'Forever Chemicals' Taint Nearly Half of US Tap Water, Study Estimates (msn.com) 52
Equuleus42 (Slashdot reader #723) shares the Washington Post's article on "the latest evidence of the pervasiveness of 'forever chemicals'."
A new study from the United States Geological Survey estimates that these 12,000 "PFAS" contaminants "taint nearly half" of America's tap water: Studies are steadily documenting the ubiquity of this class of chemicals. A 2015 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found PFAS in the blood of over 95 percent of Americans. Exposure to PFAS has been associated with severe health risks, including some kinds of cancers, developmental delays in children and reproductive effects in pregnant people, although the Environmental Protection Agency states that "research is still ongoing to determine how different levels of exposure to different PFAS can lead to a variety of health effects..."
The researchers more frequently detected PFAS in urban areas or places next to potential sources of the chemicals such as airports, industry and wastewater treatment plants, said USGS research hydrologist Kelly Smalling, the study's lead author. Smalling estimated that about 75 percent of urban tap water has at least one type of PFAS present, compared with about 25 percent of rural tap water. The chemicals were also more prevalent in the Great Plains, Great Lakes, Eastern Seaboard and central and Southern California regions, according to the study.
Smalling even tested the water in their own home in New Jersey — and found that it, too, was contaminated. "It's not a surprise," Smalling said, describing New Jersey as "a hot spot for PFAS."
The article also notes that in March America's Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first drinking standard for PFAS in drinking water (though final rules may not arrive before next year). And 3M is paying a $10.3 billion settlement over 13 years for testing for and cleaning up PFAS in water supplies. "States are also stepping up action on PFAS, including through legislation banning or restricting the use of PFAS in everyday products and implementing drinking water standards..."
But Carmen Messerlian, an assistant Harvard professor of environmental epidemiology, argues for regulating companies that produce forever chemicals, since "By the time they hit our water, our food, our children's mouths and our bodies, it really is too late..." In the meantime, consumers can buy water filters that remove PFAS, "though the most effective filters can come at a cost that not everyone can afford, Messerlian said."
A new study from the United States Geological Survey estimates that these 12,000 "PFAS" contaminants "taint nearly half" of America's tap water: Studies are steadily documenting the ubiquity of this class of chemicals. A 2015 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found PFAS in the blood of over 95 percent of Americans. Exposure to PFAS has been associated with severe health risks, including some kinds of cancers, developmental delays in children and reproductive effects in pregnant people, although the Environmental Protection Agency states that "research is still ongoing to determine how different levels of exposure to different PFAS can lead to a variety of health effects..."
The researchers more frequently detected PFAS in urban areas or places next to potential sources of the chemicals such as airports, industry and wastewater treatment plants, said USGS research hydrologist Kelly Smalling, the study's lead author. Smalling estimated that about 75 percent of urban tap water has at least one type of PFAS present, compared with about 25 percent of rural tap water. The chemicals were also more prevalent in the Great Plains, Great Lakes, Eastern Seaboard and central and Southern California regions, according to the study.
Smalling even tested the water in their own home in New Jersey — and found that it, too, was contaminated. "It's not a surprise," Smalling said, describing New Jersey as "a hot spot for PFAS."
The article also notes that in March America's Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first drinking standard for PFAS in drinking water (though final rules may not arrive before next year). And 3M is paying a $10.3 billion settlement over 13 years for testing for and cleaning up PFAS in water supplies. "States are also stepping up action on PFAS, including through legislation banning or restricting the use of PFAS in everyday products and implementing drinking water standards..."
But Carmen Messerlian, an assistant Harvard professor of environmental epidemiology, argues for regulating companies that produce forever chemicals, since "By the time they hit our water, our food, our children's mouths and our bodies, it really is too late..." In the meantime, consumers can buy water filters that remove PFAS, "though the most effective filters can come at a cost that not everyone can afford, Messerlian said."
Remove money and authority, this is what we get. (Score:5, Interesting)
What did we expect? Capitalism to protect us?
Re: (Score:2)
The government says the water is fine. Anyone who questions the government is contributing to thirst hesitancy and will be banned from social media.
Really? Think I could get them to toss in a ban on junk mail and spam too? Or maybe I could do something really nefarious and earn a 10-pack of social media bans. I can think of plenty who could use one.
If we start to question the harmful chemicals in our drinking water it will lead to questioning the harmful chemicals in our vaccines. And that's a slippery slope comrade.
Not quite, comrade. You seem to forget what the American Legal Industrial Complex is built for. That slippery slope is lubed with the blood of lawsuits daily, by design. Even Government will tolerate lawsuits against them just for the kickbacks, politically and financially.
Re: (Score:1)
Government has been removing money from the government entities that protect us from this crap for years. What did we expect? Capitalism to protect us?
Actually some of us expected Greed to do what it does best, and Ignorance to be shocked while asking the same damn question.
