Connect with us

Health and Wellness

Removing PFAS from public water systems will cost billions and take time – here are ways to filter out harmful ‘endlessly chemicals’ at home

Published

on

Chemists invented PFAS within the Nineteen Thirties to make life easier: PFAS made it possible to make nonstick pans, waterproof clothes, grease-resistant food packaging, and stain-resistant carpets. However, in recent times, the growing variety of health risks related to these chemicals have grow to be increasingly concerning.

PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are currently suspected or he is understood to contribute for thyroid disease, high cholesterol, liver damage and cancer, amongst other health problems.

They may be present in the blood most Americans and in lots of drinking water systems, which is why the Environmental Protection Agency finalized work on it in April 2024 first enforceable federal limits for six forms of PFAS in drinking water systems. The limits – 4 to 10 parts per trillion for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA and GenX – are lower than a drop of water in a thousand Olympic-sized swimming pools, demonstrating the toxicity of the chemicals. The sixth type, PFBS, is regulated as a mix using the so-called threat indicator.

Meeting these recent limits will not be easy or low cost. There’s one other problem: While PFAS may be filtered from water, these “forever chemicals” are difficult to destroy.

My team at the University of Notre Dame works to address contaminants in water systems, including PFAS. We are investigating recent technologies to remove PFAS from Potable water and to address PFAS waste. Here’s a glance at the dimensions of the challenge and how to reduce PFAS in your personal drinking water:

Removing PFAS will cost billions annually

Every five years, the EPA is required to select 30 unregulated pollutants to monitor in public drinking water systems. Currently, 29 of those 30 contaminants are PFAS. Testing gives a way of how common PFAS are in water systems and where.

The EPA collected 22,500 samples from roughly 3,800 of the 154,000 public drinking water systems within the US. In 22% of those water systems, testing detected at least one in every of the six newly regulated PFASs, and roughly 16% of the systems exceeded the allowable standards. recent standards. East Coast states had the very best percentage of systems with PFAS levels that exceeded the brand new standards in EPA tests conducted to date.

Under the brand new EPA regulations, public water systems have until 2027 to complete PFAS monitoring and release publicly available data. If they detect PFAS in concentrations above the brand new limits, they will have to install a treatment system by 2029.

How much this will cost public water systems, and ultimately their customers, continues to be the large unknown, however it won’t be low cost.

The EPA estimated the prices to the nation’s public drinking water systems to comply with information rules at a cost of roughly $1.5 billion annually. But other estimates suggest that the general costs of testing and remediating PFAS contamination will be much higher. The American Water Works Association has set the cost at over $3.8 billion annually just for PFOS and PFOA.

There are over 5,000 chemicals which are considered PFAS, nevertheless, only a couple of have been tested for his or her toxicity and even fewer have been tested for presence in drinking water. This is estimated by the United States Geological Survey almost half of all tap water is contaminated with PFAS.

Some money for testing and clean-up will come from the federal government. The remaining funding will come from 3M and DuPont, leading PFAS producers. 3M agreed to pay within the settlement $10.5 to $12.5 billion to help reimburse public water systems for certain PFAS testing and treatment. However, public water systems will still incur additional costs that will be passed on to residents.

Next problem: disposal of “forever chemicals”

Another vital query is how to eliminate captured PFAS once it has been filtered out.

The creation of landfills is being considered, but this only shifts the issue to the subsequent generation. There’s a reason why PFAS are called “forever chemicals” – they are extremely durable and don’t decompose naturally, making them difficult to destroy.

Studies have shown that PFAS may be broken down using energy-intensive technologies. But this comes with huge costs. The incinerators must arrive over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius) destroy PFAS, and potentially harmful byproducts could also be produced not fully understood yet. Other suggested techniques e.g supercritical water oxidation Or plasma reactorsthey’ve the identical disadvantages.

An engineer holds an ion-exchange resin used to remove PFAS next to recent water treatment equipment in Fullerton, California, in 2021. The Orange County Water District’s initial capital cost for PFAS treatment in a single well was $3.6 million.
Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Sign up via Getty Images

So who’s chargeable for managing PFAS waste? Ultimately, responsibility will likely fall on public drinking water systems.

