Oh hey, it's fearmongering about PFAS day again This is pretty complex stuff, but the main message here is that it's MUCH less terrifying than the news makes it seem (THREAD)https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1177392686149640196 …
-
-
This cutoff of 70 parts per trillion is a very conservative estimate, based on the lowest level that PFAS have ever been demonstrated to cause negative effects in a controlled study, divided by a wide safety margin
Show this thread -
About 2/3 of all of the measurements that the EWG report are below this threshold - in other words, most of California's water is SAFE based on the EWG's publication
Show this thread -
But it's even dicier than that You see, the EWG report the MAXIMUM levels of PFAS found in each of these locationspic.twitter.com/laYShHRqze
Show this thread -
If you have a look at many of these locations, you can see that the average levels are much lower - you can see them here https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/index.jsp
Show this thread -
Also, the EWG only reports selected well results, rather than the average of PFAS across each area This may not be representative of the water quality across the regions they picked!
Show this thread -
On top of all of this, there's the fact that we still aren't actually sure that PFAS do cause all of these problems, even at the reference dose (that's why it's not legally enforceable)
Show this thread -
TL:DR - There were some PFAS found in some places in California - Mostly much less than the EPA/CDC reference dose - Dose makes the poison - Your water is probably fine
Show this thread -
Oh also, because it's annoying, PFAS is not one chemical, it's a group of them (the S stands for "substances")
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.