My dreadfully vexatious Saturday evenings with “Forever Chemicals” - A tribute to “Dark Waters”
- Amin Haghighatbin
- Jul 13, 2024
- 8 min read
Saturday evening, sprawled on the couch, browsing Netflix's thriller category, you stumble upon “Dark Waters (2019).” I mean, why not? After a week spent analysing water contamination in the lab, why not wrap it up with a chilling cinematic epilogue to see what other horrors might emerge from the murky depths? The opening scene: a group of youngsters stripping off, trespassing on private property, and diving into a lake. The girl cheerfully shouts, “Hey, you can even wash your hair!” to which the other bloke responds, “I haven’t washed my hair for a month!” (Lucky devil, filthy as he is)[1]. It's an eerily quiet, dark night with a few adventurous lads in the water—a perfect setup for a predator to resurface and ruin my evening with another cliché. But no, instead, a patrol boat appears, warning them off the lake while sneakily dumping some liquid into the water. Our aquatic antagonist this time seems to be a silent killer—not a cliché. In the next scene, we’re whisked away to Cincinnati, Ohio (1998), where an irate farmer approaches environmental lawyer Rob Billot, played by Mark Ruffalo, handing him a box of VHS tapes documenting his farm and cows dying, allegedly due to chemicals DuPont has been dumping in a nearby landfill. The twist? Rob Billot is a corporate defense attorney representing chemical companies, but nostalgic family ties compel him to investigate the claims back to his hometown. From here, the thriller morphs into a nail-biting horror, with scenes showing the farmer’s terrifying loss of his animals, their deformed organs, and stained teeth. Forty-five minutes in, we see Ruffalo’s desperate efforts to educate himself on chemistry while struggling to collect evidence from DuPont’s decades-old manufacturing records, akin to pulling teeth from DuPont’s mouth itself. In a tense phone call, Ruffalo, agitated, speaks to a chemist:
- You said it had fluoride?
- It’s fluorocarbon, so, yes. Somewhere along the chain…
- What would it do to your teeth if you drank it?
- Well, in trace amounts, fluoride hardens teeth. But too much, it’s gonna stain ‘em. I mean, even turn ‘em black.
Ruffalo walks out terrified “it’s in their water!”
He's referring to PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), also known as C-8, one of the key compounds in the sprawling family of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) aka Forever Chemicals, which includes thousands of other compounds. At one point, Billot breaks it down for the layperson: “There’s a man-made chemical that was invented during the Manhattan Project. It repelled the elements, especially water, so they used it to make the first waterproof coating for tanks. It was indestructible. Then some companies thought, ‘Hey, why limit this wonder to the battlefield? Why not bring this chemical into American homes?’ DuPont was one of those companies. They took this chemical, PFOA, rebranded it as C8, and created their own impenetrable coating—not for tanks, but for pans! They called it Teflon…”
I won’t spoil the rest of the movie, but let’s take a quick historical detour. The Teflon Billot refers to is actually polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), discovered by Dr. Roy J. Plunkett in 1938 while working at DuPont’s labs. It was an accidental discovery during his attempts to synthesise a new refrigerant. During his experiments, he found that a sample of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) gas had polymerised into a white, waxy solid inside a pressurised container. This material boasted unique properties: it was non-reactive, non-stick, water-repellent (hydrophobic), and resistant to heat and chemicals. It had potential applications galore, spanning the military, electronics, toolmaking, machinery, clothing, and footwear industries, just to name a few.
PTFE found significant use during the Manhattan Project in 1944. Thanks to its remarkable properties, such as chemical inertness and a high melting point, PTFE was used to line equipment handling highly reactive materials, particularly in the gaseous diffusion process for uranium enrichment. Later on, a French engineer named Grégoire, allegedly inspired by his wife's suggestion to apply Teflon's non-stick properties to cookware, developed a process for bonding Teflon to aluminium pans. He founded Tefal (a portmanteau of Teflon and Aluminium) in 1956, creating the first non-stick frying pans. Grégoire licensed the use of Teflon from DuPont for his cookware and introduced the revolutionary “Happy Pan” production line in the US in 1961, with DuPont remaining the sole supplier of PTFE to Tefal and others.
So, you might wonder, what does PFOA/C8 have to do with PTFE in this chronological industry evolution? Historically, PFOA was commonly used as a surfactant in the emulsion polymerisation process to produce PTFE. This process helps create the non-stick properties associated with Teflon. To put it simply, while PTFE itself is generally considered inert and safe for use in cookware (at least at temperatures below 300°C) and other applications, the production process involving PFOA, along with possible residues in the final PTFE coating, may pose serious health and environmental risks. These include kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease (particularly in women), immune system effects, reduced antibody response to vaccines, and developmental effects during pregnancy such as low birth weight, accelerated puberty, and potential skeletal variations in offspring. Elevated cholesterol levels and liver damage have also been linked to PFOA exposure.
It's not just ironic but tragically poignant that due to health and environmental concerns related to PFOA, which are central to the legal and environmental battles depicted in “Dark Waters,” Rob Billot’s decades-long class-action lawsuit has seen more than three thousand cases and tens of millions of dollars paid to those who suffered (many already deceased). As a result, the use of PFOA as a precursor in production has significantly declined. In recent years, manufacturers have phased out PFOA and developed alternative processes and chemicals that do not rely on PFOA for producing PTFE. These alternatives aim to maintain the desirable properties of PTFE while (supposedly) minimising environmental and health risks. For example, companies now use other fluorinated surfactants, considered safer and less persistent in the environment, such as hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA), also known as C3 dimer acid and marketed under the trade name “GenX,” currently utilised by Chemours as a polymerisation aid compound. (We'll see how that pans out, pun intended.)
Since Rob Bilott famously took on DuPont in his legal crusade against PFAS, the United States regulatory landscape has undergone significant transformation. Imagine if you will, a David versus Goliath story, but instead of slings and stones, it’s court orders and chemical regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a long, hard look at PFAS and decided it was time to act. In 2016, they issued a Health Advisory Level for PFOA and PFOS, setting it at a meagre 70 parts per trillion (ppt). In 2019, the EPA unveiled its grandly named PFAS Action Plan. This wasn’t just any old plan, mind you; it involved developing enforceable regulations, cleaning up contaminated sites, and improving research and communication. Essentially, it was the governmental equivalent of finally deciding to clean out the garage. Fast forward to 2021, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law brought with it $10 billion dedicated to addressing PFAS and other contaminants in drinking water. If you thought finding a bipartisan agreement in the US was like finding a unicorn, you wouldn’t be far off – yet here it was, unicorn horn and all. Michigan, ever the eager beaver, established its own drinking water standards in 2020, setting limits as low as 8 ppt for PFOS and 16 ppt for PFOA. Not to be left in the dust, New York and New Jersey followed suit with similarly stringent regulations. The courtroom battles have continued unabated. Bilott’s lawsuit may have been the first salvo, but it opened the floodgates. As of 2023, companies like 3M and DuPont have been involved in settlements amounting to billions of dollars.
The saga of PFAS regulation in the US is a bit like a slow-cooked stew – it took time, a lot of ingredients, and occasionally got a bit messy, but the end result is starting to look rather promising. Regulatory agencies are more vigilant, states are taking initiative, and even the legislative behemoth of Congress has shown signs of life. And amidst all this, one can't help but think Rob Bilott is somewhere quietly toasting with a well-deserved glass of (hopefully uncontaminated) water.
But how does this look in our beloved United Kingdom?
A 2023 report by the Forever Pollution Project mapped PFAS contamination across Europe, identifying over 1,500 sites in the UK with levels exceeding 10 ng/L. This paints a picture of a country with more hotspots than a Sunday roast has calories. Testing by the Environment Agency found PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, in a staggering 96% of surface water samples. It's almost as if these "forever chemicals" have decided to take up permanent residence in British waters. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has voiced grave concerns about the health risks of PFAS, highlighting the lack of stringent regulations. They’re calling for a regulatory overhaul, suggesting that the current limit of 100 ng/L for 47 types of PFAS is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. They recommend a safer threshold of 10 ng/L. In England and Wales, 37% and 35% of water courses, respectively, exceed medium or high-risk levels for PFOA and its sulfonated form PFOS. The RSC has called for stricter regulations and the establishment of a national chemicals agency to tackle PFAS contamination head-on.
While the widespread presence of PFAS in UK waters is alarming, given their association with various health problems and their notorious persistence in the environment, the high levels of contamination have prompted calls for immediate action to safeguard public health and the environment. As of April 2024, the regulatory response to PFAS in UK waters is unfolding with the intensity of a British drama. Picture "Downton Abbey," but with more focus on environmental monitoring and fewer tea breaks. The UK Environment Agency has been monitoring PFAS levels in waters with vigilance. Yet, despite their efforts, enforceable nationwide limits for all PFAS compounds in drinking and environmental waters remain elusive, much like a rare sunny day in Manchester. The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) has set a precautionary guidance value of 100 nanograms per litre (ng/L) for the combined levels of PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. The UK is also considering adopting stricter standards similar to those proposed by the EU, which would limit the sum of 20 PFAS compounds to 100 ng/L in drinking water. While Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for PFOS in surface waters are in place, a comprehensive approach for all PFAS compounds is still being developed. Environmental groups and some policymakers are increasing their push for more stringent regulations, akin to a lively debate in the House of Commons, but with scientists and activists leading the charge. The UK government is committed to further research and monitoring of PFAS. (Let’s remain hopeful with Labour as we did with the Tories.) This effort is their version of “keep calm and carry on,” with more emphasis on data collection and fewer motivational posters.
As a British epilogue to “Dark Waters,” the UK’s journey to regulate PFAS is akin to navigating the M25 during rush hour: slow, frustrating, but ultimately progressing. With mounting pressure from environmental groups, scientific bodies, and a public that’s more informed than ever, there is hope that the UK will soon establish a robust regulatory framework. Until then, it’s a case of “watch this space”—and perhaps consider investing in companies with cutting-edge technology for PFAS sensors and water monitoring platforms. Do I really have to point a finger?!
Another Saturday evening, and there we are, wandering around Westfield, hunting for a new cookware set. My partner, ever the meticulous shopper, browses the options with the precision of a seasoned detective. She has a clear vision: a minimum 7-piece set, reasonably priced, non-stick, and dishwasher safe. And me? My requirements are far simpler. All I care about is that little green sticker proclaiming “PFOA-FREE.”
July 2024
Comments