It depends on the body of water and the DNR has guidelines for this. This isn't remotely news, it's fear mongering. Places with PFAS are generally port rivers and industrial zones. People don't fish there (or if they do, they throw them back).
Jeez, what an insane shame this is. I wish there was accountability and punishment for this.
"Unsafe levels of toxic chemicals are present in rainwater throughout the globe, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology."
Companies have gotten away with knowingly poisoning people and hiding it for ages. Now they've gotten away with poisoning the entire planet and every living creature on it. What hope is there for accountability? At this point I'm honestly not sure what they'd have to do to incur meaningful punishment.
I'm amazed people haven't demanded justice for it. I'd always assumed that if it became impossible for enough people to get justice within the legal system eventually people would seek justice outside of it, but that doesn't seem to be the case either.
They are forever chemicals precisely because they are utterly non-reactive compounds. Unless they act as catalysts for some unknown prejudicial biochemical reaction, I don't see the reason for all this panic.
> [...] PFAS, which have been linked to a range of serious health issues including liver damage, high cholesterol, reduced immune responses and several kinds of cancer
The links are rather tenuous at best right now. The only thing we have strong evidence for is possible hormonal effects, which is bad, but plastic particles are probably not giving you liver failure.
Liver damage is super common in the US, with 1 out of 3ish people having some amount of fatty liver, because america is stupidly fat
There are a few weak studies that “suggest” a “possible association” between some PFAS chemicals and some specific health outcomes. Far from a robust evidence corpus as you seem to believe and as propagated by the usual suspect from the press.
Those papers are almost always cited out of context, especially the one from the USAF from 1973. The concentrations on this one were gigantic and were based on an animal model, not on actual human outcomes in the real world with realistic exposure values.
Study after study with workers dealing directly with the substance has failed to find any mortality effect. Other studies like the one pointing to a slight impact on birth weight failed to account for that the results are most likely out to be primarily a confounding effect, in that pregnant mothers with reduced kidney function tend to have higher blood serum levels of PFAS, as well as babies with lower birth weight, so PFAS doesn’t cause the lower birth weight.
The studies on immune function with high concentrations of PFAS substances failed to find a causal link, and even then, it was done with a sense that has been largely phased out of industrial use.
Let's not forget that organization at the forefront of the PFAS scare, the EWG (Environmental Working Group), is an NGO behind other dubious scaremongering activism like linking vaccines to autism. The modus operandi and the conspiracy theory link and moral outrage are the same, but this scare is more palatable for a progressive public. Still, the PFAS scare is currently, based on the current scientific evidence, as baseless as the anti-vax crowd arguments.
I live in New England and am an avid fisherman. Due to our industrial past, I believe just about every single river in the state I reside is polluted either by PCB's or lead to the point you cannot safely consume fish regularly. It is frustrating/depressing that the ecosystems may be permanently tainted and future generations may not be able to experience the joy of (safely) preparing a fresh fish they caught.
Click bait, the article is written about a median of 500 sampled rivers and lakes in the US. Those could be anything (such as one of numerous superfund site runoff waterways). If you fish, check your local state fish and wildlife department for the lake or river you fish; they post contamination risk per waterway.
It’s true that virtually all are contaminated to some degree, but that may be quite a low risk, and is certainly not “like drinking contaminated water for a month.”
There are a few weak studies that “suggest” a “possible association” between some PFAS chemicals and some specific health outcomes. Far from a robust evidence corpus as you seem to believe and as propagated by the usual suspect from the press.
Those papers are almost always cited out of context, especially the one from the USAF from 1973. The concentrations on this one were gigantic and were based on an animal model, not on actual human outcomes in the real world with realistic exposure values.
Study after study with workers dealing directly with the substance has failed to find any mortality effect. Other studies like the one pointing to a slight impact on birth weight failed to account for that the results are most likely out to be primarily a confounding effect, in that pregnant mothers with reduced kidney function tend to have higher blood serum levels of PFAS, as well as babies with lower birth weight, so PFAS doesn’t cause the lower birth weight.
The studies on immune function with high concentrations of PFAS substances failed to find a causal link, and even then, it was done with a sense that has been largely phased out of industrial use.
Let's not forget that organization at the forefront of the PFAS scare, the EWG (Environmental Working Group), is an NGO behind other dubious scaremongering activism like linking vaccines to autism. The modus operandi and the conspiracy theory link and moral outrage are the same, but this scare is more palatable for a progressive public. Still, the PFAS scare is currently, based on the current scientific evidence, as baseless as the anti-vax crowd arguments.
18 comments
[ 0.31 ms ] story [ 56.8 ms ] thread"Unsafe levels of toxic chemicals are present in rainwater throughout the globe, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology."
https://environmentamerica.org/updates/update-new-study-find... SEPTEMBER 1, 2022
I'm amazed people haven't demanded justice for it. I'd always assumed that if it became impossible for enough people to get justice within the legal system eventually people would seek justice outside of it, but that doesn't seem to be the case either.
Liver damage is super common in the US, with 1 out of 3ish people having some amount of fatty liver, because america is stupidly fat
Those papers are almost always cited out of context, especially the one from the USAF from 1973. The concentrations on this one were gigantic and were based on an animal model, not on actual human outcomes in the real world with realistic exposure values.
Study after study with workers dealing directly with the substance has failed to find any mortality effect. Other studies like the one pointing to a slight impact on birth weight failed to account for that the results are most likely out to be primarily a confounding effect, in that pregnant mothers with reduced kidney function tend to have higher blood serum levels of PFAS, as well as babies with lower birth weight, so PFAS doesn’t cause the lower birth weight.
The studies on immune function with high concentrations of PFAS substances failed to find a causal link, and even then, it was done with a sense that has been largely phased out of industrial use.
Let's not forget that organization at the forefront of the PFAS scare, the EWG (Environmental Working Group), is an NGO behind other dubious scaremongering activism like linking vaccines to autism. The modus operandi and the conspiracy theory link and moral outrage are the same, but this scare is more palatable for a progressive public. Still, the PFAS scare is currently, based on the current scientific evidence, as baseless as the anti-vax crowd arguments.
It’s true that virtually all are contaminated to some degree, but that may be quite a low risk, and is certainly not “like drinking contaminated water for a month.”
Those papers are almost always cited out of context, especially the one from the USAF from 1973. The concentrations on this one were gigantic and were based on an animal model, not on actual human outcomes in the real world with realistic exposure values.
Study after study with workers dealing directly with the substance has failed to find any mortality effect. Other studies like the one pointing to a slight impact on birth weight failed to account for that the results are most likely out to be primarily a confounding effect, in that pregnant mothers with reduced kidney function tend to have higher blood serum levels of PFAS, as well as babies with lower birth weight, so PFAS doesn’t cause the lower birth weight.
The studies on immune function with high concentrations of PFAS substances failed to find a causal link, and even then, it was done with a sense that has been largely phased out of industrial use.
Let's not forget that organization at the forefront of the PFAS scare, the EWG (Environmental Working Group), is an NGO behind other dubious scaremongering activism like linking vaccines to autism. The modus operandi and the conspiracy theory link and moral outrage are the same, but this scare is more palatable for a progressive public. Still, the PFAS scare is currently, based on the current scientific evidence, as baseless as the anti-vax crowd arguments.
[2] Foods: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/americas-dairyland-may-have-pfa...
[3] Chocolate cake: https://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/fda-high-levels-pfas...