Latest news with #PFAs
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Navy to test water near former base for possible chemicals
MILLINGTON, Tenn. — The Navy is calling for assistance from some Millington homeowners or business owners with private drinking water wells to test for possible chemicals near the former Naval Air Station Memphis. They are sampling water from private drinking wells to ensure it's safe and meets the federal government's guidelines. FBI targets Memphis cargo thefts to combat rising crime Residents are being asked to schedule a sampling appointment by June 27. The Navy says it's doing this because groundwater samples collected in 2023, from the former Naval Air Station in Memphis, exceeded the EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Officials say the groundwater samples contained firefighting foam or other materials with human-made chemicals, also known as PFAs. The Navy wants to determine if the water in nearby private drinking wells contains similar levels. NAS-Memphis-PFAS-FactSheet-May-2025Download Samples are not needed if your water is provided by the City of Millington or MLGW. They say if your water is not publicly owned, your assistance is requested. Officials say you can expect to receive the preliminary results within 30 days. If the water samples don't meet federal guidelines, officials tell WREG they will work with property owners for a solution. The Navy is asking residents to leave a name, property address, and phone number, and a representative will return the call. To schedule an appointment, call 888-671-2560. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Father and son safe after Eastwood Lake water rescue
DAYTON, Ohio (WDTN) – A man is fine after a water rescue in Eastwood Lake on Tuesday. According to Montgomery County Regional Dispatch, the call for a water rescue came out at approximately 1:30 p.m. for Eastwood MetroPark at 1401 Harshman Road. The scene cleared relatively quickly. A statement from Mark Hess, Five Rivers MetroParks Chief of Public Safety, explained what happened. 'A man and his son were jet-skiing on the lake when the son's jet-ski became disabled. The father backed the trailer back into the water to offload his jet-ski and help his son. However, the jet-ski slid off the trailer unexpectedly and started floating away,' wrote Hess. Trump administration moves to roll back Biden-era PFAs water protections According to Hess, the father swam to his jet-ski but when he got to it, his jet-ski did not start. He was too exhausted from swimming to swim back to shore or swim over to his son. Hess said a fellow boater on the lake towed the father and his jet-ski to shore. The DFD Water Rescue picked up the son and towed in his jet-ski. Hess also said both the father and son were okay, and neither had to be treated at the scene. Other responding departments included the Riverside Fire Department and Wright-Patterson AFB Fire Department Water Rescue. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
PFAs found at Salem-Willamette Valley Airport raise health concerns
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – The City of Salem plans to investigate the impact of 'forever chemicals' at the Salem-Willamette Valley Airport. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAs, were found in the soil at a development site at the south end of the property in an area where the Salem Fire Department has done firefighting foam testing. Footwear company Keen moves manufacturing facility out of Portland City officials want to determine whether the chemicals could be harmful to firefighting staff who train there. The Environmental Protection Agency says PFAs have been linked to harmful health effects in people and animals. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
CT firefighters are dying from cancer likely due to their gear. Lawmakers want to help
With cancer the number one cause of death for firefighters, Connecticut lawmakers are considering a bill that would allocate $3 million to replace fire apparatus thought to be causing cancer. Studies have shown over the years that perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs), a class of fluorinated chemicals known as 'forever chemicals' have been linked to cancer and other serious health effects, according to the International Association of Firefighters. The IAFF found in studies that all three layers of firefighter turnout gear, the protective clothing and equipment firefighters wear, contain PFAs. 'We feel very strongly that PFAS is a significant factor in those increased cancer rates,' Brown said. 'We are hopeful that we will never have to put gear on that contains PFAs and that we will see a reduction in cancer rates in the next generation of firefighters.' But though the state has been taking steps to eliminate PFAs from turnout gear and from the firefighting foam used to put out fires, the process is costly, deterring some departments and taking a toll on others who were eager to get potentially safer gear. Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, wrote in his testimony in support of the bill that in 2021 the state 'took an important step by banning the use of firefighting foams containing PFAs. 'However, fire departments that acted early to comply with this law have faced financial burdens as previous reimbursement programs only covered removals completed after July 1, 2023,' Kissel wrote. HB 7120 aims to address the epidemic of cancer among firefighters and also help departments shoulder the cost of replacing PFAs-containing firefighting gear. The bill would establish a pilot program to screen Connecticut firefighters for cancers common to firefighters and require municipalities to provide additional sets of turnout gear to firefighters who are diagnosed with cancer or are at an increased risk of developing cancer. It would also provide grants to departments that still need to replace PFAs-containing fire apparatus and provide reimbursement to those that replaced turnout gear prior to July 1, 2023. Peter Brown, president of the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut, said with firefighters getting cancer at a higher rate than the general population it is imperative to protect them. John Carew, Connecticut