Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Rainwater Everywhere on Earth Unsafe To Drink Due To 'Forever Chemicals,' Study Finds (euronews.com) 159

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Rainwater almost everywhere on Earth has unsafe levels of "forever chemicals," according to new research. saulgood shares a report: Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large family of human-made chemicals that don't occur in nature. They are known as 'forever chemicals' because they don't break down in the environment. They have non-stick or stain repellent properties so can be found in household items like food packaging, electronics, cosmetics and cookware. But now researchers at the University of Stockholm have found them in rainwater in most locations on the planet -- including Antarctica. There is no safe space to escape them. Safe guideline levels for some of these forever chemicals have dropped dramatically over the last two decades due to new insights into their toxicity. "There has been an astounding decline in guideline values for PFAS in drinking water in the last 20 years," says Ian Cousins, lead author of the study and professor at the Department of Environmental Science, Stockholm University. For one well-known substance, the "cancer-causing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)," water guideline values have declined by 37.5 million times in the US.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rainwater Everywhere on Earth Unsafe To Drink Due To 'Forever Chemicals,' Study Finds More

Rainwater Everywhere on Earth Unsafe To Drink Due To 'Forever Chemicals,' Study Finds

Comments Filter:

  • If I drink rain water (Score:4, Funny)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2022 @12:48PM (#62774938) Journal

    Will that mean I will live forever thanks to these chemicals?

  • Rain water drinking 3rd world countries still have the highest population.

  • I'm just wondering how well regular distillation works for separating these chemicals from my drinking water. Anyone know?

  • Is this really a problem? If this stuff is so ubiquitous, where are all the deleterious effects on the population? How does this compare to things like food-born illness which is mitigated by plastics?

    I'm not against trying to handle plastics better, but I'm really skeptical about how something is both ubiquitous and dangerous and somehow does not come up in the data when you look at things like excess death and life expectancy.

    • I think the issue is that if these 'forever chemicals' never break down, and we keep producing more of it each and every year, at some point the amount of it in our water supply will become a big health issue.
      • PFAS apparently can be mostly filtered out via reverse osmosis: "Reverse osmosis (RO) is a very effective technology for PFAS removal. It is capable of removing more than 90% PFAS in the feedwater, including both long-chain and short-chain PFAS." https://www.lenntech.com/proce... [lenntech.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          Cool, but we can't run all drinking water, for everyone on the planet, through RO filters. It's just not feasible. Or were you thinking this is more of a "fuck you, I got mine" situation?

        • Considering that rain water is distilled water, evapoured water, I wonder from where the PFAs get into it.

          • Good question, most likely the dust particles that nucleate the water droplets.

            Check their boiling points and see if they are less than water's. If not I don't see how they would evaporate to any significant amount.

    • Re:A problem? (Score:5, Informative)

      by muh_freeze_peach ( 9622152 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2022 @01:31PM (#62775076)
      Here [cdc.gov]

    • Re:A problem? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2022 @01:35PM (#62775086)

      The main place we see it is in reduced fertility among males. Male sperm counts are way down from 100 years ago. This is primarily due to the psuedo-estrogens (pesticides and plastic) .

      Cancer risks have increased from 3% to 50% over the last 100 years *BUT* part of that is average older age. If you died at 58, you didn't get cancer at 67. It's hard to tease out.

      Also see "Childhood disability rate jumps 16 percent over past decade"
      where it says
      "The study also found that disabilities related to physical health conditions have decreased, while disabilities due to neurodevelopmental and mental health problems have increased greatly."

      • The main place we see it is in reduced fertility among males. Male sperm counts are way down from 100 years ago. This is primarily due to ...

        The main determinant of sperm count is how frequently the male ejaculates. Saying "Male sperm counts are way down from 100 years ago" only says "Males are having a lot more frequent sex than 100 years ago."

        (or else masturbating more often. Given that 100 years ago there was severe social pressure against masturbation, that's possible too.)

        • (or else masturbating more often. Given that 100 years ago there was severe social pressure against masturbation, that's possible too.)

          All that social pressure against masturbation does is force people to not talk about it. Otherwise, same-old, same-old....

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          I blame the Internet.

    • Is this really a problem? If this stuff is so ubiquitous, where are all the deleterious effects on the population? How does this compare to things like food-born illness which is mitigated by plastics?

      I'm not against trying to handle plastics better, but I'm really skeptical about how something is both ubiquitous and dangerous and somehow does not come up in the data when you look at things like excess death and life expectancy.

      Officially, what we need to know is deaths per 100,000 people due to this effect, alongside similar stats for other risks such as death by shark attack, deaths by lightning, and so on.

      I note that fentanyl is now the leading cause of death among people in the US aged 18-45, with about 55,000 deaths annually and exponentially rising. I *strongly* suspect that this risk is much, much higher than the risk from forever chemicals.

      This is not to downplay the risk or say that the risk is negligible, only to say tha

      • Re:Comparison of risk (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Vancorps ( 746090 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2022 @02:15PM (#62775246)

        Yeah, that's a problem for future me. I sure don't envy that guy!

        More seriously I'd say we are more than capable of doing both. We know that PFAs are a growing problem, slowing it down so we can better get a handle on it sounds a lot better than waiting until its killing 10s of thousands of people because at that point it will be too late to do anything about.

        ,/p

        Most of our fentenyl issue is caused by our healthcare system failing us enormously due to being full of for profit entities or severely underfunded non-profits in rural areas.

        My own grandmother fell and fractured her pelvis. They gave Oxycontin to deal with it. Most people understand that it is absurd to take an opioid for any long term as you will become addicted. Being 85 she complained about pain which was really just what happens when you become addicted to opioids. Your mind literally invents pain. Since she was 85 they opted to just "make her comfortable" which eventually meant she was taking fentenyl and of course was no longer able to function properly with a whole host of side effects that are well known but due to her age were simply treated with more drugs.

        Eventually my mother and uncle flew out there to check on as they do at least twice a year. Looked at all the meds she was on and ask their doctor if they could create a plan to get her off all the opioids. She wasn't consciously addicted so she agreed to try it as her quality of life was declining rapidly. There were some struggles but 5 years later we all flew out to celebrate her birthday. Her quality of life is significantly improved and she only needs the occasional Advil to help her deal with some arthritis.

        Then there is my cousin, he hurt his back, same story only he was much younger. Since he was younger the doctors cut him off which led to him finding alternative sources of pain meds which are of course not being regulated properly. He died of an overdose.

        The healthcare industry is hurting a lot of people but only worrying about the problem in front of them either because they are too busy or because insurance makes it too difficult or won't cover treatment for addiction as you are of course addicted after two weeks to a few months while your back recovers. That type of pain is quite debilitating.

        So long story short, as a society we're more than capable of working on more than one problem at a time. We've known what PFAs due to the human body for quite some time now and it would be easier to deal with now rather than later.

  • Wouldn't it be at least one possibility that they don't break down in the human body either? I mean, if they just pass through our systems, then the fact we drank water with some small amount in it perhaps amounts to nothing?

  • On a related note. (Score:3)

    by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2022 @12:59PM (#62774988) Homepage
    If you use k-cups or tide pods you are not part of the solution. And these are the perfect example of not caring for the environment.

    I gave up on plasticized cookware years ago and went back to cast iron, stainless, and anodized. Leftovers are now in glass or porcelain. I do admit to using plastic wrap because it is just so useful - baby steps I suppose. On the clothes front everything has some poly in it unless you actively seek out 100% cotton.
    • What exactly are you using the plastic wrap for? I mean I have a roll in my house and once in a blue moon I use it for something but my current roll is well over 10 years old.

