Scientists Call on Ministers To Cut Limits For 'Forever Chemicals' in UK Tap Water

Acceptable levels of "forever chemicals" in drinking water should be reduced tenfold and a new national chemicals agency created to protect public health, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has told the UK government. From a report: The chartered body wants to see a reduction in the cap on levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in tap water. PFAS are a family of about 10,000 widely used chemicals that do not break down easily in the environment. Some have been linked to cancers, liver and thyroid disease, immune and fertility problems, and developmental defects in unborn children.

The current limit in UK drinking water, which is a guideline and not a statutory cap, is 100 nanograms a litre for individual PFAS. The RSC wants this reduced to 10ng/l and a new overall limit introduced of 100ng/l for a wider range of PFAS in drinking water. "In the Drinking Water Inspectorate's (DWI) own words, levels above 10ng/l pose a medium or high risk to public health," said Stephanie Metzger, a policy adviser at the RSC. "We're seeing more studies that link PFAS to a range of very serious medical conditions, and so we urgently need a new approach for the sake of public health."

How ?

[Big Bipper]

Is it possible to somehow treat or filter PFAS out of drinking water if they are already in the source at higher than acceptable levels ? If so, how much additional cost would that be ? If not then they are forcing the municipal water suppliers or their customers to purchase and truck in massive amounts of water for drinking purposes at increased cost and energy consumption. I suppose the PFAS contaminated water could continue to be used for washing and sanitation purposes. But it sounds like a windfall for

Sure

[rsilvergun]

but why should the taxpayer have to subsidize the plastic industry? There's plenty of alternatives, they're just less profitable for the industry.

Enough externized costs. I'm tired of the old "subsidize losses, privatize profits" scam.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

That's how it works in the UK. We have to pay more for water so that water companies don't just dump raw sewage into our rivers and seas. Since they were privatized the owners took tens of billions out in profit, and every time they need to invest in infrastructure they expected customers to pay for it.

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

With enough money, anything is possible.

But passing a regulation accomplishes nothing.

The important questions are how much is this going to cost, who is going to pay for it, and is this really the best way to spend that money to improve health?

Perhaps we should focus more on reducing these chemicals at their source.

Re:

[Firethorn]

1. Yes, it's possible.
2. Cost can vary. It depends on the PFAS, as they're a range of chemicals and such. Worst case, you have to go with a reverse osmosis system, which removes 90% or more of it. Cheaper filters are possible.
3. PFAS are generally industrial chemicals, and wastes from industrial products.

Consumer reports says $260-$2200 [consumerreports.org], but this is to install the filtration system, it doesn't mention the ongoing costs(which I tend to pay more attention to) in replacing filters and such.

Some looking s

Re:

[serafean]

> If you're worried about PFAS, I'd recommend testing to find out what your water has

If you're worried about PFAS, accept your fate... PFAS are present in rainwater: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.10... [acs.org] , at levels above EPA recommendations, even in antarctica.
Yes, you can filter your water, but it'll get to you eventually. (For instance you eat meat that drank unfiltered water)

PFAS are really a case of "The solution to pollution is dilution", once they're out in the wild, they never disappear.

Re:

[Firethorn]

True, even RO might only get 90% of it - which is in the water.

But as they say, the poison is in the dose. Find out if your specific water has unacceptably high levels, and worry about if you do.

If you can cut your exposure by like 50%, that might still help.

Re:

[toxonix]

" educate the public to demand " That's a round-about way of getting anywhere. Companies should be prohibited from using or including PFAS in products. Do we need stain-resistant carpet? Do we need non-stick cookware? Do we need whatever properties of PFAS that make them suitable for cosmetics? No, we don't. The need is created by chemical companies who make these products. If Dupont Chemical is told it is no longer allowed to use PFAS in any of its products, it will end those product lines. It's not like t

Re:

[JaredOfEuropa]

It can be treated, and IIRC there are already a few suppliers here in the Netherlands that filter most of PFAS from the water mains. I've no idea how costly it is. And as other have pointed out: water is not the only source of PFAS, it's in the food chain as well.

Re:

[coofercat]

> If so, how much additional cost would that be

It really doesn't matter what the additional costs are - most water companies are broke, and can barely keep water flowing when it's hot outside. If it cost £1 a week extra they'd probably claim it was too much. Whatever corporate success they may have ever been capable of, they're now in debt up to their eyeballs, the shareholders have all been paid off, and whatever profit they have is all spent servicing their debts.

As for your other points - they'

clickbait title?

[davecotter]

first i was like "why would they want to get rid of the limits we have? we should limit it FURTHER!"
title should be "Scientists Call on Ministers To Further Limit 'Forever Chemicals' in UK Tap Water

Better starting point

[KlomDark]

They should work on whatever is in their water that makes their teeth look terrible!

Clarification

[Dantoo]

Could somebody with a bit of actual knowledge advise why I should worry about the activity of chemicals that are non-reactive to the extent that they are labelled "forever"?