9 ms·

Unsafe levels of toxic chemicals found in drinking water for 6M Americans

318 points by upen 10y ago

gcb0 10y ago
better link https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemicals-drinking-water/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemi...
- sctb 10y ago
  Thanks, we updated the link from http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/4168.html http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/4168.html, which points to this.
vskarine 10y ago
Original article has a generic map without much details but does anyone have a list of specific cities or zip codes that are affected? Original article with map: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemicals-drinking-water/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemi...
- bostonvaulter2 10y ago
  That map is completely missing two states
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  The map is almost worse than useless, and this larger, interactive one is just as bad: http://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2015-teflon-chemical-harmful-at-smallest-doses-lower-48.php http://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2015-teflon-chemical-har... For example it colors my county, Alameda County, CA in red because there is some system, somewhere in the county where one of these compounds was detected. But the populous areas of the county are served by East Bay MUD, where the data indicates no detection. The actual data lies in a gigantic text file in a zip archive at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-data.zip https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc...
ars 10y ago
A simple carbon filter - of any type, will take care of these. Lead is a much bigger problem since it's much harder to filter out.
- zolphe 10y ago
  Report from the Minnesota department of health supporting that: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/waterquality/poudevicefinalsummary.pdf http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/waterquality/pou...
refurb 10y ago
had at least one water sample that measured at or above the EPA safety limit of 70 parts per trillion (ng/L) Just as a comparison, the EPA safety limits for other compounds in drinking water is[1]: Arsenic 10,000 parts per trillion Cyanide 200,000 parts per trillion Carbon tetrachloride 5,000 parts per trillion All of those compounds are known to be very toxic. I'm curious why the safety limit is so low for these PFAs if there isn't much data on them. [1]https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-re...
- hammock 10y ago
  Fluorochemicals break down very slowly in the body, if at all. So while a small amount might not do much immediate damage there is a serious risk of bioaccumulation. See "PFAs last forever...[PFOA] does not hydrolyse, photolyse or biodegrade under environmental conditions http://www.ewg.org/research/pfcs-global-contaminants/pfcs-last-forever http://www.ewg.org/research/pfcs-global-contaminants/pfcs-la...
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    I was under the impression this was also true of arsenic, though.
- akiselev 10y ago
  There isn't much (or any) research on the effects of PFAs on humans, only on lab animals, so we really don't know anything about its toxicity to us. What we do know, however, is that these organic molecules have an extremely rare combination of characteristics: they are unbelievably stable (they seem to be both both hydrophobic and hydrophillic), they can bind to a significant fraction of common proteins indiscriminately, and there exists no biological mechanism that can effectively filter them out. Even though we don't yet know how toxic the compounds are, we do know that this behavior creates a perfect shit storm because not only do these molecules interfere with basic biochemistry but also bioaccumulate though environmental exposure (drinking contaminated water) and the food chain. The closest analogy would be prions which are also very stable, interfere with the basic function of proteins, and can accumulate through a variety of exposure vectors. The difference is that prions coevolved with the rest of our ecosystem whereas PFAs are entirely synthetic and do not exist in nature. It's unlikely that these molecules are as toxic as arsenic (which wrecks havoc by replacing phosphorus in DNA and the Krebs cycle) but this rather unique combination of circumstances requires an extreme level of caution.
grandalf 10y ago
Anything that is public health related is bound to be full of tradeoffs and "good enoughs". The water in Flint, MI was considered good enough by Flint's officials, as is the water in many other municipalities. Just as a private monopoly would start to reduce quality once it cornered the market, public, regulated monopolies behave similarly. Why care about quality if there is no competition and it's just another year earning a pension for the bureaucrats involved? Consider how the bidding process for building roads results in poorly built roads and no incentive to the winner of the contract to build something that will last. Nearly every piece of American infrastructure is riddled with corruption or incompetence (or both). Even basic construction is full of various rules intended to bolster union workers, etc. and adding enormous cost.
- gl338 10y ago
  I really want to be respectful here but your comment shows a large level of ignorance around the difference between public monopolies, public UTILITIES, public (regulated) goods, and the economics thereof. A lot of public utilities were created specifically to enforce a level of quality and compliance and protect the citizen. In situations where the quality of goods is reduced below a safe level, you should not blame lack of competition, but call it what it is: incompetence at best, corruption at worst. Good book on the topic that HN readers will appreciate is "The Master Switch": https://www.amazon.ca/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-Empires/dp/0307390993 https://www.amazon.ca/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-Empires...
  - tn13 10y ago
    > A lot of public utilities were created specifically to enforce a level of quality and compliance and protect the citizen Calling others ignorant does not help an argument. I think he had a point that when you let government control something it is the worst kind of monopoly and the quality is bound go down the drain. Whether it VA affairs, public education or IRS.
