Ageless Aging – by Maddy Dychtwald
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Maddy Dychtwald, herself 73, has spent her career working in the field of aging. She’s not a gerontologist or even a doctor, but she’s nevertheless been up-to-the-ears in the industry for decades, mostly as an organizer, strategist, facilitator, and so forth. As such, she’s had her finger on the pulse of the healthy longevity movement for a long time.
This book was written to address a problem, and the problem is: lifespan is increasing (especially for women), but healthspan has not been keeping up the pace.
In other words: people (especially women) are living longer, but often with more health problems along the way than before.
And mostly, it’s for lack of information (or sometimes: too much competing incorrect information).
Fortunately, information is something that a woman in Dychtwald’s position has an abundance of, because she has researchers and academics in many fields on speed-dial and happy to answer her questions (we get a lot of input from such experts throughout the book—which is why this book is so science-based, despite the author not being a scientist).
The book answers a lot of important questions beyond the obvious “what diet/exercise/sleep/supplements/etc are best for healthy aging” (spoiler: it’s quite consistent with the things we recommend here, because guess what, science is science), questions like how best to prepare for this that or the other, how to get a head start on preventative healthcare for some things, how to avoid being a burden to our families (one can argue that families are supposed to look after each other, but still, it’s a legitimate worry for many, and understandably so), and even how to balance the sometimes conflicting worlds of health and finances.
Unlike many authors, she also talks about the different kinds of aging, and tackles each of them separately and together. We love to see it!
Bottom line: this book is a very good one-stop-shop for all things healthy aging. It’s aimed squarely at women, but most advice goes for men the same too, aside from the section on hormones and such.
Click here to check out Ageless Aging, and plan your future!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
‘Free birthing’ and planned home births might sound similar but the risks are very different
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The death of premature twins in Byron Bay in an apparent “wild birth”, or free birth, last week has prompted fresh concerns about giving birth without a midwife or medical assistance.
This follows another case from Victoria this year, where a baby was born in a critical condition following a reported free birth.
It’s unclear how common free birthing is, as data is not collected, but there is some evidence free births increased during the COVID pandemic.
Planned home births also became more popular during the pandemic, as women preferred to stay away from hospitals and wanted their support people with them.
But while free births and home births might sound similar, they are a very different practice, with free births much riskier. So what’s the difference, and why might people opt for a free birth?
What are home births?
Planned home births involve care from midwives, who are registered experts in childbirth, in a woman’s home.
These registered midwives work privately, or are part of around 20 publicly funded home birth programs nationally that are attached to hospitals.
They provide care during the pregnancy, labour and birth, and in the first six weeks following the birth.
The research shows that for women with low risk pregnancies, planned home births attended by competent midwives (with links to a responsive mainstream maternity system) are safe.
Home births result in less intervention than hospital births and women perceive their experience more positively.
What are free births?
A free birth is when a woman chooses to have a baby, usually at home, without a registered health professional such as a midwife or doctor in attendance.
Different terms such as unassisted birth or wild pregnancy or birth are also used to refer to free birth.
The parents may hire an unregulated birth worker or doula to be a support at the birth but they do not have the training or medical equipment needed to manage emergencies.
Women may have limited or no health care antenatally, meaning risk factors such as twins and breech presentations (the baby coming bottom first) are not detected beforehand and given the right kind of specialist care.
Why do some people choose to free birth?
We have been studying the reasons women and their partners choose to free birth for more than a decade. We found a previous traumatic birth and/or feeling coerced into choices that are not what the woman wants were the main drivers for avoiding mainstream maternity care.
Australia’s childbirth intervention rates – for induction or augmentation of labour, episiotomy (cutting the tissue between the vaginal opening and the anus) and caesarean section – are comparatively high.
One in ten women report disrespectful or abusive care in childbirth and some decide to make different choices for future births.
Lack of options for a natural birth and birth choices such as home birth or birth centre birth also played a major role in women’s decision to free birth.
Publicly funded home birth programs have very strict criteria around who can be accepted into the program, excluding many women.
In other countries such as the United Kingdom, Netherlands and New Zealand, publicly funded home births are easier to access.
It can be difficult to access home birth services in Australia.
Ink Drop/ShutterstockOnly around 200 midwives provide private midwifery services for home births nationally. Private midwives are yet to obtain insurance for home births, which means they are risking their livelihoods if something goes wrong and they are sued.
The cost of a home birth with a private midwife is not covered by Medicare and only some health funds rebate some of the cost. This means women can be out of pocket A$6-8,000.
Access to home birth is an even greater issue in rural and remote Australia.
How to make mainstream care more inclusive
Many women feel constrained by their birth choices in Australia. After years of research and listening to thousands of women, it’s clear more can be done to reduce the desire to free birth.
As my co-authors and I outline in our book, Birthing Outside the System: The Canary in the Coal Mine, this can be achieved by:
- making respectful care a reality so women aren’t traumatised and alienated by maternity care and want to engage with it
- supporting midwifery care. Women are seeking more physiological and social ways of birthing, minimising birth interventions, and midwives are the experts in this space
- supporting women’s access to their chosen place of birth and model of care and not limiting choice with high out-of-pocket expenses
- providing more flexible, acceptable options for women experiencing risk factors during pregnancy and/or birth, such as having a previous caesarean birth, having twins or having a baby in breech position. Women experiencing these complications experience pressure to have a caesarean section
- getting the framework right with policies, guidelines, education, research, regulation and professional leadership.
Ensuring women’s rights and choices are informed and respected means they’re less likely to feel they’re left with no other option.
Hannah Dahlen, Professor of Midwifery, Associate Dean Research and HDR, Midwifery Discipline Leader, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Protein vs Sarcopenia
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Protein vs Sarcopenia
This is Dr. Gabrielle Lyon. A medical doctor, she’s board-certified in family medicine, and has also engaged in research and clinical practice in the fields of geriatrics and nutritional sciences.
A quick note…
We’re going to be talking a bit about protein metabolism today, and it’s worth noting that Dr. Lyon personally is vehemently against vegetarianism/veganism, and considers red meat to be healthy.
Scientific consensus on the other hand, holds that vegetarianism and veganism are fine for most people if pursued in an informed and mindful fashion, that white meat and fish are also fine for most people, and red meat is simply not.
If you’d like a recap on the science of any of that:
- Protein: How Much Do We Need, Really?
- Plant vs Animal Protein: Diversity is Key
- Do We Need Animal Products to be Healthy?
Nevertheless, if we look at the science that she provides, the advice is sound when applied to protein in general and without an undue focus on red meat.
How much protein is enough?
In our article linked above, we gave 1–2g/kg/day
Dr. Lyons gives the more specific 1.6g/kg/day for adults older than 40 (this is where sarcopenia often begins!) and laments that many sources offer 0.8g/kg.
To be clear, that “per kilogram” means per kilogram of your bodyweight. For Americans, this means dividing lbs by 2.2 to get the kg figure.
Why so much protein?
Protein is needed to rebuild not just our muscles, but also our bones, joint tissues, and various other parts of us:
We Are Such Stuff As Fish Are Made Of
Additionally, our muscles themselves are important for far more than just moving us (and other things) around.
As Dr. Lyon explains: sarcopenia, the (usually age-related) loss of muscle mass, does more than just make us frail; it also messes up our metabolism, which in turn messes up… Everything else, really. Because everything depends on that.
This is because our muscles themselves use a lot of our energy, and/but also store energy as glycogen, so having less of them means:
- getting a slower metabolism
- the energy that can’t be stored in muscle tissue gets stored somewhere else (like the liver, and/or visceral fat)
So, while for example the correlation between maintaining strong muscles and avoiding non-alcoholic fatty liver disease may not be immediately obvious, it is clear when one follows the metabolic trail to its inevitable conclusion.
Same goes for avoiding diabetes, heart disease, and suchlike, though those things are a little more intuitive.
How can we get so much protein?
