|
4/18/2025
WT Staff
 Got water questions? Give us a call at 877-52-WATER (877-529-2837), or email us at info@wtga.us
Friday, April 18 2025 530 pm EDT
Poisoning the Well - How Forever Chemicals Contaminated America
Interview with author Sharon Udasin, west climate reporter at The Hill, recipient of SEAL Environmental Journalism Award 2022
WT: Welcome Sharon, thanks for being here. Tell us about yourself and the book project.
Sharon Udasin: I'm a long-time environment reporter, at least 15 years now, a working journalist for about 20. I am co-author with Rachel Frazin, our book came out last week Thursday, April 10th.
WT: How has the response been so far?
Udasin: Well, we haven't got numbers of sales, but considering a few sites were back-ordered, I think that's a good sign. I had a local launch event in Boulder, Colorado where I am. A lot of people showed up and I've been getting some nice messages. I'm hoping this is going to bring some awareness to the issue, and maybe to people that haven't previously been interested in water contamination.
WT: A review of your book ties "forever chemicals" contamination to "the unfettered power of industry". Why would industry poison their own consumers, and spoil their own market?
Udasin: I think in the end it's all about money, though I don't know if it really began that way. At the time of discovery, or accidental invention of (PFAS) compounds in 1938, they didn't know the effects. It was a post-doctoral scholar that happened upon PTFE, marketed eventually as Teflon. These compounds and the inventions produced with them all have utility, so I can't say the manufacturing companies had ill intentions.
I think like any other industry, it becomes about money eventually. This (realization of harm) has required scientists to find replacements that can live up to the strength that (PFAS) compounds have. For example, AFFF firefighting foam was out there to combat catastrophic fuel-based fires. Now there are fluorine-free replacements, but it took a while to develop those.
See Blazing the innovation trail: Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport successfully deploys PFAS-free fire-fighting foam, here.
So I guess my point is, yes, there is an unfettered, continued pursuit of compounds that are known to be harmful and not necessarily regulated. Basically, new products come out on the market ahead of any investigation about them. On the other hand, there is the usefulness of these chemicals. We all like having our waterproof items. There is a sort of weird imbalance between people wanting convenience and public safety. Those convenient products are coated in toxics.
See "Convenience- the chemical cocktail that keeps on giving", here.
WT: As you researched for the book, how did you find the level of awareness in the general population about PFAS? Why do you think the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been sued for moving to regulate PFAS in drinking water?
Udasin: I can't speak for industry. I would guess there is a financial reason. Also, the companies, the producers at large have argued that PFAS should not be regulated as one class of chemicals. Scientists have argued that all 15000 known PFAS should be regulated as a group, under one umbrella. Industry has argued the opposite. I feel this is financially inspired, limiting fewer substances at a time. I would guess if all of these products and compounds were phased out at once, there is a lot of money to be lost.
WT: This notion "unfettered power of industry", has this concept changed under the new federal administration since January 20?
Udasin: We don't actually know. Last year, the US EPA regulated six types of PFAS in drinking water. That's after decades, the regulation finally passed under the Biden administration. It is really anyone's guess whether the Trump administration decides to roll those regulations back, or whether they even have the power to do so. A proposal by the Biden administration came out, I believe it was December 2024, regarding PFAS discharge limits for industry. The Trump administration announced that it will not be pursuing that proposal. So that's one piece of action we've seen thus far, where we know they are not going to be regulating (industrial wastewater) discharge for PFAS. We have to wait and see what happens. I think individual States are going to be doing more, with stronger regulation of contaminants at the State level.
WT: How big an issue is unregulated industrial discharges, whether that's wastewater or biosolids spread on fields or any number of waste streams known to have PFAS? In your view researching this issue, how serious is this matter for public health and safety?
Udasin: It comes down to the State, it's where you live. If you're in Maine, for example, here was some of the worst contamination of PFAS coming from the wastewater treatment plants. Those biosolids were used as fertilizers and put on fields. Maine was one of the worst places in terms of contamination, and also became the first State to take it upon itself to regulate PFAS in waste streams. In Maine, you cannot put waste biosolids on the fields anymore.
Depending where you live in the US, waste discharge is a huge threat to the public. There is no federal standard to mitigate the risk and threat uniformly. It could amount to a social and environmental justice issue, PFAS contamination has been politicized so much that now it really is up to the individual state to respond. This means if you live in Alabama, where there is no regulation on this issue, you are going to be worse off than if you're in a State that does have tighter regulations.
WT: How much public health and safety awareness did you find? To what degree do people understand what PFAS are, the risk and how we are exposed?
Udasin: People are starting to become more and more aware of the presence of these toxics in consumer products. Somebody might be aware that a non-stick pan has PFAS, and that you should check whether it has that kind of coating on it. Maybe some are aware of the waterproof apparel issue. It depends who you engage with. I have interviewed a lot of people from a lot of different communities across the US. PFAS and all the environmental contaminants have become so politicized. In certain places, I don't know if it's a lack of awareness or a wilfull ignorance about the subject.
In northern Alabama, which has severe PFAS contamination issues, I was trying to talk to a few people fishing in one of the contaminated rivers. When I asked "Did you know about the water?", the response was so hostile, I kind of wanted to run away. I don't know if it is lack of awareness, or a choice to ignore the existence of the compounds and their effects. In other communities, there is much more awareness. The US is very polarized on this subject. Awareness comes to those willing to educate themselves on an issue. As for media, I would say the term "forever chemicals" is a heavily covered subject now, it has become mainstream.
WT: You alluded to this earlier, in saying "finally" in 2024 the EPA moved to regulate six PFAS in drinking water and the possibility these regulations could be rolled back. Did you come across which industry players are behind the lawsuit against the EPA?
Udasin: My colleague and co-author Rachel Frazin covered the lawsuit a little bit more than I did. I know that it was filed by the American Water Works Association. I think what they said was, the EPA deviated from the fundamental rules of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and did not allow for public comments. I think that was the main legal argument. As for what lobby may be behind AWWA, that would be speculation. I don't know and I don't think my co-author would know either. I've read a lot of articles about it, but I can't say that I know what organizations are behind the suit.
Learn more about the American Water Works Association, here.
NRDC stands with US EPA in defense of PFAS "forever toxic chemicals" regulation for drinking water, here.
WT: I understand you found evidence linking human illnesses and even deaths to PFAS. Tell us what you found.
Udasin: It is difficult proving causality in court. When you are dealing with environmental contamination and public health effects, you will always have attorneys that can argue "This person actually got sick because they were a smoker", or "they were overweight", etc. To link an illness or injury to an environmental exposure to a contaminant is very, very difficult in court.
I will tell of an example from northern Alabama. I visited Courtland, a very small town of just 300 people, downstream from an industrial area in Decatur where 3M had been dumping wastewater into the Tennessee River. That contaminated water was going directly to the drinking water supply of the residents of Courtland. One of the main activists, Brenda, took me on a drive through the community where she identified 54 cases of cancer and 14 kidney failures on two streets alone. My co-author and I call this "Brenda's Death Tour". As you sit in the car she takes you down the street and points to the small houses, "This one dead", and "that one's wife is dead", and "this one is dead, that one's dead." It is such a small town, you can see the significant toll that has been taken.
In the US, each state has a different length of time upon upon which you can bring a lawsuit to court, the Statute of Limitations. In Alabama you have two years after an injury to file for damages. None of these people would even have a chance to make a case in Alabama, just because of the nature of that state and how it is governed. You can make your own inferences about cause. There is this tiny town and all these people have died. They are downstream of a large PFAS polluter. No one has directly admitted to causing harm, but 3M settled with the water district and built a multi-million dollar reverse osmosis drinking water plant. Brenda was one of the drivers behind that settlement. So now the the residents of Courtland have PFAS-free water coming from their taps. This is not admitting to causing the damage but you can infer from the settlement what you want.
WT: In your work, have you noticed more contamination of surface water, or is it more common in the groundwater?
Udasin: In Alabama, we saw surface water contamination. Michigan, which is not covered in our book, has both, contaminated groundwater and surface water. I would keep it at even, I don't think there is one source more contaminated than the other. As with other contaminants, the biggest concentrations of PFAS occur in environmental justice communities. Whether it's an industrial facility or a military base, these are often located right next to lower income populations. Lower income communities end up disproportionately impacted by environmental contaminants. A lot of those communities are also dependent on the polluter for their employment.
Something I saw in the northern Alabama towns, so many residents depend on the polluter for employment. I'll mention the activist in Courtland again. When Brenda got vocal about the PFAS contamination issue, the local industry faltered a bit and certain people were laid off. Brenda then became a target. It's just so tough.
WT: Aside from those living directly downstream from factories using PFAS, the average person becomes exposed to PFAS as it rubs off carpets and other consumer products in the home. Do you think consumers will drive future change to reduce harms, or is this going to be left up to elected officials to legislate and enforce contamination limits on industry?
Udasin: Well, I think it's both. It's what consumers demand and also again based on location. I find in in Boulder, Colorado there is a lot of environmental awareness. There is also a lot of interest in outdoor activities. Outdoor gear is found in a lot of places, and outdoor gear is where PFAS have been very prevalent. Consumers here pushed for change, then a lot of the outdoor gear companies that have a pretty big presence here made targeted efforts to replace some of their waterproof coats. I think it's kind of the two acting symbiotically, consumers pushing and the companies picking up on that. It seems to be working in some sectors, but not all, I would say.
WT: Back to the household level. The National Sanitation Foundation has certified dozens of home water filters for reduction of PFAS at home. We asked about disposal, what is to be done when the home PFAS filters are full? One household is no comparison to large manufacturers' discharges, however, millions of households separating and concentrating PFAS and discarding to the landfill could contribute to keeping the contamination cycle going. Where does this end?
Udasin: I'm slightly optimistic after having done this book, which is really weird because so many of the stories are so devastating. We ended on the note of what scientists are doing in response to PFAS contamination. There is room for hope. Science is offering promise in breaking the PFAS down with various destruction technologies. Some of these are already semi-commercial. They might not be tackling the consumer PFAS filter issue yet, but they are almost capable of providing solutions at the municipal scale for public drinking water facilities. I am optimistic that there will be household solutions in the not-too-distant future as well.
University of Georgia Professor on a mission to "separate and destroy" PFAS, article here.
WT: Let's end with optimism. Is there anything you want to add?
Udasin:In the book, we make the link to the specific cancers, to other diseases and potential health risks associated with these compounds so people now know what to look out for. Even if their family doctor does not know or has never heard of the environmental exposure factors with PFAS, somebody might read our book and recognize they are in a potentially contaminated area, and bring this information to their doctor. So I think the awareness around the issue is growing, this in turn informs public health.
These are the reasons that I look at it all with a little bit of optimism. On the other hand, I do have to qualify that with saying, you know, there are new chemicals being developed constantly. We need a scientific process to assess health impacts before unknown compounds are released in the market.
Link here to purchase the book.
|
|
|
All rights reserved 2025 - WTNY - This material may not be reproduced in whole or in part and may not be distributed,
publicly performed, proxy cached or otherwise used, except with express permission.
|
| 
| ABOUT 
