6 ms·

Approved fracking compounds can form PFAS a.k.a. “forever chemicals”

116 points by abawany 5y ago

threatofrain 5y ago
> In recent days, whistle-blowers have alleged in the Intercept that the E.P.A. office in charge of reviewing toxic chemicals tampered with the assessments of dozens of chemicals to make them appear safer. [1] > E.P.A. scientists evaluating new chemicals “are the last line of defense between harmful — even deadly — chemicals and their introduction into U.S. commerce, and this line of defense is struggling to maintain its integrity,” the whistle-blowers said in their disclosure, which was released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a Maryland-based nonprofit group. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2021/07/02/epa-chemical-safety-corruption-whistleblowers/ https://theintercept.com/2021/07/02/epa-chemical-safety-corr...
- tanderson92 5y ago
  Classic NYT burying other publications' beating them to the story.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
    They actually mention the intercept and link to their article. That's more than 9\d% of publications usually do, so I believe they deserve nothing but praise. The article is also extremely detailed and includes lots of original material. I stopped counting at around two dozen different people the reporters called for this article. First reporting a story doesn't create any moral or legal ownership of the facts. Otherwise, it'd be impossible for any but the largest publications to survive. And it's even more asinine to complain about a publication putting in the effort to go further and deeper as they do in this case.
    - tanderson92 5y ago
      You have it completely backwards. NY Times is notorious in journalism for forgetting to mention others' articles or putting them towards the very end of the article.
encryptluks2 5y ago
Isn't Biden responsible for the EPA? Seems like something Bernie would have had a lot more to say about.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
  Second graph starts with "2011", so the slightly better wrong take would be to fault President Obama for this. Later on, we learn the law at the time was from 1975, and the Obama administration did finally succeed in 2016 to update it. Want to bet which party tried to delay and weaken it at every opportunity?
  - rangoon626 5y ago
    Bless your heart if you think that both parties aren’t a uniparty at this point.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      Divide and conquer works, and works well.
humaniania 5y ago
And where does all that contaminated waste water go?
- ianlevesque 5y ago
  In many parts of the country they spray it on public roadways as "de-icer" in the winter.
  - droopyEyelids 5y ago
    My friend recently learned that cities have been banning their rodent control teams from using dry ice to attack rat nests- even though it seems very effective when spending 1/10th the price of existing rodent solutions. They forbid the use of dry ice because it's not a registered pesticide. The friend immediately cursed the city, saying how this is an example of corruption, and whoever sells the traditional rat bait has someone's ear, and maybe their pocket, and we're all suffering because workers can't use the cheap, more effective solution. That of course has to be part of the story, but I always like to look beyond the easy cynical answer to this stuff, so over the following days my mind wandered to why we have a regulation that only registered pesticides can be used. And it dawned on me that there are a lot of things (like toxic waste) that will kill (at least) rats. Companies are currently forced to pay money to dispose of their toxic waste, but with the right connections, they could instead sell the toxic waste to their buddy in the rat-poisoning business to dispose of in alleys and planters across the city. Couldn't something like _that_ inspire the rule about registered pesticides? My friend said that I was actually the cynical one, and that my theory was beyond what was reasonably possible. But here we are, spraying the fracking fluid on the road as 'de-icer'
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      It might inspire the rule, but it's a terrible way to write the rule. Restrictions on toxic chemicals shouldn't apply to non-toxic chemicals. CO2 is even on the list of safe food additives.
    - xkcd-sucks 5y ago
woeirua 5y ago
I'm not nearly as worried about fracking when it comes to PFAS/PFOAs as I am about airports. It is well documented, that airports (especially military ones) have used PFAS/PFOAs as firefighting agents for years and years. If you live near an airport, you should not be drinking groundwater. If you absolutely must, then get it tested!
- plank_time 5y ago
  Large swathes of Silicon Valley in Mountain View are super fund sites because of the degreasers and firefighting chemicals they used at Moffett field. The chemicals went into the ground water and spread throughout the entire area from 101 to past Central Expressway.
  - est31 5y ago
    According to the map, Moffett field seems to be right at the coast. I've never been to that area. Is there no slope towards the coastal area of Moffett field? Edit: thinking about it, the bay is subject to tides which probably affects the ground water as well. This would regularly press ground water from the coast inland and back again.
    - mtviewdave 5y ago
      I would doubt the groundwater contamination at Moffett Field would migrate inland. Groundwater in Mountain View moves in the direction of the bay. The groundwater contamination in Mountain View proper comes from the many companies that manufactured semiconductors and other electronics in the '50s through the '80s. Many of which did a poor job disposing of the chemicals they used in electronics manufacturing.
      - iancmceachern 5y ago
        And often had leaking underground tanks.
      - ericbarrett 5y ago
kleton 5y ago
Maybe microbes will evolve to get better at reductive defluorination. Microbes that can use chlorinated solvents as terminal electron acceptors are pretty widespread. https://sci-hub.se/10.1021/acs.est.0c04483 https://sci-hub.se/10.1021/acs.est.0c04483
diplodocusaur 5y ago
Question: How is a "forever chemical" different from any other chemical? Google search: > "PFAS are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals”" Google search: > PFAS = Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances Wikipedia entry, 'environmental concerns' section: > In 2009, PFASs were listed as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention [1], due to their ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic nature. > The nickname was derived by combining the two dominant attributes of this class of chemicals: > 1) PFAS chemicals are characterized by a carbon-fluorine (C-F) backbone (the "F-C" in "Forever Chemicals"); and > 2) the carbon fluorine bond is one of the strongest bonds in organic chemistry, which gives these chemicals an extremely long environmental half-life Wikipedia entry, Fluorine, PFAS mention: > Dwell time in the body varies greatly by species, with half-lives of days in rodents, and years in humans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persistent_Organic_Pollutants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persis...
- f1refly 5y ago
  The "forever chemicals" stay around, well, forever. They won't ever degrade under typical earth conditions. If you where to submerge all of earth in lava, there would still be some stuck around. This means that the more there is, the more will accumulate in the food chain?

