Earlier\nthis summer, the state Health Department issued proposed drinking water standards\nfor certain types of contaminants that have been found in the drinking water\nsupplies serving millions of New Yorkers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nstandards focused on three chemical threats: 1,4-dioxane, perfluorooctanoic\nacid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic\nacid (PFOS). PFOA and PFOS endanger public health at very low\nlevels of exposure, resulting in developmental effects to fetuses, thyroid\ndisorders, ulcerative colitis, high-cholesterol, preeclampsia, and kidney and testicular\ncancer. Studies find that exposure to 1,4-dioxane can cause liver cancer\nand chronic kidney and liver effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According\nto an analysis of the most recent government data available, the drinking water\nof over 2.8 million New Yorkers has levels of 1,4-dioxane that are above the\nmost stringent levels recommended for safety. This is also the case for PFOA\nand PFOS for over 1.4 million New Yorkers. And that\u2019s only for communities that have\nconducted testing. One estimate is that\n2.5 million New Yorkers in communities with 10,000 people or less have not yet\nhad their water tested for PFOA and related chemicals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nstate Health Department has recommended that the drinking water supply of any\nNew Yorker does not contain any more than 10 parts per trillion of PFOA, 10\nparts per trillion of PFOS, and 1 part per billion of 1,4 \u2013dioxane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While\nthose levels are small, according to leading environmental and health groups,\nthe proposed levels are not small enough. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\ngroups are calling for maximum contamination levels that are the most\nprotective of human health and are in line with the latest science and\navailable detection and treatment technologies; in terms of PFOA and PFOS, the\ngroups have urged that the maximum level be no higher than 2 parts per trillion\n(combined) \u2013 one fifth<\/em> of the\nproposed level advanced by the Health Department, and that the acceptable level\nof 1,4-dioxane be no more than 0.3 parts per billion or one-third<\/em> the level in the Department\u2019s proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And\nthe impact of unregulated contamination of drinking water supplies has real\nlife consequences. In Hoosick Falls, New\nYork, Saint Gobain Performance Plastics used PFOA for years in their\nmanufacturing process. Many in the town and village became sick with diseases\nlinked to exposure to the chemicals. Other\ncommunities with PFOA water contamination problems include Petersburgh and\nNewburgh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If PFOA, PFOS and 1,4 dioxane had been regulated years ago, communities\nmay not have had to face the pollution problems they are currently contending\nwith. Unfortunately, too often steps to\nprotect water aren\u2019t taken until after a water contamination crisis has already\nunfolded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This is a vicious cycle that the public is counting on New\nYork to break. New Yorkers can\u2019t wait\nfor people to get sick from exposure to dangerous chemicals to take action. <\/p>\n\n\n\n New\nYork has pledged $5 billion in water improvements, but that\u2019s just a drop in\nthe bucket. Water infrastructure needs\nalone are huge in New York state \u2013 it\u2019s been estimated that over the next 20\nyears, New York will need to invest $80 billion to make all the needed repairs,\nupgrades, and replacements \u2013 and that doesn\u2019t include the costs associated with\ntreating chemicals like PFOA, PFOS, and 1,4-dioxane. More state support will be needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\naddition, there is much more to do than simply spending money (although that is<\/em> needed). One key step would be to expand regulation of\ncontaminants already found in drinking water. \nThere are over 80,000 chemicals<\/em>\non the market that are unregulated, which means that even though they may not\nbe safe for public health, they can be in our products or water anyway. PFOA,\nPFOS, and 1,4-dioxane are only the start. New York must test for unregulated chemicals,\nset drinking water standards, and ban the use of chemicals that pose health\nrisks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last\nweek, New York moved one step closer to putting these standards into effect,\nwith the closure of the comment period for their proposed regulations. Environmental and public health groups are\ncalling for the governor and the Health Department to move forward with\ndrinking water standards that align with the latest science. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The\npublic has the basic right and expectation that the water from their taps will\nbe safe to drink. The Health Department must rely on the best science in\nguiding its decisions and move quickly to tackle other hazardous chemicals that\nthreaten drinking water supplies. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Earlier this summer, the state Health Department issued proposed drinking water standards for certain types of contaminants that have been found in the drinking water supplies serving millions of New Yorkers. The standards focused on three chemical threats: 1,4-dioxane, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). PFOA and PFOS endanger public health at very low […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2304"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2304\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2305,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2304\/revisions\/2305"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}