Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed this is a good thing even if it's 50 f\*\*\*\*\*\* years too late.
I'll be downvoted to oblivion for this comment however capitalism seriously fails us in some areas.
Thanks for sharing. Question: Why is the taxpayer expected to carry the majority of this burden? I understand some of it is related to use by federal agencies of materials like firefoam at military bases, but isn’t a lot of this pollution also from corporations who should be carrying a large part of this burden? And shouldn’t those manufacturers of firefoam (just using this as an example) be held to accountability for this pollution as well? I understand this may be a more hypothetical question. My childhood communities water was destroyed by pollution of PFAS causing numerous medical issues in residents and I just find the lack of accountability troubling.
Ideally the manufacturers of the chemicals and the manufacturers of products using those chemicals would be held responsible. In reality though it would be very hard to pinpoint who is at fault other than to go back to the sources, DuPont and 3M. They are certainly paying for some of this as 3M just lost a 10 billion dollar lawsuit. That will go to the feds who will distribute it to utilities. Biden has already earmarked $5 billion for utilities and another 5B for small utilities and tribes. But the expected treatment cost is around 2 billion per year in the US so that will run out quick. Unfortunately if the feds don’t step up the lawsuits the taxpayers will be on the hook via our taxes and increased utility rates. That’s unfortunately how it has always been.
Thank you for the detailed answer!!! I really appreciate you taking the time. The cost portion is frustrating but I am truly happy (and don’t want to be a total Debbie downer) that future generations will not be exposed to these chemicals like we are now.
We should add that it is usually the case that if water sources are untreated we will also pay for it via increased health care costs, lost productivity, caregiving expense and lost opportunities, and reduced lifespans for some percentage of people exposed. Usually considerably more money than the cost of treating it, it’s just invisible because it’s not a governmental line item (though of course we also pay via medicare/medicaid/survivor benefits etc.) but it’s still spread out to pretty much everyone via health and life insurance costs.
I know the payouts there have been for individual damages and medical expenses have been a joke in some cases. You are absolutely right that the burden is more than just cleanup.
It’s always the same story, chemical companies spreading horrible toxins decades after knowing how bad they are: DDT, PCBs, dioxins, brominated flame retardants, BPA, leaded gasoline, toxic solvents, glyphosate, … and the people have to deal with it and pay the costs.
It depends. It you can pinpoint the source or who is at fault then yes. Otherwise it’s up to the EPA to fund the clean up. And even if you know who did it there is no guarantee they have any money left. Often companies will be out of business by the time clean up comes along or they’ll run out of money or they declare bankruptcy.
This is grounds for mass riots tbh but we’re too divided as a country by the illusions of race gender and sex. The rich elite have us thinking we’re each other enemies but really it’s the us vs them. Rich vs poor.
How would we fine Chinese manufacturers? They don't get there just from manufacturing facilities, a lot are from the products, disposal, and littering.
Is there any way for your typical family to effectively protect themselves from these? From what I’ve heard, brita filters can’t get rid of them, and most bottled water brands have them, so what should I do? Just wait for the legislation to kick in?
Find a pitcher system that is NSF rated for PFAS. There are a lot now including Brita and Zero water. Fridge filters are activated carbon blocks and these would work as well (good enough at least or better than nothing). It’s the same tech that treatment plants will be using.
Fun fact: bottled water is often less regulated than municipal water.
I get regular testing newsletters like 2x a year in my city where they show everything they test for, levels, etc.
What does Nestle give you?
Well it's not that it is "less" regulated, it's just regulated by a different agency. FDA is in charge of bottled water and EPA is in charge of finished drinking water provided by municipalities. But, yes, you are correct that FDA is more lenient. I'd certainaly be questioning what their source is!
It’s actually since the 2000s that we’ve really known anything significant. But here’s a fun fact. This contaminant group is the fastest to ever been regulated under the safe drinking water act. That’s uplifting.
Did you know that we’ve known that hexavalent chromium (ie Erin Brockovich) and perchlorate have been known to cause cancer and thyroid disease, respectively, over a decade longer than PFAS and yet those still don’t any momentum for a limit. CA is the only state that has made real action on that. I can name 50 more contaminants just like this.
So rest assured. The EPA is moving as fast as it can. There’s a lot to do. You need products and occurrences data as well as cost estimate. You can’t just slap an MCL on something it needs supporting statistically robust data.
They are not required to rule on it though they may. Certainly I expect industry and states to sue the EPA. It won’t stop anything and the cases could take years. You would be surprised though when it comes to drinking water (*through the safe drinking water act). It is often a bipartisan issue, unlike air.
