Wednesday, August 9, 2023

Part 1:
Okay, anyone who attends Lunz Group programs, reads the newspaper or listens to the news knows that dangerous PFAS chemicals are everywhere, forever. It’s a daunting issue! We include this Focus on PFAS in our newsletter to help us explore this topic, to understand immediate threats to our health and to identify solutions for our safety from these toxins. We’ll toss out a topic for your consideration and encourage you to engage in the dialogue and submit your own contributions. Here goes…
Drinking Water: Yes, PFAS and related chemicals are in drinking water across the country. Nina Fair spoke with Becky Thames, Lab Director at Charleston Water System. Becky was forthcoming about CWS information regarding PFAS. CWS has been voluntarily publishing an Unregulated Compounds Report since 2017, as conditions (such as Covid) and technology allow. (https://www.charlestonwater.com/232/Water-Quality-Reports) EPA has proposed Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) of 4 parts per trillion for drinking water. Once the MRLs are adopted, much work will still need to be done at state and local levels to bring about those results. It may be 2030 before consumers actually experience safer levels of PFAS in drinking water. Meanwhile, it may be worth considering installation of a home water filtration system. According to Duke University research, the least effective PFAS filters are activated charcoal and whole house systems. The most effective systems are dual-cartridge under-sink and reverse osmosis systems. Do some research – we’d love to hear what you discover!
Here's a link to the Mount Pleasant Waterworks water quality report. Note on page 7 a view of some of the chemical compounds included as PFAS 
Here's a link to a PDF summary document
 
 



Part 2:
 

Our last article focused on PFAS in drinking water and mentioned home filter systems.  Whole house and under-sink systems can be expensive.  Environmental Working Group (EWG) just published an evaluation of countertop devices that lower PFAS levels by 100% (or close to it).  Here are their top 4 recommendations:

Travel Berkey Water Filter

KEY STATS: PFAS REDUCTION: 100%  |  INITIAL COST: $344.00

OVERALL VALUE: FILTER LIFE: 8+ YEARS (6,000 GALLONS)  |  ONE-YEAR COST: $344.00

This is an expensive filter. But it does offer a few perks for that large upfront cost, including 100 percent elimination of forever chemicals measured in these tests and a useful life of many years.

Pros: Non-plastic design; large water capacity; 100 percent PFAS reduction and exceptionally long filter life, at more than 8 years, if using 2 gallons per day.

Cons: Very high initial cost.

Clearly Filtered Water Pitcher with Affinity Filtration Technology

KEY STATS: PFAS REDUCTION: 100%  |  INITIAL COST: $90.00

OVERALL VALUE: FILTER LIFE: ~50 DAYS (100 GAL.)  |  ONE-YEAR COST: $436.50 (COST + 7 FILTERS PER YEAR)

One of three filters tested that achieved a 100 percent reduction in PFAS from drinking water, it nevertheless takes a fair amount of time to use – it took twice as long as some other brands for the water to pass through the filter into the pitcher.

Pros: Total PFAS elimination; clear design makes it easy to track how much water remains; the large pitcher size means refilling is less frequent.

Cons: EWG user experience suggests it can be tricky to install the filter correctly and make sure it is tightened to the reservoir; the water passes slowly through the filter; filters need to be pressure-primed at the faucet, which is difficult and can be annoying – and not accessible for those with upper body or hand strength limitations.

Zero Water 7 Cup 5-Stage Ready-Pour Water Filter Pitcher

KEY STATS: PFAS REDUCTION: 100%. |  INITIAL COST: $24.99

OVERALL VALUE: FILTER LIFE: ~10 DAYS (20 GALLONS). |  ONE-YEAR COST: $646.06 (COST + 37 FILTERS/YEAR)

The third filter tested eliminated 100 percent of the forever chemicals. The sale price makes it one of the filters with the lowest initial cost for an average family of four consuming 2 gallons per day – it cost our tester less than $25 to buy the filter and pitcher.

