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

Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

#31

Post by dsfyu404ed »

heavyset_go wrote: post #30
hanniabu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not realizing there was an underground waterflow there I'm amazed whenever I see this. (A) what makes it okay to just dump stuff in a ditch? (B) are these people really clueless that no leaching through soil occurs?

> what makes it okay to just dump stuff in a ditch? Lack of accountability. They did a calculation, and decided the risk of lawsuits several decades down the line is worth not paying to properly dispose their waste today.

There's a big difference between accountability and having to base your actions around what makes you the least sue-able and I think we can all agree that the latter has some serious side effects.

Re: Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

#32

Post by ping_pong »

TylerE wrote: post #29
rixrax wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As incredible as it is, $100 appears to be below average monthly cost nowadays for a 4 person family[0] using 150 gallons / person / day [based on a random study that quick search found]. I am not sure who would use 150 gallons a day though. Even 50 gallons (~189 liters) seems a lot to me. If you factor in irrigation system, etc. then maybe you would get to these gallon volumes. [0] https://www.circleofblue.org/2018/…

The big consumers are stuff like toilets (~2 gallons/flush), showers (2-3 gallons/minute), and lawn care. So you have 3 people who take a 10 minute shower, and flush the toilet 4 times each, that's 112 gallons/day right there.

112 gallons a day is not a lot. We have exactly this and our water bill is $25/month in the SF Bay Area. Our SERVICE CHARGE just to have water is about $30/month whether we use water or not.

Lawn care is the most expensive part, that can be hundreds of dollars a month, depending on how much water you use.

When I lived in Vancouver, BC, our house had a flat water rate of $40/month. My parents would use water until the cows came home, would leave the faucet running while walking around the house, etc. When they came to visit here, I made sure they broke themselves of that habit very very quickly.

Re: Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

#33

Post by ping_pong »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #23
rixrax wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As incredible as it is, $100 appears to be below average monthly cost nowadays for a 4 person family[0] using 150 gallons / person / day [based on a random study that quick search found]. I am not sure who would use 150 gallons a day though. Even 50 gallons (~189 liters) seems a lot to me. If you factor in irrigation system, etc. then maybe you would get to these gallon volumes. [0] https://www.circleofblue.org/2018/…

I pay nothing (monthly). But I am rural, and have my own well and septic system. Which cost, if I remember right, $5000 decades ago when built. Which amortizes to maybe $20/month.

Do you test your water for impurities and chemicals?

Re: Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

#34

Post by rayiner »

mschuster91 wrote: post #2

> The Air Force delivered free five-gallon jugs of water to the Mendez home for more than two years. In 2018, it paid to have the house connected to the municipal water system. Ruben Mendez said he now pays $100 a month for water he used to get for free. Sorry, what? 100$ a month for residential water ? Either this guy is running a farm operation or something is seriously broken.

Municipalities kept water and sewer rates too low for decades, and now we need to spend $1 trillion over the next 25 years to upgrade systems and catch up with deferred maintenance: https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking_w...

Re: Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

#35

Post by opwieurposiu »

hanniabu wrote: post #6

I was always told that this foam wasn't toxic

Well if the choice is between getting sprayed with burning jet fuel or sprayed with fluorinated foam I will take the foam every time.

Maybe we should save the good stuff like halon and PFAS foam for emergencies and use something more eco for training.

Re: Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

#36

Post by alexhutcheson »

jen_h wrote: post #25

Filter your water if you live anywhere near an airport or military base anywhere, it's not just California. In Satellite Beach, Florida, the contamination from Patrick AFB was discovered after a group of Satellite Beach High alumni realized they all developed cancer around the same time and decided to start digging. [ https://pfasproject.com/2018/08/08/satellite-beach-florida-f... ] They dumped everything in a trench…

Any sources on what filters are effective?

Re: Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

#37

Post by jen_h »

alexhutcheson wrote: post #36
jen_h wrote: post #25

Filter your water if you live anywhere near an airport or military base anywhere, it's not just California. In Satellite Beach, Florida, the contamination from Patrick AFB was discovered after a group of Satellite Beach High alumni realized they all developed cancer around the same time and decided to start digging. [ https://pfasproject.com/2018/08/08/satellite-beach-florida-f... ] They dumped everything in a trench…

Any sources on what filters are effective?

Looks like reverse osmosis or carbon filters -- found this from Michigan State University:

"To know if a filter is NSF certified for the removal of PFOA and PFOS look for NSF P473 or NSF Certified to Standard P473 on the product, packaging, or specifications. Two types of filters recommended are granular activated carbon (GAC) and reverse osmosis (RO) filters."

(https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/list-of-household-filters-appr...)

Re: Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

#38

Post by jen_h »

hanniabu wrote: post #26
jen_h wrote: post #25

Filter your water if you live anywhere near an airport or military base anywhere, it's not just California. In Satellite Beach, Florida, the contamination from Patrick AFB was discovered after a group of Satellite Beach High alumni realized they all developed cancer around the same time and decided to start digging. [ https://pfasproject.com/2018/08/08/satellite-beach-florida-f... ] They dumped everything in a trench…

> not realizing there was an underground waterflow there I'm amazed whenever I see this. (A) what makes it okay to just dump stuff in a ditch? (B) are these people really clueless that no leaching through soil occurs?

See also: "burn pits."

Re: Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

#40

Post by nate »

jen_h wrote: post #25

Filter your water if you live anywhere near an airport or military base anywhere, it's not just California. In Satellite Beach, Florida, the contamination from Patrick AFB was discovered after a group of Satellite Beach High alumni realized they all developed cancer around the same time and decided to start digging. [ https://pfasproject.com/2018/08/08/satellite-beach-florida-f... ] They dumped everything in a trench…

I'd also just filter/test your water everywhere :( I'm in Chicago, and my daughter and I decided to test some public water fountains near the city zoo for lead. Thought it would be an interesting way to expose her to more science. I also had a suspicion of water fountains I've been finding now "capped" and no longer working. One of the fountains we tested with a home test kit from Home Depot came up positive for lead. Luckily I know some folks in the city we reached out too about our test and now that water fountain has been capped too.

This has made me super paranoid now of all water everywhere.

Post reply on HN