PFAS is a pretty serious problem with US (and global) water supplies. There was a great documentary a couple years ago that covered it [0].<p>Even though they 'stopped' using these chemicals in manufacturing 10-15 years ago, there's still an incredible level of contamination - 26,000 sites listed by EPA [1]. But that's sort of irrelevant, because these compounds don't break up over human time scales. Eventually every place in the world will be contaminated, and with how harmful they are it's not clear if the old adage "the solution to pollution is dilution" will hold up. It's hard not to be alarmist about this, PFAS contamination is genuinely terrifying.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7689910/" rel="nofollow">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7689910/</a><p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...</a>
The arsenic limits are unscientifically low and came about as part of a campaign to stop mining. Many parts of the world have natural environmental levels far exceeding these limits with no discernible impact on human health. Which makes sense since arsenic is a necessary micro-nutrient, albeit poorly understood, with a profile similar to selenium -- also highly toxic but also necessary in trace quantities, often from the water supply.<p>The 3 ppb (or 10 ppb) limit the EPA wanted to use is pure scaremongering and is essentially unachievable in some geographies.
I care a lot about clean water & air, and I know there are a few places in the US where this is a very serious issue. That said, this piece started feeling a little exaggerated as I was reading. Like the first thing I thought was strange is how they sampled a single home in a given geographic area. It’s critically important to find out whether tainted water is coming from the city’s water facility or getting polluted in the pipes along the way. Sampling at the water treatment facility would reveal that. Sampling several homes would do it to.<p>It also seems to lack a lot of comparative context needed to actually understand how levels of chemical compare, how much is in bottled water, how much is in other countries, how much is in “clean” water systems.<p>Anyway, I got to the bottom and saw the line about funding of the series and suddenly thought maybe some industry was funding this. I googled for a minute and didn’t see any donor lists, but I did immediately bump into this article by the American Council on Science and Health: (Is this a reputable organization?)<p>“Toxic America: The Guardian Spreads Chemophobia And Anti-Americanism”<p><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/07/01/toxic-america-guardian-spreads-chemophobia-and-anti-americanism-14128" rel="nofollow">https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/07/01/toxic-america-guardian-...</a>
Can someone please recommend the best method of filtering PFAS + Lead and other toxic crap from drinking water, is it a multi-stage filter with activated carbon and reverse osmosis? Or is it making distilled water + adding back in electrolytes and storing in a lead-free glass container? Someone make this into a startup and I’ll pay for verified toxin free tested water, is there a market for this?<p>I’m on a mission to get the purest water at home and there is so much misinformation and outright fraud and snake oil salesmen in the water filter industry it is beyond absurd how they prey on emotions to get you to buy their crap. They don’t list where the raw filter materials were sourced (usually “made” in China), where the materials they are using inside the filters are mined from... any toxins leeching into my filtered drinking water here?<p>No I won’t take your word on it, show me the safety data from a reputable lab with legit standards and what are all the raw materials used in production and methods to create these filters (injection molding high heat plastics? BPA and other chemicals here? otherwise it’s a black box I can’t trust.<p>So I just drink my black box “filtered” water and hope I don’t get cancer in my 50’s from the unfiltered toxic industry byproducts in the filters themselves + PFAS types of things that aren’t filtered at all.
Saying no detectable lead is a bit hard to interpret without also listing the lower limit of detection for the measurement. I assume based on the sig figs it might be less than 0.5 ppt or something around that.<p>Is 1 ppt lead really bad for you? There is lead in everything, see: <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/metals-and-your-food/lead-food-foodwares-and-dietary-supplements" rel="nofollow">https://www.fda.gov/food/metals-and-your-food/lead-food-food...</a>, note many of the LOD reported there are 1000x higher...
If you would like to test you own water, I recommend something like this - <a href="https://www.cleanwaterstore.com/lab-tests/watercheck-deluxe-lab-test-with-pesticide-option.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cleanwaterstore.com/lab-tests/watercheck-deluxe-...</a>
The UK is pretty much a world leader in lead reduction:<p>> The percentage of homes in the US with a lead service line, lead pipe or lead gooseneck has been estimated to be between 3 and 6% (Triantafyllidou & Edwards (2012).<p>> The UK has the most accurate information and understanding of the extent of lead concentrations in drinking water as a result of widespread sampling at consumers' taps for over thirty years.<p>> In contrast, many other European countries have very little knowledge of the extent of the problem because they have not routinely monitored at private residences, or have done so only after flushing the pipework (CIWEM, 2012). However, on the basis of evidence gained by an international research network (COST Action 637) it appears that problems with lead in drinking water are widespread in Europe (Hayes, 2014; H. C., 2009).<p>> Estimates suggest approximately 25% of houses in the EU have a lead pipe, putting 120 million people at risk in today’s 27 member states. Overall, it has been estimated (IWA, 2010) that up to one in four children in Europe could be at risk from lead in drinking water (CIWEM, 2012).<p>p. 13: <a href="https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2015-11-13/proposed_corrosion_control_plan.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/20...</a><p>No idea how things are outside of N. America and Europe.<p>Given that you can install a machine at your water treatment plant to pump in orthophosphates to build a protective layer on supply/household piping to get a 90% lead reduction (takes a couple years), I'm not sure what the excuse is for any water system that has lead pipes/solder/brass fittings.
Is there any decent way to filter PFAS and other chemicals without a RO system? It seems like filter jugs at best filter heavy metals. Very hard to research with the amount of blog spam.
The wirecutter recommends filters which are ANSI/NSF certified to remove these chemicals:<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-under-sink-water-filter/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-under-sink-w...</a><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-faucet-water-filter/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-faucet-water...</a><p>I have the Aquasana AQ-5300+ but the filters are expensive. It’s currently $75 to replace them and they last about six months.<p>The convenience of a sink mounted filter is nice however.
Without discounting the risks such chemicals cause, I often wonder how general environment toxicity changes over time. Victorian England for example sounds awful, with soot from burning coal everywhere, lead being used for babies’ dummies (its soft and all), and general lack of appreciation of hygiene. Dangerous chemicals like mercury and lead were used all over the place because they were cheap, and I guess no one knew any better.<p>When we are now concerned about those toxic chemicals, to what extent is that an <i>absolute</i> concern, and to what a <i>relative</i> one?
The US spends $2B USD/day on the military, but can't pay a few hundred people to do this on a regular basis and put the results on a public webpage for everyone to see.<p>The priorities are all out of whack. Government-provided water should be government-monitored water (all data for such should be publicly available and accessible immediately).
Seems like an opportunity for a hardware startup to develop a water quality tester that continuously monitors home water supplies. Can't seem to find anything on the market that can test any of these specific chemicals -- including lead. All I could find were TDS meters.
I'm not willing to buy bottled water. But I'm also growing concerned about the quality of my tap water. So I'd like to hear from others who have researched whole house water filters. I am familiar with Pelican and Rhino.
Consumer Reports recommended levels?<p>CR = 10 ppt<p>EPA = 70 ppt<p>Level found in testing = 80 ppt<p>Why not use EPA’s? Oh, because there wouldn’t be a story.