Since 2017, car manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. switched to a different coolant for air conditioning called HFO-1234yf, which breaks down into forever chemicals. hiphotos35 / iStock / Getty Images Plus
The Montreal Protocol of 1987 committed nations around the world to stop using the chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) that created a hole in the ozone layer. While it stands as one of the most effective environmental commitments the globe has seen, new research shows the side effects have been costly as chemicals dangerous to human health build up in the environment, as the BBC reported.
<p>New research published in the journal <em><a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL087535" target="_blank">Geographical Research Letters</a></em> analyzed Arctic ice and found an unintended consequence of the Montreal Protocol. The compounds that replaced CFCs have been transported and transformed in the atmosphere, depositing far from their sources. The new generation of chemicals that replaced Freon, but are used in refrigerators, air conditioners and new cars have been accumulating since 1990.</p><p>"Our results suggest that global regulation and replacement of other environmentally harmful chemicals contributed to the increase of these compounds in the Arctic, illustrating that regulations can have important unanticipated consequences," said Cora Young, a professor at York University in Canada, and an author of the paper, in a York University <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/yu-oca051120.php" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p>
<p>Scientists first discovered ozone depletion in the 1970s when they detailed the deterioration of the stratospheric ozone layer around the earth's poles. As the hole over Antarctica opened and expanded, scientists found that the depletion of ozone was responsible for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection" target="_blank">a greater intensity of ultraviolet</a> radiation from the sun, causing an increase in the prevalence of skin cancer, eye cataract disease and other harmful effects on humans, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/ozone-friendly-chemical-alternatives-polluting-arctic/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>Scientists were soon able to pinpoint manufactured chemicals used in air conditioners and refrigerators, as well as solvents, propellants and chemical agents found in foam as the cause of the depleted ozone layer.</p><p>Now pollution from the chemicals that were created to replace the CFCs, known as short chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (scPFCAs), has proliferated around the world. The replacement chemicals are a class of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas">PFAS</a>, or forever chemicals, that have polluted waterways and made groundwater in certain areas toxic to drink.</p>
<p>"Our measurements provide the first long-term record of these chemicals, which have all increased dramatically over the past few decades," said Young in a <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/yu-oca051120.php" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Our work also showed how these industrial sources contribute to the levels in the ice caps."</p><p>The York University statement added that the chemicals are able to "travel long distances in the atmosphere and often end up in lakes, rivers and wetlands causing irreversible contamination and affecting the health of freshwater invertebrates, including insects, crustaceans and worms."</p>
<p>"We're seeing much, much larger levels, on the order of 10 times higher now than we saw before the Montreal Protocol," said Young, as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52663694" target="_blank">BBC</a> reported. "We don't know a lot about them and their potential toxicity, but we do know that we are committing the environment to a great deal of contamination."</p><p>As the globe heats up, our desire for air conditioning increases. That has spelled trouble for new cars. When car manufacturers stopped using CFCs in a car's air-conditioner, they switched to a chemical called HFC-134a. While it did not destroy the ozone layer, it turned out to be a powerful greenhouse gas, around 1,400 times more warming than CO2, according to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52663694" target="_blank">BBC</a>.</p>
<p>Since 2017, car manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. switched to a different coolant for air conditioning called HFO-1234yf, which breaks down into forever chemicals.</p><p>"It has a very low global warming potential, but has a much higher propensity to form these persistent products," said Young to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52663694" target="_blank">BBC</a>. "It will be again another shift, where we see an even more dramatic increase."</p><p>"They've been found in the bodies of people in China, so it is likely to be found in the bodies of people around the world," added Young. "We have done a good job in trying to save the ozone layer but the unintended consequences are the release of these other chemicals, which have some concerns. They're toxic, and then they don't get filtered out in various ways."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Healing Ozone Layer Shows Why Environmental Treaties Matter ›
- Saving the Ozone Layer 30 Years Ago Slowed Global Warming ... ›
- Record Ozone Hole Over the Arctic Has Closed - EcoWatch ›
- Household Products Cause as Much Air Pollution as Cars ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EPA Is Hiding Information About New Chemicals: Green Groups Sue to Stop the Secrecy
19 March
Health + Wellness
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler looks on during a news conference at the EPA headquarters in Washington, DC, on Sept. 19, 2019. ALASTAIR PIKE / AFP via Getty Images
When Congress updated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016 for the first time in 40 years, public health and environmental advocates hoped it would be a game-changer for protecting Americans from dangerous chemicals, enabling the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finally ban harmful substances like asbestos.
<p>But under President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a>, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a> has consistently failed to take advantage of the new law. It has declined to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-asbestos-ban-2636681458.html" target="_self">ban asbestos</a>, and has even violated requirements that it keep the public informed about the approval of new chemicals, an <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/20200317_comms_pc_tsca_english_final.pdf" target="_blank">investigation</a> by <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> and the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF) revealed. That's why Earthjustice is representing five environmental groups in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/final_filed_complaint.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit</a> filed Wednesday <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/final_filed_complaint.pdf" target="_blank">against the EPA</a>.</p>
<p>"Congress reformed TSCA just a few years ago to protect people's health from new chemicals. It said, unequivocally, that the public has a right to know about these chemicals before they are put out on the market," Earthjustice attorney Tosh Sagar said in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/report-trumps-epa-sued-for-concealing-health-studies-violating-its-chemical-laws" target="_blank">press release</a>. "Trump's EPA instead hides health and safety studies and other key information, just so that industry can have it easier. Ignoring TSCA's transparency requirements makes it more likely that dangerous chemicals are reaching our homes and workplaces."</p>
<p>The Earthjustice and EDF investigation, also published Wednesday, reviewed 204 out of around 1,100 chemical applications the EPA had received between August 2016 and April 2019. It also examined all the public notices that the agency issued for around 1,700 new applications through early 2020. It found that the EPA had routinely violated a stipulation of the new TSCA amendment that the public be informed of the approval process for new chemicals so that it could weigh in before the chemical was put on the market.</p>
<p>The agency concealed information in three key ways, the investigation found.</p><p>1. It did not inform the public of new applications in a timely manner: The EPA is supposed to notify the public within five days of receiving a new chemical application. However, the investigation found that the average notice was published 87 days after the application was received, even though the EPA has 90 days to approve a chemical. One in six notices were published after the chemical was already approved.</p><p>2. The EPA has withheld key safety information: The agency is supposed to publish all applications online, but instead forces the public to request them via a labyrinthine process. Further, it allows companies to redact or withhold health and safety studies as confidential business information (CBI) despite a legal requirement to publicize all health and safety information.</p><p>3. The EPA doesn't evaluate CBI claims: The agency is required by law to audit 25 percent of CBI claims to make sure companies are not abusing the designation to withhold important information. It is then supposed to publish its decision. But the EPA has not published any reviews of CBI claims, and has only completed reviews of claims in 27 applications, far below 25 percent of the 1,250 it has completed safety reviews for.</p>
<p>In one case, this secrecy involved a new type of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas" target="_self">PFAS</a>, a class of chemical already contaminating U.S. drinking water. The EPA's career scientists found that the new substance could cause respiratory illnesses like asthma and alter DNA, leading to cancer. Nevertheless, it was approved in April 2019 and almost all of the documents provided by the company were never shared with the public.</p><p>"When it comes to toxic chemicals and Trump's EPA, this secrecy is the norm. It's not just illegal, it puts workers and families across the country at risk," the investigators wrote.</p><p>Earthjustice, acting on behalf of EDF, <a href="https://www.ourhealthyfuture.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Health Strategy Center</a>, <a href="https://www.ceh.org/" target="_blank">Center for Environmental Health</a>, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> and <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club,</a> threatened to sue the EPA over the violations in September 2019. The agency promised to improve the application vetting process, but the coalition considered its changes inadequate.</p><p>"Unleashing chemicals into the market without proper vetting is like opening Pandora's box," the coalition said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "EPA must stop hiding key information about the chemicals it is reviewing and put public health above the desires of the chemical industry."</p>The EPA did not comment on a story in <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/488331-epa-sued-for-allegedly-violating-laws-for-approving-new-chemicals" target="_blank">The Hill</a> about the lawsuit, saying it did not weigh in on ongoing litigation.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
- Trump's EPA scales back Obama era safety rules adopted after ... ›
- How the Trump Administration Pulled Back on Regulating Toxic ... ›
- A new low even for the Trump EPA on chemical safety ... ›
- Years of Lawsuits Ahead as EPA Rolls Out Chemical Decisions ›
- States Say EPA Chemicals Approach 'Unlawful' as Lawsuits Loom ›
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
We need our government to do everything it can to stop PFAS contamination and exposure from wreaking havoc in communities across the country. LuAnn Hun / Unsplash
By Genna Reed
The EPA announced last week that it is issuing a preliminary regulatory determination for public comment to set an enforceable drinking water standard to two of the most common and well-studied PFAS, PFOA and PFOS.
This decision is based on three criteria:
- PFOA and PFOS have an adverse effect on public health
- PFOA and PFOS occur in drinking water often enough and at levels of public health concern;
- regulation of PFOA and PFOS is a meaningful opportunity for reducing the health risk to those served by public water systems.
<p>This is a good thing and should have happened sooner, but likely as a result of public pressure and the overwhelming evidence of harms caused by exposure to these chemicals, the EPA is officially embarking upon this long and arduous regulatory process with an uncertain outcome.<em></em></p>
<p class=""><em>Genna Reed is a lead science and policy analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/epa-might-finally-regulate-pfas">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p>
<p>The process of setting such a standard, known as a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is a long one and we know that there are multiple decision points at which political interference, lack of transparency, or a failure to recognize the best available science can undermine such a process. If the EPA successfully sets a standard, it will mean that utilities will be required to monitor drinking water for PFOS and PFOA and use treatment techniques to keep levels below the standard, which will be especially helpful for communities in states that haven't set their own MCLs.</p><p>Here are some things to keep in mind and look out for as EPA begins its process to regulate PFAS in drinking water:</p>
The SDWA Process Is Flawed
<p>The Safe Drinking Water Act was signed into law by President Ford in 1974 and sets a regulatory process for setting drinking water standards. Then in 1996, Congress <a href="https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ182/PLAW-104publ182.pdf" target="_blank">issued amendments</a> which created a <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/erik-d-olson/broken-safe-drinking-water-act-wont-fix-pfas-crisis" target="_blank">long list of hurdles</a> that weakened EPA's ability to set health-protective standards for water contaminants. Some requirements include technology assessments and risk assessments that require the agency to state each significant uncertainty related to public health effects. </p><p>The amendments also require EPA to conduct a cost benefit analysis, which can weigh into the standard that is selected. In fact, EPA can choose to set a standard that "maximizes health risk reduction benefits at a cost that is justified by the benefits." As in all environmental and public health policy, it is <a href="https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/27944-49-1sinden-1pdf" target="_blank">much harder to quantify benefits</a> to public health than it is to quantify costs to industry which makes this a natural place for industry to fight hard to document potential costs and advocate for a less stringent standard. A cost benefit analysis also opens up these regulations to more intense scrutiny from the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs which has been known to <a href="https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/oira-delays-regulatory-reform-report.pdf" target="_blank">delay rules</a> or even make substantive changes to the <a href="https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Science%20in%20Regulation_Final%20Report_2_18_13_0.pdf" target="_blank">scientific basis of regulations</a> all without adequate transparency.</p>The Trump Administration’s Track Record on Science-Based Protections Speaks Volumes
<p>Generally, it's hard to have faith in the Trump Administration's EPA which leads all other government agencies in the count of <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science" target="_blank">attacks on science </a>and has made decisions that benefit industry over public health time and time again. We've also witnessed the EPA recently drop the ball on a drinking water decision. </p><p>A long-awaited proposed MCL for perchlorate was issued in summer 2019 after beginning the regulatory process in 2011. The <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/05/24/epa-distorts-evidence-fails-kids-perchlorate/" target="_blank">level was over three times less protective</a> than its health advisory set in 2008 and out of sync with its own analysis published in 2016 and the conclusion of a peer review panel convened in 2018 to review that report. So what went wrong? </p><p>After <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/05/07/epas-safety-standard-perchlorate-water-kids-health/" target="_blank">layers of scientific input</a>, including the development of a model to quantify the relationship between perchlorate and fetal brain development that was reviewed by SAB and went through public comments, the agency dismissed key studies using inadequate rationales and set a less health-protective standard. As the SDWA requires the agency to use the "best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices; and data collected by accepted methods or best available methods," Administrator Wheeler's EPA, closely advised by former industry representatives will be deciding what acceptable science and methods are.</p>Integrity of Science Advice and Peer Review Processes Must Be Upheld
<p>Advisory committees and independent peer review bodies should be employed by the EPA to provide objective checks on the work of the agency that are open and accessible to the public. But changes recently made to the EPA's Science Advisory Board including <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/independent-science-takes-another-hit-at-the-epa-new-science-advisory-board-members-announced" target="_blank">skewing membership toward industry</a> and consultants, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/epas-scientific-advisers-warn-its-regulatory-rollbacks-clash-with-established-science/2019/12/31/a1994f5a-227b-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html" target="_blank">holding fewer meetings</a> or delaying important meetings and key decisions, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/epa-might-be-using-its-advisors-to-do-away-with-protective-science-guidelines" target="_blank">moving away from consensus-based reviews</a>, and <a href="https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1061775673/" target="_blank">exerting more control</a> from the administrator and chair suggest that future advisory committee proceedings related to examining the best available science on PFAS may not be the kind of independent science advice process we'd like to see.</p>Upcoming Changes to Restrict Science and to Alter Cost Benefit Analysis Could Make Things Worse
<p>The EPA's so-called 'transparency' rule, the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/epa-proposal-handcuff-scientists" target="_blank">supplemental piece of which</a> could be released any day now, would require underlying data to be made public would severely limit the agency's ability to use much of the human health data that has been accumulating since PFOA and PFOS have been studied, thus hindering EPA's ability to designate a strong maximum contaminant level. Over two dozen human health studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals since a settlement agreement was reached in a lawsuit against the maker of PFOA, DuPont, and people living near DuPont's West Virginia Washington Works Plant. </p><p><span></span><a href="http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/panel.html" target="_blank">The studies</a> rely on interviews, questionnaires, and blood samples from 69,000 individuals and examine links between C8 exposure and a variety of diseases and health outcomes. Because the information collected by researchers for these studies includes <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/117/12/ehp.0800379.pdf" target="_blank">sensitive and private information</a> of participants, it would not be possible to make the underlying data public in order to comply with EPA's proposed rule. This means that some of the best available science identifying probable links between PFAS and diseases such as thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia, and diagnosed high cholesterol could be left out of any future EPA decisions made on these chemicals. As a result, health decisions made on this class of chemicals would be wholly inadequate to protect exposed populations.</p><p>The agency is also <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-13/pdf/2018-12707.pdf" target="_blank">considering changing</a> how it conducts cost benefit analysis for regulations such as the SDWA, which threatens to tilt the scales toward reducing industry costs over maximizing societal and public health benefits.</p>PFOA and PFOS Are the Tip of the (Seemingly Endless) Fluorocarbon Chain
<p>While the EPA is asking for more information on other PFAS substances, the agency's decision to add PFOA and PFOS to the Contaminant Candidate List leaves the hundreds of variations of PFAS that have been manufactured as replacements to PFOA and PFOS, including short-chain PFAS chemicals, in regulatory limbo. We know that PFOA and PFOS are only two of the many highly fluorinated chemicals contaminating our drinking water. A recent <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/?utm_campaign=EWG+Content&utm_content=1579634672&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook" target="_blank">EWG analysis</a> tested drinking water across the country for 30 different PFAS chemicals and found that on average, each sample had six or seven different compounds present. </p><p>This "fingerprint" of PFAS mixtures is commonly found near <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es070792y" target="_blank">industrial</a> and <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b05843" target="_blank">military</a> contamination sites. Industry's path of regrettable substitutions has set our government up for a scenario of perpetual regulatory catch-up. The agency needs to follow the science showing that the class of highly-fluorinated chemicals are persistent and bioaccumulative because of the chemical structure inherent in each variety. Failure to do so will give us a wholly inadequate picture of PFAS contamination and leave many communities to deal with PFAS contamination without federal support.</p>States Should Continue to Lead
<p>As EPA sets out on this potentially decades-long process that may or may not yield a protective standard, communities across the country are dealing with PFAS contamination now. <a href="https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/nearly-half-the-country-working-on-pfas-rules-as-epa-drags-feet" target="_blank">States are acting</a> to help regulate these chemicals and are making amazing progress. Congress has also stepped up and gotten some key PFAS-related provisions included in the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/congress-misses-the-mark-on-pfas-in-the-ndaa" target="_blank">National Defense Authorization Act</a> and introduced as a part of the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/profiles-in-cowardice-chemicals-climate-and-a-toxic-disregard-by-the-trump-administration" target="_blank">PFAS Action Act,</a> like labeling PFAS as hazardous substances so that <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/why-the-pfas-industry-should-ditch-the-disinformation-playbook-and-do-the-right-thing" target="_blank">manufacturers are responsible for paying to clean up contamination</a>.</p><p>We need our government to do everything it can to stop PFAS contamination and exposure from wreaking havoc in communities across the country. And we need to make sure that scientific integrity is upheld as it makes key regulatory decisions so that <a href="https://ucsusa.org/resources/endangering-generations" target="_blank">our kids and future generations</a> will be safe from the health risks associated with these toxic chemicals.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Sanders Introduces Bills to Ban Fracking, Require National Cleanup Effort of Drinking Water
31 January
Politics
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks to guests during a campaign stop at Berg Middle School on Jan. 11 Newton, Iowa. Scott Olson / Getty Images
While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been in Washington this week for the impeachment trial, he has put forth two bills to help the environment.
<p>On Tuesday, he pushed forward a bill to ban hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480777-sanders-introduces-bill-to-ban-hydraulic-fracking" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>. The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3247/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Sanders%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2" target="_blank">bill</a>, titled "A bill to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes," will go to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for review. </p>
<p>While the text of the bill is not yet available, Sen. Jeff Merkley from Oregon is a co-sponsor of the bill. On Thursday, Sanders <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1222960113910210561" target="_blank">tweeted</a> that he also worked on the bill with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Darren Soto (D-Fla.), as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480777-sanders-introduces-bill-to-ban-hydraulic-fracking" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>.</p><p>"I don't mind if <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo" target="_blank">@MarkRuffalo</a> spoils his own movies. But please, don't ruin the surprise of our new legislation with Rep. <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC" target="_blank">@AOC</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley" target="_blank">@SenJeffMerkley</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/RepDarrenSoto" target="_blank">@RepDarrenSoto</a>. I don't want the dirty fracking industry CEOs to know what hit them," wrote Sanders in his <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1222960113910210561" target="_blank">tweet</a>, which embedded a video of the actor and activist, Mark Ruffalo, touting a potential federal ban on fracking.</p>
<div id="083c1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="RYWLQK1580502995"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1222960113910210561" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">I don't mind if @MarkRuffalo spoils his own movies. But please, don't ruin the surprise of our new legislation with… https://t.co/NY5iOCdOzL</div> — Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders)<a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/statuses/1222960113910210561">1580411387.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The bill drew support from several environmental activist organizations.<br></p><p>"Senator Sanders' bill names the problem and provides the only solution," Natalie Mebane, Associate Director of Policy at <a href="http://link.cvip.io/f/a/lI7Ag8jf6aY5chtEI04rzg~~/AAJ4uAA~/RgRgFVhxP0RPaHR0cHM6Ly9jcm0uMzUwLm9yZy9zaXRlcy9hbGwvbW9kdWxlcy9jaXZpY3JtL2V4dGVybi91cmwucGhwP3U9MTE4NTgmcWlkPTgxMjU0NlcDc3BjQgoAAPEkNF5Ln7SPUhRqb25AY29tbW9uZHJlYW1zLm9yZ1gEAAAAAw~~" target="_blank">350.org</a>, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/01/31/350-action-applauds-sanders-fracking-ban-bill?cd-origin=rss">said in a statement</a><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/01/31/350-action-applauds-sanders-fracking-ban-bill?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank"></a>. "In order to avoid the worst of the climate crisis, we must rapidly transition off of fossil fuels, and end fracking and the dangerous pipelines that come with it."</p>
<p>The ban on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer">fracking</a> that Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren advocate has democrats concerned that such a policy could push Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, to President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" rel="noopener noreferrer">Donald Trump</a> in November. </p>
<p>"In Pennsylvania, you're talking hundreds of thousands of related jobs that would be — they would be unemployed overnight," said John Fetterman, Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/pennsylvania-democrats-fracking.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New York Times</a>. "Pennsylvania is a margin play. And an outright ban on fracking isn't a margin play." </p>
<p>Sanders not only introduced a ban on fracking. On Wednesday, he, along with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Ma), <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/pfas-summary?id=B3C238FF-B9D4-4557-9DE9-D15CFEEFBA8D&download=1&inline=file" target="_blank">introduced The Preventing Future American Sickness (PFAS) Act</a>, which takes aim at 'forever chemicals' polluting waterways, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480571-sanders-introduces-bill-to-clean-up-of-toxic-forever-chemicals" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/forever-chemicals-drinking-water-2644897405.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="_self">EcoWatch reported</a>, a recent study from the Environmental Working Group found that toxic forever chemicals, or PFAS, are far more prevalent in drinking water than previously thought.</p>
<div id="efd2e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="UM2I2X1580502995"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1221522447901560833" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"Our children are unwittingly poisoned" Environmental Working Group study: US #water samples have 'forever chemical… https://t.co/oePPZBRGyV</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1221522447901560833">1580068621.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"As hundreds of communities across the country are dealing with toxic PFAS contamination in their drinking water," Sanders says in a statement put out by <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/sanders-unveils-bill-combat-corporate-polluters-and-protect-drinking-water" target="_blank">Food and Water Watch</a>, "it is unconscionable that huge corporations like DuPont have, for decades, concealed evidence of how dangerous these compounds are in order to keep profiting at the expense of human health. Congress must pass this legislation to put an end to corporate stonewalling and criminal behavior and tackle this public health crisis. It is not a radical idea to demand that when people in the world's richest country turn on their taps, the water they drink is free of toxic chemicals."</p><p>The legislation would ban the chemicals from food packaging and ban the incineration of PFAS firefighting foam. It would also direct the Environmental Protection Agency to designate PFAS as hazardous under both the Clean Air and and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act — commonly called CERCLA or Superfund, as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/29/sanders-takes-aim-corporate-polluters-bill-clean-toxic-forever-chemicals-drinking" target="_blank">Common Dreams reported</a>.</p>
<p>Labeling the chemicals as hazardous substances would force manufacturers to foot the bill for cleaning them up, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480571-sanders-introduces-bill-to-clean-up-of-toxic-forever-chemicals" target="_blank">according to The Hill</a>.</p><p>"Every American—regardless of the color of their skin, their zip code, or their income—has the right to be free from exposure to a slew of carcinogens and hazardous chemicals," said Merkley, as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/29/sanders-takes-aim-corporate-polluters-bill-clean-toxic-forever-chemicals-drinking" target="_blank">Common Dreams reported</a>. "But millions of people are ingesting dangerous PFAS chemicals against their will through the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat. Congress needs to come together to put the health of our communities above the wish lists of American's biggest polluters, and that means establishing and enforcing chemical standards that protect Americans from PFAS substances."</p><p>Both bills face an uncertain future in a Republican-controlled senate. Even if they did get through the Senate, Trump has said he would veto them, as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/29/sanders-takes-aim-corporate-polluters-bill-clean-toxic-forever-chemicals-drinking" target="_blank">Common Dreams reported</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- New Film 'Dark Waters' Shines Light on Chemical Pollution History ... ›
- Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Detected in California Drinking Water ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Forever Chemicals Contaminate More Drinking Water Than Previously Reported
23 January
Health + Wellness
Water coolers in front of shut-off water fountains at Center School in Stow, MA on Sept. 4, 2019 after elevated levels of PFAS were found in the water. David L. Ryan / The Boston Globe via Getty Images
In a new nationwide assessment of drinking water systems, the Environmental Working Group found that toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS are far more prevalent than previously thought.
<p>That includes dozens of cities, including major metropolitan areas like Miami, New York, New Orleans, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia, according to the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/" target="_blank">new report</a>.</p><p>The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, tested water samples from 44 different locations in 31 states. Only one of those cites had no detectable level of PFAS, or forever chemicals as they are known since they do not degrade in the environment or body, but rather build up in our blood and organs. Some of the major metropolises that were tested had the highest concentrations of detectable PFAS in their water. The only sample without detectable PFAS was from Meridian, Mississippi, which draws its drinking water from wells more than 700 feet deep.</p>
<p>Exposure to PFAS increases the risk of cancer, harms fetus development and reduces the effectiveness of vaccines. Biomonitoring studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the blood of nearly all Americans is contaminated with PFAS, according to the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/" target="_blank">EWG</a> report.</p><p>The EWG test looked for 30 different PFAS in the water, with most samples showing six or seven detectable PFAS, while one sample had 13, according to Dave Andrews, Ph.D. a senior scientist at the EWG, who spoke to reporters on Wednesday.</p><p>Andrews added that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) set an advisory threshold for only two known PFAS in the mid-90s at 70 parts per trillion. The EWG believes that number is 70 times above the threshold for toxicity and falls short of what is needed since there are hundreds or thousands of PFAS that are known contaminants.</p>
<p>The EWG numbers also take into account a combination of PFAS, which the EPA does not, meaning the comparisons are skewed.</p><p>For example, a water sample in Philadelphia had 46.3 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFAS, but that comes from adding up 11 different chemicals that were found. The EPA only has limits for PFOS and PFOA, which tested at 5.3ppt and 7.7ppt — or around one-tenth of the EPA's threshold for concern, according to their <a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2020/pfas-testing-report/EWG_PFAS-TW_Appendix_C06.pdf?_ga=2.82581206.1315356608.1579711790-1286391861.1575645396" target="_blank">detailed analysis</a>.</p><p>However, the greatest concentration of PFAS contamination was taken from Bellville Elementary School in New Brunswick County, North Carolina by the nonprofit group <a href="https://www.cleancapefear.org/" target="_blank">Clean Cape Fear</a>. It had a staggering 185.9 ppt.</p><p>"This is particularly painful as a school teacher, a parent of four children, and a mayor," said Rob Allen, the mayor of Hoosick Falls, NY, which has PFAS contaminated water, in a conference call with journalists. "Our children are unwittingly poisoned from drinking water at school."</p><p>"I'm devastated to see my children's school at the top of this nationwide study," said Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, in an <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/pfas-contamination-tap-water-far-more-prevalent-previously-reported" target="_blank">EWG press release</a>. "This is wrong. I'm so sad."</p>
<div id="0f2d4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="GK8O0P1579799109"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1220077734140968960" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">UPDATE: Bottle water was delivered to Belville Elementary School earlier today. Have any other schools in Brunswick… https://t.co/iCdZy3SprX</div> — Clean Cape Fear (@Clean Cape Fear)<a href="https://twitter.com/CleanCapeFear/statuses/1220077734140968960">1579724174.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The recent findings raised the ire of actor and environmental activist, Mark Ruffalo, who starred in the movie Dark Waters, about the PFAS contamination from a DuPont plant into the water of Parkersburg, West Virginia.</p><p>"Decades of chemical industry deception and government inaction and collusion have brought us to this crisis," said Mark Ruffalo, the star and a producer of the film, and a longtime environmental activist, in an <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/pfas-contamination-tap-water-far-more-prevalent-previously-reported" target="_blank">EWG</a> <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/pfas-contamination-tap-water-far-more-prevalent-previously-reported" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Nearly every American is carrying these dangerous chemicals in their blood, and as EWG's new findings show, everywhere we look, we find more PFAS contamination of our tap water. The government has done little or nothing in 20 years, so it's time for all of us to demand that our elected leaders do their jobs and pass laws to clean up this mess."</p><p>His call to action was echoed by EWG scientists, "This research reveals that escaping PFAS pollution is nearly impossible," said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG vice president for science investigations, who led the new study. "Communities and families all across the nation are bearing the burden of chemical companies' callous disregard for human health and the government's inaction. This crisis calls for immediate action to ensure that all Americans have safe and clean drinking water."</p><p>While the two most notorious PFAS that were produced by DuPont and 3M have been phased out of use, Andrews told reporters that he worries that replacement <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals">chemicals</a> are no better and are continuing to contaminate water supplies.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump to Veto Bill Intended to Keep Forever Chemicals out of ... ›
- Toxic Chemicals Found in Rainwater and Drinking Water ... ›
- How U.S. Government Conceals Truth About 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Actor and activist Mark Ruffalo speaks at the Fight Forever Chemicals Campaign kick off event on Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, 2019 in Washington, DC, with co-chairs of the PFAS task force Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI). Paul Morigi / Getty Images
The White House announced Tuesday that it plans to veto the PFAS Action Act of 2019, which aims to keep harmful forever chemicals out of groundwater, as Newsweek reported.
<p>'Forever' chemicals, which are often referred to as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals), are a class of heat and water-resistant chemicals used in a variety of industrial products, flame retardants and nonstick products, such as raincoats, cookware and packaging and have leeched into <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">water</a> supplies in almost every state in the country, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/477236-trump-administration-expresses-opposition-to-forever-chemical-bill" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. They are known carcinogens and do not degrade in the environment nor in the human body.</p><p>The bill before congress is sponsored by congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan) with the intention of reducing unintended, involuntary exposure to PFAS.</p><p>"PFAS is a clear threat to human health and our environment," wrote Dingell in a November 2019 statement, as <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-announces-trump-would-likely-veto-bill-regulating-forever-chemicals-drinking-water-1480947" target="_blank">Newsweek</a> reported.</p><p>"The reality is a lot of contamination is connected to military sites and the Defense Department," Dingell's statement continued. "We are continuing to champion strong provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act to identify PFAS as a hazardous substance for the purpose of clean up under the EPA's Superfund program and facilitate coordinated response between local communities and the military."</p>
<p>The sweeping legislation that Dingell proposed came after there was no mention of regulating PFAS in the annual defense policy bill. Furthermore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) said it would decide whether or not to regulate PFAS by the end of 2019, but it missed its own self-imposed deadline, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/477236-trump-administration-expresses-opposition-to-forever-chemical-bill" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p><p>A vote on Dingell's bill is scheduled for Thursday, where it is expected to pass the Democratic-controlled House. However, it is likely to face a backlash in the Republican-controlled Senate, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/477236-trump-administration-expresses-opposition-to-forever-chemical-bill" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. It also may never come up for a vote in the Senate after the White House announced its intention to veto the legislation.</p><p>The White House dismissed the bill as not cost-effective and as an affront to the power structure in place, saying in a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SAP_HR-535.pdf" target="_blank">statement</a> that the bill would "supersede existing statutory requirements" that would prevent the EPA from making proper decisions about the treatment of PFAS in the environment, as <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-announces-trump-would-likely-veto-bill-regulating-forever-chemicals-drinking-water-1480947" target="_blank">Newsweek</a> reported.</p><p>"By doing so," the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SAP_HR-535.pdf" target="_blank">statement</a> read, "the bill would create considerable litigation risk, set problematic and unreasonable rulemaking timelines and precedents, and impose substantial, unwarranted costs on Federal, State, and local agencies and other key stakeholders in both the public and private sectors."</p>
<p>Environmental activists were aghast at the White House's decision to veto legislation that would require making drinking water safer.</p><p>"Enough is enough," said Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, in a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-threatens-veto-after-missing-key-pfas-drinking-water-deadline" target="_blank">statement</a>. "For too long, the EPA has failed to treat the PFAS contamination crisis like a crisis. Trump's EPA has sunk to a whole new level of failure."</p><p>The EPA currently recommends that water supplies not have more than 70 parts per trillion of PFAS, but there is no firm requirement in place. Critics say that not only is a requirement needed, but one that is much lower than the current recommended level, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/477236-trump-administration-expresses-opposition-to-forever-chemical-bill" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.</p>"Just days after failing to meet a PFAS deadline, the Trump administration has threatened to veto legislation that would set PFAS deadlines," said Faber in a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-threatens-veto-after-missing-key-pfas-drinking-water-deadline" target="_blank">statement</a>. "It's never been clearer that it's time for Congress to set tough deadlines to reduce PFAS releases into the air and water, set PFAS drinking water standards, and clean up legacy PFAS pollution. If the Trump administration won't take the necessary steps to protect the public from PFAS, it's up to Congress to act."
Read More
Show Less
New Film 'Dark Waters' Shines Light on Chemical Pollution History in Ohio River Valley
17 December 2019
Popular
Mark Ruffalo, right, playing attorney Rob Bilott in the film Dark Waters. Credit: Dark Waters
By Sharon Kelly
Dark Waters, the new film starring Mark Ruffalo as attorney Rob Bilott, is set in the Ohio River Valley city of Parkersburg, West Virginia — a place about 150 miles downstream from where Shell is currently building a sprawling plastics manufacturing plant, known as an "ethane cracker," in Beaver, Pennsylvania.
