5 ms·

'Forever chemicals' could be in nearly half of US tap water, federal study finds

231 points by Jimmc414 3y ago

DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]
deegles 3y ago
I installed a reverse osmosis water filter at home, it's great for removing PFAS (https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/hazardous/topics/pfashometreat.html https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/hazar...). They can be expensive but it's worth it to have clean drinking water. Be sure to get one with a built in pump to maintain the right pressure on the membrane. I like the iSpring brand.
- axus 3y ago
  Apparently they got in trouble for "Made in the USA" labelling: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ispring_complaint-4-12-19.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ispring_com...
akira2501 3y ago
Sample size is 716. Time period was 5 years. The sampling process was carried out by property owners as volunteers and involved several steps. Several detections were at or below limits for current testing methods. And the study, much more rationally than the headline, concludes: "Modeled results indicate that on average at least one PFAS is detected in about 45% of US drinking-water samples. Results also indicate that 1) detection probabilities vary spatially (8% in rural areas up to > 70% in urban areas/areas with a known history of PFAS contamination), 2) drinking-water exposures may be more common in the Great Plains, Great Lakes, Eastern Seaboard, and Central/Southern California regions, and 3) temporal variations in concentrations/detections may be limited"
- CobaltFire 3y ago
  We just got our annual WQ report here in my town in Central California, and we are at almost 4 ppt for one of them, and almost 2 for another. Just a data point.
quartz 3y ago
Last year the EPA massively tightened its recommendation for PFAS in drinking water from 70ppt to 0.004ppt for PFOA and 0.02 ppt for PFOS[1]. I don't think anyone is enforcing anywhere near that level yet... CA is the strictest in the US at 5.1ppt. The scariest part of this to me is that even if you do manage to get it out of your water at home through filters or reverse osmosis it's probably in all your food at high concentrations. At least as of 2019 in Canada and the EU PFAS levels in retail meat are at 500-700ppt and the US is entirely unknown [2]. It's also pretty tough to even figure out what filter setup to use at home since the NSF filter standards are still for the outdated 70ppt metric. Duke did a decent study on actual filters a few years back[3]. [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/stricter-federal-guidelines-on-forever-chemicals-in-drinking-water-pose-challenges/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/stricter-federal-... [2] https://www.nal.usda.gov/research-tools/food-safety-research-projects/evaluation-blood-and-tissue-pfas-levels https://www.nal.usda.gov/research-tools/food-safety-research... [3] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00004/suppl_file/ez0c00004_si_001.pdf https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00004/s...
- dmbche 3y ago
  Do you know if PFAS are only present in meat? Are plants also affected?
  - quartz 3y ago
    I'm no expert on this and my interest has purely been from doing a home filter setup in an NYC apartment and trying to figure out what the best practices are, but my understanding is plants can also be impacted through uptake but there isn't too much evidence it's resulting in higher levels outside of known PFAS hotspots. The FDA suggests that the primary issue at least in the US right now is seafood[1]. [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/questions-and-answers-pfas-food https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/questions...
    - origin5 3y ago
      > filter setup in an NYC apartment Can you explain the conclusion of your research? I'm in the exact same situation and currently looking so it would be immensely helpful. Thank you.
blagie 3y ago
Is there a TL;DR on how to filter PFAS out of drinking water, ideally economically? (e.g. "Buy X and install it in your sink" rather than general guidance about getting a carbon filter or something)
- CobaltFire 3y ago
  RO systems generally remove 95-99% as I understand it.
- yojo 3y ago
  Reverse Osmosis gets more than carbon filtration. Buy one that accepts standard filters and you should be good to go. Reddit recommends this one: https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/brs-5-stage-drinking-water-ro-system-75gpd-bundle.html https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/brs-5-stage-drinking-water-ro...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
elif 3y ago
