
U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report - pseudolus
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-water-foreverchemicals/u-s-drinking-water-widely-contaminated-with-forever-chemicals-report-idUSKBN1ZL0F8
======
nate_meurer
Meanwhile, these same PFAS chemicals are sprayed liberally onto the surface of
clothing that we all wear, and increasingly furniture as well, and this may
account for far more human PFAS consumption than drinking water.

PFAS chemicals are widely used for waterproofing fabrics. The industry term is
DWR -- Durable Water Repellent. The chemicals are sprayed onto the surface and
simply left there to rub off on your hands and face every time you touch them.
The chemicals are ubiquitous; nearly every garment marketed as "water
resistant" will be covered with them. As of 2019, only one large outdoor
clothing company has abandoned PFC-based DWR finishes. I've also noticed more
and more furniture advertised with DWR recently.

All of this concern over parts-per-trillion levels in drinking water is like
panicking over an untended candle when your house is already on fire.

EDIT:

Also note that the U.S. military regularly dumps tremendous quantities of PFAS
chemicals on the ground around dozens of military bases around the country
[1]. They use it in fire suppression foam, of which they spray thousands of
gallons during regular fire fighting exercises.

There are low-cost and low-toxicity alternatives to PFAS that are fairly well
proven to be just as effective in fire suppression foams, but the U.S.
military continues to ignore them steadfastly.

1 - [https://theintercept.com/2018/02/10/firefighting-foam-
afff-p...](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/10/firefighting-foam-afff-pfos-
pfoa-epa/)

EDIT 2:

Don't forget carpeting! For decades, rugs and carpeting advertised as "stain
repellent" have been coated with PFCs. One prominent brand is 3M's Scotchgard,
which is also sold as a liquid for people to spray on all their shit. Until
2003, liquid Scotchgard contained PFOS, a C8-class PFC that is now banned.
Even today, Scotchgard and other similar products still contain PFCs -- merely
shorter-chain versions that have been surmised (but not proven) to be safer.

~~~
Marsymars
> As of 2019, only one large outdoor clothing company has abandoned PFC-based
> DWR finishes.

Which one?

~~~
nate_meurer
Paramo. There may a couple other smaller ones too. I haven't looked in a
while.

~~~
germinalphrase
Isn’t Paramo unique in that their garments are intended to keep you
comfortable (while damp) rather than a typical DWR costed shell that is
intended to keep you _dry_?

~~~
nate_meurer
That's their reputation for sure, and their marketing plays up the whole
"vapor transport" thing, but make no mistake, Paramo is in pursuit of the same
holy grail as everyone else: a fabric that's both breathable and completely
waterproof in all conditions. Like a duck.

------
st3fan
> In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and
> Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be
> up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White
> House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.

------
strainer
Here is more detailed report on this problem in Europe [1] They seem to
indicate levels many times higher are present in Europe than the EPAs
suggested limited of 70 PPT. Although that limit also seems to be commonly
exceeded in US. It is concerning that technical discussion over regulation is
occurring while the picture of actual contamination levels is very incomplete
[2]

[1] [https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/chemicals/emerging-
ch...](https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/chemicals/emerging-chemical-
risks-in-europe)

[2] [https://greensciencepolicy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/An...](https://greensciencepolicy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/Andy_Eaton_UCMR3_PFAS_data.pdf)

------
anoplus
I would be interested to know what is the current trust level of the residents
on the gov and EPA in the different states.

Not far from my living area a new gas rig started operating where the gov,
contractor company and EPA (EPA of my country that is) argue the chemical
emissions doesn't pose health risks (same for sea water pollution risk), while
self-funded environmental organizations argue otherwise and show
inconsistencies and omissions of real-time data in air monitoring stations.
They compare the owners' claims with their assertions.

The interesting story is about trust crisis in the system. The public reached
a point where they started crowd-funding independent air monitoring system to
put pressure on EPA to "do its job" and enforce the standards. EPA already
announced a nice mobile app showing monitored air data on the map to provide
public sense of security. I hope the data is genuine.

There are more and more examples of crowd-funded projects as alternatives to
governmental components expressing decline of public trust.

