41 ms·
Forever chemicals are widespread in U.S. drinking water
- forgotmypw77 6y agoonly an ignorant fool would drink tap water from anything epa regulated today. if you care about your family and loved ones, find them alternatives. the standards are a joke even when followed. even the safety of showering with tap water is questionable. if you care to research, of course... there,s always sticking your head in the sand.
- etaioinshrdlu 6y agoWhich country do you think has the best water and why?
- CodeGlitch 6y agoUnited Kingdom? As far as I know there's been no problems with our drinking water in terms of contaminations. They add fluoride which I think had a positive impact on the health of the nation (citation needed).
- vinay427 6y agoAn aside, but it's interesting how quickly people can adapt to the taste of water in a different city or country. Every time I visit a new area or country, I'm immediately unpleasantly surprised by the taste of the water, but within a few days I forget that there ever was a difference and wouldn't even notice what was different if I tried to be conscious of it. I always see people traveling to another country complain that the "water doesn't taste good" there, implying that it is of lower quality or unsafe, and it usually just makes me chuckle because people traveling in the opposite direction will say the same thing. Of course, this article is about water that is potentially hazardous which is a real problem.
- sschueller 6y agoSwiss tap water is the most strictly regulated food item in Switzerland. https://wfw.ch/wasserwissen/wasserqualitaet-schweiz#/ https://wfw.ch/wasserwissen/wasserqualitaet-schweiz#/
- Judgmentality 6y ago> even the safety of showering with tap water is questionable Why is this?
- throwawayboise 6y agoWithout making a comment on any danger of showering in municipal tap water, it is true that toxins can be absorbed through the skin.
- jandrese 6y ago"Toxins" is such a broad category you can say just about anything about it. I have trouble taking any health advisory seriously when they only talk about nonspecific "toxins" instead of naming the compounds.
- Dylan16807 6y agoThis is a situation where the word "toxins" is fine, and they're being broad on purpose because it's just a claim of existence. > I have trouble taking any health advisory seriously Please keep in mind you're not talking to the person that made a health advisory. You're talking to someone who is saying why it's possible for water to be unsafe to shower in.
- bpodgursky 6y agoYou can not trust the EPA and still drink tap water. Test it yourself if you want (I actually agree that their lead levels are way too generous). In Seattle it's basically raw snowmelt with 0 metals (had mine tested for heavy metals, register 0). Lots of places in the US have perfect water even if you don't trust the EPA's warning thresholds.
- s0rce 6y agoOur area publishes the water quality tests. Not sure how that would really depend on the EPA you can also easily just get it tested as you said
- hanniabu 6y agoGetting it tested doesn't do that much when the quality changes drastically day to day.
- bpodgursky 6y agoThat's technically true I guess? But that does not happen unless the municipal water source changes day-to-day, or is catastrophically badly run in a really inconsistent manner... which is almost never the case in the US. Even in Flint, it's not like the water changed day-to-day; it just became consistently acidic, which pulled lead from pipes. Aquifer-pumped water is consistent, reservoir-fed water is consistent, groundwater is consistent.
- jMyles 6y agoI use a gravity filter with combined ceramic-carbon candles. Reactions? Suggestions?
- Something1234 6y ago> ceramic-carbon candles. What is that?
- irrational 6y agoDOULTON-w9123053 10-Inch UltraCarb Ceramic Filter Candle https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B009EQM3RY/ https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B009EQM3RY/
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoBan dihydrogen dioxide. That stuff will be around forever
- DiabloD3 6y agoDihydrogen monoxide, I think you mean?
- Something1234 6y ago2 hydrogen 1 oxygen. H2O. water.
- SteveNuts 6y ago> Ban dihydrogen dioxide. Not quite.
- meekrohprocess 6y agoThey might just dislike H2O2. But it is useful as a disinfectant, and it can help get rid of earwax if you dilute it. Do we really need to ban the stuff? Peoples' tastes vary, but personally, I'm not a huge fan of earwax.
- Fezzik 6y agoPer multiple doctors and an audiologist the best way to clean your ears easily is to just use warm water while showering and direct it down your ear canal with moderate water pressure. I used an irrigator for years, just with tap water, but the possibility of too much pressure always worried me. I struggle(d) with ear wax build-up in my teens but have been wax free for 2 decades now, so long as I am diligent about cleaning my ears.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- discreditable 6y ago
- spindo 6y agoBesides for reverse osmosis, what are you using to improve water quality?
