Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’ government study finds
Jack Green
News Article: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/05/health/pfas-nearly-half-us-tap-water-wellness/index.html
Scientific Article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412023003069?via%3Dihub
Background Information
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals,” are a group of human-made compounds widely used in various industries due to their resistance to water, heat, and oil. However, their persistence in the environment and potential health risks have made PFAS a significant public health concern. Known to contaminate drinking water, PFAS compounds are increasingly detected in various water sources across the United States. Understanding PFAS exposure’s health implications is crucial as new studies shed light on the potential risks of these substances on individuals and communities, especially given their prevalence in many consumer products and industrial processes. According to Smalling et al., some of the adverse health effects that PFAS causes are human development problems, metabolic and immune disorders, liver damage, and certain types of cancers. Overall, the most important takeaway emphasized in both articles is that almost half of the tap water in the U.S is contaminated with PFAS.
Discussion of the CNN Article
The CNN article offers a summary of recent research findings on PFAS contamination in the U.S. drinking water supply (Christensen, 2024). The article provides a straightforward overview of the main findings, noting that nearly half of all U.S. tap water may contain some level of PFAS, impacting millions of Americans. The article highlights key points, including which states are most affected and the potential health risks associated with PFAS exposure, such as cancer and liver damage. While the article captures public interest, it glosses over critical details about PFAS detection limits, concentration variability, and long-term exposure implications which can mislead readers into believing that any PFAS presence equates to immediate health risks, such as the ones mentioned above.
Figure 1. Map of the number of PFAS detected in tap water samples from select sites across the nation.
Discussion of the Peer-Reviewed Article
The scientific article from Science Direct provides a comprehensive analysis of PFAS occurrence, distribution, and concentration in drinking water across the United States (Smalling et al., 2023). Using detailed analytical methods, the study assesses specific PFAS compounds across different regions and examines variables influencing contamination levels, such as industrial proximity and water source type. This article identifies the health implications of long-term PFAS exposure and discusses dose-response relationships and the current regulatory guidelines for safe PFAS levels in drinking water. Unlike the CNN article, the study emphasizes nuances such as the differences between individual PFAS compounds, their varying toxicity, and the influence of geographical factors on exposure. Including this information provides the reader with a greater understanding of health risks, the impact of PFAS on various communities and regions, and ways to make water safer so that vulnerable populations and communities are protected.
Shortcomings of the CNN Article
The CNN article’s main shortcoming is its simplification of PFAS-related health risks. By focusing solely on PFAS presence without discussing concentration levels and the specific compounds involved, the article can lead readers to overestimate the immediate risks. For example, Christensen (2024) stated that exposure to PFAS may contribute to health issues such as cancer, organ damage, fertility concerns, and other diseases. Including this information is helpful, but may misrepresent the immediate risks. Additionally, the CNN piece omits key insights from the study, such as the geographical variability of contamination and the complex regulatory landscape surrounding PFAS, which could have provided readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the issue and implications about which communities are most impacted. Moreover, although the CNN article did mention some geographical information like which states were highly affected, it completely left out that places of development like agriculture, golf courses, military bases, and more are also at higher risk for PFAS contamination. Including this information could highlight ways to reduce contamination and improve health outcomes. Furthermore, by not discussing PFAS toxicity differences, the article overlooks important distinctions that could shape readers’ understanding of the diverse health implications of different PFAS compounds.
Evaluation of Agreement Between Articles
While the CNN article aligns with the peer-reviewed study in terms of the core findings and calls for action related to making drinking water safer to protect vulnerable populations across the United States, it lacks depth in explaining the factors that influence PFAS exposure risk. The journal article provides a well-rounded, scientifically sound assessment of PFAS distribution and impact, whereas the media article simplifies complex concepts to make them accessible to a broad audience. My rating for the CNN article is 8 out of 10. While it succeeds in raising awareness about the impact of chemicals on tap water in the US, it sacrifices important scientific details that would give readers a more accurate perspective on PFAS risks. However, I appreciated that the article did not solely use fear mongering to capture the audience. For example, the CNN article does share many frightening statistics, but it urges the reader to be calm and gives them ways to check for the possibility of PFAS in their drinking water via their local utility website. Additionally, the article gives possible solutions for if there is PFAS in drinking water like a carbon or reverse osmosis filter. The article also highlights the impact of PFAS detected in different states’ tap water, therefore giving the reader a greater understanding of the risks in different locations and communities.