It seem to happen globally on many levels. Is it possible the crowd-funded
organizations will one day replace the government?

~~~
samatman
Air-quality safety (among other things) is assured by the EPA, and it's done a
lot to undermine that trust in the last couple of decades.

Electronics safety is assured by UL, a private company. To date, they've
maintained the public's trust in their services.

If Consumer Reports publishes an exposé of UL taking kickbacks to certify
substandard equipment, I'd become very interested in buying gear certified by
a competitor.

With the EPA, I mean... I can't vote out the leadership of the EPA. I can
_very indirectly_ vote for a change there, and hope it happens, if that vote
happens to align with my other interest, but there's no granularity, no way to
hit them in their pocketbook, which I line once a year regardless of my
feelings on the matter.

Now, there are some immediate differences between the two, which are obvious
enough that I'm not going to bother elucidating them. But it's an instructive
comparison. I'd say the UL model is underutilized.

~~~
thewebcount
Most people don't know what UL is or that they even exist. Of the few who do,
many probably believe it's some government mandated thing.

Regardless, just because UL seems to be doing a decent job (I'm not really
qualified to comment on that, just going on an assumption here), there have
been other industry groups that were supposed to do the same thing and were
basically utter failures. For example, the EnergyStar organization giving
certification for a gasoline powered alarm clock[0].

[0] [https://gizmodo.com/a-fake-gas-powered-alarm-clock-once-
got-...](https://gizmodo.com/a-fake-gas-powered-alarm-clock-once-got-energy-
star-cer-1656128986)

~~~
samatman
> _Energy Star was started in 1992 by the EPA as a voluntary labeling program
> to encourage the consumption of more energy-efficient appliances._

Huh! TIL.

------
LeoTinnitus
Yeah PCB's are a big thing in North-East Wisconsin. Papermills just added a
new chemical to papermaking and dumped in the river for like 50 years before
the government even bothered saying you can't do that anymore.

Now the Fox River has a base layer of PCB's and all the papermills declared
bankruptcy or dissolved so as not to foot the bill for cleanup.

~~~
WWLink
Yeah it's kinda like the wood companies that gut the rain forests.

------
CptFribble
This problem has been brewing for a long time, and is likely worse than any of
us can grasp.

Here's an enlightening read: (warning: it's long)

[https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-
to-b...](https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-
parkersburg)

~~~
bradstewart
There's a movie, Dark Waters, about this as well. Great watch.

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/)

EDIT: Spelling.

~~~
nabakin
Saw this last night, completely agree. Everyone should watch it

------
JohnJamesRambo
A reminder that you can remove these and many other contaminants from your
water with a simple undersink RO filter. They are quite inexpensive and start
at about $160 on Amazon for a lifetime of clean drinking and cooking water.

[https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/list-of-household-filters-
appr...](https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/list-of-household-filters-approved-for-
certain-pfas-removal)

~~~
chrisjc
I've heard this also removes many essential minerals that we get from water?

~~~
abandonliberty
Yes, googling "reverse osmosis demineralized water" provides many options to
add minerals back in.

The WHO stated that demineralized water is unsuitable for long term drinking
due to the lack of minerals.

Not sure how significant this is or how many minerals you can get from diet
instead of water.

~~~
benmccann
Here's the WHO report for folks who are interested:
[https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientscha...](https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientschap12.pdf)

------
raxxorrax
> previous estimate [...] that 110 million Americans may be contaminated with
> PFAS, could be far too low.

If that number is "far too low", everyone is probably affected. And probably
not just in the US, they just tested for it.

Sounds like PCBs 2.0.

~~~
ragebol
Netherlands also has an issue with it. The norms and standards have been made
a bit less strict. It was forbidden to move dirt, sand etc around due to PFAS
contamination.

------
300bps
_Of tap water samples taken by EWG from 44 sites in 31 states and Washington
D.C., only one location, Meridian, Mississippi, which relies on 700 foot (215
m) deep wells, had no detectable PFAS. Only Seattle and Tuscaloosa, Alabama
had levels below 1 part per trillion (PPT), the limit EWG recommends._

 _In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up
to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends._

The article is all over the place with various recommendations. Seems to boil
down (no pun intended) to:

* EPA recommends less than 70 parts per trillion

* US Department of Health and Human Services recommends less than 7 parts per trillion.

* EWG recommends less than 1 part per trillion and states in their report that only 3 out of 44 sites they tested met that much more stringent standard.