116 points by abawany 5y ago

> In recent days, whistle-blowers have alleged in the Intercept that the E.P.A. office in charge of reviewing toxic chemicals tampered with the assessments of dozens of chemicals to make them appear safer. [1] > E.P.A. scientists evaluating new chemicals “are the last line of defense between harmful — even deadly — chemicals and their introduction into U.S. commerce, and this line of defense is struggling to maintain its integrity,” the whistle-blowers said in their disclosure, which was released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a Maryland-based nonprofit group. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2021/07/02/epa-chemical-safety-corruption-whistleblowers/ https://theintercept.com/2021/07/02/epa-chemical-safety-corr...

tanderson92 5y ago
Classic NYT burying other publications' beating them to the story.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
  They actually mention the intercept and link to their article. That's more than 9\d% of publications usually do, so I believe they deserve nothing but praise. The article is also extremely detailed and includes lots of original material. I stopped counting at around two dozen different people the reporters called for this article. First reporting a story doesn't create any moral or legal ownership of the facts. Otherwise, it'd be impossible for any but the largest publications to survive. And it's even more asinine to complain about a publication putting in the effort to go further and deeper as they do in this case.
  - tanderson92 5y ago
    You have it completely backwards. NY Times is notorious in journalism for forgetting to mention others' articles or putting them towards the very end of the article.

encryptluks2 5y ago

Isn't Biden responsible for the EPA? Seems like something Bernie would have had a lot more to say about.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
Second graph starts with "2011", so the slightly better wrong take would be to fault President Obama for this. Later on, we learn the law at the time was from 1975, and the Obama administration did finally succeed in 2016 to update it. Want to bet which party tried to delay and weaken it at every opportunity?
- rangoon626 5y ago
  Bless your heart if you think that both parties aren’t a uniparty at this point.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Divide and conquer works, and works well.

humaniania 5y ago

And where does all that contaminated waste water go?

