CNN — Almost half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with chemicals known as “forever chemicals,” according to a new study from the US Geological Survey.

The number of people drinking contaminated water may be even higher than what the study found, however, because the researchers weren’t able to test for all of these per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, or PFAS, chemicals that are considered dangerous to human health. There are more than 12,000 types of PFAS, according to the National Institutes of Health, but this study looked at only 32 of the compounds.

The scientists collected water samples directly from taps at 716 locations – 269 from private wells and 447 from public sources – between 2016 and 2021. Based on their findings, they estimate that at least one PFAS chemical would be detected in 45% of US drinking water samples.

  • Ducks@ducks.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well shit… my area looks bad. The article does say:

    DeWitt said that it’s important for people to know what’s in their drinking water but that they don’t necessarily need to be scared.

    “I don’t think people should be afraid, but they should be aware and armed themselves with knowledge so that they can get information that will help them to make decisions,” she said.

    But considering the rest of the article, that’s not very reassuring

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So chemicals that are dangerous to human health were found in 45% of water but we shouldn’t worry? Nah bro I’m putting reverse osmosis filters and boiling it.

      • Ducks@ducks.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        RO water is seen as unsuitable for consumption due to lack of important minerals. Activated carbon filters should help with reducing PFAS

        • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          i’ve heard that’s a myth, but just in case you can add a re-mineralizer module to most RO systems as a last stage.

          Edit: so it’s not a myth but needs context

          https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241593989

          Here is a relatively old WHO report, page 88 basically says if you’re getting enough nutrients from food then the impacts of reduced minerals in water aren’t significant. Conversely on page 158 they show increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death in animals from demineralized water, however, they do concede that those were external studies, the methods may not meet modern scrutiny but should not be outright dismissed. In other words more information is needed.

          The pdf is from 2005 so there’s probably newer studies out there. In any case adding an alkaline filter makes RO water taste better and it’s cheap enough to not have to worry about it.

  • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you regularly donate blood you can reduce the amount of forever chemicals in your blood a bit each time. This doesn’t prevent new PFAS being consumed though and they put it on EVERYTHING, even the insides of disposable cups n stuff. If you can manage to eliminate new PFAS entering your body then donating blood regularly should help in addition to all the other health benefits of donating blood.

    • MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wouldn’t that mean receiving a blood transfusion would increase the amount of forever chemicals in your body?

      I wonder if dialysis filters these out?

      • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        maybe, if the incoming blood has PFAS in it then yeah because you can’t process it out.

        No idea ablut dialysis, i guess it would depend on the molecule size and filter size

  • xXxBigJeffreyxXx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I started using an under-the-sink water filter once the new PFAS guidelines came out. They are very easy to install, and filters all the water that comes thru the sink’s cold tap.

    Gives me peace of mind, but it’s not really a good solution, when nearly all our food now contains these chemicals

  • RoyalFeathers@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The company I work for cleans out big road tankers. We just had to clean one that had 3% (by volume) PFAs.

    We managed to get it down to 7 parts per trillion.

    All 3,500 gallons of process material used to clean it out is going to a high BTU incinerator.

    It’s not much, but it’s something.