------
jb775
I've seen this issue trending on HN multiple times within the past year,
search "PFAS contamination" for more info online.

I moved into a new house last year near 2 closed down USAF military bases
(known to have been previously contaminated by firefighter foam) and did a ton
of research on the issue since the house water comes from a well (free
water!). I ended up getting a professional water filtration system installed
in our basement (carbon tanks, UV light filter, reverse osmosis). Cost me $5k+
for install and ~$1500 year to swap out the tanks and service the system. It's
pricey, but you can't put a price on clean water.

~~~
logfromblammo
> _"...you can't put a price on clean water."_

Is that... is that not exactly what you just did? $5k capital expense and
$1500/yr operational expense.

That system is almost certainly more than enough for your own household needs,
so you could probably sell the excess capacity to your neighbors at near cost
to cover some of the operational expenses.

~~~
munk-a
And since it's priceable, doesn't it become an ethical question if the
neighborhood should require such systems and possibly try and get federal
subsidies to install them since they are required as a result of the
military's actions? (And, specifically, completely non-essential actions -
asking the military to clean up contamination caused by active national
defense is a slightly different question)

~~~
logfromblammo
That's a good point. The capital expenses should be recoverable via civil
suit, with actual operating expenses so far, and possibly also projected
future operating expenses over the expected lifespan of the installation.

But possibly not. Water rights in legal-land aren't always as fair or
uncomplicated as ordinary non-lawyer folk--such as myself and most HN readers
--might expect them to be.

------
kldavis4
Apparently there are now technologies available to remove PFAS from water:
[https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-
pollutants/Foreve...](https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-
pollutants/Forever-chemicals-technologies-aim-destroy/97/i12) but it is going
to be expensive to deploy everywhere that it is needed.

~~~
mrfusion
I think britAs and the like work somewhat at removing pfas. They’re large
organic molecules and they excel at removing those.

~~~
saiya-jin
Based on internet it seems zerowater filters are much more effective than
brita, but they cost a bit more to run (because, well, they filter out more
stuff).

~~~
mrfusion
Hmm I got to the conclusion that zero water was way better at filtering out
smaller chemicals like lead. I’m still think both types of filters are good
for pfas. Zero water could be a little better though.

I could still be wrong. It was hard to find any good studies or tests last
time I looked into it.

------
pfdietz
These materials are used as coatings on "compostable" food packaging. I've
seen this packaging being used as a replacement for plastic packaging at
"green" grocery stores.

Of course, the coating does not decompose upon composting, it just sits there
in the compost.

------
sparker72678
Can anyone help me understand how _anything_ at a concentration of < 5PPT can
be dangerous?

I'm not arguing, just trying to get my head around it.

(And yes I realize that in some of these areas the concentrations were orders
of magnitude higher; the recommendation for allowable concentration is < 1PPT
according to the article)

~~~
mcguire
It doesn't degrade and accumulates in the body
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Human_d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Human_data)),
where it looks like it acts like a "biological handgrenade" (a nifty term I
heard elsewhere).

" _PFOA is not rapidly eliminated from the human body, with a half-life of 3.8
years in human blood, thus raising the public concerns over the toxicological
implications due to internal exposure._ "
([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817033/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817033/))

That's elimination from retired "fluorochemical production workers"
([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805419/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805419/)).

~~~
sparker72678
Got it, thanks!

------
knorker
So next time I go to the US I should bring a LifeStraw?

This is an actual question: How much do these filters help against the type of
contamination that's in US drinking water?

~~~
ryanmercer
Products like the LifeStraw/Sawyer/Katadyn won't filter most chemicals. To
remove _some_ chemicals you need to use distillation and distillation is only
good if the boiling point of a given chemical is higher than that of water.

LifeStraw even states

>Chemicals, salt water, heavy metals and viruses will not be removed.

[http://help.lifestraw.com/en/articles/2507813-does-the-
lifes...](http://help.lifestraw.com/en/articles/2507813-does-the-lifestraw-
filter-out-heavy-metals-and-viruses)

Sawyer states

>Taste

>The Sawyer filter removes taste that comes from bacteria, dirt, and green
matter.

>Chemicals

>The Sawyer filter does NOT remove iron, sulfur, other chemicals, or simple
compounds. Taste can be masked by using flavor additives like Gatorade or
crystal light (filter needs to be cleaned immediately after using them).

>Heavy Metals

>The Sawyer filters are not made with charcoal. While other portable filters
have charcoal, they lack in amount of media and adequate dwell time.
Therefore, they only remove small amounts of heavy metals, pesticides, etc.
(when used in real life applications). Try using better sources of water, if
possible.

[https://sawyer.com/water-filtration/faqs/](https://sawyer.com/water-
filtration/faqs/)

