Hacker News Reader

Comment by BitterSweets | Hacker News Reader

Is there anywhere in the US that you can live without fear or worry of having contaminated water or air?

Yes, you need to be aware of things though, especially if you aren’t using municipal water.

Look for superfund sites, former dumps, former military facilities, etc and avoid them. Even things like army depots and train depots. If you’re in an area with well water, understand what’s upstream.

In an old city, test the soil if you grow vegetables in the yard, you may have coal ash or other nasties.

>Look for superfund sites, former dumps, former military facilities, etc and avoid them

Sorry Bay Area....

There isn't anywhere in the world where you can live without fear or worry of contaminated water or air.

Microplastics for example have been found in:

sea salt - https://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/sea-sa...

water - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/15/micropla...

air - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/09/people-m...

poop - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/microplastics-foun...

And of course thanks to all of the atomic/nuclear weapons we've detonated, everyone alive right now holds radioactive evidence from those detonations in their bodies https://www.businessinsider.com/bomb-pulse-radiation-decay-c...

Then there's the ozone damage we've done and the fact someone in China is still using, or has recently been anyway, CFCs - https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/27/investigators-china-ille...

And mercury from coal smoke - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S130910421...

Lead in soil from: leaded paints, past use of leaded gasoline, lead water-supply piping in the US until the 1920's, lead in in plumbing solder in the US until 1986...

This sounds very fear mongery. I bet you'd get more radiation from eating a Banana than the residual radiation of every nuclear test combined.

You selected one of several points and took it entirely out of context adding your own bias. The point is, we've contaminated the entire planet with various things as a direct result of our actions.

Many places in Alaska and would image other remote areas of other northern states as well.

Many places in AK unfortunately have a history of barely-regulated mining [1], which is now being joined by a push to expand and deregulate the oil and gas industry in those areas [2].

Unfortunately remote is no guarantee of clean and in some cases might even mean the opposite because being out of the public eye allows companies to ignore externalities that they would otherwise have to take responsibility for.

[1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/most-toxic-town-...

[2] https://www.npca.org/articles/1721-offshore-leasing-plan-thr...

Great point, but the articles mentions extremely small areas compared to the entire state over the period of decades.

Unfortunately those extremely small areas do not exist in a vacuum and and connected to the rest of the state by things like watersheds, especially when we're talking about timescales like decades.

The areas are still very small including watersheds.

Sadly is not only the US

What kind of equipment would you need to check your drinking water for any kind of contamination? What would it cost?

Just curious.

Depends on what you're looking to detect and what kind of facility you have access to.

A few hundred dollars will get you a lab test for common contaminants, but the cost rises exponentially for anything beyond that.

You can probably take a sample and send it off to an analysis lab. Some things have simple tests but you'd probably want the full spectrum.

Slight change of topic, but this is one reason I believe we're overly fearful of nuclear energy. Nobody seems to give a damn about dangerous chemicals that can cause cancer and are nearly impossible to detect. But everyone is scared to death about radioctive materials that can cause cancer and are easily detected (Geiger counter).

"What kind of equipment would you need to check your drinking water for any kind of contamination? What would it cost?"

You need to send it away for testing - it would be impractical to home test for all of the things you'd want to test for.

It's likely that your local municipality has a testing service that you can send water into for $50 or $100 and have rough testing done for lead and e-coli and crypto and so on.

A more extensive (and expensive) test will test for essentially everything, including VOCs and chemicals and all manner of manufacturing byproducts, plastics, phthalates, etc.

That would cost you $600 or $800 ...

The appropriate local municipality is probably your county health department, who almost certainly has results from the last time your home was sold on file. Here, it's $15 to retest, or a couple bucks and a FOIA request to get all previous records.

I do have 65 ppt of PFAS in my well water (one of the gray dots in West Michigan, where Wolverine operated a tannery that dumped Scotchguard-treated leather scrap in local swamps). The test for that (and various other contaminants) ran $650. Yeah, Wolverine is paying for that and the carbon filters in my basement, but it kinda sucks to have been drinking it for 30 years. At least they caught it when my kid was onky exposed in the womb and his formula until he was 1...

Pretty much everywhere. Tap water in the us is perfectly safe in most places.

The absence of specific dangers is not the same as safety, but the former is all that water supply testing can provide.

We test for things that are really dangerous (e. coli, arsenic, heavy metals, etc.). If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now.

>If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now.

You're right, it is pretty obvious

"The chronic biological effects in marine organisms results due to accumulation of microplastics in their cells and tissues. The potential hazardous effects on humans by alternate ingestion of microparticles can cause alteration in chromosomes which lead to infertility, obesity, and cancer."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28815367

"Not only is the potential migration of the plastics throughout our body a concern, but the additives in plastics may carry health risks. Many of these additives are known endocrine disrupters. According to Dr. Herbert Tilg, president of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and chair of the UEG Scientific Committee, microplastics could possibly be one of the factors contributing to inflammatory bowel syndrome or even colon cancer, which is on the rise among young adults."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/10/22/659568662/mi...

You say pretty obviously as dangerous and then provide quotes about "potential hazardous effects", "can cause", "potential migration", "may carry", "could possibly", etc. That's quite different than being pretty obviously as dangerous as the other things mentioned.

In my view the deeper point of okmokmz's comment is that it's just crazy to only consider the most blatantly obvious health effects of pollutants.

We're still learning a lot about the hormonal effects of consuming microplastics and plasticizers (among other things) but it's all pointing in some pretty nasty directions, and until recently we didn't have much awareness of how much of the stuff we were consuming. We have to decide how much of the stuff we're going to try and prevent from entering the environment and our water supply, and I wouldn't want the people making that determination to be informed by ideas like "well, it's not as dangerous as uranium or lead so let's just not worry about it."

> If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now.

E. coli, arsenic and heavy metals don't really have the same economic and lobbying power the plastic industry does.

Tobacco and climate change give us better models for how easy it is to suppress or cast doubt on pretty solid evidence if there's a profit to be made in doing so.

Even the ancient Egyptians knew arsenic was toxic. Plastics haven’t been around nearly as long.

> We test for things that are really dangerous (e. coli, arsenic, heavy metals, etc.). If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now.

Microplastics aren't necessarily dangerous like those things, but they've been shown to be potentially dangerous in different ways. Really acute problems of the sort you're thinking of, like long-term cancer risk and short-term infection risk, can be considered alongside reduced fertility in men and developmental problems in infants and children.

Ha. I live in cottage grove, and I assumed the same thing.

More and more microplastics are showing up in drinking water because the particles are so small. They seem to be mostly coming from our clothing released during washing, which is increasingly made of synthetic materials.

"The US had the highest contamination rate, at 94%, with plastic fibres found in tap water sampled at sites including Congress buildings, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters, and Trump Tower in New York. Lebanon and India had the next highest rates." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-...

Has there been any conclusive studies yet that say what impact if any microplastics have on us?

It can harm small organisms at the very least. Things like zooplankton can have their bodily processes interrupted by ingesting the materials. This indicates it can result in death: http://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/symposia/zp6/Pages/Effect...

Other studies indicating harm are available, while others have shown mixed results. For example, one where polystyrene microplastics depress and then appear to stimulate growth of algae: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565351...

People _really_ need to stop laundering synthetics. The amount of plastic and other material that sheds into our water is stunning.

I think that blames the victims a bit too much, it's analogous to "people need to stop buying food in single-use plastics" - I would put the onus on the manufacturers to fix their products and their distribution, rather than the end users. What's the alternative to laundering your clothing, realistically?

Don’t buy synthetics is a start.

Vote to pass legislation that taxes synthetics and the money is used for mitigation.

Company’s make what consumers want.

I agree that it'd be better not to buy synthetics as they stand, but that requires manufacturers to shift their production to natural fibers. I think regulation / remediation sounds like a good way to encourage that shift. Consumers buy what's on offer - if everything in the market was natural fiber, consumers would choose accordingly, otherwise they are likely to choose whatever meets their needs (which maybe low-price, or high-fashion, but without more education and alternatives, won't be cleaner water).

It seems challenging as full-cotton shirts seem to be more prone to shrinkage and aren't necessarily as soft and resilient like the cotton/poly blends that are all so prevalent in just about every fabric out there.

Which synthetics? Does that include polyester? Rayon?

I believe polyester microfibers are the main culprit[1], rayon is made from cellulose so I would expect it to break down easily.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfib...

No. Under capitalism, companies make what their consumers can afford. And these days, very few consumers can afford what they want, so the market becomes irrational. We have to buy, and thus encourage production of, what we don't want... because it's all we can afford.

The problem here is synthetics are generally considerably less resource intense than natural fibers, I looked into cotton vs polyester a couple of years ago https://www.ryanmercer.com/ryansthoughts/2016/7/19/environme...

While the synthetics and artificial fibers are bad as they pollute the environment downstream, cotton production requires roughly 20,000 liters to produce 1kg of fiber while polyester requires SEVENTEEN liters of water.

> Vote to pass legislation that taxes synthetics

Just regulate the items you don't want with rules. If you want it gradual, make the rules gradual. No need to build more money-collecting bureaucracy and keep asking people to pretend the gatekeepers/spenders are trustworthy.

Have you written to your representatives about this yet?

"People _really_ need to stop laundering synthetics."

I thought the major, overwhelming source of microplastic pollution was from plastic beads in makeup and skin products.

Are synthetic fabrics, laundered, a significant source ?

Genuinely curious and would appreciate a citation.

Clothing is the main source of microplastics. Everyone wears and washes clothing. Lots of people don't have microbeads in their cosmetics.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jun/29...

> Multiple studies have shown synthetic fibers to make up the lion’s share of microplastics found in oceans, rivers and lakes, and clothes made from synthetics (polyester, nylon, and so on) are widely implicated as the source of that pollution.

I don't think I own many clothes with synthetic fabric but if it doesn't say dry clean only then of course I'm going to launder it. Why is it on consumers to become experts in every product to save the environment but there are few calls to stop manufacturers from putting products on the market that they know perfectly well are going to create more pollution?

I think one problem is that there aren't lots of good alternatives at least when it comes to warm weather gear. Wool tends to be expensive, difficult to care for, and some people are allergic or vegan. On the other hand, all of the plant fibers that I'm aware of do not keep you warm if they get wet.

Microplastics from car tyres seems to be a big source as well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664766/

Wrong

"Allaire found the amount of violations varied by year, affecting as many as 45 million people in some years, representing about 28% of the U.S. population."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2018/02/12/tens-m...

"Tainted tap water isn’t just a problem in Flint, Michigan. In any given year from 1982 to 2015, somewhere between 9 million and 45 million Americans got their drinking water from a source that was in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to a new study"

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-dr...

>> most places

> Wrong [...] 45 million [...] 28% of the U.S. population

I don't think it's fair to call the comment "Wrong". If anything, this supposed refutation is saying "Right".

I might be taking words out of context, but 45 million is nowhere near 28% of the US population; this is a little under 15%. I am not arguing for or against the problem of water pollution, but this is just seriously suspect math.

You've essentially proven their point. Outside a few problem areas, water in the US is remarkably safe and clean. The US population minus "nine to 45 million" definitely qualifies as "most places" in America. And that's not even close to 28%, by the way.

Most people in the world have it far worse off than the US. We tend to easily fly into a panic and start drinking bottled water instead, which only pumps ever more plastic and carbon into the biosphere. That exact phenomenon happened in Austin recently. People went into a prepper panic and raided the grocery stores anyway, completely cleaning out all the bottled water in the city. Again. The water was perfectly fine, it turns out.

My travels through the third world have made me more aware of how much we take our highly reliable infrastructure for granted. Of course we still have some problems to work out, but acting like most tap water is unsafe is hyperbolic and just not helpful.

Your fear can of course be anywhere. Rational fear, not so much outside maybe Flint Michigan.

I'd say the opposite, but maybe not so much on the fear front. Superfund sites are everywhere, p2.5 is generated by every diesel on the road. A level of human generated poison/contamination is everywhere. Low levels of pesticides, herbicides and microplastics are part of our lives. They have a cost and in many cases the cost is unknown, and maybe unquantifiable without tremendous cost. These are just facts, not things to be feared so much as motivation to answer in the affirmative when there is a policy choice re: "hey should we study why there is a worldwide loss of flying insects, bee colony collapse?, should we incentivize less polluting tech?" etc.

>Rational fear, not so much outside maybe Flint Michigan.

You're deluding yourself if you believe Flint is the only location in the US where you need to be worried about contaminated or otherwise unsafe water

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2018/02/12/tens-m...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-dr...

I know a little bit about the subject. (I worked at NU's environmental clinic when they were looking at SDWA violations, though I didn't work on that project.) Although tons of municipalities are out of compliance with regulations, the regulations are very conservative and the water can be out of spec without being something you need to "fear."

You edited your comment and removed the part about third world countries, which was probably smart, but your original point seemed to be that it's fine that millions of Americans are exposed to potentially harmful chemicals/compounds/substances because it's not as bad as third world countries. I don't know about you, but I don't want to drink water that doesn't meet regulatory standards but is maybe technically "safe". If that's the case, why even have standards/regulations at all? Just because you won't immediately die of dysentery doesn't mean there won't be long term negative effects.

So is your position that the chemical mentioned in this article is harmless and the concerns groundless? The article said it's now widely found in Americans' blood and that 110 million americans are exposed to levels considered unsafe.

Not being snarky. If there's another position consistent with the article I'm interested to hear it.

I'm from Bangladesh. I think arsenic in water is something to fear. If this stuff was harmful like arsenic, we would know by now. If it turns a 0.1% chance of cancer into a 0.12% chance of cancer, I think it's a waste of time to worry about it.

> If it turns a 0.1% chance of cancer into a 0.12% chance of cancer, I think it's a waste of time to worry about it.

That's 60k cases of cancer in the US. Not worth worrying about on a personal level, perhaps, but on a public policy one?

To put this number into perspective, there are roughly ~30k automobile related fatalities in the US each year.

HN tends to glorify self-driving vehicles because they might put a dent into that statistic. I wonder why that concern doesn't apply to drinking water.

In fairness, the cancer odds were lifetime. So would would have to divide that hypothetixal by 80 or so to compare to annual car deaths: 750

Sure, but the OP was talking about personal “fear” not public policy. I absolutely agree these should be investigated for public policy purposes because of tve potential aggregate effect. But don’t worry about it.

No argument that this chemical is surely much less harmful than arsenic and that america is less polluted than Bangladesh.

And in practice it probably doesn't make sense for the individual in america to worry too much. There aren't really any places on earth you wouldn't have an effect from less dangerous/harder to diagnose chemicals.

But as a society we should still investigate it. A lot of small things summed together can add to something large.

For instance, why has fertility dropped so much? No one knows. Why are lab animals getting fatter? We don't know that either.

Slow burns are harder to sort out, but they can certainly exist.

If it were just one chemical we should be concerned about your argument would be valid. However, we're in contact with thousands of compounds every day that never had long term safety testing done. Not to mention potential effects caused by the interactions of the different chemicals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com