7 ms·

Millions may rely on groundwater contaminated with PFAS for drinking water

100 points by wglb 2y ago

TechDebtDevin 2y ago
Dr. Rohnda Patrick just did a great episode on PFAS, microplastics, and other environmental toxins in food and water. Tap water tends to have less of these PFAS/nano plastics than bottled water via degradation of the bottle. Topo Chico is especially problematic (nothing to do with the bottle).[0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzw_grLzjw&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzw_grLzjw&t=2s
- BadHumans 2y ago
  There are so many doctors on Youtube just spouting shit that it's hard for me to separate the bullshit from the legitimate.
  - TechDebtDevin 2y ago
    She provides sources for all her podcasts and basically just reads from scientific journals the entire time. I would separate her content from your typical "Dr." She's also not a medical doctor fyi, just a researcher.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      How can laymen evaluate the merit of cited sources, particularly in matters pertaining to medicine and nutrition? All the personalities, spokespeople, advocates, activists, etc in this space all provide citations which they say back up their claims. A lot of them are lying, their claims don't appear in the cited articles, so that's easy to detect if you click through and read each one carefully, but many of the rest do cite articles saying what they claim and it's still just junk science. They do this because they know "cites sources" is a popular heuristic. Like I can find people promoting magnetic bracelets to align my Chi and they will be citing supposedly scientific articles which supposedly back up their claims. In extreme cases like that I can feel pretty confident that it's bullshit. But the relative health benefits of eating berry A or berry B? It seems intractable. I'm left with trusting my instincts and common sense.
      - TechDebtDevin 2y ago
        I'm not responsible for people's media literacy/competency. I'm also not going to take advantage of them myself, or promote people who do. Rhonda Patrick is probably one of the .01% of influences who, as far as I know, doesn't take advertisement money and is 100% merch + premium content including her online Genetic Report[0], which takes raw SNP data from companies like 23 and Me and provides you an extremely comprehensive report for all the SNPs in your report with every journal article publically available on that SNP and health outcomes associated. You can generate this report yourself if you know how with other genetics tools, but her tool is two clicks and much more value add than actual genetic companies like My23andMe's premium subscription. She routinely criticizes companies like Athlete Greens and other supplement companies, this is rare in the health-influencer sphere. Not to glaze her but I've only heard her mention brand names on the basis of their purity/lab testing and always points out when pop science studies are funded by these companies or other conflicts of interest that may distort the headline making journal articles. In fact, my journal comprehension has gotten better by listening to this podcast. Personally find it extremely easy to detect scams. You also don't need a degree or much more than a HS degree to check sources, this was taught to most of us in high school. You're right though, there's a billions and billions of dollars in marketing and misinformation aimed at the people who skipped that class in school (especially in the health space). [0]: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/genetics https://www.foundmyfitness.com/genetics --- It was actually this report that highlighted that I might have a high likelihood for a weird genetic issue that causes you to have extremely low vitamin D. This caused me to go get testing for this as I would get bad seasonal depression in the winters. At the age of 27 my doctor told me that it was the lowest levels of Vitamin D she's ever seen including her elderly patients. This isn't something any of common mainstream genetic reports provide and they charge 10X more. You would need to generate a report manually through one of the databases to find those studies or manually look up individuals SNPs
        lupusreal 2y ago
        > Personally find it extremely easy to detect scams. You also don't need a degree or much more than a HS degree to check sources, this was taught to most of us in high school. If by "check a source" you mean look it up and read it, sure. But that tells you relatively little; you can verify that a claim appears in that source but actually weighing the validity of that source requires a lot more specialized expertise. That you think a highschool course can teach all you need to reliably detect bullshit makes me think you're a lot more credulous than you seem to think. The rest of your post is more or less about the heuristics you use in lieu of being a subject matter expert. And those heuristics are known to influencers and are routinely gamed. For instance, you're impressed that this influencer criticizes supplement companies. People peddling bullshit routinely trash talk their own or adjacent fields in order to gain trust, this is a textbook tactic. Used car salesmen trash talk used car salesmen, to make themselves seem candid and honest. Textbooks about sales and persuasion teach this tactic. Supplement peddlers trash talk homeopathy, homeopaths trash talk chiropractors, etc. Of course people who aren't peddling bullshit will trash talk bullshit too, everybody else does too so it's a very unreliable heuristic.
- serkanh 2y ago
  Isn’t Topo Chico Peter Attia’s fav beverage? Would be surprised if he didn’t looked into this.
  - TechDebtDevin 2y ago
    Here you go: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nirl9/oc_forever_chemical_pfas_in_sparkling_water/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nirl9/oc...
    - fouc 2y ago
      scroll down and https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nirl9/oc_forever_chemical_pfas_in_sparkling_water/j6b1wlq/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nirl9/oc...
