More than 200 million Americans could have toxic PFAS in their drinking water

OCTOBER 16, 2020, by Environmental Working Group

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-million-americans-toxic-pfas.html

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

A peer-reviewed study by scientists at the Environmental Working Group estimates that more than 200 million Americans could have the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS in their drinking water at a concentration of 1 part per trillion, or ppt, or higher. Independent scientific studies have recommended a safe level for PFAS in drinking water of 1 ppt, a standard that is endorsed by EWG.

The study, published today in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters, analyzed publicly accessible drinking water testing results from the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geological Survey, as well as state testing by Colorado, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina and Rhode Island.

"We know drinking water is a major source of exposure of these toxic chemicals," said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., vice president for science investigations at EWG and a co-author of the new study. "This new paper shows that PFAS pollution is affecting even more Americans than we previously estimated. PFAS are likely detectable in all major water supplies in the U.S., almost certainly in all that use surface water."

The analysis also included laboratory tests commissioned by EWG that found PFAS chemicals in the drinking water of dozens of U.S. cities. Some of the highest PFAS levels detected were in samples from major metropolitan areas, including Miami, Philadelphia, New Orleans and the northern New Jersey suburbs of New York City.

There is no national requirement for ongoing testing and no national drinking water standard for any PFAS in drinking water. The EPA has issued an inadequate lifetime health advisory level of 70 ppt for the two most notorious fluorinated chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, and efforts to set an enforceable standard could take many years.

In the absence of a federal standard, states have started to pass their own legal limits for some PFAS. New Jersey was the first to issue a maximum contaminant limit for the compound PFNA, at 13 ppt, and has set standards of 13 ppt for PFOS and 14 ppt for PFOA. Many states have either set or proposed limits for PFOA and PFOS, including California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont.

"The first step in fighting any contamination crisis is to turn off the tap," said Scott Faber, EWG senior vice president for government affairs. "The second step is to set a drinking water standard, and the third is to clean up legacy pollution. The PFAS Action Act passed by the House would address all three steps by setting deadlines for limiting industrial PFAS releases, setting a two-year deadline for a drinking water standard, and designating PFAS as 'hazardous substances' under the Superfund law. But Mitch McConnell's Senate has refused to act to protect our communities from 'forever chemicals.'"

PFAS are called forever chemicals because they are among the most persistent toxic compounds in existence, contaminating everything from drinking water to food, food packaging and personal care products. They are found in the blood of virtually everyone on Earth, including newborn babies. They never break down in the environment.

Very low doses of PFAS chemicals in drinking water have been linked to suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns.

"When we look for PFAS contamination, we almost always find it," said David Andrews, Ph.D., a senior scientist at EWG and one of the co-authors. "Americans should trust that their water is safe, but far too many communities have water supplies polluted by toxic PFAS chemicals. These are some of the most insidious chemicals ever produced, and they continue to be used. Our analysis was largely limited to PFOA and PFOS, but many more PFAS are found to contaminate drinking water and the entire class of PFAS chemicals is a concern."

The EPA has identified over 600 PFAS in active use in the U.S. According to the most recent analysis of state and federal data by EWG, 2,230 locations in 49 states are known to have PFAS contamination, including more than 300 military installations.

PFAS contamination has raised alarms among a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress. The PFAS Action Act also includes a provision that would set a two-year deadline for the EPA to establish a national drinking water standard for the two most notorious PFAS chemicals—PFOA, formerly used to make DuPont's Teflon, and PFOS, formerly an ingredient in 3M's Scotchgard.

The House versions of the National Defense Authorization Act and EPA spending bill also include important PFAS reforms.

"It's not too late for this Congress to protect us from the growing PFAS contamination crisis," Faber said.

Recommend this post and follow 

The Coconut Whisperer

https://disqus.com/home/forum/the-coconut-whisperer/

US investigates fire reports in Chevy Bolt electric vehicles

OCTOBER 13, 2020

https://techxplore.com/news/2020-10-chevy-electric-vehicles.html

In this Feb. 13, 2020 file photo a 2020 Chevrolet Bolt EV is displayed at the 2020 Pittsburgh International Auto Show in Pittsburgh. The U.S. government's road safety agency is investigating complaints that the Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicle can catch fire. The probe by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration covers nearly 78,000 Bolts made by General Motors from the 2017 through 2020 model years. 

(AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

The U.S. government's road safety agency is investigating complaints that the Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicle can catch fire.

The probe by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration covers nearly 78,000 Bolts made by General Motors from the 2017 through 2020 model years.

The agency says in documents posted on its website Tuesday that it has three reports of fires that began under the rear seat while the cars were parked and unattended. One person suffered smoke inhalation.

The fire damage appeared to be concentrated in the battery compartment area, spreading into the passenger area.

GM says it's cooperating with the probe and is conducting its own investigation. "The safety of our products is the highest priority for the entire GM team," the statement said. The company would not comment when asked if the vehicles should be parked outside until the cause of the fires is determined.

The safety agency will determine how often the fires happen and assess the safety consequences. The probe could lead to a recall.

In one of the complaints from March of 2019, a Bolt owner in Belmont, Massachusetts, said the vehicle was parked in the driveway and plugged into the charger for a little over an hour when the fire began.

Then the owner found smoke billowing from the rear of the 2018 Bolt, apparently from the battery area. It took firefighters about three hours to control the blaze, and the owners reported headaches from the smoke. GM sent two engineers from Detroit to inspect the charger, and the company bought the Bolt from the insurance company, the owner wrote.

In another fire from July 4, 2020 in Vienna, Virginia, the owner of a 2019 Bolt told NHTSA that the car was driven to a townhouse development with a private parking lot.

Twenty minutes after arriving, a neighbor rang the doorbell and reported white smoke coming from the back of the Bolt. Firefighters doused the car with water for an hour and left the area, but the fire restarted less than an hour later.

Firefighters returned and put out the fire, and once the car cooled, it was towed to a dealer, where the fire started again. The owner wrote that GM is refusing to investigate the fire because the owner called an insurance company first.

The National Transportation Safety Board, a separate federal agency, is investigating electric vehicle fires, and a report is expected soon.

US safety agency opens probe into Tesla fires (Update 2)

Recommend this post and follow 

The Coconut Whisperer

https://disqus.com/home/forum/the-coconut-whisperer/

Antibiotics in chicken a cause for concern? And five other questions about poultry today

By Desmond Ng

13 Oct 2020 07:00AM

www.channelnewsasia.com 

 There are many chicken products today, but the labels can often be misleading. The programme Talking Point investigates the meaty issues here, like how important it is to go antibiotic-free.

 

SINGAPORE: Earlier this year, Benjamin Ang started rearing his own chickens at a community space on Henderson Road; he wanted fresh eggs and premium chickens bred in what he feels are humane conditions.

Valued for their superior meat, the French chickens he rears — poulet de Bresse — are among the world’s most expensive chickens.

A frozen Bresse costs between S$50 and S$70 each, compared with about S$4 for a regular frozen grill chicken that one can find at a supermarket.

“(Bresse) chicken has been described as the queen of poultry and the poultry for kings. They’ve been bred specifically for their flavour and texture of the meat,” said Ang.

“If you’re looking at the quality of the meat or the experience of something different, then I’d say it’s definitely worthwhile.”

resse chickens command premium prices as they require more personal space, and a third of their diet consists of naturally foraged earthworms, insects and grass.

These days, chickens come with many labels, such as corn-fed, free-range and organic, with each variety promising to be environmentally friendlier, healthier and tastier than your average chicken.

But all these labels may lead you to wonder what “antibiotic-free” or “probiotics-fed” really means. And how do these varieties affect the meat’s nutritional value? The programme Talking Point finds out six things you should know when buying chicken.

1. WHAT DO THE LABELS MEAN?

100 per cent organic: To be certified, these poultry must be reared with no antibiotics, provided with 100 per cent organic feed and given access to the outdoors. 

For example, Ryan’s Grocery co-founder Wendy Foo said the organic chickens it sells are from Australia, and when they are sick, essential oils are administered to them, instead of antibiotics.

Antibiotic residue-free: Antibiotics have been administered to these chickens but are removed from their feed a few days before they are slaughtered, so that there is no residue left in the meat when it is processed.

Probiotics-fed: Instead of antibiotic growth promoters, said Kee Song Food Corporation (Singapore) head of business development James Sim, these chickens are fed with probiotics.

In the case of the company’s flagship product, Lacto Chicken, they are fed on lactobacillus to enhance their immune system.

 

WATCH: Is it safe to eat chicken reared with antibiotics? (2:31) 

Free-range: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) generally permits this term to be used if the chickens have access to the outdoors for at least some part of the day.

The USDA has no provision, however, for the duration spent outside or the amount of space provided.

As for kampung chickens, they are a breed of chickens, Foo points out. Originally free-range, they are now highly likely to be farmed in cages.

Factory-farmed: Although not labelled as such, these are the most common chickens sold in supermarkets. Known as broilers, they are bred for meat production.

Kept in cages where the living conditions are typically “not as hygienic”, they are fed with antibiotics “so that they stay healthy”, said Foo.

2. WILL THE ANTIBIOTICS HARM ME?

Antibiotics are used globally by the livestock industry to prevent and treat infectious bacterial diseases, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) said on its website.

Nonetheless, poultry treated with antibiotics “may not be processed for food until a specified withdrawal period has been observed to allow antibiotic residues to be sufficiently cleared from the system”.

The SFA prescribes maximum residue levels (MRLs) “so that we know that the chicken we buy is safe for consumption”, said William Chen, the director of Nanyang Technological University’s food science and technology programme.

There is a strict inspection scheme to ensure that drug residues do not exceed those levels, the professor added.

Just last month, the SFA suspended the import of live chickens from a farm in Malaysia after detecting drug residues exceeding MRLs in samples collected from a consignment of the farm’s chickens.

All imported and local food products are subject to regular inspections and sampling, including for harmful bacteria.

The chances of antibiotic-resistant bacteria going into chicken flesh are also “very low”, as these bacteria are typically found in the bird’s digestive system, said Chen.

“When we cook the chicken, the bacteria — whether they’re antibiotic-resistant or not — will be killed off. So consumers shouldn’t be overly worried about eating chicken bought from the supermarket or wet market.”

3. HOW DOES THE CHICKEN’S DIET AFFECT ITS MEAT?

The texture of the meat depends on the feed, said Foo. For example, meat from chickens fed with bromelain, a digestive enzyme extracted from pineapples, is leaner and firmer as well as lower in fat and cholesterol, she cited.

What an animal eats has an effect on its fat. “That’s where you’re getting a lot of flavour from,” Annie King, from the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis, told the magazine Popular Science.

But not all flavours the animal eats will be carried over into the meat, as some compounds will be metabolised before they make it to the fat, the magazine reported.

4. DOES THE FEED AFFECT THE NUTRITIONAL VALUE?

Regardless of what the chickens eat, the formulation of the feed is such that it provides certain amounts of nutrition.

Farmers would calculate the proportions of raw materials to provide, say, the energy levels the chickens “require for their functional maintenance”, said poultry health expert Lynn Tan.

Some chickens are fed with grains such as brown rice or quinoa, as these ingredients’ “purported health benefits” are well known to consumers.

“This could trigger a positive psychological effect in the consumer,” said the veterinary practitioner. “But in actual fact, it doesn’t increase the fibre content of chicken meat … It’s just a marketing aspect that people need to be aware of.”

She added that she “wouldn’t pay that much more” for chickens fed on brown rice, corn and soya, “because I know that. ultimately, the nutritional formulation will be the same as a typical commercially-fed chicken”.

5. WHY ARE PREMIUM CHICKENS COSTLIER?

A Bromelain-fed chicken costs about S$19 per kilogramme, while a cage-free corn-fed and soya-fed chicken costs about S$23. A 100 per cent free-roaming, organic chicken costs S$42/kg.

They cost a premium because antibiotic growth promoters are usually not administered to them, so they take longer to reach the ideal size for slaughter.

For example, it takes at least 56 days for a free-range chicken and 81 days for an organic one, compared to 40-odd days for a broiler chicken.

Then there is the amount of space given. Organic chickens get the most space, at about 10 chickens per square metre; free-range chickens at about 12 chickens per sq m; and conventional broilers at about 17 chickens per sq m.

Some premium chickens are also fed with slightly more premium feeds, like corn, soya, organic feed, brown rice and probiotics.

6. WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF POULTRY FARMING?

There is a growing number of poultry farmers in Singapore, Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries who are switching to farming without the use of antibiotic growth promoters, and on a larger scale, said Sim.

This is to give consumers a healthier choice “in terms of good-quality protein”.

His chickens even roam in barns with piped music, namely classical music.

“It’s a way to promote a calmer and … less stressful environment. If they don’t feel so much stress, they grow up healthier and their meat is a bit tenderer,” he said.

Source: CNA/dp

 

American French Onion Soup

 

American French Onion Soup

¼ cup unsalted butter

6 large yellow onions, diced

3 Tbsp dry sherry

1 Tbsp sherry vinegar, or to taste

4 cups chicken broth 

4 cups beef broth

3 sprigs fresh thyme

Salt and ground black pepper to taste

6 slices French bread

¼ cup butter, melted

1 cup shredded extra-sharp Cheddar cheese

1 cup shredded Monterey Jack cheese

Step 1:  Preheat oven to 425 degrees F (220 degrees C).

Step 2:  Melt 1/4 cup butter in a large, oven-safe skillet on medium heat. Stir in onions until they are all coated in butter. Transfer skillet to the preheated oven and cook onions, stirring occasionally, until they are tender and well browned, about 1 hour.

Step 3: Transfer skillet to the stovetop; cook and stir onions over medium heat until they start to brown and stick to the bottom of the pan, about 5 minutes. Pour sherry and vinegar into the pan, and bring to a boil while scraping browned bits of onion off the bottom of the pan with a wooden spoon.

Step 4:  Place caramelized onions in a large soup pot. Pour in chicken broth, beef broth, and thyme. Bring to a boil, skimming off any foam and fat that appear on top. Reduce heat to low and simmer for about an hour. Season with salt and pepper to taste.

Step 5:  Preheat the oven's broiler and set the oven rack about 6 inches from the heat source.

Step 6:  Generously brush French bread slices with melted butter. Place on a baking sheet and broil in the preheated oven until crisp and golden, about 5 minutes.

Step 7:  Ladle soup into heat-proof bowls, top each bowl with a piece of toasted bread, sprinkle with 2 to 3 tablespoons of Cheddar cheese and Monterey Jack cheese.

Step 8:  Broil bowls of soup under the broiler until cheese is golden and bubbly, 5 to 6 minutes.

https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/223049/american-french-onion-soup/ 

(Sorry, but there's no video available for this anymore. It's been disabled.)

🌽🍆🍅🍍🍠🍤🍗🧀🍔🍟🍕 🍏🍎🍐🍊Please recommend this page & be sure to follow the Coconut Whisperer which continues the traditions of Cheese the top Food and Recipe channel on Disqus 2017-2019 🌽🍆🍅🍍🍠🍤🍗🧀🍔🍟🍕🍏🍎🍐

Meet the six-year-old pianist who plays Rachmaninoff

By Reuters Staff. October 9, 2020

www.reuters.com 

 

PARIS (Reuters) - When Guillaume Benoliel sits at the piano stool rehearsing Rachmaninoff’s Italian Polka for a forthcoming concert, his feet dangle in the air.

“I’ve met talented people in my career but not like him,” said Benoliel’s teacher, Serguei Kouznetsov.

Guillaume is six years old. His parents, Claire and Dominique - both of them amateur musicians - sent him for his first piano lesson aged four after they realised he could hear a tune and play it back for himself. He also has perfect pitch.

In late August, Benoliel had his moment in the spotlight in Salzburg, the Austrian city and birthplace of composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Bénoliel was selected to perform on stage in a concert after winning two prizes in the Grand Prize Virtuoso competition.

He picked up first prize in the young musician category, and a special prize in the exceptional young talent category.

Away from the concert halls, music is simply a fun experience that he shares with his family. They sometimes play together, and in the evenings Benoliel gives mini-concerts for his parents in the living room of their home southeast of Paris.

“Everyday is full of adventures and pleasure because we both love music,” said his mother Claire, who works in management consulting.

As for his future career, she said she and her partner will let their son decide. But she said whatever path he takes, she hoped music will still be present in his life.

Reporting by Noemie Olive; Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

 

Did social media break us?

By Zaid Jilani 

October 08, 2020 11:00 PM

www.washingtonexaminer.com 

 

It’s become cliche to say social media is ruining society, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of legitimate axes to grind against our Silicon Valley overlords. The Social Dilemma, the new Netflix documentary, reviews many of them.

