The EPA is proposing that ‘forever chemicals’ be considered hazardous substances::undefined

  • Ech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3611 months ago

    About 50 years too late. I suppose increased damage could at least me mitigated.

    • @EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3011 months ago

      Fun fact, PFAS is in basically anything that’s waterproofed, to the point where the guys testing for it can’t park their cars within like 150 ft of where they’re collecting to avoid compromising the samples. They also can’t wear rain jackets or waterproof boots for the same reason, and even the plastic components of the pumps they normally use for collecting water samples from groundwater deposits can throw off the samples because, you guessed it, those have PFAS in them too.

      PFAS is the leaded gas of our times.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    English
    811 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing that nine PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” be categorized as hazardous to human health.

    The EPA signed a proposal Wednesday that would deem the chemicals “hazardous constituents” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

    For the agency to consider a substance a hazardous constituent, it has to be toxic or cause cancer, genetic mutation or the malformations of an embryo.

    The agency cited various studies in which forever chemicals were found to cause a litany of “toxic effects” in humans and animals, including, but not limited to cancer, a decreased response to vaccinations, high cholesterol, decrease in fertility in women, preeclampsia, thyroid disorders and asthma, the EPA said.

    Last summer, a study by the U.S. Geological Survey found that the man-made chemicals are present in nearly half the country’s tap water supply.

    The proposed rule will be open for public comment once it is uploaded to the Federal Register, under docket number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0278.


    The original article contains 292 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 45%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!