Major warning over Legionnaires' disease outbreak after three Potts Points residents admitted to hospital
Three people living in Potts Point, in central Sydney, have recently developed the disease.
The people, aged in their 40s to 70s, are not known to each other.
Legionnaires' disease is contracted by exposure to Legionella bacteria, and outbreaks can occur when bacteria from environmental sources such as cooling towers atop large buildings become contaminated.
The disease is not spread from person to person.
'People can be exposed to the bacteria if contaminated water particles from a cooling system are emitted into the air and breathed in,' South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Public Health Unit Director Vicky Sheppeard said.
'Legionnaires' disease can develop up to 10 days after exposure,' Dr Sheppeard said.
'Symptoms include fever, chills, a cough and shortness of breath and may lead to severe chest infections such as pneumonia.
'People who develop this disease are diagnosed by a urine or sputum test and chest X-ray and usually require antibiotic treatment in hospital.
'Those most at risk are elderly people, people with underlying lung or other serious health conditions, and people who smoke.'
NSW Health and City of Sydney have inspected and sampled all cooling towers within 500 metres of the infected residents' homes, and have requested that all cooling water systems in the broad investigation area be disinfected.
'Building owners should ensure that their cooling towers are operated and maintained in compliance with the NSW Public Health Regulation 2022,' NSW Health said.
NSW Health urged anyone experiencing symptoms of illness to seek medical advice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
6 days ago
- The Advertiser
Major finding on health effects of PFAS revealed by NSW Health panel
The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence". The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence". The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence". The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence".
News.com.au
6 days ago
- News.com.au
Widespread PFAS exposure, but cancer risk ‘low,' experts confirm
There is 'considerable concern' among communities about exposure to so-called 'forever chemicals' found in everyday products and their potential health risks. However, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence, experts say the health effects appear to be small and individual blood testing offers no clear medical benefit. The NSW Health Expert Advisory Panel on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) has released its final report, delivering clear guidance on the health effects of these widely found 'forever chemicals', the value of blood testing, and the best ways to communicate risks to communities. PFAS have been used since the 1940s in products resistant to heat, stains, grease, and water, but concerns have grown worldwide about their presence in the environment and potential health impacts. The panel, made up of leading clinical experts across toxicology, oncology, cardiology, public health, and risk communication, evaluated the latest Australian and global research to inform health advice. While acknowledging the body of research for health effects related to PFAS is 'large and still growing', the panel concluded that the health effects of PFAS 'appear to be small'. It noted links between PFAS exposure and conditions including high cholesterol, reduced kidney function, immune system changes, hormone alterations, liver enzyme changes, menstruation issues, lower birthweight, pregnancy high blood pressure, and some cancers. However, the panel stressed the evidence was inconsistent, with 'limited evidence of a dose-response relationship' and difficulty separating PFAS effects from other factors that can affect health, especially in studies with PFAS levels similar to the general population. It also highlighted the influence of bias and confounding factors such as smoking, diet, and age. Addressing widespread public concern about cancer, the panel said it remained confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low based on the human epidemiological studies and levels of exposure in the Australian population. The panel noted that while the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PFOA as 'cancer causing' and PFOS as 'possibly cancer causing', IARC's findings didn't specify safe exposure levels, how much exposure increases risk, or how big that risk might be. PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) are specific types of PFAS. The panel stressed that, despite these hazard classifications, the actual cancer risk from PFAS in Australia was low based on studies and typical exposure levels. One of the panel's strongest messages is that there is 'no clinical benefit' for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS. The report stated that PFAS chemicals appeared in more than 95 per cent of people tested, showing widespread exposure from multiple sources. Because PFAS are so common, the expert panel said blood tests were hard to interpret and didn't predict health outcomes, so it didn't recommend individual testing. Although levels have been declining over the past 20 years, high background