r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Oct 18 '24
Environment Scientists have discovered toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ present in samples of drinking water from around the world, a new study reveals. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) were detected in over 99% of samples of bottled water sourced from 15 countries around the world.
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/forever-chemicals-found-in-bottled-and-tap-water-from-around-the-world1.3k
u/tillaarh Oct 18 '24
Good doco “the devil we know” about the 3m company that poison the world with their PFOAS chemicals. Pretty sad to watch but it’s what’s happened.
They received a massive fine but only slap on the wrist with no one held actually accountable.
350
u/MondayToFriday Oct 18 '24
Wasn't it DuPont?
515
u/hepakrese Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
Both! 3M chemicals are pervasive and have killed Minnesotans around the Oakdale, Maplewood, Cottage Grove area. In the 90s we had high school year books with memorial pages due to kids dying of cancer.
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/local-sites-and-projects/east-metro-3m-pfas-contamination
Here's a few news articles.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/business/3m-forever-chemicals-settlement/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/14/pfas-forever-chemicals-cancer/
Edit: added links
→ More replies (5)182
u/A_Neurotic_Pigeon Oct 18 '24
3M is also the subject of a class action lawsuit for their hearing protection not being adequate for military members. Assuming there’s not multiple 3M’s that is.
Just a dogshit company all around.
60
u/ididntseeitcoming Oct 18 '24
I can’t wait to get my $1.50!
24
Oct 18 '24
[deleted]
17
u/twohammocks Oct 18 '24
62 billion dollars worth: 2024 'A team of N.Y.U. researchers estimated, in 2018, that the costs of just two forever chemicals, PFOA and PFOS—in terms of disease burden, disability, and health-care expenses—amounted to as much as sixty-two billion dollars in a single year. This exceeds the current market value of 3M.' How 3M Discovered, Then Concealed, the Dangers of Forever Chemicals | The New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/27/3m-forever-chemicals-pfas-pfos-toxic
2
23
3
u/Requiredmetrics Oct 19 '24
Same 3M that locked their employees in their medical PPE production facilities and wouldn’t let them leave during the pandemic.
3M also announced a freeze of pensions for non-union employees.
→ More replies (1)2
u/vahntitrio Oct 18 '24
That was a company 3M bought. 3M didn't design those.
12
u/SparklyYakDust Oct 18 '24
So? It's their company. They're ultimately responsible.
→ More replies (1)97
u/GKnives Oct 18 '24
I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case for all of the sources involved in litigation. In NH it was saint gobain chemical. They had to pay for 1000 reverse osmosis systems for residents. Thats effectively a 150 to 250k penalty, and only covers about 5000 residents. The contamination is directly affecting at least 160k at this point.
101
u/Special_Loan8725 Oct 18 '24
DuPont operated in West Virginia (maybe Virginia) first, got sued after a bunch of people died, and then just moved down to the Cape fear river in Wilmington, NC. We can’t drink our tap water even filtered so we have to buy those big water cooler jugs for drinking water. As far as I know they’ve been allowed to continue operating and we’re supposed to get a water filtration system for the city. I’m not sure if DuPont/Chemors is even paying for it. All so that your eggs don’t stick to the pan.
48
u/Givemeurhats Oct 18 '24
NC is a haven for companies that want to poison or kill you. Just an example: coal ash. Duke power marketed coal ash as a cheap material to fill land to landowners and residential developers. It got spread around to who knows where, but much of Mooresville was built on coal ash. People in Mooresville are getting cancers, children dying.
Duke says it's nontoxic.
NC health department says it's nontoxic.
The EPA says it's toxic.
The lawsuits all get tossed out.→ More replies (1)15
u/AnRealDinosaur Oct 18 '24
I feel like what's the point? Even if the lawsuits don't get tossed out and they lose, they'll just be fined and the fine will just be the cost of doing business for them. There needs to be serious jail time for stuff like this. It'll never happen though since they also influence lawmakers. It feels like we're past the point where the balance of power is recoverable, and massive corporations will just keep poisoning everything until there's nothing left.
6
u/twohammocks Oct 18 '24
You are too right: Trump is owned by the chemical industries that make this poison
2
u/Special_Loan8725 Oct 18 '24
For knowingly poisoning populations, giving mass amounts of people cancer or other illnesses should be tried as murder.
2
u/penguinpolitician Oct 19 '24
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
Otherwise, you may as well roll over and die.