It can seem daunting at first to get so much protein if you’re not used to it, especially as protein is an appetite suppressant, so you’ll feel full sooner.
It can especially seem daunting to get so much protein if you’re trying to avoid too many carbs, and here’s where Dr. Lyon’s anti-vegetarianism does have a point: it’s harder to get lean protein without meat/fish.
That said, “harder” does not mean “impossible” and even she acknowledges that lentils are great for this.
If you’re not vegetarian or vegan, collagen supplementation is a good way to make up any shortfall, by the way.
And for everyone, there are protein supplements available if we want them (usually based on whey protein or soy protein)
Anything else we need to do?
Yes! Eating protein means nothing if you don’t do any resistance work to build and maintain muscle. This can take various forms, and Dr. Lyon recommends lifting weights and/or doing bodyweight resistance training (calisthenics, Pilates, etc).
Here are some previous articles of ours, consistent with the above:
- Resistance Is Useful! (Especially As We Get Older)
- Overdone It? How To Speed Up Recovery After Exercise
- How To Do HIIT (Without Wrecking Your Body)
- Exercises To Do (And Ones To Avoid) If You Have Osteoporosis
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Thinking of trying a new diet? 4 questions to ask yourself before you do
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We live in a society that glorifies dieting, with around 42% of adults globally having tried to lose weight. Messages about dieting and weight loss are amplified on social media, with a never-ending cycle of weight loss fads and diet trends.
Amid often conflicting messages and misinformation, if you’re looking for diet advice online, it’s easy to become confused and overwhelmed.
So before diving into the latest weight loss trend or extreme diet, consider these four questions to help you make a more informed decision.
PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock 1. Is the diet realistic?
Have you considered the financial cost of maintaining the diet or lifestyle, and the time and resources that would be required? For example, do you need to purchase specific products, supplements, or follow a rigid meal plan?
If the diet is coming from someone who is trying to sell you something – such as a particular weight-loss product you need in order to follow the diet – this could be a particular red flag.
Many extreme diet recommendations come from a place of privilege and overlook food access, affordability, cooking skills, where you live, or even your culture and ethics.
If the diet has these sorts of issues it can lead to frustration, stress, stigmatisation and feelings of failure for the person trying to adhere to the diet. But the problem may be with the diet itself – not with you.
Many diets promoted online will be expensive, or require a lot of time and resources. artem evdokimov/Shutterstock 2. Is there evidence to support this diet?
Self-proclaimed “experts” online will often make claims focused on specific groups, known as target populations. This might be 30- to 50-year-old men with diabetes, for example.
In some cases, evidence for claims made may come from animal studies, which might not be applicable to humans at all.
So be aware that if research findings are for a group that doesn’t match your profile, then the results might not be relevant to you.
It takes time and a lot of high-quality studies to tell us a “diet” is safe and effective, not just one study. Ask yourself, is it supported by multiple studies in humans? Be critical and question the claims before you accept them.
For accurate information look for government websites, or ask your GP or dietitian.
3. How will this diet affect my life?
Food is much more than calories and nutrients. It plays many roles in our lives, and likewise diets can influence our lives in ways we often overlook.
Socially and culturally, food can be a point of connection and celebration. It can be a source of enjoyment, a source of comfort, or even a way to explore new parts of the world.
So when you’re considering a new diet, think about how it might affect meaningful moments for you. For example, if you’re going travelling, will your diet influence the food choices you make? Will you feel that you can’t sample the local cuisine? Or would you be deterred from going out for dinner with friends because of their choice of restaurant?
4. Will this diet make me feel guilty or affect my mental health?
What is your favourite meal? Does this diet “allow” you to eat it? Imagine visiting your mum who has prepared your favourite childhood meal. How will the diet affect your feelings about these special foods? Will it cause you to feel stressed or guilty about enjoying a birthday cake or a meal cooked by a loved one?
Studies have shown that dieting can negatively impact our mental health, and skipping meals can increase symptoms of depression and anxiety.
