9 ms·

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 anyo

by 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also pretty tough to even figure out what filter setup to use at home since the NSF filter standards are still for the outdated 70ppt metric.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.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Most forever pollutants have greater concentrations as you go up the food chain. The grass has 1ppm, the cow eats 100x it's body weight over its lifetime, and cannot eliminate the pollutant so it gets up to 100ppm. Add in a few more levels and it can really ratchet up the dosage.
  - idontwantthis 3y ago
    I wonder if it’s worth it to filter the water you drink. If that’s at the bottom of the chain then would the amount you get from food (especially meat) vastly dwarf the amount you directly drink?
    - tohnjitor 3y ago
      But what is the water filter made from? What if it's also dependent on PFOA?
      - idontwantthis 3y ago
        Also a good question, but mine still stands. Do we get an significant amount of this directly from water?
        tohnjitor 3y ago
        I wish I knew, or maybe I don't. Sometimes it seems too late to be rid of these substances.
    - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
      Eventually it will accummulate in humans, so we treat humans as toxic waste?
      - staunton 3y ago
        To some degree, we do that already.
      - 3y ago
- randycupertino 3y ago
  "Disturbing" levels were found in 7/8 samples from kale at various US supermarkets: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/kale-pfas-forever-chemicals-contamination https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/kale-pfa... > Seven out of eight US kale samples recently tested for toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” contained high levels of the compounds. > The testing looked at conventional and organic kale bought at grocery stores across the country, and comes after Food and Drug Administration analyses conducted between 2019 and 2021 found no PFAS contamination. > The findings “stunned” researchers who expected to find low levels of the chemicals, said Robert Verkerk, founder of the Alliance for Natural Health non-profit, which produced the paper. >“It’s pretty scary and there’s no easy solution,” he said, adding that the findings highlight the need for the FDA to implement a more robust PFAS testing program for the nation’s food supply.
- CobaltFire 3y ago
  Seems at least kale [0] is affected, with the suspected pathway being more common for organic (organic fertilizer). This bothers me, as we do like our kale in the house. Still better than meat I suppose. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/kale-pfas-forever-chemicals-contamination https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/kale-pfa...
- somenameforme 3y ago
  The EU is, typically, doing a far better job of researching this than the FDA. The latter of which seems almost entirely driven by corporate interests at this point. There's a paper from the EU here [1] which is far too verbose, but offers some interesting data: - For PFOS and PFOA, ‘Fish and other seafood’ was the most important contributor to the mean exposure, followed by ‘Eggs and egg products’, ‘Meat and meat products’, and ‘Fruit and fruit products’. For PFOA, ‘Vegetables and vegetable products’ and ‘Drinking water’ were also important contributors. For several of the other PFASs, ‘Fish and other seafood’, ‘Fruit and fruit products, ‘Vegetables and vegetable products’, ‘Drinking water’, as well as ‘Starchy roots and tubers’ were the most important food groups. - Diet is the major source of PFAS exposure for most of the population, but other routes such as dust ingestion and indoor air inhalation may also contribute substantially - PFASs are transferred from soil to plants. In general, transfer rates are higher for the short chain PFASs and decrease from roots to leaves to fruits. - In food producing animals, PFASs transfer from feed to animal derived food like milk, eggs and meat, with clear differences between species and the type of PFAS. This is also relevant for soil ingestion by foraging farm animals --- I think the conclusion is that everything is potentially exposed, so the individual source is more important than the type of medium. Another somewhat interesting article [2] showed how a sampled chocolate cake ended up with extremely high levels. It (probably) wasn't even from the cake itself, but from a chemical used to greaseproof paper at some point in its production. So my take from that would be, as always, to consume foods which have gone through minimal processing before getting to you. [1] - https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa... [2] - https://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/fda-high-levels-pfas-chocolate-cake/ https://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/fda-high-levels-pfas...