<p>Ruffalo's film, directed by Todd Haynes, debuted to critical acclaim, earning a Rotten Tomatoes critics' rating of 91 percent, with The Atlantic <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/11/dark-waters-review-mark-ruffalo-robert-bilott/602434/" target="_blank">calling</a> it a "chilling true story of corporate indifference."</p><p>While much of <em>Dark Waters</em>, as the title suggests, centers on contaminated <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/water" target="_self">water</a>, the story of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), the Teflon-linked chemical at the heart of the film, is also a story about <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a>. And as much as the film looks back to history, DuPont's pollution — and the company's decades-long cover-up — may gain new relevance as the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemical</a> industry plans a multi-billion dollar expansion, fed by fracked <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a>, along the banks of the Ohio.</p><p>The film begins as a detective story set in the 1990s, as Bilott, a corporate defense attorney, begins investigating the bizarre deaths of cattle in a farming region he'd visited as a child. Bilott discovers the chemical culprit's identity less than an hour into the 2 hour and 7 minute film — and then spends the remainder of the movie pitting his personal tenacity against the DuPont corporation's deep-pocketed endurance, as even partners at Bilott's own law firm question his work.</p><p>The movie highlights DuPont's legal maneuvering, showing the company seeking to evade liability by "notifying" customers that the chemical was in their water at levels the notice suggested were "safe" — starting a time clock running for the statute of limitations on DuPont's liability.</p><p>The film's extended runtime mirrors the duration of Bilott's real-life legal battles with DuPont, which began as a single civil suit on behalf of farmer Wilbur Tennant but gradually expanded to become one of the largest medical monitoring lawsuits in U.S. history. Real impacted people, including <a href="https://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/magazine/june-2019/you-are-being-poisoned/" target="_blank">Bucky Bailey</a> and Parkersburg elementary school teacher <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psa0CEyUgoQ" target="_blank">Joe Kiger</a> and his wife, appear on screen along Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway and Tim Robbins, playing themselves in roles that layer an aura of realism onto the tale.</p>
<h3>A Chemical History</h3><p>Beyond the Ohio River Valley, PFOA, which according to a 2016 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/drinkingwaterhealthadvisories_pfoa_pfos_updated_5.31.16.pdf" target="_blank">fact sheet</a>, can cause <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>, harm to fetuses, immune system issues and other health problems, has spread rapidly around the world.</p><p>First <a href="https://www.livescience.com/65364-pfas.html" target="_blank">developed</a> in the lab less than a century ago, PFOA can now be found in the bloodstreams of an estimated 99.7 percent of Americans, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072821/" target="_blank">according to</a> the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in wildlife ranging from polar bears to dolphins to bald eagles. Once released, PFOA and the <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/09/19/epa-new-pfas-chemicals/" target="_blank">hundreds of other PFAS chemicals</a> like it may take millennia to break down. Tied together by one of nature's <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181002082417.htm" target="_blank">strongest known chemical bonds</a>, the carbon-fluorine bond, the molecule <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/pfcs-global-contaminants/pfcs-last-forever" target="_blank">doesn't naturally degrade</a> from exposure to light or water to break down over time. Instead, it bioaccumulates in the bloodstream, building up and exposing those higher up the food chain to progressively higher levels of the chemical.</p><p>Bilott's class action lawsuit centers on the water contamination from PFOA, which <a href="https://pfasproject.com/parkersburg-west-virginia/" target="_blank">DuPont started using</a> to produce its nonstick coating Teflon at its Parkersburg plant in 1951. His plaintiffs were customers of six water districts along the Ohio River on both the West Virginia and Ohio sides of its banks.</p><p>But while DuPont <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/teflon-s-toxic-legacy/" target="_blank">buried drums</a> of the PFOA waste on the banks of the Ohio and otherwise disposed of its waste — in part, long before the nation's cornerstone environmental laws were written — PFOA itself is also a powdery dust that readily becomes airborne — and the Ohio River is lined on both sides by tall hills that can at times trap air pollution in the valley, where coal and steel towns dot the riverbanks.</p><p>Documents obtained by Bilott's legal team show DuPont slowly realized the dangers that the mix of air pollution and steep hills posed to the surrounding communities. In fact, one DuPont lawyer later privately bemoaned the fact that the company, which had been secretly testing the water for decades, hadn't checked for PFOA in the air.</p><p>"We also learned that not only do we have people drinking our famous surfactant (PFOA), but levels in ambient air above our guidelines, sure we have margins of safety in our number, but we should have checked this years ago and taken steps to remedy, guess the hills on the other side of the river cause great conditions for high ambient levels, the plume hits them before it can disperse more fully," DuPont attorney Bernard Reilly wrote in an August 9, 2001 email. "Ugh."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjE2ODg2OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNTE3ODQ5NH0.fKwURPx8jVE7WU2lRcg3oeQ9gArtdT_H5l0Po4Ku8Ms/img.jpg?width=980" id="9fcb1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0adf10973eaf998903a9b1407efabed4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Email that DuPont attorney Bernard Reilly wrote on Aug. 9, 2001.
<p>PFOA's ability to become airborne may have helped it spread to some of the furthest reaches of the globe.</p><p>"The state of North Carolina has demonstrated atmospheric deposition of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas" target="_self">PFAS</a> many miles downwind from a manufacturing facility," the Michigan Department of Environment said in a Q&A on the chemicals. "New Hampshire found contaminated groundwater was caused by atmospheric deposition of PFAS from industrial emissions of PFAS. Additionally, PFAS have been sampled and found in remote regions such as the Arctic."</p><p>In 2001, DuPont's attorney wrote that one scientist was so concerned about the PFOA air pollution in the valley that she suggested residents should wear masks. "Dr. Staats on our call last week seemed determined to assign a large does [sic] to air since that route of exposure is more difficult to deal with (e.g. she said it might require the public to wear 'gas masks'), of course she is aware of the recent dispersion modeling from the plant," Reilly wrote on Oct. 7 of that year.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjE2ODg3Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDUxNzYyMX0.fS7gUav4fiuUBNsxqptcD1aW9nDoI6jHjFZITp-Avjc/img.jpg?width=980" id="22dda" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6c12dc71985bdf76af89e579886e6de9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Email that DuPont attorney Bernard Reilly wrote on Oct. 7, 2001.
<p>DuPont also worked hard to pressure state environmental regulators to move slowly in response to the harms from PFOA — not because the dangers weren't real, but because the air pollution in the valley hadn't been accounted for.</p><p>"I go to Charleston Monday for a meeting Tuesday with WV regulators, we are also trying to convince them there is no emergency," Reilly wrote in an Oct. 13, 2001 email. "… [W]e are hoping [an independent agency] would actually agree to higher levels than we have been saying, if for no reason than we are exceeding the levels we say we set as our own guideline, mostly because no one bothered to do the air modeling until now, and our water test has been completely inadequate (until next week)."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjE2ODg3NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNjc3ODAwNX0.jEh6mlQnP_C5GgKe9DxBQywPT8zbQl3LwaKwT5c1W3g/img.jpg?width=980" id="6ba15" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ab1a31db95412543caa28e556e7259ba" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Email that DuPont attorney Bernard Reilly wrote on Oct. 13, 2001.
<h3>Chemical Lessons for the Future</h3><p>With an <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-plastics" target="_blank">expanding petrochemical industry</a> eyeing the Ohio as the site for tens of billions of dollars' worth of new petrochemical and plastic production, some in Parkersburg are wary of the environmental — and political — lessons from PFOA. Ohio and West Virginia have been slower than other states to respond to the pollution, reporter Nicholas Brumfield <a href="http://expatalachians.com/dark-waters-west-virginia-isnt-alone-in-fight-against-teflon-chemicals" target="_blank">wrote</a> in a piece published by <a href="http://expatalachians.com/about" target="_blank">expatalachians</a>.</p><p>"For Parkersburg's Eric Engle, this inaction [on regulating PFAS in West Virginia and Ohio] is linked to the powerful influence of local petrochemical industries," Brumfield wrote. "'We have politicians still investing in petrochemicals to save the oil and gas industry … They're wanting to store ethane here now. We're still learning about the dangers of all these petrochemicals … We have to move past it,' Engle said.</p><p>It's worth observing that DuPont's PFOA pollution began long before today's federal environmental laws were written, like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Nonetheless, some in the Ohio River Valley remain concerned about the impacts that permitted pollution from new petrochemical projects could have.</p><p>"As I sat and watched the newly released movie <em>Dark Waters</em>, I thought, 'This could be the future of the Ohio River Valley,'" Randi Pokladnik, a retired research chemist who volunteers for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, wrote in a Dec. 13 letter to the editor <a href="https://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20191213/letter-dark-waters-nightmare-happening-here-in-ohio" target="_blank">published</a> by the Columbus Dispatch. "Ohio's regulatory agencies know millions of tons of toxins will be coming out of the plastics cracker smokestacks and into the air. They know toxic organic compounds will be flowing into the Ohio River."</p><p>Midway through <em>Dark Waters</em>, Darlene Kiger (played by Mare Winningham) describes the "Teflon flu" that workers, including her ex-husband — who used PFOA — developed. "We knew something wasn't right," Kiger says. "But this house, we bought it just by showing the bank my husband's DuPont ID. Put both our kids through college, engineers. And, in this town, that doesn't come without a price."</p><p>That's a moral dilemma that may confront more residents along the Ohio if the petrochemical industry arrives en masse (though it's worth noting that DuPont's Parkersburg plant employed 2,000 directly and roughly 1,000 more contractors, while modern petrochemical plants like Shell's ethane cracker in Beaver will employ an expected 600).</p><p>In the meantime, <em>Dark Waters</em> offers a look back at the extraordinary tenacity — and at times, simple luck — it took for those outside DuPont's inner circle to begin to understand the hazards and the harms the company's chemical contamination had caused.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/12/13/film-dark-waters-chemical-pollution-history-dupont-shell-ohio-river-valley" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A child walks from a flooded home after heavy rainfall on May 15, 2006 in Arlington, Massachusetts. Darren McCollester / Getty Images
Researchers found that rainwater in some parts of the U.S. have high levels of toxic chemicals. If the chemicals are found in similar levels in drinking water, it would spur regulatory action, according to The Guardian.