      • What exactly are you using the plastic wrap for? I mean I have a roll in my house and once in a blue moon I use it for something but my current roll is well over 10 years old.

        Well, more often than not these days, I use it to cover and seal in the tops of my glass containers I try to store most foods in.

        I also use it to tightly wrap my raw salmon I often salt cure to make gravlax...but that is usually only overnight and then I unwrap and rinse off.

        I do, however, often use gallon sized ziplock bags to stor

      • I for one use it to wrap up bread products before freezing them. I can't get through most bags of anything before they mold otherwise. But if you don't wrap them tight then they get freezer burned. I then put the plastic wrapped bread into a bigger bag that I reuse. I live far enough away from the places where I shop (12 minutes to the local grocery outlet, 35 minutes to costco) that I'm not going to go shopping every time I want something, so I have to stock up. But if the food is ruined, that doesn't do m

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
        Food storage. Have a bowl of leftover chopped tomatoes? Just trow a bit of plastic wrap over the top of the bowl and place it in the fridge. It can also be used during meal preparation to keep flies off of the food until mealtime. There are other items that can be used for these tasks, but plastic wrap is easy to use and very flexible in its applications.

      • Plastic wrap, the great question; how does a piece of plastic wrap compare environmentally with the marginal cost of washing the extra container and cover if you don't use plastic wrap.

        Over a year, how many dishwasher loads do you save using plastic wrap, and how does the extra dishwasher load compare to the plastic wrap environmentally?

        Complication, some larger pieces of plastic wrap are reusable if they are still clean.

      • One example: I bake an apple crisp in a 9 X 13 pan. After it cools I cover that with apiece of plastic wrap that is the width of the roll (12", yes I just ran out to measure it) by 16". If I don't cover the large pan, then I would need 11 other containers (12 servings minus the one I just ate :-)) to store the leftovers.

    • Plastics get a pretty bad "wrap" but for the most part as long as they stay in the waste cycle and end up properly landfilled it's not so bad. The issue in in places where there is lacking waste infrastructure and so much ends up in the ocean, rivers, soil etc. Certainly a better use for petroleum is to make durable goods from it than just burn it to make things hot.

      That said we can (and slowly are it seems) ease up on the disposable stuff and plastic packaging, it has gotten a bit out of hand how many si

      • Nonstick pans aren't really a problem either so long as you don't overheat them or scratch them up and while a good seasoned cast iron is great to have it can't do the things a real non-stick can.

        I have been having a LOT of good luck lately with carbon steel pans.

        ONce I get them well seasoned, I can cook eggs in them non-stick just fine.

        I will admit, I do use a good bit more oil on those than a non-stick, but they do work well.

    • I honestly had no idea detergent / dishwasher pods were environmentally unfriendly. Thanks for prompting me to google that!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )

      I gave up on plasticized cookware years ago and went back to cast iron, stainless, and anodized. Leftovers are now in glass or porcelain.

      You've never been backpacking, have you?

      • Everything has it's place. But for home cooking in a kitchen there is no need to be so light weight or disposable.

        But you would get a more thorough exercise carrying around a cast iron skillet and glass jars :D

    • I do admit to using plastic wrap because it is just so useful

      Foil works pretty well.

      • I do admit to using plastic wrap because it is just so useful

        Foil works pretty well.

        Well, not so much with acidic foods.

        I've forgotten at times and used foil on things with tomato sauce, and well...after a day or so, it starts eating holes in the foil.

  • Rainwater almost everywhere on Earth has unsafe levels of "forever chemicals," according to new research.

    We're so smart!!

  • If everything is killing us everywhere, how come world population keeps increasing?

    • Because humans try to keep human life expectancy greater than maximum reproductive age. Things like cancer, dementia, and type 2 diabetes aren't "Darwinian selection factors" since they don't usually appear until after the reproductive years. Plus the mating part is fun.

