GoGreenNation news

What you need to know about toxic “forever chemicals” the EPA is restricting

News Feed

Monday, April 22, 2024

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. Nearly 50 public water systems across Texas have reported exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first-ever limits on toxic chemicals in drinking water known as PFAS. The EPA released the new standards earlier this month, aimed at reducing five individual “forever chemicals.” These chemicals are used to make nonstick cookware, stain and water repellent clothing and firefighting foam. They have also been linked to certain types of cancer, birth defects, damage to the liver and immune system. Public water systems will need to regularly monitor, detect and remove PFAS from drinking water, according to the EPA’s new guidelines. Here’s what you need to know about the forever chemicals: What are PFAS? PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, belong to a family of chemicals used to make products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They have been used in industry and consumer products worldwide since the 1940s. They’ve earned the name “forever chemicals,” because they don’t break down and can persist in water and soil indefinitely. Some estimates list more than 12,000 types of individual PFAS. The EPA says this makes it challenging to study and assess the potential human health and environmental risks. Where have PFAS been detected? Tests have found PFAS in the blood of people and animals all over the world, according to the EPA. The agency said most people in the U.S. have been exposed to some PFAS by touching, drinking, eating, or breathing in materials containing the chemicals, including nonstick cookware and some cleaning products. They have been found in public drinking water systems and private drinking water wells, at landfills, disposal sites, and hazardous waste sites. They are also found in fish caught from water contaminated by PFAS and dairy products from livestock exposed to PFAS. How do I know if my water is contaminated with PFAS? According to a 2023 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, at least 45% of the nation's tap water is estimated to have one or more types of PFAS. If you get your water from a public drinking water system, reach out to your local water utility and ask them to test the water for PFAS, said Treavor H. Boyer, a professor of engineering at Arizona State University. More than 400 public water systems have tested for PFAS and more than 100 have found some level of PFAS in their water, including nearly 50 that found levels above the EPA’s new limits. Many public water systems have not been tested yet. Under the new EPA standards, they will be required to complete their initial testing for these chemicals within three years and share the results with the public. If your local water system has tested for PFAS, ask for the results and how they may be addressing PFAS in drinking water. How do PFAS get in drinking water? Boyer, who researches technologies to remove these chemicals from water, said a major source of PFAS contamination is fire training and response because PFAS is found in firefighting foam. “Unfortunately there wasn't any thought before that [PFAS] would run off the pavement, and work through the soil, and eventually go to groundwater,” Boyer said. “There's probably locations where it runs into lakes and rivers too.” He said another big major source of PFAS contamination are chemical manufacturers discharging it into water sources and products that contain PFAS — such as nonstick cookware and stain-resistant carpeting — ending up in landfills. What are the health risks of PFAS? According to the EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure when pregnant. It can also lead to developmental effects such as low birth weight, accelerated puberty or behavioral changes. PFAS has also been linked to increased cholesterol and obesity and to certain types of cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. Research is still ongoing by scientists at EPA, ATSDR and around the world to better understand the potential health effects of PFAS exposure over long periods of time. EPA is also studying the health effects associated with low levels of exposure over long periods of time in children. How do I reduce exposure to PFAS? Boyer said the first step is educating yourself on which products are made with PFAS. His tips also include avoiding non-stick cookware. Most non-stick products contain PFAS. Try stainless steel or a cast iron instead. “Any type of nonstick or stain repellent type product, a consumer should scrutinize it,” Boyer said. The Green Science Policy Institute and the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute at Northeastern University recommends buying PFAS-free products. They have a list of PFAS-free products that includes apparel, shoes, cosmetics, baby products and others. How can PFAS be removed from drinking water? If you’re concerned about PFAS in your drinking water, consider installing in-home water treatment filters where the main water line enters the home. EPA researchers are studying the effectiveness of household water filters, but has identified three technologies to remove certain PFAS from at home drinking water: Activated carbon absorption: using carbon to attract and trap the PFAS for removal Reverse osmosis: purifying water by using pressure to force water through an extremely thin barrier that separates chemicals from the water Ion exchange: tiny beads that act like powerful magnets to attract and hold the contaminated materials from passing through the water system You can also try water pitchers with filters. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group published a study last year that identified four water pitcher filters that can remove certain PFAS by nearly 100%. That list includes: Travel Berkey, Zero Water, Clearly Filtered and Epic Water Filter. The price of the water filters range from $20 to $330 and EWG has a guide on the pros and cons of each in-home water filtration system. Be aware when looking for home filters. A filter may list claims for PFAS reduction on its outer packaging, but may not actually work. The EPA has tips for checking the certification of water filtration systems. “The best advice is to make sure you pull a filter out of these certified lists, because then you know it has undergone a degree testing,” said Jennifer Guelf, an assistant professor at Texas Tech University who has researched PFAS remediation in drinking water systems for 15 years. “PFAS is a huge class of contaminants. We can not say with a degree of certainty that these water filters remove all PFA, but they are precautionary and people’s best bet.” Disclosure: Texas Tech University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin Sept. 5-7. Get your TribFest tickets before May 1 and save big!

