- 2 days ago
Category
🤖
TechTranscript
00:00In 1929 in Chicago, people kept mysteriously dying inside their homes.
00:06It took 15 deaths for the authorities to realize that these people were getting killed by...
00:12their fridges.
00:14Because fridges back then were no longer just boxes of ice.
00:17Instead, they relied on a chemical looping through the back to stay cold.
00:22And the best chemical for this job was methyl chloride, a toxic and virtually odorless gas.
00:27So if it somehow leaked from the fridge, it could kill you without warning.
00:32Other fridges used flammable gases instead.
00:35So a leak combined with a spark from the stove and your house could suddenly go up in flames.
00:40So one company tried to solve this problem.
00:44But in the process, they accidentally created a seemingly magical substance.
00:49Soon it made its way into a huge range of products, which were so popular,
00:54they ended up in nearly every home in America.
00:57But what people didn't know was that these products came at a price.
01:02The chemicals used to make them were being released into the environment,
01:06slowly poisoning everyone on the planet, including me.
01:12You have high levels of a chemical you never heard of.
01:14It shocks me.
01:15Like, where could this have come from?
01:17Almost every living creature, from polar bears to birds to fish,
01:21massive worldwide contamination by completely man-made chemicals
01:26that are fingerprints back to just a couple of companies.
01:30This is a video about one of the biggest chemical cover-ups in history.
01:34For legal reasons, I want to note that this investigation is based on publicly available
01:40documents, recordings, and third-party opinions.
01:43All sources are linked in the description.
01:46The story all began with an attempt to save lives.
01:50In 1936, a chemical company called DuPont set out to find a safer alternative to the gases
01:56used in fridges.
01:58One that was neither toxic nor flammable.
02:01Their lead scientist on the project was a 27-year-old chemist named Roy J. Plunkett.
02:06He was experimenting with a gas called tetrafluoroethylene, or TFE.
02:11It's a pair of double-bonded carbons, each bonded to two fluorine atoms.
02:16One morning, as Plunkett was setting up a test, his assistant picked out a cylinder full of TFE
02:22and twisted the valve.
02:24But nothing came out.
02:28Plunkett thought the gas must have leaked, but the cylinder still weighed about as much
02:32as a full one, so he grabbed a saw and cut the cylinder in half.
02:38Inside, he was shocked to see it was full of a white, slippery powder.
02:45So what happened to the gas?
02:47Well, what the chemist reasoned was that under the high pressure of the cylinder,
02:51one of the double bonds between the carbons and TFE must have broken.
02:54And now, those two carbon atoms each had a bonding site free,
02:58so one of them probably grabbed onto a carbon from a different TFE molecule,
03:02breaking its double bond, and then that molecule did the same,
03:05and the process repeated again and again until all of the TFE was trapped in these long chains.
03:12The gas had polymerized into polytetrafluoroethylene, forming this slippery powder.
03:19Plunkett just wanted to get rid of it, because it ruined his experiment.
03:23But before throwing it out, he decided to do some tests on it.
03:27So he tried pouring water on it, but the water just beat it off.
03:31So he tried acid.
03:33Again, nothing happened.
03:35Then he tried the strongest base he had, but that wouldn't melt it either.
03:41Plunkett went through all of the solvents in the lab, but the powder remained intact.
03:46It wouldn't melt, corrode, or react with anything.
03:49It was seemingly indestructible.
03:52The reason it was so indestructible was because of this bond, the carbon-fluorine bond.
04:00See, out of all of the elements, fluorine is the greediest, the most electron-hungry atom.
04:06Its outer shell is a single electron away from being complete, which would make it perfectly stable.
04:11So fluorine really, really wants that electron.
04:15And because it's so small, compared to most other elements, the protons in its nucleus can get close to the electrons of other atoms.
04:22And because of their positive charge, they pull on them really hard.
04:27So near a carbon atom, fluorine grabs onto one of the carbon's electrons to complete its outer shell.
04:33And this keeps the two atoms bonded together.
04:36But the fluorine isn't done there.
04:39It keeps tugging on the carbon's electrons, pulling them closer to itself,
04:44which makes fluorine slightly negatively charged and the carbon slightly positive.
04:49So now there's an electrostatic attraction that makes this bond even stronger.
04:54Now, in reality, electrons behave more like fuzzy clouds than the orbiting points in this animation,
04:59but the principle still holds.
05:01In terms of energy, this is actually the strongest single bond a carbon can form.
05:05So if other atoms or molecules get close, they're essentially ignored.
05:10And Plunkett's magic powder was completely covered in carbon-fluorine bonds,
05:15so it hardly reacted with anything.
05:19Okay, so he's got this incredibly inert stuff.
05:21Was he really trying to get rid of it?
05:23He actually didn't know what to do with it,
05:24because, like, what do you do with the material that doesn't, you know, react with anything?
05:27But luckily, his employer, DuPont, they were actually working with the U.S. Army on the Manhattan Project.
05:34So they were refining uranium and plutonium,
05:36because, of course, there's a World War II reference in a very tasty video.
05:38You just have to have it.
05:40To get the fuel for nuclear bombs, enriched uranium,
05:43you first have to turn the uranium into a gas, uranium hexafluoride.
05:48It was a nasty chemical that corroded everything.
05:51So all the gaskets, seals, and miles of pipe in the plant at Oak Ridge
05:55had to constantly be replaced, slowing down production.
05:59But then DuPont was like,
06:01listen, we have this seemingly indestructible chemical, right?
06:03It doesn't react with stuff, it doesn't corrode,
06:06so maybe we can try and use it against uranium hexafluoride.
06:09So they get a bunch of this powder,
06:11they cram it together under high pressure to create these cakes, essentially.
06:15Now you had a solid of this material that you could machine into gaskets and cylinders
06:20that you could push into these pipes
06:21and put these tube linings into the pipe,
06:24and boom, it works like magic, like a charm.
06:27The uranium hexafluoride was no match for this magic material.
06:31As Gordon Fee, the manager of the nuclear weapons plant, put it,
06:35there was never a substitute considered, as far as I know.
06:39The material worked so well that the army wanted to use it for everything.
06:44The same gaskets and seals were installed into fuel tanks
06:47and airplane engines to protect them from oil and water.
06:50And weapons manufacturing plants no longer had issues
06:53with the corrosive nitric acid needed to make explosives.
06:56DuPont saw the potential too, so they trademarked the material in 1944.
07:01They didn't trademark it under their name,
07:03poly-tetrafluoroethylene, because admittedly, that name kind of sucks.
07:06So they took TE from tetra, FL from fluoro,
07:09and then they had a bunch of these other miracle materials,
07:12rayon, nylon.
07:14So they took O-N from the end of those,
07:17and boom, Teflon.
07:19Nice. Okay.
07:21That's a good name.
07:22Under the army's order, DuPont ramped up Teflon production
07:25at their test plant in Arlington, New Jersey,
07:27giving their whole supply to the government.
07:29But DuPont struggled to produce enough Teflon
07:32to meet the military's demand.
07:34As their Arlington scientists put it,
07:36the major advantages of poly-tetrafluoroethylene,
07:40solvent resistance, and high thermal stability,
07:42offer obstacles from the standpoint of ease in fabrication.
07:46You could only really mold Teflon into solids,
07:49so gaskets, seals, pipes,
07:51but you couldn't put it into water to make a spray
07:53because it doesn't dissolve in water.
07:54They actually didn't know anything that dissolved Teflon,
07:56but there was an even bigger problem at that point.
07:59To polymerize TFE into Teflon,
08:01you can add a reactive atom or molecule
08:03that will hijack the first carbon double bond
08:06and start the reaction.
08:07This is called the initiator,
08:09and the bond formed between it and the first TFE molecule
08:12releases a small amount of energy.
08:15Then a bit of energy is also released
08:17when the next TFE molecule joins the chain,
08:19and the next, and the next.