<p><br/></p>
<p>The research from the <a href="http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/" target="_blank">National Atmospheric Deposition Program</a>, which works with the Department of the Interior's <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/water-resources/national-water-quality-program/national-atmospheric-deposition-program-nadp" target="_blank">U.S. Geological Survey</a>, found the toxic forever chemicals per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas" target="_self">PFAS</a>) present in rainwater samples from across the country, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/17/rainwater-pfas-us-potentially-toxic-levels-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>The substances are dubbed forever chemicals because they do not degrade in the environment. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to various ailments, including <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancers</a> in humans and animals, especially in the kidneys and testicles. They have also been linked to thyroid disease, weakened immunity and other diseases, as <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/forever-chemical-poisons-drinking-water-near-military-bases-n1101736" target="_blank">NBC News</a> reported.</p><p>While more than 4,700 variants of toxic forever chemicals have been identified, the EPA only regulates two of them: PFOS and PFOA. The chemicals are common in everyday items like insulation, food packaging, carpeting, cookware and firefighting foam, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/forever-chemical-poisons-drinking-water-near-military-bases-n1101736" target="_blank">NBC News</a>.</p>
<p>"There were folks not too long ago who felt the atmospheric transport route was not too important," said Martin Shafer, principal researcher with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/17/rainwater-pfas-us-potentially-toxic-levels-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. "The data belies that statement."</p><p>Shafer and his team tested 37 samples of rainwater from 30 different areas, mostly on the East Coast, but extending as far west as Washington State and as far south as Alabama. Every single sample tested positive for at least one of the 36 different compounds that the scientists tested for. The largest sample was from Massachusetts and showed 5.5 nanograms (ng) per liter. Several other samples had a slightly smaller concentration of 4 ng per liter, while most samples showed concentrations that were less one ng per liter, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/17/rainwater-pfas-us-potentially-toxic-levels-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>"There's a dearth of knowledge about what's supporting the atmospheric concentrations and ultimately deposition of PFAS," said Shaefer, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/17/rainwater-pfas-us-potentially-toxic-levels-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. He suspects the PFAS are entering the atmosphere through various avenues, including factory emissions and fire-fighting foams.</p><p>Factory emissions polluting the rainwater was confirmed in North Carolina in a <a href="https://deq.nc.gov/news/key-issues/genx-investigation/air-quality-sampling" target="_blank">study</a> from the state's division of air quality, which found over 500 ng per liter of PFAS in the rainwater near the Chemours facility, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/17/rainwater-pfas-us-potentially-toxic-levels-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p>
<p>The scourge of PFAS has caused various health problems around military bases where the chemicals were once prominent in fire-fighting equipment. In those communities, levels of PFAS in water have been hundreds, and, on occasion, thousands of times higher that what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) advises. However, since most of those chemicals are not listed on the Safe Drinking Water Acts list of banned contaminants, there is no regulation that requires utilities to test for them, as <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/forever-chemical-poisons-drinking-water-near-military-bases-n1101736" target="_blank">NBC News</a> reported.</p><p>The Department of Defense spending bill that Congress passed last week dropped key provisions that were written to reduce ongoing releases of the toxic fluorinated chemicals called PFAS, remove PFAS from tap water and clean up legacy PFAS contamination, as the Environmental Working Group said in a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/congress-fails-protect-americans-pfas-pollution" target="_blank">press release</a>. However, the spending bill did address the future use of PFAS, phasing out its use completely from fire-fighting foams by October 2024, according to the <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/12/11/here-are-more-than-300-bases-with-possible-toxic-forever-chemical-contamination/" target="_blank">Military Times</a>.</p><p>"When your water is polluted with toxic PFAS, it's not much comfort to know who is polluting it," said Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group's senior vice president for government affairs. "While it's good news that the Defense Department will finally phase out PFAS in firefighting foam and food packaging, communities desperately need Congress to tackle industrial PFAS releases into the air and water and to require DOD to clean up legacy PFAS pollution."</p><p>Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a division of the National Institutes of Health told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/17/rainwater-pfas-us-potentially-toxic-levels-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> that more research is needed on rainwater as well as the PFAS what we inhale and ingest.</p><p>"We see effects on liver, kidney, development, pregnancy, heart," she said to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/forever-chemical-poisons-drinking-water-near-military-bases-n1101736" target="_blank">NBC News</a>. "I think that's where many people are frustrated. Where there's pretty much growing, and I'd say fairly clear evidence of harm, EPA doesn't have the flexibility to move rapidly."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Removing Toxic Fluorinated Chemicals From Your Home's Tap Water ›
- 'Absolutely Unconscionable': Trump EPA Refuses to Limit Toxic ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
In a win for public health, the home improvement giant Lowe's announced that it will stop selling carpets and rugs containing toxic PFAS chemicals in the United States and Canada by January 2020. Home Depot recently made a similar commitment, signaling that stores are starting to take this health crisis seriously.
<p>"Lowe's is making home improvement safer for families by eliminating carpets and rugs made with chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health threats," says <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sujatha-bergen" target="_blank">Sujatha Bergen</a>, director of health campaigns at NRDC.</p><p>The family of per-and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances is ubiquitous, used in everything from stain- and water-resistant clothing, carpets, and furniture to nonstick cookware and grease-proof food packaging to firefighting foam. Dubbed "forever chemicals," PFAS don't break down easily in the environment and can accumulate in the bodies of people and their food. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), PFAS can now be <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport_UpdatedTables_Volume1_Jan2019-508.pdf" target="_blank">found in the blood</a> of virtually every American, which can lead to issues like immune system dysfunction, hormone disruption, infertility, cancer, and more.</p><p>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anna-reade/epa-yet-again-fails-set-health-protective-levels-pfas" target="_blank">failed to set</a> enforceable health-protective standards for PFAS. Just two of these chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, have a non-enforceable health advisory, leaving thousands of other PFAS chemicals unregulated and without guidance. The EPA's health advisory was also 10 <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anna-reade/epa-yet-again-fails-set-health-protective-levels-pfas" target="_blank">times higher</a> than the thresholds proposed <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf" target="_blank">by the CDC</a>.</p><p>"Policymakers should follow the lead of retailers like Lowe's by taking strong action to rid our homes of toxic PFAS chemicals," Bergen says.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- America's Dairyland May Have a PFAS Problem - EcoWatch ›
- PFAS Chemicals Contaminate U.S. Food Supply, FDA Confirms ... ›
- How to Avoid 'Forever Chemicals' in Your Dinner (and Popcorn ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Sometimes our drinking water systems experience dangerous failures, such as the Flint lead poisoning disaster that made major news beginning in 2014. But outside those headline grabbing crises, how safe is our drinking.
The nonprofit <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> wants to help you answer that question. It has collected all the water-quality information that utilities in the U.S. submit to their state environmental or public health agencies. That information has been compiled into a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/2019tapwater/" target="_blank">newly updated database</a> that allows residents to check the safety of tap water in their community and then learn what kind of actions they can take if their water contains contaminants. In many cases it's as simple as adding a filter.
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://therevelator.org/tap-water-database/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>.</em></p>
<div id="4ce02" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="Z8XF2L1576661257"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1186990736278990854" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">JUST LAUNCHED: EWG's new Tap Water Database: What's in Your Drinking Water? https://t.co/VURb072ROS https://t.co/zl5ry8IGqE</div> — EWG (@EWG)<a href="https://twitter.com/ewg/statuses/1186990736278990854">1571835619.0</a></blockquote></div><p>But there are some bigger issues lurking that could affect our water quality far into the future. For starters, regulations and standards aren't keeping up with science, and there are many unregulated contaminants that could pose a health threat. There are also big data gaps on water quality for some people living in more rural areas.<br></p><p>We spoke with Environmental Working Group senior scientist <a href="https://www.ewg.org/staff/tasha-stoiber" target="_blank">Tasha Stoiber</a> about what we know and don't know about the safety of our drinking water — and what steps communities can take protect themselves.</p>
Overall, how safe is drinking water for most people in the United States?
<p>I think a lot of people think that because water is tested in the U.S. and it comes out of the tap, it must be completely fine. Probably most of the time it might be, but there still could be pollutants in there that you should be concerned about.</p><p>Many of the federal standards that we do have are not protective enough of health. There hasn't been a new drinking-water regulation passed in nearly 20 years. We still don't have regulations for about half of the detected contaminants and the regulations — or the maximum contaminant level — that we <em>do</em> have for a lot of the contaminants are outdated and based on old science.</p><p>For example, the maximum contaminant level for nitrate was set based on a standard back in 1962. Science has come a long way since then. [Editor's note: The U.S. sets the legal limit for nitrates at 10 milligrams per liter, while some recent research suggests that levels above 5 milligrams increase the risk for certain <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28252454" target="_blank">cancers</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3764078/" target="_blank">birth defects</a>.]</p><p>So even though the drinking water is legal for them to serve it to us, it might still be associated with some potential risks for health, especially those who are more susceptible like children or pregnant women.</p>What should people do? We can’t just switch our tap water to another company.
<p>That's one of the reasons that we put this tap-water database out. We'd love to start a national conversation about drinking-water quality and how it can be improved. We want people to be informed and we want them to understand more about their water.</p><p>We recommend doing your research, finding out what's in your water and filtering your tap water to eliminate as much of that health risk as you can.</p><p>We want consumers to be empowered to ask their water utility or their elected officials about their water. Why are these contaminants in my water? What are you doing to remove them? What treatment technology is available in my community and how are we creating funding to improve water in our area?</p>There are about 44 million people in the United States who rely on private wells for drinking water. What do we know about the safety of their water?
<p>That's a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/08/using-private-wells-drinking-water-safety-guide" target="_blank">big data gap</a> — we don't have a lot of information on private wells.</p><p>There are actually no federal requirements for private well testing. Sometimes depending on the state that you're in there could be requirements to get a well tested if there's a real-estate transaction.</p><p>But usually in most states it falls on the homeowner to get their well tested. And it just doesn't happen that much. One issue might be that people have a false sense of security if they're drinking the water and it seems fine. But the other issue is that testing also costs money. So unless there's some kind of reason to test for it, most people don't do it.</p><p>And when it comes to public water systems, the most vulnerable are often water systems that <a href="https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2017/07/05/getting-to-the-roots-of-californias-drinking-water-crisis" target="_blank">serve smaller or rural communities</a> — especially those that rely on just one water source, such as a single well. If you're a larger system with a number of different sources and one gets contaminated, you can shut it off and not have capacity issues. Large systems usually have the resources and scale of economy to deal with problems that come up. But for the smaller systems, that's going to be a little bit more difficult.</p>Which contaminants are you most concerned with right now?
<p>Something that you've likely been hearing about in the news is a group of highly toxic fluorinated chemicals called <a href="https://www.ewg.org/pfaschemicals/" target="_blank">perfluoroalkyl substances</a> (PFAS) [that have been linked to cancer and harm to reproductive and immune systems]. We don't have any enforceable national regulations for them and they are pervasive. Some communities may test for them. <a href="https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/environment/2019/04/01/nj-sets-stringent-drinking-water-standard-cancer-linked-chemicals-pfoa-pfos-pfas/3334281002/" target="_blank">New Jersey</a>, for example, is setting its own levels for certain PFAS chemicals. [California has also just <a href="https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-water-pfas-wells-contamination-map/" target="_blank">mandated testing</a> in high-risk areas.] It is really one of the most notorious chemical groups that needs to be addressed.</p><p>[Cancer-causing] hexavalent chromium is another one where there's no federal standard specifically. California did attempt a state maximum contaminant level, but there were issues [after a <a href="https://www.wateronline.com/doc/california-drops-tough-chromium-standard-0001" target="_blank">legal challenge</a> from a taxpayers group] and they had to go back to the drawing board.</p><p>It can become a hugely political issue in dealing with any of these things. Communities shouldn't have to pay for the pollution in their drinking water if a specific industry caused it, but often it ultimately falls on the ratepayers if industry hasn't taken responsibility.</p><p>So we want people to have all of the information available to them. You do get a consumer confidence report every year [from your water utility], but that might not include information on all of the different contaminants that were tested.</p><p>But all of that information is in our database. And it breaks down all of the health-associated risks with each of the contaminants and what our gold standard health limits would be for each of those.</p><p>Most of our health standards are based California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and their public health goals. Those are based purely on protection of health and no other economic or political factors.</p>Are you worried that more bad press about tap water will lead people to drink bottled water instead?
<p>Bottled water is no safer than tap water. It can also contain contaminants, as well as microplastics. What's more, companies don't have to disclose bottled-water testing results to the public, so you often don't know what you're getting.</p><p>That's why we don't consider bottled water a long-term solution, and recommend it only be used in extreme cases — such as after storms or earthquakes.</p><p>I do think it's easy to look at the information and to panic or to even get desensitized. Drinking water quality is going to vary depending on where you live. In California, or some other areas where there is <a href="https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2017/07/05/systemic-failure-why-1-million-californians-lack-safe-drinking-water" target="_blank">longstanding legacy pollution</a>, there are situations where there is an acute risk with water quality and you shouldn't be drinking what's out of the tap.</p><p>But that's an extreme situation. For most people there's not going to be that need to panic immediately. We're talking about the risk of drinking this water over your lifetime.</p>From Your Site Articles
- 'Absolutely Unconscionable': Trump EPA Refuses to Limit Toxic ... ›
- Most Airlines Have Unhealthy Water, Study Finds - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Fred Stone holds his brown swiss cow Lida Rose at his Arundel dairy farm on March 18 after a press conference where he spoke about PFAS chemical contamination in his fields. Gregory Rec / Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images
By Susan Cosier
First there was Fred Stone, the third-generation dairy farmer in Maine who discovered that the milk from his cows contained harmful chemicals. Then came Art Schaap, a second-generation dairy farmer in New Mexico, who had to dump 15,000 gallons of contaminated milk a day.
<p>While the pollutants in these cases were different, they both belong to the same class of chemicals: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas">PFAS</a> for short. Numbering in the thousands, the chemicals are used to make a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas" target="_blank">variety of products</a> such as nonstick pans, stain-resistant rugs, water-repellent clothing and food packaging. Industries have been manufacturing most PFAS since the 1940s, but the effects these chemicals have on human health started surfacing only in the past decade or so. Exposure has been linked to serious conditions, including testicular and kidney <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/docs/pfas_clinician_fact_sheet_508.pdf" target="_blank">cancer, colitis, thyroid disorders</a> and suppressed immune systems in children.</p><p>Many states are just beginning to look for PFAS contamination in drinking water and elsewhere, and <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2019/190401-1" target="_blank">places like Michigan</a>, where state officials are actively testing for (and finding) these chemicals, are starting to look like contamination hot spots. In reality, the PFAS problem is much more widespread.</p><p>While Teflon plants and military bases that use firefighting foams are common PFAS sources, another culprit is emerging: sludge produced by sewage treatment plants. Farmers all over the country use such sludge to fertilize their land, potentially contaminating the crops and livestock they produce. And it could be happening in the Midwest, too.</p>
<h4>Wary in Wisconsin</h4><p>Doug Oitzinger, the former mayor of Marinette, Wisconsin, was at a meeting to discuss a new community garden last year when he found out about his town's groundwater. Just 30 feet below where they stood, levels of PFAS were as high as <a href="https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2018/10/12/contaminants-johnson-controls-subsidiary-flow-into-green-bay/1594926002/" target="_blank">33,000 parts per trillion</a> (ppt), more than 470 times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's health advisory level for drinking water of 70 ppt — a concentration many experts and states still consider a threat to human health. A few months later, Oitzinger knocked on a neighbor's door to see if anyone had told her about the pollution pooling below her home. She said she hadn't heard a thing.</p><p>In the beginning, he thought the contamination was limited to a specific area at the edge of town, close to the <a href="https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/contaminants/marinette.html" target="_blank">Tyco Fire Technology Center</a> run by Johnson Controls International. But the more Oitzinger researched, the more concerned, and angry, he became. He's now pushing for Wisconsin politicians to make the PFAS issue a top priority. "I went from somebody who thought this was an unfortunate thing Tyco didn't know about, to ... well, let's just say their hands are covered in some pretty nasty stuff," he said.</p><p>Tyco knew back in 2013 of its PFAS problem, according to records it submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), but it wasn't until 2016 that the company documented the chemicals on its property and in the groundwater nearby. The public found out about it only in 2017, four years after Tyco's original admission, when the company acknowledged to the DNR that its pollution could be spreading.</p><p>When Tyco disclosed that <a href="https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/contaminants/marinette.html" target="_blank">PFAS pollution had contaminated groundwater in Marinette</a> and nearby Peshtigo, the DNR directed the company to find affected wells. Since December 2017, Tyco has been voluntarily distributing bottled water to more than 120 households and installed 37 water treatment systems in the community. But it's not enough, and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" rel="noopener noreferrer">drinking water</a> isn't the only thing in jeopardy. Just like other PFAS manufacturers, Tyco sent its waste to a local sewage treatment plant, where farmers obtain sludge for fertilizing their fields.</p><p>"We foolishly thought that we had institutions that would protect us from this sort of thing, that this couldn't happen anymore," said Oitzinger. "What we've discovered is that those institutions didn't protect us."</p><p>The DNR has since asked the wastewater treatment facility to stop selling sludge to farmers and launched a larger investigation into the matter earlier this year. For many farm owners, however, this action may have come too late — and there are no quick fixes. PFAS do not easily break down and can persist in the <a href="https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm" target="_blank">environment for decades</a>, if not centuries.<br></p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTk5NDY5My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0OTg1NzQxNn0.eBgtjz9-hhCBR0hBeYLCB9VQYc24YT34EcKUkZBMZBc/img.jpg?width=980" id="6e9b1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ff14d9ef5a38dbb633258d77975387fa" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<h4>A Message From Maine</h4><p>The Stone family had been raising dairy cows in southern Maine for close to a century when, in 2016, Fred Stone voluntarily checked the farm's milk for PFAS. What he found, he said, destroyed his life: levels as high as 1,470 ppt.</p><p>"The toxic chemicals that I never used and had never even known about until two years ago contaminated my cows — which I really take exception to — and ruined my farming operation and hurt my family," he <a href="https://www.pressherald.com/2019/03/19/after-farm-contamination-health-advocates-urge-state-to-ban-sludge-spreading/?rel=related" target="_blank">told reporters</a> at a March press conference.</p><p>Stone had spread PFAS-contaminated sludge and paper mill ash on his fields for 20 years, but he stopped that practice in 2004. After 15 years, the substances were still there in amounts that could severely taint the milk of Stoneridge Farm, which is now out of business.</p><p>Stone went to Washington, DC, to ask Congress do something about PFAS contamination. Back in Maine, legislators set a PFOS action level of 210 ppt in milk, and the governor set up a <a href="https://www.maine.gov/pfastaskforce/materials/20190626/June26%20DEP_DACF%20ALL.pdf" target="_blank">PFAS task force</a>. Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) temporarily stopped allowing farmers to spread sludge on their fields until it was tested. In 44 sludge samples taken by the agency, all but two had levels that exceeded the state's new limits for three PFAS chemicals: PFOA (2.5 parts per billion), PFOS (5.2 ppb), and PFBS (1,900 ppb). The DEP also tested retail and raw milk from three other farms, where PFAS levels did not exceed the state's reporting limit of 50 ppt.</p><p>So far, Stone's is the only Maine farm to shutter due to PFAS contamination, but others could follow and <a href="https://www.ourhealthyfuture.org/blog/who-wants-farm-table-forever-chemicals" target="_blank">clean fields are still at risk</a>. The Maine-based nonprofit <a href="https://www.ourhealthyfuture.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Health Strategy Center</a> has been pushing for the state to investigate other farms that received sludge from the same place as Stone, said Patrick MacRoy, deputy director of the group, but the group hasn't yet gotten a list of such farms, and testing isn't mandatory.</p>
<h4>Beyond Milk</h4><p>Even though no federal PFAS standards exist, lawmakers in a few states such as Vermont, Michigan and New Hampshire have proposed or passed bills that limit various types of PFAS — at differing concentrations — in drinking water. For Wisconsin's water supplies, the state's Department of Health Services recently recommended limits for PFOA and PFOS, two of the most widely used types, at 20 ppt. These are moves in the right direction, but PFAS find their way into more than just water. Researchers have been detecting these substances in everything from fish to leafy greens and grains to iced chocolate cake.</p><p>According to <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf204565x" target="_blank">a 2012 study</a> conducted by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, a branch of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "a number of researchers have concluded that food is often the primary human exposure route" for PFAS. (A 2016 EPA report agreed that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfos_health_advisory_final_508.pdf" target="_blank">diet is a primary source</a>.)</p><p>Milk containing PFAS tends to be particularly potent because the substances bioaccumulate in cows. Farmers spread sludge on fields, plants take the contaminants up from the soil, then cows eat the grass in great amounts, concentrating the PFAS, which end up in their milk. That's bad for children, who tend to drink lots of milk and are also more vulnerable to these substances than adults are.</p><p>"Yes, exposure from milk is likely less than drinking water for adults, but for infants and children it's different," said <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anna-reade" target="_blank">Anna Reade</a>, an NRDC staff scientist specializing in toxic chemicals. "It could be a significant source of exposure, and they're the most vulnerable in our population. We have a responsibility to protect them." Yet so far, no state except Maine has begun to develop a PFAS standard for milk — or any other food, for that matter.</p><p>The 2012 study showed that PFAS levels in 49 milk samples taken from around the country didn't contain levels higher than the EPA health advisory level of 70 ppt except for one — taken from a dairy farm where sludge was spread. Locations where we know farmers spread contaminated sludge are good places to be testing, said <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/erik-d-olson" target="_blank">Erik Olson</a>, NRDC's director of health and food.</p><p>In Wisconsin, the DNR has a map of where the state's farmers have spread biosolids from the wastewater treatment facility used by Tyco, and staff have tested the farms' soils and their surface water and groundwater. The results are expected this fall, but the agency hasn't yet indicated whether it will also test the foods grown on these farms.</p><p>Needless to say, tensions are high in these parts. "This is like coming to someone and saying your house is radioactive," said Oitzinger.</p><p>NRDC's Reade suggests that state agencies test sludge before it's spread on fields and milk before it goes to market. Then officials could see where the highest PFAS concentrations are coming from. But she knows that's not a popular idea. "PFAS is a huge, global public health threat," she said. "It's going to be hard to test for all this."</p><p>In July, the Wisconsin DNR urged <a href="https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/wisconsin-dnr-asks-sewage-treatment-plants-to-test-for-pfas/article_2ad61aa8-cb52-5d6f-9235-d524bd78431d.html" target="_blank">125 sewage treatment plants to test</a> their waste products, but the agency has yet to set a PFAS standard for sludge or milk. Oitzinger hopes to change that. He's now working with a small group of activists and Wisconsin lawmakers to put PFAS standards on the books in his state, but he fears for the rest of the country, too.</p><p>The problems with these chemicals are complex, he said, and as Stone knows, they don't go away on their own. "It's like peeling an onion," he said. "Every time you take a layer off, there's another layer, and the more layers you take off, the more your eyes water. It just gets worse and worse."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Termed "forever <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/chemicals?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#chemicals</a>," PFAS can take thousands of years to break down in the environment and can remain in our bodies for decades <a href="https://t.co/Ult9ScqiCw">https://t.co/Ult9ScqiCw</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ewg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ewg</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1177659245241815040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Your Site Articles
- What Are 'Forever Chemicals' and How Are They Getting in Your ... ›
- PFAS Chemicals Contaminate U.S. Food Supply, FDA Confirms ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less