swalling 2y ago
The map that they produced is very easy to unintentionally misread. The map shows the predicted contamination of groundwater locations based on the models. It does not show the locations where the actual tap water source is predicted or known to be contaminated. For example, many large cities (San Francisco, Seattle, Portland) either do not use groundwater sources from within city limits, or only use it as a secondary source. Unless you use a private well, this map is therefore not super useful for understanding whether PFAS contamination of tap water should be a concern for you. The map likewise doesn't take into account water treatment or filtering.
- hammock 2y ago
  Tap water is one thing. Agricultural contamination is quite another, and also is worthy of exploration. Specifically water for irrigation, and processed sewage/sludge for fertilizer
  - linotype 2y ago
    > processed sewage/sludge for fertilizer This one scares me the most, including whatever drugs people flush down the toilet that they pass
- animal_spirits 2y ago
  If you want to see the contaminants in your tapwater you can use the Environmental Working Group's tap water database here: https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/ https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/
- theandrewbailey 2y ago
  It's a population density map, just as XKCD pointed out: https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/
lysace 2y ago
Don't want to downplay the risks, but: Afaik, very little is still understood about the actual risks from a particular PFAS exposure level. Right?
- TechDebtDevin 2y ago
  Cert is expired so I can't even open it atm because my firewall, which I can't turn off atm, but I'm pretty sure this has all your answers[0]. https://www.hbm4eu.eu/the-substances/per-polyfluorinated-compounds/ https://www.hbm4eu.eu/the-substances/per-polyfluorinated-com...
- mglz 2y ago
  The problem is PFAS are in basically all the water on the planet and persist in the body for several years. Even if they might have a small effect that will likely be magnified due to accumulation and the long persistence. We have had very similar scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle.
  - lysace 2y ago
    > We have had very similar scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle. It's an assumption that this will be similar, but sure.
    - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      Surely the far more dangerous assumption is to assume that an untested substance won't be harmful to life.
      - lysace 2y ago
        There are many "untested" substances.
        2y ago
OutOfHere 2y ago
I started using reverse osmosis filtration of tap water at home. The issue is that it removes all minerals, and its pH cartridge wears thin in a mere two to three months. The missing minerals have to be compensated for via increased supplementation. Also, there is no fluoride in it anymore for your teeth, so only your toothpaste can save your teeth.
- foo_user 2y ago
  I have been using RO water from Prismo water in NorthBay. They have installed RO machines at various places and it costs about 2.5 bucks to fill 5 gallon jug
  - hackily 2y ago
    Is that a 5 gallon plastic jug?
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    You can get a countertop RO unit for home use that's so easy to use. It's also utterly cheaper to use than any commercially purchased RO water. Just remember to clean the pitcher and your water bottle every week from their insides. Also, if you buy the RO water in plastic, that's risking avoidable microplastics. I use glass and steel bottles.
- z3ncyberpunk 2y ago
  > "Also, there is no fluoride in it anymore" Good. There is absolutely no reason this should be in water.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    I see it from both sides. On one hand, I am no longer risking poisoning my brain with excessive fluoride. On the other hand, I now developed sensitivity in a tooth that is going to be a challenge to fix. This is despite me using fluoride toothpaste twice daily. Acidic foods can do more damage to teeth when there isn't fluoride in the drinking water. As a result, the saliva also lacks fluoride, and cannot protect the teeth so well anymore. It was my mistake for consuming an acidic food. I now have to see if expensive nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste can fix the sensitivity.
nonelog 2y ago
That is only 1 of the many reasons why many drink only distilled water.
- staunton 2y ago
  Though you didn't claim otherwise, I'd like to note that drinking distilled water is rather unhealthy because it deprives the body of electrolytes.
  - downrightmike 2y ago
    Gatorade, water sucks
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  RO water is also quite comparable and is more power efficient. I hope and assume you use a pH normalization cartridge, perhaps with minerals too.
jaxgeller 2y ago
Most water suppliers in the USA still don't test for PFAS on a regular schedule. Only the more progressive states (like ME) require testing from their suppliers. I maintain a DB of drinking water contaminants in the US[1]. You can look up your city's system to see if they test for PFAS. [1]: https://www.cleartap.com https://www.cleartap.com
- zackangelo 2y ago
  Do you explicitly list that a PFAS test was omitted for a municipality? I looked up Austin and didn’t see it listed.
lasermike026 2y ago
[flagged]
- downrightmike 2y ago
  Its only about 21%, https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statistics#:~:text=Nationwide%2C%20on%20average%2C%2079%25,older%20are%20illiterate%20in%202022 https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statisti....
gehwartzen 2y ago
I recently learned that regular blood donation and especially plasma donation appears to be an effective way to help clear the body of PFAS chemicals. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/
- r00fus 2y ago
  Does blood donation then give the PFAS to the donor?