exposure makes studying health effects challenging. The panel supports ongoing population monitoring to track changes This stance differs from 2022 guidance by the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), which suggested blood testing might guide clinical care. The NSW panel pointed out limitations in NASEM's approach, including reliance on studies with small effects and possible bias, and noted that US agencies like the CDC and ATSDR have not adopted NASEM's recommendations for individual blood testing. The panel also advised against interventions such as phlebotomy or cholesterol-lowering medications to reduce PFAS in the blood, calling their benefits 'uncertain' and warning they 'may cause harm' like anaemia or medication interactions. Instead, clinicians are urged to focus on 'usual preventative health interventions' to support patients. Recognising 'genuine concern' in parts of the community about exposure to PFAS and the potential health impacts, the panel stressed that risk communication must be 'tailored to the diverse levels of concern' and continued transparency maintained. The panel stated that reliable epidemiological studies required 'well characterised' exposures, measured confounders, and sufficiently large populations; conditions 'not currently met in the Blue Mountains population or in other communities in NSW'. It urged authorities to avoid using currently available human epidemiological studies to derive threshold levels due to the higher risk of bias and confounding. Instead, it supported continuing Australia's conservative approach of setting exposure limits based on animal studies with safety factors, such as those by the National Health and Medical Research Council. NSW chief health officer Kerry Chant said updated NSW Health advice provided consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure. 'There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously,' Dr Chant said. 'NSW Health will continue to support local clinicians with information for GPs who may be managing patients with concerns about PFAS exposure, including evidence about potential adverse health effects, counselling patients, the utility of blood tests for PFAS and the role of further investigations.'
The Age
6 days ago
- The Age
Blue Mountains residents could reduce PFAS by donating blood, GPs told
A NSW Health webinar on PFAS for general practitioners painted the forever chemicals as low risk for human health and discussed whether patients should reduce exposure by donating blood, while researchers have found 21 new PFAS types in Sydney tap water, on top of what was previously known. Ahead of its own expert panel reporting on the latest evidence on PFAS and public health, which is expected imminently, Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant hosted an hour-long webinar with six other experts in late July to guide GPs and health practitioners in the Blue Mountains in 'supporting patients with concerns about PFAS exposure'. Professor Nick Buckley, an expert in clinical pharmacology at the University of Sydney and one of six presenters besides Chant in the webinar, said the levels of PFAS exposure in humans were mostly 'tiny traces' and there was limited or no evidence for a strong link with human disease, including cancer and high cholesterol. 'People should not be getting terribly worried about PFAS – I know that's a really hard thing,' Buckley said. 'There's a lot of reasons to think that we're spending a lot of time on something that actually isn't very important for people's health.' The webinar presented a case study of a 60-year-old woman who wanted to know if her high cholesterol was due to her high PFAS levels, measured at 19 nanograms per millilitre of blood for PFOS, 2 ng/ml for PFOA , and 11 ng/ml for PFHxS. If she were in the US, her total PFAS levels of 32 would be above the threshold of 20 set by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) and she would be given further testing and screening. Professor Alison Jones, executive director at the Sunshine Coast Health Institute, told the webinar that she would focus on the patient's cholesterol and cardiovascular risk. 'I would not be doing anything about the PFOS, PFOA or any other thing that starts with P and has F to follow – because of relative risk,' Jones said. PFAS – or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are a family of synthetic chemicals prized for their resistance to heat, grease and water, and used in a wide range of everyday products such as stain-resistant fabrics, cleaning products and firefighting foams. They are often dubbed 'forever chemicals' because they don't break down naturally, and can persist in the environment and human body for decades. NASEM has conducted a systematic review of the evidence and found that certain PFAS, specifically PFOA, are carcinogenic to humans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. However, Buckley said the NASEM guidelines on sensible screening for an individual were 'pretty terrible' and amounted to a recommendation that patients should have cholesterol testing, which was already routine. He noted that the 'strongest conclusions' that PFAS was carcinogenic came from IARC, but said this was 'just some subgroup of the WHO', not WHO itself.