Many diets fail to consider the psychological aspects of eating, even though our mental health is just as important as physical health. Eating should not make you feel stressed, anxious, or guilty.
So before starting another diet, consider how it might affect your mental health.
Moving away from a dieting mindset
We’re frequently told that weight loss is the path to better health. Whereas, we can prioritise our health without focusing on our weight. Constant messages about the need to lose weight can also be harmful to mental health, and not necessarily helpful for physical health.
Our research has found eating in a way that prioritises health over weight loss is linked to a range of positive outcomes for our health and wellbeing. These include a more positive relationship with food, and less guilt and stress.
Our research also indicates mindful and intuitive eating practices – which focus on internal cues, body trust, and being present and mindful when eating – are related to lower levels of depression and stress, and greater body image and self-compassion.
But like anything, it takes practice and time to build a positive relationship with food. Be kind to yourself, seek out weight-inclusive health-care professionals, and the changes will come. Finally, remember you’re allowed to find joy in food.
Melissa Eaton, Accredited Practising Dietitian; PhD Candidate, University of Wollongong; Verena Vaiciurgis, Accredited Practising Dietitian; PhD Candidate, University of Wollongong, and Yasmine Probst, Associate Professor, School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, University of Wollongong
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Jamaican Coconut Rice
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
This is a great dish that can be enjoyed hot or cold, as a main or as a side. It has carbs, proteins, healthy fats, fiber, as well as an array of healthy phytochemicals. Not to mention, a great taste!
You will need
- 1 cup wholegrain basmati rice (it may also be called “brown basmati rice“; this is the same) (traditional recipe calls for pudding rice, but we’re going with the healthier option here)
- 2 cans (each 12 z / 400g) coconut milk
- 2 cups (or 2 cans, of which the drained weight is comparable to a cup each) cooked black beans. If you cook them yourself, this is better, as you will be able to cook them more al dente than you can get from a can, and this firmness is desirable. But canned is fine if that’s what’s available.
- 1 large red onion, finely chopped
- ½ cup low-sodium vegetable stock (ideally you made this yourself from vegetable offcuts you saved in the freezer for this purpose, but failing that, low-sodium stock cubes can be bought at any large supermarket)
- 2 serrano chilis, finely chopped
- 1 Scotch bonnet chili, without doing anything to it
- 1 tbsp black pepper, coarse ground
- 1 tbsp chia seeds
- 1 tbsp coconut oil
- Garnish: parsley, chopped
Note: we have erred on the side of low-heat when it comes to the chilis. If you know that you and (if applicable) everyone else eating would enjoy more heat, add more heat. If not, let extra heat be added at the table via your hot sauce of choice. Sounds heretical, but it ensures everyone gets the right amount! It’s easy to add heat than to take it out, after all.
However: if you do end up with too much heat in this or any other dish, adding acid will usually help to neutralize that. In the case of this dish, we’d recommend lime juice as a complementary flavor.
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) In a big sauté pan, add the coconut oil, melt it if not already melted, and add the chopped onion and the chopped chilis, at a temperature sufficient to sizzle. Keep them all moving. Once the coconut oil is absorbed into the onion (this will happen before the onion is fully cooked), add the vegetable stock, followed by the coconut milk; mix it all gently to create a smooth consistency.
2) Add the rice, chia seeds, and black pepper; mix it all gently but thoroughly; turn the temperature to a simmer, and add the Scotch bonnet chili, without cutting it at all.
3) Cover and keep on low for about 20–30 minutes until the rice is looking done. Check on it periodically to make sure it’s not running out of liquid, but resist the urge to stir it; it shouldn’t be burning but paradoxically, once you start stirring you can’t stop or it will definitely burn.
4) Take out the Scotch bonnet chili, and discard*. Add the black beans.
*its job was to add flavor without adding the high-level heat of that particular chili. If you’re a regular heat-fiend, feel free to experiment with using sliced Scotch bonnet chilis instead of serrano chilis; just be aware that there’s a big difference in heat. Only do this if you really like heat. Using it the way we described in the main recipe is what’s traditional in the Caribbean, by the way.
