Summary (the first few paragraphs) TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Drinking water from nearly half of U.S. faucets likely contains “forever chemicals” that may cause cancer and other health problems,...
Summary (the first few paragraphs)
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Drinking water from nearly half of U.S. faucets likely contains “forever chemicals” that may cause cancer and other health problems, according to a government study released Wednesday.
The synthetic compounds known collectively as PFAS are contaminating drinking water to varying extents in large cities and small towns — and in private wells and public systems, the U.S. Geological Survey said.
Researchers described the study as the first nationwide effort to test for PFAS in tap water from private sources in addition to regulated ones. It builds on previous scientific findings that the chemicals are widespread, showing up in consumer products as diverse as nonstick pans, food packaging and water-resistant clothing and making their way into water supplies.
From the USGS writeup: If you want more detail than that then you'll have to dig into the study linked above and the supplementary data but that gets quite technical. Edit: You can find a table of...
From the USGS writeup:
The study tested for 32 individual PFAS compounds using a method developed by the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory. The most frequently detected compounds in this study were PFBS, PFHxS and PFOA. The interim health advisories released by the EPA in 2022 for PFOS and PFOA were exceeded in every sample in which they were detected in this study.
If you want more detail than that then you'll have to dig into the study linked above and the supplementary data but that gets quite technical.
Edit: You can find a table of the compounds analyzed on pg. 18 of the supplementary data PDF and the concentrations they found on pg. 27. The data reference for each region is linked on pg. 16.
The short answer is that PFAS type chemicals are the word for "stuff that broke off or degraded down from plastics" and is much less a single chemical than an entire class of them. Most tests that...
The short answer is that PFAS type chemicals are the word for "stuff that broke off or degraded down from plastics" and is much less a single chemical than an entire class of them.
Most tests that detect PFAS are excruciatingly sensitive but don't distinguish between any of the types, when they detect at the PPT level for these things they're really just detecting for fluorination.
It's definitely worth concern but don't fall for the doomsday hype - this is just the degradation of plastics, nothing insidious.
It seems that it's basically the opposite in this case. They are detecting a specific set of compounds and ignoring unknown ones. The detection methods used (MS/MS and QToF/MS) are extremely...
Most tests that detect PFAS are excruciatingly sensitive but don't distinguish between any of the types, when they detect at the PPT level for these things they're really just detecting for fluorination.
It seems that it's basically the opposite in this case. They are detecting a specific set of compounds and ignoring unknown ones. The detection methods used (MS/MS and QToF/MS) are extremely selective for specific compounds.
Quote from the article:
Scientists tested for 32 PFAS compounds — most of the ones detectable through available methods. Thousands of others are believed to exist but can’t be spotted with current technology, Smalling said.
Oh dang! You're absolutely correct, it looks like all the labs they sent it to for testing used LC/MS for their samples and that's pretty good isolation. Well I stand very corrected on that.
Oh dang! You're absolutely correct, it looks like all the labs they sent it to for testing used LC/MS for their samples and that's pretty good isolation.
Okay, that’s kind of what I was suspecting. Between this post and another one I saw the other day where people convinced themselves that gas stoves were going to poison them, it just made me...
Okay, that’s kind of what I was suspecting.
Between this post and another one I saw the other day where people convinced themselves that gas stoves were going to poison them, it just made me pretty sceptical of any sort of “doomsday” style posting on here.
It’s especially suspicious when they try and compare two things, but without any real details.
Like the gas example from the other day where the article said natural gas cooking produces the same by product as smoking: benzene.
But it didn’t actually give any additional info, like how much benzene natural gas produces vs smoking, nor the other actual harmful things from smoking.
It just wanted people to assume cooking with natural gas was as dangerous as smoking a cigarette, so it was vague on the details to help confuse the issue for people.
This article feels kind of similar to that, as it doesn’t seem to give us more exact details or measurements to define just how bad these PFAS actually are in drinking water. Seems more like “cigarettes are bad, and we detected a chemical found in cigarettes in your water supply!!” Sort of shenanigans.
Well, you’re actually talking to someone who fixes appliances in the house for a living. So I actually have quite a bit of insight on this exact subject. It all comes down to infrastructure and...
Exemplary
Well, you’re actually talking to someone who fixes appliances in the house for a living. So I actually have quite a bit of insight on this exact subject.
It all comes down to infrastructure and venting for gas. If you live in a place in the world where your house is heated with natural gas, and you can easily install a vent that vents outside gas cooking is just fine and in some cases is actually even better.
If where you’re living, doesn’t have natural gas heating or if you have to install a way to vented out of your house or apartment and there’s not really any way to get a good vent going. Natural gas cooking is bad.
A good vent will actually take up almost everything that is produced from gas cooking.
Electric versus gas when it comes to heating up things are an actually not that different. Gas will heat up 2 L of water in about 10 to 15 minutes electrical heat up water in about 9 to 14 minutes depending on elevation.
Induction gets a hand up because it can heat up water in about 3 to 5 minutes. However, there’s no regulators out there telling people what pots are induction safe so people will buy pots from stores that claim to be induction safe but don’t use the proper magnetic metals throughout the entire pot And this results in incredibly expensive repairs that need to be done every 2 to 3 years. If your pot isn’t made entirely out of magnetic metal, then your induction cooktop will burn itself out in 2 to 3 years and most pots that say they’re induction safe don’t use the correct metals.
And ultimately at the end of the day, it comes down to cost of repairs. A simple gas cooktop that just has a clock on the front will probably have to be repaired every 20 to 30 years, because the physical parts will start to fail.
An electric cooktop or induction will average about 4 to 7 years. And the parts that will need replacing are going to be significantly more expensive than a gas cooktop.
So if you’re living somewhere that you can get a gas cooktop installed and you have adequate venting to your house then you’ll be just fine.
For everyone else, you’ll just have to stick with electric, which is also fine option. But your repair bill will be much higher and come much more often.
Sorry, the previous poster was incorrect. We know exactly which compounds were found in the water and what their concentrations were. What we do not have that much data on is what kinds of health...
Sorry, the previous poster was incorrect. We know exactly which compounds were found in the water and what their concentrations were. What we do not have that much data on is what kinds of health impacts they have. So, it's really too soon to say how these compounds will affect us on a public health scale. All we can say for sure is that their durability and pervasiveness warrants further study.
Here is a quote from the article listing several specific compounds they found:
Scientists tested for 32 PFAS compounds — most of the ones detectable through available methods. Thousands of others are believed to exist but can’t be spotted with current technology, Smalling said.
The types found most often were PFBS, PFHxS and PFOA. Also making frequent appearances was PFOS, one of the most common nationwide.
Positive samples contained as many as nine varieties, although most were closer to two. The median concentration was around seven parts per trillion for all 32 PFAS types, although for PFOA and PFOS it was about four parts per trillion — the limit EPA has proposed for those two compounds.
Looks like two of the compounds were detected at the proposed EPA limit, but I don't think there's that much data on what a permissible exposure of these compounds should be.
Yep. Normally I try to be generous and assume the hysteria is to gather clicks, but these last few articles have been so vague and so misleading I can't see it as anything other than intentional.
Yep. Normally I try to be generous and assume the hysteria is to gather clicks, but these last few articles have been so vague and so misleading I can't see it as anything other than intentional.
1-3 detections over a five year period doesn't sound like a lot but man, the northeast is looking rough. Maybe time to spend some of the federal emergency budget on their plumbing instead of just...
1-3 detections over a five year period doesn't sound like a lot but man, the northeast is looking rough.
Maybe time to spend some of the federal emergency budget on their plumbing instead of just pumping it into tornado alley every year?
Time to replace my granular activated carbon filter I guess... Living in LA and drinking tons of tap water, this has me mildly concerned. I wish the study gave their sampling locations and...
Time to replace my granular activated carbon filter I guess...
Living in LA and drinking tons of tap water, this has me mildly concerned. I wish the study gave their sampling locations and concentrations.. it's probably in the references somewhere.
Can't be bothered. Just gonna replace my filter lol.
As a polymer chemist, I'm not concerned. Here's why: It's everywhere. It's in everything. These PFAS type chemicals seem to be the natural breakdown products of fluorinated and halogenated...
As a polymer chemist, I'm not concerned. Here's why:
It's everywhere. It's in everything. These PFAS type chemicals seem to be the natural breakdown products of fluorinated and halogenated polymers, which we as humanity have made A METRIC FUCK TON OF THEM in the last couple decades.
Either we're all screwed, or it's no big deal. In either case you won't get out of it with just a simple water filter, this is a total ecosystem contaminant. It's in everything from wheat to tuna fish, you could go live with the Amish and you'd still be getting it in your diet.
I don't understand comments like these. It's like saying "lead is in everything" if somebody complains about a lead-contaminated water source. I don't know enough about whether this class of...
I don't understand comments like these. It's like saying "lead is in everything" if somebody complains about a lead-contaminated water source.
I don't know enough about whether this class of chemicals is dangerous and how much, but something tells me the amounts you consume will play a role.
People have a hard time understanding concentrations, and we've gotten REALLY good at detecting things. Your wine contains about 100-200 PPM of lead in it. This sounds scary, but at that...
People have a hard time understanding concentrations, and we've gotten REALLY good at detecting things.
Your wine contains about 100-200 PPM of lead in it. This sounds scary, but at that concentration you could drink an entire 750ml bottle every single day and after sixteen years you'd be close to a single gram of lead ingested.