Pros: 100 percent reduction of PFAS and low initial cost; replacing filters is simple and quick.

Cons: The tradeoff for the low upfront cost is that the filters have a short life and must be replaced often, which means costs soon add up; the water reservoir is small and you'll need to frequently refill the pitcher.

Epic Pure Pitcher

KEY STATS: PFAS REDUCTION: 98%  |  INITIAL COST: $70.00

OVERALL VALUE: FILTER LIFE: ~75 DAYS (150 GALLONS)  |  ONE-YEAR COST: $247.87 (INITIAL COST + 5 FILTERS

Our tester’s overall favorite to use, this filter’s design is simple – it has a large reservoir that is easy to access and refill. Replacing filters is also straightforward. The filter removed about 98 percent of forever chemicals in the drinking water tested.

Pros: The longer filter life of 150 gallons means paying for fewer replacement filters, and it’s less expensive in the first year than the three filters that reduce 100 percent of the PFAS.

Cons: This filter has a higher initial cost than some other varieties, though cost of the replacement filters is mid-range.

Again, we’d love to hear what you discover about PFAS in your world!  You can post your comments on Facebook page for Robert Lunz Group South Carolina Chapter Sierra Club.

 

 

New York Times PFAS Article (link may require you to have an account and log in)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/magazine/pfas-toxic-chemicals.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

The following is sort of summary of the article for those unable to open the above NYT link. It contains direct quotes and a several reworded summaries. The order presented is not that of the original article

 

Remote but impacted nevertheless

The Faroe Islands, an incongruous speckling of green in the North Atlantic, are about as far away as you can hope to get on Earth from a toxic-waste dump, time zones distant from the nearest population centers (Norway to the east, Iceland to the west). Yet their people have been invaluable in ascertaining the magnitude and impacts of dangerous chemical contamination in the form of mercury and later PFAS.

 

Faroe Island biomedical studies were initiated in the 1980s to examine the impact of mercury contamination (from ocean derived fish and mammal food sources) on the health of children born on the islands. The Faroese mother-infant pairs showed that exposure to the (Mercury in fish consumed) in the womb, even at low levels, can cause learning and memory deficits in children, findings that led to global advisories for pregnant women to limit their fish intake. This study accumulated a biobank of samples from mothers and infants.

 

The medical scientists who had conducted the mercury study later learned about the potential of PFAS contamination and decided to re-examine their blood samples and conduct additional studies specifically to determine levels of PFAS. The Faroese blood levels of PFAS were similar to average contamination levels in US and Europe.

 

When they examined the Faroese Mothers and Children, they found that for each doubling of maternal PFAS levels, the children’s antibody concentration after the shots (for diphtheria and tetanus) was 40 percent lower. For each doubling of PFAS among the children, their antibody concentration was 50 percent lower and booster shots were offered to compensate.

 

“I really think even scientists who are not involved don’t fully appreciate that there is no chemical safety testing,” Belcher says. “There is this mythical ‘they,’ that ‘they’re’ taking care of this, and it must be safe because it’s out there. That’s a common misconception about how this works.”

 

 “The evidence, including blood samples and health surveys, indicated a “probable link” between PFOA and high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension

http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/index.html

 

'They couldn’t get pregnant. No one told them their ovaries held ‘forever chemicals.’

https://www.postandcourier.com/environment/they-couldn-t-get-pregnant-no-one-told-them-their-ovaries-held-forever-chemicals/article_767135d8-3c4c-11ee-9161-8772aa38607d.html

 

 

PFAS in FW fish map

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_US_fish/map/

PFAS in NC river

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/drinking-water-crisis-north-carolina-ignored

Black River SC

https://wpde.com/news/local/dhec-riverkeepers-share-concern-over-harmful-forever-chemical-levels-in-local-waterways

https://www.live5news.com/2023/04/19/dhec-testing-waterways-dangerous-forever-chemicals/

https://abcnews4.com/news/local/dhec-riverkeepers-share-concern-over-harmful-forever-chemical-levels-in-local-waterways

Part 3

Now we have some idea of PFAS exposure in our local water sources. And we’ve gathered a little information about filtration systems to help screen PFAS contamination until protective regulations are enacted.  So, let’s look into the EPA proposal for regulating PFAS.