The EPA recently set new limits on the toxic chemicals used to make everything from nonstick pans to firefighting foam. Here’s how to protect yourself and your family.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Nearly 50 public water systems across Texas have reported exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first-ever limits on toxic chemicals in drinking water known as PFAS.

The EPA released the new standards earlier this month, aimed at reducing five individual “forever chemicals.” These chemicals are used to make nonstick cookware, stain and water repellent clothing and firefighting foam. They have also been linked to certain types of cancer, birth defects, damage to the liver and immune system. Public water systems will need to regularly monitor, detect and remove PFAS from drinking water, according to the EPA’s new guidelines.

Here’s what you need to know about the forever chemicals:

What are PFAS?

PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, belong to a family of chemicals used to make products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. They have been used in industry and consumer products worldwide since the 1940s. They’ve earned the name “forever chemicals,” because they don’t break down and can persist in water and soil indefinitely.

Some estimates list more than 12,000 types of individual PFAS. The EPA says this makes it challenging to study and assess the potential human health and environmental risks.

Where have PFAS been detected?

Tests have found PFAS in the blood of people and animals all over the world, according to the EPA. The agency said most people in the U.S. have been exposed to some PFAS by touching, drinking, eating, or breathing in materials containing the chemicals, including nonstick cookware and some cleaning products.

They have been found in public drinking water systems and private drinking water wells, at landfills, disposal sites, and hazardous waste sites. They are also found in fish caught from water contaminated by PFAS and dairy products from livestock exposed to PFAS.

How do I know if my water is contaminated with PFAS?

According to a 2023 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, at least 45% of the nation's tap water is estimated to have one or more types of PFAS.

If you get your water from a public drinking water system, reach out to your local water utility and ask them to test the water for PFAS, said Treavor H. Boyer, a professor of engineering at Arizona State University.

More than 400 public water systems have tested for PFAS and more than 100 have found some level of PFAS in their water, including nearly 50 that found levels above the EPA’s new limits. Many public water systems have not been tested yet. Under the new EPA standards, they will be required to complete their initial testing for these chemicals within three years and share the results with the public.

If your local water system has tested for PFAS, ask for the results and how they may be addressing PFAS in drinking water.

How do PFAS get in drinking water?

Boyer, who researches technologies to remove these chemicals from water, said a major source of PFAS contamination is fire training and response because PFAS is found in firefighting foam.

“Unfortunately there wasn't any thought before that [PFAS] would run off the pavement, and work through the soil, and eventually go to groundwater,” Boyer said. “There's probably locations where it runs into lakes and rivers too.”

He said another big major source of PFAS contamination are chemical manufacturers discharging it into water sources and products that contain PFAS — such as nonstick cookware and stain-resistant carpeting — ending up in landfills.

What are the health risks of PFAS?

According to the EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure when pregnant. It can also lead to developmental effects such as low birth weight, accelerated puberty or behavioral changes. PFAS has also been linked to increased cholesterol and obesity and to certain types of cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers.

Research is still ongoing by scientists at EPA, ATSDR and around the world to better understand the potential health effects of PFAS exposure over long periods of time. EPA is also studying the health effects associated with low levels of exposure over long periods of time in children.

How do I reduce exposure to PFAS?

Boyer said the first step is educating yourself on which products are made with PFAS. His tips also include avoiding non-stick cookware. Most non-stick products contain PFAS. Try stainless steel or a cast iron instead.

“Any type of nonstick or stain repellent type product, a consumer should scrutinize it,” Boyer said.

The Green Science Policy Institute and the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute at Northeastern University recommends buying PFAS-free products. They have a list of PFAS-free products that includes apparel, shoes, cosmetics, baby products and others.

How can PFAS be removed from drinking water?

If you’re concerned about PFAS in your drinking water, consider installing in-home water treatment filters where the main water line enters the home.

EPA researchers are studying the effectiveness of household water filters, but has identified three technologies to remove certain PFAS from at home drinking water:

Activated carbon absorption: using carbon to attract and trap the PFAS for removal
Reverse osmosis: purifying water by using pressure to force water through an extremely thin barrier that separates chemicals from the water
Ion exchange: tiny beads that act like powerful magnets to attract and hold the contaminated materials from passing through the water system

You can also try water pitchers with filters. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group published a study last year that identified four water pitcher filters that can remove certain PFAS by nearly 100%. That list includes: Travel Berkey, Zero Water, Clearly Filtered and Epic Water Filter. The price of the water filters range from $20 to $330 and EWG has a guide on the pros and cons of each in-home water filtration system.

Be aware when looking for home filters. A filter may list claims for PFAS reduction on its outer packaging, but may not actually work. The EPA has tips for checking the certification of water filtration systems.

“The best advice is to make sure you pull a filter out of these certified lists, because then you know it has undergone a degree testing,” said Jennifer Guelf, an assistant professor at Texas Tech University who has researched PFAS remediation in drinking water systems for 15 years.

“PFAS is a huge class of contaminants. We can not say with a degree of certainty that these water filters remove all PFA, but they are precautionary and people’s best bet.”

Disclosure: Texas Tech University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Tickets are on sale now for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin Sept. 5-7. Get your TribFest tickets before May 1 and save big!

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

This moss survived in space for 9 months

In an experiment on the outside of the International Space Station, a species of moss survived in space for 9 months. And it could have lasted much longer. The post This moss survived in space for 9 months first appeared on EarthSky.

Meet a spreading earthmoss known as Physcomitrella patens. It’s frequently used as a model organism for studies on plant evolution, development, and physiology. In this image, a reddish-brown sporophyte sits at the top center of a leafy gametophore. This capsule contains numerous spores inside. Scientists tested samples like these on the outside of the International Space Station (ISS) to see if they could tolerate the extreme airless environment. And they did. The moss survived in space for 9 months and could have lasted even longer. Image via Tomomichi Fujita/ EurekAlert! (CC BY-SA). Space is a deadly environment, with no air, extreme temperature swings and harsh radiation. Could any life survive there? Reasearchers in Japan tested a type of moss called spreading earthmoss on the exterior of the International Space Station. The moss survived for nine months, and the spores were still able to reproduce when brought back to Earth. Moss survived in space for 9 months Can life exist in space? Not simply on other planets or moons, but in the cold, dark, airless void of space itself? Most organisms would perish almost immediately, to be sure. But researchers in Japan recently experimented with moss, with surprising results. They said on November 20, 2025, that more than 80% of their moss spores survived nine months on the outside of the International Space Station. Not only that, but when brought back to Earth, they were still capable of reproducing. Nature, it seems, is even tougher than we thought! Amazingly, the results show that some primitive plants – not even just microorganisms – can survive long-term exposure to the extreme space environment. The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings in the journal iScience on November 20, 2025. A deadly environment for life Space is a horrible place for life. The lack of air, radiation and extreme cold make it pretty much unsurvivable for life as we know it. As lead author Tomomichi Fujita at Hokkaido University in Japan stated: Most living organisms, including humans, cannot survive even briefly in the vacuum of space. However, the moss spores retained their vitality after nine months of direct exposure. This provides striking evidence that the life that has evolved on Earth possesses, at the cellular level, intrinsic mechanisms to endure the conditions of space. This #moss survived 9 months directly exposed to the vacuum space and could still reproduce after returning to Earth. ? ? spkl.io/63322AdFrpTomomichi Fujita & colleagues@cp-iscience.bsky.social — Cell Press (@cellpress.bsky.social) 2025-11-24T16:00:02.992Z What about moss? Researchers wanted to see if any Earthly life could survive in space’s deadly environment for the long term. To find out, they decided to do some experiments with a type of moss called spreading earthmoss, or Physcomitrium patens. The researchers sent hundreds of sporophytes – encapsulated moss spores – to the International Space Station in March 2022, aboard the Cygnus NG-17 spacecraft. They attached the sporophyte samples to the outside of the ISS, where they were exposed to the vacuum of space for 283 days. By doing so, the samples were subjected to high levels of UV (ultraviolet) radiation and extreme swings of temperature. The samples later returned to Earth in January 2023. The researchers tested three parts of the moss. These were the protonemata, or juvenile moss; brood cells, or specialized stem cells that emerge under stress conditions; and the sporophytes. Fujita said: We anticipated that the combined stresses of space, including vacuum, cosmic radiation, extreme temperature fluctuations and microgravity, would cause far greater damage than any single stress alone. Astronauts placed the moss samples on the outside of the International Space Station for the 9-month-long experiment. Incredibly, more than 80% of the the encapsulated spores survived the trip to space and back to Earth. Image via NASA/ Roscosmos. The moss survived! So, how did the moss do? The results were mixed, but overall showed that the moss could survive in space. The radiation was the most difficult aspect of the space environment to withstand. The sporophytes were the most resilient. Incredibly, they were able to survive and germinate after being exposed to -196 degrees Celsius (-320 degrees Fahrenheit) for more than a week. At the other extreme, they also survived in 55° degrees C (131 degrees F) heat for a month. Some brood cells survived as well, but the encased spores were about 1,000 times more tolerant to the UV radiation. On the other hand, none of the juvenile moss survived the high UV levels or the extreme temperatures. Samples of moss spores that germinated after their 9-month exposure to space. Image via Dr. Chang-hyun Maeng/ Maika Kobayashi/ EurekAlert!. (CC BY-SA). How did the spores survive? So why did the encapsulated spores do so well? The researchers said the natural structure surrounding the spore itself helps to protect the spore. Essentially, it absorbs the UV radiation and surrounds the inner spore both physically and chemically to prevent damage. As it turns out, this might be associated with the evolution of mosses. This is an adaptation that helped bryophytes – the group of plants to which mosses belong – to make the transition from aquatic to terrestrial plants 500 million years ago. Overall, more than 80% of the spores survived the journey to space and then back to Earth. And only 11% were unable to germinate after being brought back to the lab on Earth. That’s impressive! In addition, the researchers also tested the levels of chlorophyll in the spores. After the exposure to space, the spores still had normal amounts of chlorophyll, except for chlorophyll a specifically. In that case, there was a 20% reduction. Chlorophyll a is used in oxygenic photosynthesis. It absorbs the most energy from wavelengths of violet-blue and orange-red light. Tomomichi Fujita at Hokkaido University in Japan is the lead author of the new study about moss in space. Image via Hokkaido University. Spores could have survived for 15 years The time available for the experiment was limited to the several months. However, the researchers wondered if the moss spores could have survived even longer. And using mathematical models, they determined the spores would likely have continued to live in space for about 15 years, or 5,600 days, altogether. The researchers note this prediction is a rough estimate. More data would still be needed to make that assessment even more accurate. So the results show just how resilient moss is, and perhaps some other kinds of life, too. Fujita said: This study demonstrates the astonishing resilience of life that originated on Earth. Ultimately, we hope this work opens a new frontier toward constructing ecosystems in extraterrestrial environments such as the moon and Mars. I hope that our moss research will serve as a starting point. Bottom line: In an experiment on the outside of the International Space Station, a species of moss survived in space for nine months. And it could have lasted much longer. Source: Extreme environmental tolerance and space survivability of the moss, Physcomitrium patens Via EurekAlert! Read more: This desert moss could grow on Mars, no greenhouse needed Read more: Colorful life on exoplanets might be lurking in cloudsThe post This moss survived in space for 9 months first appeared on EarthSky.

Chemicals

Energy

Nature

Medical Imaging Contributing To Water Pollution, Experts Say

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Contrast chemicals injected into people for medical imaging scans...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Contrast chemicals injected into people for medical imaging scans are likely contributing to water pollution, a new study says.Medicare patients alone received 13.5 billion milliliters of contrast media between 2011 and 2024, and those chemicals wound up in waterways after people excreted them, researchers recently reported in JAMA Network Open.“Contrast agents are necessary for effective imaging, but they don’t disappear after use,” said lead researcher Dr. Florence Doo, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland Medical Intelligent Imaging Center in Baltimore.“Iodine and gadolinium are non-renewable resources that can enter wastewater and accumulate in rivers, oceans and even drinking water,” Doo said in a news release.People undergoing X-ray or CT scans are sometimes given iodine or barium-sulfate compounds that cause certain tissues, blood vessels or organs to light up, allowing radiologists a better look at potential health problems.For MRI scans, radiologists use gadolinium, a substance that alters the magnetic properties of water molecules in the human body.These are critical for diagnosing disease, but they are also persistent pollutants, researchers said in background notes. They aren’t biodegradable, and conventional wastewater treatment doesn’t fully remove them.For the new study, researchers analyzed 169 million contrast-enhanced imaging procedures that Medicare covered over 13 years.Iodine-based contrast agents accounted for more than 95% of the total volume, or nearly 12.9 billion milliliters. Of those, agents used in CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis alone contributed 4.4 billion milliliters.Gadolinium agents were less frequently used, but still contributed nearly 600 million milliliters, researchers said. Brain MRIs were the most common scan using these contrast materials.Overall, just a handful of procedures accounted for 80% of all contrast use, researchers concluded.“Our study shows that a small number of imaging procedures drive the majority of contrast use. Focusing on those highest-use imaging types make meaningful changes tractable and could significantly reduce health care’s environmental footprint,” researcher Elizabeth Rula, executive director of the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute in Reston, Va., said in a news release.Doctors can help by making sure their imaging orders are necessary, while radiologists can lower the doses of contrast agents by basing them on a patient’s weight, researchers said.Biodegradable contrast media are under development, researchers noted. Another solution could involve AI, which might be able to accurately analyze medical imaging scans even if less contrast media is used.“We can’t ignore the environmental consequences of medical imaging,” Doo said. “Stewardship of contrast agents is a measurable and impactful way to align patient care with planetary health and should be an important part of broader health care sustainability efforts.”SOURCES: Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, news release, Dec. 4, 2025; JAMA Network Open, Dec. 5, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Chemicals

Health

Pollution

Cars to AI: How new tech drives demand for specialized materials

Generative artificial intelligence has become widely accepted as a tool that increases productivity. Yet the technology is far from mature. Large language models advance rapidly from one generation to the next, and experts can only speculate how AI will affect the workforce and people’s daily lives. As a materials scientist, I am interested in how materials and the technologies that derive from them affect society. AI is one example of a technology driving global change—particularly through its demand for materials and rare minerals. But before AI evolved to its current level, two other technologies exemplified the process created by the demand for specialized materials: cars and smartphones. Often, the mass adoption of a new invention changes human behavior, which leads to new technologies and infrastructures reliant upon the invention. In turn, these new technologies and infrastructures require new or improved materials—and these often contain critical minerals: those minerals that are both essential to the technology and strain the supply chain. The unequal distribution of these minerals gives leverage to the nations that produce them. The resulting power shifts strain geopolitical relations and drive the search for new mineral sources. New technology nurtures the mining industry. The car and the development of suburbs At the beginning of the 20th century, only 5 out of 1,000 people owned a car, with annual production around a few thousand. Workers commuted on foot or by tram. Within a 2-mile radius, many people had all they needed: from groceries to hardware, from school to church, and from shoemakers to doctors. Then, in 1913, Henry Ford transformed the industry by inventing the assembly line. Now, a middle class family could afford a car: Mass production cut the price of the Model T from US$850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916. While the Great Depression dampened the broad adoption of the car, sales began to increase again after the end of World War II. With cars came more mobility, and many people moved farther away from work. In the 1940s and 1950s, a powerful highway lobby that included oil, automobile, and construction interests promoted federal highway and transportation policies, which increased automobile dependence. These policies helped change the landscape: Houses were spaced farther apart, and located farther away from the urban centers where many people worked. By the 1960s, two-thirds of American workers commuted by car, and the average commute had increased to 10 miles. Public policy and investment favored suburbs, which meant less investment in city centers. The resulting decay made living in downtown areas of many cities undesirable and triggered urban renewal projects. Long commutes added to pollution and expenses, which created a demand for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. But building these required better materials. In 1970, the entire frame and body of a car was made from one steel type, but by 2017, 10 different, highly specialized steels constituted a vehicle’s lightweight form. Each steel contains different chemical elements, such as molybdenum and vanadium, which are mined only in a few countries. While the car supply chain was mostly domestic until the 1970s, the car industry today relies heavily on imports. This dependence has created tension with international trade partners, as reflected by higher tariffs on steel. The cellphone and American life The cellphone presents another example of a technology creating a demand for minerals and affecting foreign policy. In 1983, Motorola released the DynaTAC, the first commercial cellular phone. It was heavy, expensive, and its battery lasted for only half an hour, so few people had one. Then in 1996, Motorola introduced the flip phone, which was cheaper, lighter, and more convenient to use. The flip phone initiated the mass adoption of cellphones. However, it was still just a phone: Unlike today’s smartphones, all it did was send and receive calls and texts. In 2007, Apple redefined communication with the iPhone, inventing the touchscreen and integrating an internet navigator. The phone became a digital hub for navigating, finding information, and building an online social identity. Before smartphones, mobile phones supplemented daily life. Now, they structure it. In 2000, fewer than half of American adults owned a cellphone, and nearly all who did used it only sporadically. In 2024, 98% of Americans over the age of 18 reported owning a cellphone, and over 90% owned a smartphone. Without the smartphone, most people cannot fulfill their daily tasks. Many individuals now experience nomophobia: They feel anxious without a cellphone. Around three-quarters of all stable elements are represented in the components of each smartphone. These elements are necessary for highly specialized materials that enable touchscreens, displays, batteries, speakers, microphones, and cameras. Many of these elements are essential for at least one function and have an unreliable supply chain, which makes them critical. Critical materials and AI Critical materials give leverage to countries that have a monopoly in mining and processing them. For example, China has gained increased power through its monopoly on rare earth elements. In April 2025, in response to U.S. tariffs, China stopped exporting rare earth magnets, which are used in cellphones. The geopolitical tensions that resulted demonstrate the power embodied in the control over critical minerals. The mass adoption of AI technology will likely change human behavior and bring forth new technologies, industries, and infrastructure on which the U.S. economy will depend. All of these technologies will require more optimized and specialized materials and create new material dependencies. By exacerbating material dependencies, AI could affect geopolitical relations and reorganize global power. America has rich deposits of many important minerals, but extraction of these minerals comes with challenges. Factors including slow and costly permitting, public opposition, environmental concerns, high investment costs, and an inadequate workforce all can prevent mining companies from accessing these resources. The mass adoption of AI is already adding pressure to overcome these factors and to increase responsible domestic mining. While the path from innovation to material dependence spanned a century for cars and a couple of decades for cellphones, the rapid advancement of large language models suggests that the scale will be measured in years for AI. The heat is already on. Peter Müllner is a distinguished professor in materials science and engineering at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Chemicals

Pollution

Science

Are environmental risks making Canada's doctor shortage worse?

From Alberta’s oilsands to B.C.’s gas fields and Ontario’s Chemical Valley, doctors in Canada are increasingly weighing air pollution, industrial toxins and climate-driven disasters when deciding where to live and work.