~~~
Liquix
How would a reverse osmosis filter hooked up in the basement / under the sink
compare to distillation? The good ones spit out water that is close to 0 PPM
(in most municipal water systems tap water is closer to 60-200). Is PPM a good
way of measuring the types of chemicals you mentioned?

~~~
lm28469
Doesn't RO needs 3+ liters to get you 1L of purified water ? It doesn't look
like this would be viable long term + it doesn't solve the root cause, just
the symptoms.

~~~
bcrosby95
Most people use it for just drinking water. When compared to other uses, you
don't drink that much water.

------
welder
Use the EWG zip code search to find your water utility [1]. That shows which
chemicals or toxins were found when testing your tap water, and scrolling down
you see which filter system can remove those chemicals.

For ex: San Francisco's City Water has Chromium (hexavalent) at 0.0906 ppb,
and Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) at 38.9 ppb [2]. The "Water Filters That Can
Reduce Contaminant Levels" table says Activated Carbon and Ion Exchange
filtration can't remove those particles, but Reverse Osmosis can.

[1]: [https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/](https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/)

[2]:
[https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/system.php?pws=CA3810011](https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/system.php?pws=CA3810011)

------
hlindwin
> Results from a single sample form a snapshot of what was found in tap water
> at a specific site.

This is a weak statistical methodology.

>They are likely representative of the water in the area where the sample was
taken...

I don't agree with that.

Quotes from the source: [https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-
testing/](https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/)

That said, this is serious problem.

------
forgotmypw
If there was a magical way of convincing every single person in the U.S. to
stop buying X, what would we have to stop buying to stop this pollution?

~~~
claudeganon
Industrial pollution like this is the lived reality of Capitalism and it’s
inability to meaningfully account for the environmental degradation and
destruction it causes. The problem isn’t “stop buying X” it’s that we need to
“stop buying.”

~~~
yomly
I don't know why you get downvoted for this. The current assumption that GDP
must always grow (and consumption must keep increasing) seem to be in direct
contradiction to the idea that we must stop consuming so much if we want to
save the environment.

Perhaps "capitalism" is a lazy proxy for this but I think it's more lazy to
downvote you than engage with the discussion

~~~
mdemare
Increasing GDP does not imply increasing consumption, and increasing
consumption does not imply increasing pollution.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Can you provide any examples to support your statement?

I don’t see how the production of materials and transportation of the
materials and people could not increase pollution, given the current
infrastructure which requires use of fossil fuels, and which will not change
in the short term.

~~~
epistasis
You're forgetting the #1 cheapest and most effective way to reduce our
environmental impact: efficiency of energy use and efficiency of resource use.

In the case of GDP, energy and resources are both costs that businesses try to
minimize in order to provide end products and services, which is what the GDP
measures.

Therefore, the carbon intensity of a dollar of GDP is expected to decrease in
time, as people discover more ways to save money and compete better, in order
to increase profits. They probably aren't thinking about decreasing the amount
of CO2 emitted, especially when they are making business decisions. But since
CO2 indirectly has a cost, the amount of CO2 emitted per dollar GDP has been
decreasing drastically:

[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD)

If we were to directly price in the costs of CO2 via a tax, the fall would be
far faster. And as we come up with tech that doesn't emit, and is cheaper than
fossil fuel extraction, we will stop using these damaging resources
completely.

There has historically been great resistance from the right to the power of
energy efficiency, because of their ties to high fossil fuel consumption, and
their attachment to GDP rising at all costs to fuel gains for those at the top
of the capitalistic hierarchy. However, this was a miscounted belief.

Lately, this misunderstanding has been picked up by the extreme left, who had
assumed that global collapse was their time to finally overturn market-based
systems, but now fear that we will try to address the coming disasters of
climate change without overhauling market based systems, so now after the
yellow jackets gave it to Macron over carbon taxes, a fundamentally market
based system, the left has now decided that the enemy (rural conservatives) of
their true enemy (neoliberals in urban centers), they can pick up the mantle.

