I found that article very confusing to follow and poorly written. The headline and the way the article is presented it makes it sound like these chemical concentrations have rapidly risen in recent years to a level such that "rainwater is now unsafe to drink". But that's not what the article is actually saying. Rather, it's saying the safe consumption levels themselves have been adjusted down. It doesn't talk about the chemical levels in rainwater over the past X years: it just takes a snapshot look at the current levels, compares to the new guidelines, and says "rainwater is now unsafe to drink!!1!"
For the one chemical, PFOA, they say the guideline dropped by 37.5 million times; that's a cherry-picked stat, comparing a 2002 West Virginia state guideline that set a safe level at 150,000 nanograms per litre to a recent EPA guideline that sets a new safe level at 4 picograms per litre. Sure, okay, but how long ago did the chemical concentration exceed 4 pg/L? Has this been an issue for 10 years? 25 years? Did we already exceed 4 pg/L in the 19th century?
The conclusion to the article is that the industries that produce these toxic chemicals need to stop producing them and bear the cost of reducing the levels in the environment, but nowhere does it actually talk about the current production of these chemicals. Are they still in wide use? Has new production of the chemicals already been drastically reduced? I think those are far more pertinent issues that are not even glossed over: they're not mentioned at all.
|