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

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#31

Post by spywaregorilla »

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…

When analyzing the United States you have to remember that most of it is empty. Most of the time when you see a picture like this, it's because of the population distribution. These areas look clean because people don't live there. https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/maps/

Or alternatively, https://xkcd.com/1138/

Its also not clear how to gauge these dots. One dot may cover an enormous area or a small area. One might wonder if some instances are double counted. On the big picture level, it's reasonable down to the level of "where the people at"

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#32

Post by ceejayoz »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #27
yosito wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This stuff drives me insane.

Things like "BPA-free!" almost always translates to "We replaced it with something that's probably worse!"

At some point, we have to figure out a way to crack down on companies that knowingly just switch from one troublesome chemical to a lightly tweaked version of the same thing.

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#33

Post by cptskippy »

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…

My partner, who is an environmental engineer that specializes in superfund site remediation, took one look at the map and said "Colorado is only a hot spot because they're actively looking for it and other places aren't."

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#35

Post by bradfa »

dashundchen wrote: post #29
bradfa wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

That link doesn't work for me.

Our local school district's most recent water testing seems to have just been for lead. It resulted in a 229 page document outlining how, when, and where they tested every single tap in all the schools and what the results were. I've not seen mention of PFAS testing in our schools, which is where I'd expect to see it first.

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#36

Post by afranchuk »

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.

I think it's safe to spread that distribution as if it were throughout new England and the Midwest. Those states have just reported/recorded the information more. As someone who recently purchased a home in one of those states, I was glad to actually have at least some detailed information available about nearby superfund sites and testing results.

If you turn off drinking water, the distribution looks more even. It just seems to be bias in the water testing/reporting.

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#37

Post by bsagdiyev »

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…

Depends on legislation too. Our water, in NC, is marked on the map. We’re fed from the Neuse River which is contaminated upstream. Unfortunately I don’t see that our water quality report even mentioned PFAs, at least not back in 2020: https://www.fuquay-varina.org/DocumentCenter/View/744/CCR---...

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#38

Post by 01100011 »

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

Santa Clara County has the most Superfund sites of any county in the US, so it's hard to find somewhere to build that isn't contaminated. Between mercury mining, agriculture, the military and the semiconductor industry, SiValley is quite polluted.

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#39

Post by Factorium »

ceejayoz wrote: post #32
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This stuff drives me insane. Things like "BPA-free!" almost always translates to "We replaced it with something that's probably worse!" At some point, we have to figure out a way to crack down on companies that knowingly just switch from one troublesome chemical to a lightly tweaked version of the same thing.

Just ban entire elements. There's no need to include fluorine in any consumer packaging or in any products that can leach into the environment.

Just whitelist certain chemicals and uses eg. toothpaste fluorides.

Re: PFAS Contamination in the U.S

#40

Post by jlturner »

PFAS contamination is existent in many waterways and bodies of water and contaminate the fish that live there. Shame because ones that tend to build up more PFAS in their system are not safe to eat either, but would otherwise provide an inexpensive, healthy, and delicious meal. Most anglers I talk to (in the Bay Area) catch and release rather than taking home and consuming the fish because of chemical contamination of the water.
Post reply on HN