But it's important to fully recognize where these narratives come from and
what motivation is driving those who push narratives, and return to the data
for our ultimate analysis.

Stopping pollution does not mean destroying GDP. It means eliminating the
parts of the GDP that cause the pollution, but other activity will quickly
replace the other.

~~~
lotsofpulp
>You're forgetting the #1 cheapest and most effective way to reduce our
environmental impact: efficiency of energy use and efficiency of resource use.

How can that be cheaper and more effective than reducing consumption?

>If we were to directly price in the costs of CO2 via a tax, the fall would be
far faster. And as we come up with tech that doesn't emit, and is cheaper than
fossil fuel extraction, we will stop using these damaging resources
completely.

I don't think this is politically feasible in the timeframe necessary. The
hundreds of millions up and coming in China/India/Brazil/Nigeria/etc want a
piece of that nice Western life with a home and car and vacations.

The only realistic solution in a short enough timeframe is to try to educate
everyone to consume less. Consume less space (more dense living), consume less
fuel (enabled by dense living as public transport is now feasible), consume
less products (vastly fewer cheap plastic toys and whatnot), etc.

~~~
epistasis
After reading your last paragraph, I'm convinced that we are in full
agreement, except for nomenclature choices.

Efficiency is just that, consuming less. One can also consume less end
services, too. But if you're saying that a carbon tax is infeasible, then far
more in feasible is just taking away with no replacement.

I am 100% in agreement with your plans to educate people to consume less, and
have gotten active in local politics to try to effect the changes you suggest.
These are exactly the types of things that we need to be doing! I don't think
they will decrease GDP, and will likely increase it, as well as increase the
quality of life of those who choose to live closer to more people with more
transit and amenities nearby. Walking to a small grocery store that takes up
1/8th or less of a super market, and doing that daily or every other day to
get the freshest food, is something that will make tons of people far more
happy and likely reduce food waste, etc. but I think this will likely increase
GDP.

Locally, the biggest pushback is from those who oppose allowing dense walkable
neighborhoods. They tend to oppose "growth," be it economic, or population, or
incomes, or basically any change from their car-centric lives, and walkable
neighborhoods and the construction that comes with buildings taller than 2
stories are the prime culprit, or so they say. They control the local Sierra
Club chapter, even. So we get to hear about the "dangers" of 5G tech rather
than concrete proposals to stop climate change through local political change.
Sigh.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Yes, I was trying to highlight that all the Teslas in the world won't make up
for the extra consumption caused by utilizing so much space by non-dense
living, since everything has to be moved exponentially further requiring
exponentially more materials and energy.

Hopefully we see the externalities of energy usage priced in via a carbon tax
or similar, but at the same time, unless we can alter the lifestyle of many to
allow for far more density, I don't believe it will be enough.

------
airesearcher
You MUST watch the amazing film, “Dark Waters” .... it’s about the origin of
this problem. DuPont knowingly poisoned the public. And the effects will never
go away. And then people wonder why cancer rates are so high? Duh!!!

~~~
networkimprov
The documentary is _The Devil We Know_. It is riveting and heartbreaking.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_We_Know](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_We_Know)

------
rhacker
It is insane. I've been looking at water quality over the past year. Look into
EPA superfund sites. We only have so many permanent underground aquifers that
are disconnected from each other. The industrial age of the 1950s with
basically unchecked regulation really ruined our country's permanent aquifers.

~~~
defterGoose
| unchecked regulation

I think you mean "complete and utter lack of" regulation.

------
chiefalchemist
What happens is someone will point to anyone of these chems and say "that
level is safe." Perhaps. But no one has an understanding of them and what
happens when you combine trace amounts of Chem X, Chem Y and Med Z. At that
point any judgement of safety breakdowns.

------
JSeymourATL
Today's Edition of Fear Your Government > _The White House and the EPA had
tried to stop the report from being published._

~~~
thrillgore
The Trump administration in effect.

~~~
dang
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to HN?
You've been doing it a lot lately, and we ban accounts that do that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
logfromblammo
Today I learned that California has at least one business that can be called a
"water store".

Obviously, the chemical that's in the water that must promote such enterprises
has to be reintroduced after any purification processes that may occur in the
aforementioned store.

