‘Forever chemicals’ is the latest enviro-scare buzzword. But is it really something to freak out about?
After all, dihydrogen monoxide is a forever chemical, often spilled into the environment as a by-product of industrial processes. It’s persistent and found in abundance in every continent on Earth, even Antarctica. It’s so insidious that a National MP called for it to be banned.
Until she found out that ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ is water.
This highlights the way environmental activists use emotional trigger words to manipulate discussion. Calling swamps ‘wetlands’ makes them sound so much more attractive. ‘Organic food’ is an oxymoron: all food is made up of organic chemicals. Meanwhile, ‘chemicals’ is a word we’ve been thoroughly conditioned to react to negatively. ‘Putting chemicals in your body’ is a phrase designed to instil reactive terror – yet our bodies are made, 100 per cent, of chemicals.
‘Forever chemicals’ is even more doom-mongering and scary.
New research suggests that at least some of the fear is misplaced.
A new paper in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, published by Oxford University Press, indicates high levels of exposure to “forever” chemicals in the environments of many tree swallow bird groups in the United States. Despite this, chemical exposure did not seem to affect the reproductive health of the birds.
‘Forever chemicals’ is used as a dysphemism for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Used in some manufacturing processes, they come into ecosystems through manufacturing plant discharges or areas where workers use such chemicals to suppress fires. They can also come from wastewater treatment plants that emit residue from common consumer products, including stain-resistant fabrics, nonstick cookware and utensils and food packaging.
These chemicals are extremely durable and resistant to environmental breakdown. Researchers have found forever chemicals in soil, water, plants, animals, and humans across all continents.
Should we be worried? There is currently limited evidence of human disease or other clinically significant harm resulting from PFAS exposure. This is neither a clean bill of health or proof positive of health dangers. An Australian government health report concluded that:
“There is mostly limited or no evidence for any link with human disease from these observed differences. Importantly, there is no current evidence that supports a large impact on a person’s health as a result of high levels of PFAS exposure. However, the panel noted that even though the evidence for PFAS exposure and links to health effects is very weak and inconsistent, important health effects for individuals exposed to PFAS cannot be ruled out based on the current evidence.”
Still, that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to stop introducing novel substances into the environment. And absolutely it means that far more intensive study is required.
Study such as this:
Researchers here examined chemical levels in the tissues and diet of tree swallows, a migratory bird native to North America, at sites with differing contamination histories. They also assessed how exposure affected the birds’ reproductive success.
The researchers investigated tree swallow health at various military bases at sites including Willow Grove, Pennsylvania; Lakehurst, New Jersey; Camp Springs, Maryland; Chesapeake Beach, Maryland; Laurel, Maryland; Ashumet Pond, Massachusetts; Lake Elmo, Minnesota; Grey Cloud Island, Minnesota; Gibson City, Illinois; and Scanlon, Minnesota.
The researchers found much higher concentrations of forever chemicals at sites treated with firefighting foams, as well as those closer to urban areas. Researchers noted the high concentration of forever chemical perfluorohexane sulfonate at a site whose sources include residual from the manufacturing plant near Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and associated waste disposal sites, but also from other numerous other household and industrial sources originating in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
The investigators found that despite differences in exposure levels to these chemicals, there was no statistically significant association between chemical exposure and reproductive outcomes such as whether birds hatched or grew to the point where they could take flight. The health of the bird chicks appeared unaffected by levels of chemical exposure.
So much for a ‘Silent Spring’, then.