ianlevesque 5y ago
In many parts of the country they spray it on public roadways as "de-icer" in the winter.
- droopyEyelids 5y ago
  My friend recently learned that cities have been banning their rodent control teams from using dry ice to attack rat nests- even though it seems very effective when spending 1/10th the price of existing rodent solutions. They forbid the use of dry ice because it's not a registered pesticide. The friend immediately cursed the city, saying how this is an example of corruption, and whoever sells the traditional rat bait has someone's ear, and maybe their pocket, and we're all suffering because workers can't use the cheap, more effective solution. That of course has to be part of the story, but I always like to look beyond the easy cynical answer to this stuff, so over the following days my mind wandered to why we have a regulation that only registered pesticides can be used. And it dawned on me that there are a lot of things (like toxic waste) that will kill (at least) rats. Companies are currently forced to pay money to dispose of their toxic waste, but with the right connections, they could instead sell the toxic waste to their buddy in the rat-poisoning business to dispose of in alleys and planters across the city. Couldn't something like _that_ inspire the rule about registered pesticides? My friend said that I was actually the cynical one, and that my theory was beyond what was reasonably possible. But here we are, spraying the fracking fluid on the road as 'de-icer'
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    It might inspire the rule, but it's a terrible way to write the rule. Restrictions on toxic chemicals shouldn't apply to non-toxic chemicals. CO2 is even on the list of safe food additives.
  - xkcd-sucks 5y ago

woeirua 5y ago

I'm not nearly as worried about fracking when it comes to PFAS/PFOAs as I am about airports. It is well documented, that airports (especially military ones) have used PFAS/PFOAs as firefighting agents for years and years. If you live near an airport, you should not be drinking groundwater. If you absolutely must, then get it tested!

plank_time 5y ago
Large swathes of Silicon Valley in Mountain View are super fund sites because of the degreasers and firefighting chemicals they used at Moffett field. The chemicals went into the ground water and spread throughout the entire area from 101 to past Central Expressway.
- est31 5y ago
  According to the map, Moffett field seems to be right at the coast. I've never been to that area. Is there no slope towards the coastal area of Moffett field? Edit: thinking about it, the bay is subject to tides which probably affects the ground water as well. This would regularly press ground water from the coast inland and back again.
  - mtviewdave 5y ago
    I would doubt the groundwater contamination at Moffett Field would migrate inland. Groundwater in Mountain View moves in the direction of the bay. The groundwater contamination in Mountain View proper comes from the many companies that manufactured semiconductors and other electronics in the '50s through the '80s. Many of which did a poor job disposing of the chemicals they used in electronics manufacturing.
    - iancmceachern 5y ago
      And often had leaking underground tanks.
    - ericbarrett 5y ago

kleton 5y ago

Maybe microbes will evolve to get better at reductive defluorination. Microbes that can use chlorinated solvents as terminal electron acceptors are pretty widespread. https://sci-hub.se/10.1021/acs.est.0c04483 https://sci-hub.se/10.1021/acs.est.0c04483

diplodocusaur 5y ago

Question: How is a "forever chemical" different from any other chemical? Google search: > "PFAS are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals”" Google search: > PFAS = Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances Wikipedia entry, 'environmental concerns' section: > In 2009, PFASs were listed as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention [1], due to their ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic nature. > The nickname was derived by combining the two dominant attributes of this class of chemicals: > 1) PFAS chemicals are characterized by a carbon-fluorine (C-F) backbone (the "F-C" in "Forever Chemicals"); and > 2) the carbon fluorine bond is one of the strongest bonds in organic chemistry, which gives these chemicals an extremely long environmental half-life Wikipedia entry, Fluorine, PFAS mention: > Dwell time in the body varies greatly by species, with half-lives of days in rodents, and years in humans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persistent_Organic_Pollutants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persis...

f1refly 5y ago
The "forever chemicals" stay around, well, forever. They won't ever degrade under typical earth conditions. If you where to submerge all of earth in lava, there would still be some stuck around. This means that the more there is, the more will accumulate in the food chain?