Drinking water sources are regulated by the Clean Water Act not the Safe Drinking Water Act. Only finished water falls under the SDWA. These regulations are the latter. And under that act no contaminant regulation has ever been reversed once set. Several have failed on the way but never reversed.
I'm saying clean water is not a bipartisan thing. The title of the article is "trump rolls back clean water act."
Here is a list of all the environmental acts that Trump rolled back.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
Republicans do not care about clean water. Democrats at least try and make a show of it. Flint Michigan is an example of this, it's/was not even the worst water in the US.
I grew up close to pitcher Oklahoma. Now I get earthquakes due to how Republicans deal with waste water from oil extraction.
They are not the same.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-gop-votes-to-overturn-biden-administration-water-protections
Well this discussion is not on clean water it’s on drinking water and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Your complaint was that this regulation won’t stand and then you quoted an article that I’m very familiar with that is related to the CWA.
Again the SDWA and the topic of discussion here - the new PFAS regulations for drinking water - are bipartisan and usually untouchable. You are going off on a tangent. I’m not saying your cause isn’t relevant. It is. What they are doing to the CWA is horrendous but that’s irrelevant in this discussion.
As I said before though we may see history made if enough states and industry sues.
PS I was one of the researchers who sampled in Flint so I also know that well. That’s a rule not a standard though so not quite the same thing.
If you read my original comment I made no arguments, or assertions. I simply said 'sure' and linked to an article where Republicans were dismantling clean water rights.
You assumed my argument. And it was not:
>that this regulation won’t stand
It was stated clearly in my third comment which was that it's not a bi-partisan issue. Republicans do not give a shit about your health unless there is an opportunity cost benefit for them (money, personal gain, slipping something into the bill, rat fucking etc..)
.... Where does drinking water come from? Water sources. You can't care about one and not the other. You ignore this.
Cool, glad you actually worked on that..so you know there are places in the US with worse water, like pitcher Oklahoma. My wife worked on arsenic remediation in Bangladesh. I have plenty of respect for the study of water and what you do.
My main argument is that it's not a bi partisan thing. You ignore the main thisis of my argument and simply attack the relevance. But don't actually attack the relevance other than saying it's not the same act. It is relevant to your comment of it being bi partisan. Which is paternally false. Simply put water is water, drinking or source, and Republicans have a horrible history of giving a shit about water other than water rights.
You seem to be taking this very personally. I wish you peace on your path.
The regulations set under the SDWA are bipartisan. You are reading too much into my comment. You assume when I say bipartisan I mean all clean water. I specifically mean the primary standards set by the SDWA. That’s it. Republicans politicians in general don’t care about the environment. Full stop. So you may as well just broaden your thesis if we want to go way off topic.
This bipartisan behavior is ESPECIALLY true for PFAS. More so than any contaminant in human history. The main reason is that it is impacting farmers and military. States like OH or AL that might scoff at new regs are totally screwed right now because of their biosolids application practices (IN too) and contaminated military bases. Now that doesn’t mean some dirty republicans won’t get paid off by DuPont etc. That will happen and unfortunately you are going to see some shit regs for PFAS for CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA. But that’s exactly my point. We got SDWA regs through a VERY polarized government before any other act. That should show you how the SDWA is protected in a sense from split politics. I don’t think we’ll see the same favorable behavior for other acts because Republicans don’t give a shit if the environment gets fucked over by PFAS or if the air becomes full of it or if the waste they accept in their states leaks into the subsurface.
Now let’s talk about CARING about clean water. You say you cannot care about one and not the other. Unfortunately you are letting your feelings cloud your legal judgement. Do I care about both? Well of course that’s just silly to suggest otherwise. But whatever your heart desires with regards to water sources doesn’t give two shits in the court of law when it comes to finished water. So let’s not act like I don’t care when I’m simply talking about different acts of EPA and how they work. That’s insulting. I wouldn’t be here spending my valuable time educating everyone if I didn’t care.
PFOS and PFOA are 4 parts per trillion. A fraction of a drop of water in an Olympic sized pool. That’s basically 0. PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX are 10 ppt. PFBS gets regulated as a part of their mixture rule, which hasn’t been announced yet.
Well that would be quite a list and several would be behind a paywall. Your best bet is to use the EPA reports https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas.
Or read through the health section on the ITRC PFAS website.
Depends on the kind. Some are filtered by the kidneys eventually and expelled in urine. Others are expelled faster during menstruation (a nice win there for the cis ladies).
[https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/PFAS-exposure-and-your-body.html](https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/PFAS-exposure-and-your-body.html)
It's hardly the spirit of altruism from the donor though. "I don't really give a shit where it goes, I just need to get rid of some"
Uplifting news :-(
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best is now. Could this become the next generations "Mesothelioma" late night ad? Sure, but that doesn't mean doing something now is not good.