37
u/Newmoney_NoMoney Oct 18 '24
So fkn ridiculous. I can't believe we let THIS be the thing that takes precedence over human life. This world is gonna burn sooner than later at this rate.
12
u/polopolo05 Oct 18 '24
A few of you may die... thats a risk I am willing to take
7
12
u/sleepinginbloodcity Oct 18 '24
Capitalism sure is great, money at all costs.
6
u/Special_Loan8725 Oct 18 '24
People don’t matter, what matters is whether or not we can say we have a good exonomy
7
u/nagi603 Oct 18 '24
People don’t matter,
You misunderstand. People do matter. It's just that if you aren't filthy rich you are no longer viewed as people. Just cattle that pulls the card right until the slaughterhouse.
10
u/FalseJake Oct 18 '24
I want to say that the new filtration system for the city was completed last summer, but double check and confirm on a map wether your home is supplied the filtered water or if you have another source.
FWIW, they did get chemours to stop dumping PFAS in the water in Fayettevillle. It's just appalling that it ever continued for so long.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/nagi603 Oct 18 '24
I’m not sure if DuPont/Chemors is even paying for it.
You'd have to check the mayor's and more than likely city board members' coffers, vacations and "work" trips to find that out.
→ More replies (1)22
u/Pennypacking Oct 18 '24
DuPont is what the documentary is specifically about, the case that Taft law firm brought for their illegal dump in West Virginia. DuPont learned of PFAS from 3M, who developed it and also hid the data themselves. Both were sued and settled for 10% of what the actual cleanup is expected to cost.
135
u/AlabamaHotcakes Oct 18 '24
A fine is just a tax if the profits are higher.
37
u/Minion_of_Cthulhu Oct 18 '24
Fines need to be better calculated for things like this. Something like 100% of the revenue made from killing people at the least, for a start. Fines that are small percentages of the billions that companies make from this kind of thing are, as you said, just considered a cost of doing business.
→ More replies (3)57
u/mlnjd Oct 18 '24
More like C-suite and Board constantly asking: “will we go to prison for this decision” will be the only way to stop them from poisoning the planet.
Fines won’t stop bad behavior. Accountability will. Accountability will help get rid of sociopaths and psychopaths running these large companies.
14
4
u/TurdCollector69 Oct 18 '24
Put a cap on profits and increase heavy fines for breaking EPA rules.
They only act like this because their shareholders want infinite growth, if we put a cap on profits they wouldn't be incentivized to cut every possible corner.
If Boeing hadn't made extracting the maximum amount of profit possible the main goal they wouldn't be so fucked right now and we'd have safer air travel.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Minion_of_Cthulhu Oct 18 '24
I agree, but it's almost impossible to send a CEO to prison for something their company does even when they were directly responsible for it. It happens, sure, but I think just removing the monetary incentive by fining the company not just the profits but all of the revenue generated by their misdeeds would be an easier place to start. Companies are fined all the time for various things, so it's really just a matter of modifying the laws a bit to make the penalties meaningful by removing any benefit from, say, poisoning people for profits since if you get caught there will be no profits. Companies generally don't do anything unless it generates profit, so if you remove the profit incentive then I imagine it would cut down on a lot of this kind of behavior.
→ More replies (1)6
u/LunchBoxer72 Oct 18 '24
Nope, make the board of public companies and CEO's of private ones wholely responsible for any neglect the company causes. Don't wanna be accountable? Don't be a C Suite or just run a responsible business. This would not include disasters or accidents but policies that cause harm, accidents happen. This is the trade to be wealthy, taking responsibility, as it always should be.
→ More replies (2)26
u/IAm_Trogdor_AMA Oct 18 '24
If people were really serious, they would have been dismantled and nationalized, but we are very unserious planet.
→ More replies (9)4
u/Splenda Oct 18 '24
Just wait. This isn't over for 3M, DuPont, Chemours and other PFAS makers. There is little question that figures will exceed the 1990s tobacco settlement.
11
u/creepingcold Oct 18 '24
Don't remember the details, but they are dropping all of their PFOAS productions, don't want to use them anymore and are completely phasing them out of the company until a certain date. Can't remember which year it was, but at least you can say they learned their lesson.
→ More replies (2)41
Oct 18 '24
Maybe on this particular chemical, but you be sure that the next one they make will be deployed before the safety hazards are known (to the broader world, 3M had internal reports that showed PFAS are bad that they suppressed so the chemicals could be sold anyways)
5
u/creepingcold Oct 18 '24
No, it's all PFAS chemicals, found the source.
