Help Support EcoWatch
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience while browsing it. By clicking 'Got It' you're accepting these terms.
Most recent
Trending
Top Videos
The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Pexels
Toxic synthetic chemicals, known as "forever chemicals" for their extreme hardiness to resist degradation once they are released into the environment have been detected in 74 California water sources that deliver water to more than 7.5 million people, according to new research from the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
<p>These chemical per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are marked by their bonds of fluorine and carbon, which are extremely persistent once they enter our bodies or the soil. In very low doses, they have been linked to a host of health problems, including increased cholesterol level, low infant birth weight, a weakened immune system, thyroid issues and even some cancers, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/us/pfas-california-contamination-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p>
<p>PFAS detections in the California water systems exceeded one part per trillion (ppt), which the EWG deems unsafe. It is worth noting that the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/toxic-forever-chemicals-detected-drinking-water-supplies-across-california#table" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">EWG's threshold for PFAS</a> in water is a fraction of what the 70 ppt that the EPA considers the threshold for adverse health impacts. However, it is worth noting, there is not an actual legal limit for PFAs in water.</p><p>However, EWG did find that 40 percent of water systems it tested had samples that exceeded the EPA's 70 ppt limit, which leads to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">lifetime health advisories</a>. In fact, some of them were several times the EPA limit, including a well that serves the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. That well had concentrations of 820 ppt for several different PFAS, according to the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/toxic-forever-chemicals-detected-drinking-water-supplies-across-california" target="_blank">EWG</a>. </p><p>Camp Pendleton officials stopped using that well after the test, spokesman Capt. David Mancilla said, as the <a href="https://www.apnews.com/9855966bac054e598b6c2642bb2344ca" target="_blank">AP</a> reported. </p><p>"The drinking water at MCB Camp Pendleton is safe to drink and meets or exceeds all regulated standards," he said.</p><p>Other areas that had high levels of "forever chemicals" were in Corona, Oroville, Rosemont and the area around Sacramento.</p><p>"The PFAS crisis has raised alarms nationwide, but it's been under the radar in California," said EWG President Ken Cook, a Bay Area resident, in a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/09/ewg-news-roundup-927-forever-chemicals-california-electric-cars-draw-ire" target="_blank">statement</a>. "This new data shows that PFAS pollution in California is much more widespread than we knew, with almost one in five Californians served by a utility with at least some of its drinking water supply contaminated with PFAS."</p>
<p>While there are several thousands of types of PFAS, two of the most well-known, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), have been phased out in the U.S. However, their durability as "forever chemicals" means they linger in the environment. PFAS are primarily used to make products water and stain resistant, such as carpets, clothing, furniture and cookware, as the <a href="https://www.apnews.com/9855966bac054e598b6c2642bb2344ca" target="_blank">AP</a> reported. Sources of PFAS contamination also include firefighting foams, industrial discharge into the air and water, and PFAS in food packaging and amongst other consumer products.</p><p>In a well-known example, in 2005, Teflon producer DuPont settled a class action suit with 70,000 plaintiffs for dumping PFAs used in making Teflon cookware into the Mid-Ohio River valley in West Virginia and Ohio. </p><p>"I think that people should be concerned about the amount of PFOA and PFOS that is in our environment," Susan M. Pinney, a professor in the Department of Environmental Health at the University of Cincinnati, wrote in an email to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/what-are-pfas-chemicals/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. "These are chemicals with long half-lives." </p><p>In the body, forever chemicals accumulate in the blood, liver and the kidneys. </p><p>"One of the biggest takeaways here is we're not just detecting just PFOA and PFOS in these systems, but it's a mixture of different PFAS chemicals," said Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, as the <a href="https://www.apnews.com/9855966bac054e598b6c2642bb2344ca" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>While California does not set a maximum level for PFA contaminants in the water, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law earlier this year that allows state regulators to order more testing systems to monitor for PFAS, the <a href="https://www.apnews.com/9855966bac054e598b6c2642bb2344ca" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- How U.S. Government Conceals Truth About 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
- Lawmakers Take Manufacturing Companies to Task Over Toxic ... ›
- What Are 'Forever Chemicals' and How Are They Getting in Your ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Mark Doliner / CC BY-SA 2.0
More than 1,500 drinking water systems across the country may be contaminated with the nonstick chemicals PFOA and PFOS, and similar fluorine-based chemicals, a new EWG analysis shows. This groundbreaking finding comes the same day the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is convening a summit to address PFAS chemicals—a class of toxic chemicals that includes PFOA and PFOS, and that are linked to cancer, thyroid disease, weakened immunity and other health problems.
