The Guardian: US Drinking Water More Contaminated With ‘Forever Chemicals’ Than EPA Tests Show

New Jersey Parents Told Not to Worry After Lead Discovered in School Drinking WaterPFAS or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances are chemical compounds used to repel water, heat, and stains. They are commonly used in products such as non-stick cooking pans, waterproof clothing, food packaging, and firefighter foam.Drinking water all over the US may not be as clean as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thinks. According to tests run across the country by The Guardian, the EPA is missing significant amounts of PFAS because its tests do not detect the vast majority of PFAS compounds that are in existence.Often called “forever compounds,” PFAS do not break down completely and instead accumulate in the environment and through the food chain in a process called bioaccumulation. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to cancer, birth defects, kidney and liver issues, weakened immune systems, and a whole host of other ailments.Of the roughly 9,000 PFAS compounds currently known, the EPA test only detects 30 of them. The Guardian, however, also used a Total Organic Fluoride (TOF) test that looks for a marker that indicates the presence of any and all PFAS compounds and compared the results.US Environmental Groups Sue EPA for Ignoring Own Smog Reduction Regulations7 June, 22:54 GMTSeven of the nine areas tested by The Guardian showed a significantly higher presence of PFAS compounds in the TOF test than in the EPA-approved test. Most tests showed concentrations an order of magnitude higher than the EPA test, including many that were over ten times the concentration found in the EPA test.Tucson, Arizona, showed a concentration of 2.5 parts per trillion (ppt) in the EPA test, compared to 59 ppt in the TOF test. Cape Canaveral, Florida, showed a concentration of 15 ppt in the EPA test but the TOF test showed a PFAS concentration of 176 ppt. An EPA water test in Bethesda, Maryland, detected 18 ppt but a TOF test of the same water had a result of 185 ppt.According to The Guardian, clean water advocacy groups have been asking the EPA to switch to TOF tests, but the agency told The Guardian that they have no plans to do so at this point. Meanwhile, the European Union has proposed a switch to TOF tests for its member states.Last month, President Joe Biden announced a plan to deal with PFAS and other water contaminants, budgeting $10 billion for the program. However, if the EPA continues to use its current test, known as EPA 537, then regulators will have little idea of where they should target their efforts.WorldEPA: No Additional ‘Financial Assurance Requirements’ Needed for US Toxic Waste Cleanups26 November 2020, 00:57 GMTThe dangers of PFAS are not limited to drinking water. The state of Maine is dealing with a PFAS crisis after a waste management company called BFI Organics started providing farmers in the state with a by-product of its wastewater treatment facility to use as a fertilizer. Commonly called “sludge,” the product contains a mixture of household, municipal and human waste. The farmers were told the fertilizer was safe to use, but it actually contained high amounts of PFAS and microplastics. Maine has since become the first state to ban the use of sludge fertilizer, though much of the damage has already been done. Since PFAS don’t break down easily, the compounds remain in farms and wells around the state. Maine has since set aside $60 million to help farmers clean PFAS from their farms, though some in the state worry that will not be enough.A 2020 national study by the CDC found that more than 98% of Americans have PFAS in their bloodstream.While the EPA recently upped its standards to lower the allowable limit of PFAS in water, without a more comprehensive test, it is difficult to see how they will enforce their new regulations. According to The Guardian, the EPA says that many of the newer PFAS that its test does not detect are safe for humans, but no independent study has been done that backs that claim.“We’re looking for and studying less than 1% of PFAS so what the heck is that other 99%?” University of Notre Dame PFAS researcher Graham Peaslee rhetorically asked The Guardian. “I’ve never seen a good PFAS, so they’re all going to have some toxicity.”

Source