Holy This "Forever Chemical" thing got serious

[Jays toyz]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pfas-fo...minated-water/

Old data they have had for years. I wonder what the situation is in Canada.

[ZJHoban]

Yikes. Good thing I'm not a very good fisherman so I don't eat much fish lol.

I would surmise that the great lakes would have decent levels of these chemicals, while mountain/foothill lakes would have far lower levels.

If chemical concentration is similar per capita in Canada and the states we can probably take a 0 off the end of all the numbers in the article.

Definitely an interesting article and something to consider.

[New2Elk]

So how much of these chemicals are in the water we drink daily compared to coming out of one fish? My understanding is these “forever” chemicals can’t be (or aren’t) effectively removed by most water treatment systems and as these same lakes and rivers feed all the major water treatment plants on the continent, it’s in most of the water we drink as well. I understand chemicals compound in the fish and the food chain in general, but I consume magnitudes of water more than I do fish. And I would assume the same holds true for the vast majority of the population. So compared to the water we drink, how much worse is consuming some fish, or is this just another story using catastrophe as the catchy headline of the day.

[fordtruckin]

I’d be curious to know where the 500 bodies of water samples were located as well as the size of those bodies of water. Of course if most of them are in rural USA like Montana Nebraska South Dakota Arizona etc…that is slightly more concerning than if the samples were taken from near big urban centers like NYC LA Chicago etc…makes sense the more people and more industry around an area the higher the likelihood of pollutants. I say it’s another the sky is falling knee jerk reaction from our woke media!

[saskbooknut]

There is a horrifying accumulation of threatening chemicals in our drinking water and food chain.
Almost every significant metropolitan area in Canada dumps it's sewage into water bodies that become someone else's drinking water downstream.
Researchers find airborne contaminants in the high Arctic.
The issue of industrial contaminants in our environment, and as a body burden in people is not a joke, nor is it a conspiracy, or an overreaction.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

That’s why RO (reverse osmosis) is the way to go!

[Unregistered user]

Trying to scare people from being self sufficient, globalists want to control the food. "You vill eat ze bugs and you vill like zem".

[fish99]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Trying to scare people from being self sufficient, globalists want to control the food. "You vill eat ze bugs and you vill like zem".

don't drink the koolaide. lol.

[Demonical]

The US has been a major industrial manufacturing area for 100+ years.
And pretty much all of the central US river system has accumulated these chemicals.
And that's a vast river system, all basically emptying through the Mississippi.

That doesn't mean that the rivers/lakes in Alberta have these chemicals.

And certainly highly doubtful that there could be the same levels of them, assuming they are present.

I won't lose any sleep over this.

[slough shark]

The whole thing about this makes me shake my head because basically on most things these days we are being told what is in the wild is bad for us but what is produced commercially is good for us… it’s not just this but with a lot of things, don’t eat this because of chemicals but eat this (which is treated with chemicals). I mean how do they figure fish which are raised in much of the same water and are fed pellets are better than 270x less polluted than what is found in the wild?

[thumper]

Gotta keep the panic news!

Atmospheric Bomb, Polar Vortex, Kraken strain covid, Murder Hornets - pick your panic!

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by thumper

Gotta keep the panic news!

Atmospheric Bomb, Polar Vortex, Kraken strain covid, Murder Hornets - pick your panic!

Egad!!! I'm running in circles as I type.

[ZJHoban]

Originally Posted by thumper

Gotta keep the panic news!

Atmospheric Bomb, Polar Vortex, Kraken strain covid, Murder Hornets - pick your panic!

A trigger warning before you post something like that would be appreciated

[urban rednek]

Saw this pocket article from Heatmap that details some of the upcoming changes to the US state laws regarding PFAS and other "forever" chemicals. If this is accurate, the entire line up of currently available DWR treated textiles will be affected. Possibly including all Goretex products; apparently they use PTFEs, which are not specifically listed in the current legislation.
If this gains traction, I can see oilcloth making a comeback.

https://heatmap.news/lifestyle/rainc...t-newtab-en-us

Note: there was no paywall from the Pocket link, but it does want a sign in when using the link above. It does allow both Fecesbook and Google (Gmail) users to sign in through those accounts. It was too long to paste the entire article here.

Excerpts

But what made my raincoat so trustworthy that day on the mountain could also, in theory, kill me — or, more likely, kill or sicken any of the thousands of people who live downstream of the manufacturers that make waterproofing chemicals and the landfills where waterproof clothing is incinerated or interred. Outdoor apparel is typically ultraprocessed and treated using perfluoroalkyl and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, a class of water- and stain-resistant “forever chemicals” that are more commonly referred to as PFAS (pronounced “pee-fass”). After decades of work by environmental groups and health advocates, states and retailers are finally banning the sale of textiles that have been treated with the chemicals, which in the outdoor industry often manifest in the form of Gore-Tex membranes or “durable water repellent” treatments.

These bans are fast approaching: Beginning in 2025 — less than 12 months from now — California will forbid the sale of most PFAS-treated textiles; New York will restrict them in apparel; and Washington will regulate stain- and waterproofing treatments, with similar regulations pending or approved in a number of other states. Following pressure from activists, the nation’s largest outdoor retailer, REI, also announced last winter that it will ban PFAS in all the textile products and cookware sold in its stores starting fall 2024; Dick’s Sporting Goods will also eliminate PFAS from its brand-name clothing.

Even if you aren’t buying expedition-level gear, your closet almost certainly contains PFAS. A 2022 study by Toxic-Free Future found the chemicals in nearly 75% of products labeled as waterproof or stain-resistant. Another study found that the concentration of fluorotelomer alcohols, which are used in the production of PFAS, was 30 times higher inside stores that sold outdoor clothing than in other workplaces.

The reason I could count on my raincoat to protect me in the mountains, though, was because, like most expedition-level gear, it is made of a membrane manufactured by Gore-Tex, with an additional DWR waterproofing finish that also contains PFAS. Gore-Tex is known in the outdoors industry for making the holy grail of performance fabrics: Its membranes are waterproof, durable, and breathable enough to exercise in, a challenging and impressive combination to nail. But to achieve this, the company has traditionally used the fluoropolymer PTFE, a notorious forever chemical you probably know by the trademarked name Teflon.

When I reached out to Gore-Tex about its use of PFAS, company spokesperson Julie Evans told me via email that “there are important distinctions among materials associated with the term PFAS” and that the fluoropolymers Gore uses, such as PTFE, “are not the same as those substances that are bioavailable, mobile, and persistent.” She stressed that “not all PFAS are the same” and that PTFE and the other fluoropolymers in the Gore arsenal meet the standards of low concern, and are “extremely stable and do not degrade in the environment,” are “too large to be bioavailable,” and are “non-toxic [and] safe to use from an environmental and human perspective.” The National Resource Defense Council, by contrast, writes that PFAS polymers like PTFE, “when added as a coating or membrane to a raincoat or other product, can pose a toxic risk to wearers, just as other PFAS can.”

Blum, of the Green Science Policy Institute, admitted that while “probably your Gore-Tex jacket won’t hurt you” — there is limited evidence that PFAS will leech into your body just from wearing it — there’s a more significant issue at the heart of the PFAS debate. “When you go from the monomer to the polymer” in the chemical manufacturing process, she said, it “contaminates the drinking water in the area where it’s made.” The disposal process — and especially incineration, a common fate for discarded clothing — is another opportunity for PFAS to shed into the environment. People who live near landfills and chemical manufacturing plants in industrial hubs like Michigan and many cities in Bangladesh suffer from PFAS at disproportionate levels.

[urban rednek]

Another pocket article on PFOS, the original PFAS, and the decades long cover up by 3M to hide the truth while they made massive profits and bonuses.
I expect we'll see similar stories about other American megacorps lying about deadly chemicals as time goes by.

https://www.propublica.org/article/3...t-newtab-en-us

It is a long article that could end up disappearing behind a paywall, here are some excerpts:

Toxic Gaslighting: How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human Blood Were Safe

Decades ago, Kris Hansen showed 3M that its PFAS chemicals were in people’s bodies. Her bosses halted her work. As the EPA now forces the removal of the chemicals from drinking water, she wrestles with the secrets that 3M kept from her and the world.

by Sharon Lerner, photography by Haruka Sakaguchi, special to ProPublica
May 20, 6 a.m. EDT

But on this day, in 1997, Johnson wanted Hansen to test human blood for chemical contamination.

Several of 3M’s most successful products contained man-made compounds called fluorochemicals. In a spray called Scotchgard, fluorochemicals protected leather and fabric from stains. In a coating known as Scotchban, they prevented food packaging from getting soggy. In a soapy foam used by firefighters, they helped extinguish jet-fuel fires. Johnson explained to Hansen that one of the company’s fluorochemicals, PFOS — short for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid — often found its way into the bodies of 3M factory workers. Although he said that they were unharmed, he had recently hired an outside lab to measure the levels in their blood. The lab had just reported something odd, however. For the sake of comparison, it had tested blood samples from the American Red Cross, which came from the general population and should have been free of fluorochemicals. Instead, it kept finding a contaminant in the blood.

What Hansen didn’t know was that 3M had already conducted animal studies — two decades earlier. They had shown PFOS to be toxic, yet the results remained secret, even to many at the company.

