Dangers of PFOS and PFOA

Williamtown water contamination highlights dangers of PFOS and PFOA

THE morning Rhianna Gorfine found out the food and water on her NSW farm had potentially been contaminated for years, her day began like any other.

Ms Gorfine and her husband Cain were hustling to get their children ready for school when the email came through. A friend had sent through a link to a local newspaper story saying “you should read this and let people know”.

“I remember thinking, this is unbelievable, this is crazy,” Ms Gorfine told news.com.au.

“I had to get Cain off the couch to stop him reading it, saying ‘we’ve got to get the kids to school’”.

The article that disrupted their routine that morning was every parent’s worst nightmare.

It informed them that toxic chemicals used in firefighting foam had leaked from the nearby Williamtown RAAF Base, and been found in some water and fish around their semirural area, 15km north of Newcastle in NSW.

Residents were told not to drink bore water or to eat any fish or eggs produced in the area. All forms of fishing in Fullerton Cove, including for prawns and fish, has been banned for months as testing continues.

Some Australians may be shocked that this could be happening in a country known for its clean environment. But the residents around the base are not the only ones battling the impacts of these toxic chemicals. In fact the chemicals involved have been used in many everyday products.

The Department of Defence is investigating another 15 sites for contamination, and chemicals have already been detected in other areas of Queensland and Victoria.

Two of the chemicals found in Williamtown water have been linked to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and medically diagnosed high cholesterol in humans.

The same chemicals can also be used in common household items including non-stick frying pans, camping and weatherproof gear.

So should the public be concerned about these chemicals? Here’s what you need to know.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE CHEMICALS?

You’ve probably never heard of PFOS or PFOA but if you have ever used a non-stick frying pan, gone camping, worn a waterproof jacket or lived close to an army base or training ground for firefighters, you may have been exposed to them.

In fact both these chemicals have been found in the blood, urine and breast milk of Australians.

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are man-made compounds that have been used in a range of industrial, commercial and domestic products for decades.

In particular they have been used to make firefighting foams in Australia for nearly 50 years because they are so good at putting out liquid fuel fires. They are still regarded as the most effective way to fight fires where lives are at risk, as could occur in an air crash.

The problem is that the chemicals can’t be broken down easily (if at all) but they can easily move from soil to groundwater and can be transported long distances via air and water.

Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith is part of the working group that reviews substances for the United Nation’s Stockholm Convention, aimed at controlling some of the world’s most dangerous chemicals.

She told news.com.au that PFOS and PFOA had been nicknamed “poisons without passports” for their ability to spread throughout the world.

“We already have PFOS contamination throughout the globe now,” she said. “Indonesia or China may use it and Australia may end up with the contamination, or vice versa.”

A study published in 2011 found the chemicals were in drinking water samples collected from 34 locations including capital cities and regional centres in Australia.

Adding to the problem is the fact that the chemicals don’t break down.

“What we use today will be with us for all time, that’s the horrendous thing,” Dr Lloyd-Smith said. “They never degrade or go away, it’s a bit of a nightmare.”

They also remain in the human body for three to five years, mainly in the blood, kidneys and liver.

ARE THEY SAFE?

While the Defence Department claims there are no globally accepted studies showing exposure harms human health, the dangers of these chemicals are being recognised overseas.

Last year an Ohio woman was awarded $1.6 million in compensation after a jury ruled that PFOA contributed to her kidney cancer after a Dupont plant contaminated local drinking water.

As part of the lawsuit, the C8 Science Panel concluded that PFOA could cause kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and medically diagnosed high cholesterol in humans.

Dupont is now facing law suits from an extra 3500 residents near its plant in West Virginia.

In Europe, PFOA is classified as a reproductive toxin and is required to be labelled “may damage the unborn child”.

While the Stockholm Convention has already listed PFOS as a chemical that should not be used, it is still investigating its sister chemical PFOA.

Dr Lloyd-Smith believes PFOA will probably be listed by 2020. It has already passed the first step, with the convention’s review committee acknowledging evidence that it can cause kidney and testicular cancer, disruption of thyroid function and endocrine disruption in women.

Meanwhile the Science Advisory Board of the United States Environmental Protection Agency has assessed both chemicals as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”.

Head of the Defence Estate and Infrastructure Group, Steve Grzeskowiak, has said previously that Defence no longer uses the firefighting foam, following international research which found it contained chemicals which could persist in the environment for decades.

Mr Grzeskowiak said he understood there were no globally accepted studies showing exposure to PFOS and PFOA harmed human health, and studies of US workers exposed to high levels showed no chronic health effects.

“That said, Defence is committed to undertaking ecological and human health risk assessments to

understand current exposure scenarios and associated risks,” he said.

But Dr Lloyd-Smith disagrees.

“There is always an argument from the Department of Defence that there is no scientific evidence that PFOS and PFOA has health effects, but that is a blatant lie as there are numerous published health studies showing serious harm,” she said.

THEY’RE EVERYWHERE

While hardly any countries still make PFOS for use in firefighting foams, the foams are still available in Australia as there has never been a recall or ban.

In a report she is preparing for the convention, Dr Lloyd-Smith notes that there are estimates of a stockpile of 7.6 tonnes of firefighting foam containing PFOS in Australia.

The foams are designated for emergency use only but Dr Lloyd-Smith says there is evidence some fire authorities are still using them.

Its sister compound PFOA is most well known for being used in the manufacture of Teflon, used in non-stick frying pans. Dr Lloyd-Smith said there was half a dozen manufacturers in China that were still making products using PFOA, including in products like non-stick cookware.

“These are making their way into Europe and Australia,” she said. “That’s why we need a UN convention as no country alone can deal with it.”

WHY ARE WE STILL USING THEM?

The potential dangers of PFOS and PFOA have been suspected for years.

The major manufacturer of PFOS, the company 3M, agreed to stop production of its firefighting foam in 2002 because of pressure from the US Environmental Protection Agency, over emerging scientific evidence about its health and environmental effects.

But civilian and military authorities, including the Australian Defence Force, used the foam from the 1970s to the mid-2000s.

In fact the Australian Department of Defence was told 12 years ago (in 2003) that the fire fighting foam they were using contained chemicals that could cause cancer.

But Australia has been slow to act compared with other countries.

Canada stopped the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of PFOS and related substances back in 2006. The European Union has restricted their marketing and use, and the US has severely restricted their use to occasions where no safer alternative is available.

“We are sold the line that we have the best regulatory system in the world but unfortunately that’s not truth,” Dr Lloyd-Smith said.

The United Nation’s Stockholm Convention formally listed PFOS in 2010, which means most countries automatically ban the chemical or phase it out. Technically the listing still allows for the chemical to be used for firefighting purposes but very few countries do this.

More than five years later, Australia has not ratified the PFOS listing, even though it has ratified the convention, and says it no longer uses the foam.

While Australia has never manufactured PFOS or PFOA, it has also never banned the chemicals, or recalled the foam, like it did when the pesticide DDT was listed.

Source: News.com.au

Read More Related Content On This Topic - Click Here

Media

Taxonomy

• Water
• Decontamination
• Water Supply
• Urban Water Supply