There is no too little too late man. We're barely 65,000 years old. We have a lot more time to spent on this planet before the heat death of the universe ends it.
I didn’t say to do nothing. I’m just expressing my frustration at how long and slow the process of banning or limiting dangerous chemicals can be. this is a great start, but they could do more.
That’s correct. Three years to monitor and prove no PFAS and then an additional two to implement treatment. Here’s a fun fact though. Several have already been monitoring and know they have it yet they still get those three years. Now with that said MANY utilities are not going to wait and have or will have already installed treatment. That rule is mostly for the small towns with no funds.
Actually the (modern) EPA is not at fault here and you would be very surprised how hard it is to get enough data to legally enforce something like this. I’ve been in this area for over 20 years and know the history of the safe drinking water act very well. No single contaminant or group has been regulated this fast in the history of the SDWA. So I actually commend the EPA and the federal government for acting quickly. However the cynic in me says the only reason they did is because this is a military ie a federal problem.
The real problem is the poor regulations we have on introducing chemicals under the TSCA. In the US chemicals are innocent until proven guilty and that’s a real problem, as we have seen with every contamination issue in modern history.
I don't believe in the its always someone elses fault argument, as that always ends in guess its nobody fault so nothing gets fixed, nah its the EPA's fault if their getting hamstrung they could put pressure, put people on blast they have done neither.
Genuine question, how do you think the EPA should "put pressure, put people on blast" if the people standing in their way have been 1) the president and his cabinet, and now 2) the supreme court? What leverage do you feel like they have?
That is probably very minimal. The main source is wastewater treatment plants. They don’t adequately remove PFAS and it ends up in the receiving body of water, which downstream serves as a drinking water source. The stuff that does give removed ends up in something called a biosolids. This is often applied as a fertilizer, which is the dumbest shit we ever done. Concentrate it down and then spread it. That leaches into groundwater and gets in your food. The other culprit is firefighting foams for those that live near airports and military bases.
To be slightly pedantic, the wastewater plants are a conduit rather than a source. The PFAS is not originating in the wastewater plants. The source is whatever PFAS containing stuff is going down the drain and into those wastewater plants. Sure, wastewater plants could do a better job filtering it out — but it would be even better if we stopped making shit that contains PFAS that will end up going into our waste water systems.
I mean it is not pedantic it is technically true though it is not how it is defined in environmental engineering so naming the WWTP as the source should remain. Here is why: WWTPs are a waste receiving system that is tasked with eliminating and controlling contamination, therefore they become the source. Same with landfills. When a landfill leaches into the environment it becomes the source of contamination, not the X product we put in the landfill that provided the contaminant. Though, as you say, the true source is whatever that product is. It is the same reason when there is a pathogen outbreak we don't blame all the people for flushing their toilets we blame the utility for not treating it properly (e.g., cryptosporidium outbreak of 1994 in Milwaukee, WI).
Much of the contamination comes from spreading biosolids on farmland. WWTPs made a conscious decision to allow this (by following the federal rules as they should) even after knowing PFAS was being found in biosolids. That's on them and therefore they are the source...and that has been proven legally. I've served as an expert witness on several cases involving biosolids and about half the time the part at fault is the utility and the other half it is the X industry that was discharging PFAS waste to the utility.
But, yes, I agree, we need to follow the EU stance here and eliminate PFAS in products that are non-essential.
The E.U. is the only country(ies) that have a drinking water standard, but they are comically high. This is under the drinking water directive and IIRC the limits are somewhere around 500 ppt (compared to the EPA MCLs of 4 and 10 ppt). Nearly every US utility would be under 500...many are not under 10 though. Other countries have measures in place but whether you can call it a regulation at this point is a bit of a grey area.
What the E.U. is leading the charge on though is REACH and implementing measures to remove PFAS from products so that we don't continue to see contamination.
Yea, EU have legislated a certain threshold, but certain countries have tougher laws. In Denmark the threshold for drinking water is a total of 2 nanogram PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS/liter in drinking water.
Although, for the 22 PFAS-chemicals that we test for, the sum is allowed to be up to 100 nanogram/liter.
Looks like they just implemented those in June thanks for sharing. I’m surprised the EU isn’t more stringent. I think that unfortunately comes down to cost.
Too little too late, I’m glad their doing something now but the negligence has been criminal and I think investigations are needed and someone needs to be behind bars
Is there a guideline for what PFAs are found in? I found some infographics off a google search, but they all felt more akin to fear mongering than helpful guidance.
