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

PFAS Contamination in the U.S

ewg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#21

Post by 1234letshaveatw »

mc32 wrote: post #18
vermilingua wrote: post #11

As a foreigner, why is it that select states are absolutely riddled with water contamination while most are not (and some are pristine)? I imagine it comes down to local legislation, but surely nobody wants their drinking water polluted, so how did the legislation happen in the first place? PS: especially as Colorado and Ohio are among the worst, through my lens they seem the states that are most about protecting the…

What’s up with Michigan, New Jersey and New Hampshire? They seem totally fouled up.

Military bases and industry. The one in Oscoda pisses me off the most, the Air Force seems to be slow playing remediation efforts that have contaminated one of the most beautiful rivers in the US.

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#22

Post by jallen_dot_dev »

vermilingua wrote: post #11

As a foreigner, why is it that select states are absolutely riddled with water contamination while most are not (and some are pristine)? I imagine it comes down to local legislation, but surely nobody wants their drinking water polluted, so how did the legislation happen in the first place? PS: especially as Colorado and Ohio are among the worst, through my lens they seem the states that are most about protecting the…

I don't see any pristine states. These chemicals are literally everywhere, all over the world.

Note that more dots on the map does not mean more PFAS. It means more data.

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#23

Post by bradfa »

grlass wrote: post #12

Apple's headquarters are built on top of contaminated ground, leading to concerns over employee health [1][2]. [1] https://disasterarea.home.blog/2019/07/12/apple-headquarters... [2] https://twitter.com/richgel999/status/1436934781955190788

I've worked at Xerox and in the Kodak sites around Rochester, NY, USA. They're all EPA Superfund sites. Surely there's negative health impacts of working on contaminated ground, but MANYMANY* high tech locations in the USA are EPA Superfund sites due to that's where the tech was created and the buildings and infrastructure were already present, so current tech companies just keep using them. Most of the buildings I had worked in had regular tap water testing performed and if any test came back with too high of levels then water filters were installed. I'm sure Apple does similar.

Xerox even has a bunch of patents about how to suck up and treat ground water.

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#24

Post by 1234letshaveatw »

yosito wrote: post #19
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is fearmongering, that teflon is proven to leach into food and disrupt body signaling in yet poorly understood ways? :D

You picked the wrong example considering that teflon hasn't been made with toxic chemicals for decades.

That doesn't matter- did you miss the whole "Forever" part?

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#26

Post by mschuster91 »

vermilingua wrote: post #11

As a foreigner, why is it that select states are absolutely riddled with water contamination while most are not (and some are pristine)? I imagine it comes down to local legislation, but surely nobody wants their drinking water polluted, so how did the legislation happen in the first place? PS: especially as Colorado and Ohio are among the worst, through my lens they seem the states that are most about protecting the…

> As a foreigner, why is it that select states are absolutely riddled with water contamination while most are not (and some are pristine)?

Historical reasons, for one - for example, the Silicon Valley has the most Superfund sites in the US (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/silic...) as a legacy of the chip production that was concentrated there. For PFAS contamination specifically, part of the answer is the distribution and size of airports and military bases, where PFAS are / have been used in firefighting activities and the runoff water was not filtered.

Another reason is lax supervision, enforcement and willful ignorance on part of politics - many local politicians don't want to disturb the major employers in town for fear of driving them away and the federal government isn't much better, the Trxmp administration was notorious for de-regulating (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-envir...).

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#27

Post by forgotmypw17 »

yosito wrote: post #19
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is fearmongering, that teflon is proven to leach into food and disrupt body signaling in yet poorly understood ways? :D

You picked the wrong example considering that teflon hasn't been made with toxic chemicals for decades.

Is this a joke?

"As a result of the lawsuits concerning the PFOA class-action lawsuit, DuPont began to use GenX, a similarly fluorinated compound, as a replacement for polytetrafluoroethylene in the manufacture of fluoropolymers, such as Teflon.[71][72] However, in lab tests on rats, GenX has been shown to cause many of the same health problems as PFOA.[73][74]

The chemicals are manufactured by Chemours, a corporate spin-off of DuPont, in Fayetteville, North Carolina.[75] While PFOA was phased out by 2014, Chemours was already found to be dumping GenX into the Cape Fear River in 2017, with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) ordering Chemours to halt discharges of all fluorinated compounds on September 5, 2017."

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#29

Post by dashundchen »

bradfa wrote: post #20
vermilingua wrote: post #11

As a foreigner, why is it that select states are absolutely riddled with water contamination while most are not (and some are pristine)? I imagine it comes down to local legislation, but surely nobody wants their drinking water polluted, so how did the legislation happen in the first place? PS: especially as Colorado and Ohio are among the worst, through my lens they seem the states that are most about protecting the…

Likely it is legislation, but probably it's required testing for certain permits or environmental reasons and then that testing gets reported. I live in upstate NY and I've never heard of anyone testing for PFAS. In our schools they do bi-yearly drinking water tests for lead and a handful of other things, but not PFAS. It also just might be where chemical plants or recycling centers are located. My brother used to wo…

New York was actually the first state in the US to start regulating PFAS and PFOA sites in 2016.

As of last year, maximum limits for public water went into effect. I believe testing has gone on for longer than that.

EDIT: linked fixed

https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/docs/...

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#30

Post by michieldotv »

PFOS/PFAS are such a shit fest.

An unholy coalition politicians, gov't administration, scientists and corporate interest tried to cover up historical PFOS pollution around the 3M production site in Zwijndrecht (BE). They were caught red handed by a vigilant citizen journal when some politicians wanted to expedite some car-centric public construction works smack in the middle of the polluted area.

The ministers for environment and public works ordered their administrations to turn a blind eye, not to sample the wider area to assess the extent of the PFOS pollution, and under no circumstance communicate to the public about the pollution.

A renowned toxicologist was commissioned write down safety norms for the public works in the context of pre-existing PFOS pollution. He took a European reference norm that was already outdated at the time given new toxicological insights, messed up the arithmetic, and, lo and behold, came up with a threshold that was _just_ right for the works to start.

A special parliamentary commission was established to investigate, and so we had 3M testify in parliament on how they believe it is a harmless chemical etc.

At some point in 2010s 3M switched the production process over to use PFAS which they are dumping in the Scheldt river in absurd amounts to this day.

We got some reassuring corporate sop that they promise to reduce PFAS levels in wastewater discharges to 54 kg/year by 2024 (5.375 kg/year in 2021). For reference, Chemours (NL) had a permit for dumping just 2 kg/year in 2020, which sounds about right given our current understanding of the human toxicological effects of PFAS.

Post reply on HN