‘Forever chemicals' found in blood of 97 per cent of Victorians
The synthetic chemicals – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are found in everyday products ranging from the linings of take-away coffee cups and pizza boxes to carpets and non-stick cookware. Once consumed, they take many years to exit the body.
On Tuesday, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released national and state-level data about the prevalence of 11 types of PFAS in the Australian population and found it is almost universally detectable in people.
The data was also broken down by sex and age, with PFAS concentrations in blood slightly higher in men than in women and gradually increasing from childhood to old age, peaking at age 75 and over. Data was gathered between 2022 and 2024.
The findings were 'in line with expectations' as use of PFAS within products peaked between the 1980s and the early 2000s but has since fallen through efforts to reduce its usage.
'As a result, older people have been exposed to more PFAS in the past, before the decrease in use of these chemicals. This historical exposure, combined with the long elimination half-lives of many PFAS, means that levels of PFAS are likely to be higher in older people,' the ABS said.
In Victoria, PFAS was detected in 97.3 per cent of people, just above the national level of 97.1 per cent. Tasmanians had the highest levels (98.9 per cent) and Northern Territorians the lowest (91.2 per cent).
Stuart Khan, a professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of New South Wales, said the results were 'shocking but not surprising' and broadly in line with results from studies in other countries such as the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
21 new PFAS chemicals identified in Sydney tap water via sensitive testing methods
Australian researchers have found 21 new "forever chemicals" in Sydney's tap water, including one that's been detected in tap water globally for the first time. The researchers from the University of New South Wales sampled tap water from four catchment sites across Sydney, looking for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — a family of chemicals in firefighting foam and everyday products that remain in the environment. Alex Donald, a professor in chemistry and the lead author of the research, said they found 31 PFAS chemicals in total from sites at Ryde, Potts Hill, Prospect and North Richmond. "We knew we would find more than were known, but we actually found 21 that hadn't been reported previously in Australian drinking water," he said. Professor Donald said he wanted to "reassure" the public, however, noting the concentrations are very low. "We're talking about one drop of water in up to 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools. "So very low levels and they're within safe Australian drinking water guidelines, which regulate four distinct PFAS chemicals and their concentrations." He said the chemicals had not been identified until now, likely due to two main factors, including using more sensitive testing methods that can detect low levels of chemicals. The researchers were also looking for specific chemicals in order to detect them. Professor Donald said one of the PFAS chemicals found had not been reported previously in any drinking supply globally. "It has been picked up in various consumer products like food packaging and so somehow that must have made it into the waterway, but we don't know the origin of it," he said. Another significant finding was the first ever detection in Australian drinking water of a compound he described as a "breakdown product of firefighting foams". "And that's only been reported once previously overseas," he said. "Those two are quite rare to see in drinking water." The US Environmental Protection Agency considers there is no safe level of PFAS in drinking water, due to health risks it presents to humans, but the Australian government guidelines state there is a safe level of exposure. "Sydney's water meets current Australian standards, but when considering health benchmarks used in other countries, some samples were near or above safety limits," Professor Donald said. 'I still drink the tap water, and the experts are saying it's safe, but I think it does give you pause about just what is in there and I would like to see more research about detecting chemicals and seeing how prevalent it is." The research comes at the same time as the release of the findings of an expert advisory panel established by NSW Health. It found that based on "substantial research already undertaken, the health effects of PFAS appear to be small". The report says at present there is "no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood rest for PFAS" and that "clinical interventions that reduce blood PFAS are of uncertain benefit and may cause harm". The expert panel was made up of speciality practitioners, including leading science and health experts in the fields of oncology, endocrinology, toxicology, cardiology, epidemiology, pathology, primary care, public health and risk communication.
