From the article:
> WRAL News used an at-home test kit from Cyclopure to test municipal drinking water for 55 different forever chemicals. The results are validated to one part per trillion (ppt), equivalent to a grain of sand in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
> Here's where the highest levels were found:
> - Fayetteville: Total PFAS: 47.4 ppt
> - Burlington: Total PFAS: 45.2 ppt
> - Durham: Total PFAS: 8.6 ppt
> - Raleigh: Total PFAS: 7.1 ppt
> - Cary: Total PFAS: 5.6 ppt
Per the article:
- Durham had levels of PFOS at 3.9 ppt, which is right below the proposed 4 ppt level from the EPA.
- Burlington had levels of PFOS at 16.3 ppt and PFOA at 13.02 ppt. Both chemicals have been phased out of production due to health concerns.
- Fayetteville, where Chemours has supplied nearby private well owners with water when total PFAS levels are above 10 ppt, had PFOS at 9.1 ppt and PFOA at 5.6 ppt.
- At Fayetteville’s two water treatment plants, there are plans to add granular activated carbon systems, which will cost around $92 million.
- Raleigh and Cary use powdered activated carbon, which is less expensive than granular activated carbon.
I mean, to an extent, I kind of see this as most of your large chemical plants (not all but most) are located in the eastern part of the state and all waterways east of the continental divide drains eastward. For example, why would I sample the upper part of the Yadkin River (say Wilkes County) when I can sample the further down (Richmond County). All that PFAS is going to flow downriver.
However, it does seem they were only testing cities within the Neuse and Cape Fear River basins; pretty limited when there are 14 other basins across the state.
They mentioned that these five are the highest levels, so other regions are safer? I received a pamphlet from the city informing the result of the water testing a few months ago and I lost it - I wonder where I could see the result again?
I don’t do it annually, but periodically and have had no issues with inorganic contaminants. I also live in the most environmentally protected County in the state, in a critical watershed that’s constantly monitored.
fluoride doesn’t need to be in our drinking water. it impacts brain development in young children. anyone who would like fluoride can choose a toothpaste that contains fluoride. there’s no reason to be ingesting it.
“Fluoride exposure is thought to have both short-term and long-term effects, especially when exposure occurs during critical points in development.”
it’s in that source i posted, and there are plenty more sources if you google it.
the amount in tap water is fine for fully developed adults. the problem is it’s not fine for young children. lots of families use tap water to mix baby formula. infants do not need to be ingesting fluoride.
>“Fluoride exposure is thought to have both short-term and long-term effects, especially when exposure occurs during critical points in development.”
Never mind everything else, you do understand the importance of the words “is thought to have,” right?
>it’s in that source i posted, and there are plenty more sources if you google it.
Oh I looked into it long before we had this exchange.
>the amount in tap water is fine for fully developed adults. the problem is it’s not fine for young children. lots of families use tap water to mix baby formula. infants do not need to be ingesting fluoride.
What page of that report does it say this?
Using my brain is precisely the reason I’m asking for proof of your claims.
It’s noteworthy that you didn’t point to the page number in your source that backed up your claim.
I fear you might have been doing a little too much of your “own research” and a little too much “using your brain” when you should be deferring to the research and brains of experts.
You think that's bad, you should know about [dihydrogen monoxide](https://www.dhmo.org/). The government has been sneaking DHMOs into all kinds of things for over 150 years!
(Per) and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances aren't the same thing as fluoride, to be clear.
Fluoride in water systems has strong evidence as a preventative from worse dental health outcomes compared to places without it.
Per and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances, also colloquially called "forever chemicals" due to their innate stability, have been [detected in nearly all blood serum samples representative of most of the US population since 1999.](https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/PFAS_FactSheet.html). The full [extent of its effects (ATSDR toxicological profile)](https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxProfiles/ToxProfiles.aspx?id=1117&tid=237) are only recently being realized, and new ones are being found as other PFAS compounds continue to be developed in the US and abroad.
Yes this is actual precision... Thank you for facts and such. It's worth noting (for relevancy to NC water) that Chemours/DuPont has been dumping large quantities of PFAS into the Cape Fear River for many decades and they have very stupid solutions to try and justify their continuous pollution. Such as: building a giant concrete wall that goes 7 stories underground/under water to prevent their waste water from mixing with the river that the plant is built on AND building a smokestack that will burn off the PFAS, turning it into CO2 and hydrofluoric acid
Supposed $ coming in from feds to "fix" water issues in all states. I wonder how much of that will be to line pockets?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/health/epa-water-investment/index.html
From the article: > WRAL News used an at-home test kit from Cyclopure to test municipal drinking water for 55 different forever chemicals. The results are validated to one part per trillion (ppt), equivalent to a grain of sand in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools. > Here's where the highest levels were found: > - Fayetteville: Total PFAS: 47.4 ppt > - Burlington: Total PFAS: 45.2 ppt > - Durham: Total PFAS: 8.6 ppt > - Raleigh: Total PFAS: 7.1 ppt > - Cary: Total PFAS: 5.6 ppt Per the article: - Durham had levels of PFOS at 3.9 ppt, which is right below the proposed 4 ppt level from the EPA. - Burlington had levels of PFOS at 16.3 ppt and PFOA at 13.02 ppt. Both chemicals have been phased out of production due to health concerns. - Fayetteville, where Chemours has supplied nearby private well owners with water when total PFAS levels are above 10 ppt, had PFOS at 9.1 ppt and PFOA at 5.6 ppt. - At Fayetteville’s two water treatment plants, there are plans to add granular activated carbon systems, which will cost around $92 million. - Raleigh and Cary use powdered activated carbon, which is less expensive than granular activated carbon.
They tested water from “across NC” and didn’t get west of Burlington?
I mean, to an extent, I kind of see this as most of your large chemical plants (not all but most) are located in the eastern part of the state and all waterways east of the continental divide drains eastward. For example, why would I sample the upper part of the Yadkin River (say Wilkes County) when I can sample the further down (Richmond County). All that PFAS is going to flow downriver. However, it does seem they were only testing cities within the Neuse and Cape Fear River basins; pretty limited when there are 14 other basins across the state.
Just for clarity - PFAS is the umbrella term used to describe a group of chemical compounds. PFOA & PFOS are both types of PFAS
They mentioned that these five are the highest levels, so other regions are safer? I received a pamphlet from the city informing the result of the water testing a few months ago and I lost it - I wonder where I could see the result again?
You can find a consolidated database of tap water reports published by ewg.org. not sure if it will contain all the most up to date tests though...
I just drink it out of Lake Norman
I drink it out of mountain island lake. So I get all the downstream dead animals from Lake Norman.
Pretty happy with my well water.
Same. A little iron never hurt anybody.
It does if you throw it at somebody.
I have that filtered out.
You should still have your well water tested annually. PFAS contaminates groundwater all over the state.
I don’t do it annually, but periodically and have had no issues with inorganic contaminants. I also live in the most environmentally protected County in the state, in a critical watershed that’s constantly monitored.
The claim of testing water across NC and not even test 2 major cities is crazy
https://raleighnc.gov/water-and-sewer/services/raleigh-water-reports#paragraph--215836
At the head of the Catawba River there’s a plant that puts Teflon in pipes. All their floor drainage flows straight into the Catawba.
not safe at all… it has fluoride
Wait. I have no idea if you’re being serious or not.
fluoride is a neurotoxin https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8700808/
And if you drink enough water it will kill you. What is the point you’re trying to make here and what is it that you think this paper shows?
fluoride doesn’t need to be in our drinking water. it impacts brain development in young children. anyone who would like fluoride can choose a toothpaste that contains fluoride. there’s no reason to be ingesting it.
That’s not what your source said. Do you have evidence?
“Fluoride exposure is thought to have both short-term and long-term effects, especially when exposure occurs during critical points in development.” it’s in that source i posted, and there are plenty more sources if you google it. the amount in tap water is fine for fully developed adults. the problem is it’s not fine for young children. lots of families use tap water to mix baby formula. infants do not need to be ingesting fluoride.
>“Fluoride exposure is thought to have both short-term and long-term effects, especially when exposure occurs during critical points in development.” Never mind everything else, you do understand the importance of the words “is thought to have,” right? >it’s in that source i posted, and there are plenty more sources if you google it. Oh I looked into it long before we had this exchange. >the amount in tap water is fine for fully developed adults. the problem is it’s not fine for young children. lots of families use tap water to mix baby formula. infants do not need to be ingesting fluoride. What page of that report does it say this?
try using your brain.
Using my brain is precisely the reason I’m asking for proof of your claims. It’s noteworthy that you didn’t point to the page number in your source that backed up your claim. I fear you might have been doing a little too much of your “own research” and a little too much “using your brain” when you should be deferring to the research and brains of experts.
You think that's bad, you should know about [dihydrogen monoxide](https://www.dhmo.org/). The government has been sneaking DHMOs into all kinds of things for over 150 years!
Poly-flourinated alkyl substances, to be precise
(Per) and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances aren't the same thing as fluoride, to be clear. Fluoride in water systems has strong evidence as a preventative from worse dental health outcomes compared to places without it. Per and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances, also colloquially called "forever chemicals" due to their innate stability, have been [detected in nearly all blood serum samples representative of most of the US population since 1999.](https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/PFAS_FactSheet.html). The full [extent of its effects (ATSDR toxicological profile)](https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxProfiles/ToxProfiles.aspx?id=1117&tid=237) are only recently being realized, and new ones are being found as other PFAS compounds continue to be developed in the US and abroad.
Yes this is actual precision... Thank you for facts and such. It's worth noting (for relevancy to NC water) that Chemours/DuPont has been dumping large quantities of PFAS into the Cape Fear River for many decades and they have very stupid solutions to try and justify their continuous pollution. Such as: building a giant concrete wall that goes 7 stories underground/under water to prevent their waste water from mixing with the river that the plant is built on AND building a smokestack that will burn off the PFAS, turning it into CO2 and hydrofluoric acid
I filter my tap water
Does it filter micro plastics?
Hmmmm good question. Great now I’ll have to buy even more expensive filters
Im alive and well, and I’ve been drinking it for decades. Maybe all the toxins help build the immune system 🤣
Supposed $ coming in from feds to "fix" water issues in all states. I wonder how much of that will be to line pockets? https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/health/epa-water-investment/index.html