Forever Chemicals

3 yrs ago I was very up to date on the nuances of PFAS toxicology studies as a function of carbon chain length. To be honest it’s been a relief to not have to keep up with that stuff lately. Ironically (and predictably) that’s when it has exploded in mainstream awareness.

I may install RO in the kitchen…

It would seem like there are a lot of ways to destroy forever chemicals that have been developed in the past few years. That makes me think these forever chemicals will now never go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

IIRC I think the use of biosolids as fertilizer was popular for a while but has generally fallen out of favor for a variety of reasons.

---

Tell that to the tree farms where our MTB trails are. Pee-yew! Cant argue the results though- 30 years from sapling to harvestable timber is a helluva lot quicker than what would naturally be possible.

So what im hearing here is much like microplastics, PFAS are basically in everything everywhere, but the jury is still out on how harmful it is to us in such low quantities?

When my wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer's she was tested for Glyphosate and her levels were higher than normal. Don't know if it had any major effect but I'm sure it did contribute. From what I read this should've been banned already and in Canada it almost was. Now it's been approved until 2032

Attachment 464258

RoundUp needs to be taken out of production period! I'm pretty sure it killed one of our dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobMc

As someone that is getting a bit old I don’t understand all the clamor for environmental deregulation. I mostly grew up in the 70’s. We lived near several paper mills that were all situated on the banks of the Kalamazoo river. They dumped all their industrial waste into the river. Nobody swam, fished or even touched the water in the river. When the wind would blow a certain way the stench from the river would invade our house, especially in the hot summer, it was overpowering.

In the years after the Clean Water Act the river has turned into a benefit for the community, people swim, kayak, and enjoy a clean river.

Nixon vetoed the Clean Water Act in 1972 and was overidden by the House and Senate by substantial margins. Nowadays a certain group of politicians would like to gut it. I remember enough to know that if big business doesn’t have a regulation stopping them from harming the environment they certainly aren’t going to abstain by themselves.

---

As someone pretty deeply embedded in environmental regulations I'm the first to admit that a lot of them have significant issues. But, the prospect of a return to a laissez-faire approach is terrifying and anyone who thinks industry will meaningfully regulate itself is certifiably insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k2skier112

So the the solution to pollution is dilution...we're fuct long term

---

That's not what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

So what im hearing here is much like microplastics, PFAS are basically in everything everywhere, but the jury is still out on how harmful it is to us in such low quantities?

---

This is the best current accounting that I'm aware of for the US, though it's far from comprehensive at this time: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps...amination/map/

The upside to PFAS is that they aren't volatile and they're mostly restricted to large industrial releases and facilities that regularly used large quantities of AFFF. You should see how often I encounter contaminated groundwater from unregulated on-site disposal of PCE by retail dry cleaning operations. Staggering numbers, and because solvents are volatile they can create a vapor intrusion risk to anyone living above the plume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

RoundUp needs to be taken out of production period! I'm pretty sure it killed one of our dogs.

---

Agreed and sorry about your dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

...they're mostly restricted to large industrial releases and facilities that regularly used large quantities of AFFF.

---

If large industrial releases end up in the food and water supply how do they not go everywhere. A factory releases upstream of a water treatment facility whose organic solids from the facility end up as fertilizer sprayed across farms 100 miles away. Boom. That is an outsized impact and, I would think, very different than a concentrated inland release at a specific site although there are myriad scenarios where that could also have a huge impact (water table permeation, runoff, etc.).

As shown in the Vice reporting, even farms with high likelihood of contamination are making the conscious decision to NOT test their soil and water for fear of losing their livelihoods. That food is ending up on dinner tables. Other farms may not even know they are contaminated. I don't see how any current estimates are anything but underreported given the lack of widespread testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

If large industrial releases end up in the food and water supply how do they not go everywhere. A factory releases upstream of a water treatment facility whose organic solids from the facility end up as fertilizer sprayed across farms 100 miles away. Boom. That is an outsized impact and, I would think, very different than a concentrated inland release at a specific site although there are myriad scenarios where that could also have a huge impact (water table permeation, runoff, etc.).

As shown in the Vice reporting, even farms with high likelihood of contamination are making the conscious decision to NOT test their soil and water for fear of losing their livelihoods. That food is ending up on dinner tables. Other farms may not even know they are contaminated. I don't see how any current estimates are anything but underreported given the lack of widespread testing.