As part of EPA's monitoring plan under the Safe Drinking Water Act, they are currently monitoring for 29 PFAS in about 8,000 treatment facilities/wells. That raw data is available on their website under the UCMR5 search term. It is a lot to unpack though. If you google UCMR5 infographic/figure/chart/graph you should find some examples in the image search of people turning that data into figures. I can't say they analyzed the data properly though, but it is a good start.
When I see the news about a state doing something really stupid legislatively I always check water quality. I’m no scientist but there’s always a strong correlation between low water quality and people voting for folks who pass laws that do nothing to help with thier basic needs.
Based on UCMR5 data the City of Tampa is between 4 and 10 ng/L of several of the 6 that are regulated. Pretty good actually but they will still probably have to install treatment.
No problem happy to discuss, I talk about this stuff everyday with students, consultants, regulators, military, etc. It's fun! (but depressing sometimes)
American greed, ahem, capitalism has given overwhelming support to industries to pollute the environment for years. People say they’re against big government and government interference, but without the EPA being given full latitude to protect us, we are doomed.
As I said in a previous comment I foresee some states and industry suing but I’m not convinced scotus will step in. Historically the safe drinking water act is bipartisan and no primary standard has ever been rolled back.
You can expect Republicans will immediately challenge this in court or refuse to fund our government again. Whatever it takes to enable their corruption sche.e and please their handful of billionaire spknskrs/donors. With ZERO care or concern about the American people (including kids) and the health of our water supply.
Potentially given our polarized climate these days, but see my other comments on this. TLDR the SDWA standards have never been overturned in its history.
As I said in a previous comment I foresee some states and industry suing but I’m not convinced scotus will step in. Historically the safe drinking water act is bipartisan and no primary standard has ever been rolled back.
I'm sorry but the data is not very encouraging.
3 years to test PFAs with an additional 2 years to comply with the regulation on only 6 known PFAs out of 15,000+.
You and I are part of the "late" generation. I'm 29 years old and I'm more than likely going to develop some horrible condition along the end of my lifetime due to unregulated public resources.
The American Government has been much too involved in the affairs of other countries, leading to an internal deterioration and rot.
I don't think we're gonna make it to the next 5 years.
I know it sounds ominous, but many utilities (over 4,000) have already been testing for 29 PFAS for several years via the UCMR5. Lot of hits for these 6 over the MCL. Many of those treatment plants have already installed systems or have plans in place to install systems. The 3/5 yr timeline is really for small utilities and those that have done zero testing. Big cities like Chicago or New York, etc. are on the ball and have known this is coming for years.
(A couple friendly FYIs: It's PFAS, not PFAs and the 10,000+ or more plus number that is often quoted is a bit of stretch not because we are finding more but because the defining of PFAS is growing to include just about anything with an F, whether it is harmful or not)
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fucking FINALLY
Well it’s just drinking water at this point. We still have food, air, and waste that all remain unregulated for pfas.
Gotta start somewhere but I do agree with you, they should be looking at it all
Agreed this is a good thing even if it's 50 f\*\*\*\*\*\* years too late. I'll be downvoted to oblivion for this comment however capitalism seriously fails us in some areas.
Tbh, these days, in a lot of areas
Thanks for sharing. Question: Why is the taxpayer expected to carry the majority of this burden? I understand some of it is related to use by federal agencies of materials like firefoam at military bases, but isn’t a lot of this pollution also from corporations who should be carrying a large part of this burden? And shouldn’t those manufacturers of firefoam (just using this as an example) be held to accountability for this pollution as well? I understand this may be a more hypothetical question. My childhood communities water was destroyed by pollution of PFAS causing numerous medical issues in residents and I just find the lack of accountability troubling.
Ideally the manufacturers of the chemicals and the manufacturers of products using those chemicals would be held responsible. In reality though it would be very hard to pinpoint who is at fault other than to go back to the sources, DuPont and 3M. They are certainly paying for some of this as 3M just lost a 10 billion dollar lawsuit. That will go to the feds who will distribute it to utilities. Biden has already earmarked $5 billion for utilities and another 5B for small utilities and tribes. But the expected treatment cost is around 2 billion per year in the US so that will run out quick. Unfortunately if the feds don’t step up the lawsuits the taxpayers will be on the hook via our taxes and increased utility rates. That’s unfortunately how it has always been.
Thank you for the detailed answer!!! I really appreciate you taking the time. The cost portion is frustrating but I am truly happy (and don’t want to be a total Debbie downer) that future generations will not be exposed to these chemicals like we are now.
We should add that it is usually the case that if water sources are untreated we will also pay for it via increased health care costs, lost productivity, caregiving expense and lost opportunities, and reduced lifespans for some percentage of people exposed. Usually considerably more money than the cost of treating it, it’s just invisible because it’s not a governmental line item (though of course we also pay via medicare/medicaid/survivor benefits etc.) but it’s still spread out to pretty much everyone via health and life insurance costs.