Someone please explain to me how such a business is viable in 5 gallon
quantities, when the rest of the world either digs a well, buys the outflow
from a metered pipe, or fills up a cistern from a tanker truck with at least
3000 gallons per delivery.

Do they not sell reverse osmosis filters or distillery pots there?

Also, if one person filters out the stable perfluorocarbons like PFOA and
PFOS, and then dumps them back down the drain again, is that really helping to
solve the problem?

------
GrumpyNl
Lets thank dupont for that

~~~
briefcomment
I'm a little confused at how this happens. Dupont is just made up of people.
Those people need to live somewhere, drink water, and do normal people things.
Do they not realize what they are doing as they are doing it, and only become
aware it's a problem after the fact? Because if they knew it was problematic
from the start, they would almost seem suicidal.

~~~
JabavuAdams
People need to eat. Lack of money kills you this year. Some technical science-
talk spread by ideologically opposed people about how you're going to get sick
decades from now -- who knows if it's even true?

------
sizzle
Why are these chemicals not being extensively studied and banned if adverse
health effects are proven to affect human health? This stuff could be
shortening our lifespan and we are just absorbing it all the time in clothing
and water etc unbeknownst to us.

------
Taylor_OD
Dark Waters (movie) was a real eye-opener for me. Also a way to ingest
information that I otherwise probably wouldn't have been able to take in. It's
no surprise that cancer is so prevalent.

------
ksec
Are there any Home "Appliance" that make Distillation simple.

Instead of rather expensive filtering that requires you to buy filter every
now and then in recurring cost.

------
jeremy151
I live in one of the industrial "hot zones" for these chemicals. In the 1960's
a local tannery was the main employer in the area, and commanded a great deal
of local clout. As a result, they obtained permits to dump industrial waste in
various (30+) small dump sites around the area. This waste contained a variety
of industrial chemicals, not the least of which was the 3M product Scotchgard,
which was used in large quantity to waterproof leather, contains PFAS, and was
buried feet from the surface, generally in nondescript forest areas.

A few years ago, when our local water authority began testing for PFAS, they
found unusually high numbers specifically around one well-head used to supply
municipal water to the area. Instead of disclosing the issue, the authority
chose to use that well head only when the demand was high, which excluded
times in which the water was tested. If they timed their testing to times of
low demand, the numbers were under the EPA recommendation.

With significant grass-roots pressure in the area, many pending lawsuits, and
lots of reporting and investigation, the municipality is taking the issue
somewhat seriously. GAC filters were installed on the municipal supply, the
company considered largely at fault has agreed to pay for the extension of
municipal water to some (not all) affected areas that are still served by well
water, in which the danger is particularly high. Some cleanups are occurring,
while other sites exist under what are now housing developments.

There's story after story here, of people (especially those located in areas
served by well water) with a history of cancer after cancer after cancer
affecting their entire families. These are folks who after having their water
tested, confirmed some of the highest levels ever measured in a water supply.

In all, the whole ordeal has been a wake up call for me, regarding the level
of cover-up that happened and in some cases continues to happen surrounding
waste disposal, especially for large companies that are considered the
"economic life blood" of a given area. Looking over records, people have found
strong objections to the practice dating back to the time it happened (some of
the warnings eerily prescient) multiple cleanups that were funded but never
occurred in the decades that followed, and a continual failure to acknowledge
any risk surrounding the practice and dump sites for decades. There was a
constant drum beat of "very smart people say that everything is fine."

As for me, my (municipal) water is GAC and RO filtered. I pay close attention
to things I would not have considered before, like air quality. It's made me
reconsider the source of the foods that I eat. It takes little work to take
these precautions, the potential upside is pretty big, and the downside small.

I wonder if in the years to come, we're going to find significant causal links
between aspects of our environment and maladies we previously considered a
mystery.

------
mmhsieh
My county water board does not have PFAS as one of their routine tests. Is
this a standard in other counties?

------
scotth
A recent movie, Dark Waters, covers this same subject. Which seems a little
coincidental.

------
xivzgrev
Great. So the mind control fluoride crazies were (kind of) right all along.

~~~
54thr
Not to worry. All the fluoride they're intentionally doping the water supply
with just fluoridates your insides to give you a forever body. Just kidding.
It goes from the stomach into the bloodstream and straight up into your teeth
to fortify them and give you forever teeth.

------
networkimprov
See also the documentary _The Devil We Know_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_We_Know](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_We_Know)

------
deeblering4
Are there residential water filtration systems that would be effective at
filtering these out?

I have a water filter in my fridge but no real idea how well it works.

------
ilikehurdles
Can someone enlighten me on the legitimacy and scientific rigor of the
Environment Working Group organization that published these findings?

------
zachware
Not to ignore the democracy problem but solely on the localized health issue,
if you can afford a Berkey Water Filter, get one.

~~~
jtdev
I looked on the Berkey website but couldn't find specifics about the mechanism
that these filters use; is it simply reverse osmosis?

~~~
Cerium
I helped a relative assemble theirs, they appear to be gravity fed activated
carbon blocks.

------
Nohnce1
Anyone know how hard it is filtering out PFAS?

------
agumonkey
What's the state of cheap nano filters ?

~~~
nextos
I kind of like ceramic ones (from Doulton / Berkenfeld). Well proven
technology, invented by Victorians, and does a remarkable job at filtering
most stuff.

~~~
agumonkey
oh man apparently some ceramics are air porous .. I'd like to know the
material/chemistry behind the process.

------
somurzakov
can anyone confirm whether consumer grade filters like Brita help filtering
these things out?

~~~
driverdan
Yes, activated charcoal filters them.

------
matthewdgreen
It is constantly amazing to me that "cover up the existence of poisonous
chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-
elected officeholder to have. What a world we live in.

~~~
Frost1x
Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, we
haven't gone completely south to a dictatorship--there are many protections in
place to keep things from falling apart but nonetheless I feel as though we're
in the decline in the respect of being democratic.

The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that
representatives would represent their constituents' interests and people would
elect people who would represent their interests, all of course with hopeful
protections for minorities. Obviously, this doesn't work.

We need to really set expiration dates on how long people can run campaigns
and how long they can stay in a given office. Politics should be about solving
problems and seeking continuous improvement of well-being for citizens in a
given society, not convincing people they're happy, constantly lying, and
playing manipulative popularity contests but that's where we are.

~~~
nck4222
>Democracy is mostly a facade

in the US anyway.

But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or
2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.'

Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more
weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on
philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or
existing republics/democracies to base their new government on.

It honestly seems like like they intended the US government to function a lot
more similarly to the EU than what we currently have. Although the EU has its
own sets of problems, but at the very least seems more representative of the
people than the US government.

~~~
rukittenme
> the US government isn't functioning for the benefit of the majority of the
> people it 'represents.'

American democracy was never meant to benefit just the majority. Which is why
we have _undemocratic_ institutions (such as the Judiciary). Minorities (both
long-standing and ephemeral -- e.g. a race of people versus the losing party
in an election) exist and should be protected from the majority and should be
represented in government. Only long-term, widely-held political thoughts can
truly dominate minorities in this country.

The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to
Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this
country and no consensus opinion on how to move forward.

> Although the EU has its own sets of problems, but at the very least seems
> more representative of the people than the US government.

From an outsiders perspective many aspects of the EU seem undemocratic and ad-
hoc. Can you explain your view of the EU to me?

~~~
nck4222
>The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to
Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this
country

That only holds true if you believe that the two political parties accurately
represent the views of the people.

Political views are a spectrum of opinions. Boiling them down to one of two
parties means you lose the majority of views. In the end you vote with the
party that most closely resembles your opinions, but because the US has two
choices, the party you choose doesn't end up representing your beliefs in a
lot of cases. It just represents your beliefs more frequently than the other
one.

------
userbinator
Have any effects of this been noticed? It feels like a lot of these things are
"yet another thing that might shorten your life a little bit", although the
total risk may be very small.

~~~
MichaelApproved
From the article:

> _The chemicals, resistant to breaking down in the environment, are known as
> perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Some have been linked to cancers, liver
> damage, low birth weight and other health problems._

~~~
quotemstr
"linked to" is a weasel phrase. It means nothing. How big is the effect size?
How robust is the evidence? What's the dose-response curve?

~~~
MichaelApproved
If you're really curious, these answers can be found by Googling.

~~~
quotemstr
The burden of proof rests on the party making the positive claim.