Data Collection:  Data collection by EPA is required under the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5). All public water systems serving communities of 3,300 or more people must monitor for specific contaminants in their water. UCMR 5 listed the more than two dozen PFAS that these public water systems must monitor, including PFOA and PFOS.

Results of the monitoring data will be released over three years, with the first round of data issued in July 2023. Data is expected to show thousands of new locations across the U.S. confirmed to have PFAS in their water, affecting millions more Americans than previously known. This may support the estimate published by EWG scientists in 2020 that over 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their drinking water. 

EWG’s PFAS map shows that there are more than 2,800 communities known to be plagued by these forever chemicals – but EPA’s upcoming data release is expected to indicate that the numbers are actually much higher.

Proposed EPA Regulations:  The Biden EPA is taking the first concrete steps ever to tackle PFAS pollution. In March, it proposed bold new limits known as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) that restrict the amount of six individual PFAS that can be in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. If finalized, this would be the first new MCL for drinking water contaminants by EPA in more than two decades.  In addition to weighing health harms, these limits consider water treatment costs and feasibility. The proposed MCLs are 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and the same for PFOS. For the other four PFAS chemicals, the EPA is proposing a “hazard index” to address cumulative risks from mixtures of chemicals. While these are the first federal proposed drinking water limits for PFAS, 10 states already have final or interim enforceable drinking water limits for PFAS.

Again, we’d love to hear from you!  Visit Lunz Group Blogspot to learn more and to post your comments.


FOCUS ON PFAS 

Part 3


Conversations

Page 1 of 1

FOCUS ON PFAS

Now we have some idea of PFAS exposure in our local water sources. And we’ve gathered a

little information about filtration systems to help screen PFAS contamination until protective

regulations are enacted. So, let’s look into the EPA proposal for regulating PFAS.

Data Collection: Data collection by EPA is required under the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5). All public water systems serving communities of 3,300 or more

people must monitor for specific contaminants in their water. UCMR 5 listed the more than two

dozen PFAS that these public water systems must monitor, including PFOA and PFOS.

Results of the monitoring data will be released over three years, with the first round of data

issued in July 2023. Data is expected to show thousands of new locations across the U.S.

confirmed to have PFAS in their water, affecting millions more Americans than previously

known. This may support the estimate published by EWG scientists in 2020 that over 200

million Americans could have PFAS in their drinking water. 

EWG’s PFAS map shows that there are more than 2,800 communities known to be plagued by

these forever chemicals – but EPA’s upcoming data release is expected to indicate that the

numbers are actually much higher.

Proposed EPA Regulations: The Biden EPA is taking the first concrete steps ever to tackle PFAS

pollution. In March, it proposed bold new limits known as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)

that restrict the amount of six individual PFAS that can be in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, GenX,

PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. If finalized, this would be the first new MCL for drinking water

contaminants by EPA in more than two decades. In addition to weighing health harms, these

limits consider water treatment costs and feasibility. The proposed MCLs are 4 parts per trillion

for PFOA and the same for PFOS. For the other four PFAS chemicals, the EPA is proposing a

“hazard index” to address cumulative risks from mixtures of chemicals. While these are the first

federal proposed drinking water limits for PFAS, 10 states already have final or interim

enforceable drinking water limits for PFAS.

Again, we’d love to hear from you! Visit Lunz Group Blogspot to learn more and to post your

comments.

FOCUS ON PFAS_0923.docx
Displaying FOCUS ON PFAS_0923.docx.

 


 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment