But, um, the tweets aren't entirely accurate. Most of us have some exposure to PFAS. Also, Europe uses a safe reference range about 5x ours so it's perhaps not quite as scary as it might seem
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @BevanShields
That doesn't change the fact that we have national standards, and the level that was detected was twice that standard. If you're advocating for a change to the standards, that's a separate matter, but doesn't change the specifics of that announcement.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @shalailah @BevanShields
I guess. Just seems a bit alarmist when arguably this isn't a big deal at all. Might be why the messaging wasn't great
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @BevanShields
The perceptions of the findings are probably why the government decided to release them so late on a Friday afternoon.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shalailah @BevanShields
Perhaps. As an epidemiologist I can definitely see why you'd not see this as a massive issue. I can't find any evidence that PFAS has been linked to concrete negative outcomes except in a few rodent studies, and the rate seems to be based on some very conservative maths
4 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
"Taken together, the weight of evidence for human studies supports the conclusion that PFOS exposure is a human health hazard,". From the US EPA - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfos_hesd_final_508.pdf …
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Mmmm but in this type of case it's always level of exposure. We've got a reference value of 0.07 micrograms per litre for drinking water, so double that is still a very conservatively low number. Worth investigating, probably not that alarming
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
But that document is based on exposure above .07. Given the chemicals are bioaccumulative and have very long half lives, I fail to see how daily exposure to double the safe level could be viewed as "conservative".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The reference value isn't the 'safe' value per se, it's just the amount that the DoH categorizes as worth investigation. Also, the RfD from the EPA paper is 1.5micrograms/day for an avg person, which would mean drinking some 100 litres at the concentration found above
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @carriefellner and
Forgive my ignorance but that would be in an environment free of other chemicals ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No not really.
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.