  - tfourb 3y ago
    Do you know if the contamination of fruits/vegetables is due to the contact with earth (i.e. superficial and could theoretically be rinsed off or something) or is it actually "ingested" by the plant?
- chaostheory 3y ago
  You didn’t ask this, but I’m pretty sure the dental floss we used to use had it. I believe it went by the brand name of Glide
- throwaway742 3y ago
  I grew up in an agricultural area and the water was completely untreated. It was literally a canal from the river that was then sprayed onto fields. It wasn't uncommon to have to clean out small fish from the irrigation pump's filter. Sometimes you'd lose water pressure completely and have to drive down to the irrigation ditch and clean a racoon carcass or something out of the intake grate.
slashdev 3y ago
I guess we can’t escape it. Hopefully it’s not too harmful.
- userbinator 3y ago
  IMHO we'd have seen the health effects more clearly if it really was. Currently, the research seems to only indicate some correlations.
  - PsylentKnight 3y ago
    Hard to set up a control group when literally everyone is exposed
    - localplume 3y ago
      [dead]
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Wait and see, wait and see. I hope there's nothing much but..wait and see.
  - nickd2001 3y ago
    Seems at least some anecdotal evidence here : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/chemical-colorado-springs-military-communities-pfcs https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/chemical-col.... (admittedly , this is fairly persistent and significant exposure - more than the average person)
kurthr 3y ago
It's interesting to me that people worrying about PFAS at 0.004 ppt levels consider Reverse Osmosis filters made from PTFE membranes a way to remove them. What are the PFAS levels in the membrane? Who tested it? Charcoal filters are only removing 3/4 while RO is removing 19/20, but if you're at 70ppt, you're not getting to 0.7ppt even with both of those together. If you believe the people testing, why not believe the same for tested teflon pans? I still suspect RO is pretty good since otherwise semi fabs would be contaminated, but I think the PTFE boats were probably also pretty good. It's the thousands of gallons of PFAS by-product pumped into the ground or sold off as flame retardant that I'd worry about.
silisili 3y ago
I feel like this was ultimately the right solution - demand zero PFAS to the water companies, and have 3M pay for it - via lawsuit or goodwill. I feel instead none of the money from 3M is going to make its way to this being a reality.
jejeyyy77 3y ago
RO doesn't seem like a good idea - completely removes a lot of the needed minerals from water that your body needs. WHO issues a warning about drinking from these kinds of systems exclusively.
- dmm 3y ago
  I've been drinking RO water almost exclusively since conception and I'm fine. I eat a SAD(standard American diet) and I get enough minerals from my food.
- wackycat 3y ago
  You can purchase elemental mineral drops and add that back in to RO water. Given the importance of water and minerals, I find it to be worth it but that's definitely an individual choice, as well as a privileged one (meaning I can afford RO water and minerals to add).
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    What are the chances that the mineral drops contain PFAS?
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  As I remember the studies, minerals in water is on the order of 5-10% extra calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium. Negligible on the rest. A nice little bump, but nothing a decent diet won’t attain. Although half of westerners are deficient in magnesium, so that one is a good supplement to take regardless. When the trade off is arsenic, lead, pfas, bromate, hexavalent chromium, haloacetic acids, nitrates, uranium, trihalomethane, and who knows what other carcinogens…
- nayuki 3y ago
  I've been drinking distilled water for 3 years and I have no noticeable body changes.
youniverse 3y ago
This company has been recommended to me by very health conscious friends, stainless steel and charcoal activated: https://purifyguru.com/ https://purifyguru.com/ And this for a cheaper faucet attachment option: https://www.amazon.com/PUR-FM-3700-Faucet-Filtration-System/dp/B0009CEKY6?crid=247TTIEARTOSG&keywords=faucet+filter&qid=1656521679&sprefix=faucet+filter,aps,94&sr=8-8&linkCode=sl1&tag=drj058-20&linkId=0678865642fc39e9f576ebb7c72ab800&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl https://www.amazon.com/PUR-FM-3700-Faucet-Filtration-System/...

