Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by warble 871 days ago
After reading this it's still not clear there's a problem.
1 comments

What’s hard to understand exactly? I’ve pulled a brief summary from both links here to make sure it’s clearer.

> Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity. The epidemiological evidence suggests associations between increases in exposure to (specific) PFAS and certain health effects

* Heart

Increases in cholesterol levels (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFDA)

* Vaccine

Lower antibody response to some vaccines (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFDA)

* Liver

Changes in liver enzymes (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS)

* Pregnancy complications

Pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia (PFOA, PFOS)

* Infant birth weights

Small decreases in birth weight (PFOA, PFOS)

* Cancer

Kidney and testicular cancer (PFOA)

And

An estimated 200 million U.S. residents receive PFAS-contaminated drinking water, and state-level testing indicates widespread contamination of environmental media, (13) yet tremendous data gaps exist related to PFAS contamination and human exposure. (2,14) The only federal drinking water testing initiative with PFAS data to date, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3), focused on large drinking water systems, had high reporting thresholds (10–90 ng/L), and excluded private wells. (15) The EPA has developed nonbinding Health Advisory Levels (HALs) for four PFAS, including updated HALs for PFOA and PFOS at “near zero” levels, (16) but no federal limits on PFAS in public drinking water currently exist. (2)

That set of known harmful effects + 2/3 of the population having the stuff in their drinking water… ain’t great.