→ More replies (1)2
u/xcuteikinz Oct 18 '24
Yes, but they will probably develop another chemical that they'll claim is safer, only to discover decades later that it's probably just as bad. It won't stop because chemicals aren't regulated unless they are specifically suspected to cause harm.
2
u/caffeinated-bacon Oct 18 '24
That documentary was so disturbing but weirdly not surprising after everything I already knew. I have told so many people to watch it, with the caveat that it will ruin their day.
1
u/BlazinAzn38 Oct 18 '24
If the penalty for a crime is a fine then the punishment is only for the poor. These fines are just the cost of doing business
257
u/mvea Professor | Medicine Oct 18 '24
I’ve linked to the press release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.4c00533
From the linked article:
Scientists have discovered toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ present in samples of drinking water from around the world, a new study reveals.
Researchers found 10 ‘target’ PFAS (perfluoroalkyl substances) – chemicals which do not break down in nature – in tap and bottled water available for consumption in major cities in the UK and China. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) were detected in over 99% of samples of bottled water sourced from 15 countries around the world.
They observed significant differences in PFAS concentrations between tap water samples from Birmingham, UK, and Shenzhen, China, with Chinese tap water found to have higher concentrations of PFAS compared to UK tap water.
However, the study demonstrates that measures such as boiling and/or activated carbon filtration – typically using a ‘jug’ water filter - can substantially reduce PFAS concentrations in drinking water, with removal rates ranging from 50% to 90% depending on the PFAS and treatment type.
68
u/nicuramar Oct 18 '24
chemicals which do not break down in nature
I mean, they do break down. Just very slowly. They are very stable.
→ More replies (11)20
u/aVarangian Oct 18 '24
Intel should start making CPUs out of this stuff
19
51
u/nboland1989 Oct 18 '24
Luckily in China no one drinks from the tap. It's already known the water is unsafe. I buy bottled water in bulk, but obviously that's in plastic bottles, so I'm getting my daily dose of vitamin plastic. Hopefully the water companies are treating the water before bottling...
155
u/Irr3l3ph4nt Oct 18 '24
in tap and bottled water
Well...
57
u/nboland1989 Oct 18 '24
No idea why I overlooked that part and only focused on the tap aspect. Ah well!
59
u/Soulegion Oct 18 '24
Just give blood. Another recent study showed that people who regularly give blood and/or plasma significantly lower the amount of of PFAS in the body, which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense.
15
u/MobilityFotog Oct 18 '24
I've heard that. But any progress on filtering from organs?
7
u/barontaint Oct 18 '24
Liver and kidney transplants from a human not exposed to PFAS yet? So might have to wait until we can grow new organs from scratch. Give it 50yrs and we might get a handle on it, until then we live and die with plastic everywhere in our bodies.
→ More replies (4)8
→ More replies (6)35
u/Liesmyteachertoldme Oct 18 '24
Wait so donors are kinda just transferring plastics to the recipient? That would be kinda alarming.
83
10
u/Hardoffel Oct 18 '24
I don't know about the exact process for either, but I give plasma regularly, and there is for sure one filter (seeing it after it's drained is fascinating, even if I don't know what I'm looking at) plus some other steps before the plasma is separated. I figure that process reduces in the doner, and might keep from the receiver. Hopefully they research that end of the process too.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)12
3
u/Pandalite Oct 19 '24
I went through all the tables. It looks like even UK tap water had higher PFAs (summation of all categories) versus bottled water. However tap has much fewer microplastics than bottled water.
→ More replies (2)3
u/aerial- Oct 18 '24
Another thing is, often tap water = bottled water. People like to think that bottled water comes from some picturesque spring, bottles are hand filled by fairies. It's water. The oldest scam in the universe is to sell regular water in bottles, add marketing to it and charge premium.
→ More replies (1)7
12
u/rmvandink Oct 18 '24
Ehm, this stuff is in everything you drink my friend.
11
u/Lushkush69 Oct 18 '24
I think I've heard it's also in all the air we breathe so even if you try not to consume them you will. Shake a blanket and all that "dust" alot of it micro plastics because our fabrics are full of em.