With a slew of psychologists, data scientists, and former tech industry gurus at his disposal, director Jeff Orlowski takes us through a list of social media’s biggest sins, providing real insight into the underbelly of how the industry operates.

“Every single action you take is carefully monitored and recorded: exactly what image you stop and look at, how long you look at it. Oh yeah, seriously, how long you look at it,” warns Jeff Seibert, a former Twitter executive.

Other whistleblowers tell us about how Big Tech designs its products’ features — think of scrolling the Twitter timeline or Facebook News Feed — to be addictive.

“You don’t know when you’re going to get it, and you don’t know if you’re going to get something, which operates just like the slot machines in Vegas,” says Tristan Harris, a former Google design ethicist who now works at a think tank that advocates for reforming the tech industry.

The Social Dilemma claims that in addition to invading our privacy and addicting us to our screens, Silicon Valley’s products are worsening political polarization, helping spread conspiracy theories and fake news, and even promoting violence.

In perhaps a poor directorial choice, Orlowski’s interviews are accompanied by scripted dramatizations, which feature actors experiencing the impacts of social media firsthand. We see, for instance, a dramatic reenactment of children falling under the sway of an Alex Jones-style demagogue.

These segments are cringeworthy. But both the reenactments and the interviews suffer from the same political bias. The scripted segments feature a conspiracy theorist who denies the existence of climate change, while unscripted segments feature conspiracy theories related to “Pizzagate” and COVID-19 — both associated with sects of the Right.

The film thus gives its presumably left-leaning target audience the impression that conspiracy theories, fake news, and misinformation are largely right-wing phenomena. But we know that’s not the case. After all, it was left-wing social media that took a deceptively edited clip of a confrontation between Covington Catholic High School students and a counterprotester and made it into the basis of a national scandal featured across cable news. Other examples abound. In Minneapolis, a social media rumor that police had killed a black man when the man had actually committed suicide led to a spree of looting and violence. In a desperate bid to stop the chaos, the Minneapolis Police Department decided to tweet a video of the man killing himself. A similar rumor that police shot a child led to more looting and violence in the same city.

If you didn’t hear about these cases, it’s hardly a surprise. Almost all of the political dialogue on social media conspiracies and extremism focuses on the political Right, more or less ignoring what happens on the Left. It shouldn’t be any surprise that the media only began focusing on the negative effects of social media after President Trump’s election in 2016. Former President Barack Obama’s capable use of social media to reach out to voters in 2008 and 2012 simply didn’t get the same level of scrutiny.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t very real issues with our social media platforms. Even a free speech absolutist like me can recognize that services such as Twitter and Facebook are set up to worsen polarization. The problem is not that anyone can set up an account and start broadcasting their opinions, no matter how extreme or ill-informed, but that the services’ algorithms are set up to present you with content you already agree with. They introduce users on both the Left and the Right to more extreme versions of opinions they already hold and lead them to overestimate the popularity of their views.

This is by design. Because users are much more likely to view content they agree with, platforms like YouTube have no incentive to show them content that challenges their beliefs. And when these platforms are designed to be addictive, you will have millions of people sitting behind their laptops and smartphones being fed a steady stream of propaganda that only makes them more stubborn in their own views and more contemptuous of the other side. You don’t have to believe that Russian trolls flipped the 2016 election to see that there’s a problem here.

So what’s the solution?

The Social Dilemma offers few answers: the experts recommend regulating social media companies more similar to public utilities, encouraging more competition, and taxing data collection. But these answers ignore the reality that one reason these platforms are so messy and complicated is that we humans are messy and complicated. Yes, social media algorithms are problematic, but conspiracy theories existed long before the internet. If people are able to speak freely to each other, they will sometimes say things that are not true.

Perhaps the best way forward is to take more responsibility. We can emphasize news literacy so that people can detect fake news without the need for a Silicon Valley nanny state. We can work within our families to set responsible limits on screen time, just as we had to do to combat TV addiction.

It’s easy enough to blame a powerful scapegoat like Facebook for all of the world’s problems. But, to quote another cliche, the fault may not be in our stars, but in ourselves. 

 Zaid Jilani is a Bridging Differences writing fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, Greater Good Science Center and a freelance journalist.