(bright intriguing music) (bright intriguing music continues) - Hundreds of different PFAs or forever chemicals are all around us, and unfortunately, inside of us.

These manmade chemicals have been in use since the 40s and 50s, and can be found in carpeting, nonstick food ware, food packaging, medical equipment, and more.

In a few minutes we'll talk about what's being done in Illinois to keep PFA chemicals out of the environment, but first, joining us Dr. Anant Deshwal.

He's a conservation biologist at Bradley University.

We're gonna talk a little bit more about exactly what these chemicals are, and what they do.

Thanks for coming in, Doctor.

- Thank you so much for having me over.

It's a pleasure.

- Appreciate it.

Let's talk about PFAs, and can you give us an idea of what exactly these chemicals are?

- So PFAs are basically carbon and fluoride, bond based chemicals.

And they're called forever chemicals because the carbon fluoride bond, that is very strong, so heat, grease, oil, et cetera, does not break them.

It's not just one chemical.

These are about 15,000 plus set of chemicals, and the common, the PFA, it actually stands for per and polyfloroalkyl substances, so you know, that's what PFA is.

And it has about 15,000 chemicals in a different set.

And every day, we are discovering and manufacturing more of them, but all based around the carbon fluoride bond that makes it very stable.

- Now when you look at that bond, so is that two different, and forgive me, I'm not a scientist.

Are these two different, or several different elements, that scientists have put together to make a compound or something that benefits people?

- It's, think of it like a string.

A string of carbon atoms, and on that fluoride is attached, and at the end of the string, you might have a molecule with sulfur in it, or a carbon with hydrogen bondings based in it.

And that decides what kind of chemical it is going to be.

Those are the most common structures that we have.

These were originally designed for waterproofing, and because of their resistance to oil and staining, and now we have them everywhere around us.

- Yeah, we listed some of the items that they're used in, even food packaging and nonstick food ware that we probably all cook with at home.

- All the nonsticks you think of have PFAs in them.

Now, the most common one are two PFOA and PFOS.

Those are, they have been phased out globally, but still, while they've been banned, especially in the United States, there's several other countries that still continue to use them.

These are forever chemicals, so they are still found in water bodies.

We can still get them through fish, et cetera.

But wherever they're found, think of your candy wrapper.

That has PFA in it.

- There's just a study done recently in Northern Illinois.

Scientists were looking at different bodies of water, and they found that almost every fish they tested in every body of water had PFAs.

So tell me the effects that PFAs can have on, not only just the environment in general, but especially our animals, and people.

- So depending on which PFA people get, and animals, get exposed to, the effects can be different.

For example, people can get testicular cancer.

PFAs get, they, what we call is they bioaccumulate.

So think of it this way.

Let's say a fish that feeds mainly on vegetation consumed one gram of PFA.

So another fish that feeds on the first fish that we were talking about eats it, and eats 10 of them.

Now that second fish has got 10 grams of PFA, and that's not going anywhere.

And similarly, it goes up in food chain.

So on top of the food chain where we are, like eating most of the fish, we are getting a lot of enormous quantity of PFAs from them.

And so that accumulates in us in our blood serum, in our kidneys, in our liver.

It is causing behavioral defects.

It is known for causing cancer in kidneys and in prostate.

It has led to increased cholesterol and obesity.

Birth defects, it is causing effects in pregnancy.

It has lowered birth rate.

And it has actually increased the rate of puberty in humans.

- [Mark] Wow.

- If you want, I can go on about the effects they have on animals.

There's some studies being done on that, too.

- I assume they're not a whole lot better.

- No.

- Wow.

- No.

They're done on birds, they've found out that for birds in general, the hatching rate has declined.

In fact, in Wisconsin, a study was done where they found tree swallows are not giving births that have been exposed to PFAs.

American alligator.

I used to study reptiles early in my career, and I was a strong believer of the fact that if a reptile is injured, you give it heat, you give it light, magic happens and they heal themselves, literally.

American alligators exposed to PFAs are not healing.

- [Mark] Wow.

- And that's a scary thought.

- Yeah, exactly.

Well, like we said, these have been around since the 40s and 50s.

Do you know at what point after they started being manufactured that scientists started discovering PFAs and then realizing, hey, this could be a big problem?

- Well.

Our understanding of PFAs is still quite limited.

I'll be honest, I don't know at what point we started understanding that it was going to be a big problem, but while a lot of research is being done on PFAs, it's mostly centered around drinking water.

Some of it is centered around humans, but we still don't know what is the level of PFAs in our blood that is acceptable.

We have done some studies on animals, and we are finding animals, like hooded seal, for example, having thyroid issues.

Who would have thought of that?

And they are having because of PFAs.

But our understanding, I believe, is still very nascent.

It is only in earlier this year that we started having a maximum upper limit on amount of PFAs that can be in water.

So in terms of regulations, and you know, regulations that sometimes inform based on the research that is being done, they have just started to come out in past few years and that shows that the research was just, you know, not far behind.

- Sure, yeah.

If you Google PFAs or forever chemicals, you're gonna see a lot, and the stories just keep coming out more and more as we go on in time.

I'm wondering, do you know, is there any way that scientists or these people who are manufacturing these items that have PFAs in them, is there anything, short of just not manufacturing them, is there anything that can be done to either lessen the extent of PFAs, or get rid of them altogether?

