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.
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!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Strawberries vs Blackberries – Which is Healthier?
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.
Our Verdict
When comparing strawberries to blackberries, we picked the blackberries.
Why?
Shocking nobody, both are very healthy options. However, blackberries do come out on top:
In terms of macros, the main thing that sets them apart is that blackberries have more than 2x the fiber. Other differences in macros are also in blackberries’ favor, but only very marginally, so we’ll not distract with those here. The fiber difference is distinctly significant, though.
In the category of vitamins, blackberries lead with more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B9, E, and K, as well as more choline. Meanwhile, strawberries boast more of vitamins B1, B6, and C. So, a 8:2 advantage for blackberries (and some of the margins are very large, such as 9x more choline, 4x more vitamin E, and nearly 18x more vitamin A).
When it comes to minerals, things are not less clear: blackberries have considerably more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, and zinc. The two fruits are equal in other minerals that they both contain, and strawberries don’t contain any mineral in greater amounts than blackberries do.
A discussion of these berries’ health benefits would be incomplete without at least mentioning polyphenols, but both of them are equally good sources of such, so there’s no distinction to set one above the other in this category.
As ever, enjoy both, though! Diversity is good.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Strawberries vs Cherries – Which is Healthier?
- Blackberries vs Blueberries – Which is Healthier?
- Strawberries vs Raspberries – Which is Healthier?
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Increase in online ADHD diagnoses for kids poses ethical questions
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.
In 2020, in the midst of a pandemic, clinical protocols were altered for Ontario health clinics, allowing them to perform more types of care virtually. This included ADHD assessments and ADHD prescriptions for children – services that previously had been restricted to in-person appointments. But while other restrictions on virtual care are back, clinics are still allowed to virtually assess children for ADHD.
This shift has allowed for more and quicker diagnoses – though not covered by provincial insurance (OHIP) – via a host of newly emerging private, for-profit clinics. However, it also has raised significant ethical questions.
It solves an equity issue in terms of rural access to timely assessments, but does it also create new equity issues as a privatized service?
Is it even feasible to diagnose a child for a condition like ADHD without meeting that child in person?
And as rates of ADHD diagnosis continue to rise, should health regulators re-examine the virtual care approach?
Ontario: More prescriptions, less regulation
There are numerous for-profit clinics offering virtual diagnoses and prescriptions for childhood ADHD in Ontario. These include KixCare, which does not offer the option of an in-person assessment. Another clinic, Springboard, makes virtual appointments available within days, charging around $2,600 for assessments, which take three to four hours. The clinic offers coaching and therapy at an additional cost, also not covered by OHIP. Families can choose to continue to visit the clinic virtually during a trial stage with medications, prescribed by a doctor in the clinic who then sends prescribing information back to the child’s primary care provider.
For-profit clinics like these are departing from Canada’s traditional single-payer health care model. By charging patients out-of-pocket fees for services, the clinics are able to generate more revenue because they are working outside of the billing standards for OHIP, standards that set limits on the maximum amount doctors can earn for providing specific services. Instead many services are provided by non-physician providers, who are not limited by OHIP in the same way.
Need for safeguards
ADHD prescriptions rose during the pandemic in Ontario, with women, people of higher income and those aged 20 to 24 receiving the most new diagnoses, according to research published in January 2024 by a team including researchers from the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health and Holland Bloorview Children’s Hospital. There may be numerous reasons for this increase but could the move to virtual care have been a factor?
Ontario psychiatrist Javeed Sukhera, who treats both children and adults in Canada and the U.S., says virtual assessments can work for youth with ADHD, who may receive treatment quicker if they live in remote areas. However, he is concerned that as health care becomes more privatized, it will lead to exploitation and over-diagnosis of certain conditions.
“There have been a lot of profiteers who have tried to capitalize on people’s needs and I think this is very dangerous,” he said. “In some settings, profiteering companies have set up systems to offer ADHD assessments that are almost always substandard. This is different from not-for-profit setups that adhere to quality standards and regulatory mechanisms.”
Sukhera’s concerns recall the case of Cerebral Inc., a New York state-based virtual care company founded in 2020 that marketed on social media platforms including Instagram and TikTok. Cerebral offered online prescriptions for ADHD drugs among other services and boasted more than 200,000 patients. But as Dani Blum reported in the New York Times, Cerebral was accused in 2023 of pressuring doctors on staff to prescribe stimulants and faced an investigation by state prosecutors into whether it violated the U.S. Controlled Substances Act.
“At the start of the pandemic, regulators relaxed rules around medical prescription of controlled substances,” wrote Blum. “Those changes opened the door for companies to prescribe and market drugs without the protocols that can accompany an in-person visit.”
Access increased – but is it equitable?
Virtual care has been a necessity in rural areas in Ontario since well before the pandemic, although ADHD assessments for children were restricted to in-person appointments prior to 2020.
But ADHD assessment clinics that charge families out-of-pocket for services are only accessible to people with higher incomes. Rural families, many of whom are low income, are unable to afford thousands for private assessments, let alone the other services upsold by providers. If the private clinic/virtual care trend continues to grow unchecked, it may also attract doctors away from the public model of care since they can bill more for services. This could further aggravate the gap in care that lower income people already experience.
This could further aggravate the gap in care that lower income people already experience.
Sukhera says some risks could be addressed by instituting OHIP coverage for services at private clinics (similar to private surgical facilities that offer mixed private/public coverage), but also with safeguards to ensure that profits are reinvested back into the health-care system.
“This would be especially useful for folks who do not have the income, the means to pay out of pocket,” he said.
Concerns of misdiagnosis and over-prescription
Some for-profit companies also benefit financially from diagnosing and issuing prescriptions, as has been suggested in the Cerebral case. If it is cheaper for a clinic to do shorter, virtual appointments and they are also motivated to diagnose and prescribe more, then controls need to be put in place to prevent misdiagnosis.
The problem of misdiagnosis may also be related to the nature of ADHD assessments themselves. University of Strathclyde professor Matthew Smith, author of Hyperactive: The Controversial History of ADHD, notes that since the publication of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980, assessment has typically involved a few hours of parents and patients providing their subjective perspectives on how they experience time, tasks and the world around them.
“It’s often a box-ticking exercise, rather than really learning about the context in which these behaviours exist,” Smith said. “The tendency has been to use a list of yes/no questions which – if enough are answered in the affirmative – lead to a diagnosis. When this is done online or via Zoom, there is even less opportunity to understand the context surrounding behaviour.”
Smith cited a 2023 BBC investigation in which reporter Rory Carson booked an in-person ADHD assessment at a clinic and was found not to have the condition, then had a private online assessment – from a provider on her couch in a tracksuit – and was diagnosed with ADHD after just 45 minutes, for a fee of £685.
What do patients want?
If Canadian regulators can effectively tackle the issue of privatization and the risk of misdiagnosis, there is still another hurdle: not every youth is willing to take part in virtual care.
Jennifer Reesman, a therapist and Training Director for Neuropsychology at the Chesapeake Center for ADHD, Learning & Behavioural Health in Maryland, echoed Sukhera’s concerns about substandard care, cautioning that virtual care is not suitable for some of her young clients who had poor experiences with online education and resist online health care. It can be an emotional issue for pediatric patients who are managing their feelings about the pandemic experience.
“We need to respect what their needs are, not just the needs of the provider,” says Reesman.
In 2020, Ontario opted for virtual care based on the capacity of our health system in a pandemic. Today, with a shortage of doctors, we are still in a crisis of capacity. The success of virtual care may rest on how engaged regulators are with equity issues, such as waitlists and access to care for rural dwellers, and how they resolve ethical problems around standards of care.
Children and youth are a distinct category, which is why we had restrictions on virtual ADHD diagnosis prior to the pandemic. A question remains, then: If we could snap our fingers and have the capacity to provide in-person ADHD care for all children, would we? If the answer to that question is yes, then how can we begin to build our capacity?
This article is republished from healthydebate under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck – by Mark Manson
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.
You may wonder from the title: is this book arguing that we should all be callous heartless monsters? And no, it is not.
Instead, author Mark Manson advocates for cynicism, but less in the manner of Scrooge, and more in the manner of Diogenes:
- That life will involve struggle, so we might as well at least choose our struggles.
- That we will make mistakes, so we might as well accept them as learning experiences.
- That we will love and we will lose, so we might as well do it right while we can.