---

This is certainly a potentially serious issue that deserves more investigation. There seems to be lot of unknowns right now regarding how PFAS concentrations in soil and groundwater correlate to PFAS concentrations in consumer-level products, PFAS uptake by different crops, etc. I actually emailed that article to a proper PFAS expert higher up in my company. I'll let you know what he has to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

If large industrial releases end up in the food and water supply how do they not go everywhere. A factory releases upstream of a water treatment facility whose organic solids from the facility end up as fertilizer sprayed across farms 100 miles away. Boom. That is an outsized impact and, I would think, very different than a concentrated inland release at a specific site although there are myriad scenarios where that could also have a huge impact (water table permeation, runoff, etc.).

As shown in the Vice reporting, even farms with high likelihood of contamination are making the conscious decision to NOT test their soil and water for fear of losing their livelihoods. That food is ending up on dinner tables. Other farms may not even know they are contaminated. I don't see how any current estimates are anything but underreported given the lack of widespread testing.

---

If we are going by the confirmed areas with PFAS it is absolutely underreported, just by the very nature of how the data is collected.

I guess the questions that need answering are, in order, how dangerous are the effects of PFAS, what levels are safe, where are the unsafe areas, what are the unsafe practices that lead to unsafe levels, and how to eliminate/change the unsafe practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

If we are going by the confirmed areas with PFAS it is absolutely underreported, just by the very nature of how the data is collected.

I guess the questions that need answering are, in order, how dangerous are the effects of PFAS, what levels are safe, where are the unsafe areas, what are the unsafe practices that lead to unsafe levels, and how to eliminate/change the unsafe practices

---

Yes, PFAS contamination being underreported is not unique. All environmental contamination is underreported by definition. If anything, PFAS is being investigated more proactively than anything else ever has.

Also, defining "safe" levels is a tricky business. For example, EPA's limit for lead in residential soil is 400 ppm. The modeling that derived that number is based on a 40 lb child eating 2 tablespoons of dirt every day of the year, so it's very, very conservative.

Another example: EPA's limit for arsenic in residential soil is 0.7 ppm. Natural background concentrations in most of the Western US far exceed that. In Utah it's extremely rare for me to see concentrations below 5 ppm and 20+ is very common. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is Utah is dying from arsenic poisoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

I actually emailed that article to a proper PFAS expert higher up in my company. I'll let you know what he has to say.

---

Response I got:

"It is extensive. Maine is ground zero but more and more states are taking a look at it. We have 30,000 acre project we are helping the state of [undisclosed] to evaluate biosolid application for PFAS impacts."

"The solution to pollution", was sarcasm and factual at the same time

When I removed 2 UST's at our old gas station, the soils tests had to be under 88ppm

So if 1 quart of petroleum contaminates 9 sq yds vs 1 acre of soil, the ppm changes, a lot

All DEQ regulations are just how much pollution is allowed. More dilution, the lower the ppm

We have 1 nest, we're shitting it in hard

In certain contexts dilution is an entirely appropriate and sensible remedy. Can't ever mention it to a regulator, though....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k2skier112

"The solution to pollution", was sarcasm and factual at the same time

When I removed 2 UST's at our old gas station, the soils tests had to be under 88ppm

So if 1 quart of petroleum contaminates 9 sq yds vs 1 acre of soil, the ppm changes, a lot

All DEQ regulations are just how much pollution is allowed. More dilution, the lower the ppm

We have 1 nest, we're shitting it in hard

---

Most USTs are really LUSTs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Response I got:

"It is extensive. Maine is ground zero but more and more states are taking a look at it. We have 30,000 acre project we are helping the state of [undisclosed] to evaluate biosolid application for PFAS impacts."

---

JFC. Thanks for that and thanks for your input.

So, I just skimmed through this, so forgive me if I'm not crystal clear about the drinking water issue. But what I'm getting from all of this is to cut out the middle man and piss into a water filter system and drink my own filtered urine?

that is standard operating procedure, is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toadman

So, I just skimmed through this, so forgive me if I'm not crystal clear about the drinking water issue. But what I'm getting from all of this is to cut out the middle man and piss into a water filter system and drink my own filtered urine?

---

The filter will remove all the flavor.

Okay, so there are options. I like options.

Wrong thread..

Will add that lower sperm counts are attributed to higher temperatures.

I saw a study recently claiming sperm counts in the US have gone down by one percent every year for the last 50 years. Too lazy to go find a link but its crazy to hear people still talking about overpopulation as if its a problem.

The problem is the solution.
GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!!

Which is the better filter: kidney or common commercial (not RO) filter??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PB

The problem is the solution.
GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!!

Which is the better filter: kidney or common commercial (not RO) filter??

---

Regular water filters should be changed every year or less.
Kidney filters last 40 years or more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I saw a study recently claiming sperm counts in the US have gone down by one percent every year for the last 50 years.

---

They obviously didn't talk with your mom.