5) Now you can (and in fact must) stir, to mix in the black beans and bring them back to temperature within the dish. Be aware that once you start stirring, you need to keep stirring until you’re ready to take it off the heat.
6) Serve, adding the parsley garnish.
(this example went light on the beans; our recipe includes more for a heartier dish)
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- Should You Go Light Or Heavy On Carbs?
- Our Top 5 Spices: How Much Is Enough For Benefits?
- Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)
- Burn! How To Boost Your Metabolism
- Capsaicin For Weight Loss And Against Inflammation
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Wouldn’t It Be Nice To Have Regenerative Superpowers?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The Best-Laid Schemes of Mice and Medical Researchers…
This is Dr. Ellen Heber-Katz. She’s an internationally-renowned immunologist and regeneration biologist, but her perhaps greatest discovery was accidental.
Unlike in Robert Burns’ famous poem, this one has a happy ending!
But it did involve the best-laid schemes of mice and medical researchers, and how they did indeed “gang gagly“ (or in the English translation, “go awry”).
How it started…
Back in 1995, she was conducting autoimmune research, and doing a mouse study. Her post-doc assistant was assigned to punch holes in the ears of mice that had received an experimental treatment, to distinguish them from the control group.
However, when the mice were later checked, none of them had holes (nor even any indication there ever had been holes punched)—the experiment was ruined, though the post-doc swore she did her job correctly.
So, they had to start from scratch in the new year, but again, a second batch of mice repeated the trick. No holes, no wounds, no scarring, not disruption to their fur, no damage to the cartilage that had been punched through.
In a turn of events worthy of a superhero origin story, they discovered that their laboratory-made autoimmune disease had accidentally given the mice super-healing powers of regeneration.
In the animal kingdom, this is akin to a salamander growing a new tail, but it’s not something usually found in mammals.
Read: A New Murine Model for Mammalian Wound Repair and Regeneration
How it’s going…
Dr. Heber-Katz and colleagues took another 20 years of work to isolate hypoxia-inducible factor-1a (HIF-1a) as a critical molecule that, if blocked, would eliminate the regenerative response.
Further, a drug (which they went on to patent), 1,4-dihydrophenonthrolin-4-one-3-carboxylic acid (1,4-DPCA), chemically induced this regenerative power:
See: Drug-induced regeneration in adult mice
Another 5 years later, they found that this same drug can be used to stimulate the regrowth of bones, too:
And now…
The research is continuing. Here’s the latest, a little over a month ago:
Epithelial–mesenchymal transition: an organizing principle of mammalian regeneration
Regrowing nerves has also been added into the list of things the drug can do.
What about humans?
Superpowered mice are all very well and good, but when can we expect this in humans?
The next step is testing the drug in larger animals, which she hopes to do next year, followed eventually by studies in humans.
Read the latest:
Regrowing nerves and healing without scars? A scientist’s career-long quest comes closer to fruition
Very promising!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
There are ‘forever chemicals’ in our drinking water. Should standards change to protect our health?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Today’s news coverage reports potentially unsafe levels of “forever chemicals” detected in drinking water supplies around Australia. These include human-made chemicals: perfluorooctane sulfonate (known as PFOS) and perflurooctanic acid (PFOA). They are classed under the broader category of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS chemicals.
The contaminants found in our drinking water are the same ones United States authorities warn can cause cancer over a long period of time, with reports warning there is “no safe level of exposure”.
In April, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sent shock waves through the water industry around the world when it announced stricter advice on safe levels of PFOS/PFOA in drinking water. This reduced limits considered safe in supplies to zero and gave the water industry five years to meet legally enforceable limits of 4 parts per trillion.
So, should the same limits be enforced here in Australia? And how worried should we be that the drinking in many parts of Australia would fail the new US standards?
What are the health risks?
Medical knowledge about the human health effects of PFOS/PFOA is still emerging. An important factor is the bioaccumulation of these chemicals in different organs in the body over time.