<p>From 2013 to 2015, the EPA mandated national testing for PFAS chemicals in public water systems, yet the full results of this testing, funded by taxpayers, were never made public. Water utilities with the highest concentrations of PFAS chemicals have been <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2017_pfa/index.php#.WwLHpHZKgk4" target="_blank">publicly identified</a>. But the names of utilities with detectable PFAS contamination below the so-called reporting levels of 10 to 90 parts per trillion, or ppt, were not released. Millions of people were not informed that their water supply is contaminated with these chemicals.</p><p>The additional water systems with PFAS contamination likely serve tens of millions of people, and it is essential for people in those communities to be informed of this hazard. Eurofins Eaton Analytical, which analyzed a third of the nationwide water samples, found that 28 percent of the water utilities it tested contained PFAS chemicals at concentrations at or above 5 ppt. The percentage of samples with PFAS detections nearly doubled when the laboratory analyzed down to 2.5 ppt. Based on this data, EWG's analysis suggests that up to 110 million Americans could have PFAS in their water.</p>
<p>This new research greatly exceeds EWG's previous estimate of <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/update-mapping-expanding-pfas-crisis#.WwLdUS-ZOL9" target="_blank">16 million Americans</a> being exposed to PFAS-contaminated water, as reported in the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/reviewed-pfcs.php#.WwLe2lMvyL9" target="_blank">EWG's national Tap Water Database</a>.<br></p><p>Independent scientific assessments find that the safe level of exposure to PFAS chemicals is <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/tiny-concentrations-teflon-chemical-harmful-public-health#.WwMlhXZKgk4" target="_blank">about 1 ppt</a>—significantly below the reporting level set by the EPA.</p><p>Just over a week ago, InsideEPA and Politico broke <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/water-military-bases-chemicals-2566989573.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&socialux=facebook&share_id=3573904&utm_medium=social&utm_content=EcoWatch&utm_source=facebook" target="_blank">news</a> that the White House and the EPA attempted to bury a proposal from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry that suggested exposure to Teflon and Scotchgard chemicals may be harmful at levels 10 times lower than what the EPA has publicly called safe. The full ATSDR proposal has not been made public, but the available information indicates the lower level was proposed because ATSDR accounted for harm to the immune system. This mirrors the more health protective approach New Jersey took in drafting its drinking water limits of 13 ppt for PFOS and 14 ppt for PFOA.</p><p>The full implications a lower safe exposure level would have are uncertain because the extent of national drinking water contamination is unknown. The uncertainty is largely due to the reporting value the EPA has previously used. PFAS detections below the reporting limits were kept secret, and may have never been recorded.</p><p>Today's EPA summit on the PFAS contamination crisis carries no indication that the agency will take action. In fact, the public might expect the opposite result, given internal EPA emails showing that top aides to Administrator Scott Pruitt and White House officials attempted to suppress the ATSDR proposal, worrying that release of the study would be "a public relations nightmare" for the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration.</p><p>EWG calls on the EPA, testing laboratories and drinking water utilities across that country that have PFAS testing results to make the information public immediately. Knowing the locations and extent of contamination is critical for cleaning up water supplies and making the case for regulation.</p><p><strong>Secret PFAS Contamination Data</strong></p><p>In the water testing mandated by the EPA under the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, or UCMR, 198 different water utilities had recorded detections of PFAS chemicals in amounts above the EPA reporting limit. But the reporting limits were very high, using 40 ppt for PFOS and 20 ppt for PFOA, though many labs have much more sensitive detection limits. Some analytical labs are able to detect amounts as small 2 ppt of PFAS chemicals in water.</p><p>Based on a <a href="http://greensciencepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Andy_Eaton_UCMR3_PFAS_data.pdf" target="_blank">reanalysis</a> of the national dataset by Eurofins Eaton Analytical, a water testing lab that processed more than 30 percent of nationwide water samples, EWG estimated how many utilities would likely have contaminated water if the reporting values had been set lower. At a reporting limit of 5 ppt, an estimated 1,046 utilities could have tested positive. If all results down to 2.5 ppt were reported, we estimate that over 1,900 of the 4,920 water utilities tested in the U.S. would have reported contamination.