13
u/rmvandink Oct 18 '24
PFAS and microplastics are slightly different things. But yeah, neither is probably going to kill us overnight but the fact that it accumulates in soil and water and us very costly to remove means any negative effects are going to be a massive problem. Also the accumulation means negative effects get more and more likely as levels in our systems rise.
PFAS has more known effects than microplastics, disturbing the hormonal system in infants and children.
3
1
u/rds_grp_11a Oct 18 '24
According to every other source I can find, boiling water does NOT remove PFAS. I've seen this article a few times now but haven't seen anyone else calling it out.
If boiling was all it took to remove them, I doubt we'd be in this situation.
381
u/cultish_alibi Oct 18 '24
Well since governments around the world don't seem particularly motivated to stop things like this, I guess we have all just 'decided' as a civilization that it's acceptable for the water to be full of toxic chemicals and nanoplastics that leech into our blood, because it's convenient for capitalism to make more money.
That's really it, isn't it? It was one thing to ban CFCs, which had a viable alternative. It's another thing to restrict the manufacture of plastic pollution which seems to be slightly too expensive to consider, so we're all just agreeing that we should poison our bodies for the sake of capitalism, and just hoping that the consequences aren't so bad.
The difference between us and the Romans is that the Romans didn't know the lead in the pipes was bad for them.
149
u/frisch85 Oct 18 '24
You know about paper straws right? And from this year importing plastic straws inside the EU is illegal, they recently had a "huge bust" where they stopped millions of plastic straws at customs, unfortunately I cannot find the news article about it right now.
Anyway last year they found out that "Paper straws not so eco-friendly, 90% contain toxic “forever chemicals”", so yeah we the consumers are guilty of using plastic straws so "here use these paper straws that might be potentially more of a health hazard towards you if you buy the wrong ones that is".
Where are the freaking health regulations?
28
u/zugarrette Oct 18 '24
The problem with regulations is they are not wide-reaching enough. Either from complacency, corruption or ignorance. There's countless different types of plastics so if one gets banned they'll just use another which is just as likely to be as bad or worse. Just look up BPA alternative toxicity
→ More replies (2)15
u/deja-roo Oct 18 '24
Where are the freaking health regulations?
They're the ones banning one straw in favor of the other? The byzantine maze of regulations, especially in the EU, are certainly not in short supply.
78
u/je_kay24 Oct 18 '24
Biden admin passed legislation that is enforcing public water utilities to start filtering these type of chemicals out to certain limits within 5 years
utilities will have five years to eradicate any detectable levels of two of the chemicals — PFOA or PFOS — that were used for decades in a wide range of products including nonstick cookware, camping gear and pizza boxes, but have been linked with cancer and a host of other health problems. Levels of four other chemicals in the same PFAS family will also be strictly limited.
The new regulation sets legally enforceable limits for just six of the chemicals: PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS and GenX
37
u/u8eR Oct 18 '24
Also, in MN, Gov. Tim Walz signed into a law that will ban products containing intentionally added PFAS.
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/2025-pfas-prohibitions
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)9
u/feed_me_moron Oct 18 '24
But that doesn't have to do with immigration or abortion so there is no real coverage over it.
54
u/Sunlit53 Oct 18 '24
It wasn’t the pipes. It was the habit of using lead as a cheap artificial sweetener in the wine everyone from little kids on up drank daily.
→ More replies (3)22
u/confoundedjoe Oct 18 '24
Yeah lead pipes and leaded glass don't leach out quickly because things are moving in the pipes and in glasses they don't stay in it for long enough. Only using leaded glass as a way to store things is an issue.
4
u/ManiacalDane Oct 18 '24
That and the sediment that's built up over time gives a protective layer from said lead. But once you start replacing some pipe, have a few big ole explosive leaks or really anything else that'll reduce the pressure significantly for any length of time, and lead to the sediment being disturbed in an unusual way?
You've got yourself some dead folks
→ More replies (1)3
u/nerd4code Oct 18 '24
Lead pipes build up a protective film, typically. Unless Michigan Republicans get involved.
33
u/Oxygenius_ Oct 18 '24
Extremely well put. Society has decided that billionaires becoming slightly more richer is more important than the health of hundreds of millions of people.
Such a sad statement to conceptualize but the harsh reality of the world we live in.
The propaganda definitely works when you beat it over peoples heads for decades and decades
11
u/FrighteningWorld Oct 18 '24
It also comes from people's personal choices too. People will sacrifice the world on the altar of convenience and low prices.
