U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with toxic 'Forever Chemicals' that cause health problems

[Yoel Bromero]

So 20 years ago it was a known problem and the epa response 20 years later is to maybe have some type of hypothetical plan in place before the end of the year to hopefully maybe potentially address a maximum of 2 of the toxins.

The fuck?

 

[General_Speckz]

Thanks TS, it's a real concern, glad you posted a separate thread from my bump to the Dark Waters movie that talks about how this all got uncovered! :

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/dark-waters-movie-thread.4050101/#post-158218485

 

[dc007]

Dark Waters was about this. Good movie.

 

[OneManOrgy]

That is some god damn bullshit. Any way average people could help? Do you have anyone you write letters too or anything. I could email them or sign whatever petition?

There is an on going debate about it but nothing seems to be happening, I'm not sure if there is anything I could do, it seems to be a widespread problem. I don't think they'll listen. They don't care, I don't think an e-mail or petition would do much. I appreciate it though. Thanks man.

 

[davidlemonparty]

PFAS chemicals are for sure a problem. Calling them 'forever' chemicals is a bit of an issue and sortof sidelines the real issue. The real issue is that PFAS and related are generally bio accumulative which means your body processes them and eliminates them slowly. So they accumulate, and in the natural environment they can then accumulate and magnify up the food chain. So PFAS contaminate water, which contaminates fish, animals eat the fish and get more PFAS, other animals eat those animals, etc. Or contaminated water is used onplants when then are eaten by animals and the same effect occurs.

I do not believe there is any strong identified correlation between PFAS levels in humans and specific health concerns. ITs obviously a bad thing and something to be avoided, but i don't think we've seen major problems such as with PCB's, Asebstos, etc. No strong cancer correlation especially. We do have reasonable data on longer term and high dose human exposure from individuals who were exposed to high doses from working in manufacturing jobs directly with these chemicals - so we aren't flying blind either.

Here is a nice ready-reackoner summary that seems pretty fair and balanced -
https://www1.health.gov.au/internet...0001F9E7D/$File/PFAS-factsheet-15June2016.pdf