100 points by wglb 2y ago

Dr. Rohnda Patrick just did a great episode on PFAS, microplastics, and other environmental toxins in food and water. Tap water tends to have less of these PFAS/nano plastics than bottled water via degradation of the bottle. Topo Chico is especially problematic (nothing to do with the bottle).[0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzw_grLzjw&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzw_grLzjw&t=2s

BadHumans 2y ago
There are so many doctors on Youtube just spouting shit that it's hard for me to separate the bullshit from the legitimate.
- TechDebtDevin 2y ago
  She provides sources for all her podcasts and basically just reads from scientific journals the entire time. I would separate her content from your typical "Dr." She's also not a medical doctor fyi, just a researcher.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    How can laymen evaluate the merit of cited sources, particularly in matters pertaining to medicine and nutrition? All the personalities, spokespeople, advocates, activists, etc in this space all provide citations which they say back up their claims. A lot of them are lying, their claims don't appear in the cited articles, so that's easy to detect if you click through and read each one carefully, but many of the rest do cite articles saying what they claim and it's still just junk science. They do this because they know "cites sources" is a popular heuristic. Like I can find people promoting magnetic bracelets to align my Chi and they will be citing supposedly scientific articles which supposedly back up their claims. In extreme cases like that I can feel pretty confident that it's bullshit. But the relative health benefits of eating berry A or berry B? It seems intractable. I'm left with trusting my instincts and common sense.
    - TechDebtDevin 2y ago
      I'm not responsible for people's media literacy/competency. I'm also not going to take advantage of them myself, or promote people who do. Rhonda Patrick is probably one of the .01% of influences who, as far as I know, doesn't take advertisement money and is 100% merch + premium content including her online Genetic Report[0], which takes raw SNP data from companies like 23 and Me and provides you an extremely comprehensive report for all the SNPs in your report with every journal article publically available on that SNP and health outcomes associated. You can generate this report yourself if you know how with other genetics tools, but her tool is two clicks and much more value add than actual genetic companies like My23andMe's premium subscription. She routinely criticizes companies like Athlete Greens and other supplement companies, this is rare in the health-influencer sphere. Not to glaze her but I've only heard her mention brand names on the basis of their purity/lab testing and always points out when pop science studies are funded by these companies or other conflicts of interest that may distort the headline making journal articles. In fact, my journal comprehension has gotten better by listening to this podcast. Personally find it extremely easy to detect scams. You also don't need a degree or much more than a HS degree to check sources, this was taught to most of us in high school. You're right though, there's a billions and billions of dollars in marketing and misinformation aimed at the people who skipped that class in school (especially in the health space). [0]: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/genetics https://www.foundmyfitness.com/genetics --- It was actually this report that highlighted that I might have a high likelihood for a weird genetic issue that causes you to have extremely low vitamin D. This caused me to go get testing for this as I would get bad seasonal depression in the winters. At the age of 27 my doctor told me that it was the lowest levels of Vitamin D she's ever seen including her elderly patients. This isn't something any of common mainstream genetic reports provide and they charge 10X more. You would need to generate a report manually through one of the databases to find those studies or manually look up individuals SNPs
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        > Personally find it extremely easy to detect scams. You also don't need a degree or much more than a HS degree to check sources, this was taught to most of us in high school. If by "check a source" you mean look it up and read it, sure. But that tells you relatively little; you can verify that a claim appears in that source but actually weighing the validity of that source requires a lot more specialized expertise. That you think a highschool course can teach all you need to reliably detect bullshit makes me think you're a lot more credulous than you seem to think. The rest of your post is more or less about the heuristics you use in lieu of being a subject matter expert. And those heuristics are known to influencers and are routinely gamed. For instance, you're impressed that this influencer criticizes supplement companies. People peddling bullshit routinely trash talk their own or adjacent fields in order to gain trust, this is a textbook tactic. Used car salesmen trash talk used car salesmen, to make themselves seem candid and honest. Textbooks about sales and persuasion teach this tactic. Supplement peddlers trash talk homeopathy, homeopaths trash talk chiropractors, etc. Of course people who aren't peddling bullshit will trash talk bullshit too, everybody else does too so it's a very unreliable heuristic.
serkanh 2y ago
Isn’t Topo Chico Peter Attia’s fav beverage? Would be surprised if he didn’t looked into this.
- TechDebtDevin 2y ago
  Here you go: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nirl9/oc_forever_chemical_pfas_in_sparkling_water/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nirl9/oc...
  - fouc 2y ago
    scroll down and https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nirl9/oc_forever_chemical_pfas_in_sparkling_water/j6b1wlq/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nirl9/oc...