State Firefighters Association legislative representative and past president of the Connecticut State Firefighters Association, also said the bill is integral. But Carew also cited concerns with the bill. First, PFAs-free gear is hard to get because just one manufacturer currently is making it. Second, it's expensive. A set of PFAs-free gear costs roughly $4,000, he said. There are concerns also about the durability of the gear. Conventional gear containing PFAs lasts approximately 10 years, Carew said, while PFAs-free gear may last only up to two years. Last year legislators passed SB 292 which bans the manufacturing, selling or distributing of products containing PFAs beginning on Jan. 1, 2028, according to the bill's analysis. The products include apparel, carpets or rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, children's products, menstruation products, ski wax, textile furnishings, and upholstered furniture, according to an analysis of the bill. There are concerns about the PFAs-free turnout gear, too. The National Fire Protection Association has found through testing of the PFAs-free gear that it is 'less breathable and offers less thermal protection, which could lead to higher heat stress among firefighters.' Brown has also learned of those concerns, he said. Waterbury Assistant Fire Chief Javier Lopez said his department decided not to move forward at this time with PFAs-free gear after testing the gear for three months. Lopez said they also cited concerns about heat-related issues related to the gear, which could include potential cardiac issues. Brown said since the legislature passed a law providing firefighters with occupational cancer job protection, there have been 30-35 cancer claims. But he believes that number is higher at around 50. To protect the next generation, PFAs in turnout gear must be addressed. 'They don't have to put the agent back on their body that could have caused their initial claim,' he said.
Powys County Times
19-05-2025
- Health
- Powys County Times
Government ‘could miss chance to tackle chemical pollutants from wastewater'
The Government could miss the chance to ensure chemical pollutants are removed from wastewater as part of its major reforms to the industry, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has warned. The organisation said the cost of cleaning up chemicals from the environment could be left to taxpayers in future unless the UK follows the EU and France to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle. This requires industries responsible for producing or using harmful contaminants to contribute to the cost of their removal or remediation. Wastewater treatment plants in the UK are currently not equipped to remove contaminants of emerging concern (CCs) – pollutants that may harm human health and nature but for which there is little restriction, legislation or monitoring data. CCs include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, illicit drugs and PFAs – known as 'forever chemicals' because they take centuries to break down – that can enter the environment in many ways, including through effluent streams. It comes amid ongoing public outrage at the state of England's waterways, where no river has reported a 'good' status for chemical pollution under current the current monitoring programme. The Government's planned water sector reforms focus on measures to tackle sewage pollution, after utilities have been increasingly dumping untreated wastewater into seas, lakes and rivers during periods of wet or stormy weather. The RSC argued that ministers should use the opportunity of upcoming reforms to introduce measures that help to remove CCs from wastewater as well. Natalie Sims, policy adviser at the RSC, said: 'With so much attention right now on tackling sewage overflows and upgrading wastewater treatment plants, this is a crucial opportunity to address chemical pollutants at the same time. 'If we're already making major changes, we should be ambitious – focusing solely on sewage risks missing the chance to protect our waters more fully and for the long term.' As the UK and EU Summit takes place in London on Monday, the RSC also said the Government should align more closely with Europe on wastewater rules. The EU recently revised its laws to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle, which levies money from industries such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals that cause chemical pollution to fund their removal at wastewater treatment plants. France also passed a bill to tax firms that emit PFAs to the environment. Ms Sims said: 'Unlike recent French and EU initiatives that apply a 'polluter pays' levy to fund the removal of these hazardous substances, UK industry faces no such requirement. 'As a result, taxpayers may ultimately shoulder the costs of tackling contaminants, which we believe is unfair.' An RSC survey of more than 4,000 UK adults, carried out by YouGov in August, found that nine in 10 think it is 'very important' to effectively control levels of the group of chemicals in food, drinking water and the environment. When asked to rank who should be held most responsible for reducing PFAs levels, 74% and 73% of respondents said manufacturers of chemicals and products respectively. This was followed by 58% saying the UK Government was next highest ranked as bearing significant responsibility. However, overall trust that action would to be taken was found to be low, with the UK Government being trusted by 29% of respondents while just 14% said they trusted product or chemical manufacturers to change. Stephanie Metzger, RSC policy adviser, said: 'People were overwhelmingly supportive of stronger controls on PFAs use, making sure that it doesn't get into our water, food or the environment.' She argued that without investing in treatment technology and infrastructure now, the cost to clean up these chemicals later will be a lot higher. 'Once they're in the environment – they're diffuse, they're dispersed throughout water, land, air in all these different areas – it's so much harder to put them back in the jar once you've let them out. 'So from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, you're going to be avoiding a lot more costs by investing in treatment now.'