I think the key here is that we can't trust regulators, though I would certainly welcome their contributions... Perhaps what needs to happen is engineers developing a cheap rapid test where it becomes possible for consumers to become aware enough of the invisible problem that it becomes possible to advocate for a solution. At the moment, we are left fighting ghosts, some of which may not be real. How are we to hold cities responsible for their water when it's possible they are part of the good 50% as far as we know? What if the bottled water we buy to avoid pfas has higher concentrations than the tap? We are powerless to even hold manufacturers responsible.
- froglets 3y ago
  Bottled water is increasingly “filtered municipal water” instead of purified or spring water.
- techwizrd 3y ago
  Going from this to "we can't trust regulators" is quite a jump. The EPA and other regulators are quickly tightening regulations, but how do we currently filter PFAS up the food chain? If anything, distrust should be placed in the chemical companies as "the chemical industry knew about the dangers of PFAS and failed to let the public, regulators, and even their own employees know the risks." [0]. Tap water is safer and held to a higher standard than bottled water. The EPA requires tap water to be tested multiple times a day and the information is publicly available. Is bottled water held to a similarly high standard? 0: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever-chemicals-covered-dangers https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever...
  - IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
    Would you trust someone that didn't tell you you were drinking poison from 40+ years? Because that is exactly what happened. 1970's - The EPA knew since 1970s[1], and possibly even earlier, of the evils of the stuff that was getting dumped into the open. 1983 - The EPA learned of the Oakdale Dump (supefund site) and they still took no action [2] on the chemicals itself. 2001 - It was left to hero Billot, to literally put a target on its back by whistleblowing on the whole industry after the EPA, local county regulators, had all failed to blow this issue open. 2016 - First year of advisory from EPA [3] That's approximately 46 years for EPA to release regulatory advise on this carcinogen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_related_to_per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_related_to_... [2] https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1983/07/21/047634.html?pageNumber=13 https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1983/07/21/047... [3] https://politi.co/2KV5zMZ https://politi.co/2KV5zMZ
xvilka 3y ago
Would be nice to know also levels in other parts of the world.
karmanyaahm 3y ago
Doesn't all tap water contain the forever chemical H2O? /s I hate how they're scaremongering with the vague term "Forever Chemicals" instead of just using the more specific terms PFAS or Microplastics.
- bigbluesax 3y ago
  Yeah, how dare they use a word which succintly describes the problem with these substances. Also PFAS and Microplastics aren't the same thing at all.
- squirtlebonflow 3y ago
  "Forever" means "never leaves your body", not "doesn't get transformed into a different chemical"
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
For those new to this topic, watch "dark waters"
- RadixDLT 3y ago
  is that where the sharks roam?
- voxadam 3y ago
  Also, read the NYT article The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare[0][1] that the film Dark Waters[2] is based on. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b... [1] https://archive.is/NmSH0 https://archive.is/NmSH0 [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/
RadixDLT 3y ago
Just learned about the origins of flesh-eating diseases... absolutely horrified!
jonnycomputer 3y ago
Well, here in south west Virginia, it was a company dumping waste into the Roanoke River. >Since 2014, ProChem has been servicing “vessels” — which are the same configuration as home water softeners and serve essentially the same purpose — that are part of the manufacturing process at a Chemours plant near Parkersburg, West Virginia. After ProChem removed calcium and magnesium compounds from the units, they were returned to Chemours. >Samples of ProChem’s wastewater that were discharged into a sewer system that leads to a Montgomery County water treatment plant showed levels of 1.3 million parts per trillion. >“If ProChem had been made aware of the presence of GenX on those vessels, it would not have accepted the order,” the company said in a statement released Friday. “As soon as this knowledge was obtained, the service of these vessels ceased.” https://roanoke.com/news/local/how-the-source-of-a-forever-chemical-in-the-roanoke-river-was-found/article_2eb1b4d2-62c4-11ed-af65-cbcc789d5dd6.html https://roanoke.com/news/local/how-the-source-of-a-forever-c... https://www.deq.virginia.gov/topics-of-interest/roanoke-river-pfas https://www.deq.virginia.gov/topics-of-interest/roanoke-rive...

