Forever Chemicals Pose a Greater Health Risk Than Experts Previously Anticipated
We've been told that chemicals that simplify our lives would revolutionize it for the better for the better part of a century. However, the risks posed by so-called "forever chemicals" may be substantially more than first assumed.
Author:Daniel JamesReviewer:Karan EmeryDec 01, 202288.3K Shares2M Views
We've been told that chemicals that simplify our lives would revolutionize it for the better for the most part of a century. However, the risks posed by so-called "forever chemicals" may be substantially more than first assumed.
Eggs no longer stick to the pan, stains can be easily removed from upholstery, and water beads off of waterproof outerwear. The hopeful tagline "Better goods for better life... via chemistry" was created by DuPont, the manufacturer of Teflon, a chemical coating that is extensively utilized.
However, the price of this improved standard of living is now under more scrutiny. Toxins from these compounds, which have been given the moniker "forever chemicals" due to their persistence in the natural environment, are showing to have long-lasting effects on human health.
Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of compounds that are increasingly being linked to health problems such as high blood lipid levels, difficulties during pregnancy, and even cancer.
Concern over these chemicals' effects on human health has recently prompted a flurry of activity on the part of public health and regulatory authorities in the United States. In June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warned that PFAS represents a larger health danger than previously assumed, and it drastically reduced the amounts of PFAS considered acceptable for inclusion in drinking water.
PFAS "forever chemicals" on our shelves and in our bodies: A conversation
PFAS Contamination
According to USA Today, the EPA has revised its safety standards downward by a factor of 3,500. Frontline communities have been bearing the brunt of PFAS pollution for too long. In light of this widespread problem, the EPA is taking decisive action as part of a government-wide initiative, as stated by EPA Administrator Michael Regan in a statement.
“„The updated advisory levels, which are based on new science and consider lifetime exposure, indicate that some negative health effects may occur with concentrations of PFOA or PFOS in water that are near zero and below EPA’s ability to detect at this time. The lower the level of PFOA and PFOS, the lower the risk to public health.- Environmental Protection Agency
To aid "small or disadvantaged" areas dealing with PFAS pollution, the EPA on Wednesday also encouraged states and territories to apply for $1 billion in grant financing via President Joe Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This is the first of five annual financing installments totaling $5 billion from 2022 through 2026. The EPA plans to present its proposal for expanded PFAS regulation in the autumn of 2022, so these efforts arrive just in time.
First-time health warnings were also issued by the EPA for two further PFAS compounds, perfluorobutane sulfonic acid and its potassium salt, and "GenX" chemicals, hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid and its ammonium salt, which are thought to be suitable replacements for PFOA and PFOS.
According to risk estimates in recent scientific research, the GenX chemicals and PFBS health warning levels are substantially over the limit of detection. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences believes that 97% of Americans have PFAS in their blood, despite the fact that both PFOA and PFOS production and blood levels have declined since 2002 and 1999, respectively (according to the CDC).
Melanie Benesh, legislative counsel with the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement that no one should have to worry about the safety of their drinking water. These recommendation limits show how urgently we need to cut people's exposure to harmful substances.
Widespread Chemicals
Firefighters are more in danger since PFAS make protective gear water-resistant and are included in fire-suppressing foam. The CDC reports that most individuals have PFAS in their systems. PFAS-contaminated drinking water or food cultivated in land fertilized with sewage-contaminated fertilizers are the main sources of exposure. 2,854 US sites are PFAS-contaminated.
“„People and communities have had significant exposure to these chemicals. If they can ID that they are in an area of significant exposure, they should seek testing through their usual source of care.- Ned Calonge, Colorado School of Public Health in Aurora
Unlike the NYU team, the committee found "adequate evidence" associating PFAS exposure to four conditions: poor antibody response to immunization, unusually high cholesterol levels, impaired newborn and fetal development, and kidney cancer. Breast, testicular, thyroid, and ulcerative colitis evidence was "suggestive".
The paper advocates for greater PFAS health studies, citing gaps in information on neurological disorders and bone density. Calonge believes these substances affect many physiological systems. They're “environmentally ubiquitous.”
Newer But Not More
PFAS are effective oil and water repellents, thermally stable, and low-friction materials. Few of the over 9,000 variants of these synthetic compounds have been examined for toxicologic effects. One research indicated a larger than twofold increase in kidney cancer risk between persons with the highest vs lowest blood levels of one prevalent PFAS.
Two forms of perfluorinated flame retardants, or PFAS, were the first to get recommendations from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA decreased the amount of exposure below which harmful health consequences are not predicted from 70 parts per trillion to 0.004 and 0.02 ppt. An expert group from the National Academies concluded that there is ample and suggestive evidence that PFAS raises the risk for various diseases.
Customers may inquire with their local water utility about PFAS testing results. Providers should be allowed to disclose the PFAS they test for since testing is becoming more prevalent. Close proximity to PFAS sources, such as factories that generate or use the chemicals, airports where PFAS are used for firefighting, firefighting training locations, and certain waste disposal sites, may lead to contamination of nearby private wells.
Private well owners in close proximity to one of these labs may have their water quality evaluated. The EPA is awarding funding to assist underserved small and disadvantaged communities perform home water quality testing and comply with drinking water laws.
Risk Assessment
Both the NYU and National Academies papers focused on the effects of older PFAS since there is so little information on the health consequences of the newer generation of chemicals.
The study from the National Academies is the first to provide clinical principles for determining a person's illness risk. According to the research from the National Academies, regular screening is safe for those with PFAS levels in their blood between 2 and 20 nanomoles per milliliter. Cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis screenings should be conducted on those who have higher levels.
The research suggests purifying water and decreasing consumption of items containing PFAS as further measures to lessen exposure. In 2020, researchers from Duke and North Carolina State discovered that activated carbon filters, which are used in certain countertop or pitcher filters, do not remove PFAS as well as reverse osmosis filters.
For further technical information on which filters effectively remove PFAS, see the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is linked to the National Academies study.
Final Words
Reducing PFAS levels in water supplies may be helpful. While Trasande acknowledges that the EPA's health warnings are only suggestions and not legally binding, she appreciates the agency's prompt response, especially in the case of novel compounds like GenX.
But he contends that further testing is needed before PFAS can be allowed, given what we know and what we are learning about the illness burden caused by these chemicals. Instead of what he terms "whack-a-mole," we should govern them according to class.
Daniel James
Author
Daniel James is a distinguished gerontologist, author, and professional coach known for his expertise in health and aging.
With degrees from Georgia Tech and UCLA, including a diploma in gerontology from the University of Boston, Daniel brings over 15 years of experience to his work.
His credentials also include a Professional Coaching Certification, enhancing his credibility in personal development and well-being.
In his free time, Daniel is an avid runner and tennis player, passionate about fitness, wellness, and staying active.
His commitment to improving lives through health education and coaching reflects his passion and dedication in both professional and personal endeavors.
Karan Emery
Reviewer
Karan Emery, an accomplished researcher and leader in health sciences, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals, brings over two decades of experience to the table. Holding a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from Stanford University, Karan's credentials underscore her authority in the field.
With a track record of groundbreaking research and numerous peer-reviewed publications in prestigious journals, Karan's expertise is widely recognized in the scientific community.
Her writing style is characterized by its clarity and meticulous attention to detail, making complex scientific concepts accessible to a broad audience. Apart from her professional endeavors, Karan enjoys cooking, learning about different cultures and languages, watching documentaries, and visiting historical landmarks.
Committed to advancing knowledge and improving health outcomes, Karan Emery continues to make significant contributions to the fields of health, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals.
Latest Articles
Popular Articles