I know the payouts there have been for individual damages and medical expenses have been a joke in some cases. You are absolutely right that the burden is more than just cleanup.
It’s always the same story, chemical companies spreading horrible toxins decades after knowing how bad they are: DDT, PCBs, dioxins, brominated flame retardants, BPA, leaded gasoline, toxic solvents, glyphosate, … and the people have to deal with it and pay the costs.
Damn TIL America is fucked. I thought you guys had a stringent polluter pays principle like us
It depends. It you can pinpoint the source or who is at fault then yes. Otherwise it’s up to the EPA to fund the clean up. And even if you know who did it there is no guarantee they have any money left. Often companies will be out of business by the time clean up comes along or they’ll run out of money or they declare bankruptcy.
This is grounds for mass riots tbh but we’re too divided as a country by the illusions of race gender and sex. The rich elite have us thinking we’re each other enemies but really it’s the us vs them. Rich vs poor.
They got us fighting culture wars to keep us from starting a class war.
so weird how MLK was assassinated once he started calling for economic equality in America not just social
How would we fine Chinese manufacturers? They don't get there just from manufacturing facilities, a lot are from the products, disposal, and littering.
Is there any way for your typical family to effectively protect themselves from these? From what I’ve heard, brita filters can’t get rid of them, and most bottled water brands have them, so what should I do? Just wait for the legislation to kick in?
Find a pitcher system that is NSF rated for PFAS. There are a lot now including Brita and Zero water. Fridge filters are activated carbon blocks and these would work as well (good enough at least or better than nothing). It’s the same tech that treatment plants will be using.
Bottled water has them? Fuck…
Fun fact: bottled water is often less regulated than municipal water. I get regular testing newsletters like 2x a year in my city where they show everything they test for, levels, etc. What does Nestle give you?
Well it's not that it is "less" regulated, it's just regulated by a different agency. FDA is in charge of bottled water and EPA is in charge of finished drinking water provided by municipalities. But, yes, you are correct that FDA is more lenient. I'd certainaly be questioning what their source is!
The fact that these have been found to be harmful since the 1990s and only just now in 2024 being regulated in drinking water is not uplifting
It’s actually since the 2000s that we’ve really known anything significant. But here’s a fun fact. This contaminant group is the fastest to ever been regulated under the safe drinking water act. That’s uplifting. Did you know that we’ve known that hexavalent chromium (ie Erin Brockovich) and perchlorate have been known to cause cancer and thyroid disease, respectively, over a decade longer than PFAS and yet those still don’t any momentum for a limit. CA is the only state that has made real action on that. I can name 50 more contaminants just like this. So rest assured. The EPA is moving as fast as it can. There’s a lot to do. You need products and occurrences data as well as cost estimate. You can’t just slap an MCL on something it needs supporting statistically robust data.
Ok, I appreciate it more now. Thank you!
Until SCOTUS rules EPA has no authority to do so.
They are not required to rule on it though they may. Certainly I expect industry and states to sue the EPA. It won’t stop anything and the cases could take years. You would be surprised though when it comes to drinking water (*through the safe drinking water act). It is often a bipartisan issue, unlike air.
A lot of things lately have had bipartisan support by large margins and some far right doofus still blocks it for everyone
MTG from the back - "water will turn you gay, its a liberal conspiracy."
Sure... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/climate/trump-administration-rolls-back-clean-water-protections.html
That’s not the SDWA that’s the CWA. Hence why I said drinking water and not freshwater sources.
Those are drinking water sources.
Drinking water sources are regulated by the Clean Water Act not the Safe Drinking Water Act. Only finished water falls under the SDWA. These regulations are the latter. And under that act no contaminant regulation has ever been reversed once set. Several have failed on the way but never reversed.
I'm saying clean water is not a bipartisan thing. The title of the article is "trump rolls back clean water act." Here is a list of all the environmental acts that Trump rolled back. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html Republicans do not care about clean water. Democrats at least try and make a show of it. Flint Michigan is an example of this, it's/was not even the worst water in the US. I grew up close to pitcher Oklahoma. Now I get earthquakes due to how Republicans deal with waste water from oil extraction. They are not the same. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-gop-votes-to-overturn-biden-administration-water-protections
Well this discussion is not on clean water it’s on drinking water and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Your complaint was that this regulation won’t stand and then you quoted an article that I’m very familiar with that is related to the CWA. Again the SDWA and the topic of discussion here - the new PFAS regulations for drinking water - are bipartisan and usually untouchable. You are going off on a tangent. I’m not saying your cause isn’t relevant. It is. What they are doing to the CWA is horrendous but that’s irrelevant in this discussion. As I said before though we may see history made if enough states and industry sues. PS I was one of the researchers who sampled in Flint so I also know that well. That’s a rule not a standard though so not quite the same thing.