by quartz 3y ago

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.
HWR_14 3y ago
Most forever pollutants have greater concentrations as you go up the food chain. The grass has 1ppm, the cow eats 100x it's body weight over its lifetime, and cannot eliminate the pollutant so it gets up to 100ppm. Add in a few more levels and it can really ratchet up the dosage.
- idontwantthis 3y ago
  I wonder if it’s worth it to filter the water you drink. If that’s at the bottom of the chain then would the amount you get from food (especially meat) vastly dwarf the amount you directly drink?
  - tohnjitor 3y ago
    But what is the water filter made from? What if it's also dependent on PFOA?
    - idontwantthis 3y ago
      Also a good question, but mine still stands. Do we get an significant amount of this directly from water?
      - tohnjitor 3y ago
        I wish I knew, or maybe I don't. Sometimes it seems too late to be rid of these substances.
  - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
    Eventually it will accummulate in humans, so we treat humans as toxic waste?
    - staunton 3y ago
      To some degree, we do that already.
    - 3y ago
randycupertino 3y ago
"Disturbing" levels were found in 7/8 samples from kale at various US supermarkets: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/kale-pfas-forever-chemicals-contamination https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/kale-pfa... > Seven out of eight US kale samples recently tested for toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” contained high levels of the compounds. > The testing looked at conventional and organic kale bought at grocery stores across the country, and comes after Food and Drug Administration analyses conducted between 2019 and 2021 found no PFAS contamination. > The findings “stunned” researchers who expected to find low levels of the chemicals, said Robert Verkerk, founder of the Alliance for Natural Health non-profit, which produced the paper. >“It’s pretty scary and there’s no easy solution,” he said, adding that the findings highlight the need for the FDA to implement a more robust PFAS testing program for the nation’s food supply.
CobaltFire 3y ago
Seems at least kale [0] is affected, with the suspected pathway being more common for organic (organic fertilizer). This bothers me, as we do like our kale in the house. Still better than meat I suppose. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/kale-pfas-forever-chemicals-contamination https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/kale-pfa...
somenameforme 3y ago
The EU is, typically, doing a far better job of researching this than the FDA. The latter of which seems almost entirely driven by corporate interests at this point. There's a paper from the EU here [1] which is far too verbose, but offers some interesting data: - For PFOS and PFOA, ‘Fish and other seafood’ was the most important contributor to the mean exposure, followed by ‘Eggs and egg products’, ‘Meat and meat products’, and ‘Fruit and fruit products’. For PFOA, ‘Vegetables and vegetable products’ and ‘Drinking water’ were also important contributors. For several of the other PFASs, ‘Fish and other seafood’, ‘Fruit and fruit products, ‘Vegetables and vegetable products’, ‘Drinking water’, as well as ‘Starchy roots and tubers’ were the most important food groups. - Diet is the major source of PFAS exposure for most of the population, but other routes such as dust ingestion and indoor air inhalation may also contribute substantially - PFASs are transferred from soil to plants. In general, transfer rates are higher for the short chain PFASs and decrease from roots to leaves to fruits. - In food producing animals, PFASs transfer from feed to animal derived food like milk, eggs and meat, with clear differences between species and the type of PFAS. This is also relevant for soil ingestion by foraging farm animals --- I think the conclusion is that everything is potentially exposed, so the individual source is more important than the type of medium. Another somewhat interesting article [2] showed how a sampled chocolate cake ended up with extremely high levels. It (probably) wasn't even from the cake itself, but from a chemical used to greaseproof paper at some point in its production. So my take from that would be, as always, to consume foods which have gone through minimal processing before getting to you. [1] - https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa... [2] - https://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/fda-high-levels-pfas-chocolate-cake/ https://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/fda-high-levels-pfas...
- tfourb 3y ago
  Do you know if the contamination of fruits/vegetables is due to the contact with earth (i.e. superficial and could theoretically be rinsed off or something) or is it actually "ingested" by the plant?
chaostheory 3y ago
You didn’t ask this, but I’m pretty sure the dental floss we used to use had it. I believe it went by the brand name of Glide
throwaway742 3y ago
I grew up in an agricultural area and the water was completely untreated. It was literally a canal from the river that was then sprayed onto fields. It wasn't uncommon to have to clean out small fish from the irrigation pump's filter. Sometimes you'd lose water pressure completely and have to drive down to the irrigation ditch and clean a racoon carcass or something out of the intake grate.

