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