The EPA is keeping a troubling new study on drinking water under wraps. Here’s what you need to know

[rangerrebew]

The EPA is keeping a troubling new study on drinking water under wraps. Here’s what you need to know.

Will Scott Pruitt release it ahead of next week’s summit on harmful chemicals in water?
By Kat Eschner May 16, 2018
 

What's in the water?
 
The Environmental Protection Agency has been in the news a lot lately, thanks in large part to its administrator, Scott Pruitt, who appeared before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday as part of the 12 ongoing federal inquiries into his spending, record-keeping, and his behavior as head of the agency. But another issue may be making the headlines soon—and it’s closer to home than it is to Washington. It’s in your tap, in fact.

By now, contamination of our water supply by perchlorates—a specific class of chemical produced in industrial settings—is a given, though until early 2011 they weren’t on the EPA’s list of drinking water contaminants. Since then, the agency has established guidelines about how much of some per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)—namely perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA)—can be in drinking water before it poses a significant public health risk. But it’s muzzling another government agency whose new report gives much lower safe drinking water levels than those suggested by the EPA

https://www.popsci.com/epa-drinking-water-chemical-study#page-3

[Sanguine]

I can't tell if there is anything there or this is just another attack on Scott Pruitt.

[Suppressed]

I can't tell if there is anything there or this is just another attack on Scott Pruitt.

@Sanguine

It's impossible to tell without the release of the ATDSR paper.  But the toxicology data on this is greatly lacking, so I think caution is warranted and I expect ATDSR went out in front of good solid science and that's why EPA is holding it back.  BUT I would like it released to see what they have to say.

As for the problem in general?  This is much bigger than most people realize yet.  Even the replacements for PFOA/PFOS contain one or two percent long-chain precursors to PFOA/PFOS that can break down into those components over time, accelerated with biological/oxidative activity.  I discovered just yesterday (personally discovered, not that this is published anywhere) that some of the products advertising "PFOA-free" might not actually be such..that they are using PFOA-free PFTE but then generate PFOA in their processes.

What I suspect will happen is that we'll get a "Toxic Equivalency" approach, similar to how the various dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs are handled, where we use the relative toxicities to normalize it all to an equivalent concentration of the most toxic compound, and then set a number for that.

But if you want to bet on the "next big thing"...it's this.  These chemicals are in the blood of every Briefer, I'm sure.  They've been found in polar bear blood, etc... they are highly mobile.  And they've been in products all throughout our lives.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

It's impossible to tell without the release of the ATDSR paper.  But the toxicology data on this is greatly lacking, so I think caution is warranted and I expect ATDSR went out in front of good solid science and that's why EPA is holding it back.  BUT I would like it released to see what they have to say.

As for the problem in general?  This is much bigger than most people realize yet.  Even the replacements for PFOA/PFOS contain one or two percent long-chain precursors to PFOA/PFOS that can break down into those components over time, accelerated with biological/oxidative activity.  I discovered just yesterday (personally discovered, not that this is published anywhere) that some of the products advertising "PFOA-free" might not actually be such..that they are using PFOA-free PFTE but then generate PFOA in their processes.

What I suspect will happen is that we'll get a "Toxic Equivalency" approach, similar to how the various dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs are handled, where we use the relative toxicities to normalize it all to an equivalent concentration of the most toxic compound, and then set a number for that.

But if you want to bet on the "next big thing"...it's this.  These chemicals are in the blood of every Briefer, I'm sure.  They've been found in polar bear blood, etc... they are highly mobile.  And they've been in products all throughout our lives.

Great info, Sup.  Are there any ways to protect ourselves?

[Suppressed]

Great info, Sup.  Are there any ways to protect ourselves?

@Sanguine

Sorry I missed this question.

A granular activated carbon filter, commonly used on water pitchers and tap filters (Brita, PUR, etc.), will remove PFAS quite effectively.  It's one of the few technologies that work for PFAS.  Fortunately, it's in common, easy use for homes.


Today's PFAS news...

New Jersey already has the strictest numbers in the country and their looking to drop even more.  PFOS is one of the PFAS chemicals.

NJ Panel Urges Tighter Chemical Rule as EPA Mulls National Standard
MAY 29, 2018
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/18/05/28/nj-panel-urges-tighter-chemical-rule-as-epa-mulls-national-standard/

If DEP adopts nation’s strictest proposal regarding PFOS, regulators could require public water systems and private well owners to limit amount of chemical in drinking water to 13 ppt (parts per trillion).

[...]

If adopted by the DEP, the proposal would become a “maximum contaminant limit” (MCL), which would allow regulators to require public water systems and private well owners to keep their water below that level.

[...]

@Freya

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

Sorry I missed this question.

A granular activated carbon filter, commonly used on water pitchers and tap filters (Brita, PUR, etc.), will remove PFAS quite effectively.  It's one of the few technologies that work for PFAS.  Fortunately, it's in common, easy use for homes.


Today's PFAS news...

New Jersey already has the strictest numbers in the country and their looking to drop even more.  PFOS is one of the PFAS chemicals.

NJ Panel Urges Tighter Chemical Rule as EPA Mulls National Standard
MAY 29, 2018
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/18/05/28/nj-panel-urges-tighter-chemical-rule-as-epa-mulls-national-standard/

If DEP adopts nation’s strictest proposal regarding PFOS, regulators could require public water systems and private well owners to limit amount of chemical in drinking water to 13 ppt (parts per trillion).

[...]

If adopted by the DEP, the proposal would become a “maximum contaminant limit” (MCL), which would allow regulators to require public water systems and private well owners to keep their water below that level.

[...]

@Freya

Thanks, @Suppressed.  My fault because I didn't ping you.

So, are the PFAS usually present in well water? 

[LauraTXNM]

Thanks for this info, @Suppressed!