When a HARMLESS chemical must be restricted (?)

PFAS chemicals are routinesly referred to as "Forever" chemicals but few people think about what that means. It means that they do not break down into other chemicals. They are the FINAL result of certain chemical reactions. They can break down no further. They are exeptionally inert.

But if they are inert can they be harmful? If something is inert it cannot interact with anything else in any way. It is harmless. It can do nothing. The fact that it is inert means that it is exceptionally SAFE. To be harmful it has to interact with something else in the body to produce a new chemical that is harmful to us. But it interacts with NOTHING. All it does is just sit there unchanging. The fact that it just sits there forever is what freaks people. But what harm does it do just sitting there? The fact that we all seem to have lots of it in us suggests that its just sitting there does no harm.

Researchers have often "Linked" PFAS to some ailment but what they say is the only link involved. The "link" is a verbal claim, nothing else

See for instance

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-10/pfas-study-katherine-williamtown-oakey-finds-no-cancer-link/100690484

And

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com/2023/06/more-pfas-excitement-ever-since-erin.html

I have repeatedy looked at the studies that claim to show harm but the studies concerned are very frail evidence of anything -- consisting of extreme tertiles, for instance. And even then the hazard ratios are always close to 1.0, meaning that there is actually nothing going on. The studies are in other words really evidence of no effect from PFAS, which is what we would expect of an inert substance. PFAS chemicals are just an unusually harmless form of dust, in short. They are of no concern. "Forever" necessarily means "harmless"


A dam has been shut down after being identified as the source of so-called 'forever chemicals' which have contaminated the water supply of 41,000 Sydney residents.

WaterNSW on Wednesday revealed the presence of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the Blue Mountains water supply came from Medlow Dam at Medlow Bath, west of Sydney.

In 2023, the World Health Organization declared perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which is one of the roughly 14,000 known variants of PFAS, to be a class one human carcinogen.

PFOA was one of the forever chemicals detected in Medlow Dam.

'This dam does not supply raw water directly, but as a precautionary measure has been disconnected from supply while further investigations are conducted,' a WaterNSW statement read.

Water from Medlow Dam joins water from other sources in supplying the Cascade water filtration plant.

A WaterNSW spokesperson told the Sydney Morning Herald that the water supplied from the Cascade plant to local communities is safe to consume and meets Australian drinking water guidelines.

But the amount of PFAS allowed in drinking water are the subject of new limits in the US, where the laws are far more restrictive than in Australia.

Earlier this month, a senior policy advisor for the International Pollutants Elimination Network claimed that Australia is falling behind other countries rgearding drinking water safety.

'Australia cannot continue to use drinking water guidelines that are an international embarrassment,' Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith told ABC's Radio National.

'Australian standards … are out of date, out of touch and totally are not usable for protecting human health. We really do need to move on these chemicals quickly.

'And particularly when it's in drinking water, something that everybody has to consume. It just is totally unacceptable.'

WaterNSW has been working for months to find the source of elevated PFAS levels in the Cascade filtration plant, which provides drinking water to the millions of people who visit the world heritage area every year, as well as Blue Mountains locals.

The levels found in the plant were about 300 times higher than that of Warragamba Dam - Sydney's main drinking water source.

The sampling results released on Wednesday showed the contaminants' source is probably high levels of PFAS in Medlow Dam, which exceeded national safety standards.

WaterNSW said all dams will be monitored and that preliminary sampling indicated Medlow Dam is the only one in its network with elevated readings.

'WaterNSW will keep the community informed as the investigation progresses and work closely with NSW Health and Sydney Water to ensure drinking water remains safe,' the statement added.

In Australia, PFAS chemicals have been used widely in firefighting foam in Defence Force bases due to their resistance to heat and flames.

Developed in the 1940s and 1950s, the chemicals are also known for their resistance to water and stains and are used in products such as rain coats and non-stick frying pans.

Dr Nick Chartres, of the University of Sydney's medicine and health faculty, said they are 'the most mobile, persistent and toxic chemicals in the world'.

'We know that they can get into the Arctic ice caps, they can get into the ice in Antarctica, they get into the deep-sea floor soil sediment. They basically travel everywhere,' he said.

PFAS' in drinking water led to the new, stricter regulations in the US.

Most Australians are likely to already have very low levels of PFAS in their bodies from using sunscreen and cosmetics.

But prolonged exposure, which could happen through drinking contaminated water over a long period, can lead to immune and heart problems, and can also affect fetal and infant growth.

Dr Chartres said the US Environmental Protection Agency found 'based on the best available evidence that we have … there is actually no safe level (of exposure to PFAS)'.

'So if you get exposed across a lifetime, at any level, your risk of these diseases starts going up incrementally based on the level of exposure.'

He said that the US law change should be a wake-up call for Australia.

'We now have to look to that and say, how do our standards (compare)? … And if there's any type of divergence with the Australian (laws), why is there a divergence?'

In the US, the maximum level allowed for PFOA and another variant, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), in drinking water is four parts per trillion.

But in Australia, PFOS and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) - yet another PFAS variant - are allowed up to a level of 70 parts per trillion.

PFOS and PFHxS were both also found in Medlow Dam.