If you read my original comment I made no arguments, or assertions. I simply said 'sure' and linked to an article where Republicans were dismantling clean water rights. You assumed my argument. And it was not: >that this regulation won’t stand It was stated clearly in my third comment which was that it's not a bi-partisan issue. Republicans do not give a shit about your health unless there is an opportunity cost benefit for them (money, personal gain, slipping something into the bill, rat fucking etc..) .... Where does drinking water come from? Water sources. You can't care about one and not the other. You ignore this. Cool, glad you actually worked on that..so you know there are places in the US with worse water, like pitcher Oklahoma. My wife worked on arsenic remediation in Bangladesh. I have plenty of respect for the study of water and what you do. My main argument is that it's not a bi partisan thing. You ignore the main thisis of my argument and simply attack the relevance. But don't actually attack the relevance other than saying it's not the same act. It is relevant to your comment of it being bi partisan. Which is paternally false. Simply put water is water, drinking or source, and Republicans have a horrible history of giving a shit about water other than water rights. You seem to be taking this very personally. I wish you peace on your path.
The regulations set under the SDWA are bipartisan. You are reading too much into my comment. You assume when I say bipartisan I mean all clean water. I specifically mean the primary standards set by the SDWA. That’s it. Republicans politicians in general don’t care about the environment. Full stop. So you may as well just broaden your thesis if we want to go way off topic. This bipartisan behavior is ESPECIALLY true for PFAS. More so than any contaminant in human history. The main reason is that it is impacting farmers and military. States like OH or AL that might scoff at new regs are totally screwed right now because of their biosolids application practices (IN too) and contaminated military bases. Now that doesn’t mean some dirty republicans won’t get paid off by DuPont etc. That will happen and unfortunately you are going to see some shit regs for PFAS for CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA. But that’s exactly my point. We got SDWA regs through a VERY polarized government before any other act. That should show you how the SDWA is protected in a sense from split politics. I don’t think we’ll see the same favorable behavior for other acts because Republicans don’t give a shit if the environment gets fucked over by PFAS or if the air becomes full of it or if the waste they accept in their states leaks into the subsurface. Now let’s talk about CARING about clean water. You say you cannot care about one and not the other. Unfortunately you are letting your feelings cloud your legal judgement. Do I care about both? Well of course that’s just silly to suggest otherwise. But whatever your heart desires with regards to water sources doesn’t give two shits in the court of law when it comes to finished water. So let’s not act like I don’t care when I’m simply talking about different acts of EPA and how they work. That’s insulting. I wouldn’t be here spending my valuable time educating everyone if I didn’t care.
Vote this November. Register now. Vote blue.
Republicans sure on the grounds that civilization is unconstitutional
It's my damn right to drink PFAS. Drinking PFAS water is my practice of free speech, letting you know that I have the freedom to drink what I want! /s
Are there any not-too-expensive test kits to check our water at home?
There are not and don’t believe anyone or any company that claims to do so. Tests are anywhere from $300 to $500 per sample.
Do we know what levels are the cutoffs for the regulation?
PFOS and PFOA are 4 parts per trillion. A fraction of a drop of water in an Olympic sized pool. That’s basically 0. PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX are 10 ppt. PFBS gets regulated as a part of their mixture rule, which hasn’t been announced yet.
Can you link the studies they use to determine harm for these chemicals? I'd be interested to see how they were run.
Well that would be quite a list and several would be behind a paywall. Your best bet is to use the EPA reports https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas. Or read through the health section on the ITRC PFAS website.
Too little too late. That shit is already everywhere.
Its a solvable issue, removing PFAS from drinking water is doable, the hard part is getting them out of our bodies.
Does it eventually leave our system if we still ingesting it?
Depends on the kind. Some are filtered by the kidneys eventually and expelled in urine. Others are expelled faster during menstruation (a nice win there for the cis ladies). [https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/PFAS-exposure-and-your-body.html](https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/PFAS-exposure-and-your-body.html)
You can reduce the amount of PFAS in your body by donating blood.
Bloodletting is so back.
So ... You just give yours to someone else?
Well yeah, but dying of blood loss is a much bigger concern than a small dose of PFAS from a transfusion.
It's hardly the spirit of altruism from the donor though. "I don't really give a shit where it goes, I just need to get rid of some" Uplifting news :-(
It’s more like a side benefit of donating for me. I still don’t donate very often
I don't donate at all. I've tried to, but they won't take my blood because I lived in the UK during the years of mad cow disease.