Increased exposure of people to these chemicals has been associated with several adverse health effects. These include higher cholesterol, lower birth weights, modified immune responses, kidney and testicular cancer.
It has been very difficult to accurately track and measure effects of different levels of PFAS exposure on people. People may be exposed to PFAS chemicals in their everyday life through waterproofing of clothes, non-stick cookware coatings or through food and drinking water. PFAS can also be in pesticides, paints and cosmetics.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (on behalf of the World Health Organization) regards PFOA as being carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
Is our drinking water safe? What about long-term risks? Volodymyr TVERDOKHLIB/Shutterstock Our guidelines
Australian drinking water supplies are assessed against national water quality standards. These Australian Drinking Water Guidelines are continuously reviewed by industry and health experts that scan the international literature and update them accordingly.
All city and town water supplies across Australia are subject to a wide range of physical and chemical water tests. The results are compared to Australian water guidelines.
Some tests relate to human health considerations, such as levels of lead or bacteria. Others relate to “aesthetic” considerations, such as the appearance or taste of water. Most water authorities across Australia make water quality information and compliance with Australian guidelines freely available.
What about Australian PFOS and PFOA standards?
These chemicals can enter our drinking water system from many potential sources, such as via their use in fire-fighting foams or pesticides.
According to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, PFOS should not exceed 0.07 micrograms per litre in drinking water. And PFOA should not exceed 0.56 micrograms per litre. One microgram is equivalent to one part per billion.
The concentration of these chemicals in water is incredibly small. And much of the advice on their concentration is provided in different units. Sometimes in micrograms or nannograms. The USEPA uses parts per trillion.
In parts per trillion (ppt) the Australian Guidelines for PFOS is 70 ppt and PFOA is 560 ppt. The USEPA’s new maximum contaminant levels (enforceable levels) are 4 ppt for both PFOS and also PFOA. Previous news reports have pointed out Australian guidelines for these chemicals in drinking water are up to 140 times higher than the USEPA permits.
Yikes! That seems like a lot
Today’s news report cites PFOS and PFOA water tests done at many different water supplies across Australia. Some water samples did not detect either chemicals. But most did, with the highest PFOS concentration 15.1–15.6 parts per trillion from Glenunga, South Australia. The highest PFOA concentration was reported from a small water supply in western Sydney, where it was detected at 5.17–9.66 parts per trillion.
Australia and the US are not alone. This is an enormous global problem.
One of the obvious challenges for the Australian water industry is that current water treatment processes may not be effective at removing PFOS or PFOA. The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines provide this advice:
Standard water treatment technologies including coagulation followed by physical separation, aeration, chemical oxidation, UV irradiation, and disinfection have little or no effect on PFOS or PFOA concentrations.
Filtering with activated carbon and reverse osmosis may remove many PFAS chemicals. But no treatment systems appear to be completely effective at their removal.
Removing these contaminants might be particularly difficult for small regional water supplies already struggling to maintain their water infrastructure. The NSW Auditor General criticised the planning for, and funding of, town water infrastructure in regional NSW back in 2020.
Where to from here?
The Australian water industry likely has little choice but to follow the US lead and address PFOS/PFAS contamination in drinking water. Along with lower thresholds, the US committed US$1 billion to water infrastructure to improve detection and water treatment. They will also now require:
Public water systems must monitor for these PFAS and have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027) […]
As today’s report notes, it is very difficult to find any recent data on PFOS and PFOA in Australian drinking water supplies. Australian regulators should also require ongoing and widespread monitoring of our major city and regional water supplies for these “forever chemicals”.
The bottom line for drinking tap water is to keep watching this space. Buying bottled water might not be effective (2021 US research detected PFAS in 39 out of 100 bottled waters). The USEPA suggests people can reduce PFAS exposure with measures including avoiding fish from contaminated waters and considering home filtration systems.
Correction: this article previously listed the maximum Australian Drinking Water Guidelines PFOA level as 0.056 micrograms per litre. The figure has been updated to show the correct level of 0.56 micrograms per litre.
Ian A. Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