Conclusion
Media coverage of scientific findings is essential for public awareness, especially with complex environmental issues like PFAS contamination. However, oversimplified reporting can sometimes misrepresent the severity and nature of the risk, leading to misinterpretation of the message by the reader. In this case, a more balanced approach that includes critical details on concentration levels, geographical variance, and compound-specific toxicity would have made the article both informative and accurate, providing readers with a clear understanding of PFAS and the ongoing efforts to address this environmental health challenge. Additionally, both articles highlighted the need for water monitoring to help protect individuals and communities across the country. Moving forward, bridging scientific complexity with accessible communication will help ensure the public is both informed and empowered on issues like PFAS contamination.
References
(1) Christensen, J. (2024, March 22). Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with “Forever Chemicals,” government study finds. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/05/health/pfas-nearly-half-us-tap-water-wellness/index.html
(2) Kelly L. Smalling (US). (2023, June 17). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in United States tapwater: Comparison of underserved private-well and public-supply exposures and associated health implications. Environment International. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412023003069?via%3Dihub
First off, good article choice and very intelligent analysis. I personally agree with your rating of 8/10, however I do not necessarily agree with everything said. I personally felt that overall the CNN article is generally inducing fear into the readers. While they do offer solutions to the contamination, there are multiple sections in the article where it explains that these solutions are costly. Even if the solutions are provided, explaining their large cost only increases the fears of general readers.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is worth mentioning that the CNN article shifts away from the original article. Do you think this article achieved an appropriate balance between a good line of reasoning and staying true to the original research article?
On top of this, I found it interesting that the ending of the CNN article focused on Graham Peaslee. I personally felt that those quotes added to the fear mongering in the article. However, I felt that the final quote was a good way to instill a call to action.
Thanks, Nico! That is a good point about the costs of the solutions that I did not really take into account. I also agree that the CNN article did sway away from the research article a little too much. I believe they should've added a few more points about places of high risk for PFAS contamination like places of development. However, I do think that getting some professional opinions, like the article did, is useful for the general audience. Lastly, I feel like the quotes from Peaslee didn't instill too much fear because what he said doesn't affect the general public directly, rather where our environmental efforts should focus in the future.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your analysis of the scientific and CNN article. I personally would have rated the article a bit higher at maybe a 9/10. PFAS is a scary concept and the article does a good job at conveying the issue of this concept at hand. There are significant health risks and removal is extremely difficult and expensive; therefor, I agree with the way the article was written. I don't necessarily think that this is considered "fear mongering" because the topic they are talking about is scary and emphasizing the risks with PFAS validates the issue more. I think the article should mention remediation and monitoring efforts to calm the public a bit, but the author should emphasize that these efforts are minimal and more work needs to go into PFAS research.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Allison! I agree that the article was rather well-written. My major critique would be to add one more graph from the scientific article about the places of development being affected by PFAS contamination to give the audience a bit more information on the places of highest concern. For this reason, I bumped the rating down a bit, but it could have definitely been a 9/10.
DeleteGreat analysis, Jack! I agree with a lot of your points.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis and believe that the author might’ve misrepresented some of the information from the peer-reviewed article. I believe the author does this to insight interest and to push & inspire readers to take action towards receiving cleaner drinking water. I don’t blame the author for over exaggerating the nature and immediate risks of PFAS because our society has a very sluggish perspective when it comes to the environment. Therefore, a more immediate and ‘in crisis’ voice might be necessary in this case. What do you think? Do you think in this case it’s okay to over exaggerate some findings? What case would it not be acceptable?
Thanks, Mia! I totally agree with your point that an 'in crisis' voice might be necessary because if this problem were to not affect the general public, most people would not care. Although this is true, I feel like authors should not over exaggerate findings because this can lead to distrust in articles like this and possibly more distrust in science.