In short, the book is less about not caring… And more about caring about the right things only.
So, what are “the right things”? Manson bids us decide for ourselves, but certainly has ideas and pointers, with regard to what may or may not be healthy values to pursue.
The style throughout is casual and almost conversational, without being overly padded. It makes for very easy reading.
If the book has a weak point, it’s that when it briefly makes a suprisingly prescriptive turn into recommending we take up Buddhism, it may feel a bit like our friend who wants us to join in the latest MLM scheme. But, he’s soon back on track.
Bottom line: if you ever find yourself stressed with living up to unwanted expectations—your own, other people’s, and society’s—this book can really help streamline things.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Better Than BMI
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.
BMI is a very flawed system, and there are several more useful ways of measuring our bodies. Let’s take a look at them!
What’s wrong with BMI?
Oof, what isn’t wrong with BMI?
In short, it was developed as a demographic-based tool to specifically chart the weight-related health of working-age European white men a little under 200 years ago.
This means that if you are, perchance, not a working-age European white man in 1830 or so, then it’s not so useful. It’d be like first establishing height norms based on NBA basketball players, and then applying it to the general population, and thus coming to the conclusion that someone who is 6’2″ is very short.
In long, we did a deep-dive into it here, and in particular what things go dangerously wrong when it’s applied to women, non-white people, athletic people, pregnant people, people under 16 or over 65 and more:
When BMI Doesn’t Quite Measure Up
What we usually recommend instead
For heart disease risk and diabetes risk both, waist circumference is a much more universally reliable indicator. And since those two things tend to affect a lot of other health risks, it becomes an excellent starting point for being aware of many aspects of health.
Pregnancy will still throw off waist circumference a little (measure below the bump, not around it!), but it will nevertheless be more helpful than BMI even then, as it becomes necessary to just increase the numbers a little, according to gestational month and any confounding factors e.g. twins, triplets, etc. Ask your obstetrician about this, as it’s beyond the scope of our article today!
As to what’s considered a risk:
- Waist circumference of more than 35 inches for women
- Waist circumference of more than 40 inches for men
These numbers are considered applicable across demographics of age, ethnicity, and lifestyle.
Bonus extra measurement based on the above
Important also is waist to hip ratio.
How to calculate it:
- measure your waist circumference
- measure your hip circumference
- divide the first measurement by the second one
Because it’s a ratio, it doesn’t matter what units you use (e.g. inches, cm, etc) so long as you use the same units for both measurements.
The World Health Organization offers the following chart:
Health risk Women Men Low 0.80 or lower 0.95 or lower Moderate 0.81–0.85 0.96–1.0 High 0.86 or higher 1.1 or higher Source: Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio: Report of a WHO Expert Consultation
This is especially relevant for cardiovascular disease risk:
…and also holds true for all-cause mortality:
Waist-Hip-Ratio as a Predictor of All-Cause Mortality in High-Functioning Older Adults
An ancient contender that’s still more useful than BMI
Remember Archimedes? The (perhaps apocryphal) story of his “Eureka” moment in the bathtub when he realized that water displacement could be used to measure the volume of an irregular shape?
Just like Archimedes (who, the story goes, had been hired to determine the composition of a crown that might or might not have been pure gold), we can use this method to determine body composition, because we have references for how much a given volume of a given substance will weigh, so combing what we know about a body’s weight and volume will tell us about its composition in ways that neither metric could give us alone.
Indeed, it’s one of the commonly-mentioned flaws of BMI that muscle weighs more than fat, and Archimedes’ method not only avoids that problem, but also, actually turns that knowledge (muscle weighs more than fat) to our advantage.
It’s called “hydrostatic weighing” now:
You may be wondering: what about bones? Or internal organs?
The fact is that those are slightly confounding factors that do get in the way of a truly accurate analysis, but the variation in how much one person’s skeleton weighs vs another’s, or one person’s set of organs weigh than another’s, is too small to make an important difference to the health implications.
Lastly…
Hydrostatic weighing isn’t the only way to work out how much of our body is made of fat; if you have for example a smart scale at home (like this one) that tells you your body fat percentage, that is an estimate based on bioelectrical impedance analysis.
It’s less accurate than the hydrostatic method, but easier to do at home!
As to what percentages are “best”, healthy body fat percentages are (assuming normal hormones) generally considered to be in the range of 20–25% for women and 15–20% for men.
You can read more about this here:
Is A Visible Six-Pack Obtainable Regardless Of Genetic Predisposition?
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:
-
How Are You, Really? And How Old Is Your Heart?
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.
How Are You, Really? The Free NHS Health Test
We took this surprisingly incisive 10-minute test from the UK’s famous National Health Service—the test is part of the “Better Health” programme, a free-to-all (yes, even those from/in other countries) initiative aimed at keeping people healthy enough to have less need of medical attention.
As one person who took the test wrote:
❝I didn’t expect that a government initiative would have me talking about how I need to keep myself going to be there for the people I love, let alone that a rapid-pace multiple-choice test would elicit these responses and give personalized replies in turn, but here we are❞
It goes beyond covering the usual bases, in that it also looks at what’s most important to you, and why, and what might keep you from doing the things you want/need to do for your health, AND how those obstacles can be overcome.
Pretty impressive for a 10-minute test!
Is Your Health Above Average Already? Take the Free 10-minute NHS test now!
How old are you, in your heart?
Poetic answers notwithstanding (this writer sometimes feels so old, and yet also much younger than she is), there’s a biological answer here, too.
Again free for the use of all*, here’s a heart age calculator.
*It is suitable for you if you are aged 30–95, and do not have a known complicating cardiovascular disease.
It will ask you your (UK) postcode; just leave that field blank if you’re not in the UK; it’ll be fine.
How Old Are You, In Your Heart? Take the Free 10-minute NHS test now!
(Neither test requires logging into anything, and they do not ask for your email address. The tests are right there on the page, and they give the answers right there on the page, immediately)
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:
-
What Are “Adaptogens” Anyway? (And Other Questions Answered)
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.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
❝I tried to use your calculator for heart health, and was unable to enter in my height or weight. Is there another way to calculate? Why will that field not populate?❞
(this is in reference to yesterday’s main feature “How Are You, Really? And How Old Is Your Heart?“)
How strange! We tested it in several desktop browsers and several mobile browsers, and were unable to find any version that didn’t work. That includes switching between metric and imperial units, per preference; both appear to work fine. Do be aware that it’ll only take numerical imput, though.
Did anyone else have this problem? Let us know! (You can reply to this email, or use the handy feedback widget at the bototm)
❝I may have missed it, but how much black pepper provides benefits?❞
So, for any new subscribers joining us today, this is about two recent main features:
As for a daily dosage of black pepper, it varies depending on the benefit you’re looking for, but:
- 5–20mg of piperine is the dosage range used in most scientific studies we looked at
- 10mg is a very common dosage found in many popular supplements
- That’s the mass of piperine though, so if taking it as actual black pepper rather than as an extract, ½ teaspoon is considered sufficient to enjoy benefits.
❝I loved the health benefits of pepper. I do not like pepper. Where can I get it as a supplement?❞
You can simply buy whole black peppercorns and take a few with water as though they were tablets. Your stomach acid will do the rest. Black pepper is also good for digestion, so taking it with a meal is best.
You can buy piperine (black pepper extract) by itself as a supplement in powder form, but if you don’t like black pepper, you will probably not like this powder either. We couldn’t find it readily in capsule form.
You can buy piperine (black pepper extract) as an adjunct to other supplements, with perhaps the most common/popular being turmeric capsules that also contain 10mg (or more) piperine per capsule. Shop around if you like, but here’s one that has 15mg piperine* per capsule, for example.
*They call it “Bioperine®” but that is literally just piperine. Same goes if you see “Absorbagen™”, it’s still just piperine.
❝What do you mean when you say that something is adaptogenic?❞
Simple version: it means it helps the body adapt to stress, by adjusting the body’s natural responses. Thus, adaptogenic supplements can be contrasted with tranquilizing drugs that mask stress by brute force, for example.
Technical version: adaptogenic activity refers to improving physiological stress resilience, such as by moderating and modulating hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis signaling, and/or by regulating levels of endogenic compounds involved in the cellular stress response.
Read more (technical version):
Read more (simple version):
European Medicines Agency’s Reflection Paper On The Adaptogenic Concept
Enjoy!
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: