Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

news.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#41

Post by herbps10 »

maxvu wrote: post #20
herbps10 wrote: post #7

I work with one of the authors of the Hu et al. paper that this article is based on. I'm happy to relay any questions people have to her.

Have they been following the story of Hoosick Falls, NY at all?

"The contamination of drinking water in Hoosick Falls is an example of the shortcomings of the UCMR3 program. As part of the UCMR program, all large public water supplies that serve over 10,000 residents, and a small percent of smaller public water supplies, are required to conduct water testing. Most smaller public water supplies and private wells are not required to conduct water testing as part of the UCMR program. The public water supply in Hoosick Falls serves less than 10,000 residents, so it was not required to conduct testing for PFOA as part of the UCMR program, nor were residents in the area who relied on private wells."

I can add that we're also following several other communities with PFAS contamination issues, like Newburgh, NY; Bennington, VT; and Pease, NH.

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#42

Post by 08-15 »

philipkglass wrote: post #18

This article is about heavily fluorinated organic compounds -- molecules with a carbon skeleton and all or most of the hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine. These are not the ionic fluorine compounds that protect teeth against decay (and that cause acute toxicity in case of over-consumption). Why are these compounds hazardous? - Harmful biological effects in the human body, like hormone-mimic activity. - Low molecular…

> Why are these compounds hazardous? > - Harmful biological effects in the human body, like hormone-mimic activity.

Can you provide some evidence for that claim? I know that perfluoro compounds degrade very slowly and accumulate in fatty tissue, but I haven't seen a supported claim about harmful effects. From the misleading links in the article, I suspect more than a few people confuse PFAS and PCBs.

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#44

Post by AnimalMuppet »

lawpoop wrote: post #14
herbps10 wrote: post #7

I work with one of the authors of the Hu et al. paper that this article is based on. I'm happy to relay any questions people have to her.

I'm not in any way advocating for toxins in the water supply, but do you worry that news like this will embolden anti-flouride people?

If I understand correctly, I'd rather have cavities than cancer.

That is: Flouride is supposed to help prevent tooth decay. This stuff, on the other hand, "has been linked to" cancer (how strongly, I'm not sure). But if warning about a cancer-causer kills flouridation as collateral damage, well, I prefer that to the other way around (not doing anything about the cancer-causer to protect people's teeth).

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#46

Post by gtrubetskoy »

philipkglass wrote: post #18

This article is about heavily fluorinated organic compounds -- molecules with a carbon skeleton and all or most of the hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine. These are not the ionic fluorine compounds that protect teeth against decay (and that cause acute toxicity in case of over-consumption). Why are these compounds hazardous? - Harmful biological effects in the human body, like hormone-mimic activity. - Low molecular…

> This article is about heavily fluorinated organic compounds -- molecules with a carbon skeleton and all or most of the hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine.

such as Teflon?

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#47

Post by knz »

general_ai wrote: post #26
the_gastropod wrote: post #8

Luckily this will all be fixed by Scott Pruitt, by getting rid of silly safety limits (read: business killing regulations) all together!

Your comment would hold a lot more weight if EPA or some other massive government agency found it possible to help people in Flint, MI, which did not have drinkable water for years now, and still don't have it.

I'm not sure the logical response to the failings in Flint is to throw out the EPA and other "massive" government agencies. I haven't followed the situation closely but my understanding is that multiple levels of government failed the people of Flint (and continue to fail people in other areas with similar water quality issues) due to politics, funding, and the complex nature of the crisis.

Replacing aging infrastructure needs to be a national priority and will take many decades. Until that is complete we need a strong agency that monitors hazards and enforces compliance regulations - access to clean drinking water (and clean air) should not be a partisan issue. Instead we have a President who appears to believe that the solution to "Democrats didn't do anything to help Flint" (my fake news alarm bells are ringing....) is to gut the EPA and pass ridiculous laws like "for every new regulation we need to remove two".

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#48

Post by diogenescynic »

general_ai wrote: post #26
the_gastropod wrote: post #8

Luckily this will all be fixed by Scott Pruitt, by getting rid of silly safety limits (read: business killing regulations) all together!

Your comment would hold a lot more weight if EPA or some other massive government agency found it possible to help people in Flint, MI, which did not have drinkable water for years now, and still don't have it.

The EPA and other regulators have been hamstrung by republicans since their inception and then when they don't do everything perfectly republicans love to show how the EPA, SEC or whoever aren't doing their job. Republicans sabotage these regulators and don't provide adequate funding. It's sabotage. "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." - P. J. O'Rourke

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#49

Post by general_ai »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #29
general_ai wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment would hold a lot more weight if EPA or some other massive government agency found it possible to help people in Flint, MI, which did not have drinkable water for years now, and still don't have it.

I'm not sure how anyone is better off with reduced regulations. Except possibly developers.

Just goes to show that "regulations" isn't all that needs to happen. We've known for years there are problems in various areas, some of the most drastic of which have been widely publicized due to Flint. What's also been publicized by Flint is that the US government can't find $60M in their multi trillion dollar budget (EPA budget alone is $8.1 _billion_) to fix the situation, yet there's $210M to send abroad at the last minute as Obama is heading out the door, none of which, I might add has any chance of reaching the people who need it there either.

Regulations are not enough. Someone needs to actually go in and fix the shit that doesn't meet the regulations. For that to happen, someone needs to make it a priority to actually fix things right here in this country, rather than just tell us regulations aren't met, and writing up new ones all the time.

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#50

Post by elihu »

lawpoop wrote: post #14
herbps10 wrote: post #7

I work with one of the authors of the Hu et al. paper that this article is based on. I'm happy to relay any questions people have to her.

I'm not in any way advocating for toxins in the water supply, but do you worry that news like this will embolden anti-flouride people?

We had a big debate in Portland about whether we should add fluoride to our water (we voted it down). As far as I can tell, fluoride in the water is beneficial to people who don't brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste, but for the majority of us who do, it's not particularly helpful.

I think people should generally have a right not to ingest substances that they don't want to, especially when said substances aren't doing anything useful and might be marginally harmful to some.

There's also an argument that all that fluoride eventually ends up accumulating in the environment, and there may be long term negative effects from that. There's no benefit from watering our lawns or flushing our toilets with fluoridated water.

So, I don't really think this is so much of a science versus anti-science debate as a question of how you should weight the costs and benefits of a policy that people can't realistically opt out of if they don't approve of it.

Post reply on HN