swalling 2y ago

The map that they produced is very easy to unintentionally misread. The map shows the predicted contamination of groundwater locations based on the models. It does not show the locations where the actual tap water source is predicted or known to be contaminated. For example, many large cities (San Francisco, Seattle, Portland) either do not use groundwater sources from within city limits, or only use it as a secondary source. Unless you use a private well, this map is therefore not super useful for understanding whether PFAS contamination of tap water should be a concern for you. The map likewise doesn't take into account water treatment or filtering.

hammock 2y ago
Tap water is one thing. Agricultural contamination is quite another, and also is worthy of exploration. Specifically water for irrigation, and processed sewage/sludge for fertilizer
- linotype 2y ago
  > processed sewage/sludge for fertilizer This one scares me the most, including whatever drugs people flush down the toilet that they pass
animal_spirits 2y ago
If you want to see the contaminants in your tapwater you can use the Environmental Working Group's tap water database here: https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/ https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/
theandrewbailey 2y ago
It's a population density map, just as XKCD pointed out: https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/

lysace 2y ago

Don't want to downplay the risks, but: Afaik, very little is still understood about the actual risks from a particular PFAS exposure level. Right?

TechDebtDevin 2y ago
Cert is expired so I can't even open it atm because my firewall, which I can't turn off atm, but I'm pretty sure this has all your answers[0]. https://www.hbm4eu.eu/the-substances/per-polyfluorinated-compounds/ https://www.hbm4eu.eu/the-substances/per-polyfluorinated-com...
mglz 2y ago
The problem is PFAS are in basically all the water on the planet and persist in the body for several years. Even if they might have a small effect that will likely be magnified due to accumulation and the long persistence. We have had very similar scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle.
- lysace 2y ago
  > We have had very similar scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle. It's an assumption that this will be similar, but sure.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    Surely the far more dangerous assumption is to assume that an untested substance won't be harmful to life.
    - lysace 2y ago
      There are many "untested" substances.
      - 2y ago

OutOfHere 2y ago

I started using reverse osmosis filtration of tap water at home. The issue is that it removes all minerals, and its pH cartridge wears thin in a mere two to three months. The missing minerals have to be compensated for via increased supplementation. Also, there is no fluoride in it anymore for your teeth, so only your toothpaste can save your teeth.

foo_user 2y ago
I have been using RO water from Prismo water in NorthBay. They have installed RO machines at various places and it costs about 2.5 bucks to fill 5 gallon jug
- hackily 2y ago
  Is that a 5 gallon plastic jug?
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  You can get a countertop RO unit for home use that's so easy to use. It's also utterly cheaper to use than any commercially purchased RO water. Just remember to clean the pitcher and your water bottle every week from their insides. Also, if you buy the RO water in plastic, that's risking avoidable microplastics. I use glass and steel bottles.
z3ncyberpunk 2y ago
> "Also, there is no fluoride in it anymore" Good. There is absolutely no reason this should be in water.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  I see it from both sides. On one hand, I am no longer risking poisoning my brain with excessive fluoride. On the other hand, I now developed sensitivity in a tooth that is going to be a challenge to fix. This is despite me using fluoride toothpaste twice daily. Acidic foods can do more damage to teeth when there isn't fluoride in the drinking water. As a result, the saliva also lacks fluoride, and cannot protect the teeth so well anymore. It was my mistake for consuming an acidic food. I now have to see if expensive nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste can fix the sensitivity.

nonelog 2y ago

That is only 1 of the many reasons why many drink only distilled water.

staunton 2y ago
Though you didn't claim otherwise, I'd like to note that drinking distilled water is rather unhealthy because it deprives the body of electrolytes.
- downrightmike 2y ago
  Gatorade, water sucks
OutOfHere 2y ago
RO water is also quite comparable and is more power efficient. I hope and assume you use a pH normalization cartridge, perhaps with minerals too.

jaxgeller 2y ago

Most water suppliers in the USA still don't test for PFAS on a regular schedule. Only the more progressive states (like ME) require testing from their suppliers. I maintain a DB of drinking water contaminants in the US[1]. You can look up your city's system to see if they test for PFAS. [1]: https://www.cleartap.com https://www.cleartap.com

zackangelo 2y ago
Do you explicitly list that a PFAS test was omitted for a municipality? I looked up Austin and didn’t see it listed.

lasermike026 2y ago

[flagged]

downrightmike 2y ago
Its only about 21%, https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statistics#:~:text=Nationwide%2C%20on%20average%2C%2079%25,older%20are%20illiterate%20in%202022 https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statisti....

gehwartzen 2y ago

I recently learned that regular blood donation and especially plasma donation appears to be an effective way to help clear the body of PFAS chemicals. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/

r00fus 2y ago
Does blood donation then give the PFAS to the donor?