[HN Gopher] Millions may rely on groundwater contaminated with P...
___________________________________________________________________
Millions may rely on groundwater contaminated with PFAS for
drinking water
Author : wglb
Score : 74 points
Date : 2024-10-28 18:54 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Dr. Rohnda Patrick just did a great episode on PFAS,
| microplastics, and other environmental toxins in food and water.
| Tap water tends to have less of these PFAS/nano plastics than
| bottled water via degradation of the bottle. Topo Chico is
| especially problematic (nothing to do with the bottle).[0]
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzw_grLzjw&t=2s
| BadHumans wrote:
| There are so many doctors on Youtube just spouting shit that
| it's hard for me to separate the bullshit from the legitimate.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| She provides sources for all her podcasts and basically just
| reads from scientific journals the entire time. I would
| separate her content from your typical "Dr." She's also not a
| medical doctor fyi, just a researcher.
| lupusreal wrote:
| How can laymen evaluate the merit of cited sources,
| particularly in matters pertaining to medicine and
| nutrition? All the personalities, spokespeople, advocates,
| activists, etc in this space all provide citations which
| they say back up their claims. A lot of them are lying,
| their claims don't appear in the cited articles, so that's
| easy to detect if you click through and read each one
| carefully, but many of the rest do cite articles saying
| what they claim and it's still just junk science. They do
| this because they know "cites sources" is a popular
| heuristic.
|
| Like I can find people promoting magnetic bracelets to
| align my Chi and they will be citing supposedly scientific
| articles which supposedly back up their claims. In extreme
| cases like that I can feel pretty confident that it's
| bullshit. But the relative health benefits of eating berry
| A or berry B? It seems intractable. I'm left with trusting
| my instincts and common sense.
| serkanh wrote:
| Isn't Topo Chico Peter Attia's fav beverage? Would be surprised
| if he didn't looked into this.
| swalling wrote:
| The map that they produced is very easy to unintentionally
| misread. The map shows the predicted contamination of groundwater
| locations based on the models. It does _not_ show the locations
| where the actual tap water source is predicted or known to be
| contaminated.
|
| For example, many large cities (San Francisco, Seattle, Portland)
| either do not use groundwater sources from within city limits, or
| only use it as a secondary source. Unless you use a private well,
| this map is therefore not super useful for understanding whether
| PFAS contamination of tap water should be a concern for you. The
| map likewise doesn't take into account water treatment or
| filtering.
| hammock wrote:
| Tap water is one thing. Agricultural contamination is quite
| another, and also is worthy of exploration.
|
| Specifically water for irrigation, and processed sewage/sludge
| for fertilizer
| lysace wrote:
| Don't want to downplay the risks, but:
|
| Afaik, very little is still understood about the actual risks
| _from a particular PFAS exposure level_. Right?
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Cert is expired so I can't even open it atm because my
| firewall, which I can't turn off atm, but I'm pretty sure this
| has all your answers[0].
|
| https://www.hbm4eu.eu/the-substances/per-polyfluorinated-com...
| mglz wrote:
| The problem is PFAS are in basically all the water on the
| planet and persist in the body for several years. Even if they
| might have a small effect that will likely be magnified due to
| accumulation and the long persistence. We have had very similar
| scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible
| consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle.
| lysace wrote:
| > We have had very similar scenarios before (lead,
| asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is
| the time to get ahead of this cycle.
|
| It's an assumption that this will be similar, but sure.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| Surely the far more dangerous assumption is to assume that
| an untested substance won't be harmful to life.
| lysace wrote:
| There are many "untested" substances.
| mglz wrote:
| If it's bad and we avoid it = win
|
| If it's bad and we don't avoid it = potential disaster
|
| If it's no problem and we avoid it = Some unnecessary
| losses
|
| If it's no problem and we avoid it = No problem
|
| Currently, considering past patterns, it looks like PFAS
| are problematic and the potential cost of failing to
| mitigate could be very high. So being more cautious is the
| rational solution, even in the face of uncertainty.
| lysace wrote:
| > If it's no problem and we avoid it = No problem
|
| This is incorrect. I think that you also understand why.
| analog31 wrote:
| It also means that there's no control group. I think it was
| in the New Yorker, an article about the chemist who was asked
| by 3M to investigate the health effects of PFAS after workers
| in their factories were getting sick. She tried to find blood
| samples that were PFAS-free in order to test the detection
| limits of her equipment, and there was PFAS in virtually
| every sample.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| I started using reverse osmosis filtration of tap water at home.
| The issue is that it removes all minerals, and its pH cartridge
| wears thin in a mere two to three months. The missing minerals
| have to be compensated for via increased supplementation. Also,
| there is no fluoride in it anymore for your teeth, so only your
| toothpaste can save your teeth.
| foo_user wrote:
| I have been using RO water from Prismo water in NorthBay. They
| have installed RO machines at various places and it costs about
| 2.5 bucks to fill 5 gallon jug
| nonelog wrote:
| That is only 1 of the many reasons why many drink only distilled
| water.
| staunton wrote:
| Though you didn't claim otherwise, I'd like to note that
| drinking distilled water is rather unhealthy because it
| deprives the body of electrolytes.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Gatorade, water sucks
| jaxgeller wrote:
| Most water suppliers in the USA still don't test for PFAS on a
| regular schedule. Only the more progressive states (like ME)
| require testing from their suppliers.
|
| I maintain a DB of drinking water contaminants in the US[1]. You
| can look up your city's system to see if they test for PFAS.
|
| [1]: https://www.cleartap.com
| zackangelo wrote:
| Do you explicitly list that a PFAS test was omitted for a
| municipality? I looked up Austin and didn't see it listed.
| lasermike026 wrote:
| Most Americans are illiterate. They don't have the capacity to
| understand the problem or the wisdom to care. (I wonder if they
| every had the capacity for either.)
| downrightmike wrote:
| Its only about 21%,
| https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-
| statisti....
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-28 23:01 UTC)