  • How can there be significant amounts in rain? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by olddoc ( 152678 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2022 @01:33PM (#62775084)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] PFOA has a boiling point of 372F. I understand how this could be in ground water but how much could possibly be in clouds falling as rain?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      Because the boiling point of it has literally nothing to do with anything. Them being microscopic particles does.

      • Because the boiling point of it has literally nothing to do with anything. Them being microscopic particles does.

        Water gets up to the clouds by evaporating at ground level, then condensing up high. Evaporation will leave any particles behind, even microscopic ones. I guess they must be blown up along with other dust particles?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      Updrafts of water can carry this stuff with them.

  • RTFM (Score:5, Informative)

    by BurnedFlankSteak ( 8524147 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2022 @01:58PM (#62775188)
    Link to original research article (which should actually be required to be included in every publication that includes the words: "new research shows X") https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.10... [acs.org] short explanation - they're in the air and so they're everywhere. "Until recently, the common belief was that PFAAs would eventually wash off into the oceans where they would stay to be diluted over the time scale of decades. (52) A recent study, (53) however, has provided evidence that certain PFAS, notably the long-chain PFAAs, which include the 4 PFAAs included in EFSA’s TWI, can be significantly enriched on sea spray aerosols (SSA) and transported in the atmosphere back to shore where they will be deposited and contaminate freshwaters, drinking waters and surface soils. This continual global cycling of PFAAs in the hydrosphere will lead to the continued exceedance of the above-mentioned guidelines. This finding is particularly worrying because (1) guideline values based on biological effects have continually decreased (20) and may not yet have reached the bottom as more scientific evidence emerges, (2) guidelines are currently based on only a few of the substances in the large PFAS class, (10) and (3) there is no evidence for the decline in environmental concentrations and thus environmentally derived exposures of PFAS. (54)" Conclusion - even if you don't agree with us, this is a big problem, one that we haven't fully quantified, and a mistake that we continue to make despite a long history of making the same mistake in the past... i.e., we're dumb, short-sighted, and we never learn. "Irrespective of whether or not one agrees with our conclusion that the planetary boundary for PFAS is exceeded, it is nevertheless highly problematic that everywhere on Earth where humans reside recently proposed health advisories cannot be achieved without large investment in advanced cleanup technology. Indeed, although PFOS and PFOA were phased out by one of the major manufacturers (3M) 20 years ago, it will take decades before levels in land-based water and precipitation approach low picogram per liter levels. Moreover, the problems associated with PFOS, PFOA, or 4 PFAAs are likely to be only the tip of the iceberg given that there are many thousands of PFAS in the class and the risks associated with most of them are unknown. (60) In view of the impacts of humanity’s chemical footprint on planetary health, it is of great importance to avoid further escalation of the problem of large-scale and long-term environmental and human exposure to PFAS by rapidly restricting uses of PFAS wherever possible. (61) Furthermore, as has been stated by ourselves (3) and others (7) before, society should not continually repeat the same mistakes with other persistent chemicals." The planet, in the long run, will be just fine as planets go... but humanity is systematically destroying the only biome we can actually live in.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      my dude, there's a key below the backslash and above the shift.

    • PFOA out, GenX in. GenX is okay, because it degrades into other substances ... toxicity of those substances to be revealed in a couple decades.

    • What you wrote might have looked good when you wrote it, but /. surely mangled it into an endless single paragraph-sentence.

      Please do learn to use the formatting characters provided with the /. comment box so we can all more easily read what you appear to rant about.

      A long single sentence looking post constrained to a single paragraph, like your post, looks like a rant in /.

  • Greenpeace got it almost right (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2022 @03:41PM (#62775514)

    Greenpeace should have asked for a ban on Fluorine chemistry instead of Chlorine. Organofluorine chemistry is an almost totally irredeemable clusterfuck.

  • Rain miraculously washes the dirty forever chemicals out of the air.

Slashdot Top Deals

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Close