Chemicals

Climate

Pollution

Synthetic chemicals in food system creating health burden of $2.2tn a year, report finds

Scientists issue urgent warning about chemicals, found to cause cancer and infertility as well as harming environmentScientists have issued an urgent warning that some of the synthetic chemicals that help underpin the current food system are driving increased rates of cancer, neurodevelopmental conditions and infertility, while degrading the foundations of global agriculture.The health burden from phthalates, bisphenols, pesticides and Pfas “forever chemicals” amounts to up to $2.2tn a year – roughly as much as the profits of the world’s 100 largest publicly listed companies, according to the report published on Wednesday. Continue reading...

Scientists have issued an urgent warning that some of the synthetic chemicals that help underpin the current food system are driving increased rates of cancer, neurodevelopmental conditions and infertility, while degrading the foundations of global agriculture.The health burden from phthalates, bisphenols, pesticides and Pfas “forever chemicals” amounts to up to $2.2tn a year – roughly as much as the profits of the world’s 100 largest publicly listed companies, according to the report published on Wednesday.Most ecosystem damage remains unpriced, they say, but even a narrow accounting of ecological impacts, taking into account agricultural losses and meeting water safety standards for Pfas and pesticides, implies a further cost of $640bn. There are also potential consequences for human demographics, with the report concluding that if exposure to endocrine disruptors such as bisphenols and phthalates persists at current rates, there could be between 200 million and 700 million fewer births between 2025 and 2100.The report is the work of dozens of scientists from organisations including the Institute of Preventive Health, the Center for Environmental Health, Chemsec, and various universities in the US and UK, including the University of Sussex and Duke University. It was led by a core team from Systemiq, a company that invests in enterprises aimed at fulfilling the UN sustainable development goals and the Paris agreement on climate change.The authors said they had focused on the four chemical types examined because “they are among the most prevalent and best studied worldwide, with robust evidence of harm to human and ecological health”.One of the team, Philip Landrigan, a paediatrician and professor of global public health at Boston College, called the report a “wake-up call”. He said: “The world really has to wake up and do something about chemical pollution. I would argue that the problem of chemical pollution is every bit as serious as the problem with climate change.”Human and ecosystem exposure to synthetic chemicals has surged since the end of the second world war, with chemical production increasing by more than 200 times since the 1950s and more than 350,000 synthetic chemicals currently on the global market.Three years ago, researchers from the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) concluded that chemical pollution had crossed a “planetary boundary”, the point at which human-made changes to the Earth push it outside the stable environment of the past 10,000 years, the period in which modern human civilisation has developed.Unlike with pharmaceuticals, there are few safeguards to test for the safety of industrial chemicals before they are put into use, and little monitoring of their effects once they are. Some have been found to be disastrously toxic to humans, animals and ecosystems, leaving governments to pick up the bill.This report assesses the impact of four families of synthetic chemicals endemic in global food production. Phthalates and bisphenols are commonly used as plastic additives, employed in food packaging and disposable gloves used in food preparation.Pesticides underpin industrial agriculture, with large-scale monoculture farms spraying thousands of gallons on crops to eliminate weeds and insects, and many crops treated after harvest to maintain freshness.Pfas are used in food contact materials such as greaseproof paper, popcorn tubs and ice-cream cartons, but have also accumulated in the environment to such an extent they enter food via air, soil and water contamination.All have been linked to harms including endocrine (hormone system) disruption, cancers, birth defects, intellectual impairment and obesity.Landrigan said that during his long career in paediatric public health he had seen a shift in the conditions affecting children. “The amount of disease and death caused by infectious diseases like measles, like scarlet fever, like pertussis, has come way down,” he said. “By contrast, there’s been this incredible increase in rates of non-communicable diseases. And of course, there’s no single factor there … but the evidence is very clear that increasing exposure to hundreds, maybe even thousands of manufactured chemicals is a very important cause of disease in kids.”Landrigan said he was most concerned about “the chemicals that damage children’s developing brains and thus make them less intelligent, less creative, just less able to give back to society across the whole of their lifetimes”.“And the second class of chemicals that I worry really worried about are the endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” he added. “Bisphenol would be the classic example, that get into people’s bodies at every age, damage the liver, change cholesterol metabolism, and result in increased serum cholesterol, increased obesity, increased diabetes, and those internally to increase rates of heart disease and stroke.”Asked whether the report could have looked beyond the groups of chemicals studied, Landridge said: “I would argue that they’re only the tip of the iceberg. They’re among the very small number of chemicals, maybe 20 or 30 chemicals where we really have solid toxicologic information.“What scares the hell out of me is the thousands of chemicals to which we’re all exposed every day about which we know nothing. And until one of them causes something obvious, like children to be born with missing limbs, we’re going to go on mindlessly exposing ourselves.”

Chemicals

Food

Health

Suggested Viewing

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests

Chemicals

Climate

Lead in the Land

Lead in the Land is a documentary focusing on the harsh reality and far-reaching effects of lead poisoning, an invisible and insidious threat afflicting thousands of children in the United States. The film sheds light on the circumstances around lead poisoning, examining its causes, effects and potential solutions.

Chemicals

Social Justice

Health

Bag It

Bag It examines our society’s use and abuse of plastic. The theme of the film focuses on plastic as it relates to our society’s throw away mentality, our culture of convenience, and our over consumption of throwaway products and packaging—things that we use one time and then, without another thought, we throw them away. Bag It offers a candid view of the disturbing realities of our culture. And, it suggests concrete solutions to our plastic addiction. The film will raise public awareness on the many issues related to plastic and inspire change, both on the individual level and on the public policy level.

Chemicals

Waste

Culture

Toxic Business

A documentary on the profits international chemical companies are gaining in Africa at cost of the health of small-scaled-farmers and consumers.International chemical companies sell high toxic agro-chemicals in Kenya, which are banned since long in Europe. They are banned because their ingredients cause cancer and have a major negative impact on the nature and environment. Anyhow – in developing countries like Kenya those toxic chemicals are sold without any regulations through small agro-shops all over the country. The small scaled farmers do believe in the promises of better and safer harvest those companies give. Today, the use of pesticides even inside the villages is already a daily business. Furthermore many of them already depend on hybrid seeds, old and resistant seeds supplants. Most of the consumers do not have the knowledge, how dangerous those agro-chemicals are: the WHO announced that annually 346.000 people die, caused by accidentally poisoning with those chemicals, 2/3 of them within developing countries.In the face of world food, industry is trying to push its way into the markets. On the contrary, statistics and alternative farming methods in East Africa show that it no longer needs chemicals and hybrid seeds to feed the world, but a general rethinking.

Agriculture

Chemicals

Business

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Unacceptable Risk tells the story of a prominent cancer researcher who rethinks her assumptions about the causes of cancer and the true burden of environmentally-induced cancers.

Chemicals

Science

Health

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

GoGreenNation news

What you need to know about toxic “forever chemicals” the EPA is restricting

What are PFAS?

Where have PFAS been detected?

How do I know if my water is contaminated with PFAS?

How do PFAS get in drinking water?

What are the health risks of PFAS?

How do I reduce exposure to PFAS?

How can PFAS be removed from drinking water?

Related News

This moss survived in space for 9 months

Medical Imaging Contributing To Water Pollution, Experts Say

Cars to AI: How new tech drives demand for specialized materials

Are environmental risks making Canada's doctor shortage worse?

Synthetic chemicals in food system creating health burden of $2.2tn a year, report finds

Suggested Viewing

We Trees

Lead in the Land

Bag It

Toxic Business

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

What you need to know about toxic “forever chemicals” the EPA is restricting

What are PFAS?

Where have PFAS been detected?

How do I know if my water is contaminated with PFAS?

How do PFAS get in drinking water?

What are the health risks of PFAS?

How do I reduce exposure to PFAS?

How can PFAS be removed from drinking water?

Related News

This moss survived in space for 9 months

Medical Imaging Contributing To Water Pollution, Experts Say

Cars to AI: How new tech drives demand for specialized materials

Are environmental risks making Canada's doctor shortage worse?

Synthetic chemicals in food system creating health burden of $2.2tn a year, report finds

Suggested Viewing

We Trees

Lead in the Land

Bag It

Toxic Business

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Join us to forgea sustainable future

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future