EPA on April 19, 2024 designated PFOA and PFOS as contaminants qualifying for Superfund statusmeaning firms chargeable for polluting sites with these chemicals may very well be required to pay for cleanup. However, the EPA found this out I had no intention of following him sewage treatment plants or public landfills.

Steps to protect your home from PFAS

Your first instinct could also be to use bottled water to avoid exposure to PFAS, but a recent study found this even bottled water may contain these chemicals. Bottled water is regulated by one other federal agency, the Food and Drug Administration, which has no standards for PFAS.

The best choice is to depend on the identical technologies that processing plants will use:

  • Activated carbon it is comparable to charcoal. Like a sponge, it captures PFAS, removing it from the water. This is identical technology utilized in refrigerator filters and some jug filters, equivalent to Brita or PUR. Please note that many refrigerator manufacturers’ filters are not certified for PFAS, so don’t assume they will remove PFAS to secure levels.

  • Ion exchange resin this is identical technology present in many home water softeners. Like activated carbon, it captures PFAS from water, and this technology may be present in many pitcher filter products. If you select to the entire house purification system that a plumber can connect where the water enters the home, an ion exchange resin will probably be the most effective selection. But it’s expensive.

  • Reverse osmosis is a membrane technology that permits only water and chosen compounds to go through the membrane, while PFAS are blocked. This is usually installed at the kitchen sink and has been turned out to be very effective when removing most PFAS from water. This is not practical for cleansing your entire house, however it will likely remove many other contaminants as well.

If you have got a personal well as an alternative of a public drinking water system, it doesn’t mean you are secure from PFAS exposure. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimates so 71% shallow private wells on this state they’ve some level of PFAS contamination. Using a licensed lab to test well water for PFAS can cost $300-$600 per sample, a cost barrier that will leave many private well owners at the hours of darkness.

For all treatment options, ensure that the device you select is PFAS certified by a good testing agencyand follow the really helpful filter maintenance and substitute schedule. Unfortunately, there may be currently no secure way to eliminate filters, in order that they find yourself within the trash. No treatment is ideal and none will remove all PFAS to secure levels, but some treatment is healthier than no treatment at all.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Health and Wellness

Jury awarded $310 million to parents of teenager who died after falling on a ride at Florida amusement park – Essence

Published

on

By

Sun Sentinel/Getty Images

The family of Tire Sampson, the 14-yr-old who tragically died on an amusement park ride in Orlando, Florida, in 2022, has been awarded $310 million in a civil lawsuit.

Tire, who was visiting ICON Park along with his family on March 24, 2022, fell from the FreeFall drop tower. Although he was taken to a nearby hospital, he didn’t survive his injuries.

Now, greater than two years later, a jury has held the vehicle manufacturer, Austria-based Funtime Handels, responsible for the accident and awarded the Tire family $310 million. According to reports from local news stations WFTV AND KSDKthe jury reached its verdict after about an hour of deliberation.

Tyre’s parents will each receive $155 million, according to attorney spokesman Michael Haggard.

Attorneys Ben Crump and Natalie Jackson, who represented Tyre’s family, shared their thoughts on this landmark decision via X (formerly Twitter). “This ruling is a step forward in holding corporations accountable for the safety of their products,” they said in a statement.

Lawyers stressed that Tyre’s death was attributable to “gross negligence and a failure to put safety before profits.” They added that the ride’s manufacturer had “neglected its duty to protect passengers” and that the substantial award ensured it could “face the consequences of its decisions.”

Crump and Jackson said they hope the result will encourage change throughout the theme park industry. “We hope this will spur the entire industry to enforce more stringent safety measures,” they said. “Tire heritage will provide a safer future for drivers around the world.”

An investigation previously found that Tyre’s harness was locked through the descent, but he dislodged from his seat through the 430-foot fall when the magnets engaged. Tire’s death was ruled the result of “multiple injuries and trauma.”

ICON Park said at the time that it could “fully cooperate” with the authorities.

This article was originally published on : www.essence.com
Continue Reading

Health and Wellness

Tireless HIV/AIDS advocate A. Cornelius Baker dies

Published

on

By

HIV/AIDS Advocate, A. Cornelius Baker


A. Cornelius Baker, a tireless advocate of HIV and AIDS testing, research and vaccination, died Nov. 8 at his home in Washington, D.C., of hypertensive, atherosclerotic heart problems, in response to his partner, Gregory Nevins.

As previously reported, Baker was an early supporter for people living with HIV and AIDS within the Nineteen Eighties, when misinformation and fear-mongering in regards to the disease were rampant.

According to Douglas M. Brooks, director of the Office of National AIDS Policy under President Obama, it was Baker’s Christian faith that guided him toward compassion for others.

“He was very kind, very warm and inclusive – his circles, both professional and personal, were the most diverse I have ever seen, and he was guided by his Christian values,” Brooks told the outlet. “His ferocity was on display when people were marginalized, rejected or forgotten.”

In 1995, when he was executive director of the National AIDS Association, Baker pushed for June 27 to be designated National HIV Testing Day.

In 2012, he later wrote on the web site of the Global Health Advisor for which he was a technical advisor that: “These efforts were intended to help reduce the stigma associated with HIV testing and normalize it as part of regular screening.”

https://twitter.com/NBJContheMove/status/1856725113967632663?s=19

Baker also feared that men like himself, black gay men, and other men from marginalized communities were disproportionately affected by HIV and AIDS.

Baker pressured the Clinton administration to incorporate black and Latino people in clinical drug trials, and in 1994 he pointedly told the Clinton administration that he was bored with hearing guarantees but seeing no motion.

According to Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings, yes that daring attitude that defines Baker’s legacy in the world of ​​HIV/AIDS promotion.

“Cornelius was a legendary leader in the fight for equality for LGBTQ+ people and all people living with HIV,” Jennings said in a press release. “In the more than twenty years that I knew him, I was continually impressed not only by how effective he was as a leader, but also by how he managed to strike the balance between being fierce and kind at the same time. His loss is devastating.”

Jennings continued: “Cornelius’ leadership can’t be overstated. For many years, he was one in all the nation’s leading HIV/AIDS warriors, working locally, nationally and internationally. No matter where he went, he proudly supported the HIV/AIDS community from the Nineteen Eighties until his death, serving in various positions including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Association of Persons with Disabilities AIDS, and the Whitman-Walker Clinic . Jennings explained.

Jennings concluded: “His career also included several honors, including being the first recipient of the American Foundation for AIDS Research Foundation’s organization-building Courage Award. Our communities have lost a pillar in Cornelius, and as we mourn his death, we will be forever grateful for his decades of service to the community.”

Kaye Hayes, deputy assistant secretary for communicable diseases and director of the Office of Infectious Diseases and HIV/AIDS Policy, in her comment about his legacy, she called Baker “the North Star.”.

“It is difficult to overstate the impact his loss had on public health, the HIV/AIDS community or the place he held in my heart personally,” Hayes told Hiv.gov. “He was pushing us, charging us, pulling us, pushing us. With his unwavering commitment to the HIV movement, he represented the north star, constructing coalitions across sectors and dealing with leaders across the political spectrum to deal with health disparities and advocate for access to HIV treatment and look after all. He said, “The work isn’t done, the charge is still there, move on – you know what you have to do.” It’s in my ear and in my heart in the case of this job.

Hayes added: “His death is a significant loss to the public health community and to the many others who benefited from Cornelius’ vigilance. His legacy will continue to inspire and motivate us all.”

Baker is survived by his mother, Shirley Baker; his partner Nevins, who can be senior counsel at Lambda Legal; his sisters Chandrika Baker, Nadine Wallace and Yavodka Bishop; in addition to his two brothers, Kareem and Roosevelt Dowdell; along with the larger HIV/AIDS advocacy community.


This article was originally published on : www.blackenterprise.com
Continue Reading

Health and Wellness

Bovaer is added to cow feed to reduce methane emissions. Does it pass into milk and meat? And is it harmful to humans?

Published

on

By

There are growing concerns in regards to the use of feed supplements, Bowar 10to reduce methane production in cows.

Bovaer 10 consists of silicon dioxide (mainly sand), propylene glycol (food stabilizer approved by Food Safety Australia New Zealand) and lively substance 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP).

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation in regards to the safety of 3-NOP, with some milk from herds fed this additive being labeled “Frankenmilk”. Others feared it could get to humans through beef.

The most significant thing is that 3-NOP is secure. Let’s clear up some major misconceptions.

Why do we want to limit methane production?

In our attempts to limit global warming, we’ve placed the best emphasis on CO₂ because the major man-made greenhouse gas. But methane is also a greenhouse gas, and although we produce less of it, it is: a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂.

