White House tried to hide military drinking water crisis

[Underseer]

https://newrepublic.com/article/149280/military-drinking-water-crisis-white-house-tried-hide

Republicans can do anything they want to military personnel because the majority of military personnel will vote Republican no matter what Republican politicians do to them.

If you object to what I said above, do you predict that this drinking water crisis will have a measurable effect on the voting patterns of active or retired military folk? Why do you think that?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Of course they suppressed it. This will, of course, lead to America-haters demanding the end of AFFF and thus meaning that our brave soldiers and sailors stop having an effective means of protecting themselves in case of fires out of a misplaced concern over safe drinking water and not military readiness.

Also, i tasted that shit in boot. We all did, because quote 'only pussies fear their firefightong tools!' End of fucking quote.

 

[repoman]

The sad life of Zogbots.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know the military has issues, but do they really have wells that are installed shallow enough that surface contaminants can infiltrate the aquifer they are pumping water from?

The next question, how serious is this really? The source isn't exactly the most reassuring. If these chemicals are that dangerous at such low levels, that is alarming because it isn't exactly easy to remove it from the water at a plant. And if it were that bad, then it would likely be bigger news.

 

[bilby]

Everything about that article screams 'NON-EVENT'!!! to me. It's a piece of chemophobic bullshit, designed to appeal to people who are prone to alarm at the very mention of 'chemicals'.

These chemical compounds pose health risks to millions of Americans.

... but those risks are, according to the report, minuscule; At the concentrations reported, this stuff is a lot less dangerous than, for example, caffeine, which people deliberately consume in large quantities.

They’re in roughly 1 percent of the nation’s public water supply, according to the EPA; in roughly 1,500 drinking water systems across the country, according to the Environmental Working Group.

... but we are not going to mention how few of those contain concentrations sufficiently high to be of real concern.

People who drink from these systems, even if their exposure to PFAS is low, now have a potentially increased risk of cancer; of disruptions in hormones and the immune system; and of complications with fetal development during pregnancy.

... everyone has a potentially increased risk of cancer (and those other 'potential' issues) from anything. The question is, how many people have an actually increased risk, and what is the size of that increase? If there is a risk that, on average, a handful of people who would have lived 77 years will now only live to 69.99 years of age, then is this worth worrying about?

There might be a problem here that needs to be addressed; But it's not possible to tell from this article - and obviously few people are going to read and understand the entire 852 page report on which it is based. It is very likely that the journalist who wrote this article is not qualified to understand the report. "Emily Atkin is a staff writer at The New Republic." I wonder if she has any education in toxicology, medicine, or even high school biology or chemistry. Those are not typically required for magazine staff writers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Everything about that article screams 'NON-EVENT'!!! to me. It's a piece of chemophobic bullshit, designed to appeal to people who are prone to alarm at the very mention of 'chemicals'.

To which the administration did NOT say, find me an expert to break this down for me,' and then announce the appropriate steps to be taken appropriately, but just tried to suppress it.
Good, bad or no-one-in-the-room-unnerstan'-it, they just kicked dirt over it.

That's the Event.

 

[Underseer]

Everything about that article screams 'NON-EVENT'!!! to me. It's a piece of chemophobic bullshit, designed to appeal to people who are prone to alarm at the very mention of 'chemicals'.


... but those risks are, according to the report, minuscule; At the concentrations reported, this stuff is a lot less dangerous than, for example, caffeine, which people deliberately consume in large quantities.

... but we are not going to mention how few of those contain concentrations sufficiently high to be of real concern.

People who drink from these systems, even if their exposure to PFAS is low, now have a potentially increased risk of cancer; of disruptions in hormones and the immune system; and of complications with fetal development during pregnancy.

... everyone has a potentially increased risk of cancer (and those other 'potential' issues) from anything. The question is, how many people have an actually increased risk, and what is the size of that increase? If there is a risk that, on average, a handful of people who would have lived 77 years will now only live to 69.99 years of age, then is this worth worrying about?