The fuck did we all honestly expect would happen. Humans are involved. Duh.
Re:Remove money and authority, this is what we get (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, that's a feature of the invisible hand of the market place. If enough people move to a planet that isn't supplied by the corporations that pollute our world, corporations will be financial impacted and thus motivated to reform their ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to DOW chemicals.
What can we do at home? (Score:2)
The articles donâ(TM)t mention whether there are things we can do to mitigate the issue at home. Reverse osmosis filter?
Re: (Score:2)
Activated carbon, nanofiltration, or RO. Ideally a combination of activated carbon and nanofiltration with pre-filters. Viable for drinking water but tricky when you talk about shower water.
Re:What can we do at home? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are really worried about these chemicals, your drinking water is the least of your problems. You are far more likely to be exposed by your carpets and upholstery. PFAS coatings are used to make fabric water and stain resistant. Sprinkle some water on your sofa. If it beads up rather than soaking in, you got PFAS. PFAS chemicals are also used in degreasers and paint.
TFA appears to be written to scare rather than inform. It says PFAS chemicals are "present" in drinking water, but doesn't say what the levels are, or what levels are a significant risk. Some PFAS are a much bigger concern than others, but TFA lumps them all together.
Re: What can we do at home? (Score:3)
My two cents, first there is a private sector water industry that has been planning on this for ages, and their products are safe, but do have some *minerals added for taste* that evaporate down to a white powder unless you buy distilled. But it is a sordid industry:
https://actions.eko.org/a/whil... [eko.org]
As far as filters, I think the advice , always filter. Britta, Lifestraw, anything is better than nothing. But the expensive systems are better than these.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh wow. That link is funny. It tries to be alarmist, but fails. 200 gpm is nothing. Hardly even statistically relevant as far as water use goes. Furthermore, there's not necessarily any real connection between Nestle bottling water and the water crisis in Flint. Whether Nestle bottles and sells public water has no bearing on what's happened in Flint. Shutting Nestle completely down would have zero impact on water quality in flint.
But hey, everyone has to be outraged about something!
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, consumers can buy water filters that remove PFAS, "though the most effective filters can come at a cost that not everyone can afford, Messerlian said."
There, I read TFS. Anything else you want us to do for you, your highness?
testing was always available (Score:5, Interesting)
How long have we known how to test chemicals to figure out how persistent they were in the environment ?
20 years ? 30 years ?
This is the result of sociopathic fucks in charge of these companies who knew good and well this would be a problem and made these chemicals anyway.
Here's the important part, it's not simply that they made them, it's that they pushed the use of them _everywhere_.
3M made way, way more than 10B off these chemicals or they would never have agreed to this. It's a PR move, nothing more. They've got more nasty shit in the pipeline that there going to sell, and we'll be wondering how this happened again a few years.
Just like oxycodone was not a bad thing, but selling it like candy was a very bad thing. And what did those Sackler fucks get ? Billions of dollars and a slap on the wrist.
But I forgot, the over regulation of American business is why people are poor and we don't freedom or something.
Re: (Score:2)
And governments still don't ban these chemicals even knowing how toxic there are.
Re: (Score:1)
This will cost us more than it was ever worth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The people who did not die or suffer severe burns due to the PFAS in AFFF and similar fire fighting products may disagree with you.
They were and are very useful chemicals.
As for plastics, look in your freezer. Everything is packaged in plastic for moisture control purposes. How much polyester do have in the closet? Ironically REI and every other camping supply store sells vast quantities of plastic clothes, tents, sleeping bags, etc, etc. "Don't wear cotton! Wear polypropylene/Dacron etc."
The industry gave
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The industry sold a promise plastic recycling though.Since this didn't materialize, I think it's only fair for said industry to clean up its own mess, and leave the tax payer alone.
Tap Water (Score:2)
Taint whatcha do its da way whatcha do it...That's what it's all about!
Re:Reactivity (Score:4, Informative)
Usually "forever chemicals" are things that accumulate in the body and don't degrade over time. It's the perpetual accumulation that is of concern.
Re: Reactivity (Score:2)
Realize that chemicals don't need to be consumed in a reaction to have an effect. The idea that PFAs are inert is pretty silly considering that some compounds are specifically designed to alter a material's properties. Such as some are designed to use as surfactants. And others act as a weak acid. Neither thing you want in your blood serum or liver. The relatively small PFHxS molecules will even bind to blood albumin. Whoever told you this stuff is inert didn't bother to explain under what circumstances it
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot about catalytic action. Which is a chemical reaction between the catalyst and a reactant. A catalyst of course is not consumed in a reaction.
Your idea of what chemistry is, is extremely naive and incomplete. Additionally, you overlook the entire field of biology with your armchair [pseudo]science. You have the Internet at your fingertips and instead you choose to bloviate on topics that you are utterly unprepared to discuss rationally.
Re: Reactivity (Score:1)
nice sock puppet (Score:2)
You have a deep lack of understanding of science. It's not ad hominem (no dash) and not a personal attack. It's an statement of observation for the incorrect arguments you have made and continue to support despite proof to the contrary. Conventionally a catalyst is considered to participate in a reaction, this is perhaps overly pedantic to a layperson but words in an industry often have a very specific meaning.
If you want to dust off your biology book. Check out ligands and receptors. The ligand is not cons
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but why? And what is the mechanism that causes the problems these accumulations are correlated to? For example, PFAS exposure seems to correlate with increased risk of cancer. What is the mechanism that causes this? Especially given that PFAS molecules are not generally reactive chemically. Is it just as simple as PFAS molecules physically preventing normal chemical reactions by just being there, keeping the reactants apart? Or changing the effective concentrations of ions and other things vital to
Re: (Score:3)
Even if not bio-reactive, the accumulation may (a) damage DNA and/or (b) interfere with genetic replication.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed the research is rather murky on this thus far. There is evidence from studies involving animal models that pfas chemicals affect development, although the research I've found used exposures that were way in excess of any realistic human exposure. Also there is some correlation between pfas exposure during pregnancy and childhood obesity and also cancer.
According to the AI chat bots, there is research that suggests that PFAS chemicals disrupt endocrine receptors and interfere with hormones. But the
Re: (Score:2)
Troll? Really? The poster's questions are quite legitimate and, as far as I can tell from researching, have no definitive answers.
Re: (Score:2)
They affect permeability of cell membranes. When you change how molecules cross membranes, you fuck up all kinds of things.
Re: (Score:2)
I've wondered that too, but biology is weird and there is precedent for unreactive things having health effects.
Asbestos didn't participate in body chemistry that I know of, but the microscopic fibers caused mechanical damage.
PFAs would not do that, but consider the great weirdness that a noble gas, xenon, is an anesthetic. Apparently it's the right size to fit in a receptor pocket in a protein. https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
And the other question there was whether the concentrations were significant. To
Re: (Score:2)
If you think this issue will finally be resolved & reparations made so that drinking water is cleaned up, consider what happened in the USA when it became public knowledge that lead was toxic & harming
God help them if this is linked to autism (Score:2)
And if the "developmental delays" bit bears out, I think it would very likely end up being the culprit. We don't know why there's been a sudden outbreak of these symptoms over the last few decades. Vaccination went up drastically during that time period but then again, so did exposure to these chemicals.
Re: God help them if this is linked to autism (Score:2)
Maybe it's the gay frogs corrupting the youth?
Plastic bottles FTW! (Score:5, Insightful)
As if there weren't enough people buying bottled water (because they don't want dem kem-i-killz) already, here's more ammo for them to buy bottled water!
It's sickening how often you see people in US grocery stores buying multiple cases of bottled water weekly. It's like they're stocking up for a sub-Saharan safari, except their kids are just going to school! There's no water shortage. There's no cholera in the US drinking water supply. Look at a drinking fountain in an airport. The surface is dry. Why? Because culturally there's a belief that tap water is bad and this of course is reinforcing that belief.
I'll take my dose of forever chemicals, cancer causing agents, and the inevitable tail that will grow from my backside if it means fewer plastic bottles fucking up the ecosystem.
Re: Plastic bottles FTW! (Score:4, Informative)
It ain't the tap water. It's the dispenser.
Most people's first and formative experiences of water fountains are in elementary schools. The primary users of those devices are not known for their hygiene skills. And the memory sticks into adulthood: do I want to drink out of something someone probably slobbered over or possibly pissed into when no one was looking?
I drink out of the tap at home all the time. But if I'm travelling I buy bottled water.
Re: Plastic bottles FTW! (Score:2)
Breathing screws up the environment. Do the earth a favor and see how long you can stop. /s
Re: (Score:1)
If it's ubiquitous, how can you know (Score:4)
if it's harmful?
I know: you overdose lab rats on it and see what happens. And if it's something scary, you assert that it's bad for you in small doses because it kills laboratory animals in high doses.
Does that mean it's safe? I have no idea. All I know is that if you're telling me something that's everywhere in the environment is killing me slowly, I'll just back away slowly and refrain from making loud noises or sudden movements.
PFAS offsets (Score:2)
I'm sure there's no correlation (Score:1)
...we have widespread forever chemicals in our developed-world water supplies, many of which work as estrogen-analogues in the body.
And we have a growing number of men who think they're women.
I'm sure there's no connection.
just use a water filter (Score:2)
There are small quantities of all kinds of contaminants in tap water. I get a quality report from my water supplier periodically that lists a dozen or so, and the amounts relative to what the EPA allows. They are always under the threshold but they still are present, and there is some evidence that the thresholds are too low. Any amount of arsenic is bad for example, and that's present in almost all surface water sources.
But there's a cheap, simple solution. Run your drinking water through an activated carb