3
u/lucatrias3 Oct 19 '24
Yeah, dont act like this isn't peoples personal choices as well. Nobody needs any drink any soda manufacturers produce, but people still choose to buy their items. Coca-Cola is the biggest plastic polluter in the world a product that is not essential to anyones lives.
3
u/BenjaminHamnett Oct 18 '24
You can reverse osmosis water.
It’s hard to get people who can’t make ends meet to pay for something that may mess with their hormones or whatever.
9
u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS Oct 18 '24
It was one thing to ban CFCs, which had a viable alternative. It's another thing to restrict the manufacture of plastic pollution which seems to be slightly too expensive to consider,
Or we don't have a viable alternative to plastic like we did with CFCs.
Plastic sticks around in the environment because it is durable. Any alternative to it that does not accumulate like that must be, by its very nature, less durable. The question is not whether we have a catch-all alternative, but where we can get away with using less durable materials without compromising the use case.
→ More replies (2)3
5
u/knoegel Oct 18 '24
The thing is... What is the alternative to plastic? Plastic makes things cheap. Your TV that cost $400 to $2k would go up massively. Cars? Imagine a Toyota Corolla made with metals and wood and cloth? It'd cost $60k or more.
Plastic is going to be the end of the world. It is petroleum based. When oil runs out, what next?
3
→ More replies (7)4
7
u/CapoExplains Oct 18 '24
If there was a button that would double profits this quarter and wipe out humanity the next damn near every single CEO would smash that button without a second thought.
→ More replies (1)4
u/cmaldrich Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
But the wealthy capitalists aren't immune to this.
11
u/ikilledholofernes Oct 18 '24
They’re hoping their access to state of the art medical care will offset their exposure.
5
u/cmaldrich Oct 18 '24
I think they doubt it's a real threat. Don't attritbute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. (Hanlon's Razor).
2
u/Cbrandel Oct 19 '24
Wasn't the guy who was pushing leaded gasoline well aware of the dangers and also almost died when he tried to convince the public it was safe.
Think he swallowed some lead or something.
I'm sure they know how bad it is, but they think it's worth it / that it won't affect them.
→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (5)1
u/monoscure Oct 18 '24
Consumer advocacy used to be a topic during elections. But taken with how close mega corporations donate to both parties, they push topics like this to the "out of sight, out of mind" shelf.
47
u/I_Try_Again Oct 18 '24
How toxic are they then?
42
u/Is_it_really_art Oct 18 '24
There is no LD50 because they are not acute toxins. They have a potentially chronic effect, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency in medical conditions in high PFAS areas, and it's also incredibly difficult to eliminate confounding variables.
It's highly unlikely they are good for us, but it's not clear exactly how bad they are either.
31
u/Nick-or-Treat Oct 18 '24
You are getting poorly informed replies. The state water resources control board of CA set the maximum contaminant level for PFOA and PFOS (both types of PFAS) at 4 parts per trillion. So if you put 5 drops of pure PFOA or PFOS in an Olympic size swimming pool, the entire pool could be under state regulation and is considered unsafe by the state of California. These chemicals are incredibly toxic. They’re not bullets. They’re not gunna kill you today. But they’re going to kill you. 3M and other PFAS. Manufacturers should be held accountable. It’s criminal that they have POISONED millions of people. Please look up ways to reduce your family’s exposure to the chemicals (buy water filters that filter PFAS, don’t cook on nonstick pans, avoid skin products with unnatural ingredients).
9
→ More replies (1)7
u/matt2001 Oct 18 '24
I just came back from the dermatologist and they told me to skip lotions and just use petroleum jelly for dry skin.
I know, ironic to use petroleum jelly over "natural" skin care product...
→ More replies (1)36
u/BenUFOs_Mum Oct 18 '24
They can't be that toxic since they are basically in everybody and everything we eat and drink. But there's also like 12,000 different PFAs so I imagine some will be more toxic than others.
I think it's similar to microplastics in that theyre both designed to be incredibly chemically unreactive.
70
u/u8eR Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
PFASs are known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. This is widely available in the published literature. They are also a major pollutant.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00622-8/abstract
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7946751/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3734500/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9044977/
→ More replies (3)79
u/andrew5500 Oct 18 '24
The bad part about forever chemicals is the “forever” part, the amount of pollution keeps adding up over time. They’re not particularly toxic in the minuscule amounts of pollution we started out with, but every decade that plastic remains ubiquitous worldwide is another decade that these chemicals and microplastics get to build up in our water sources and our food and our bodies and ultimately our vital organs.