Spoiler

Updated June 2016 Australian Health Protection Principal Committee Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) FactSheet What are per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances? Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, also known as “PFASs”, are a group of manufactured chemicals that have been used since the 1950s in a range of common household products and specialty applications, including in the manufacture of nonstick cookware; fabric, furniture and carpet stain protection applications; food packaging; some industrial processes; and in some types of fire-fighting foam. Until recently, this group of chemicals was known as “perfluorinated chemicals”, or “PFCs”. The name change has come about to avoid confusion with another group of chemicals that are relevant to climate change, which are also known as “PFCs”. There are many types of PFASs. The best known examples are: o perfluorooctane sulfonate, also known as “PFOS”; and o perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as “PFOA”. Perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) is another chemical of the PFAS group and is also present in some fire-fighting foams. Are these chemicals manufactured or used in Australia? The National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) has monitored PFOS and PFOA use in Australia through four national surveys, which show that these chemicals are not manufactured in Australia. PFOS and related compounds are currently imported into Australia, mainly for use as mist suppressants in the metal plating industry, hydraulic fluid in the aviation industry and surfactants in the photography industry. PFOA and related chemicals were previously imported into Australia and used in the local manufacture of non-stick cookware. These chemicals are not present in the finished cookware. Until recently, PFOS and PFOA were added to some types of fire-fighting foam to improve the foam’s ability to smother fires. There are believed to be stockpiles of fire-fighting foams containing PFASs still in use. PFOS and PFOA may be present in a range of imported consumer products, although many countries have phased out, or are progressively phasing out the use of PFOS and PFOA due to concerns about their persistence, bioaccumulation and environmental toxicity. 2 NICNAS has recommended since 2002 that Australian industries should actively seek alternatives to PFASs and PFAS-related substances. The alternative chemicals should be less toxic and not persist in the environment. Have PFOS and PFOA contaminated sites in Australia? Currently there are investigations into environmental contamination with PFOS and PFOA at a number of sites around Australia. These include the Country Fire Authority training facility at Fiskville, Victoria; the RAAF Base at Williamtown, NSW; and the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey, Queensland. The historic use of PFAS-containing fire-fighting foams has resulted in areas within these sites becoming contaminated with PFOS and PFOA. Over the past decades, these chemicals have worked their way through the soil to contaminate surface and ground water, and have also migrated into adjoining land areas. There are potentially other contaminated sites around Australia at which PFAScontaining fire-fighting foams have been used, which are being investigated. How do PFASs enter the environment? In addition to contamination from the use of fire-fighting foams, PFASs can be released into the environment from landfill sites where products and materials that contain these chemicals are sent for disposal, and into ground and surface water through sewer discharges. Manufacturing facilities that handle PFASs are also sources of PFAS release into the environment. The biggest environmental concern about PFOS and PFOA is that they do not break down in the environment and can travel long distances in water and air currents. They have been shown to be widespread global contaminants and many countries are now monitoring and restricting their use. PFOS and PFOA have been shown to be toxic to some animals, and because they don’t break down they can bioaccumulate and biomagnify in some wildlife, including fish. This means that fish and animals higher in the food chain may accumulate high concentrations of PFOS and PFOA in their bodies. The toxicity, mobility, persistence and bioaccumulation potential of PFOS and PFOA pose potential concerns for the environment and for human health. 3 How could I be exposed to PFASs? The general public are exposed to small amounts of PFOS or PFOA in everyday life through exposure to dust, indoor and outdoor air, food, water and contact with consumer products that contain these chemicals. For most people, food is thought to be the most important source of exposure. Treated carpets and floors treated with waxes and sealants that contain PFASs can be an important source of exposure for babies and infants. PFOS and PFOA are readily absorbed through the gut and are not metabolised or broken down in the body. These chemicals are only very slowly eliminated from the body. Studies have shown that Australians have small amounts of PFOS and PFOA in their blood. PFOS and PFOA can also be found in urine and breast milk. People who work in industries that use PFOS and PFOA, or use products containing these chemicals, may be exposed to higher levels than the general public. Where larger quantities of PFOS and PFOA have been released into the environment, communities located near those sites may be exposed to higher levels than the general public. It is important to understand how people living near contaminated areas may come into contact with PFOS and PFOA so that exposure may be minimised. This could include by examining in detail the pathways through which people could be exposed to these chemicals. How do PFASs affect human health? Whether PFOS or PFOA cause health problems in humans is currently unknown, but on current evidence from studies in animals the potential for adverse health effects cannot be excluded. Because the elimination of PFASs from the human body is slow there is a risk that continued exposure to PFOS and PFOA could cause adverse health effects. Adverse health effects have been demonstrated in animal studies, but at higher levels than are found in people. As well, the applicability of the effects in animals to humans is not well established. The existing limited studies on PFHxS suggest that this chemical can cause effects in laboratory test animals similar to the effects caused by PFOS. However, based on available studies, PFHxS appears to be less potent in animal studies than PFOS. Much of the research on humans has been done with people who were exposed to relatively high levels of PFASs through their work. Workers involved in the manufacture or use of PFASs usually have higher blood PFAS levels than the general public. Studies on PFAS workers have looked for effects on cholesterol levels, male hormones, heart disease, liver changes and other effects, including cancer. These studies have not consistently shown that PFAS exposure is linked to health problems. 4 As a precaution, people living in or near an area that has been identified as having been contaminated with PFOS, PFOA or PFHxS should take steps to limit their exposure to these chemicals. Your state or territory health department can provide you with advice on how to limit your exposure to these chemicals specific to your location and circumstances. Can PFOS or PFOA cause human cancers? In humans, there is no conclusive evidence that PFASs cause any specific illnesses, including cancer. Studies in laboratory animals suggest that PFOS and PFOA may cause some cancers in those animals following prolonged exposure to relatively high levels. However, no existing studies have found a causal link between exposure to PFOS and PFOA and cancer in humans. Studies of workers involved in the manufacture or use of PFOS and PFOA have looked at whether there is any link between these chemicals and the development of prostate, bladder and liver cancer in humans. There have been no consistent findings in these studies. The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) has classified PFOA as possibly causing some cancers. Other studies have concluded that the evidence does not support an association between human cancer and either PFOS or PFOA exposure. Does exposure to PFASs during pregnancy pose an increased health risk? PFOS and PFOA are not known to cause adverse health effects on unborn babies. However, as a precaution, pregnant women living in or near an area that has been identified as having been contaminated with PFOS or PFOA should take steps to limit their exposure to these chemicals. Your state or territory health department can provide you with advice regarding PFOS and PFOA specific to your location and circumstances. Should I breastfeed if I have been exposed to PFASs? Although there is evidence that PFOS occurs in breast milk, it is unclear what, if any, the risks to the baby may be from PFOS or PFOA exposure through breast milk. The significant health benefits of breast feeding are well established and far outweigh any potential health risks to an infant from any PFOS or PFOA transferred through breast milk. Breast feeding of babies should not be discontinued due to concerns about PFOS and PFOA exposure. 5 Should I get a blood test if I think I have been exposed to PFOS or PFOA? Blood tests are not recommended to determine whether any medical condition is attributable to exposure to PFOS or PFOA and have no current value in informing clinical management, including diagnosis, treatment or prognosis in terms of increased risk of particular conditions over time. The value of blood testing is limited to assessing exposure at a population level, such as monitoring over time, which may help determine the success of exposure reduction measures. However, given the long biological half-life of PFASs, frequent blood monitoring is of no value. If you think you have been exposed to PFOS or PFOA and you have any health concerns, please consult your general practitioner. Are blood tests useful at a population level? Various organisations around the world have collected blood samples from people as part of ongoing investigations into PFAS contamination of soil and water. The purpose of these tests was either as part of a defined research program, or to determine how much of these chemicals may be entering a person’s body. A blood test can tell a person if they have PFOS or PFOA in their blood and at what levels. These levels can be compared with the levels seen in the general Australian population. Blood tests can also inform a community if they have been exposed to PFASs at a level above or below that of the general population. The monitoring of pooled community blood samples over time may help determine the success of exposure reduction measures.

