4 ms·

Lets us all join hands and pray that the EPA will one day learn to do their job. How can this be a debate? This stuff has broadly poisoned the water supplies o

Lets us all join hands and pray that the EPA will one day learn to do their job. How can this be a debate? This stuff has broadly poisoned the water supplies of entire regions in a way that won’t be easy to fix and they are still debating. Is that really the line? Look at this map. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502 Look at the known effects: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html

AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]
warble 3y ago
After reading this it's still not clear there's a problem.
- happytiger 3y ago
  What’s hard to understand exactly? I’ve pulled a brief summary from both links here to make sure it’s clearer. > Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity. The epidemiological evidence suggests associations between increases in exposure to (specific) PFAS and certain health effects * Heart Increases in cholesterol levels (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFDA) * Vaccine Lower antibody response to some vaccines (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFDA) * Liver Changes in liver enzymes (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS) * Pregnancy complications Pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia (PFOA, PFOS) * Infant birth weights Small decreases in birth weight (PFOA, PFOS) * Cancer Kidney and testicular cancer (PFOA) And An estimated 200 million U.S. residents receive PFAS-contaminated drinking water, and state-level testing indicates widespread contamination of environmental media, (13) yet tremendous data gaps exist related to PFAS contamination and human exposure. (2,14) The only federal drinking water testing initiative with PFAS data to date, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3), focused on large drinking water systems, had high reporting thresholds (10–90 ng/L), and excluded private wells. (15) The EPA has developed nonbinding Health Advisory Levels (HALs) for four PFAS, including updated HALs for PFOA and PFOS at “near zero” levels, (16) but no federal limits on PFAS in public drinking water currently exist. (2) That set of known harmful effects + 2/3 of the population having the stuff in their drinking water… ain’t great.
appplication 3y ago
I’m on board with your sentiment but it’s hard to find most mapped data compelling. Everything converges to population centers so every map of data points ends up looking the same unless there’s some specific local bias.
- happytiger 3y ago
  https://pubs.acs.org/cms/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502/asset/images/large/ez2c00502_0003.jpeg https://pubs.acs.org/cms/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502/asset/i... This isn’t compelling? These aren’t population centers they are known PFAS contamination sites — not following population. They are airports (PFAS in firefighter foam was a massive source of contamination), industrial sites, military sites and wastewater treatment plants. Only one of those are inherently associated to population centers. What kind of map would be more compelling? Maybe a more interactive one? https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/ The usgs has different data and visualizations: https://www.usgs.gov/tools/pfas-us-tapwater-interactive-dashboard https://www.usgs.gov/tools/pfas-us-tapwater-interactive-dash... I also know there is a map for Europe: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/02/23/forever-pollution-explore-the-map-of-europe-s-pfas-contamination_6016905_8.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/02/23/f... The study I linked to suggests that the methodology used to collect the information is flawed (the EPA didn’t even test private wells of any kind for example) and suggested that this is only perhaps 1/3 of the actual contamination. What’s important to understand is that many groundwater systems complex and quite a few are connected so when you add chemicals that don’t break down to them you can make changes that aren’t potentially even fixable. And we are talking about the vast majority of usable water on earth being contaminated. > When many people think of a water source, they think of lakes, rivers and streams; in other words, surface water. However, of all of the usable freshwater in the world, approximately 97 percent of it is groundwater. According to the United Nations, 10 million cubic kilometres of water are stored underground. The United States Geological Survey states that there is about 4.2 million cubic kilometres of water within 0.8 kilometre of the earth’s surface. Environment Canada cites a study that estimates that all of the groundwater in the world would cover the surface of the earth to a depth of 120 metres, while all of the surface freshwater would only cover the earth to a depth of 0.25 metre! While groundwater estimates can vary, scientists agree that there is a lot of water under the earth’s surface! Source: https://www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/groundwater https://www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/groundwate...

AniseAbyss 3y ago

[dead]

warble 3y ago

After reading this it's still not clear there's a problem.

happytiger 3y ago
What’s hard to understand exactly? I’ve pulled a brief summary from both links here to make sure it’s clearer. > Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity. The epidemiological evidence suggests associations between increases in exposure to (specific) PFAS and certain health effects * Heart Increases in cholesterol levels (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFDA) * Vaccine Lower antibody response to some vaccines (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFDA) * Liver Changes in liver enzymes (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS) * Pregnancy complications Pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia (PFOA, PFOS) * Infant birth weights Small decreases in birth weight (PFOA, PFOS) * Cancer Kidney and testicular cancer (PFOA) And An estimated 200 million U.S. residents receive PFAS-contaminated drinking water, and state-level testing indicates widespread contamination of environmental media, (13) yet tremendous data gaps exist related to PFAS contamination and human exposure. (2,14) The only federal drinking water testing initiative with PFAS data to date, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3), focused on large drinking water systems, had high reporting thresholds (10–90 ng/L), and excluded private wells. (15) The EPA has developed nonbinding Health Advisory Levels (HALs) for four PFAS, including updated HALs for PFOA and PFOS at “near zero” levels, (16) but no federal limits on PFAS in public drinking water currently exist. (2) That set of known harmful effects + 2/3 of the population having the stuff in their drinking water… ain’t great.

appplication 3y ago

I’m on board with your sentiment but it’s hard to find most mapped data compelling. Everything converges to population centers so every map of data points ends up looking the same unless there’s some specific local bias.

happytiger 3y ago
https://pubs.acs.org/cms/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502/asset/images/large/ez2c00502_0003.jpeg https://pubs.acs.org/cms/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502/asset/i... This isn’t compelling? These aren’t population centers they are known PFAS contamination sites — not following population. They are airports (PFAS in firefighter foam was a massive source of contamination), industrial sites, military sites and wastewater treatment plants. Only one of those are inherently associated to population centers. What kind of map would be more compelling? Maybe a more interactive one? https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/ The usgs has different data and visualizations: https://www.usgs.gov/tools/pfas-us-tapwater-interactive-dashboard https://www.usgs.gov/tools/pfas-us-tapwater-interactive-dash... I also know there is a map for Europe: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/02/23/forever-pollution-explore-the-map-of-europe-s-pfas-contamination_6016905_8.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/02/23/f... The study I linked to suggests that the methodology used to collect the information is flawed (the EPA didn’t even test private wells of any kind for example) and suggested that this is only perhaps 1/3 of the actual contamination. What’s important to understand is that many groundwater systems complex and quite a few are connected so when you add chemicals that don’t break down to them you can make changes that aren’t potentially even fixable. And we are talking about the vast majority of usable water on earth being contaminated. > When many people think of a water source, they think of lakes, rivers and streams; in other words, surface water. However, of all of the usable freshwater in the world, approximately 97 percent of it is groundwater. According to the United Nations, 10 million cubic kilometres of water are stored underground. The United States Geological Survey states that there is about 4.2 million cubic kilometres of water within 0.8 kilometre of the earth’s surface. Environment Canada cites a study that estimates that all of the groundwater in the world would cover the surface of the earth to a depth of 120 metres, while all of the surface freshwater would only cover the earth to a depth of 0.25 metre! While groundwater estimates can vary, scientists agree that there is a lot of water under the earth’s surface! Source: https://www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/groundwater https://www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/groundwate...