08:21And if the process isn't controlled,
08:24the reaction gets very hot very quickly.
08:27And if it gets above 200 degrees Celsius,
08:30TFE rapidly decomposes into carbon and tetrafluoromethane,
08:33which releases even more energy all at once.
08:38This caused a massive explosion
08:40at the Arlington plant in 1944,
08:43killing two workers.
08:45You need a way to dissipate the heat,
08:49take the heat away from the reaction
08:50without it staying in there
08:52and therefore expanding and creating that explosive force.
08:56Yeah, and one of the ways to do that
08:58was to have the reaction happening in water,
09:00because water can absorb a huge amount of energy
09:02before it ever heats up.
09:04But if you inject TFE into a water cylinder,
09:07the gas doesn't dissolve.
09:09Even at high pressure,
09:10most of the TFE just stays on top.
09:13So if you add an initiator,
09:15the polymerization is triggered in one place,
09:17and so it can still cause an explosion.
09:20What you need is some way to disperse the TFE
09:23throughout the water first.
09:25And to do that, DuPont needed help.
09:28In 1951, they purchased a special acid from 3M,
09:32the company behind Scotch Tape.
09:34This acid, called PFOA,
09:36looked almost exactly like Teflon.
09:39It had a chain of eight carbon atoms
09:41covered in fluorines,
09:42but at the other end,
09:43there was a double-bonded oxygen and an OH group.
09:47That's what makes it an acid.
09:49And since there were eight carbons in the chain,
09:51DuPont also referred to the acid
09:52as C8.
09:54The tail end of C8, like Teflon,
09:57was hydrophobic,
09:58but the acid head group loved water.
10:00It was hydrophilic.
10:02So when you add C8 into water,
10:04the molecules rearrange themselves
10:06so that the heads touch the water,
10:08but the Teflon-like tails don't.
10:10They create little bubbles
10:12all throughout the water,
10:13which are virtually dry on the inside.
10:16If you now inject TFE
10:18and stir the whole mixture up,
10:19well, the hydrophobic gas
10:21ends up in the middle of these C8 bubbles.
10:25And those bubbles are dispersed everywhere,
10:28evenly throughout the water.
10:30You know what this reminds me of?
10:32Is soap.
10:34Yeah.
10:34So it's the great combiner
10:36that allows, like, oil and water to mix.
10:38And now if you sprinkle in initiator molecules,
10:41the initiator molecules
10:42also go into these bubbles.
10:43They start the polymerization reaction.
10:45So from TFE to Teflon.
10:47But now,
10:47since it's happening spread
10:48all throughout these bubbles,
10:50the heat is evenly dissipated
10:52throughout the water
10:52and no one explodes.
10:54And since Teflon is now suspended in a solution,
10:57you can spray it onto surfaces like a coating.
11:01This thing doesn't stick to anything.
11:02How do you stick it to the gaskets?
11:04You know, how do you actually use it?
11:06Yeah, yeah, yeah.
11:07That's a good question.
11:08So the trick was actually
11:09the surface had to be really rough.
11:10So what you do is you sandblast it
11:12to create grooves and imperfections
11:14at this, like, nanoscopic level.
11:16Now, if you spray the coating on,
11:18what happens is
11:18if you heat it up,
11:20the water evaporates,
11:21the C8, it also evaporates,
11:23but Teflon,
11:24instead of it evaporating,
11:25it just softens up.
11:27So although there's no chemical interaction here,
11:29now it's mechanically stuck to the surface.
11:31That's how they got it to stick.
11:38With the war over,
11:39the army lifted the secrecy bans
11:41on the Teflon patents
11:42and DuPont was allowed to sell it commercially.
11:45And suddenly,
11:46people all over the world
11:47were coating everyday items in Teflon,
11:49trying to create
11:50a world-changing product.
11:53One day in 1954,
11:55a French engineer,
11:56Marc Gregoire,
11:57tried putting Teflon
11:58on his fishing gear
11:59to prevent tangles.
12:01But then his wife saw him doing that
12:02and her reaction was that
12:04this is absolute nonsense.
12:06No one is ever going to use this.
12:07You should do something
12:08that someone's actually going to use.
12:10So how about you put it on a pan?
12:12Make a pan nonstick.
12:13And once these pans hit the market,
12:15it was a cooking revolution.
12:18Teflon, Teflon, Teflon.
12:20And DuPont knew exactly how to market it.
12:23Even Altmere won't stick to Teflon.
12:26Hey, neat.
12:27Let me try.
12:28And it wasn't just nonstick pans.
12:31Teflon, C8, and chemicals like it
12:32were used in everything.
12:34Slip away contains the magic of DuPont Teflon.
12:36Suddenly, we had Teflon stain-resistant carpets
12:39and stain protection sprays
12:41like 3M's Scotchgard.
12:43Jackets lined with Teflon
12:45were waterproof and breathable.
12:46Vortex is the brand name.
12:49Teflon was so inert
12:50that medical implants made out of it
12:52wouldn't be rejected by the body.
12:54It was used to coat
12:56the Statue of Liberty's steel framework
12:58to save it from corrosion.
13:00And even bullets were coated with Teflon
13:02to minimize the damage they did
13:04coming out of the gun barrel.
13:05The term Teflon was so ubiquitous
13:08that when the Italian mobster
13:09John Gotti was being prosecuted
13:10in the late 1980s,
13:12none of the charges against him
13:13would stick.
13:14So he was dubbed Teflon Don.
13:17By the late 1990s,
13:18the Teflon business generated
13:20roughly a billion dollars
13:21in yearly sales for DuPont.
13:23Teflon has a great future
13:25and its uses will be many.
13:28The chemicals were everywhere.
13:31Even where they shouldn't be.
13:33There's something going wrong
13:34with this water.
13:37They won't tell us what it is.
13:40The man behind the camera
13:41is Earl Tennant,
13:42a farmer in West Virginia.
13:44This is what they expect
13:45a man's cows to drink
13:46on his own property.
13:48He suspected that something
13:49in this creek
13:50was poisoning his cows.
13:51This is 153 of these animals
13:54that I've lost on this farm.
13:57You see the discoloration
13:58in the hair here on her neck.
14:00And they keep trying to tell me
14:01there's nothing wrong
14:02with these things.
14:02I can call the West Virginia
14:04state veterinarian
14:05and the only thing
14:05he asked me is,
14:06do you have a good attorney?
14:10Earl was desperate,
14:11so he hired a lawyer.
14:13He came to our offices
14:15armed with boxes
14:18of VHS videotapes.
14:20He started watching
14:21these videotapes
14:22and, you know,
14:23there was a serious problem here.
14:25There's something wrong
14:27with this cow.
14:28Slobbers are running
14:29through to the ground.
14:30The animals were wasting away
14:32and they were skin and bones
14:34and they had tumors
14:35and black teeth
14:36and you could see
14:37on the videotape
14:38white foam
14:40coming out
14:41of the pipe
14:42on this landfill
14:43next door
14:44with these animals
14:45standing in the white foam.
14:47The hair on their hooves
14:49was being eaten off
14:50by whatever was in the water.
14:53This is a lower pipe.
14:55Do you see
14:56what's coming out of here?
14:58It was a discharge pipe
15:00and it had the marking
15:00of E.I. DuPont
15:02and the moors and company.
15:04And the landfill
15:04that pipe was draining from
15:06belonged to DuPont's
15:07massive factory complex
15:08outside of Parkersburg,
15:10West Virginia,
15:11just six miles away.
15:13That factory
15:14was Washington Works,
15:16the first commercial
15:17Teflon plant.
15:18It provided jobs
15:20for almost 2,000 people
15:21in the town
15:22and DuPont's presence
15:24was felt everywhere.
15:25I have been a resident
15:26of Parkersburg
15:27for 48 years.