- wppick 6y agoReverse osmosis is the next goldmine opportunity. Every home will likely need one, or maybe there will be neighbourhood nodes. It's even good for getting clean drinking water from salt water.
- fnord77 6y agocapitalism, fixing the problems created by capitalism. it's the circle of life!
- shrewduser 6y agopeople can benefit from doing the wrong thing in any economic system, and therefore will. This is a problem of law and enforcement.
- Railsify 6y agoGo ahead, quit your job, move to the woods and live off the land. What is your point?
- WarChortle 6y agoNot OP but, Capitalism deems profit above everything else. Maybe profit shouldn't come before our own safety. Almost all safety regulations are paid for in blood sometimes its because we just didn't know. Most of the time its because companies refuse to implement it unless they have to by law. We are sacrificing our own health for what? Money? No one is saying we shouldn't have jobs don't be dense. Maybe we shouldn't value money over literally everything else.
- Camillo 6y agohttps://psmag.com/social-justice/the-senseless-environment-crime-of-the-20th-century-russia-whaling-67774 https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-senseless-environment-c...
- spodek 6y agoWatch Dark Waters if you haven't, which tells the story of a lawyer who broke the case against Dupont producing forever chemicals in huge quantities long after the evidence was overwhelming they cause cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption, and more. Also read the Intercept series, The Teflon Toxin: DuPont and the Chemistry of Deception: https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-decepti.... Other important pieces out there. When the Senate questioned General Austin, today named Secretary of Defense, they asked him about forever chemicals because they've contaminated military bases so much.
- paulmd 6y agoSame for BPA. Widely used, now it's know to be an endocrine disrupter, now that there's a public outcry they've switched to some other undisclosed chemical that probably does the same thing (as a chemical analogue) or some other bad thing that will take 50 years to figure out. It's gonna keep happening until we flip the regulatory model on its head and require companies to prove the chemicals they're using are safe, which will never happen, because god forbid we don't let capitalism poison us all so we can have non-stick pans. The weird thing is that this explosion of new chemical compounds has really only happened in the last 120 years or so. It never used to be a given that we had to do things this way.
- AlgorithmicTime 6y agoThis is just an outgrowth of our, IMO, reasonable legal presumption of "that which is not forbidden is allowed." Seems much preferable to the alternative "that which is not allowed is forbidden."
- nerdbaggy 6y agoI can not agree more. Dark Waters was amazing, but disgusting what is happening.
- SimeVidas 6y agoDoes Brita Maxtra get rid of this?
- lawn02 6y agoMaybe? But how would you know, if the acceptable upper limit is defined in parts per trillion. You'd need lab grade instruments to even detect if the Brita filter is working to spec, which considering how cheap it is, is probably not something done in QC. I'd probably rely on ZeroWater for something like this but even then I would have doubts and assume my water has some unacceptable level of PFAS.
- corin_ 6y agoThe same way we know about lots of products, by the company and/or third parties testing them? The same way we "know" how much of a drug is in a pill bought from a pharmacy, or the % of a chemical in a bottle of cleaning stuff, or.... Obviously there can be cases of companies being misleading or completely fraudulent. But generally speaking you aren't testing every cosmetic, food, clothing etc. to be sure that they're made the way they claim, why would water filters be different? Legislate certification for them if needed, rather than worry about how hard it is for a single person to test at home.
- pascalxus 6y agowill a fridge filter, filter this stuff out? I've been drinking tap water from the fridge filter for a looong time now, so getting worried...
- modzu 6y agoby corollary are they in fruit and vegetables?
- lawn02 6y agoI believe so. I don't see how a plant would be able to push these molecules out with the xylem alone. It would require a sort of filtration that separates hydrogen from oxygen and reforms them at the target site, and then deny all other molecules, which I don't believe is something we've seen in plant life.
- milleramp 6y agoAfter a lifetime of drinking Los Angeles tap water I purchased a RO system, this was 13 years ago when my wife was pregnant with the first child. It has been one of the best things I have ever purchased. Just the taste improvement alone makes it worth it. I first tried it at a friends house who used it for a aquarium and skipped the di stage for drinking water. I bought mine from air,water,ice. These aquarium guys do not mess around, the units are much better than what you find in Home Depot and the refills are reasonably priced. Most units come with a ‘turbo’ pump so you are not wasting water as pressure in the storage tank increases.