Agriculture is the largest a man-made source of methane. As cattle herds expand to meet our growing demand for meat and milk, reducing methane production from cows is a vital way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are several ways to do that. Stopping bacteria within the stomachs of cows that produce methane one approach is to produce methane.

The methane produced by cows and sheep doesn’t come from the animals themselves, but from the microbes living of their digestive systems. 3-NO stop the enzymes that perform the last step of methane synthesis in these microorganisms.

3-NOP is not the one compound tested as a feed additive. Australian product based on seaweed, Rumin8for instance, it is also in development. Saponins, soap-like chemicals present in plants, and essential oils as well has been examined.

However, 3-NOP is currently one of the popular effective treatments.

Nitrooxypropanol structure: red balls are oxygen, gray carbon, blue nitrogen and white hydrogen.
PubChem

But is not it poison?

There are concerns on social media that Bovaer is “poisoning our food.”

But, as we are saying in toxicology, it’s the dose that makes the poison. For example, arsenic is deadly 2–20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

In contrast, 3-NOP was not lethal on the doses utilized in safety studies, up to 600 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight. At a dose of 100 mg per kg body weight in rats, it didn’t cause any adversarial effects.

What about reproductive issues?

The effect of 3-NOP on the reproductive organs has generated numerous commentary.

Studies in rats and cows showed that doses of 300–500 mg per kg body weight caused: contraction of the ovaries and testicles.

In comparison, to achieve the identical exposure in humans, a 70 kg human would want to eat 21–35 grams (about 2 tablespoons) of pure 3-NOP every day for a lot of weeks to see this effect.

No human will likely be exposed to this amount because 3-NOP doesn’t pass into milk – is fully metabolized within the cow’s intestines.

No cow will likely be exposed to these levels either.

The cow licks itself
Cows will not be exposed to levels tested on animals in laboratory studies.
Ground photo/Shutterstock

What about cancer?

3-NOP is not genotoxic or mutagenicwhich implies it cannot damage DNA. Thus, the results of 3-NOP are dose-limited, meaning that small doses will not be harmful, while very high doses are (unlike radiation where there is no secure dose).

Scientists found that at a dose of 300 mg per kilogram of body weight benign tumors of the small intestine of female ratsbut not male rats, after 2 years of every day consumption. At a dose of 100 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight, no tumors were observed.

Cows eat lower than 2 grams of Bovaer 10 per day (of which only 10% or 0.2 grams is 3-NOP). This is about 1,000 times lower than the appropriate every day intake 1 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight per day for a cow weighing 450 kg.

This level of consumption will likely be not the result in cancer or any of them other adversarial effects.

So how much are people exposed to?

Milk and meat consumers will likely be exposed to zero 3-NOP. 3-NOP doesn’t penetrate milk and meat: is completely metabolized within the cow’s intestines.

Farmers could also be exposed to small amounts of the feed additive, and industrial employees producing 3-NOP will potentially be exposed to larger amounts. Farmers and industrial employees already wear personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to other agricultural chemicals – and it is advisable to do that with Bovear 10 as well.

Milk
3-NOP doesn’t penetrate milk and meat.
Shutterstock

How widely has it been tested?

3-NOP has been in development for 15 years and has been subject to multiple reviews by European Food Safety Authority, UK Food Safety Authority AND others.

It has been extensively tested over months of exposure to cattle and has produced no unintended effects. Some studies actually say so improves the standard of milk and meat.

Bovaer was approved for use in dairy cattle by the European Union from 2022 and Japan in 2024. It is also utilized in many other countries, including: in beef products, amongst others Australia.

A really small amount of 3-NOP enters the environment (lower than 0.2% of the dose taken), no accumulates and is easily decomposed subsequently, it doesn’t pose a threat to the environment.

Since humans will not be exposed to 3-NOP through milk and meat, long-term exposure is not an issue.

What does Bill Gates have to do with this?

Bill Gates has invested in a distinct feed processing method for methane, Australian seaweed-based Rumin8. But he has nothing to do with Bovaer 10.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded research grants to the corporate producing 3-NOP for malaria control researchnot for 3-NOP.

The bottom line is that adding 3-NOP to animal feed doesn’t pose any risk to consumers, animals or the environment.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending