cost of acquisition, and they might have been in ongoin
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA says the cost will be about $770 million per year, across the entire US. They've already set aside $10 billion to upgrade water treatment plants across all states and are planning to allocate more. So it'd seem we're good as far as expense of this move goes. The savings in healthcare costs alone will be far more each year.
Re: (Score:2)
The costs to remove these chemicals is completely reasonable, but you're against it. Wow.
Completely reasonable you say? Remember that arrogance when you start seeing a corruptly unreasonable increase in water costs. For you, and everyone else.
Haven't seen this before? You act as if that can of soup doubling in price somehow justified the 10% increase in gas price as they unload 10,000 cans off a single truck.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us, what were the corruptly unreasonable price increases that Michigan saw, as they've already enacted the strictest water laws in the country, which cost more than these changes. We'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Ive already pointed you to a good article on that to another of your comments - water prices have risen, it is causing hardship, stop ignoring it.
Oh, and you are definitely going to have to provide a citation for:
Don't worry, we will wait.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're good with poison in your drinking water because you can't possibly have the cost go up in order to clean out substances that can give you cancer.
How much is the cancer going to cost you? How much will all the cancers cost us all?
Your post is the height of penny-wise / pound-foolish nonsense.
So why not tax the companies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, potable water is about to get a whole lot more expensive, and increasingly expensive the more our environment is polluted.
I mean if you don't want to live in a country with safe and healthy drinking water there's well over 100 for you to choose. No one is forcing you to live a comfortable 1st world lifestyle.
Re: (Score:2)
We live in a country where almost everyone buys bottled water, which costs more than soda despite having none of the flavorings and sugar.
I'm not sure Americans are really prioritizing cost over safety and taste.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, potable water is about to get a whole lot more expensive.
I do not know why you are worried about having clean water. The US GOP (republican) will eliminate these rules as soon as they get in power. Probably before this regulation is implemented.
How's that going to fly? (Score:2)
Seems like they can't get the lead out as it is!
Yes, I know... lead comes from the delivery network, not the purification system... just trying to be mildly clever...
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? Why can't we also get the lead out of Aviation Fuel?
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/l... [faa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like they can't get the lead out as it is!
Yes, I know... lead comes from the delivery network, not the purification system... just trying to be mildly clever...
Meh, whatever they can't bother to filter, they'll just ignore and wait for the class-action suit in 30 years.
Not like class-actions are any kind of real threat anyway.
Treatment cost? (Score:2)
The agency estimates the rule could reduce PFAS exposure for nearly 100 million Americans
So, they are expecting about a third of water districts to fail the proposed standard? And if they fail, the treatment cost is such that drinking bottled water is often the recommended solution [google.com]?
If elevated levels are found, a state tip sheet advises residents to buy and drink bottled water, which can cost $700 or more annually (and bottling companies are not yet mandated to test for PFAS)
Given rising contaminant levels and better linking between contaminants and health issues, it seems like a matter of time before no municipality will declare its water potable without point-of-use treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The elimination half-life of PFOA in humans is roughly estimated to be 3.5 years and for PFOS, approximately 4.8 years (Olsen et al., 2007a)/quote?
Re: (Score:1)
bet it is longer if you believe in and practice URINE THERAPY
Out of curiosity, if they are harmful- why are ... (Score:1)
Out of curiosity.
If the chemicals are harmful, and persist- why are they allowed?
Surprised this is only now being looked at for the drinking water supply, and think that control should be expanded to the food supply.
But why are these allowed to exist in the first place?
I mean, instead of controlling the exposure at the user level. Control the source so it never actually gets into the system.
At this stage, simply trying to mitigate exposure at the water filtration stage is also needed and should have the co
Re: (Score:1)
Late stage capitalism.
1 "require" clean water.
2 It's expensive to treat after the fact, so people get mad.
3 Companies create new forever chemicals since they are permitted in our "over regulated" system.
4 ???
5 Profit !!!
Re: (Score:2)
There are some industrial uses for these chemicals that don't have feasible alternatives. For example, there's an entire class of PFAS chemicals used as fire retardants for things like aviation fuel fires. Another use of (specifically PFOS) is to reduce chromium air pollution in metal plating operations.
There are many places where their use can be reduced or eliminated, and that work has already begun as individual states have begun to ban these chemicals for use in certain product sectors - namely anythi
Re: (Score:2)
Those are poor choices for examples.
There are alternatives in fire foams that don't contain PFAS: "The Federal Aviation Administration, as well as the Defense Department, still requires airports to have PFAS products on hand even as some airports in Europe, Canada and all of Australia have moved to alternative foams without these chemicals." (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/sea-tacs-legacy-of-pfas-chemicals-foam-showers-sick-firefighters-and-contaminated-water/)
I'm also no metal platin
Water is a forever chemical (Score:2)
Water has been on earth since the beginning, and it will last millions of years into the future.
Calling these chemicals "forever" chemicals doesn't really help us understand what they are or why they are bad.
Re: (Score:1)
Calling these chemicals "forever" chemicals doesn't really help us understand what they are or why they are bad.
Polyfluoroalkyl. There you are. You are now an expert. The name has made all the difference to your understanding.
Literally no name helps anyone understand what something is and why it's bad. It's just a name. If you want the details you'll need to do this thing called "research" or at least find someone to spoonfeed your slack arse information. Incidentally why did you call them forever chemicals? Did you not manage to read past the headline? What they are was literally in the second sentence of TFS.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally no name helps anyone understand what something is and why it's bad
I disagree. As in programming, naming things is difficult, but important. It's certainly not impossible.
There is no problem with assigning an unscientific name to something like this. "Forever chemical" is unscientific, but it also doesn't communicate anything useful.
The acronym PFAS is more useful because it's more specific. But the acronym is also not very meaningful to laypeople.
CFCs are a similar acronym for a dangerous chemical. These can be broadly described as "refrigerants." Now that's a name that t
Reverse Osmosis (Score:2)
A reverse osmosis system filters out PFAS, lead, and most of the other things the EPA / Mass Media complains about.