Summary
A US Geological Survey study estimates PFAS chemicals may contaminate drinking water for up to 70% of the 140 million Americans using aquifers, affecting around 95 million people.
Some groundwater readings were up to 37,000 times the EPA’s new limits. Private wells and small public wells, which serve 13% of the population, lack strict EPA PFAS regulations, making them especially vulnerable.
Contamination is most severe near military bases, airports, and industrial sites, with high exposure in Michigan, Florida, and California.
The USGS also produced an interactive map that shows where there may be trouble.
Point of use filtration.
Yes, but only the most expensive point of use filters will remove PFAs.
https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2022/4/feature/3-feature-pfas-water-filter
https://britapro.com/water-filtration/pfas-removal-system/
When you said “only the most expensive”, I got concerned. Then I went to the website (https://cyclopure.com/product-category/store/), and see the countertop Purefast cartridge is $40-45. So I wonder what you are actually finding problematic here?
From your first link. second paragraph: ““These $45 filters can provide up to 65 gallons of PFAS-free water, replacing 700 single-use water bottles,” said CycloPure chief executive officer Frank Cassou. The cartridges will be available in early April 2022.”
$45 for 65 gallons? That lasts one person 4-6 weeks depending on their weight. That’s not even counting using filtered water for cooking, tea, coffee, etc.
A regular Brita filter 3-pack only costs $15. The PFA rated filters are nine times more expensive by comparison.
Agreed, they are more expensive. Are they the most expensive? No. Do you have a better short term alternative? One option would be to use distillation. It would be lovely to remove PFAS entirely from the planet, but that isn’t happening in the short term, unless you are aware of something I’m not. Please share? I’m just trying to find ways to reduce the toxic load for myself and others. Thanks!
Here is EWG’s article on the topic, which gives similar recommendations: https://www.ewg.org/research/getting-forever-chemicals-out-drinking-water-ewgs-guide-pfas-water-filters
Oh, I’m not discounting their need or efficacy.
I think is absolutely criminal that we are paying to filter out the chemicals and not 3M and DuPont.
No argument there. This crap should not be in our environment at all. How do we get 3M, DuPont, etc to pay for our filters?
We don’t. Not with the incoming Republican government. They don’t believe in regulating businesses.
Cool, well I could just give up, but that’s not my style. So point of use filtration for now, and keep working on solving the larger problems piece by piece.
I propose the opposite. Specifically, I propose we use the Burns omni-net. It sweeps the sea clean!