- smallnamespace 6y agoDo you / how do you remineralize the water? I've heard it leaches minerals from your body if you don't (that's why drinking distilled water long term is also not recommended).
- lend000 6y agoAnything that you can't get back through food/typical Vitamin supplements?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cerebellum42 6y agoVitamins are a totally different area, this is just about minerals, so basically salts of different types. Sodium, Potassium, Calcium and Magnesium salts are the most relevant ones as far as I know. Any time you drink water that contains lower concentrations of these than your body, you will lose some, as the concentrations equalize. Same thing, just more pronounced. If you drink very large amounts of water in a short time, that can be a serious health hazard, it can lead to hyponatraemia [1]. Distilled water works exactly the same here, but it is more hypotonic, so the required amount to get into problematic areas is probably lower. Short version: Don't drink huge amounts of water (think upwards of 5l) in a short amount of time without replenishing electrolytes, it could kill you. Applies to both "normal" and distilled water, but probably to a slightly lower amount of distilled water. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia
- Reason077 6y agoI highly recommend the film “Dark Waters” (2019) starring Mark Ruffalo. It dramatises environmental lawyer Robert Bilott’s case against DuPont for contaminating water supplies with dumped PFOA/PFOS chemicals. It’s currently available to stream on Prime Video in the UK. https://imdb.com/title/tt9071322/ https://imdb.com/title/tt9071322/
- rtkaratekid 6y agoSorry for a low-quality comment, but I thought it was punny to use “stream” in the context of a film on water.
- clumsysmurf 6y ago> even dental floss I remember reading about that, was pretty recent https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/09/oral-b-glide-floss-toxic-pfas-chemicals-study/2530661002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/09/oral-b...
- amelius 6y agoHow does US water quality compare worldwide? Is Europe doing any better?
- phkahler 6y ago>> Experts hope that with the incoming Biden administration, the federal government will finally regulate a class of chemicals known as PFASs. I'll believe it when I see it.
- lawn02 6y agoDespite Biden traditionally being a corporatocratic right-of-center Dem, it is possible that this progressive wave in opposition to Trump is so powerful that Biden will placate it in order to save face. We might witness "meme magic" in the making, in other words. I don't rely on Biden to decide, of his own volition, on the right solution to anything, but the anti-Trump energy is so strong right now that perhaps he will be far more progressive than we would soberly expect. Let us hope for the best.
- donatj 6y agoI expect better phrasing than “Forever Chemicals” from Scientific American. Using ‘chemical’ as a scare word is unbefitting of actual science. I mean water is a “forever chemical “ by their definition. I’m not saying there are not harmful chemicals in drinking water, I'm not saying this article isn't raising good points. I just think using “chemical” the way it’s used by fear mongers who don’t understand or care that literally everything is a chemical isn’t helpful. Here is a post from Scientific American on the very topic https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/chemical-is-not-a-bad-word/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/chemical-is-...
- awestroke 6y ago"Chemical" is not used as a scare word here, "Forever" is
- lawn02 6y agoWhat an unhelpful comment. The phrasing is defined in the article >These compounds may take hundreds, or even thousands, of years to break down in the environment. They can also persist in the human body, potentially causing health problems. It is clear that this means "Teflon" and similar molecules that aren't processed biologically. "Forever chemicals" here is excellent phrasing. They in fact last an indefinite amount of time in the ecosystem, and they are "chemicals" in that they are not naturally occurring. For you to insist this is fearmongering is disingenuous and you should feel ashamed. This isn't at all the same as calling water "dihydrogen monoxide" and hyping up fear of "chemicals". There is in fact an active industry that promotes the production of these compounds for reasons of profit, and the externalities thereof are not at all taken into account by the mainstream understanding.
- donatj 6y ago> they are "chemicals" in that they are not naturally occurring That is my point entirely. That is not the definition of chemical. If you mean non-naturally occurring chemical say that. The scaremongers definition of chemical and has no place in scientific literature.