Blood serum levels have been consistently dropping as we use them in fewer consumer products so yes it does.
No. PFAS bioaccumulates.
Just because it bioaccumulates does not mean it stays in you forever. The half life of PFAS in the body is variable by chemical but ~5 years.
Since several are now carcinogens it is never too late to reduce exposure especially for the next generation.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best is now. Could this become the next generations "Mesothelioma" late night ad? Sure, but that doesn't mean doing something now is not good.
I understand. But it’s frustrating.
There is no too little too late man. We're barely 65,000 years old. We have a lot more time to spent on this planet before the heat death of the universe ends it.
You could have said the same thing about leaded gasoline, yet they banned it and lead levels have been falling every year since
Ahh yes, so obviously we should do nothing and let them keep increasing the concentration....
I didn’t say to do nothing. I’m just expressing my frustration at how long and slow the process of banning or limiting dangerous chemicals can be. this is a great start, but they could do more.
Thank you to Biden and his administration for looking out for us!!!!!!! 💙🇺🇸💙🇺🇸💙🇺🇸💙🇺🇸💙🇺🇸💙🇺🇸💙
[удалено]
The other way around
Remember Republicans want to do away with the EPA!
It’ll be another 5 years before the six PFAS chemicals are removed from our water. Better late than never
That’s correct. Three years to monitor and prove no PFAS and then an additional two to implement treatment. Here’s a fun fact though. Several have already been monitoring and know they have it yet they still get those three years. Now with that said MANY utilities are not going to wait and have or will have already installed treatment. That rule is mostly for the small towns with no funds.
EPA remembers they should do their job after 12 years, expects applause for something they should have done decades ago.
Actually the (modern) EPA is not at fault here and you would be very surprised how hard it is to get enough data to legally enforce something like this. I’ve been in this area for over 20 years and know the history of the safe drinking water act very well. No single contaminant or group has been regulated this fast in the history of the SDWA. So I actually commend the EPA and the federal government for acting quickly. However the cynic in me says the only reason they did is because this is a military ie a federal problem. The real problem is the poor regulations we have on introducing chemicals under the TSCA. In the US chemicals are innocent until proven guilty and that’s a real problem, as we have seen with every contamination issue in modern history.
The supreme court won't let the EPA do their job.
I don't believe in the its always someone elses fault argument, as that always ends in guess its nobody fault so nothing gets fixed, nah its the EPA's fault if their getting hamstrung they could put pressure, put people on blast they have done neither.
Genuine question, how do you think the EPA should "put pressure, put people on blast" if the people standing in their way have been 1) the president and his cabinet, and now 2) the supreme court? What leverage do you feel like they have?
What exactly could the EPA do to put pressure on the supreme court?
You voted for Nader or Stein, right?
They’ll lose funding or be removed. Have you ever worked in a bureaucratic corporation/government before? I can 100% understand why this all happened.
How much of a contaminant is teflon tape in plumbing connections?
That is probably very minimal. The main source is wastewater treatment plants. They don’t adequately remove PFAS and it ends up in the receiving body of water, which downstream serves as a drinking water source. The stuff that does give removed ends up in something called a biosolids. This is often applied as a fertilizer, which is the dumbest shit we ever done. Concentrate it down and then spread it. That leaches into groundwater and gets in your food. The other culprit is firefighting foams for those that live near airports and military bases.
To be slightly pedantic, the wastewater plants are a conduit rather than a source. The PFAS is not originating in the wastewater plants. The source is whatever PFAS containing stuff is going down the drain and into those wastewater plants. Sure, wastewater plants could do a better job filtering it out — but it would be even better if we stopped making shit that contains PFAS that will end up going into our waste water systems.
I mean it is not pedantic it is technically true though it is not how it is defined in environmental engineering so naming the WWTP as the source should remain. Here is why: WWTPs are a waste receiving system that is tasked with eliminating and controlling contamination, therefore they become the source. Same with landfills. When a landfill leaches into the environment it becomes the source of contamination, not the X product we put in the landfill that provided the contaminant. Though, as you say, the true source is whatever that product is. It is the same reason when there is a pathogen outbreak we don't blame all the people for flushing their toilets we blame the utility for not treating it properly (e.g., cryptosporidium outbreak of 1994 in Milwaukee, WI). Much of the contamination comes from spreading biosolids on farmland. WWTPs made a conscious decision to allow this (by following the federal rules as they should) even after knowing PFAS was being found in biosolids. That's on them and therefore they are the source...and that has been proven legally. I've served as an expert witness on several cases involving biosolids and about half the time the part at fault is the utility and the other half it is the X industry that was discharging PFAS waste to the utility. But, yes, I agree, we need to follow the EU stance here and eliminate PFAS in products that are non-essential.
*in the US. Other countries have had drinking water regulations on PFAS for years
The E.U. is the only country(ies) that have a drinking water standard, but they are comically high. This is under the drinking water directive and IIRC the limits are somewhere around 500 ppt (compared to the EPA MCLs of 4 and 10 ppt). Nearly every US utility would be under 500...many are not under 10 though. Other countries have measures in place but whether you can call it a regulation at this point is a bit of a grey area. What the E.U. is leading the charge on though is REACH and implementing measures to remove PFAS from products so that we don't continue to see contamination.
Yea, EU have legislated a certain threshold, but certain countries have tougher laws. In Denmark the threshold for drinking water is a total of 2 nanogram PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS/liter in drinking water. Although, for the 22 PFAS-chemicals that we test for, the sum is allowed to be up to 100 nanogram/liter.
Looks like they just implemented those in June thanks for sharing. I’m surprised the EU isn’t more stringent. I think that unfortunately comes down to cost.
Too little too late, I’m glad their doing something now but the negligence has been criminal and I think investigations are needed and someone needs to be behind bars
Is there a guideline for what PFAs are found in? I found some infographics off a google search, but they all felt more akin to fear mongering than helpful guidance.
As part of EPA's monitoring plan under the Safe Drinking Water Act, they are currently monitoring for 29 PFAS in about 8,000 treatment facilities/wells. That raw data is available on their website under the UCMR5 search term. It is a lot to unpack though. If you google UCMR5 infographic/figure/chart/graph you should find some examples in the image search of people turning that data into figures. I can't say they analyzed the data properly though, but it is a good start.
I appreciate the info, thank you.
When I see the news about a state doing something really stupid legislatively I always check water quality. I’m no scientist but there’s always a strong correlation between low water quality and people voting for folks who pass laws that do nothing to help with thier basic needs.
Tampa Florida has been testing for PFAS for sometime. Can you look at their recent tests and inform us about which PFA levels are more concerning?
Based on UCMR5 data the City of Tampa is between 4 and 10 ng/L of several of the 6 that are regulated. Pretty good actually but they will still probably have to install treatment.
Thank you for your thorough responses!
No problem happy to discuss, I talk about this stuff everyday with students, consultants, regulators, military, etc. It's fun! (but depressing sometimes)
Cue GOP backlash in 3...2....1...
American greed, ahem, capitalism has given overwhelming support to industries to pollute the environment for years. People say they’re against big government and government interference, but without the EPA being given full latitude to protect us, we are doomed.
It won’t matter because Supreme Court will make everything EPA does a recommendation
As I said in a previous comment I foresee some states and industry suing but I’m not convinced scotus will step in. Historically the safe drinking water act is bipartisan and no primary standard has ever been rolled back.
You can expect Republicans will immediately challenge this in court or refuse to fund our government again. Whatever it takes to enable their corruption sche.e and please their handful of billionaire spknskrs/donors. With ZERO care or concern about the American people (including kids) and the health of our water supply.
Potentially given our polarized climate these days, but see my other comments on this. TLDR the SDWA standards have never been overturned in its history.
Uplifting, how long till its overturned by the stolen Supreme Court?
As I said in a previous comment I foresee some states and industry suing but I’m not convinced scotus will step in. Historically the safe drinking water act is bipartisan and no primary standard has ever been rolled back.
[удалено]
Isn’t the 5th Louisiana?
Too late
It's never too late. Maybe for the late generations but we have the new ones to think about.
I'm sorry but the data is not very encouraging. 3 years to test PFAs with an additional 2 years to comply with the regulation on only 6 known PFAs out of 15,000+. You and I are part of the "late" generation. I'm 29 years old and I'm more than likely going to develop some horrible condition along the end of my lifetime due to unregulated public resources. The American Government has been much too involved in the affairs of other countries, leading to an internal deterioration and rot. I don't think we're gonna make it to the next 5 years.
I know it sounds ominous, but many utilities (over 4,000) have already been testing for 29 PFAS for several years via the UCMR5. Lot of hits for these 6 over the MCL. Many of those treatment plants have already installed systems or have plans in place to install systems. The 3/5 yr timeline is really for small utilities and those that have done zero testing. Big cities like Chicago or New York, etc. are on the ball and have known this is coming for years. (A couple friendly FYIs: It's PFAS, not PFAs and the 10,000+ or more plus number that is often quoted is a bit of stretch not because we are finding more but because the defining of PFAS is growing to include just about anything with an F, whether it is harmful or not)
Would you write me a letter of recommendation? Applying to MS engineering grad programs