DeleteHello! Great work Jack. I agree with what everyone said about the CNN article purposely inducing fear, especially the last sentence. I wonder if there was a way they could have structured their article to accurately relay the information from the ScienceDirect article without exaggeration while still providing that call to action and potentially expressing author's opinion. For example, having the first half being objective recounting of the ScienceDirect article and clearly compartmentalizing the more opinionated, "fear-mongering bit" towards the end. Touching upon the point you made about not communicating science in a way that leads to distrust in the general public, do you think this suggested re-structuring will make the CNN article more or less effective in getting people to care while not leading to distrust in science?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Gigi! I believe that this restructured organization would make the CNN article more effective because this layout makes for a good flow. For example, people could get all of the objective information right away, then see some subjective opinions after being thoroughly informed. Based on the knowledge they just learned, they can agree or disagree with the opinions of the experts, which is what science is all about.
DeleteI completely agree with your analysis and rating Jack. Great job on the blog post! I really liked how the CNN article included a map showing where PFAS has been detected across the U.S. It made it easy to see which areas are most affected, which I think is really helpful for readers. The article does a great job of showing just how widespread PFAS is. I especially liked the section listing all the household items that can contain these chemicals—it really helps drive home how serious the issue is. It’s not just something that might be in a few products; it’s everywhere, from water to everyday things like food packaging and cleaning supplies. What I appreciate is that the article doesn’t sugarcoat things. It goes into detail about how big the problem is, how expensive it is to clean up, and how it affects so many parts of our lives. It makes it clear that this isn’t just a minor issue—it’s a huge environmental challenge that’s costly to fix.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they included references throughout the article also helps back up their points and makes it more trustworthy. Overall, I think the article does a great job of raising awareness about PFAS and showing why we need to take this problem seriously.
Thanks, Anika! I agree that the article did a great job spreading awareness about this topic. All of the main points were very transparent which I appreciated and took into account for my rating.
DeleteNice work. I also agree this was a generally well-done article and it conveyed lots of information quite clearly to the general public. I also watched the video and thought it was quite accessible. Something you note as a criticism is that the CNN article does not go into detail about the specific concentrations of PFAS and the particular chemicals involved. I suppose I am wondering how much detail you think the general public would actually benefit from here – would acknowledging the difference between perfluorobutanoic acid and perfluorohexanoic acid and stating their concentrations (as reported in the journal) in ng/L be meaningful to the general reader? In my opinion, no. Though I think the included map with sites of PFAS contamination is a good inclusion by the article, I think your point about acknowledging specific areas like golf courses would be a good thing to include in the article and would enhance readers' understanding.
ReplyDeleteThis article and paper were very interesting. I did enjoy the CNN article as I liked how they did a really good job at summarizing the key ideas writing this for a audience of non-scientific background. I think it was good they included the chart they did so you can really visualize the impacts of the distribution of these PFAS. I agree with you in the points of how they could of elaborated about how these chemicals are dangerous they won't kill you overnight. Also I think the article could of benefited from talking about how these concentrations build up over time and how they get into less urban areas. I don't know if it would of been beneficial to include data stating that this data was collected by these analytical techniques. Overall I agree with your assessment and I would give it a 7.5/10.
ReplyDeleteI also agree on how well the CNN article did in summarizing key ideas and impacts of the paper towards a non-scientific audience. I would like to question further on your reasoning behind your opinions on the paper's shortcomings though. Do you think theres a balance between giving out too much information vs not providing the readers with enough info?
ReplyDeleteI would think that with the regular public not knowing much about PFAS, the simplification of PFAS-related health risks isn't that bad since we can't expect every reader to fully comprehend the depths of chemistry jargon such as concentration levels and specific compounds. And though the article can lead readers to misinterpret the immediate risks, I think mentioning "cancer, organ damage, fertility concerns, and other diseases" are already enough to make readers to want to stray away from such materials. I do agree with your point that leaving out geographical variability of contamination and the complex regulatory landscape surrounding PFAS, as it could seriously warn readers who just so happen to live in those areas. I still would like your opinion on how much balance should we have between overlooking important distinctions while maintaining regular understanding for a regular reader.