</p><p>Using maps generated by Eurofins Eaton Analytical and the public UCMR results, we calculated the number of water utilities that the lab identified as having PFOA or PFOS in their water, without results being reported to the EPA. Some states such as New Jersey have done additional water testing and have likely identified some, if not all, of the utilities that have PFAS chemicals in their water.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzcyNzU5Ny9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjgzNTYyN30.Za5fgRJIMzos2zxapMFgGYcrDQjbWGgVMln1MQyCNWQ/img.png?width=980" id="13b9e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1a25e29850a8e790c68385640e494dc7" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p>
<p>The PFAS water contamination issue is not going away and the EPA needs to take immediate action to both understand the full extent of contamination and ensure Americans have safe drinking water.<br></p><p><strong>EWG Methodology for Estimating Number of Public Water Systems With Possible PFAS Contamination</strong></p><p>In Eurofins Eaton Analytical presentations in <a href="https://nysawwa.org/docs/presentations/2017/FINAL-PFAS%20Monitoring%20in%20Post%20health%20Advisory%20World-What%20Should%20We%20Be%20Doing-2017.pdf" target="_blank">2017</a>, the laboratory indicated that it had analyzed water samples from 1,800 water utilities and had measured PFAS concentrations that were much lower than those reported by the EPA. The lab reported 5.3 percent of water samples tested positive for PFAS chemicals at the UCMR limits, compared to 4.02 percent of samples from all laboratories that analyzed UCMR samples. Eurofins Eaton Analytical also found that 28 percent of all water systems had PFAS levels above 5 ppt, and 42 percent of all water samples had PFAS chemical concentrations at or above 2.5 ppt.</p><p>Based on the sensitive results from Eurofins Eaton Analytical, we estimated the number of American water systems with PFAS levels at or above 2.5 and 5 ppt. To calculate the number of utilities estimated to have detections at 5 ppt, we used the ratio of detections between Eurofins lab at UCMR levels and at 5 ppt compared with the overall detection ratio for all labs at UCMR levels. We estimate that 21.3 percent of water utilities in the UCMR program would likely have PFAS detections at 5 ppt or higher, and the detection frequency approximately doubles when comparing levels of 5 ppt and 2.5 ppt.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzcyNjkyMC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjA1NDQ2Nn0.TUsWA5oB6yU5gOa8QKAwzH7ZsaurRDjtHQqCp7MoeK8/img.png?width=980" id="a5fcd" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="10524595acbe80e974dc15c9d7aff5ff" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p>
<p>If 39 percent of the U.S. population was exposed to PFAS chemicals, this would represent approximately 127 million people, and 39 percent of the population served by water systems tested in the UCMR program would represent approximately 90 million people.<br></p><p>An alternative way to estimate the number of people affected by PFAS contamination is to compare the ratio of the 4 percent of utilities that tested positive in the UCMR program, representing 16 million people, to our estimate of 39 percent of water systems that have PFAS levels of 2.5 ppt or greater. This yields an estimate of 117 million people with PFAS in their water at levels at or above 2.5 ppt.</p><p><em></em>On average, these three estimates indicate that 110 million people could have PFAS chemicals in their water at levels of 2.5 ppt or higher.</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-875374184649674752" id="twitter-embed-875374184649674752" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-875374184649674752&created_ts=1497540443.0&screen_name=EcoWatch&text=Interactive+Map+Shows+If+Your+Tap+Water+Is+Contaminated+With+PFCs+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fy3g8rOP29K+%40ewg+%40foodandwater+%40Water+%40charitywater&id=875374184649674752&name=EcoWatch" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="LKH62Y1576663127"></iframe>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Fluorinated Chemicals Taint Water at Scores of Military Bases, Neighboring Communities: DOD Discloses Locations for First Time
08 May 2018
Health + Wellness
An off-base public water system near the Fairchild AFB in Washington state was taken off line and residents were given bottled water after testing showed high levels of DFAs. Joe Mabel / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
The Defense Department has for the first time disclosed the locations of military installations where tap water or groundwater on or off base is contaminated with highly toxic fluorinated chemicals. But the list is incomplete, naming only locations where water is polluted above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "safe" level for tap water, which is well above levels found safe by independent scientists and regulations in a growing number of states.