That's what's got me feeling pretty helpless about the whole thing. You can't really get a good filter that isn't at least housed in plastic. I had the water tested when I first moved into this...
That's what's got me feeling pretty helpless about the whole thing. You can't really get a good filter that isn't at least housed in plastic.
I had the water tested when I first moved into this house. They said it was fine but it doesn't taste good, so I use a filter. Maybe I'm making an equal trade, maybe not.
Yeah I read a paper which indicated that activated carbon will only adsorb a select few of them anyway, and there are many many PFAS molecules, many of which haven't even been studied. It does...
Yeah I read a paper which indicated that activated carbon will only adsorb a select few of them anyway, and there are many many PFAS molecules, many of which haven't even been studied.
It does feel like fear mongering a little, and it probably isn't worth the money for the filter. I just drink a lot of tap water lol.. They got me for a second, but I still haven't bought a filter.
There isn’t a specific list of locations, but I found this in the original study that @MangoTiger linked: There's also a link to a map.
There isn’t a specific list of locations, but I found this in the original study that @MangoTiger linked:
This nationwide pilot assessment included 716 tapwater samples collected from residences, businesses, and drinking-water treatment plants across the US (Figure S1) from 2016 to 2021. Of these, 409 tapwater samples were collected at the point-of-use in 2021 from 155 unregulated private–well and 252 regulated public–supply locations in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.
Ya that's more or less what I found when skimming through it all. Was really hoping they would list the sources and the degrees of contamination individually.. Thanks though :(
Ya that's more or less what I found when skimming through it all. Was really hoping they would list the sources and the degrees of contamination individually..
Summary (the first few paragraphs)
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Drinking water from nearly half of U.S. faucets likely contains “forever chemicals” that may cause cancer and other health problems, according to a government study released Wednesday.
The synthetic compounds known collectively as PFAS are contaminating drinking water to varying extents in large cities and small towns — and in private wells and public systems, the U.S. Geological Survey said.
Researchers described the study as the first nationwide effort to test for PFAS in tap water from private sources in addition to regulated ones. It builds on previous scientific findings that the chemicals are widespread, showing up in consumer products as diverse as nonstick pans, food packaging and water-resistant clothing and making their way into water supplies.
NPR article - this has a bit more detail than the AP story
Forbes article - this has some good background information if you're unfamiliar with PFAS pollution
USGS writeup
The study itself and a map showing their findings.
Those details are fairly…. Undetailed.
Is there any way to get information on what exact chemicles they found?
From the USGS writeup:
If you want more detail than that then you'll have to dig into the study linked above and the supplementary data but that gets quite technical.
Edit: You can find a table of the compounds analyzed on pg. 18 of the supplementary data PDF and the concentrations they found on pg. 27. The data reference for each region is linked on pg. 16.
Thanks, I’m not super technical, but I’ll give it a shot.
The short answer is that PFAS type chemicals are the word for "stuff that broke off or degraded down from plastics" and is much less a single chemical than an entire class of them.
Most tests that detect PFAS are excruciatingly sensitive but don't distinguish between any of the types, when they detect at the PPT level for these things they're really just detecting for fluorination.
It's definitely worth concern but don't fall for the doomsday hype - this is just the degradation of plastics, nothing insidious.
It seems that it's basically the opposite in this case. They are detecting a specific set of compounds and ignoring unknown ones. The detection methods used (MS/MS and QToF/MS) are extremely selective for specific compounds.
Quote from the article:
Here's a link to the study.
Oh dang! You're absolutely correct, it looks like all the labs they sent it to for testing used LC/MS for their samples and that's pretty good isolation.
Well I stand very corrected on that.
Okay, that’s kind of what I was suspecting.
Between this post and another one I saw the other day where people convinced themselves that gas stoves were going to poison them, it just made me pretty sceptical of any sort of “doomsday” style posting on here.
It’s especially suspicious when they try and compare two things, but without any real details.
Like the gas example from the other day where the article said natural gas cooking produces the same by product as smoking: benzene.
But it didn’t actually give any additional info, like how much benzene natural gas produces vs smoking, nor the other actual harmful things from smoking.
It just wanted people to assume cooking with natural gas was as dangerous as smoking a cigarette, so it was vague on the details to help confuse the issue for people.
This article feels kind of similar to that, as it doesn’t seem to give us more exact details or measurements to define just how bad these PFAS actually are in drinking water. Seems more like “cigarettes are bad, and we detected a chemical found in cigarettes in your water supply!!” Sort of shenanigans.
Well, you’re actually talking to someone who fixes appliances in the house for a living. So I actually have quite a bit of insight on this exact subject.
It all comes down to infrastructure and venting for gas. If you live in a place in the world where your house is heated with natural gas, and you can easily install a vent that vents outside gas cooking is just fine and in some cases is actually even better.