- stareatgoats 6y agoWater contamination is one of the main day-to-day sources of health hazards that people face today, the others being air and food contamination. These health hazards exist in varying levels all over the world, some places more than others, in some cases less, much thanks to environmentalist organizations that have put pressure on governments to regulate and install the required sewage cleaning etc. While a spontaneous and completely sane reaction to this is to save oneself by privately installing filters, buying organic etc. these are problems that ultimately and obviously require collective solutions, i.e. by government and through treaties between governments. But if the last year has taught us anything, it is that any government action is likely to be met with equal and opposite reaction (in the west), a reaction that seems to stem in large part and primarily from a section of society that lives by the adage "Après moi, le déluge", and secondarily from the section of the populace that has been spoon-fed conspiracy theories (by the former?) about the government and its nefarious nature. I suspect there are readers here that might disagree with the above, and it's not my intention to start a flame war. Instead I'd be interested to hear if there are any rational reasons why the government should not be given adequate means to regulate and follow up that regulation with the required inspections to make sure toxins are not released into the general environment that forms the basis of our, as well as other biological, present and future, life.
- sneak 6y ago> But if the last year has taught us anything, it is that any government action is likely to be met with equal and opposite reaction (in the west), a reaction that seems to stem in large part and primarily from a section of society that lives by the adage "Après moi, le déluge", and secondarily from the section of the populace that has been spoon-fed conspiracy theories (by the former?) about the government and its nefarious nature. I think this is perhaps a vast oversimplification, driven by a desire to attribute to nilhilism and idiocy/impressionability what may actually be deeper philosophical differences, held sincerely by intelligent people. It seems pretty common these days to ascribe people's differing philosophical viewpoints to misinformation, conspiracy theories, foreign influence, or whatever. It's possible that reasonable, intelligent people, just like you, simply disagree on the best ways to address these problems, and that it's not as simple as that they've been "spoon-fed conspiracy theories". (Source: I'm one of the people in that camp. Government regulation is one tool in the drawer, but it's not a very good one for causing sweeping societal change, IMO. Tesla, for example, did vastly more for the move to automotive electrification than all of the previous US government attempts up to that point.)
- throwaway2245 6y agoNot to say that this is no problem, but I have a question: If PFASs are "forever" chemicals i.e. chemically stable, how do they cause harm in humans? Won't they just pass right on through? What's the mechanism that causes harm?
- bbarn 6y agoYour body has several devices to filter out non-digestible matter of different sizes. Once filtered - they get stuck, mechanically, for lack of a better term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#Human_health_concerns_associated_with_PFASs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...
- madpata 6y agoPFAs get absorbed into the human body, stay there without being broken down and can cause harm. https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas
- fuzzfactor 6y agoJust because you think you can handle dangerous chemicals properly doesn't mean you actually can. And even if you actually can it doesn't mean you actually should. Probably shouldn't handle any more than you actually have to to get by. There are so many other chemicals to choose from. Perfluorinated hydrocarbons are really just fluorocarbons since they have no hydrogen. But the solvent and gaseous behavior can be similar to hydrocarbons while being non-flammable instead. Fluorocarbons are very stable compounds and after you have inhaled an anesthetic amount of volatile fluorocarbon compound under clinical conditions, it is expected that the material will wear off by evaporating back out of your system completely unmetabolized and leaving no fluorine behind. I accept that and it's probably not even harmful compared to ether or cyclopropane. If the carbon skeleton of the molecule is not completely saturated with fluorine but instead has an organic acid group in one of the positions, then it's no longer a plain fluorocarbon since now there's a bit of oxygens in the molecule and their associated hydrogen so you call it a perfluorinated organic acid. These correspond to the same hydrocarbon skeleton having the same acid group, which are just called plain ordinary organic acids. Many of which are biochemicals such as acetic acid which is the active ingredient in common vinegar. Except the presence of fluorine can make the corresponding acid much stronger and not behave so much like its nonfluorinated counterpart. Sometimes the more fluorine the worse until you reach full perfluorination. You just can't always wash this stuff off. Don't ask me how I know. Such perfluorinated acids can theoretically react with things that are not even considered alkalis, it would be possible to take a permanent place in a metabolic pathway which millions of years of evolution have arrived at based on organic acids which bond and unbond at a characteristic pH and no permanent members are expected to remain at all times. The fluorine can become a permanent part of you. That wouldn't be the best way to strive for millions more years of continuity. There were so many other chemicals to choose from. But it's a little too late now. What's the digital equivalent? Is there some toxic product or byproduct that has permeated further & deeper than it was actually safe to do, and now it looks like it could be impossible to recover to the pre-toxic condition? Is it just a matter of unbridled greed, unlimited scale, or are these things that should never be touched at all?