15:29I do not work
15:29for the DuPont company,
15:31but I have seen
15:31how their people
15:32have done much
15:33for the cultural growth
15:34of this community.
15:35There are facilities
15:35for tennis,
15:37camping,
15:38swimming,
15:39softball,
15:40and more than 20 areas
15:42equipped for cookouts
15:43and family picnics.
15:44DuPont took care
15:45of the community.
15:47So when the town folk
15:47got word that Earl Tennant
15:49hired a lawyer to investigate,
15:50they shunned him
15:51and his family.
15:53As his sister-in-law put it,
15:54we'd walk into a restaurant
15:56and everybody in the restaurant
15:57would get up and leave.
15:59But Earl wasn't scared off
16:01and neither was Rob.
16:03I thought this was going to be
16:04pretty straightforward.
16:06See,
16:06the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
16:08the EPA,
16:09dictates exactly
16:10which chemicals are safe
16:12to be disposed of
16:13in a landfill
16:13and in what amounts.
16:15We would get those records
16:17and permits
16:17and it would tell us
16:18which chemical
16:19was causing this problem.
16:21But none of those records
16:23were really showing
16:24anything that was
16:26really causing a problem.
16:28You know,
16:28nothing that would explain
16:29that white foam.
16:30Whatever was in Earl's water
16:32wasn't on the permits.
16:34Now,
16:35already in the 1950s,
16:36people knew that Teflon,
16:38specifically PTFE,
16:39was pretty safe.
16:40It's a long
16:41and extremely inert molecule.
16:43So if you ingest it,
16:44your body just flushes it out.
16:46However,
16:47if you heat Teflon
16:48to 350 degrees Celsius,
16:49it starts releasing fumes
16:50that make people sick.
16:52This often happened
16:53to workers in Teflon plants.
16:55Stray PTFE powder
16:56would fall onto their cigarettes
16:58as they were working
16:59and then later
17:00they would accidentally smoke
17:02one of these cigarettes.
17:03Luckily,
17:03the symptoms were mild.
17:05Fatigue,
17:06tightness of chest,
17:07headaches,
17:08and they would usually pass
17:09within 48 hours.
17:10It was called
17:11polymer fume fever.
17:13And even though
17:14it rarely happens today,
17:15it's why you should
17:16never overheat
17:17your Teflon pan
17:18to these temperatures,
17:19especially if you have
17:20pet birds at home
17:21because the fumes
17:22are much more toxic to them.
17:25But Teflon
17:26couldn't have poisoned
17:27Earl's cows.
17:28There were no fumes
17:29or high temperatures,
17:30so there must have been
17:31something else
17:32in the water.
17:33Rob filed a legal request
17:35for all of the Washington Works
17:36operational records
17:37and DuPont
17:38sent them over.
17:40More than
17:4160,000 documents.
17:43A lot of folks
17:45would try to say,
17:46okay,
17:46you want a lot of documents,
17:48we'll give you
17:48a lot of documents
17:49and hope that
17:50there'd be no way
17:52somebody could actually
17:53wade through
17:54all of these files
17:55and all of these materials.
17:57But I'm the kind of person
17:59that I do dig in
18:00and I do want to go
18:01through those documents,
18:02so I actually did
18:03read all of that.
18:04And in those files,
18:05a certain chemical
18:06kept popping up everywhere.
18:09C8.
18:10I never saw
18:12the kinds of things
18:13I was seeing now
18:14in these documents
18:15from DuPont.
18:17In 1961,
18:19the same year
18:19Teflon pans
18:20hit the U.S. market,
18:21DuPont's in-house scientists
18:23tested C8 on rats.
18:25Ingesting as little
18:26as 1.5 milligrams
18:28of C8 per kilogram
18:29of body weight
18:30caused the rats' livers
18:31to grow abnormally.
18:33And a dose of 570 milligrams
18:35per kilogram
18:35was lethal.
18:37For reference,
18:38sodium cyanide,
18:39one of the most
18:39dangerous poisons,
18:41is lethal to rats
18:42in doses of 5 to 15
18:43milligrams per kilogram.
18:45But even though
18:46C8 was less fatal,
18:47it was concerning
18:48for two other reasons.
18:50First,
18:51like Teflon,
18:52its tail is made
18:53of carbon-fluorine bonds,
18:54which makes it
18:55incredibly stable.
18:56So C8 wouldn't break down
18:58in the environment
18:59for decades.
19:00And second,
19:01C8 looks like
19:02the fatty acids
19:03that humans and animals
19:04need for normal functioning,
19:06just with fluorines
19:07instead of hydrogens.
19:08So the concern was
19:09that C8 could get
19:10into the bloodstream,
19:12hitch a ride on the proteins
19:13that transport fatty acids around,
19:14and get almost anywhere
19:16in the body.
19:17And because of the
19:18carbon-fluorine bonds,
19:19humans and animals
19:20have no way
19:21to break down C8.
19:23So it could slowly build up,
19:25mimicking those fatty acids
19:26and potentially disrupting
19:28the systems they regulate,
19:29like the liver.
19:30Toxic,
19:31persistent,
19:32bioaccumulative.
19:33So the concern was,
19:35it's like a ticking time bomb.
19:37It's got more opportunity
19:38to cause harm.
19:40As a safety measure,
19:41that same rat study
19:42suggested that
19:43all these materials
19:44should be handled
19:45with extreme care,
19:47and that contact with skin
19:48should be strictly avoided.
19:50In 1962,
19:52DuPont redid the study
19:53and confirmed
19:54that high doses of C8
19:55kill rats
19:56through injury
19:57to the stomach,
19:58intestine,
19:59brain,
19:59lungs,
20:00and pancreas.
20:01Then in 1965,
20:03they found those
20:04same toxic effects
20:05in dogs.
20:06The evidence
20:07was mounting.
20:12They were even
20:13studying monkeys.
20:14Some of the monkeys
20:15were dropping dead.
20:16These chemicals
20:17were causing toxic effects
20:19in multiple organ systems
20:20in multiple species.
20:23All these studies
20:24weren't being shared
20:25with the scientific community.
20:27And likely,
20:28no one outside of DuPont
20:29would have noticed
20:30something was wrong
20:31if it was not for...
20:33Tooth decay.
20:34The most widespread
20:35of all diseases.
20:36In the 1950s,
20:38tooth decay
20:38was a nationwide problem.
20:40So the U.S.
20:40started adding
20:41inorganic fluorides
20:42like sodium fluoride
20:43to the public water supply.
20:45This helped fight cavities.
20:4816 years after fluoridation,
20:50all children
20:51will have 65%
20:53less tooth decay.
20:55In 1975,
20:57researchers wanted to know
20:58if that inorganic fluoride
20:59was getting into people's blood.
21:01So they sampled blood
21:02from around the U.S.,
21:04and the results
21:04were as expected.
21:06More fluoride in the tap water
21:07meant more fluoride
21:09in the blood.
21:10But they found
21:10another type of fluorine
21:12in the blood, too,
21:13which was organic fluorine,
21:15carbon-fluorine bonds.
21:17And it didn't follow
21:18the same trend.
21:20Well, these researchers
21:21were wondering,
21:22where is this coming from?
21:23Because this is not
21:24a naturally occurring substance.
21:27And they did research
21:28and they found
21:29that 3M
21:30was making
21:31these organic fluorides
21:33things like PFOA.
21:35So they approached 3M
21:36in 1975
21:38asking them,
21:39hey,
21:40we found this stuff
21:42in the general U.S. population's blood.
21:44Could it be yours?
21:46And 3M pled ignorant.
21:49But just three months later,
21:513M compared the spectrum
21:53of organic fluorine
21:54from the study
21:55to their own chemicals,
21:56and it was a match.
21:59Their chemicals
21:59were getting into the blood
22:00of people
22:01all across the United States,
22:03but they didn't tell
22:04the researchers.
22:063M and DuPont
22:07were worried,
22:08so they checked
22:09their own workers' blood.
22:11And they found
22:11that they, too,
22:12were contaminated with C8
22:14at levels
22:15a thousand times higher
22:16than those in the study.
22:18And when DuPont
22:19checked their medical records,
22:20many of these workers
22:22were showing signs
22:23of liver disease.
22:24Meanwhile,
22:25DuPont was dumping
22:26almost 10 tons of C8
22:28into the Ohio River
22:29each year,
22:30and they were piling up
22:32thousands more tons
22:33as C8 sludge
22:34that would leach
22:35from the landfill
22:36next to Earl's Farm,
22:38all while showing
22:39commercials like these.
22:41And the water
22:42that eventually flows
22:43to the river
22:43is collected
22:44at five points
22:45and analyzed
22:46to make sure
22:46we don't pollute
22:47the Ohio.
22:48And by the early 80s,
22:49the first cancer study
22:51is done in rats,
22:52and it confirms
22:53PFOA causes,
22:56not just might be linked with,
22:57but causes,
22:59testicular tumors.
23:00All right?
23:01That sends alarm bells off
23:03within the company
23:04because the concern
23:05is, of course,
23:06we're putting this
23:07in the air,
23:08we're putting it
23:08in the water,
23:09it's in Teflon.
23:10DuPont collected samples
23:12around Washington Works,
23:13and C8 wasn't just
23:14in the river,
23:15it was in the public
23:16water supply.
23:18So in 1984,
23:19DuPont officials
23:20met to assess
23:21whether C8
23:22should be swapped
23:23for a safer chemical,
23:25but their conclusion
23:26was that currently
23:27none of the options
23:28developed are,
23:29from a fine powder
23:30business standpoint,
23:32economically attractive.
23:33So C8 stuck around,
23:36and DuPont just came up
23:37with a safe dose
23:38for drinking water.
23:40DuPont scientists
23:41are the first people
23:42on the planet
23:42to say what would be
23:44a safe level for humans.
23:45They calculated
23:46something like
23:470.6 parts per billion,
23:50which they rounded
23:51up to one.
23:52And the importance
23:53of that is,
23:53at that time,
23:54that was about
23:55the lowest level
23:56you could detect
23:57in water.
23:58Essentially,
23:59if we can detect it,
24:00it's too high.
24:02So to put that
24:03into perspective,
24:04here is one
24:052,500 liter tank
24:07of water
24:07if filled to the brim.
24:09Now imagine you take
24:10one drop of PFOA,
24:120.05 milliliters,
24:14and you place it
24:14not in one of these tanks
24:15or two or three,
24:1720 of these tanks.
24:19That's one part
24:20per billion,
24:20and that's the number
24:21DuPont thought
24:22would be unsafe
24:23for humans to drink.
24:24And after determining
24:25its own safety metric,
24:27DuPont tested
24:28the landfill wastewater
24:29leaching into Earl's Creek.
24:31It came back
24:31at 1,600 parts per billion.
24:34They didn't tell anybody.
24:37So at that point,
24:38I thought I had figured out
24:39what had finally happened
24:40to the cows.
24:42Rob compiled
24:43all the evidence
24:44into a 900-page letter
24:46and sent it to the EPA,
24:47the Department of Justice,
24:49and even the U.S. Attorney General.
24:51And just a few months later,
24:53DuPont settled
24:54with Earl Tennant
24:55and his family
24:55for an undisclosed sum,
24:57although they didn't admit
24:58to any wrongdoing.
25:01But this stuff
25:02wasn't just in the water
25:03the cows were drinking.
25:04This was in
25:06the surrounding community's
25:07public wells, right?
25:09People around Mr. Tennant,
25:10the tens of thousands
25:11of people in that community
25:13had likely been drinking this
25:14for decades
25:15and didn't know.
25:16So Rob sued DuPont again,
25:19now on behalf
25:19of the 70,000 people
25:21around Parkersburg
25:22who were unwittingly
25:24exposed to C8.
25:25And it wasn't just
25:26Parkersburg
25:27or West Virginia.
25:29In the year 2000,
25:30researchers analyzed
25:31blood samples
25:32from thousands of Americans
25:33all across the country.
25:35And 100% of those samples
25:37came back positive for C8
25:40at an average
25:41of five parts per billion.
25:43But if virtually everyone
25:45in the U.S. is contaminated,
25:47how harmful could C8 really be?
25:50This is exactly
25:51what Rob had to find out
25:52to have a fighting chance
25:53against DuPont.
25:55So in 2005,
25:56he spearheaded
25:57a medical study
25:58of everyone
25:58around Washington Works.
26:01Scientists need to know
26:02if the chemical C8
26:03causes any health problems.
26:04By completing a health questionnaire
26:06and having your blood tested,
26:07you can help.
26:08Analyzing the blood samples
26:10and medical records
26:10took seven long years.
26:13And many in Parkersburg
26:14passed away
26:15before a verdict
26:16was even reached,
26:16including Earl
26:17and his wife Sandra.
26:20But finally,
26:21in 2013,
26:22an independent science panel
26:24had the results.
26:25They confirmed
26:26a probable link
26:27between C8
26:28and six human diseases,
26:30including thyroid disease,
26:31testicular cancer,
26:33and kidney cancer.
26:34And these findings
26:35were based solely
26:36on the nearby community,
26:38with an average C8 blood level
26:39of 28 parts per billion.
26:42So, for example,
26:42an average American male
26:44has around a 1 in 43 chance
26:45of developing kidney cancer.
26:47It's around 1 in 73
26:48for females.
26:49But a person
26:50with more than 30 parts per billion
26:51of C8 in their blood serum
26:53might have about
26:54double the odds.
26:55So, roughly 1 in 22 for males
26:57and 1 in 37 for females.
27:00But the data
27:00in many of these studies
27:02only included survivors,
27:03not people who might have
27:04already died
27:05from C8 exposure.
27:07So, the verdict was that
27:08the findings must be
27:09interpreted with caution.
27:11The true risk of C8
27:12might be even higher.
27:15Luckily,
27:16once these studies
27:17were published in 2013,
27:18DuPont was pressured
27:19by the regulators
27:20to phase out C8.
27:22And by 2017,
27:24they had to pay out
27:24over 600 million dollars
27:26to victims of C8 exposure.
27:29Which is a pretty small price
27:30to pay for a company
27:31that made almost 80 billion dollars
27:33in sales just that year.
27:36And all throughout,
27:37DuPont denied any wrongdoing.
27:40But that wasn't the end of it
27:41for Parkersburg
27:42or anyone else.
27:44Because DuPont
27:45separated its entire
27:46Teflon business
27:47into a spin-off company,
27:49Chemors,
27:49that agreed to use
27:50a different chemical.
27:53So, what was it?
27:54They simply took C8
27:56and knocked two carbons off
27:58and started making C6.
28:01They called it Gen X.
28:03Because it was shorter
28:04and had an oxygen atom
28:05interrupting the carbon chain,
28:07it was expected
28:08to be more degradable.
28:09So Chemors claimed
28:10a dose as high
28:11as 70 parts per billion
28:12of Gen X in drinking water
28:14would still be safe.
28:16That chemical gets shipped
28:17to the same plant
28:18in West Virginia.
28:20So now Gen X
28:21goes into the air.
28:22Gen X goes into
28:23the Ohio River.
28:24Gen X is found
28:25in public water supplies.
28:27So Gen X is allowed
28:28to come out into the world,
28:30be used in Teflon.
28:32Then the cancer study
28:34is done,
28:34which shows Gen X
28:36causes the exact same
28:37three tumors in rats
28:39that PFOA did.
28:41Liver,
28:42testicular,
28:43and pancreatic.
28:44And the fact that
28:45its chain is shorter
28:46also makes Gen X more mobile.
28:48So it could contaminate
28:50larger areas.
28:51The truth is,
28:52we just don't know
28:53enough about it.
28:54And that's exactly
28:55the problem.
28:56It took us decades
28:57to get to the point
28:58of finally addressing C8.
29:01They simply tweak it a bit,
29:02change the chemical name.
29:04All of the science
29:05and all of the concern,
29:07that's on C8.
29:09This is C6,
29:10or C9,
29:11or C4.
29:12You don't have
29:13enough evidence
29:14that these other ones
29:16are bad.
29:16This is whack-a-mole.
29:18We get to the point
29:19where addressing one
29:19and the new one pops up
29:21and we're told
29:21we have to start over.
29:23And it isn't just
29:24C8 or Gen X.
29:26They belong to a family
29:27of over 14,000
29:29different man-made chemicals,
29:30all covered in
29:31carbon-fluorine bonds.
29:33And companies can make them
29:34however they want.
29:35C7s,
29:36C9s,
29:37branched,
29:38polymers,
29:38acids.
29:39The generic term
29:40for all of these substances
29:42is PFAS,
29:43per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
29:46And like Teflon,
29:48they have almost
29:48magical qualities.
29:50They repel liquids,
29:52so PFAS are used
29:53to make clothing waterproof.
29:54They're also
29:55grease-resistant,
29:56so we coat things
29:57like fast food wrappers
29:58and microwave popcorn bags
30:00in PFAS
30:00to prevent stains,
30:01waterproof lipstick
30:03and mascara,
30:04hygiene products,
30:05and even contact lenses
30:06have PFAS in them.
30:07Even the screen
30:08you're watching this on
30:09likely has a PFAS
30:11anti-smudge coating.
30:14The trouble
30:15is that the same
30:16carbon-fluorine bonds
30:17that make PFAS
30:18so stable
30:19and useful
30:20in consumer products
30:21also make them
30:22incredibly persistent
30:23in the environment.
30:24Which is why
30:25you might also know PFAS
30:26under a different name,
30:28Forever Chemicals.
30:29They have been found
30:31everywhere,
30:32from bustling cities
30:33to untouched areas
30:35of wilderness.
30:36Every continent,
30:37including Antarctica,
30:38has PFAS all over it.
30:41Almost every living creature,
30:43from polar bears
30:44to birds
30:46to fish,
30:46I mean,
30:47this stuff is being
30:48found everywhere.
30:49So,
30:50massive worldwide contamination,
30:52but by completely
30:54man-made chemicals
30:56that are fingerprints,
30:58back to just a couple
30:59of companies.
31:01Even though companies
31:02knew how dangerous
31:03these chemicals were
31:0450 years ago,
31:05they decided not
31:06to inform the public
31:07and the regulators.
31:08So,
31:09we're only finding out
31:10about this global
31:11contamination now.
31:12And there have been
31:13many cases
31:14where important
31:15public health information
31:16doesn't get widely
31:17disseminated for years.
31:19And whenever that happens,
31:20media coverage
31:21can be inconsistent,
31:22which is why
31:22I've partnered up
31:23with Ground News
31:24as the sponsor
31:25of this video.
31:26Their platform reveals
31:28how stories like these
31:29are covered
31:29across the media landscape.
31:31For example,
31:32a recent study suggested
31:33that 23 million Americans
31:35were exposed to
31:36forever chemicals
31:37through wastewater.
31:38But you probably
31:39haven't seen the story
31:40since fewer than 40
31:41outlets even published it.
31:43And take a look
31:44at how different
31:45some of these headlines are.
31:47With Ground News,
31:48you can also see
31:48that government-funded sources
31:50had limited reporting
31:51of this story.
31:52And only 9% of the publications
31:54were right-leaning.
31:55So Ground News
31:57flagged this
31:57as a potential blind spot.
31:59It's highlighted
32:00on their blind spot feed
32:01where you can see stories
32:02that are disproportionately
32:03covered by one side
32:05of the political spectrum.
32:07The whole point
32:08of Veritasium
32:09is to make videos
32:10that get to the truth,
32:11whether that's
32:11explaining misconceptions
32:12or getting to the bottom
32:14of potentially dangerous chemicals.
32:16Ground News
32:16helps us do that
32:17and they can help you too.
32:19So if you, like us,
32:20care about getting to the truth,
32:22go to ground.news
32:23slash VE
32:24or scan this QR code.
32:26Our link gets you
32:2740% off their Vantage plan.
32:29And now,
32:30back to PFAS.
32:33Okay.
32:34Now I want to find out
32:35how much of these chemicals
32:38is actually in my blood.
32:39So I have a little test here.
32:43Duh.
32:44I hate the idea
32:46of drawing my own blood.
32:48Okay.
32:53That was pretty easy, actually.
32:54I was really worried
32:55that there was not
32:56going to be enough blood
32:57coming out.
32:58But no, there's plenty.
33:01So the question is,
33:02how much of these
33:04dangerous chemicals
33:04are in my blood?
33:07Has anyone ever come back
33:08with blood that has
33:09zero PFAS whatsoever?
33:11I've been doing
33:12blood testing on PFAS
33:13since 2007
33:14and I've never seen
33:15a non-detect.
33:16No way.
33:17So I hear that
33:1898% of the population
33:20has PFAS in their blood,
33:21but I'm looking for
33:22that 2% that doesn't
33:23because I've yet to see them.
33:25That's incredible.
33:26I mean, very, very bad
33:28incredible, but wow.
33:30But if everyone on Earth
33:32has trace amounts
33:33of these chemicals
33:34in their blood,
33:35how much harm
33:35could they really be doing?
33:37I want to make a distinction
33:38because it turns out
33:39not all PFAS
33:40are equally dangerous.
33:42You can kind of
33:42split them up
33:43into two groups.
33:44First up,
33:44you have long,
33:45repeating chains
33:46of carbon-fluorine bonds
33:47that are tens
33:48or hundreds of thousands
33:49of atoms long.
33:51So stuff like Teflon.
33:52These are so big
33:53and inert
33:53that even if you do
33:54ingest them,
33:55your body's just
33:55going to flush them out.
33:56They can't be absorbed
33:57into your bloodstream,
33:58so you're pretty safe.
34:00They're called
34:00fluoropolymers
34:01because of the long,
34:02repeating chains
34:03of carbon and fluorine bonds.
34:04But the catch is,
34:05to make these
34:06fluoropolymers,
34:07stuff like Teflon,
34:08you need to use
34:08processing aids,
34:09things like PFOA
34:10or Gen X,
34:12and those are the nasty ones.
34:13These molecules are 5 to 10 carbons long,
34:15which makes them small enough
34:17to actually enter the bloodstream.
34:19They have functional groups
34:20at the ends
34:21that are usually acids.
34:22The most common ones
34:23are perfluoroalkyl acids,
34:26which means that they can bind
34:27to the proteins in your blood
34:28and be transported
34:29anywhere in the body.
34:31So they slowly accumulate
34:32and build up over time.
34:35Now,
34:35there are more than just
34:36two groups of PFAS
34:37and even different definitions
34:38of what PFAS even are,
34:40but most of what we know
34:41really relates
34:42to just a handful
34:43of chemicals
34:44from this group here
34:45to these perfluoroalkyl acids.
34:48Perhaps the most
34:50comprehensive document
34:51on PFAS toxicity
34:52was published in 2022
34:53by the National Academies
34:55of Sciences,
34:56Engineering,
34:57and Medicine.
34:57And it looked at
34:59only seven
35:00perfluoroalkyl acids.
35:02These are sister chemicals
35:03to PFOA
35:04and some of them
35:05like PFOS
35:06and PFHXS
35:08were used heavily
35:09in the production
35:10of stain
35:10and water-resistant products
35:12like 3M's Scotchgard
35:14before they too
35:15got phased out
35:16due to toxicity concerns.
35:18The report surmised
35:20that if the sum
35:21of these seven acids
35:22in your blood
35:22is below two parts per billion,
35:24there shouldn't be
35:25any harm.
35:27If your level
35:27is between two
35:28and 20 parts per billion,
35:29there's a potential
35:30for harmful health effects.
35:32Although the exact mechanism
35:34by which PFAS cause harm
35:35isn't fully understood,
35:37exposure has most
35:38consistently been
35:39associated with
35:40high cholesterol,
35:41a decreased immune system
35:42response to vaccines
35:43and infections,
35:45kidney cancer,
35:46and decreased growth
35:47in infants.
35:48But PFAS have also
35:49been linked to
35:50dozens of other conditions.
35:52And above 20 parts per billion,
35:53the risk is even greater.
35:56So where do I fall
35:57on this graph?
36:00Right.
36:00So I have a result here.
36:02You're not going to tell me
36:03what yours were
36:03before I see mine?
36:05No.
36:06All right.
36:07You're positive
36:08for PFOA.
36:10Okay.
36:10The level for PFOA
36:12for a U.S. person
36:14went down from
36:15five parts per billion
36:16around the 2000s
36:17to around 1.46
36:19what you have.
36:20So you're super average
36:21for a U.S. person.
36:24Great.
36:24Okay.
36:25The good news is though,
36:25no Gen X
36:26for you or for me,
36:28which is great.
36:29All right, let's go.
36:29But the real surprise,
36:32I guess,
36:32is PFOS,
36:33the sister chemical.
36:35And it was used
36:35in a similar way.
36:36So stain-resistant carpets,
36:37treated clothing,
36:38and your result
36:38is at 8.93 parts per billion.
36:41Whereas the U.S. average
36:42is 4.3.
36:45Yeah.
36:46That's crazy.
36:47Yeah, it is crazy
36:48because it was discontinued
36:49pretty much in 2002.
36:52This is not the results
36:53I expected.
36:54I honestly expected
36:54very boring results
36:55of like,
36:56yeah,
36:56you're around
36:57the middle of the pack
36:58or a little bit
36:59on the low side.
37:00And then for PFH excess,
37:03basically PFOS,
37:04but 6 instead of 8 carbons.
37:05Your levels here
37:06are almost 7 parts per billion,
37:08but the U.S. average
37:09is 1 part per billion.
37:11You're higher
37:11than 95% of Americans.
37:13It just is,
37:13like,
37:14it shocks me
37:15because like,
37:15I was fully walking
37:16into this meeting
37:17expecting to be,
37:18you know,
37:18roughly average.
37:19Yeah, to me,
37:20it's scary.
37:20You live,
37:21you know,
37:21you live a normal life
37:22thinking that you're
37:23taking care of everything
37:24and then you have
37:25high levels of a chemical
37:26you've never heard of.
37:27The combined sum
37:28of all the PFAS
37:29detected in my blood
37:30was 17.92 parts per billion,
37:33more than double
37:34the U.S. median.
37:36I'm just below the level
37:37where the national academies
37:39recommend additional screenings
37:41for PFAS-related diseases.
37:43I had no idea
37:44I would come back
37:45with such elevated levels.
37:46I'd love to get the level
37:48sort of down a bit
37:49to a level where I feel
37:50like it's more in line
37:50with the general population.
37:52Yeah.
37:53But like,
37:54where could this have come from?
37:55There are three main ways
37:57we get exposed
37:57to forever chemicals,
37:59and the one you'll hear
38:00the most about
38:00in the media
38:01is likely PFAS-containing products.
38:04Shampoo,
38:05dental floss,
38:05paints,
38:06varnishes,
38:06potentially dangerous chemicals,
38:08dangerous chemicals,
38:09toxic chemicals.
38:10People are throwing out
38:11their non-stick cookware.
38:14My wife threw out
38:15all our non-stick pans
38:16over a year ago
38:16and since then
38:17we've been using
38:18stainless steel.
38:19She is very good
38:19at making it not stick.
38:21Me, not so much.
38:22But are pans
38:23really the problem?
38:24The actual coating
38:26on the pan
38:26is Teflon,
38:27which again
38:28is just a long
38:29inert chain
38:30of carbon-fluorane bonds.
38:31So even if you ingest it,
38:33it doesn't react
38:34with your body.
38:36If you have a pan
38:37like that at home,
38:37you probably don't need
38:38to throw it out.
38:40The same goes
38:41for most other PFAS-containing products.
38:43Waterproof clothing,
38:45stain-resistant furniture,
38:46and sweat-proof watch bands
38:47might all release
38:48some level of PFAS,
38:50but the risk
38:51of direct exposure
38:52through skin
38:53is likely low.
38:55So the bigger problem
38:56is how easily PFAS
38:58from these products
38:58can end up
38:59in the environment.
39:01And many of the factories
39:02that make these products
39:03don't have a good track record
39:05of keeping the chemicals contained.
39:07People don't understand
39:09that the stories
39:10that you see,
39:11for example,
39:12what was happening
39:12in the community
39:13in West Virginia,
39:14this is the same chemical
39:16and the same things
39:18that we're seeing
39:18play out now
39:19in Australia
39:21and in Japan,
39:22in Italy,
39:23in Germany,
39:24in the UK.
39:25I mean,
39:25there are a lot of folks
39:27that are still
39:27not grasping the fact
39:29that these are
39:30the same chemicals.
39:32Our second main source
39:34of exposure
39:34is food.
39:35A lot of it
39:36comes packaged
39:37in PFAS-treated materials
39:39like take-out boxes,
39:40microwave popcorn bags,
39:42and burger wrappers.
39:44It's not a burger wrapper.
39:46Is it a tiny amount?
39:48Is it ridiculously tiny amount?
39:51We actually did tests
39:52at the lab
39:52with stuff
39:54that usually contains PFAS.
39:55So microwave popcorn,
39:57fast food wrappers,
39:58paper cups
39:58that are waterproof.
40:00So I have tap water
40:01here from a house in London.
40:02Could we boil some water
40:04because usually
40:04you interact
40:05with these products
40:06when they're hot
40:07and then see
40:08if any of the PFAS
40:09leaches off
40:09and you potentially
40:11eat them or drink them?
40:12This is Citizen
40:13science, right?
40:13So it's like
40:14there might be some error
40:15but with a solid control
40:17and then
40:18with the same tap water
40:19going to all of them
40:20we can at least get something.
40:21Yeah, yeah.
40:22And even if we get nothing
40:23we'll know that
40:23people are probably safe
40:24using these products.
40:26Right.
40:26Whisk it around.
40:27Yeah, really get that
40:29PFAS in that water.
40:30It's just a story.
40:31Well, it's supposed to be safe
40:33for human consumption.
40:34Yeah.
40:35It's the wild thing.
40:36We sloshed it around there
40:37hot water, boiling water
40:38for around 30 seconds
40:39and then we tested that water
40:40to see if any of the PFAS
40:42that are used to coat these items
40:43would actually make it
40:44into the water.
40:45So here's what I got.
40:46And these are parts
40:46per trillion now.
40:47So for PFOA,
40:49good news,
40:50basically no detection
40:51anywhere
40:52except for the microwave popcorn.
40:53I will say
40:54these are very low levels
40:55but hold your horses
40:57because microwave popcorn
40:58gets worse.
40:59The thing about microwave popcorn,
41:01it's sitting in there
41:02wrapped up
41:03with the popcorn
41:04for months
41:05or years
41:06before you ever
41:07stick it in your microwave.
41:07That gives those chemicals
41:09plenty of time
41:10to like leach
41:11into the oils
41:13and it's going to go
41:14all over the popcorn
41:14and you're going to eat it.
41:16This could explain
41:17some of our own results.
41:18The level for PFPEA,
41:20which is a shorter
41:21variation of PFOA,
41:23came back at 10 parts
41:24per trillion
41:24after the popcorn bag test.
41:27And you can see
41:28similar results
41:28in some of the other
41:29PFAS species.
41:32But then microwave popcorn
41:33actually drops
41:34for PFOA.
41:36Why could that be?
41:36Yeah, we don't actually know.
41:38I was going to say
41:38maybe the PFAS
41:39like went on that wrapper
41:41and found its friends
41:42and just hung out there.
41:44Yeah, could be.
41:44I know we've only done
41:45like one test here,
41:47no repeat measurements,
41:47so we can't conclude
41:49much from this.
41:50But there's something
41:51to be said
41:52for when you're using
41:53these products,
41:53they're going to
41:54leach into your water
41:55and leach into your food.
41:56And research tends to agree.
41:59A 2019 study found
42:01that eating fast food
42:02and microwave popcorn
42:03especially
42:03can increase your PFAS load
42:05while eating
42:06home-cooked meals
42:07doesn't.
42:08But even something
42:09as simple as
42:10reheating your food
42:11on a plate
42:12instead of
42:12in the original packaging
42:13could prevent PFAS
42:14from migrating
42:15to your food.
42:17Now, you might expect
42:18that these
42:18part-per-trillion levels
42:20we detected
42:20in the London tap water
42:21are nothing
42:22compared to the
42:23parts-per-billion
42:24you'd find
42:24in human blood.
42:26But the surprising thing
42:27is that
42:27to have two parts-per-billion
42:29of PFOA in your blood,
42:31you don't need
42:31to drink water
42:32with two parts-per-billion
42:34of PFOA in it.
42:36Because PFAS
42:37accumulate in your body
42:38over time.
42:39So even water
42:40with as little
42:41as four parts-per-trillion
42:42of PFOA
42:43combined with
42:44other exposure
42:45can be enough
42:46to maintain
42:47your blood levels
42:48this high.
42:49And this is why
42:50in addition to food,
42:52water is your biggest
42:53source of exposure.
42:54This is especially true
42:56if you live near
42:56a PFAS factory
42:57where the local water
42:59is often heavily contaminated.
43:01But the same goes
43:02for areas near military bases
43:03or airports.
43:05See,
43:06adding chemicals
43:07like PFOA
43:07or PFOS
43:08to water
43:09lowers its surface tension
43:10so the water
43:11gets more slippery.
43:13And these chemicals
43:14also tend to foam up
43:16so they make for
43:17an excellent ingredient
43:18in firefighting foams.
43:19They spread quicker
43:21and the foam blocks
43:22access to oxygen
43:23extremely well.
43:24And since both
43:25military bases
43:26and airports
43:27frequently do fire drills
43:28with these foams,
43:29they end up seeping
43:30into the surrounding soil
43:31and groundwater.
43:33But it doesn't stop there.
43:35Currently,
43:35we have reached
43:36planetary saturation levels
43:38for PFAS,
43:39which means that
43:40when you look up
43:41at that cloud
43:42and it rains,
43:43it rains on safe levels
43:45of at least
43:45four PFAS species.
43:47It turns out
43:48that our entire water cycle
43:50is contaminated
43:51with PFAS.
43:52So even when it rains
43:54on the Tibetan plateau,
43:55that rain contains PFAS.
43:58To check the water levels
44:00in your area,
44:01you can use these maps
44:02that show PFAS contamination
44:03across the US,
44:05Europe, and Australia.
44:06What about Los Angeles?
44:09Encino.
44:09That's where I spent
44:10like seven of the last
44:1110 years.
44:13Crescenta Valley.
44:15Those are all high.
44:17Yeah.
44:18Santa Clarita,
44:18some PFH excess level
44:20is crazy.
44:22So maybe you're getting
44:23your water from
44:23Santa Clarita.
44:25Wow.
44:26There's a calculator.
44:27It could give you
44:28what an estimate
44:29in your blood serum is.
44:30What we can try to do now
44:31is put that up
44:32in the calculator,
44:32see if you get something
44:33close to what you have
44:34if you want.
44:35Sure.
44:36PFH excess.
44:38So typical value
44:38for an adult
44:39is one part per billion
44:41and then the Santa Clarita water
44:43is around 37 parts per trillion.
44:46If you look after like 10 years,
44:48so after roughly 10 years
44:49of exposure,
44:50you have at half 6.85
44:51parts per billion
44:53in your blood.
44:54And then I can tell you
44:55that you are at
44:56684.
44:57That would explain things.
44:59Now, I can't say for sure
45:00where my drinking water
45:02was coming from.
45:03But if I was consistently
45:04drinking water contaminated
45:05at similar levels,
45:07then that would explain
45:08my results.
45:10But if you're worried
45:11about your own water,
45:12you should contact
45:13your provider directly
45:14for the most relevant
45:15information.
45:16It's concerning
45:17just how unregulated
45:19drinking water has been.
45:21It was actually only a year ago
45:22in April 2024
45:23that the U.S. EPA
45:24finally set legal limits
45:26for PFAS in drinking water.
45:28The safe level for PFOA
45:30went down from DuPont's
45:31initial one part per billion
45:33to four parts per trillion.
45:35So we're no longer talking
45:36about one drop of PFOA
45:37in 20 of these tanks.
45:39We're talking about
45:40one drop in 5,000.
45:42That's five Olympic-sized
45:44swimming pools.
45:45And if there's even
45:46a drop of PFOA in there,
45:49the EPA is concerned.
45:51The same four parts per trillion
45:52limit was also set for PFOS,
45:55the sister chemical.
45:56And Gen X went down
45:57from the 70,000 parts per trillion
45:59initially proposed by Chemors
46:00to just 10.
46:02The same goes for PFH excess.
46:05For reference,
46:05the EPA's limit for lead in water
46:07is 10,000 parts per trillion.
46:09And for cyanide,
46:11200,000.
46:13It gives you a pretty clear
46:14indication of how concerned
46:15the scientific community is.
46:18And just when we got EPA limits,
46:20we got a new administration
46:21in the U.S.
46:22which might be reversing
46:23some of the PFAS bans.
46:25So you can't always depend
46:26on the regulators
46:27and you seemingly can't depend
46:29on the companies
46:30that make this stuff
46:30to dispose of it safely.
46:32So what can you do?
46:35If your water is contaminated,
46:37you might want to consider
46:38getting a PFAS certified filter.
46:41Reverse osmosis,
46:42granulated active carbon,
46:44and ion exchange filters
46:45are all capable
46:46of removing PFAS
46:48out of drinking water.
46:49But the responsibility
46:50to filter drinking water
46:51shouldn't come down
46:53to the individual.
46:54PFAS should be captured
46:55at the source
46:56during manufacturing
46:57before they ever
46:59reach the environment.
47:00And some companies
47:01like Pure Affinity
47:02are developing custom filters
47:04to make that happen.
47:05So very lab looking lab.
47:08Exactly, yeah, yeah.
47:09So could you walk me through
47:10like what all these pipes do
47:11and what do you have in here?
47:13So this water is representative
47:14of where you've had
47:15a big firefighting foam incident.
47:17So you want to filter this water,
47:19but basically the concept is
47:20take it from the top
47:21through the vessel.
47:23As it passes through
47:24this material,
47:25it basically sticks on
47:26to some of the PFAS
47:28chemicals in water.
47:29And then you run into
47:30another part of treatment
47:31and a third one.
47:33To me, it seems like
47:34if PFAS are so
47:35bioaccumulative
47:36and actually persistent
47:38and stable,
47:38they don't really react
47:39with things.
47:40So how do you force them
47:41to react with stuff in here?
47:43Basically taking advantage
47:44of this long organic tail
47:46as well as the polar head.
47:48And so you can have
47:49some electrostatic interactions
47:50with the polar head
47:51and then you can have
47:52some hydrophilic
47:53and hydrophobic interactions
47:54with the tail.
47:55And by combining
47:56these three binding mechanisms,
47:58you increase massively
48:00your likelihood
48:01of binding PFAS,
48:02even if it's still difficult.
48:04Right.
48:04Do the levels drop
48:05100% already here
48:06or do you see
48:07a gradual decrease in PFAS?
48:08That's a cool question.
48:10Okay.
48:10So in the beginning
48:11it drops 100%
48:12after this one.
48:13Oh, so problem solved?
48:15Problem solved
48:15for the time being.
48:16Okay, okay.
48:17What we see right now
48:18is it will last
48:19about 40,000 volumes
48:20of this vessel.
48:22So a 10 liter vessel
48:23would basically provide
48:24all of the PFAS treatment
48:26for a household.
48:27In a year?
48:27For a year.
48:28You want this to be
48:29in factories first
48:30so it never gets
48:30into the water.
48:31Yeah.
48:31Yeah.
48:32We're talking to
48:32the fluorochemicals
48:34manufacturers
48:34and they're really
48:35trying to move forward
48:37rather than just
48:38wait for regulations.
48:42Everyone's true risk
48:43from PFAS
48:43will be different.
48:45It depends on
48:45dozens of factors
48:46like your water contamination,
48:48your lifestyle,
48:49what you eat.
48:50But how much
48:51should you really
48:52worry about it?
48:53Like if I'm at
48:5417 or 18 parts per billion
48:56is that the equivalent
48:57of drinking a beer a night
48:58or going out
48:59in the Australian sun
49:00without sunscreen?
49:01So what I like to do
49:03is create this
49:03hierarchy of risk
49:04and in terms of
49:06hierarchy of risk reduction,
49:08number one on that
49:09is stopping smoking,
49:12exercising,
49:13consuming a healthy
49:14whole food diet
49:15and making sure
49:16you're getting
49:16seven to nine hours of sleep.
49:18Then you have
49:19medium levels
49:19of intervention,
49:20seeing your primary
49:21care doctor,
49:22controlling your
49:23cholesterol numbers.
49:24And then on the lower tier
49:25that you have,
49:26PFAS probably falls
49:27into that lower tier.
49:29Being preventative
49:30about PFAS exposure
49:31is currently
49:32our only option
49:33because there are
49:34no approved
49:35medical treatments available.
49:37However,
49:38if you compare
49:39PFAS contamination
49:40between the sexes,
49:42male levels
49:42are consistently higher,
49:44at least up until
49:46around the age of 50
49:47when menopause
49:48usually starts.
49:49This is partly
49:50because menstruation,
49:51birth and lactation
49:52are all ways
49:54PFAS can escape the body.
49:56PFAS can pass
49:57through the placenta
49:57and into the fetus
49:58during pregnancy.
50:00And then the baby
50:01can also get exposed
50:02through breast milk.
50:03It's something that
50:04pregnant people
50:05should be extremely
50:06careful about.
50:08Young children
50:08are incredibly susceptible.
50:10They're drinking
50:11more water,
50:12they're growing,
50:12they're near surfaces
50:14like treated carpets.
50:16Now, not everyone
50:17has to change their
50:18lifestyle because of PFAS.
50:19But if you're
50:20in a high-risk group
50:22because of pregnancy
50:23or because you live
50:24or work in a PFAS
50:25contaminated area,
50:27you might want
50:28to consider it.
50:31Firefighters have
50:32especially high PFAS levels
50:34because their gear
50:35and foams
50:35are laced with them.
50:37Remarkably,
50:38a 2022 study found
50:39that when firefighters
50:40donated blood or plasma
50:42frequently enough,
50:43they reduced their PFAS levels
50:45by up to 30%
50:46within a year.
50:48And it's kind of ironic
50:49that, you know,
50:50our health system
50:51is coming back
50:51to bloodletting.
50:53What do you think
50:54about the idea
50:54of donating blood
50:56as a way
50:56to reduce PFAS
50:58in the body?
50:59I've never heard
51:00of that as a strategy.
51:01That's kind of interesting.
51:02Well, I definitely
51:03recommend people
51:04donate blood
51:04more frequently,
51:05not because of PFAS exposure,
51:07but because of the fact
51:07we desperately need blood.
51:10What's important to note
51:11is that,
51:12especially in this
51:12current administration,
51:14we need to be very careful
51:15about shifting budgets
51:16away from research agencies
51:17because without that research,
51:19the guidance that I'm giving
51:20is going to be significantly
51:21more flawed.
51:23The reason I'm able
51:24to talk about
51:24what we know
51:25and what we don't know
51:26comes from that research.
51:27So if we're going to be
51:27cutting the budgets
51:28to these major agencies
51:29and letting scientists go,
51:31we're only going to get
51:32worse and worse information.
51:34We are still
51:35a good few years away
51:36from proper medical treatment
51:37and better PFAS regulations
51:39because this is
51:40extremely tricky.
51:41There are places
51:42where we should ban
51:43PFAS completely,
51:44like hygiene products,
51:45cosmetics,
51:46and food packaging.
51:47And some countries
51:48are already doing that.
51:50But we also
51:50can't ban PFAS altogether,
51:52at least not yet,
51:53because we still rely
51:54on these chemicals
51:55for things like
51:56medical implants.
51:57And it's currently
51:58impossible to make
51:59semiconductors
51:59for our electronics
52:01without them.
52:02All the tubing
52:03for the vaccine
52:03manufacturing is PFAS-based.
52:05They take us to space
52:06as well,
52:07our spacesuits.
52:08But even in these
52:09niche applications,
52:10we have to be responsible
52:12around how we use it.
52:13People are coming together
52:14from a lot of different
52:15disciplines
52:15to create
52:17destruction mechanisms,
52:18to create novel capture,
52:20materials,
52:21and to create novel replacements.
52:23I am excited
52:24and inspired
52:26by all of the great work
52:27that's going on around me.
52:29So I think
52:29if people want
52:30to learn more,
52:31I would advise them
52:32to learn about the risk,
52:33but then also learn
52:34about the new technology
52:35that's being developed
52:37that will hopefully
52:38put us in the right direction.
52:39So to me,
52:41one of the most important
52:42things we can do
52:43is have discussions
52:45like what we're doing
52:45right here.
52:46If the story is
52:47and the information's
52:48out there,
52:49people can make
52:50informed choices
52:51about whether they want
52:52to continue purchasing
52:53things that have
52:54these materials in them.
52:56And what we're seeing
52:57is consumers,
52:58as they do become aware,
53:00are saying,
53:01no, we don't want
53:02these chemicals.
53:03And companies
53:04are voluntarily
53:05coming forward
53:06and taking these chemicals
53:08out of products
53:09because the consumers
53:10are now demanding it.
53:11We've been here before
53:13with leaded gasoline,
53:14freon, and asbestos.
53:16And each time,
53:17we did the research
53:18and made the right decision
53:19to phase these chemicals out.
53:21With PFAS,
53:22we're just starting
53:23to understand the problem.
53:24But I'm hopeful
53:25we'll make the same decision again.
53:30If you want to inform yourself
53:32more about PFAS,
53:33we've attached all the sources
53:34we've used to make this video
53:35down in the description.
53:37It's actually
53:38our longest episode ever
53:39and we couldn't have made it
53:41without the help
53:42of our sponsor, Ground News.
53:43So if you want to be
53:44more informed
53:45about the issues
53:46around the world
53:46that are affecting you
53:47and everyone else out there,
53:49go to ground.news
53:50slash ve
53:51or use this QR code.
53:52I really want to thank
53:53Ground News
53:54for sponsoring this video
53:55and I want to thank you
53:56for watching.
54:05and I'll see you next time.
Recommended
42:34
|
Up next
23:06
32:32
34:42
22:17
0:46
2:11
2:55
11:13
1:00
2:50
Be the first to comment