There might be a problem here that needs to be addressed; But it's not possible to tell from this article - and obviously few people are going to read and understand the entire 852 page report on which it is based. It is very likely that the journalist who wrote this article is not qualified to understand the report. "Emily Atkin is a staff writer at The New Republic." I wonder if she has any education in toxicology, medicine, or even high school biology or chemistry. Those are not typically required for magazine staff writers.

Thanks for pointing that out. Whoever wrote this article is clearly not a science reporter. However, I think the first sentence covers the main issue:

The Trump administration feared it would be a “public relations nightmare”: a major federal study that concluded contaminated groundwater across the country, especially near military bases, was more toxic than the government realized.

Is it toxic enough to be concerned for the health of servicemen and women?

It was toxic enough for the Trump administration to try and sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It was toxic enough for the Trump administration to try and sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

BZZZZT!
Wrong. No, toxicity was not a concern. It was purely optics.

They could certainly blame this on previous administrations, but if they did that, the next question would be Whatter You Gonna Do About It?
If there is no report, no action must be taken.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Did some googling, and there appear to be a number of papers on this stuff. While it is impossible (for me) to determine the legitimacy of the paper and the journals, the claims are that this stuff is showing up everywhere, and it isn't quite obvious why. I think this spooked manufacturers, as they stopped producing the chemicals, for the most part.

This sentence, from the report cited in the OP is a little of concern:

The levels of PFOA and PFOS in serum samples of U.S. residents have decreased appreciably since thephase out of these substances in the United States. The geometric mean serum levels of PFOS havedeclined over 80% from NHANES survey years 1999–2000 (30.4 ng/mL) to 2013–2014 (4.99 ng/mL)and the geometric mean serum levels of PFOA have declined almost 70% over the same temporal period,decreasing from 5.2 ng/mL in years 1999–2000 to 1.94 ng/mL for 2013–2014 (CDC 2018).

Yes, it is good that the levels have dropped. Not so good that apparently this was something of enough concern that there are levels to compare to and manufacturers stopped making it... for the most part. I believe ng/mL is ppb.

Highest doses are in babies/toddlers... which potentially indicates carpets.

Table 5-5 is crazy as it indicates levels in animals from polar bears and arctic cod... which really are well away from industrial sites.

Long story short, this apparently was an issue that raised some alarms a while ago... its production is near nil now, and levels in Americans have lowered substantially. Personally, I'm relieved and completely freaking out at the same time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It was toxic enough for the Trump administration to try and sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

BZZZZT!
Wrong. No, toxicity was not a concern. It was purely optics.

I'm not even certain that the Trump Admin stepped in the way.

Though it may only be a matter of time before you see commercials asking whether "you or a loved one suffered from *insert symptoms*. They may have been exposed to higher doses of PFOA's and PFOS's. A bunch of lawyers are teaming up to take money from 3M and we want to help cut you a check for $10."

 

[bilby]

Real public health problems come to light because doctors, coroners, or other health care professionals notice an uptick in certain symptoms (up to and including death) being reported, and go looking for a cause.

A public health problem that is detected by an analysis of contaminants in the environment first, and not by an uptick in patients (or corpses) is clearly not a major public health problem - at worst, it causes health issues so minor and/or infrequent as to be hidden in the general 'noise' of people being unwell from the myriad causes that nobody freaks out about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Real public health problems come to light because doctors, coroners, or other health care professionals notice an uptick in certain symptoms (up to and including death) being reported, and go looking for a cause.

A public health problem that is detected by an analysis of contaminants in the environment first, and not by an uptick in patients (or corpses) is clearly not a major public health problem - at worst, it causes health issues so minor and/or infrequent as to be hidden in the general 'noise' of people being unwell from the myriad causes that nobody freaks out about.

Yeah, but it is still creepy as fuck. This stuff got everywhere. But it was caught and dealt with before much in the way of anything happened. And that is good.

