12 ms·

PFAS Contamination in the U.S

60 points by lurtbancaster 5y ago

artie_effim 5y ago
OMG - look at NJ, that's what one gets after decades of 'waste management'.
- TheHypnotist 5y ago
  It also represents a significant effort in collecting data.
- madamelic 5y ago
  Two of the hotspots I found in NJ within miles: an elementary school and a middle school. D:!!!
the_only_law 5y ago
I noticed that the drinking water is contaminated in a city near me that I believe happens to be the source for a bottled water company by the same name. I wonder if the source of the tap and the bottling is the same.
- whitepoplar 5y ago
  Which city?
- manderley 5y ago
  Oh, that city? Or was it the other one, in that one state?
epeterson19 5y ago
This doesn’t get nearly enough airtime. Among other things, also potentially driving obesity rates: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33223205/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33223205/ There is no federal limit for pfas levels in water.
- refurb 5y ago
  Could those confidence intervals overlap more? Jesus.
- thowaway976351 5y ago
  toxins 100% driving obesity rates
mmcconnell1618 5y ago
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver's October 3rd, 2021 episode covers this in some detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W74aeuqsiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W74aeuqsiU
yosito 5y ago
Honestly I expected this to be a more dense map, considering all the fearmongering I hear these days. It's always good to see accurate sources of data to check my reality.
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  What is fearmongering, that teflon is proven to leach into food and disrupt body signaling in yet poorly understood ways? :D
  - yosito 5y ago
    You picked the wrong example considering that teflon hasn't been made with toxic chemicals for decades.
    - 1234letshaveatw 5y ago
      That doesn't matter- did you miss the whole "Forever" part?
    - forgotmypw17 5y ago
      Is this a joke? "As a result of the lawsuits concerning the PFOA class-action lawsuit, DuPont began to use GenX, a similarly fluorinated compound, as a replacement for polytetrafluoroethylene in the manufacture of fluoropolymers, such as Teflon.[71][72] However, in lab tests on rats, GenX has been shown to cause many of the same health problems as PFOA.[73][74] The chemicals are manufactured by Chemours, a corporate spin-off of DuPont, in Fayetteville, North Carolina.[75] While PFOA was phased out by 2014, Chemours was already found to be dumping GenX into the Cape Fear River in 2017, with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) ordering Chemours to halt discharges of all fluorinated compounds on September 5, 2017."
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        This stuff drives me insane. Things like "BPA-free!" almost always translates to "We replaced it with something that's probably worse!" At some point, we have to figure out a way to crack down on companies that knowingly just switch from one troublesome chemical to a lightly tweaked version of the same thing.
vermilingua 5y ago
As a foreigner, why is it that select states are absolutely riddled with water contamination while most are not (and some are pristine)? I imagine it comes down to local legislation, but surely nobody wants their drinking water polluted, so how did the legislation happen in the first place? PS: especially as Colorado and Ohio are among the worst, through my lens they seem the states that are most about protecting the land.
- Sporktacular 5y ago
  Don't know why but I've always associated Ohio with poor environmental regulation. For the last decade anyway.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  It has to be biases in reporting. How else could North Carolina be riddled with it but there be none in Virginia and South Carolina? Also so far as military bases go it seems to be all of them.
- smallerfish 5y ago
  Ohio certainly doesn't have a pristine environmental record. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire
- mc32 5y ago
  What’s up with Michigan, New Jersey and New Hampshire? They seem totally fouled up.
  - afranchuk 5y ago
    I think it's safe to spread that distribution as if it were throughout new England and the Midwest. Those states have just reported/recorded the information more. As someone who recently purchased a home in one of those states, I was glad to actually have at least some detailed information available about nearby superfund sites and testing results. If you turn off drinking water, the distribution looks more even. It just seems to be bias in the water testing/reporting.
grlass 5y ago
Apple's headquarters are built on top of contaminated ground, leading to concerns over employee health [1][2]. [1] https://disasterarea.home.blog/2019/07/12/apple-headquarters-on-the-intersil-dtkm-sl720641214-epa-superfund-site-daycare-banned/ https://disasterarea.home.blog/2019/07/12/apple-headquarters... [2] https://twitter.com/richgel999/status/1436934781955190788 https://twitter.com/richgel999/status/1436934781955190788
- bradfa 5y ago
  I've worked at Xerox and in the Kodak sites around Rochester, NY, USA. They're all EPA Superfund sites. Surely there's negative health impacts of working on contaminated ground, but MANYMANY* high tech locations in the USA are EPA Superfund sites due to that's where the tech was created and the buildings and infrastructure were already present, so current tech companies just keep using them. Most of the buildings I had worked in had regular tap water testing performed and if any test came back with too high of levels then water filters were installed. I'm sure Apple does similar. Xerox even has a bunch of patents about how to suck up and treat ground water.
- 01100011 5y ago
  Santa Clara County has the most Superfund sites of any county in the US, so it's hard to find somewhere to build that isn't contaminated. Between mercury mining, agriculture, the military and the semiconductor industry, SiValley is quite polluted.
m1ckey 5y ago
Dark Waters (2019) is a worthwhile dramatization of the historical contamination and legal battle against DuPont
michieldotv 5y ago
PFOS/PFAS are such a shit fest. An unholy coalition politicians, gov't administration, scientists and corporate interest tried to cover up historical PFOS pollution around the 3M production site in Zwijndrecht (BE). They were caught red handed by a vigilant citizen journal when some politicians wanted to expedite some car-centric public construction works smack in the middle of the polluted area. The ministers for environment and public works ordered their administrations to turn a blind eye, not to sample the wider area to assess the extent of the PFOS pollution, and under no circumstance communicate to the public about the pollution. A renowned toxicologist was commissioned write down safety norms for the public works in the context of pre-existing PFOS pollution. He took a European reference norm that was already outdated at the time given new toxicological insights, messed up the arithmetic, and, lo and behold, came up with a threshold that was _just_ right for the works to start. A special parliamentary commission was established to investigate, and so we had 3M testify in parliament on how they believe it is a harmless chemical etc. At some point in 2010s 3M switched the production process over to use PFAS which they are dumping in the Scheldt river in absurd amounts to this day. We got some reassuring corporate sop that they promise to reduce PFAS levels in wastewater discharges to 54 kg/year by 2024 (5.375 kg/year in 2021). For reference, Chemours (NL) had a permit for dumping just 2 kg/year in 2020, which sounds about right given our current understanding of the human toxicological effects of PFAS.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  To put a brand name to it. The original "Scotchguard" was PFOS and it was reformulated in the early 2000s to PFAS which is believed to be less dangerous. PFOS and PFAS are "fluorosurfactants" which are surfactants in the sense of "surface acting agents" but are very different from the usual soaps, detergents and disinfectants that help things mix. Applied to solid surfaces it does the opposite. It's pretty amazing that you can apply it to a rug, pour coffee on it, and it wipes right off without sticking.
  - filoeleven 5y ago
    > to PFAS This should be PFBS, according to Wikipedia. PFAS is the whole family of chemicals, PFBS is a particular member with a much shorter half-life than PFOS. “PFAS” getting a non-abbreviation moniker would sure help to disambiguate things. Also from WP, Scotchgard now uses “a proprietary fluorinated urethane,” which means we know next to nothing about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotchgard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotchgard
jlturner 5y ago
PFAS contamination is existent in many waterways and bodies of water and contaminate the fish that live there. Shame because ones that tend to build up more PFAS in their system are not safe to eat either, but would otherwise provide an inexpensive, healthy, and delicious meal. Most anglers I talk to (in the Bay Area) catch and release rather than taking home and consuming the fish because of chemical contamination of the water.

60 points by lurtbancaster 5y ago

artie_effim 5y ago

OMG - look at NJ, that's what one gets after decades of 'waste management'.

TheHypnotist 5y ago
It also represents a significant effort in collecting data.
madamelic 5y ago
Two of the hotspots I found in NJ within miles: an elementary school and a middle school. D:!!!

the_only_law 5y ago

I noticed that the drinking water is contaminated in a city near me that I believe happens to be the source for a bottled water company by the same name. I wonder if the source of the tap and the bottling is the same.

whitepoplar 5y ago
Which city?
manderley 5y ago
Oh, that city? Or was it the other one, in that one state?

epeterson19 5y ago

This doesn’t get nearly enough airtime. Among other things, also potentially driving obesity rates: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33223205/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33223205/ There is no federal limit for pfas levels in water.

refurb 5y ago
Could those confidence intervals overlap more? Jesus.
thowaway976351 5y ago
toxins 100% driving obesity rates

mmcconnell1618 5y ago

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver's October 3rd, 2021 episode covers this in some detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W74aeuqsiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W74aeuqsiU

yosito 5y ago

Honestly I expected this to be a more dense map, considering all the fearmongering I hear these days. It's always good to see accurate sources of data to check my reality.

forgotmypw17 5y ago
What is fearmongering, that teflon is proven to leach into food and disrupt body signaling in yet poorly understood ways? :D
- yosito 5y ago
  You picked the wrong example considering that teflon hasn't been made with toxic chemicals for decades.
  - 1234letshaveatw 5y ago
    That doesn't matter- did you miss the whole "Forever" part?
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    Is this a joke? "As a result of the lawsuits concerning the PFOA class-action lawsuit, DuPont began to use GenX, a similarly fluorinated compound, as a replacement for polytetrafluoroethylene in the manufacture of fluoropolymers, such as Teflon.[71][72] However, in lab tests on rats, GenX has been shown to cause many of the same health problems as PFOA.[73][74] The chemicals are manufactured by Chemours, a corporate spin-off of DuPont, in Fayetteville, North Carolina.[75] While PFOA was phased out by 2014, Chemours was already found to be dumping GenX into the Cape Fear River in 2017, with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) ordering Chemours to halt discharges of all fluorinated compounds on September 5, 2017."
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      This stuff drives me insane. Things like "BPA-free!" almost always translates to "We replaced it with something that's probably worse!" At some point, we have to figure out a way to crack down on companies that knowingly just switch from one troublesome chemical to a lightly tweaked version of the same thing.

vermilingua 5y ago

As a foreigner, why is it that select states are absolutely riddled with water contamination while most are not (and some are pristine)? I imagine it comes down to local legislation, but surely nobody wants their drinking water polluted, so how did the legislation happen in the first place? PS: especially as Colorado and Ohio are among the worst, through my lens they seem the states that are most about protecting the land.

Sporktacular 5y ago
Don't know why but I've always associated Ohio with poor environmental regulation. For the last decade anyway.
PaulHoule 5y ago
It has to be biases in reporting. How else could North Carolina be riddled with it but there be none in Virginia and South Carolina? Also so far as military bases go it seems to be all of them.
smallerfish 5y ago
Ohio certainly doesn't have a pristine environmental record. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire
mc32 5y ago
What’s up with Michigan, New Jersey and New Hampshire? They seem totally fouled up.
- afranchuk 5y ago
  I think it's safe to spread that distribution as if it were throughout new England and the Midwest. Those states have just reported/recorded the information more. As someone who recently purchased a home in one of those states, I was glad to actually have at least some detailed information available about nearby superfund sites and testing results. If you turn off drinking water, the distribution looks more even. It just seems to be bias in the water testing/reporting.

grlass 5y ago

Apple's headquarters are built on top of contaminated ground, leading to concerns over employee health [1][2]. [1] https://disasterarea.home.blog/2019/07/12/apple-headquarters-on-the-intersil-dtkm-sl720641214-epa-superfund-site-daycare-banned/ https://disasterarea.home.blog/2019/07/12/apple-headquarters... [2] https://twitter.com/richgel999/status/1436934781955190788 https://twitter.com/richgel999/status/1436934781955190788

bradfa 5y ago
I've worked at Xerox and in the Kodak sites around Rochester, NY, USA. They're all EPA Superfund sites. Surely there's negative health impacts of working on contaminated ground, but MANYMANY* high tech locations in the USA are EPA Superfund sites due to that's where the tech was created and the buildings and infrastructure were already present, so current tech companies just keep using them. Most of the buildings I had worked in had regular tap water testing performed and if any test came back with too high of levels then water filters were installed. I'm sure Apple does similar. Xerox even has a bunch of patents about how to suck up and treat ground water.
01100011 5y ago
Santa Clara County has the most Superfund sites of any county in the US, so it's hard to find somewhere to build that isn't contaminated. Between mercury mining, agriculture, the military and the semiconductor industry, SiValley is quite polluted.

m1ckey 5y ago

Dark Waters (2019) is a worthwhile dramatization of the historical contamination and legal battle against DuPont

michieldotv 5y ago

PFOS/PFAS are such a shit fest. An unholy coalition politicians, gov't administration, scientists and corporate interest tried to cover up historical PFOS pollution around the 3M production site in Zwijndrecht (BE). They were caught red handed by a vigilant citizen journal when some politicians wanted to expedite some car-centric public construction works smack in the middle of the polluted area. The ministers for environment and public works ordered their administrations to turn a blind eye, not to sample the wider area to assess the extent of the PFOS pollution, and under no circumstance communicate to the public about the pollution. A renowned toxicologist was commissioned write down safety norms for the public works in the context of pre-existing PFOS pollution. He took a European reference norm that was already outdated at the time given new toxicological insights, messed up the arithmetic, and, lo and behold, came up with a threshold that was _just_ right for the works to start. A special parliamentary commission was established to investigate, and so we had 3M testify in parliament on how they believe it is a harmless chemical etc. At some point in 2010s 3M switched the production process over to use PFAS which they are dumping in the Scheldt river in absurd amounts to this day. We got some reassuring corporate sop that they promise to reduce PFAS levels in wastewater discharges to 54 kg/year by 2024 (5.375 kg/year in 2021). For reference, Chemours (NL) had a permit for dumping just 2 kg/year in 2020, which sounds about right given our current understanding of the human toxicological effects of PFAS.

PaulHoule 5y ago
To put a brand name to it. The original "Scotchguard" was PFOS and it was reformulated in the early 2000s to PFAS which is believed to be less dangerous. PFOS and PFAS are "fluorosurfactants" which are surfactants in the sense of "surface acting agents" but are very different from the usual soaps, detergents and disinfectants that help things mix. Applied to solid surfaces it does the opposite. It's pretty amazing that you can apply it to a rug, pour coffee on it, and it wipes right off without sticking.
- filoeleven 5y ago
  > to PFAS This should be PFBS, according to Wikipedia. PFAS is the whole family of chemicals, PFBS is a particular member with a much shorter half-life than PFOS. “PFAS” getting a non-abbreviation moniker would sure help to disambiguate things. Also from WP, Scotchgard now uses “a proprietary fluorinated urethane,” which means we know next to nothing about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotchgard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotchgard

jlturner 5y ago

PFAS contamination is existent in many waterways and bodies of water and contaminate the fish that live there. Shame because ones that tend to build up more PFAS in their system are not safe to eat either, but would otherwise provide an inexpensive, healthy, and delicious meal. Most anglers I talk to (in the Bay Area) catch and release rather than taking home and consuming the fish because of chemical contamination of the water.