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

Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

news.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#61

Post by herbps10 »

VLM wrote: post #27
herbps10 wrote: post #7

I work with one of the authors of the Hu et al. paper that this article is based on. I'm happy to relay any questions people have to her.

The article seems to play extremely fast and loose with watershed vs waste treatment plant sludge vs drinking water all being the same. Which is it? I'm particularly interested because I live in a community marked blue and I'm sure our industrially polluted river tested positive, yet our drinking water comes from 800 foot deep wells and is extremely hard although otherwise extremely clean. So are we contaminated beca…

My understanding is that just because you live in a blue area of the map doesn't mean you have contaminated water.

Also, note that this paper only looks at public water supply testing data, not private well water.

From the linked article: "From the authors of the study: We have mapped watersheds in the United States that have potentially high concentrations of PFASs based on U.S. EPA data. This does not mean that all drinking water supplies within the highlighted regions contain high PFAS concentrations, but that at least one sample from at least one water supply was reported to be at or above levels considered safe by the U.S. EPA between 2013 and 2015. However, no measurements have been made in many water supplies across the country. We recommend increased monitoring of these contaminants in our drinking water. For more information, please contact the EPA: Cathy Milbourn, Milbourn.cathy@Epa.gov, or Monica Lee, Lee.monica@Epa.gov."

I'll follow up with my colleague to see if she has any thoughts.

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#62

Post by VLM »

herbps10 wrote: post #7

I work with one of the authors of the Hu et al. paper that this article is based on. I'm happy to relay any questions people have to her.

I have another request. (You didn't limit us to one)

The article very carefully avoids discussing actual hazard level or a comparison, merely a measured number exceeded a beancounter's number.

Its irresponsible to make policy decisions without knowing the actual risk level... so inform us?

I realize its difficult to compare ochem toxicity between compounds, famously there are obscure reactions where nothing interesting happens to anyone except pregnant women or unborn children, obscure herbicides that slaughter fish but are otherwise mostly harmless, obscure herbicides that selectively kill broadleaf plants, etc.

None the less ... would it be possible to put the risk in a form people (perhaps incorrectly) think they can understand and manage? Something like fill in the blank: "The risk of drinking unfiltered tapwater at the EPA limit on a normal daily basis is roughly as dangerous to your health as consuming X ounces of 100 proof ethanol per day"

I'm curious if EPA defined contaminated tapwater is as risky as drinking four bottles of wine per day WRT cancer risk or if its more like sniffing an open bottle of N.A. beer.

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#63

Post by lawpoop »

bykovich wrote: post #16
lawpoop wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in any way advocating for toxins in the water supply, but do you worry that news like this will embolden anti-flouride people?

Heaven forbid accurate reporting embolden undesirable elements.

Looking at you, anti-vaxxers

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#64

Post by yuhong »

djsumdog wrote: post #52
throwaway91111 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mouthwash seems like a better option than drinking fluoride to improve teeth.

Very true. I've been to some of the anti-fluoride talks and read a lot on both sides. From what I gather, there simply isn't enough fluoride added to water to really make a difference. Add enough and you start getting dental floursis. The people against municipal fluoride use a lot of the same bad maths to link fluoride to a plethora of ailments. Their evidence doesn't really add up either. Overall it looks like it's…

It would be even better to decrease the consumption of sugar I think.

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#65

Post by maxxxxx »

awinder wrote: post #31
general_ai wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment would hold a lot more weight if EPA or some other massive government agency found it possible to help people in Flint, MI, which did not have drinkable water for years now, and still don't have it.

Not to diminish the Flint Michigan situation, as republicans did when they shuttered the investigative bodies that were looking into it. But how dafuq can the EPA be doing nothing if flint is the rare exception to the rule? If they are to lose credibility for not catching one thing, how much credibility do they get for all the stories we DONT read?

Being EPA is like running IT in a company. You can only lose. If things don't go well you get the blame. If things go well you are asked "what are all these people doing?"

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#66

Post by jobenjo »

lawpoop wrote: post #14
herbps10 wrote: post #7

I work with one of the authors of the Hu et al. paper that this article is based on. I'm happy to relay any questions people have to her.

I'm not in any way advocating for toxins in the water supply, but do you worry that news like this will embolden anti-flouride people?

As an "anti-fluoride person", I just want to go on the record to state that it's ridiculous to be more concerned with riling up a particular group than having safe drinking water.

In fact, counter to common opinion, we have a solidly science-based view on this issue--I'm not sure how we got grouped in with anti-vaxxers and others.

There simply isn't good evidence that adding fluoride to drinking water is a justifiable public health method to reduce cavities, which is why 97% of Western Europe doesn't do it[0]. And because there's no opt-out, it may be dangerous for bottle-fed babies [1].

I'm not saying it's the world's biggest problem right now (by a long shot), but dispensing medicine in water is not good policy.

[0] - http://fluoridealert.org/content/water_europe/ [1] - http://fluoridealert.org/issues/infant-exposure/

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#67

Post by loblollyboy »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #44
lawpoop wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in any way advocating for toxins in the water supply, but do you worry that news like this will embolden anti-flouride people?

If I understand correctly, I'd rather have cavities than cancer. That is: Flouride is supposed to help prevent tooth decay. This stuff, on the other hand, "has been linked to" cancer (how strongly, I'm not sure). But if warning about a cancer-causer kills flouridation as collateral damage, well, I prefer that to the other way around (not doing anything about the cancer-causer to protect people's teeth).

This is extremely non-scientific, but I am an american living outside of the us - and I often wonder 'what's wrong with us' when I meet Americans. Maybe we just have it too easy, maybe we don't have to open up our minds to other cultures (we are the dominant one). But I've met enough people that just make me think c'mon man! That said, we're the dominant culture for a reason - we have some super talented people. At the end of the day, 'flouride' probably isn't the root-cause of our 'unique'-ness.

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#68

Post by thegabez »

Reason077 wrote: post #15
overcast wrote: post #4

While drinking water is generally extremely safe in the US, especially compared to many other countries of the world. I still install three stage, under the counter filtration systems for any kitchen tap water. Minimal costs, and at the very least prevents the water from tasting like a pool.

Exactly! Everyone's always so worried about fluoride in drinking water, with little justification and without giving a thought to all the chlorine which is often present in far greater concentrations and, in certain conditions, can react with other organic and inorganic compounds to form all sorts of nasties. Get a good filter for your drinking water and most of these concerns vanish. Plus you'll save a fortune on bo…

Recommendations?

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#69

Post by philipkglass »

08-15 wrote: post #42
philipkglass wrote: post #18

This article is about heavily fluorinated organic compounds -- molecules with a carbon skeleton and all or most of the hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine. These are not the ionic fluorine compounds that protect teeth against decay (and that cause acute toxicity in case of over-consumption). Why are these compounds hazardous? - Harmful biological effects in the human body, like hormone-mimic activity. - Low molecular…

> Why are these compounds hazardous? > - Harmful biological effects in the human body, like hormone-mimic activity. Can you provide some evidence for that claim? I know that perfluoro compounds degrade very slowly and accumulate in fatty tissue, but I haven't seen a supported claim about harmful effects. From the misleading links in the article, I suspect more than a few people confuse PFAS and PCBs.

It's not too surprising if the effects sound similar to PCB effects. Both are associated with aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation.

Here's a study of thyroid hormone effects in rat cells:

Effects of perfluoroalkyl acids on the function of the thyroid hormone and the aryl hydrocarbon receptor

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manhai_Long/publication...

Re: Toxic fluorinated compounds found in drinking water of 33 states

#70

Post by astrodust »

becarefulyo wrote: post #13
the_gastropod wrote: post #8

Luckily this will all be fixed by Scott Pruitt, by getting rid of silly safety limits (read: business killing regulations) all together!

And by cutting 2/3 of the EPA workforce https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/30/... And by removing two regulations for every new regulation :(

Flint Water® for everyone!
Post reply on HN