    - josephg 10y ago
      > I think he had a point that when you let government control something it is the worst kind of monopoly and the quality is bound go down the drain. Whether it VA affairs, public education or IRS. Thats not necessarily true. Certainly outside the US there are many, many public institutions which do fantastic work. The ABC here in Australia and the BBC in the UK produce great television. The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) are highly regarded here, as was CSIRO before the government gutted their funding (CSIRO is an Australian government research group which invented parts of wifi). I don't know if the reputation US government agencies have for incompetence is real or due to media spin, but the problem is obviously not inevitable. To quote Bill Clinton: "The problem with ideology is that it gives you the answer before you've asked the question".
wfunction 10y ago
I saw an article on this back in January. I remember reading that CA seems to have the highest number of people affected by PFOA. Scary and worth reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-be...
- tdaltonc 10y ago
  CA is the state with the highest number of people period, so that's what you'd expect.
lvs 10y ago
I continue to be shocked that consumer beauty products containing polyfluorinated alkyl compounds are being sold without any significant attention or regulatory oversight [1]. [1] http://www.livingproof.com/buy/our-science http://www.livingproof.com/buy/our-science
Aloha 10y ago
Show me more on the science on them, and I might be concerned about this being a problem.
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  Only an absolute fool says, "its fine to saturate the environment with synthesized chemicals with unknown effects until they are proven to be harmful." Unfortunately this is the law of the land and the opinion of many.
  - 20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
    Appeal to fear.
    - StanislavPetrov 10y ago
      What does that have to do with fear? How on earth can you say its fine for me to go into my basement and mix up any chemical compound I want and saturate you with it? How on earth can you say I should have the right to adulterate the environment and subject you to any chemical I mix up in my basement until you prove that its harming you? The truly frightening part isn't that people like you, completely devoid of logic and common sense, exist. Its that people like you are many, and that your ignorance is exploited by those who run the show and profit off of this poisoning.
      - colemickens 10y ago
        I bet you believe in that global warming conspiracy shared by virtually every scientist on the planet too. Pfft. /s
      - CamperBob2 10y ago
        Nothing measured in parts per trillion is "saturating the environment," and everything including plain water has "unknown effects" in one context or another. The precautionary principle is epistemologically bankrupt. But then this sort of thread always generates more hype than light, I suppose.
emilong 10y ago
This appears to me to the raw sample data https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-data.zip https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc... The UCMR3_All.txt file inside looks to have a fairly nice, denormalized set of samples with location names, dates, and detections.
stokedmartin 10y ago
To see specific zip codes, download zip[0]. UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt has all the zip codes and you can cross reference UCMR3_All.txt using PWSID to get facility ID; then cross reference UCMR3_DRT.txt using the facility ID to get the disinfection type. Details about the disinfection type can be found in a pdf within the zip file. [0]https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-data.zip https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc...
- tbrock 10y ago
  crap, my zipcode is on there... does this mean i'm going to die?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - InclinedPlane 10y ago
    Yes. Valar Morghulis.
  - ianlevesque 10y ago
    Not sure if you're joking, since we're all dying, but if you really want to know what it means see my other comment.
  - buzzybee 10y ago
    When you get deep into these widespread public health issues you start to realize that there's always going to be at least one that you or your locale is at risk for. If it's not the water, it's the food. If it's not the food, it's the air. If it's not the air, it's the soil. If it's not the soil, it's your building. And so on... The best you can do, in the end, is to avoid paranoia or panic and just aim for some systematic detection, mitigation and prevention processes in your household. With a little luck and a good system, you cheat death or disability, temporarily. You cannot create an ironclad guarantee of safety, but there are many things that you can do something about.
    - 10y ago
mortehu 10y ago
A small PSA: "Brita" brand water filters seem to be very popular in US, but they're also some of the worst in tests. For example in this test ... http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health-products/g684/water-filters/ http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health-products/g684/water-f...? ... "Brita" filters were found to remove around 55% of PFOA, whereas "ZeroWater" filters remove more than 95%. I.e. "Brita" filters leave 9x more stuff in the water. The performance difference is similar for other unwanted stuff, like lead.
- akshatpradhan 10y ago
  ConsumerSearch also did a meta review of the best water filters: http://www.consumersearch.com/water-filters http://www.consumersearch.com/water-filters They wrote a buying guide for your next water filter: http://www.consumersearch.com/water-filters/how-to-buy-a-water-filter http://www.consumersearch.com/water-filters/how-to-buy-a-wat...
- shakeel_mohamed 10y ago
  I knew Brita wasn't great, but I didn't know they were so inferior. Thanks for the info!
- russelldavis 10y ago
  Another thorough review of water filters: http://thesweethome.com/reviews/best-water-filter-pitcher/ http://thesweethome.com/reviews/best-water-filter-pitcher/
  - SquareWheel 10y ago
    Seems in-depth, but I have a hard time trusting reviews like this when they make affiliate dollars on clickthroughs.