231 points by Jimmc414 3y ago

[dead]

I installed a reverse osmosis water filter at home, it's great for removing PFAS (https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/hazardous/topics/pfashometreat.html https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/hazar...). They can be expensive but it's worth it to have clean drinking water. Be sure to get one with a built in pump to maintain the right pressure on the membrane. I like the iSpring brand.

axus 3y ago
Apparently they got in trouble for "Made in the USA" labelling: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ispring_complaint-4-12-19.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ispring_com...

akira2501 3y ago

Sample size is 716. Time period was 5 years. The sampling process was carried out by property owners as volunteers and involved several steps. Several detections were at or below limits for current testing methods. And the study, much more rationally than the headline, concludes: "Modeled results indicate that on average at least one PFAS is detected in about 45% of US drinking-water samples. Results also indicate that 1) detection probabilities vary spatially (8% in rural areas up to > 70% in urban areas/areas with a known history of PFAS contamination), 2) drinking-water exposures may be more common in the Great Plains, Great Lakes, Eastern Seaboard, and Central/Southern California regions, and 3) temporal variations in concentrations/detections may be limited"

CobaltFire 3y ago
We just got our annual WQ report here in my town in Central California, and we are at almost 4 ppt for one of them, and almost 2 for another. Just a data point.

quartz 3y ago

Last year the EPA massively tightened its recommendation for PFAS in drinking water from 70ppt to 0.004ppt for PFOA and 0.02 ppt for PFOS[1]. I don't think anyone is enforcing anywhere near that level yet... CA is the strictest in the US at 5.1ppt. The scariest part of this to me is that even if you do manage to get it out of your water at home through filters or reverse osmosis it's probably in all your food at high concentrations. At least as of 2019 in Canada and the EU PFAS levels in retail meat are at 500-700ppt and the US is entirely unknown [2]. It's also pretty tough to even figure out what filter setup to use at home since the NSF filter standards are still for the outdated 70ppt metric. Duke did a decent study on actual filters a few years back[3]. [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/stricter-federal-guidelines-on-forever-chemicals-in-drinking-water-pose-challenges/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/stricter-federal-... [2] https://www.nal.usda.gov/research-tools/food-safety-research-projects/evaluation-blood-and-tissue-pfas-levels https://www.nal.usda.gov/research-tools/food-safety-research... [3] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00004/suppl_file/ez0c00004_si_001.pdf https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00004/s...

dmbche 3y ago
Do you know if PFAS are only present in meat? Are plants also affected?
- quartz 3y ago
  I'm no expert on this and my interest has purely been from doing a home filter setup in an NYC apartment and trying to figure out what the best practices are, but my understanding is plants can also be impacted through uptake but there isn't too much evidence it's resulting in higher levels outside of known PFAS hotspots. The FDA suggests that the primary issue at least in the US right now is seafood[1]. [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/questions-and-answers-pfas-food https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/questions...
  - origin5 3y ago
    > filter setup in an NYC apartment Can you explain the conclusion of your research? I'm in the exact same situation and currently looking so it would be immensely helpful. Thank you.

blagie 3y ago

Is there a TL;DR on how to filter PFAS out of drinking water, ideally economically? (e.g. "Buy X and install it in your sink" rather than general guidance about getting a carbon filter or something)

CobaltFire 3y ago
RO systems generally remove 95-99% as I understand it.
yojo 3y ago
Reverse Osmosis gets more than carbon filtration. Buy one that accepts standard filters and you should be good to go. Reddit recommends this one: https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/brs-5-stage-drinking-water-ro-system-75gpd-bundle.html https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/brs-5-stage-drinking-water-ro...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

elif 3y ago

I think the key here is that we can't trust regulators, though I would certainly welcome their contributions... Perhaps what needs to happen is engineers developing a cheap rapid test where it becomes possible for consumers to become aware enough of the invisible problem that it becomes possible to advocate for a solution. At the moment, we are left fighting ghosts, some of which may not be real. How are we to hold cities responsible for their water when it's possible they are part of the good 50% as far as we know? What if the bottled water we buy to avoid pfas has higher concentrations than the tap? We are powerless to even hold manufacturers responsible.

froglets 3y ago
Bottled water is increasingly “filtered municipal water” instead of purified or spring water.
techwizrd 3y ago
Going from this to "we can't trust regulators" is quite a jump. The EPA and other regulators are quickly tightening regulations, but how do we currently filter PFAS up the food chain? If anything, distrust should be placed in the chemical companies as "the chemical industry knew about the dangers of PFAS and failed to let the public, regulators, and even their own employees know the risks." [0]. Tap water is safer and held to a higher standard than bottled water. The EPA requires tap water to be tested multiple times a day and the information is publicly available. Is bottled water held to a similarly high standard? 0: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever-chemicals-covered-dangers https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever...
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  Would you trust someone that didn't tell you you were drinking poison from 40+ years? Because that is exactly what happened. 1970's - The EPA knew since 1970s[1], and possibly even earlier, of the evils of the stuff that was getting dumped into the open. 1983 - The EPA learned of the Oakdale Dump (supefund site) and they still took no action [2] on the chemicals itself. 2001 - It was left to hero Billot, to literally put a target on its back by whistleblowing on the whole industry after the EPA, local county regulators, had all failed to blow this issue open. 2016 - First year of advisory from EPA [3] That's approximately 46 years for EPA to release regulatory advise on this carcinogen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_related_to_per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_related_to_... [2] https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1983/07/21/047634.html?pageNumber=13 https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1983/07/21/047... [3] https://politi.co/2KV5zMZ https://politi.co/2KV5zMZ

xvilka 3y ago

Would be nice to know also levels in other parts of the world.

karmanyaahm 3y ago

Doesn't all tap water contain the forever chemical H2O? /s I hate how they're scaremongering with the vague term "Forever Chemicals" instead of just using the more specific terms PFAS or Microplastics.

bigbluesax 3y ago
Yeah, how dare they use a word which succintly describes the problem with these substances. Also PFAS and Microplastics aren't the same thing at all.
squirtlebonflow 3y ago
"Forever" means "never leaves your body", not "doesn't get transformed into a different chemical"

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago

For those new to this topic, watch "dark waters"

RadixDLT 3y ago
is that where the sharks roam?
voxadam 3y ago
Also, read the NYT article The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare[0][1] that the film Dark Waters[2] is based on. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b... [1] https://archive.is/NmSH0 https://archive.is/NmSH0 [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/

RadixDLT 3y ago

Just learned about the origins of flesh-eating diseases... absolutely horrified!

jonnycomputer 3y ago

Well, here in south west Virginia, it was a company dumping waste into the Roanoke River. >Since 2014, ProChem has been servicing “vessels” — which are the same configuration as home water softeners and serve essentially the same purpose — that are part of the manufacturing process at a Chemours plant near Parkersburg, West Virginia. After ProChem removed calcium and magnesium compounds from the units, they were returned to Chemours. >Samples of ProChem’s wastewater that were discharged into a sewer system that leads to a Montgomery County water treatment plant showed levels of 1.3 million parts per trillion. >“If ProChem had been made aware of the presence of GenX on those vessels, it would not have accepted the order,” the company said in a statement released Friday. “As soon as this knowledge was obtained, the service of these vessels ceased.” https://roanoke.com/news/local/how-the-source-of-a-forever-chemical-in-the-roanoke-river-was-found/article_2eb1b4d2-62c4-11ed-af65-cbcc789d5dd6.html https://roanoke.com/news/local/how-the-source-of-a-forever-c... https://www.deq.virginia.gov/topics-of-interest/roanoke-river-pfas https://www.deq.virginia.gov/topics-of-interest/roanoke-rive...