EPA: GenX Nearly As Toxic As Notorious Non-Stick Chemicals It Replaced

Agency’s Review Comes 12 Years After Industry Began Phaseout of PFAS Compounds

GenX, introduced a decade ago as a “safer” alternative for the notorious non-stick chemicals PFOA and PFOS, is nearly as toxic to people as what it replaced, says an Environmental Protection Agency study released recently.

EPA published a draft toxicity review for GenX and a related compound called PFBS, both part of the PFAS family of chemicals. Environmental Working Group’s analysis of EPA’s assessment shows that very tiny doses of GenX and PFBS could present serious health risks, including harm to prenatal development, the immune system, liver, kidney or thyroid.

“It is alarming that, 12 years after DuPont, 3M and other companies, under pressure from EPA, began phasing out PFOA and PFOS, we find that replacements like GenX are nearly as hazardous to human health,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., senior scientist at Environmental Working Group.

“EPA scientists have given us valuable new information here, but the study’s real significance is to show that the entire chemical regulatory system is broken. EPA has allowed hundreds of similar chemicals on the market without safety testing, and it’s urgent that the agency evaluate the risk Americans face from all of these chemicals combined.”

GenX is a successor to PFOA, formerly used by DuPont to make Teflon. PFOA has been linked to cancer in people and to the reduced effectiveness of childhood vaccines and other serious health problems at even the smallest doses. GenX’s chemical structure is very similar to PFOA’s, but it was not adequately tested for safety before being put on the market, in 2009. DuPont has provided test results to the EPA showing that GenX caused cancer in lab animals.

GenX is used to produce non-stick coatings on food wrappers, outdoor clothing and many other consumer goods. A 2017 report by EWG and other groups found the GenX family of chemicals in food wrapping samples from 27 different fast food chains.

“The system has it backwards: Instead of putting the burden of proof on EPA to show that chemicals like GenX are safe, the chemical industry should be responsible for testing its products for safety before they’re put on the market,” said Andrews. “This broken system has enabled DuPont and other companies to contaminate nearly everyone on Earth, including babies in the womb, with these chemicals.”

DuPont’s Deception About Health Risks From Non-Stick Chemicals
In 2001, attorney Robert Bilott sued DuPont on behalf of 50,000 people whose drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA, the carcinogenic compound used to make Teflon at the chemical company’s plant in Parkersburg, W. Va. EWG published a series of investigative reports based on secret documents uncovered in the lawsuit, revealing that DuPont knew about PFOA’s dangers for decades but didn’t tell regulators or the public. EWG filed a complaint with the EPA, which led to a record fine against DuPont. Our research also found that the entire class of non-stick, waterproof chemicals had polluted people, animals and the environment in the most remote corners of the world.

Although PFOA and some related PFAS chemicals have been phased out, they still contaminate the drinking water of an estimated 15 million Americans. The saga of PFOA pollution in Parkersburg and beyond is told in “The Devil We Know,” a documentary available on streaming services.

Source: Environmental Working Group

50 years later, Sioux Falls manages contaminated water from toxic firefighting foam

Gazette Introductory Note: We’re reprinting this piece to illustrate the widespread problem with PFAS and to show how one water supplier has chosen to deal with it. Municipal treatment of this growing chemical threat to drinking water is difficult and expensive to say the least.

Sioux Falls SD officials are grappling with well shutdowns as the extent of the city’s water contamination from decades of firefighting foam use remains unclear.

Sioux Falls currently has 19 municipal wells sitting dormant in the aftermath of innumerable gallons of toxic firefighting foam that contaminated the grounds of the city airport nearly 50 years ago, the Rapid City Journal reported. Chemicals linked to cancer and other health issues were found to have contaminated 15 municipal wells, including 10 that have concentrations above what the Environmental Protection Agency deems safe.

About 28 percent of the city’s water production from the Big Sioux aquifer is shut down.

The South Dakota Air National Guard and the Sioux Falls Fire Department both used the toxic firefighting foam for many years near the airport, which led to the contamination of the city’s drinking water. But the scope of the issue is still unknown.

“We really haven’t determined the extent of release yet,” said Capt. Jessica Bak, a public affairs officer with the Air Guard at the Sioux Falls Regional Airport.

In 2013, the city’s water purification plant found chemicals from firefighting foam, known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), at levels below the EPA’s health advisory level. The level of exposure beneath the EPA’s threshold means there aren’t expected adverse health risks.

The city responded to the findings by testing all municipal wells to identify the source and shutting down every well where the chemicals were found.

City engineer Tim Stefanich, who oversees the water system, acknowledged that “there was a little bit of time between” finding the contamination, determining its source and deciding to shut off wells. But he said that there was minimal fear of an immediate health risk with the low levels of exposure.

WQRF issues RFP for study on contaminants between MCL and MCLG

by Gene Franks

When I saw the headline above I knew I was going to have to learn some new acronyms. Just last week we put up an article about the difficulty writers and readers and researchers are having with the many new abbreviated forms used for “emerging contaminants” that start with “P.”  The world is being overrun by acronyms, and the water treatment industry creates way more than its share.

WQRF, I learned, stands for the Water Quality Research Foundation, which was formerly called the Water Quality Research Council (WQRC), which was formed in 1949 to serve on behalf of the Water Quality Association (WQA) as a universally recognized, independent research organization.