 

[starwater]

PFAS are an emerging contaminant. The EPA does not have a maximum contaminant level yet for it. I am working on this with some of my clients. Some states have a level - NJ for example 13 parts per trillion and several aquifers have been defined to have been contaminated. It's in teflon, its the coating on the inside of wrappers for fast food, coating on the inside of aluminum foil, its all over our clothing and its in fire fighting foam amongst other things. Only 2 labs in the country can even test for it because it's in the lab instruments. They have to dismantle the instruments and replace parts so there is no false positive, and the training to test is intense. They are measuring it in parts per trillion. PFAS are screamers in groundwater (they move FAST).

The bases that are affected are the ones on wells - not hooked up to the municipal supply system, which many are.

 

[zorq]

The question is, how many people have an actually increased risk, and what is the size of that increase? If there is a risk that, on average, a handful of people who would have lived 77 years will now only live to 69.99 years of age, then is this worth worrying about?

First of all, You think that cutting 7.01 years off your life span is no big deal? I personally value 7 years of life quite a bit.

Secondly, just because we don't fully understand the danger of every chemical out there yet doesn't negate the seriousness of those dangers. Ignorance is bliss, but it isn't a prophylactic. Was my mom's cancer ultimately caused by PFAs? We don't know and we never will.

Panicking isn't the answer but shrugging it off isn't either. And covering up what little we do know is definitely wrong.

 

[bilby]

The question is, how many people have an actually increased risk, and what is the size of that increase? If there is a risk that, on average, a handful of people who would have lived 77 years will now only live to 69.99 years of age, then is this worth worrying about?

First of all, You think that cutting 7.01 years off your life span is no big deal? I personally value 7 years of life quite a bit.

Sorry, that's a typo. I meant to say "70 years".

Secondly, just because we don't fully understand the danger of every chemical out there yet doesn't negate the seriousness of those dangers. Ignorance is bliss, but it isn't a prophylactic. Was my mom's cancer ultimately caused by PFAs? We don't know and we never will.

Panicking isn't the answer but shrugging it off isn't either. And covering up what little we do know is definitely wrong.

Sure, it's stupid to try to cover this up.

But if this stuff is everywhere (as it seems it is), and life expectancy continues to rise, that's a pretty strong indication that there are more important things that need to be addressed first.

It's stupid to worry about potential carcinogens in your water supply when you allow people to burn coal and oil and dump the waste products into the air with abandon. It's like the captain of the Titanic worrying that the hull might become dangerously corroded after a few hundred voyages, when he could instead be worrying about going too fast in an area with poor visibility and suspected icebergs.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I know the military has issues, but do they really have wells that are installed shallow enough that surface contaminants can infiltrate the aquifer they are pumping water from?

The next question, how serious is this really? The source isn't exactly the most reassuring. If these chemicals are that dangerous at such low levels, that is alarming because it isn't exactly easy to remove it from the water at a plant. And if it were that bad, then it would likely be bigger news.

There are quite a few signs around the base I work on. The drinking water is supposedly safe, but it's 'highly recommended' that we use additional filters for drinking water. Additional warnings apply to pregnant women and others who may have health issues.

 

[starwater]

It's not just bases, it's everyone. PFAS are everywhere. The EPA is dragging their feet on enforcement and getting a handle on the issue.

 

[starwater]

Here is a more comprehensive list of where PFAS are used:

Water and soil repellants used in clothing and carpet
Used to make Teflon including non-stick cookware
Food Packaging - fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags
AFFF - firefighting foams
Wiring and semiconductors in electronic an aerospace industry
chrome plating
personal care products

Human health effects are: cholesterol increase, uric acid increase, thyroid, disease, testicular and kidney cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension, diabetes, birth weight decrease, and more.

 

[starwater]

I know the military has issues, but do they really have wells that are installed shallow enough that surface contaminants can infiltrate the aquifer they are pumping water from?

The next question, how serious is this really? The source isn't exactly the most reassuring. If these chemicals are that dangerous at such low levels, that is alarming because it isn't exactly easy to remove it from the water at a plant. And if it were that bad, then it would likely be bigger news.

Yes they do as well as nearby homes with wells in the same aquifer.