    - eli 10y ago
      Consumer Reports does basically the same thing but you have to pay to subscribe -- no ads
finid 10y ago
> Drinking water samples near industrial sites, military fire training areas, wastewater treatment plants have highest levels of fluorinated compounds Areas around fracking sites must be even worse.
- msandford 10y ago
  Why is that? My understanding is that fracking "recipes" are secret only because they're so boring. If it's just soap and sand and whatnot and you're making $50mm a year on it, you gotta keep the recipe a secret or else everyone will copy it and you're out of business.
  - finid 10y ago
    Nop! They are secret because those involved don't want us to know the exact nature of the dangerous chemicals they're pumping into the environment. And I don't even want to get into the associated earthquakes.
jonah 10y ago
Ermm, my city's well closest to me has the following: MRL Tested chromium 0.2 0.67 vanadium 0.2 1.1 strontium 0.3 960 chromium-6 0.03 0.44 chlorate 20 190 molybdenum 1 8.7 [Edit] to change "Allowable" to "MRL": "The lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with stated, acceptable precision and accuracy under stated analytical conditions (i.e. the lower limit of quantitation). Therefore, analyses are calibrated to the MRL, or lower. To take into account day-to-day fluctuations in instrument sensitivity, analyst performance, and other factors, the MRL is established at three times the MDL (or greater)." [Edit 2] In my town's overall distribution system there are multiple samples above the allowable Reference Concentration. The highest were: Tested Allowable strontium 1900 1500 chlorate 410 210
- ianlevesque 10y ago
  Those look like the MRLs, not the reference concentrations. For example Chlorate isn't (maybe) a cause for concern unless above 210, not 20.
  - jonah 10y ago
    Oh, you're right. Tested Ref. Amt (MCL) IRIS RfD (u g/kg/day) chromium 0.67 50 3 vanadium 1.1 21 7 strontium 960 1,500 chromium-6 0.44 NA chlorate 190 210 molybdenum 8.7 40 5 Some levels from: https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/drinking/files/dwsha_0607.pdf https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/drinking/files/dwsha_0607...
- akiselev 10y ago
  Are you in Wisconsin, a region with large amounts of fracking, or near a nuclear disposal site, by any chance? Such a large molybdenum concentration is exceptionally rare as far as I know.
  - jonah 10y ago
    Coastal Southern California. There are numerous wells (including some using fracking) within 15-50 miles.
ianlevesque 10y ago
Since people seem curious how to analyze this for their locale, the best I could come up with (using the raw data at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-data.zip https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc... ) was: 1. Search zipcode in UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt, obtain PWSID. 2. Filter by PWSID in UCMR3_All.txt. 3. Filter that result by rows containing "=" (which means at or above minimum reporting level) 4. Don't panic. 5. Compare AnalyticalResultsValue column to the Reference Concentration in ucmr3-data-summary-april-2016.pdf. If its under the Reference Concentration then you're safe, within the limits of how incomplete their reference concentations are. The document specifically states: > The intent of the following table is to identify draft UCMR reference concentrations, where possible, to provide context around the detection of a particular UCMR contaminant above the MRL. The draft reference concentration does not represent an “action level” (EPA requires no particular action1,2 based simply on the fact that UCMR monitoring results exceed draft reference concentrations), nor should the draft reference concentration be interpreted as any indication of an Agency intent to establish a future drinking water regulation for the contaminant at this or any other level. The minimal reporting level seems to be based on how small an amount is detectable, not harmful. The reference concentration appears to be a best guess at the moment for what a maximum safe amount is. My zipcode for example came up with several of these above the MRL but below the reference concentration. Enjoy. Edit: added link.
- rando832 10y ago
  tldr: region=$(grep YOUR_ZIP_GOES_HERE UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt|awk '{print $1}') grep $region.*= UCMR3_All.txt | awk 'FS = "\t" {print $14,$5,$18}'| sort open page 7 in ucmr3-data-summary-april-2016.pdf, compare
  - twr 10y ago
    Using xsv (https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv): cargo install xsv xsv search -s ZIPCODE <zipcode> -d $'\t' UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt xsv search -s PWSID <pwsid> -d $'\t' UCMR3_All.txt | xsv search -s AnalyticalResultsSign = | xsv select FacilityName,Contaminant,AnalyticalResultsValue | xsv table
hiou 10y ago
Good grief. There is very little data this stuff is harmful. Certainly not going to wipe out a town in a weekend. Can't wait for millennials to age a few more years and hopefully get a little context. Being wedged between baby boomers and millennials gets more uncomfortable by the day.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  I would suggest that's not the point, old man. The point is that the limits exist, and people have to trust that the rules are being followed because they can't go around testing every drop of water that comes out of their tap, yet the rules are being broken invisibly. If the limits are wrong, sure, lets get them changed. Breaking the law because it's probably harmless doesn't make it acceptable.
- dualogy 10y ago
  > Certainly not going to wipe out a town in a weekend. Well neither did lead, in the olden days. Not in a weekend, that is. Of course any fear such as it exists (and regardless of how ill-founded or well-founded it may be!) is not about weekend wipe-outs but rather slowly creeping seeping insidious very-long-term poisoning accumulating and unnoticable from day-to-day, until who knows "suddenly" at some point the entire population has at least half a dozen ailments of civilization, new-fangled "syndromes", mitochondrial or neurodegeneration, and depends on dozen of pills..
Loic 10y ago
