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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 177 posts

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

#31

Post by okmokmz »

empath75 wrote: post #3
BitterSweets wrote: post #2

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

Pretty much everywhere. Tap water in the us is perfectly safe in most places.

Wrong

"Allaire found the amount of violations varied by year, affecting as many as 45 million people in some years, representing about 28% of the U.S. population."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2018/02/12/tens-m...

"Tainted tap water isn’t just a problem in Flint, Michigan. In any given year from 1982 to 2015, somewhere between 9 million and 45 million Americans got their drinking water from a source that was in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to a new study"

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-dr...

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

#32

Post by smolder »

tshannon wrote: post #24
alexandercrohde wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#34

Post by okmokmz »

rayiner wrote: post #22
dmm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The absence of specific dangers is not the same as safety, but the former is all that water supply testing can provide.

We test for things that are really dangerous (e. coli, arsenic, heavy metals, etc.). If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now.

>If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now.

You're right, it is pretty obvious

"The chronic biological effects in marine organisms results due to accumulation of microplastics in their cells and tissues. The potential hazardous effects on humans by alternate ingestion of microparticles can cause alteration in chromosomes which lead to infertility, obesity, and cancer."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28815367

"Not only is the potential migration of the plastics throughout our body a concern, but the additives in plastics may carry health risks. Many of these additives are known endocrine disrupters. According to Dr. Herbert Tilg, president of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and chair of the UEG Scientific Committee, microplastics could possibly be one of the factors contributing to inflammatory bowel syndrome or even colon cancer, which is on the rise among young adults."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/10/22/659568662/mi...

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

#35

Post by graeme »

rayiner wrote: post #15
BitterSweets wrote: post #2

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

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

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.

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

#36

Post by zzzcpan »

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.

Yes, like 10x of water in those kits.

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

#37

Post by blacksmith_tb »

ada1981 wrote: post #30
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that blames the victims a bit too much, it's analogous to "people need to stop buying food in single-use plastics" - I would put the onus on the manufacturers to fix their products and their distribution, rather than the end users. What's the alternative to laundering your clothing, realistically?

Don’t buy synthetics is a start. Vote to pass legislation that taxes synthetics and the money is used for mitigation. Company’s make what consumers want.

I agree that it'd be better not to buy synthetics as they stand, but that requires manufacturers to shift their production to natural fibers. I think regulation / remediation sounds like a good way to encourage that shift. Consumers buy what's on offer - if everything in the market was natural fiber, consumers would choose accordingly, otherwise they are likely to choose whatever meets their needs (which maybe low-price, or high-fashion, but without more education and alternatives, won't be cleaner water).

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

#38

Post by pmastela »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #20

"Last November, she announced that areas around the Cottage Grove plant had elevated levels of some cancers including childhood cancers , and lower fertility. And, she said in court filings, 3M was to blame." - I wonder if chemicals are the cause of the 50% drop in male sperm count in developed countries [over the last 30 years].

Some scientists are putting your assumption to the test. Here's an HN discussion from a couple months back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942744

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

#39

Post by rayiner »

graeme wrote: post #35
rayiner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

#40

Post by loceng »

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…

Could this process not be scaled, automated somewhat, to bring the cost per test down?
Post reply on HN