183
PFAS may be contaminating drinking water for up to 27% of Americans – study
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
183 points (98.9% liked)
News
23644 readers
3959 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Point of use filtration.
Yes, but only the most expensive point of use filters will remove PFAs.
https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2022/4/feature/3-feature-pfas-water-filter
https://britapro.com/water-filtration/pfas-removal-system/
When you said "only the most expensive", I got concerned. Then I went to the website (https://cyclopure.com/product-category/store/), and see the countertop Purefast cartridge is $40-45. So I wonder what you are actually finding problematic here?
From your first link. second paragraph: "“These $45 filters can provide up to 65 gallons of PFAS-free water, replacing 700 single-use water bottles,” said CycloPure chief executive officer Frank Cassou. The cartridges will be available in early April 2022."
$45 for 65 gallons? That lasts one person 4-6 weeks depending on their weight. That’s not even counting using filtered water for cooking, tea, coffee, etc.
A regular Brita filter 3-pack only costs $15. The PFA rated filters are nine times more expensive by comparison.
Agreed, they are more expensive. Are they the most expensive? No. Do you have a better short term alternative? One option would be to use distillation. It would be lovely to remove PFAS entirely from the planet, but that isn't happening in the short term, unless you are aware of something I'm not. Please share? I'm just trying to find ways to reduce the toxic load for myself and others. Thanks!
Here is EWG's article on the topic, which gives similar recommendations: https://www.ewg.org/research/getting-forever-chemicals-out-drinking-water-ewgs-guide-pfas-water-filters
Oh, I’m not discounting their need or efficacy.
I think is absolutely criminal that we are paying to filter out the chemicals and not 3M and DuPont.
No argument there. This crap should not be in our environment at all. How do we get 3M, DuPont, etc to pay for our filters?
We don’t. Not with the incoming Republican government. They don’t believe in regulating businesses.
Cool, well I could just give up, but that's not my style. So point of use filtration for now, and keep working on solving the larger problems piece by piece.
Sure, if you can afford it. It’s more important to avoid premade foods wrapped in water-resistant paper or plastics until all companies have removed PFAs from their packaging. There’s a far higher chance of ingesting PFAs from package leeching.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-industry-actions-end-sales-pfas-used-us-food-packaging
I propose the opposite. Specifically, I propose we use the Burns omni-net. It sweeps the sea clean!