This illustrates the future unknown issues with respect to chemicals and health/environment. At the moment, we have two schools to handle this: 1. not proved bad, we allow. 2. not proved good, we disallow. The US is more on the first side and the EU on the second, of course, like for any complex issues, the right decision is context dependent and in the middle. I am working in the area of chemical properties, this is a hard problem and I am sure that when this class of compounds arrived on the market, smart people tried their best to figure out the health implications. We have more tools and experience 50 years later, but we are not smarter. We need to move with caution while handling an increasing market pressure... this is challenging!
bronz 10y ago
i rent a room in a very old house and i wouldnt be surprised if there were higher than acceptable lead levels in the tap water here. so it got me thinking about water filtering. a reverse osmosis filter and charcoal filter working in series seems to be the most thorough method. does anyone have experience with filtering their water?
- dharma1 10y ago
  You can get the water lead levels tested for relatively little money. I would. And if it turns out the house has lead pipes, you should get them changed
- goldenkey 10y ago
  Ive never done reverse osmosis but Ive built water filtering fountains for my cats. You'll want NSF grade (food grade) carbon from either bone or coconut shells with a fine enough mesh to provide resistance. I bought 10 pounds of this one and its still lasting over a year: http://www.buyactivatedcharcoal.com/product/granular_activated_charcoal/coconut/20x50_mesh http://www.buyactivatedcharcoal.com/product/granular_activat... Next you'll want to get silver tubing and adapters to kill all bacteria. You'll also be able to connect your carbon filter inline with the tubing and use a pump to push your water through the filter. This is the best NSF antibacterial silver infused tubing money can buy: http://www.newageindustries.com/clearflo-Ag-47-antimicrobial-pvc-tubing.asp http://www.newageindustries.com/clearflo-Ag-47-antimicrobial... I recommend NSF Eldon James antimicrobial tube fittings: http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=550 http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=550 You can also find the clearflo tubing on usplastics but only in 100 feet rolls. I can ship some if you need only a few feet, my email is in my profile. Next youll want a transparent/translucent inline refillable filter. I recommend a 1/2" FPT but you can get larger/smaller depending on how much water you want to filter and what your tubing, adapters, and pump size is, everything needs to match. 1/2" ID for tubing and 1/2" NPT / barbs is very compatible and provides enough flow for most purposes. Theres a lot of these on the market, here's a good google search that sources images from amazon, ebay, and some smaller vendors: https://www.google.com/search?q=inline+refillable+filter&prmd=sivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&biw=412&bih=652 https://www.google.com/search?q=inline+refillable+filter&prm... Unless you hook this contraption up to an actual water line( your sink), you'll need a pump to push the water through the carbon. No, gravity is not good enough - if the filter is worth its salt it will provide a resistance much greater than what gravity can provide. I recommend Danner steel pumps. Their plastic ones suck, trust me, I've burned through a few. This pump has really shined: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BJK3QQ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BJK3QQ Now if you choose to use this pump, go with 1/2" on everything. Here is a barbed adapter that will screw perfectly into the top of the pump and seal perfectly with 1/2" ID tubing: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008TSRZJE https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008TSRZJE Let me know what you finally settle on and how it goes. Filtration is lots of fun!! Cheers! :-)
drsim 10y ago
nitpick: > ...from the Faroe Islands, an island country off the coast of Denmark Not really off the coast of Denmark... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Faroe+Islands https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Faroe+Islands
the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
I'm not sure how it's in the US but my biggest fear with water quality is never the water from the source but what happens on the way to your tap. In Vienna Austria for instance they are super concerned about PH levels because some old houses still have lead piping and if it gets out too far, then the pipes can corrode and lead makes it into the water. As another example the difference in water quality in the same district in Moscow and SPB from different taps is crazy. Now that smart meters are a thing for electricity I really wonder if it would not start to make sense to work on basic water quality measurements in houses.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  IIRC that was exactly the scenario that happened in Flint, MI in the US. I don't know enough to comment on how it happened, but the end result was that the PH was too far off and it destroyed something that caused them to leech lead into the water until replaced. Large parts of the city are still unable to use the pipes in their house.
mox1 10y ago
If you want a report like this for your own personal drinking supply check out http://www.karlabs.com/watertestkit/ http://www.karlabs.com/watertestkit/ I did it recently. I'm using the results to put some water filters into the house that are actually NSF (1) certified to remove the contaminants the test found. [1] http://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/ http://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/
- DenisM 10y ago
  which filters did you pick?
- mr337 10y ago
  That is a rough looking website :)
  - dprvig 10y ago
    Similar product with a better website https://120wateraudit.com/ https://120wateraudit.com/ :)
smaili 10y ago
Anyone have personal experience or research from reverse osmosis filters? I keep hearing it makes the water "better" but never any hard facts on how it performs statistically.
tdaltonc 10y ago
Any tips on how to tell what I should actually be worried about from FUD or WOO wrt/ drinking water?
artur_makly 10y ago
What are the stats for NYC?
azinman2 10y ago
Being lazy here: anyone know the data for SF?

318 points by upen 10y ago

gcb0 10y ago

better link https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemicals-drinking-water/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemi...

sctb 10y ago
Thanks, we updated the link from http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/4168.html http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/4168.html, which points to this.

vskarine 10y ago

Original article has a generic map without much details but does anyone have a list of specific cities or zip codes that are affected? Original article with map: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemicals-drinking-water/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemi...

bostonvaulter2 10y ago
That map is completely missing two states
honkhonkpants 10y ago
The map is almost worse than useless, and this larger, interactive one is just as bad: http://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2015-teflon-chemical-harmful-at-smallest-doses-lower-48.php http://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2015-teflon-chemical-har... For example it colors my county, Alameda County, CA in red because there is some system, somewhere in the county where one of these compounds was detected. But the populous areas of the county are served by East Bay MUD, where the data indicates no detection. The actual data lies in a gigantic text file in a zip archive at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-data.zip https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc...

ars 10y ago

A simple carbon filter - of any type, will take care of these. Lead is a much bigger problem since it's much harder to filter out.

zolphe 10y ago
Report from the Minnesota department of health supporting that: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/waterquality/poudevicefinalsummary.pdf http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/waterquality/pou...

refurb 10y ago

had at least one water sample that measured at or above the EPA safety limit of 70 parts per trillion (ng/L) Just as a comparison, the EPA safety limits for other compounds in drinking water is[1]: Arsenic 10,000 parts per trillion Cyanide 200,000 parts per trillion Carbon tetrachloride 5,000 parts per trillion All of those compounds are known to be very toxic. I'm curious why the safety limit is so low for these PFAs if there isn't much data on them. [1]https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-re...

hammock 10y ago
Fluorochemicals break down very slowly in the body, if at all. So while a small amount might not do much immediate damage there is a serious risk of bioaccumulation. See "PFAs last forever...[PFOA] does not hydrolyse, photolyse or biodegrade under environmental conditions http://www.ewg.org/research/pfcs-global-contaminants/pfcs-last-forever http://www.ewg.org/research/pfcs-global-contaminants/pfcs-la...
- dllthomas 10y ago
  I was under the impression this was also true of arsenic, though.
akiselev 10y ago
There isn't much (or any) research on the effects of PFAs on humans, only on lab animals, so we really don't know anything about its toxicity to us. What we do know, however, is that these organic molecules have an extremely rare combination of characteristics: they are unbelievably stable (they seem to be both both hydrophobic and hydrophillic), they can bind to a significant fraction of common proteins indiscriminately, and there exists no biological mechanism that can effectively filter them out. Even though we don't yet know how toxic the compounds are, we do know that this behavior creates a perfect shit storm because not only do these molecules interfere with basic biochemistry but also bioaccumulate though environmental exposure (drinking contaminated water) and the food chain. The closest analogy would be prions which are also very stable, interfere with the basic function of proteins, and can accumulate through a variety of exposure vectors. The difference is that prions coevolved with the rest of our ecosystem whereas PFAs are entirely synthetic and do not exist in nature. It's unlikely that these molecules are as toxic as arsenic (which wrecks havoc by replacing phosphorus in DNA and the Krebs cycle) but this rather unique combination of circumstances requires an extreme level of caution.

grandalf 10y ago

Anything that is public health related is bound to be full of tradeoffs and "good enoughs". The water in Flint, MI was considered good enough by Flint's officials, as is the water in many other municipalities. Just as a private monopoly would start to reduce quality once it cornered the market, public, regulated monopolies behave similarly. Why care about quality if there is no competition and it's just another year earning a pension for the bureaucrats involved? Consider how the bidding process for building roads results in poorly built roads and no incentive to the winner of the contract to build something that will last. Nearly every piece of American infrastructure is riddled with corruption or incompetence (or both). Even basic construction is full of various rules intended to bolster union workers, etc. and adding enormous cost.

gl338 10y ago
I really want to be respectful here but your comment shows a large level of ignorance around the difference between public monopolies, public UTILITIES, public (regulated) goods, and the economics thereof. A lot of public utilities were created specifically to enforce a level of quality and compliance and protect the citizen. In situations where the quality of goods is reduced below a safe level, you should not blame lack of competition, but call it what it is: incompetence at best, corruption at worst. Good book on the topic that HN readers will appreciate is "The Master Switch": https://www.amazon.ca/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-Empires/dp/0307390993 https://www.amazon.ca/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-Empires...
- tn13 10y ago
  > A lot of public utilities were created specifically to enforce a level of quality and compliance and protect the citizen Calling others ignorant does not help an argument. I think he had a point that when you let government control something it is the worst kind of monopoly and the quality is bound go down the drain. Whether it VA affairs, public education or IRS.
  - josephg 10y ago
    > I think he had a point that when you let government control something it is the worst kind of monopoly and the quality is bound go down the drain. Whether it VA affairs, public education or IRS. Thats not necessarily true. Certainly outside the US there are many, many public institutions which do fantastic work. The ABC here in Australia and the BBC in the UK produce great television. The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) are highly regarded here, as was CSIRO before the government gutted their funding (CSIRO is an Australian government research group which invented parts of wifi). I don't know if the reputation US government agencies have for incompetence is real or due to media spin, but the problem is obviously not inevitable. To quote Bill Clinton: "The problem with ideology is that it gives you the answer before you've asked the question".

wfunction 10y ago

I saw an article on this back in January. I remember reading that CA seems to have the highest number of people affected by PFOA. Scary and worth reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-be...

tdaltonc 10y ago
CA is the state with the highest number of people period, so that's what you'd expect.

lvs 10y ago

I continue to be shocked that consumer beauty products containing polyfluorinated alkyl compounds are being sold without any significant attention or regulatory oversight [1]. [1] http://www.livingproof.com/buy/our-science http://www.livingproof.com/buy/our-science

Aloha 10y ago

Show me more on the science on them, and I might be concerned about this being a problem.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago
Only an absolute fool says, "its fine to saturate the environment with synthesized chemicals with unknown effects until they are proven to be harmful." Unfortunately this is the law of the land and the opinion of many.
- 20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
  Appeal to fear.
  - StanislavPetrov 10y ago
    What does that have to do with fear? How on earth can you say its fine for me to go into my basement and mix up any chemical compound I want and saturate you with it? How on earth can you say I should have the right to adulterate the environment and subject you to any chemical I mix up in my basement until you prove that its harming you? The truly frightening part isn't that people like you, completely devoid of logic and common sense, exist. Its that people like you are many, and that your ignorance is exploited by those who run the show and profit off of this poisoning.
    - colemickens 10y ago
      I bet you believe in that global warming conspiracy shared by virtually every scientist on the planet too. Pfft. /s
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      Nothing measured in parts per trillion is "saturating the environment," and everything including plain water has "unknown effects" in one context or another. The precautionary principle is epistemologically bankrupt. But then this sort of thread always generates more hype than light, I suppose.

emilong 10y ago

This appears to me to the raw sample data https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-data.zip https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc... The UCMR3_All.txt file inside looks to have a fairly nice, denormalized set of samples with location names, dates, and detections.

stokedmartin 10y ago

To see specific zip codes, download zip[0]. UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt has all the zip codes and you can cross reference UCMR3_All.txt using PWSID to get facility ID; then cross reference UCMR3_DRT.txt using the facility ID to get the disinfection type. Details about the disinfection type can be found in a pdf within the zip file. [0]https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-data.zip https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc...

tbrock 10y ago
crap, my zipcode is on there... does this mean i'm going to die?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  Yes. Valar Morghulis.
- ianlevesque 10y ago
  Not sure if you're joking, since we're all dying, but if you really want to know what it means see my other comment.
- buzzybee 10y ago
  When you get deep into these widespread public health issues you start to realize that there's always going to be at least one that you or your locale is at risk for. If it's not the water, it's the food. If it's not the food, it's the air. If it's not the air, it's the soil. If it's not the soil, it's your building. And so on... The best you can do, in the end, is to avoid paranoia or panic and just aim for some systematic detection, mitigation and prevention processes in your household. With a little luck and a good system, you cheat death or disability, temporarily. You cannot create an ironclad guarantee of safety, but there are many things that you can do something about.
  - 10y ago

mortehu 10y ago

A small PSA: "Brita" brand water filters seem to be very popular in US, but they're also some of the worst in tests. For example in this test ... http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health-products/g684/water-filters/ http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health-products/g684/water-f...? ... "Brita" filters were found to remove around 55% of PFOA, whereas "ZeroWater" filters remove more than 95%. I.e. "Brita" filters leave 9x more stuff in the water. The performance difference is similar for other unwanted stuff, like lead.

akshatpradhan 10y ago
ConsumerSearch also did a meta review of the best water filters: http://www.consumersearch.com/water-filters http://www.consumersearch.com/water-filters They wrote a buying guide for your next water filter: http://www.consumersearch.com/water-filters/how-to-buy-a-water-filter http://www.consumersearch.com/water-filters/how-to-buy-a-wat...
shakeel_mohamed 10y ago
I knew Brita wasn't great, but I didn't know they were so inferior. Thanks for the info!
russelldavis 10y ago
Another thorough review of water filters: http://thesweethome.com/reviews/best-water-filter-pitcher/ http://thesweethome.com/reviews/best-water-filter-pitcher/
- SquareWheel 10y ago
  Seems in-depth, but I have a hard time trusting reviews like this when they make affiliate dollars on clickthroughs.
  - eli 10y ago
    Consumer Reports does basically the same thing but you have to pay to subscribe -- no ads

finid 10y ago

> Drinking water samples near industrial sites, military fire training areas, wastewater treatment plants have highest levels of fluorinated compounds Areas around fracking sites must be even worse.

msandford 10y ago
Why is that? My understanding is that fracking "recipes" are secret only because they're so boring. If it's just soap and sand and whatnot and you're making $50mm a year on it, you gotta keep the recipe a secret or else everyone will copy it and you're out of business.
- finid 10y ago
  Nop! They are secret because those involved don't want us to know the exact nature of the dangerous chemicals they're pumping into the environment. And I don't even want to get into the associated earthquakes.

jonah 10y ago

Ermm, my city's well closest to me has the following: MRL Tested chromium 0.2 0.67 vanadium 0.2 1.1 strontium 0.3 960 chromium-6 0.03 0.44 chlorate 20 190 molybdenum 1 8.7 [Edit] to change "Allowable" to "MRL": "The lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with stated, acceptable precision and accuracy under stated analytical conditions (i.e. the lower limit of quantitation). Therefore, analyses are calibrated to the MRL, or lower. To take into account day-to-day fluctuations in instrument sensitivity, analyst performance, and other factors, the MRL is established at three times the MDL (or greater)." [Edit 2] In my town's overall distribution system there are multiple samples above the allowable Reference Concentration. The highest were: Tested Allowable strontium 1900 1500 chlorate 410 210

ianlevesque 10y ago
Those look like the MRLs, not the reference concentrations. For example Chlorate isn't (maybe) a cause for concern unless above 210, not 20.
- jonah 10y ago
  Oh, you're right. Tested Ref. Amt (MCL) IRIS RfD (u g/kg/day) chromium 0.67 50 3 vanadium 1.1 21 7 strontium 960 1,500 chromium-6 0.44 NA chlorate 190 210 molybdenum 8.7 40 5 Some levels from: https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/drinking/files/dwsha_0607.pdf https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/drinking/files/dwsha_0607...
akiselev 10y ago
Are you in Wisconsin, a region with large amounts of fracking, or near a nuclear disposal site, by any chance? Such a large molybdenum concentration is exceptionally rare as far as I know.
- jonah 10y ago
  Coastal Southern California. There are numerous wells (including some using fracking) within 15-50 miles.

ianlevesque 10y ago

Since people seem curious how to analyze this for their locale, the best I could come up with (using the raw data at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-data.zip https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc... ) was: 1. Search zipcode in UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt, obtain PWSID. 2. Filter by PWSID in UCMR3_All.txt. 3. Filter that result by rows containing "=" (which means at or above minimum reporting level) 4. Don't panic. 5. Compare AnalyticalResultsValue column to the Reference Concentration in ucmr3-data-summary-april-2016.pdf. If its under the Reference Concentration then you're safe, within the limits of how incomplete their reference concentations are. The document specifically states: > The intent of the following table is to identify draft UCMR reference concentrations, where possible, to provide context around the detection of a particular UCMR contaminant above the MRL. The draft reference concentration does not represent an “action level” (EPA requires no particular action1,2 based simply on the fact that UCMR monitoring results exceed draft reference concentrations), nor should the draft reference concentration be interpreted as any indication of an Agency intent to establish a future drinking water regulation for the contaminant at this or any other level. The minimal reporting level seems to be based on how small an amount is detectable, not harmful. The reference concentration appears to be a best guess at the moment for what a maximum safe amount is. My zipcode for example came up with several of these above the MRL but below the reference concentration. Enjoy. Edit: added link.

rando832 10y ago
tldr: region=$(grep YOUR_ZIP_GOES_HERE UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt|awk '{print $1}') grep $region.*= UCMR3_All.txt | awk 'FS = "\t" {print $14,$5,$18}'| sort open page 7 in ucmr3-data-summary-april-2016.pdf, compare
- twr 10y ago
  Using xsv (https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv): cargo install xsv xsv search -s ZIPCODE <zipcode> -d $'\t' UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt xsv search -s PWSID <pwsid> -d $'\t' UCMR3_All.txt | xsv search -s AnalyticalResultsSign = | xsv select FacilityName,Contaminant,AnalyticalResultsValue | xsv table

hiou 10y ago

Good grief. There is very little data this stuff is harmful. Certainly not going to wipe out a town in a weekend. Can't wait for millennials to age a few more years and hopefully get a little context. Being wedged between baby boomers and millennials gets more uncomfortable by the day.

EliRivers 10y ago
I would suggest that's not the point, old man. The point is that the limits exist, and people have to trust that the rules are being followed because they can't go around testing every drop of water that comes out of their tap, yet the rules are being broken invisibly. If the limits are wrong, sure, lets get them changed. Breaking the law because it's probably harmless doesn't make it acceptable.
dualogy 10y ago
> Certainly not going to wipe out a town in a weekend. Well neither did lead, in the olden days. Not in a weekend, that is. Of course any fear such as it exists (and regardless of how ill-founded or well-founded it may be!) is not about weekend wipe-outs but rather slowly creeping seeping insidious very-long-term poisoning accumulating and unnoticable from day-to-day, until who knows "suddenly" at some point the entire population has at least half a dozen ailments of civilization, new-fangled "syndromes", mitochondrial or neurodegeneration, and depends on dozen of pills..