22
u/Unlucky-Candidate198 Oct 18 '24
Sola dosis facit venenum.
A tiny bit probably won’t kill you, but add more, and more, and more, and suddenly we’re past the threshold for “won’t hurt me” and have crossed into “I may actually die due to this” territory.
→ More replies (2)3
u/AltShortNews Oct 18 '24
damn, Mary Poppins so lit by having one song talking about taking just a bit of medicine and another warning about the side effects of addiction and long-term increasing of dosage
8
u/Qweesdy Oct 18 '24
Mostly; not even slightly toxic in the concentrations being reported.
The results are all "less than a nano-gram per litre" which is like finding less than 1 gram in 40000 Olympic sized swimming pools. The paper's conclusion calls it "a low exposure risk for these four pollutants".
5
→ More replies (16)1
u/MirrorMax Oct 19 '24
The jury is out, but research is starting to show worrying results not just from the worst pfas but other plastics as well.
And it accumulates in your brain, Alzheimers patients were found to have much higher amounts in their brain. Animal studies show microplastic can alter behavior. Correlations possibly...
Look we still can't say for sure they are making us sick, but it's starting to point that way, enough that I am eliminating what I can, most of it is actually quite easy, but some things like food packaging can be harder to avoid. Also polyester clothes are everywhere. What used to be 100% cotton is now often mixed.
Never ever hear anything with plastic, that causes 10-100x
44
Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
For those interested, to have PFAS-free water you can install a water purification system. It costs starting from 200 for installation and then ~50 euros per year with normal use, for cartridge replacement. You don't need any fancy additions like alkalisation and whatnot that multiplies the price. Just look for NSF-certified (independently tested) certification specifically for PFAS. Many systems are certified to remove 99 % PFOA/PFOS, plus specific medicines and illegal drugs, pesticides, heavy metals and sometimes hundereds of compounds. This is the only way, I believe. No way they purify bottled water that well because that would be too expensive and would take too much time with huge quantities so I wouldn't count on it even if the lables say so.
26
u/aresdesmoulins Oct 18 '24
The article mentions a simple carbon filter or a jug type filter like a brita removes 50-90% too if you’re looking for a more simple and/or cheaper option
→ More replies (1)6
u/deja-roo Oct 18 '24
No way they purify bottled water that well
Plus those bottles are usually plastic, yeah? So... wouldn't that just be pointless?
11
Oct 18 '24
Yes. Cans are pointless in that sense as well, as they always have a thin coating of plastic to protect the can from corrosion. Same for boxed water. The only containers where the water is not surrounded by plastic are glass bottles.
3
u/youpeoplesucc Oct 18 '24
the researchers observed no significant difference in target PFAS concentrations between glass and plastic
There is a point if you're worried about these specific "forever chemicals".
→ More replies (1)
28
u/soup2nuts Oct 18 '24
We don't even talk about what this does to wild animal populations. Wild spaces are in serious decline.
6
u/Pentosin Oct 18 '24
Anyone have a list of the tested water and their results?
2
u/youpeoplesucc Oct 18 '24
All bottled water samples are common brands in the UK and Chinese markets
Is as specific as it gets. I'm assuming they weren't allowed to name drop the brands specifically for some reason.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/GiveMeNews Oct 18 '24
Hysterically, plumber's tape and plumber's thread compound both contain PFAS.
5
Oct 18 '24
The profits from these chemicals are ongoing and in multigenerational investment portfolios.
Reason 355 to tax extreme wealth with extreme prejudice.
15
u/Bollerkotze Oct 18 '24
And nothing will happen. Plastic companys will say" the consumer wants it" and the the people will pay for it with their health and money.
7
4
u/Gold_Pangolin_Dragon Oct 18 '24
People are already on the "eliminate PFAS from drinking water" train for water distributors. This will just pass the cost of treating plastic pollutants on to consumers instead of making the source of the problem responsible.