 

[jefferz]

Uk's waters fucked up too!

Some years ago I kept many cold water & exotic fish aquariums. No issues whatsoever and was relatively easy to maintain.

Two years ago I took up the hobby again and a lot of my fish died between one month and 5.

Now you have to use water treatments to deal with the fluoride and other added chemicals fish shouldn't be in contact with.

Do you use Prime over there?

 

[weed]

 

[dildos]

lol what a shit hole country where a whole state or more states dont have drinking water.

 

[Davem10]

Do Brita filters or equivalents actually help?

 

[koolinkunming]

Dang I guess Eddie Bravo is on to something, they trying to sicken us with the water man .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.

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 https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing 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.

The chemicals were used in products like Teflon and Scotchguard and in firefighting foam. Some are used in a variety of other products and industrial processes, and their replacements also pose risks.

Of tap water samples taken by EWG from 44 sites in 31 states and Washington D.C., only one location, Meridian, Mississippi, which relies on 700 foot (215 m) deep wells, had no detectable PFAS. Only Seattle and Tuscaloosa, Alabama had levels below 1 part per trillion (PPT), the limit EWG recommends.

In addition, EWG found that on average six to seven PFAS compounds were found at the tested sites, and the effects on health of the mixtures are little understood. "Everyone's really exposed to a toxic soup of these PFAS chemicals," Andrews said.

In 34 places where EWG's tests found PFAS, contamination had not been publicly reported by the EPA or state environmental agencies.

The EPA has known since at least 2001 about the problem of PFAS in drinking water but has so far failed to set an enforceable, nationwide legal limit. The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on two of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS.

The EPA said it has helped states and communities address PFAS and that it is working to put limits on the two main chemicals but did not give a timeline.

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.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-drinking-water-widely-contaminated-050229550.html

Hey man, at least it’s not as bad as China. Nothing will ever be as bad as China.

 

[TidWell]

China loves giving us sicknesses too like this coronavirus and bird flu

 

[General_Speckz]

Do Brita filters or equivalents actually help?

The ones that hook up directly to the faucet are theorized to be like the Pur filters, but the ones where they drain in a container you leave in the fridge don't seem to. That's what I read in a couple different places online.

Ofc a person absorbs quite a bit of water from showering alone, so it might just amount to a lot of pointless worry?

I still replaced our recently expired faucet filter right after watching the movie..

 

[Lubaolong]

reverse osmosis filter, son

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

Ive been talking about this for a long time.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Do Brita filters or equivalents actually help?

A Brita type filter system definitely helps if your water has a mineral or foreign taste you don't like. Its main function is taste though and not safety. It removes many of the minerals and contaminants that can get in the tap water as well as the chlorine they put in making the water taste more neutral.

Things like lead and mercury which we don't want to ingest will be removed or reduced but so will other healthful minerals.

But things like bacteria in the water pass thru most of those type filter systems.

What I do, in areas where i think the tap water is suspect is boil the water first and use the water once it has cooled in the kettle to fill the brita. The boiling kills the bacteria and the Brita then purifies the taste.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The main problem with most water is not always the source.

Sure many sources can be polluted by upstream factories or other problems but even, many times when you hear about City testing of local water supplies and how good their water is, they are telling you about the SOURCE testing. They are testing the aquifer.

And the problem is the pipes that get the water from the Source to your tap. It was the pipes that were killing people in Detroit. Old rusty pipes. And I think the gov't knows it has a massive problem with old rusting pipes and does not want to identify it as it would cost so much to fix. So just like for decades they knew that the New Orleans levy system would collapse and the cost of clean up would be multiples more than the fix, no gov't in power wanted to spend their CURRENT budget dollars to fix it. Better to hold their nose, and turn a blind eye and hope it does not blow up on their watch.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Well what do you want? Some nanny state to make laws against that?

Fuck no, freedom fuck yeah, etc.

 

[Blayt7hh]

So 20 years ago it was a known problem and the epa response 20 years later is to maybe have some type of hypothetical plan in place before the end of the year to hopefully maybe potentially address a maximum of 2 of the toxins.

The fuck?

Hard to blame the EPA though when for most of those 20 years they’ve been basically toothless. Bush and Trump have done a lot to hamstring them

 

[GSP_37]

What's the source of the toxic chemicals?

If Nevada can turn sewer water into cleaner water, copy them?

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Uk's waters fucked up too!

Some years ago I kept many cold water & exotic fish aquariums. No issues whatsoever and was relatively easy to maintain.

Two years ago I took up the hobby again and a lot of my fish died between one month and 5.

Now you have to use water treatments to deal with the fluoride and other added chemicals fish shouldn't be in contact with.

the tap water in my shire was delicious when I was a kid, now it fuckin stinks of chlorine, I don't even give it to my dog to drink, he's lapping up the buxton spring.