Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday March 16, @09:10PM   Printer-friendly

If you can detect any, it's too much:

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it had started the process that will see drinking water regulations place severe limits on the levels of several members of the PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemical family. PFAS are widely used but have been associated with a wide range of health issues; their chemical stability has also earned them the term "forever chemicals." The agency is currently soliciting public feedback on rules that will mean that any detectable levels of two chemicals will be too much.

PFAS are a large group of chemicals that have uses in a wide range of products, including non-stick cooking pans, fire control foams, and waterproof clothing. They're primarily useful because of their water-repellant, hydrophobic nature. That nature also tends to keep them from taking part in chemical processes that might otherwise degrade them, so contamination problems tend to stick around long after any PFAS use. And that's bad, given that they seem to have a lot of negative effects on health—the EPA lists cancer risks, immune dysfunction, hormone signaling alterations, liver damage, and reproductive issues.

[...] The most striking thing about the proposal is that two of the chemicals, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) will be set at the limits of our current ability to detect them: four parts per trillion. In other words, if there's any sign of the chemicals present, it would be above the legal limit. (Both of these are acidic hydrocarbons where all of the hydrogen has been replaced by fluorine.)

A second set of related chemicals (PFNA, PFHXs, PFBS, and GenX Chemicals) will be regulated as a collective. Each will have limits set on the levels allowable. The levels of each will be calculated as a percentage of that limit, and the percentages totalled; if they exceed 100 percent, then the regulations will kick in.

As part of its earlier efforts, the EPA has already been providing grants to help water utilities set up to test for these chemicals. It also says that a variety of means of extracting these chemicals from water are now available.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday March 16, @10:20PM (7 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday March 16, @10:20PM (#1296575)

    If these things are so dangerous shouldn't we be looking to prevent them from being made in the first place?

    Than again, cynical me suspects waste water workers can contribute fewer campaign $$$ than corporate overlords. Not that our politicians can be bought, I would never suggest such a thing.

    --
    The inventor of auto-correct has died. The funnel will be held tomato.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday March 16, @10:55PM (3 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Thursday March 16, @10:55PM (#1296578) Homepage Journal

    1. Replace waste water workers with the latest AIs.
    2. The AIs conclude that the only effective way to meet the EPA limits indefinitely is to eliminate the corporate overlords.
    3. ???
    4. PROFIT!

    --
    Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17, @12:59AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17, @12:59AM (#1296598)

      > 1. Replace waste water workers with the latest AIs.

      Not sure this can be done, I haven't seen any AIs with plumber's butt/bum.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 17, @04:37AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 17, @04:37AM (#1296631) Journal

        Not sure this can be done, I haven't seen any AIs with plumber's butt/bum.

        A plumber can manage only one butt at a time. A sophisticated AI could parallel more butts than there are people in the world and do it orders of magnitude faster too.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Freeman on Friday March 17, @02:53PM

          by Freeman (732) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 17, @02:53PM (#1296692) Journal

          Through the beauty of Stable Diffusion, they can give you an infinite number of plumber cracks.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
  • (Score: 1) by wArlOrd on Friday March 17, @02:44PM

    by wArlOrd (2142) on Friday March 17, @02:44PM (#1296691)

    Nor would I suggest that they could be bought so incredibly inexpensively;
    because the results aren't turning out to be cheap.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Sourcery42 on Friday March 17, @04:40PM

    by Sourcery42 (6400) on Friday March 17, @04:40PM (#1296702)

    You're absolutely right. Phasing out the chemicals is a good start. I think some uses, like firefighting foams, are still a research area.

    However, another problem with this family of chemicals is that the damage is already done. Landfill leachate is a big source of them now. I've seen results in the hundreds of ppt from deep aquifer production wells. If limits at the detection threshold come into force the cost of compliance is going to be huge.

  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Saturday March 18, @12:22AM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Saturday March 18, @12:22AM (#1296777)

    Sometimes the products they're in are very helpful [youtu.be]. Not sure if they're made with/out the chemicals in question, though.