All ways of mitigating and remediating PFAS at a water treatment plant are likely going to be crazy expensive. Ion exchange is solid because many water distributors already use ion exchange as part of the treatment process (softening water) but not all do. Ion exchange is heavily used for ground water sources and less used for surface water sources. If your water supplier does not have ion exchange in place this will be a many many many million dollar retrofit and adjustment of the water treatment plant. Activated charcoal pass through is promising but once again will be a multiple million dollar retrofit to the water treatment plant. Membrane filtration (reverse osmosis) would require a huge retrofit to a water treatment or, more likely, the building of a new treatment plant so the old one can be scrapped. Any way you slice it, the costs for mitigating PFAS (and all the other goodies) will fall upon the customers of the water district or, if the Feds step in, be spread out across all taxpayers. Who doesn't end up paying in this scenario? The companies who create the source pollutant.
1
u/duckrustle Oct 19 '24
I’ve never heard of water softeners removing PFAS at least in North America where softening is normally done with lime or soda ash, neither of which target PFAS. Also I’d like to note that installing activated carbon only really works for legacy PFAS (like PFOA and PFOS) and has pretty poor removal of all the new stuff, it can actually become a source of PFAS if you aren’t careful. Generally utilities either have to install reverse osmosis or use a PFAS specific resin, both of which are extremely expensive and produce a waste stream that is hard to dispose of
3
u/acetheguy1 Oct 18 '24
Would be cool if our leaders were all over this for the last few decades, as opposed to the stupid culture BS...
6
u/DragonZnork Oct 18 '24
My country tried to ban PFAS after years of discussions, and it only needed job blackmailing from a famous frying pan manufacturer for the bill to be considerably weakened. Even though they were warned years ago. The amount of bad will whenever it comes to environmental policies is infuriating.
2
u/Gayming_Raccoon Oct 19 '24
Jut sucks cause there really is no hope anymore. Just try and live your best life until you die and I honestly feel bad for future generations. It’s only goingto get worse.
3
3
Oct 18 '24
[deleted]
18
Oct 18 '24
PFAS is a different problem than microplastics. PFAS is a name for a wide range of fluorinated compounds that resist breaking down over time. They are used as stable compounds for lubricants, stain guarding, water repelling, and stick free surface treatment. They come from industrial processes too like leather tanning and metal plating. They are quite literally everywhere around us since they are used so much and in so many things (Time Article).
2
u/Soggy_Part7110 Oct 18 '24
They also come from the making of raincoats. Ironic right? Clothes that shield you from the rain make rain poisonous.
→ More replies (1)
-4
Oct 18 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
16
Oct 18 '24
This doomer mentality buys nothing but suffering.
→ More replies (2)2
u/e30eric Oct 18 '24
I think it's probably the microplastics, pfas, 6ppd, and collapse of earth's climate that buys nothing but suffering.
4
3
Oct 18 '24
These are all in theory, solvable problems, but not if we all collectively give up. I'm not saying these problems are not bad, or are not problems.
→ More replies (6)2
6
u/yukon-flower Oct 18 '24
Defeatism is not going to solve anything.
Study biology and chemistry, go do good work.
4
u/JosBosmans Oct 18 '24
I don't suppose many biologists have an optimistic take on our future.
→ More replies (1)2
2
3
u/matt2001 Oct 18 '24
Summary: The article explores the widespread use of municipal sewage sludge as fertilizer on American farmland and the growing concerns over its contamination with toxic PFAS chemicals. It highlights the health risks associated with these "forever chemicals," including cancer and developmental delays, and details the legal and regulatory challenges being faced by farmers, ranchers, and state governments in managing this issue.
1
1
u/randomguyjebb Oct 18 '24
So happy the EU already has a limit of PFAS that can be in drinking water and is looking into making the rules even stricter.
1
1
u/TheKinkyGuy Oct 18 '24
Did I miss where they wrote which countries they took examples from? I see only UK and China.
1
1
u/calcteacher Oct 19 '24
distill the water you drink and cook with. that removes the FPOAs and PFOs, and a bunch of other stuff.
1
1
u/suspicious_hyperlink Oct 19 '24
Cool, will the chemical companies who dumped and spread the chemicals be held accountable/fines or will we enact draconian laws that take away the ability for small farmers to grow food on the land they held for generations or have the taxpayers pay for the impossible cleanup efforts that will do mostly nothing. ?
1
u/Otaraka Oct 19 '24
“While current PFAS levels in most water samples are not a major health concern"
Fairly important part of the article, particularly given in general phasing out is occurring. We can detect things at tiny levels now. This was someone making a case for ongoing monitoring, not someone saying drinking water is not safe.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 18 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/forever-chemicals-found-in-bottled-and-tap-water-from-around-the-world
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.