Dr Lloyd-Smith cautioned against buying bottled water to use instead of tap water, though.

'We've found PFAS in bottled water too, so that's not the solution,' she said.

Filtration systems can lower PFAS levels in drinking water, but they are expensive and unaffordable for many people.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13788153/Sydney-dam-closed-cancer-forever-chemicals.html

Harvard researchers pinpoint TWO ultra-processed foods that surge heart attack risk - as well as 8 that surprisingly don't

I have had a look at the underlying academic journal article behind this report and am most amused. It is very much what I expected from previous studies of diet: Basically an attempt to find things that are not there

It's a general rule in academic reports that the fancier the statistics, the weaker are the effects being analysed. And this report has statistics of blinding complexity. And that foretells what this study has to report. They relied on extreme quintiles to detect what was going on in their data. That throws away the majority of your data before you analyse it. Not very reassuring! It suggests that there was nothing to report in the data as a whole.

And when they did squeeze something out of such tortured data, all they found were hazard ratios close to 1.0, indicating negligible effects

Given their tricks with the analysis, we have to conclude that there was nothing really going on in the data. Eating UPFs had NO effect on health

And, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I note that among the plethora of confounders that they allowed for, one they left out was the big one: income. But they did find that big eaters of UPFs were fatter and smoked more, so that could suggest that income was in fact an important confounder that they missed.

There are NO negative policy implications of this study. Eat what you like. You will be no worse off doing so.

I am 81 and have always eaten what I liked regardless of the vagaries of official diet recommendations so take heart if you too just eat what you like

The journal article:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(24)00186-8/fulltext

Sugary drinks and processed meats are the only two ultra processed foods associated with a higher risk of heart attacks and strokes, Harvard researchers have discovered.

The scientists used data collected from nurses and health professionals to test the risk of cardiovascular disease, heart disease and strokes from eating a range of different ultra-processed foods.

But although they have long been vilified not all ultra-processed food (UPF) is made equal.

In fact, yoghurt, wholegrain bread and savoury snacks were shown to slightly reduce the risk of the diseases.

UPFs make up 57 per cent of the average UK diet — and the category includes fizzy drinks, processed meats like ham and bacon, as well as breakfast cereal.

One sign of a UPF food is that it contains ingredients you wouldn't find in your kitchen cupboard, such as unrecognisable colourings, sweeteners and preservatives.

Another clue, some experts say, is the unusually high amount of fat, salt and sugar in each item.

But supermarket staples such as breakfast cereals and pre-packaged bread can be mass-produced and are also considered to be ultra-processed.

That's because they often contain extra ingredients such as emulsifiers, artificial flavours and sweeteners, instead of just flour, salt, yeast and water.

However, the study published in the Lancet this week suggests we should 'deconstruct' the ultra-processed food classification as many of the UPFs have a 'diverse nutritional composition' and therefore have cardiovascular benefits.

UPF intake was assessed through food frequency questionnaires in three studies.

Researchers looked at data from The NHS Nurses' Health Study of 75,735 female nurses aged 30 to 55 years, a second nurses health study of 90,813 women aged 25 to 42 years and a follow-up study of 40,409 men aged 40 to 75 years.

Those who had prior cardiovascular disease, cancer or who had a high BMI were excluded from the study.

A selection of UPFs were divided into ten groups: bread and cereals; sauces, spreads, and condiments; packaged sweet snacks and desserts; packaged savoury snacks; sugar-sweetened beverages; processed red meat, poultry, and fish; ready-to-eat/heat dishes; yoghurt/dairy-based desserts; hard liquors; artificially-sweetened beverages.

The scientists found there was an associated risk of consuming a diet heavy in sugary and artificially sweetened drinks and cardiovascular disease risk.

This risk was also found in diets high in processed meats, such as sausages, bacon and hotdogs.

However, there were inverse associations observed for bread, breakfast cereal, yoghurt, dairy desserts and savoury snacks.

Processed meats and soft drinks should be particularly discouraged due to their consistent adverse association with cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, study authors said.

But they stress some of the UPFs they studied had potential 'cardioprotective benefits', due to the vitamins, minerals and fibre found in them.

This included wholegrain breads as well as yoghurt, especially fermented types.

Study authors noted the benefit remained despite the usually high saturated fat and added sugar content of the dairy products. They added that yoghurts that contain probiotic bacteria or fatty acids may contribute to lower cardiovascular risk.

Professor Gunter Kuhnle, a food scientist and nutritionist based at the University of Reading, posted a graph from the study on X explaining that the data showed most UPF food groups ‘actually protect and reduce disease risk’.

‘The big problem is so many foods are classed as UPF,’ he told MailOnline.

‘Most studies show people who consume a lot of soft drinks, especially sugar and sweetened drinks, are more likely to be obese and suffer diabetes, as well as other diseases.

‘The data show a huge impact of sugar sweetened beverages and processed meat, while everything else is very neutral.'

For example, bread sold in supermarkets is often classed as a UPF but Professor Kuhnle explains it can still be healthy.

He said: ‘Wholegrain bread is probably a healthy form of bread, whether it is manufactured in a big factory or made at home, the difference between the two will be tiny.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13808517/Harvard-ultra-processed-foods-surge-heart-attack.html

**************************************