Then, I learned from the Wikipedia that RFP stands for “request for proposal.”   The RFP  is a “document that solicits proposal, often made through a bidding process, by an agency or company interested in procurement of a commodity, service, or valuable asset, to potential suppliers to submit business proposals.”

I already knew what MCL and MCLG mean, but to be sure I understood them in the context of the WQRF’s RFP,  I looked them up:

MCL stands for Maximum Contaminant Level: the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) as feasible using the best available TT (Treatment Technology).

MCLG stands for  Maximum Contaminant Level Goal: the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.

Here’s how the project goal itself is stated in the article:

This study is the first attempt at collecting and analyzing national occurrence data between the MCL and MCLG, utilizing data that is available from state and federal databases including, but not limited to: EPA, CDC, USGS, FRDS, NCOD, and SDWIS. Of the contaminants governed by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, only those that have a MCLG value lower than its MCL value (including MCLG values of “zero”) will be included in this research. 

FRDS, NCOD, and SDWIS, which I didn’t understand, I decided to leave it alone. You don’t have to know everything.

In regard to the “P” word contaminants that we went to so much trouble trying to classify, this very week, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), apparently a division of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), seeing the urgent need to get everyone on the same page so these chemicals can be talked about, issued a very helpful document called The Family Tree of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) for Environmental Health Professionals.  I hope you’ll read it. It keeps things simple by showing only the main PFAS family and leaving off the subfamilies. It also drops one confusing acronym, PFC, from the tree, pointing out that PFC stood for perfluorinated chemicals and also for perfluorocarbons. They do not mention that it also stands for Private First Class, which probably confused lots of people. PFC shows on the picture above as a fallen apple.

One very edifying part of the Family Tree, though, is the clarification of the singular/plural issue. I learned I’ve been making some pretty dumb statements (as have most of the people who write about PFAS).  According to the ATSDR, PFAS is plural, so you shouldn’t add an “s” to it and write PFASs, as many, including me, have done. Putting an “s” on PFAS is like saying, “My uncle has three childrens and they all wear red hatss.”

We live and learn.

The Family Tree of PFAS.

See also, Pure Water Annie’s Glossary of Common Water Treatment Abbreviations  Pure Water Annie always crosses the t’s and dots the i’s and never puts s’s on plurals.

Squeaky Clean Skin and the Slimy Feel of Soft Water

A common complaint about soft water, either naturally soft or water softened by water treatment, is that soft water leaves the body with a slick, slimy feel, that soap won’t wash off of the skin, and that one never gets the “squeaky clean” feel that indicates that you’re really clean.

Water softener vendors are quick to point out that both the squeaky and the slimy are illusions.

Here I’m going to borrow from an article written to sell softeners.  Keep in mind that the source is not a peer-reviewed study from M.I.T., but a blog posting from a company that sells water softeners.  I’m excerpting.

The Reality of Bathing in Hard Water

Have you ever toweled off after a shower, ran [sic] your fingers across your forearm or leg and felt a bit of squeaky friction? The concept of “squeaky clean” may have caused you to assume this meant all the greasy grime that was on your body had been washed away, and now your skin is sparkling.

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. But, perhaps it’s not your soap’s fault. Have you ever considered your water quality?

The short explanation is this … the squeaky clean feeling on your skin after a shower actually comes from soap that hard water was unable to wash away. Most bathing products don’t lather or clean well in hard water so soap residue gets left behind on your skin.

Imagine the soap scum you notice building up in your tub or that film that shows up on glass shower doors in need of a good cleaning. That’s what’s stuck to your body.

Squeaky clean skin is a straight-up lie. In fact, it means the exact opposite of what you’ve been led to believe. Your skin isn’t squeaky … it’s sticky. You’re not getting clean because the soap isn’t washing away, just like the soap scum on your tub. And, because it’s still on your body, you may get dry, itchy, flaky skin.

You see, the minerals calcium and magnesium are what make water hard. These hard minerals combine with soap to form what’s often called “curd,” which is just as gross as it sounds. The soap curd sticks to your skin and can clog up your pores and cause irritation. That sticky curd can also lead to brittle, unhealthy hair.

Soft Water: Slimy, Slick, or Silky Skin?

People who’ve recently installed a water softener in their home may notice their skin feels different after showering. Some describe it as a slippery feeling while others say their skin feels silky smooth after bathing in softened water.

Sometimes people complain about this sensation because they assume what they’re feeling is bath products that are left behind. Once again … this is the opposite of the truth.

As we’ve already explained, soap scum makes your skin sticky and dry. What you’re actually feeling after washing off with soft water is your body’s natural oils, which it uses to protect and moisturize your skin.

People who are unaccustomed to soft water say that they rinse and rinse, but the slick feeling won’t go away! That’s because it’s not soap product. It’s the way your skin is supposed to feel.

And now, you’ve been enlightened …

Pure Water Gazette’s Conclusion: There are lots of ways to look at things. Since the main purpose of bathing in softened water seems to be to get soap off of the body, a logic conclusion might be to stop using soap.

Reference: Squeaky Clean and Hard Water.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Also of interest: How does TAC treatment affect soap?