<p>In a <a href="https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/1524589484.pdf" target="_blank">report to the House Armed Services Committee</a>, the Pentagon listed 36 installations in 23 states and territories, as well as in five nations overseas, where tests found on-base <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> contamination exceeding the EPA's lifetime health advisory for the fluorinated compounds PFOS and PFOA. In addition, the Pentagon identified 90 U.S. installations where PFOS or PFOA released on-base has contaminated groundwater. In many of these places, the contaminated water has migrated off-site, polluting nearby communities' tap water with fluorinated chemicals in concentrations above the EPA advisory level.</p><p>Maureen Sullivan, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, provided the list to the Armed Services Committee in March. It was first reported April 27 by <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/04/26/dod-126-bases-report-water-contaminants-harmful-to-infant-development-tied-to-cancers/" target="_blank">The Military Times</a>, which said the list includes 50 Air Force bases, 49 Navy or Marine Corps bases, 25 Army bases and two Defense Logistics Agency sites. Some of the bases on the list are now closed and have been converted to civilian uses.</p><p>The disclosure adds to the rapidly expanding number of known sites of fluorinated chemical contamination. Last month, the latest update of <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/update-mapping-expanding-pfas-crisis#.WuuJ9y-ZNBw" target="_blank">an interactive map</a> from EWG and Northeastern University detailed fluorinated chemical contamination at 94 military or industrial sites in 22 states, and in public water systems serving 16.1 million Americans in 33 states and Puerto Rico. Those locations overlap with an undetermined number of sites on the Pentagon's list, which will be added to the map as more information becomes available. </p><p>The EPA's advisory level is 70 parts per trillion, or ppt, for the combined level of PFOS and PFOA, but it is not an enforceable legal limit. <a href="http://www.circleofblue.org/2017/world/new-jersey-sets-first-binding-state-limits-perfluorinated-chemicals-drinking-water/" target="_blank">New Jersey</a> recently set the nation's lowest legal limit for PFOA in tap water, 14 ppt, which is expected to take effect next year. In 2016, Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Richard Clapp of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell published research concluding that an <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1048291115590506" target="_blank">approximate safe dose</a> of PFOA and/or PFOS in drinking water is 1 ppt. </p><p>PFOS and PFOA are the two most notorious members of the chemical family of thousands of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS. They have been linked to several types of cancer, thyroid disease, weakened childhood immunity and other health problems. They were phased out under pressure from the EPA after revelations that their manufacturers covered up evidence of their environmental and health hazards, and they are now banned in the U.S.</p><p>PFOS and PFOA were used for decades in hundreds of consumer products such as 3M's Scotchgard and DuPont's Teflon, but also in the firefighting foam used at military and civilian airports. The military is switching out firefighting foam with PFOS or PFOA, but is <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/02/10/firefighting-foam-afff-pfos-pfoa-epa/" target="_blank">substituting foam that contains other fluorinated compounds</a> whose chemical structures are very similar and that may be just as hazardous.</p><p>The Military Times reported that Sullivan told the committee the Defense Department had moved quickly to shut down wells, install water filters and/or provide <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bottled-water">bottled water</a> at the 24 contaminated bases where the military is the drinking water supplier. But because the EPA advisory level is not an enforceable standard, fixing the problem is moving slower at the 12 contaminated bases where a local utility or private contractor supplies the water.</p><p>Sullivan told The Military Times that addressing the groundwater contamination will take even longer and cost billions of dollars, but the presentation to the committee said that process can't proceed until the EPA sets an enforceable cleanup standard.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-986723586508500992" id="twitter-embed-986723586508500992" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-986723586508500992&created_ts=1524088210.0&screen_name=EcoWatch&text=Fluorinated+Chemical+Pollution+Crisis+Spreads+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FWlF0hYSIRC+%40ewg+%40naturallysavvy&id=986723586508500992&name=EcoWatch" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="9VJ7HB1576662831"></iframe>
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less