Loic 10y ago

This illustrates the future unknown issues with respect to chemicals and health/environment. At the moment, we have two schools to handle this: 1. not proved bad, we allow. 2. not proved good, we disallow. The US is more on the first side and the EU on the second, of course, like for any complex issues, the right decision is context dependent and in the middle. I am working in the area of chemical properties, this is a hard problem and I am sure that when this class of compounds arrived on the market, smart people tried their best to figure out the health implications. We have more tools and experience 50 years later, but we are not smarter. We need to move with caution while handling an increasing market pressure... this is challenging!

bronz 10y ago

i rent a room in a very old house and i wouldnt be surprised if there were higher than acceptable lead levels in the tap water here. so it got me thinking about water filtering. a reverse osmosis filter and charcoal filter working in series seems to be the most thorough method. does anyone have experience with filtering their water?

dharma1 10y ago
You can get the water lead levels tested for relatively little money. I would. And if it turns out the house has lead pipes, you should get them changed
goldenkey 10y ago
Ive never done reverse osmosis but Ive built water filtering fountains for my cats. You'll want NSF grade (food grade) carbon from either bone or coconut shells with a fine enough mesh to provide resistance. I bought 10 pounds of this one and its still lasting over a year: http://www.buyactivatedcharcoal.com/product/granular_activated_charcoal/coconut/20x50_mesh http://www.buyactivatedcharcoal.com/product/granular_activat... Next you'll want to get silver tubing and adapters to kill all bacteria. You'll also be able to connect your carbon filter inline with the tubing and use a pump to push your water through the filter. This is the best NSF antibacterial silver infused tubing money can buy: http://www.newageindustries.com/clearflo-Ag-47-antimicrobial-pvc-tubing.asp http://www.newageindustries.com/clearflo-Ag-47-antimicrobial... I recommend NSF Eldon James antimicrobial tube fittings: http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=550 http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=550 You can also find the clearflo tubing on usplastics but only in 100 feet rolls. I can ship some if you need only a few feet, my email is in my profile. Next youll want a transparent/translucent inline refillable filter. I recommend a 1/2" FPT but you can get larger/smaller depending on how much water you want to filter and what your tubing, adapters, and pump size is, everything needs to match. 1/2" ID for tubing and 1/2" NPT / barbs is very compatible and provides enough flow for most purposes. Theres a lot of these on the market, here's a good google search that sources images from amazon, ebay, and some smaller vendors: https://www.google.com/search?q=inline+refillable+filter&prmd=sivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&biw=412&bih=652 https://www.google.com/search?q=inline+refillable+filter&prm... Unless you hook this contraption up to an actual water line( your sink), you'll need a pump to push the water through the carbon. No, gravity is not good enough - if the filter is worth its salt it will provide a resistance much greater than what gravity can provide. I recommend Danner steel pumps. Their plastic ones suck, trust me, I've burned through a few. This pump has really shined: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BJK3QQ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BJK3QQ Now if you choose to use this pump, go with 1/2" on everything. Here is a barbed adapter that will screw perfectly into the top of the pump and seal perfectly with 1/2" ID tubing: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008TSRZJE https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008TSRZJE Let me know what you finally settle on and how it goes. Filtration is lots of fun!! Cheers! :-)

drsim 10y ago

nitpick: > ...from the Faroe Islands, an island country off the coast of Denmark Not really off the coast of Denmark... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Faroe+Islands https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Faroe+Islands

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago

I'm not sure how it's in the US but my biggest fear with water quality is never the water from the source but what happens on the way to your tap. In Vienna Austria for instance they are super concerned about PH levels because some old houses still have lead piping and if it gets out too far, then the pipes can corrode and lead makes it into the water. As another example the difference in water quality in the same district in Moscow and SPB from different taps is crazy. Now that smart meters are a thing for electricity I really wonder if it would not start to make sense to work on basic water quality measurements in houses.

Klathmon 10y ago
IIRC that was exactly the scenario that happened in Flint, MI in the US. I don't know enough to comment on how it happened, but the end result was that the PH was too far off and it destroyed something that caused them to leech lead into the water until replaced. Large parts of the city are still unable to use the pipes in their house.

mox1 10y ago

If you want a report like this for your own personal drinking supply check out http://www.karlabs.com/watertestkit/ http://www.karlabs.com/watertestkit/ I did it recently. I'm using the results to put some water filters into the house that are actually NSF (1) certified to remove the contaminants the test found. [1] http://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/ http://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/

DenisM 10y ago
which filters did you pick?
mr337 10y ago
That is a rough looking website :)
- dprvig 10y ago
  Similar product with a better website https://120wateraudit.com/ https://120wateraudit.com/ :)

smaili 10y ago

Anyone have personal experience or research from reverse osmosis filters? I keep hearing it makes the water "better" but never any hard facts on how it performs statistically.

tdaltonc 10y ago

Any tips on how to tell what I should actually be worried about from FUD or WOO wrt/ drinking water?

artur_makly 10y ago

What are the stats for NYC?

azinman2 10y ago

Being lazy here: anyone know the data for SF?