PFAS in Montana fish

[mt terry d]

 

[survivalistd]

Wow

 

[Rich M]

These forever chemicals are present in levels exceeding guidelines in the rain in Antarctica. There really is nowhere that they dont touch.

Funny thing is that sometime we dont find em in our samples.

 

[P Carter]

^This is right. It's everywhere. Sampling is expensive and difficult. You'll see these articles rolling out as additional samples are taken...and they're mostly reflective of this new thing was sampled rather than PFAs has spread to other places.

 

[aer21]

Wow, I wonder what it’s like in Washington. Have they done any testing?

 

[RS_Non-Res]

PFAS is found in lots of fish and wild life. Eating that stuff is unhealthy for you, and wearing that rain jacket exposes you to more PFAS, and the packaging for freeze dried food has PFAS.

You should stop fishing and applying for hunting licenses because it's unhealthy for you. Please.

 

[Poser]

I believe I saw a study not too long ago that found PFAs in 100% of the human testicles in the test group and in 100% of the the testicles of the pet dogs in the same study.

 

[bigbassfish]

A little bit long, but I thought this was very interesting.

 

[fatlander]

PFAS is ambiguous to the environment and everything in it. There’s no getting away from it anymore. Something has to kill you. Sucks that it was Jeff Gordon, Earnhardt would have been way cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRTreedogs]

Is there any control studies from years back?
Say in 1975 did all this stuff test negative for pfas?

Or are we just eventually going find out it was in everything all along and doesn’t matter?

 

[Poser]

Is there any control studies from years back?
Say in 1975 did all this stuff test negative for pfas?

Or are we just eventually going find out it was in everything all along and doesn’t matter?

Retrospectively, PFAs were pretty common in the environment by the 1970s, though there wasn't much of any awareness of them nor the means to detect them. They are basically ubiquitous now -appears we are in the awareness phase, at least acknowledging there is a potential problems, potentially on the tip of addressing it, but likely years away from PFAs going the way of asbestos, lead paint etc.

 

[fatlander]

Is there any control studies from years back?
Say in 1975 did all this stuff test negative for pfas?

Or are we just eventually going find out it was in everything all along and doesn’t matter?

When the lid blew off of it, researchers had to go back to blood samples from World War II soldiers to find people without it in their blood. Every human on planet earth now has it in their body.

There’s a great documentary called “Devil We Know” that covers it all. EPA knew about it, and colluded with DuPont to cover it up, for a long time. People suffered, people died, and no one was held account.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich M]

Funny thing is that the EPA and states are taking their time about establishing testing criteria and cleanup levels. We found it in a dewatering project for a city-county and state went apechit. Then since it has been no big deal.

They are pulling it from fire retardant foam.

 

[gbflyer]

It's blown up in our little AK town. There was the initial freak-out, test wells, demands of remediation...then I guess acceptance? I don't know man....it can't be good but so many things aren't either.

 

[Legend]

First that video has a whole lot of fake drama.

As for PFAS that stuff is everywhere. And we are measuring it to parts per trillion. That is ridiculously small amounts. That is one grain of sugar in 10 million gallons of water. Or 1 drop of water in 200 Olympic size swimming pools. Or just for scale if we talk time it is 1 second in 32,000 years. Really small amounts and it is still unhealthy! Bad stuff. Heck we haven't had the technology to consistently measure to these numbers for long. Not to mention the "clean" sampling process to even collect a sample.

The reality is there are already fish consumption adveries on those reservoirs for mercury. So if health was the concern everyone should have been limiting consumption due to mercury.

There are more than one way to develop a fish consumption number. And blindly following epa is foolish. A large percent of the lag in reporting to the public was in house discussion on which process to use.

As a country if we start looking for chemicals in the parts per trillion we are going to find a whole lot of bad stuff everywhere.