If where you’re living, doesn’t have natural gas heating or if you have to install a way to vented out of your house or apartment and there’s not really any way to get a good vent going. Natural gas cooking is bad.
A good vent will actually take up almost everything that is produced from gas cooking.
Electric versus gas when it comes to heating up things are an actually not that different. Gas will heat up 2 L of water in about 10 to 15 minutes electrical heat up water in about 9 to 14 minutes depending on elevation.
Induction gets a hand up because it can heat up water in about 3 to 5 minutes. However, there’s no regulators out there telling people what pots are induction safe so people will buy pots from stores that claim to be induction safe but don’t use the proper magnetic metals throughout the entire pot And this results in incredibly expensive repairs that need to be done every 2 to 3 years. If your pot isn’t made entirely out of magnetic metal, then your induction cooktop will burn itself out in 2 to 3 years and most pots that say they’re induction safe don’t use the correct metals.
And ultimately at the end of the day, it comes down to cost of repairs. A simple gas cooktop that just has a clock on the front will probably have to be repaired every 20 to 30 years, because the physical parts will start to fail.
An electric cooktop or induction will average about 4 to 7 years. And the parts that will need replacing are going to be significantly more expensive than a gas cooktop.
So if you’re living somewhere that you can get a gas cooktop installed and you have adequate venting to your house then you’ll be just fine.
For everyone else, you’ll just have to stick with electric, which is also fine option. But your repair bill will be much higher and come much more often.
Sorry, the previous poster was incorrect. We know exactly which compounds were found in the water and what their concentrations were. What we do not have that much data on is what kinds of health impacts they have. So, it's really too soon to say how these compounds will affect us on a public health scale. All we can say for sure is that their durability and pervasiveness warrants further study.
Here is a quote from the article listing several specific compounds they found:
Looks like two of the compounds were detected at the proposed EPA limit, but I don't think there's that much data on what a permissible exposure of these compounds should be.
Yep. Normally I try to be generous and assume the hysteria is to gather clicks, but these last few articles have been so vague and so misleading I can't see it as anything other than intentional.
I don't see why you'd need a deeper conspiracy. If somebody wanted clicks, this sort of thing is exactly what they'd post. Fear drives clicks.
As far as being generous goes, assuming it’s for clicks is a pretty big condemnation of an articles. At least in my eyes haha.7
Ack! I'm literally sitting here sipping tap water and then I see from the map that my water is likely affected.
Time to invest in an RO filter.
Wow what's going on in the Northeast. Especially New Jersey and Cape Cod
1-3 detections over a five year period doesn't sound like a lot but man, the northeast is looking rough.
Maybe time to spend some of the federal emergency budget on their plumbing instead of just pumping it into tornado alley every year?
Time to replace my granular activated carbon filter I guess...
Living in LA and drinking tons of tap water, this has me mildly concerned. I wish the study gave their sampling locations and concentrations.. it's probably in the references somewhere.
Can't be bothered. Just gonna replace my filter lol.
As a polymer chemist, I'm not concerned. Here's why:
It's everywhere. It's in everything. These PFAS type chemicals seem to be the natural breakdown products of fluorinated and halogenated polymers, which we as humanity have made A METRIC FUCK TON OF THEM in the last couple decades.
Either we're all screwed, or it's no big deal. In either case you won't get out of it with just a simple water filter, this is a total ecosystem contaminant. It's in everything from wheat to tuna fish, you could go live with the Amish and you'd still be getting it in your diet.
I don't understand comments like these. It's like saying "lead is in everything" if somebody complains about a lead-contaminated water source.
I don't know enough about whether this class of chemicals is dangerous and how much, but something tells me the amounts you consume will play a role.
Poison is never "it's either there or it isn't".
People have a hard time understanding concentrations, and we've gotten REALLY good at detecting things.
Your wine contains about 100-200 PPM of lead in it. This sounds scary, but at that concentration you could drink an entire 750ml bottle every single day and after sixteen years you'd be close to a single gram of lead ingested.
Honestly it's probably in a lot of the filters one might use..
That's what's got me feeling pretty helpless about the whole thing. You can't really get a good filter that isn't at least housed in plastic.
I had the water tested when I first moved into this house. They said it was fine but it doesn't taste good, so I use a filter. Maybe I'm making an equal trade, maybe not.
Yeah I read a paper which indicated that activated carbon will only adsorb a select few of them anyway, and there are many many PFAS molecules, many of which haven't even been studied.
It does feel like fear mongering a little, and it probably isn't worth the money for the filter. I just drink a lot of tap water lol.. They got me for a second, but I still haven't bought a filter.
There isn’t a specific list of locations, but I found this in the original study that @MangoTiger linked:
There's also a link to a map.
Ya that's more or less what I found when skimming through it all. Was really hoping they would list the sources and the degrees of contamination individually..
Thanks though :(