"Nearly 3,500 residents across 16 rural villages have been unable to drink tap water since July 10"
and "At this stage, statistically, there are no adverse health indicators demonstrating a health consequence for the populations of these villages."
it's not unreasonable to expect a reader to glean that it means that the villages have no more water drinkable from the ground. the alternative is deeply unlikely
Moreover, correction alone is not sufficient -- it doesn't remove the PFAS which is already in the ecosystem. It will take over ten thousand years of UV light to naturally break it apart.
The PFAS story is a pretty nasty one.
... in the first-world bubble
There's a hypothetical from an Oxford debate that I am struggling to find that was something like this:
If you are poor family and starving and for every day you could press a button and giant plume of CO2 would get released, but your child would not starve, would not get disease and would lead a fulfilled life, would you press that button?
Every parent would smash that button until their hand bled.
In the first world bubble, we have this button (more or less) but every person on earth would want this button too.
also I want to clarify that my analogy was more about companies than about billionaires
Once we return to a more grounded concept of money, perhaps gold based, where debts are a lot more controlled due to an absence of uncontrolled moneyprinting, growth can then slow down, allowing us more time to digest what's actually good for us and what's not.
I was pretty shocked to discover quite recently that in the UK you are advised to eat two portions of oily fish per week, for your health. But no more because of the levels of PCBs in the fish. The UK isn’t the only place with this problem and (for instance) the Bay Area is pretty contaminated as well.
And PCBs were banned in the late 1970s/early 80s.
Yet here, just half an hour from Sedan, the region's second-biggest town,
there is no chemical plant. Only fields of corn and rapeseed, few cattle
farms, and small wooded hills.
[...]
Contacted by Le Monde, the ARS and the prefectures of the Ardennes and Meuse
departments sought to reassure: "At this stage, statistically, there are no
adverse health indicators demonstrating a health consequence for the
populations of these villages." The authorities based their response on the
results of a national epidemiological study titled "Esteban" which dates back
to 2016.
[...]
The authorities currently favor one explanation for the pollution: the use of
paper mill sludge as fertilizer on farmland near drinking water catchments.Addendum: It turns out that a linked article from Le Monde answers that: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/our-times/article/2025/03/09/can-t... , https://archive.is/RFNe9
Another thing that people overlook about RO is that it's critically essential to remineralize it safely and to normalize its pH. Drinking demineralized or acidic RO filtered water is harmful!
What is the evidence for that? I drink homemade distilled water without any remineralization steps and it's perfectly fine.
Also note that pure water becomes slightly acidic from absorbing carbon dioxide in the air, producing carbonic acid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid#In_biological_so...
You need a evaporation/condensation system to get guaranteed pure drinking water.
I'm wondering how many localities in the US have dangerous water and citizens are not even informed
* Vox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZHuZkUUYM4
* MinuteEarth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aFzQdWQTg
* MinuteFood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1hbV3EzOD4
* LastWeekTonight (John Oliver): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W74aeuqsiU (2021)
* LastWeekTonight (John Oliver): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHzCRkt1f6c (2024)
* DW (Deutsche Welle) Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfVW65gRPgQ
You have to be incredibly greedy and stupid to use industrial waste as fertilizer
Just more carefully.
It's probably quite common.
"authorities currently favor one explanation for the pollution"
Tells me that they don't have proof this is the source of the PFAS pollution. If they did, they wouldn't "favor" the explanation, they would just say that's the explanation. I don't support making wide changes based on hunches. Sure - replace the fertilizer with something else for a while and see if that changes the PFAS levels. If it does, sure ban the paper products from being used as fertilizer. But there is a cost associated w/ doing that and that cost has higher-order effects.
Or, just ban things with high levels of pfas being used as fertilizer, and test the paper slurry?
> Toilet paper should be considered as a potentially major source of PFAS entering wastewater treatment systems
> The PFAS levels detected are low enough to suggest the chemicals are used in the manufacturing process to prevent paper pulp from sticking to machinery, Thompson said. PFAS are often used as lubricants in the manufacturing process and some of the chemicals are commonly left on or in consumer goods.
> In a statement to WSVN in Florida, a trade group representing the toilet paper industry said no PFAS is added to toilet paper. Thompson said “evidence seems to suggest otherwise” though it may be true that PFAS are not intentionally added.
> Researchers detected six PFAS compounds, with 6:2 diPAP representing the highest levels. The compound has not been robustly studied, but is linked to testicular dysfunction. The study also found PFOA, a highly toxic compound, and 6:2 diPAP can turn into PFOA once in the environment.
This is a big big part of the industry, as it's worth a lot by weight compared to other paper products
I'd bet there.
PFAs are everywhere in food packaging too. It’s disturbing.
That's when a compost company started processing so-called paper sludges. These are waste materials from the paper industry and are believed to have contained PFAS. The company mixed these wastes with compost and spread them on fields—until a regulatory ban in 2008. According to reports, the PFAS eventually entered the drinking water via soil and groundwater.
"Should" here is doing a lot of work, it makes the argument circular imo.
Landfill is precious and sacred and must not be used.
And of course we have even added industrial waste directly to our drinking water, on purpose: https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-tr...
Fine for drinking water, but showing/toilets/machines it's a lot.
https://edmo.eu/publications/wind-turbines-and-poisoned-anim...
krunck•3h ago