slashdev 3y ago

I guess we can’t escape it. Hopefully it’s not too harmful.

userbinator 3y ago
IMHO we'd have seen the health effects more clearly if it really was. Currently, the research seems to only indicate some correlations.
- PsylentKnight 3y ago
  Hard to set up a control group when literally everyone is exposed
  - localplume 3y ago
    [dead]
- vacuity 3y ago
  Wait and see, wait and see. I hope there's nothing much but..wait and see.
- nickd2001 3y ago
  Seems at least some anecdotal evidence here : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/chemical-colorado-springs-military-communities-pfcs https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/chemical-col.... (admittedly , this is fairly persistent and significant exposure - more than the average person)

kurthr 3y ago

It's interesting to me that people worrying about PFAS at 0.004 ppt levels consider Reverse Osmosis filters made from PTFE membranes a way to remove them. What are the PFAS levels in the membrane? Who tested it? Charcoal filters are only removing 3/4 while RO is removing 19/20, but if you're at 70ppt, you're not getting to 0.7ppt even with both of those together. If you believe the people testing, why not believe the same for tested teflon pans? I still suspect RO is pretty good since otherwise semi fabs would be contaminated, but I think the PTFE boats were probably also pretty good. It's the thousands of gallons of PFAS by-product pumped into the ground or sold off as flame retardant that I'd worry about.

silisili 3y ago

I feel like this was ultimately the right solution - demand zero PFAS to the water companies, and have 3M pay for it - via lawsuit or goodwill. I feel instead none of the money from 3M is going to make its way to this being a reality.

jejeyyy77 3y ago

RO doesn't seem like a good idea - completely removes a lot of the needed minerals from water that your body needs. WHO issues a warning about drinking from these kinds of systems exclusively.

dmm 3y ago
I've been drinking RO water almost exclusively since conception and I'm fine. I eat a SAD(standard American diet) and I get enough minerals from my food.
wackycat 3y ago
You can purchase elemental mineral drops and add that back in to RO water. Given the importance of water and minerals, I find it to be worth it but that's definitely an individual choice, as well as a privileged one (meaning I can afford RO water and minerals to add).
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  What are the chances that the mineral drops contain PFAS?
reducesuffering 3y ago
As I remember the studies, minerals in water is on the order of 5-10% extra calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium. Negligible on the rest. A nice little bump, but nothing a decent diet won’t attain. Although half of westerners are deficient in magnesium, so that one is a good supplement to take regardless. When the trade off is arsenic, lead, pfas, bromate, hexavalent chromium, haloacetic acids, nitrates, uranium, trihalomethane, and who knows what other carcinogens…
nayuki 3y ago
I've been drinking distilled water for 3 years and I have no noticeable body changes.

youniverse 3y ago

This company has been recommended to me by very health conscious friends, stainless steel and charcoal activated: https://purifyguru.com/ https://purifyguru.com/ And this for a cheaper faucet attachment option: https://www.amazon.com/PUR-FM-3700-Faucet-Filtration-System/dp/B0009CEKY6?crid=247TTIEARTOSG&keywords=faucet+filter&qid=1656521679&sprefix=faucet+filter,aps,94&sr=8-8&linkCode=sl1&tag=drj058-20&linkId=0678865642fc39e9f576ebb7c72ab800&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl https://www.amazon.com/PUR-FM-3700-Faucet-Filtration-System/...