In 1979, an internal company report deemed PFOS “certainly more toxic than anticipated” and recommended longer-term studies. That year, 3M executives flew to San Francisco to consult Harold Hodge, a respected toxicologist. They told Hodge only part of what they knew: that PFOS had sickened and even killed laboratory animals and had caused liver abnormalities in factory workers. According to a 3M document that was marked “CONFIDENTIAL,” Hodge urged the executives to study whether the company’s fluorochemicals caused reproductive issues or cancer. After reviewing more data, he told one of them to find out whether the chemicals were present “in man,” and he added, “If the levels are high and widespread and the half-life is long, we could have a serious problem.” Yet Hodge’s warning was omitted from official meeting notes, and the company’s fluorochemical production increased over time.

A few months later, in early 1999, Bacon invited Hansen to an extraordinary meeting: She would have the chance to present her findings to 3M’s CEO, Livio D. DeSimone.
Men in suits sat around a long table. Her boss, Bacon, was there. DeSimone, a portly man with white hair, sat at the head of the table.
Almost as soon as Hansen placed her first transparency on the projector, the attendees began interrogating her: Why did she do this research? Who directed her to do it? Whom did she inform of the results? The executives seemed to view her diligence as a betrayal: Her data could be damaging to the company. She remembers defending herself, mentioning Newmark’s similar work in the ’70s and trying, unsuccessfully, to direct the conversation back to her research. While the executives talked over her, Hansen noticed that DeSimone’s eyes had closed and that his chin was resting on his dress shirt. The CEO appeared to have fallen asleep.

Certain unpredictable events — a leak, a lawsuit, a news story — can start to unspool a secret. In the case of forever chemicals, the unspooling began on a cattle farm. In 1998, a West Virginia farmer told a lawyer, Robert Bilott, that wastewater from a DuPont site seemed to be poisoning his cows: They had started to foam at the mouth, their teeth grew black and more than a hundred eventually fell over and died. Bilott sued and obtained tens of thousands of internal documents, which helped push forever chemicals into the public consciousness. The documents revealed that the farm’s water contained PFOA, the fluorochemical that DuPont had bought from 3M, and that both companies had long understood it to be toxic. (The lawsuit, which ended in a settlement, was dramatized in the film “Dark Waters,” starring Mark Ruffalo as Bilott.) Bilott later sued 3M over contamination in Minnesota, but the judge prohibited discussion of health repercussions; a jury ultimately decided in 3M’s favor. Finally, in 2010, the Minnesota attorney general’s office filed its own suit, alleging that 3M had harmed the environment and polluted drinking water. The company paid $850 million in a settlement, without an admission of fault or liability. The AG also released thousands more internal 3M records to the public.

In April, the EPA took two historic steps to reduce exposure to PFAS. It said that PFOS and PFOA are “likely to cause cancer” and that no level of either chemical is considered safe; it deemed them hazardous substances under the Superfund law, increasing the government’s power to force polluters to clean them up

Recently, 3M settled the lawsuit filed by cities and towns with polluted water. It will pay up to $12.5 billion to cover the costs of filtering out PFAS, depending on how many water systems need the chemicals removed. The settlement, however, doesn’t approach the scale of the problem. At least 45% of U.S. tap water is estimated to contain one or more forever chemicals, and one drinking water expert told me that the cost of removing them all would likely reach $100 billion.

This is part of the story behind the PFAS ban.

[Drewski Canuck]

With all this "death and destruction" that industry has been dumping on Earth for what appears to be over 30 years, why is it that the Developed World Human life expectancy keeps rising?

Covid did kick back life expectancy somewhat, but it is still common to see people living to their 80's and 90's, often in better health than people of that age did 30 years ago???

Perhaps this is the news feed that some scientists need to support grant applications. Perhaps this is the news feed that Media Organizations are hoping will trend to take over from "Climate Change" and "Global Warming"?

Yes, there are some chemicals that when they break down are extremely harmful, such as DDT was, and PCB's were, but alot of these "forever chemicals" appear to be inert, or at least having little effect to the one statistic that is relevant, which is life expectancy.

Drewski

[Ram94]

Good thing we can’t keep any fish in Alberta!

[urban rednek]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

With all this "death and destruction" that industry has been dumping on Earth for what appears to be over 30 years, why is it that the Developed World Human life expectancy keeps rising?

Drewski

^^That is a Red Herring^^
There is no correlation between increased life expectancy in developed countries and the intentional poisoning of the environment by individuals within a corporate and/or government framework. Where individuals are held blameless for obviously illegal decisions that negatively impact the lives of others; safely protected behind walls of corporate law.

This is simply the latest example in a long history of corporate and government malfeasance and cover ups that cause irreparable harm to those
affected.