- williesleg 6y agoSpybot fake news. Drink up!
- graeme 6y agoAnyone have a robust filtering system? From reading the thread some people recommended a reverse osmosis system. But then that is demineralized which the WHO says leaches minerals from the body. So one ought to remineralize, and do so in correct proportions, for both calcium and magnesium but also trace minerals. And certain things sometimes recommended to reminerslize (pink himilayan salt) can contain lead. Is there some simple all on one system in north america that solves this?
- CameronNemo 6y agoThe article mentioned that activated carbon works too.
- marrowgari 6y agoI use a reverse osmosis system with an added remineralization filter at the final stage. The unit I have is a counter top model from Apec and can be easily set up to use with your kitchen sink. I swear by it and as added bonus to clean drinking water from the tap you no longer have to purchase plastic bottles of water. The only maintenance is filter replacement, which is relatively straight forward. I tend to replace them every 6 months, though apparently they're good for up to a year. You can find more info on it here... https://www.freedrinkingwater.com/ro-counter-detail.htm https://www.freedrinkingwater.com/ro-counter-detail.htm
- milleramp 6y agoThis the one I have, it's been running for 13 years, with only filter maintenance. I highly recommend it. https://airwaterice.com/drinking-water-system/ed-extra-duty-reverse-osmosis-unit.html https://airwaterice.com/drinking-water-system/ed-extra-duty-...
- yawaworht1978 6y agoAh the rewards for non interventionist ultra liberal(reckless, almost) laissez faire and "self regulation". There is no free lunch, the contaminate-for-profit entities and their enablers know full well. Someone else will pay the price, for example the health care system. I see many people blame the "government" here but that is the easy way out. There are local, federal governments and so forth. The first blame should go to the polluters who made sure to this day that there is no effective regulation worth its salt.
- nano-erud 6y agoStop having children for a few years and you will see how everything improves human.
- datavirtue 6y agoI recently bought a tube of anti-oxident for high voltage electrical connections from my local big-box hardware store. It enhances conductivity and eliminates oxidation between different metals, as one would expect, to make electrical connections inside junction boxes safer. I got it home and nipped the top of the tube, squeezing a bit out to take a look. I noticed it was super crystal clear and it immediately reminded me of PCBs. I examined the writing on the tube and found a dire warning about how it can damage aquatic life and remain in the environment. I was surprised that we still sell this garbage,especially over the counter to untrained individuals. So now I have this tube of toxic waste sitting in my garage that I will not be using. I can't throw it away. Instead I have to contact the local "authorities" and find a way to dispose of this stuff in a way that I know it will not make its way into our water.
- ErikAugust 6y agoReading this article I am being served ads for a reusable Q-Tip. But why can’t this article point me to testing for forever chemicals in my water or in my body?
- krosaen 6y agoThe key paragraph seems to be: > The scientists estimated that more than 200 million people—the majority of Americans—have tap water contaminated with a mixture of PFOA and PFOS at concentrations of one part per trillion (ppt) or higher. Andrews and Naidenko say previous research shows that levels higher than one ppt can increase the risk of conditions such as testicular cancer, delayed mammary gland development, liver tumors, high cholesterol and effects on children’s immune response to vaccinations. “It’s a calculation of what would be a safe exposure level,” Andrews says. Even when the researchers shifted their analysis to a higher level of 10 ppt, they still found some 18 million to 80 million Americans to be exposed. Representatives of the chemical industry have disagreed with such concerns. “We believe there is no scientific basis for maximum contaminant levels lower than 70 ppt,” the American Chemistry Council said in statement to Scientific American. anyone have more context on gauging the safe levels? What are the studies that show 1ppt increases the risk for cancer? the EPA also currently sets the level at 70 ppt: > To provide Americans, including the most sensitive populations, with a margin of protection from a lifetime of exposure to PFOA and PFOS from drinking water, EPA has established the health advisory levels at 70 parts per trillion. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos#:~:text=To%20provide%20Americans%2C%20including%20the,at%2070%20parts%20per%20trillion https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking....
- sizzle 6y agoWhat's the best medium to filter out these crap chemicals from municipal water to your kitchen tap? I use a ceramic gravity drip filter and a carbon-charcoal filter (NSF 44 or 45? rated). Is this enough?