Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water • Hacker News Board

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#41

Post by rayiner » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:22 PM UTC

okmokmz wrote: post #29

rayiner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your fear can of course be anywhere. Rational fear, not so much outside maybe Flint Michigan.

>Rational fear, not so much outside maybe Flint Michigan. You're deluding yourself if you believe Flint is the only location in the US where you need to be worried about contaminated or otherwise unsafe water https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2018/02/12/tens-m... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-dr...

I know a little bit about the subject. (I worked at NU's environmental clinic when they were looking at SDWA violations, though I didn't work on that project.) Although tons of municipalities are out of compliance with regulations, the regulations are very conservative and the water can be out of spec without being something you need to "fear."

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#42

Post by nwellinghoff » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:23 PM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #18

andreygrehov wrote: post #9

Curious, is there an easy way to test the water quality at home?

I've looked into this myself. Unfortunately it's not practical. Firstly, there are a number of different chemicals you might test for. Secondly, for chemicals that are dangerous at 1ppb only gas-chemotography / mass-spectrometry can detect that, which would cost upward of $500 per test per chemical and be done at a university lab. Might be more practical to only drink filtered or distilled water. Normal water filters…

I run a RO/DI filter with a 11 gallon reservoir. Unless its smaller than a water molecule and the DI does not pick it up. Its not getting through. The annual cost is about 30 dollars to replace the various filters and media. Plus you have 99.9% pure water at your disposal at all times for making drinking water, carbonated water and base water for anything where you need to know the chemical composition. (saltwater fish tanks etc.). I highly recommend it!

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#43

Post by ceejayoz » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:24 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #39

graeme wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is your position that the chemical mentioned in this article is harmless and the concerns groundless? The article said it's now widely found in Americans' blood and that 110 million americans are exposed to levels considered unsafe. Not being snarky. If there's another position consistent with the article I'm interested to hear it.

I'm from Bangladesh. I think arsenic in water is something to fear. If this stuff was harmful like arsenic, we would know by now. If it turns a 0.1% chance of cancer into a 0.12% chance of cancer, I think it's a waste of time to worry about it.

> If it turns a 0.1% chance of cancer into a 0.12% chance of cancer, I think it's a waste of time to worry about it.

That's 60k cases of cancer in the US. Not worth worrying about on a personal level, perhaps, but on a public policy one?

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#44

Post by maxton » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:24 PM UTC

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #33

I'm having a hard time following this. Is this cancerous like asbestos is cancerous, or is this cancerous in the same way California says coffee is cancerous?

It's cancerous in the sense that a consultant for 3M called it "one of the strongest cancer promoters I’ve ever seen." (quote from TFA)

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#45

Post by nwellinghoff » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

smolder wrote: post #32

tshannon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon filters clean up "some" of them, but not all. Reverse Osmosis is better if you can afford it. The filtering really should be done by the city / government on an industrial scale (like CG did in the article) where it's not only more cost efficient, but also their responsibility.

Reverse osmosis also wastes a certain amount of water as it filters, doesn't it? I remember there being a drain line on kits I looked at.

I run the drain line to my garden.

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#46

Post by okmokmz » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #41

okmokmz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Rational fear, not so much outside maybe Flint Michigan. You're deluding yourself if you believe Flint is the only location in the US where you need to be worried about contaminated or otherwise unsafe water https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2018/02/12/tens-m... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-dr...

I know a little bit about the subject. (I worked at NU's environmental clinic when they were looking at SDWA violations, though I didn't work on that project.) Although tons of municipalities are out of compliance with regulations, the regulations are very conservative and the water can be out of spec without being something you need to "fear."

You edited your comment and removed the part about third world countries, which was probably smart, but your original point seemed to be that it's fine that millions of Americans are exposed to potentially harmful chemicals/compounds/substances because it's not as bad as third world countries. I don't know about you, but I don't want to drink water that doesn't meet regulatory standards but is maybe technically "safe". If that's the case, why even have standards/regulations at all? Just because you won't immediately die of dysentery doesn't mean there won't be long term negative effects.

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#47

Post by graeme » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:30 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #39

graeme wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is your position that the chemical mentioned in this article is harmless and the concerns groundless? The article said it's now widely found in Americans' blood and that 110 million americans are exposed to levels considered unsafe. Not being snarky. If there's another position consistent with the article I'm interested to hear it.

I'm from Bangladesh. I think arsenic in water is something to fear. If this stuff was harmful like arsenic, we would know by now. If it turns a 0.1% chance of cancer into a 0.12% chance of cancer, I think it's a waste of time to worry about it.

No argument that this chemical is surely much less harmful than arsenic and that america is less polluted than Bangladesh.

And in practice it probably doesn't make sense for the individual in america to worry too much. There aren't really any places on earth you wouldn't have an effect from less dangerous/harder to diagnose chemicals.

But as a society we should still investigate it. A lot of small things summed together can add to something large.

For instance, why has fertility dropped so much? No one knows. Why are lab animals getting fatter? We don't know that either.

Slow burns are harder to sort out, but they can certainly exist.

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#48

Post by maxwell » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:33 PM UTC

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #12

cronix wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More and more microplastics are showing up in drinking water because the particles are so small. They seem to be mostly coming from our clothing released during washing, which is increasingly made of synthetic materials. "The US had the highest contamination rate, at 94%, with plastic fibres found in tap water sampled at sites including Congress buildings, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters, and Tr…

People _really_ need to stop laundering synthetics. The amount of plastic and other material that sheds into our water is stunning.

Have you written to your representatives about this yet?

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#49

Post by ryanmercer » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

BitterSweets wrote: post #2

Is there anywhere in the US that you can live without fear or worry of having contaminated water or air?

There isn't anywhere in the world where you can live without fear or worry of contaminated water or air.

Microplastics for example have been found in:

sea salt - https://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/sea-sa...

water - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/15/micropla...

air - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/09/people-m...

poop - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/microplastics-foun...

And of course thanks to all of the atomic/nuclear weapons we've detonated, everyone alive right now holds radioactive evidence from those detonations in their bodies https://www.businessinsider.com/bomb-pulse-radiation-decay-c...

Then there's the ozone damage we've done and the fact someone in China is still using, or has recently been anyway, CFCs - https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/27/investigators-china-ille...

And mercury from coal smoke - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S130910421...

Lead in soil from: leaded paints, past use of leaded gasoline, lead water-supply piping in the US until the 1920's, lead in in plumbing solder in the US until 1986...

Re: Cancer-Linked Chemicals Manufactured by 3M Are Turning Up in Drinking Water

#50

Post by adrianN » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #39

graeme wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is your position that the chemical mentioned in this article is harmless and the concerns groundless? The article said it's now widely found in Americans' blood and that 110 million americans are exposed to levels considered unsafe. Not being snarky. If there's another position consistent with the article I'm interested to hear it.

I'm from Bangladesh. I think arsenic in water is something to fear. If this stuff was harmful like arsenic, we would know by now. If it turns a 0.1% chance of cancer into a 0.12% chance of cancer, I think it's a waste of time to worry about it.

If it were just one chemical we should be concerned about your argument would be valid. However, we're in contact with thousands of compounds every day that never had long term safety testing done. Not to mention potential effects caused by the interactions of the different chemicals.