- So one is treating our water bodies.

Water, soil, dust are one of the main forms of PFAs being, them coming to us.

Now our skin is a strong enough barrier that if we are swimming in the water or taking bath, PFAs are not going to permeate through our skin into us, but drinking this water, eating fish, or any food item contaminated by PFA, would be.

Now, like I said, PFOA and PFOS have been phased out.

But instead of them, we are now using another set of PFAs.

I believe I've written down their names.

It is HFPO and PFBS.

These are relatively shorter carbon chains, so PFOA and PFBS, these were like eight carbon long.

Now, our PFBS is about four carbons long, and so that makes it relatively more unstable compared to the past ones.

More unstable is actually good, because that means it will break down quicker compared to the past ones.

Illinois has done a really good thing.

It has banned PFAs in firefighting, certain PFAs in firefighting foam, and is the first state, I believe, to pass a law earlier this year on not burning or incinerating PFA based material.

And that means those PFAs are not now being aerosol, and we are not absorbing them by breathing in them, and so those steps are helping us quite a bit.

Another thing that I would say is researchers are now putting in a lot of effort in finding PFAs that are less stable, but do the same function.

So without losing on our, you know, everything that we love.

For example, I love my waterproof boots so that I can stomp around in the forest without getting worried of my socks getting wet.

- [Mark] Sure.

- Or our nonstick cookware.

We can enjoy all of those without the baggage that comes with them.

So there's a lot of effort being put in that direction now.

- Is there any way to, we call them forever chemicals, and a lot of these things just end up in landfills, I would guess, but is there a way we could better dispose of these things to have the forever chemicals in them, like incinerate them, or is it one of those things where once you've made it, it's there?

- One, I would definitely say let's not incinerate them.

- [Mark] Okay, that'd be bad?

- That'd be bad.

- Okay.

- Because heat does not affect these chemicals.

- Okay.

- So when we incinerate them, with the smoke and plumes and everything, they are out in the air.

And next thing we know is something that was just in this container is now everywhere.

In fact, the most exposure people get to them is when they are close to landfill sites or disposal sites.

In terms of how to dispose them.

I'll have to admit, I'm not aware of proper methods of disposing them.

- [Mark] Well, maybe there are none.

- Maybe there are none.

But that is something I'll definitely look into right after this interview.

- Well, I'll tell you, it's kinda scary knowing that these things are in people and fish and the water we drink.

It seems like, we're gonna talk about in a little bit, what the government is doing, it seems like the government may be having to step in to make sure that we either limit these things or get rid of them.

- So, that is true.

Much of it needs to come through forms of legislation.

Either banning them altogether, or it can be in putting more funding and research to find out how we can, what are the effects they are going to have, what quantity is required to have that effect, and also to find out better means of disposing these chemicals.

I think part of it also should come, and this might just be my thought process, while we depend a lot on legislation, and I think part of it should also come in form of corporate responsibility, where the corporates are, when they are making these chemicals, and not just relying on the legislation to control them, but also have their own moral compass, to see if a chemical that they manufactured, it can be very exciting.

And speaking now as a researcher, if I'm working on developing some new chemical, and I develop something that's waterproof, resistant to heat, oil, grease, whatever.

I'll be very excited.

We made a huge breakthrough.

But once you've done that, I think we should also take a step back and now look at its effect it is going to have.

And once we have done that, passed it through our own, as an individual, as a researcher, through my moral compass, then suggest that maybe we can pass it on, and get it going through FDA approvals and other approvals later on.

- Well said.

Dr. Deshwal from Bradley University, a conservation biologist.

We appreciate you coming here and breaking down what all this means for our bodies.

Thanks for coming on.

- Thank you so much for having me.

It was a pleasure.

- And joining us now is Ariel Hampton, the State Government Affairs Director for the Illinois Environmental Council.

Thanks for joining us.

Appreciate it.

- Thank you for having me, Mark.

- What can you tell us about your organization and what you're doing in terms of trying to get the word out there about the dangers of PFAs?

- Sure thing.

So here in Illinois, like many states in the US, we're trying to approach it from a variety of ways.

So one of those ways is legislation, that is dedicated to finding out what exactly, how many PFAs are in our water, what PFAs are in our wastewater, what products do we really need to ban PFAs from being in in the first place, so that's where we are focusing a lot of our attention towards.

- How does Illinois compare to other states in terms of what has been done, and what might be coming in terms of doing research into PFAs and finding out exactly what's in them, and where it's at?

- Mm-hmm.

We're very similar to other states.

We followed really in their footsteps in some regards.

So say, for instance, one of the bills that we introduced last year was modeled heavily on the Minnesota bill that passed particularly about PFAs and the products that we wish to ban on that front.

We also have health advisories, as well as a ban on the manufacture that's going to be effective soon for PFAs in firefighting foam.

So we're very much in line with the other states on that front, and we continue to look at various pieces of legislation as they come about.

- Yeah, we've heard a lot about PFAs in firefighter foam.

Has there been any pushback from, say, the firefighters union about not being able to use that foam, or have they come up with other ways to use other products instead of that?

- Mm-hmm.

Some of the pushback that we're seeing is where do we store it.

So as of 2023, we had our Illinois EPA establish a take back program for firefighting foam, because if they're not using it, what do they do with it?

- Okay.

Some of the other items, you know, we talked about everyday household items that PFAs are in.

Do any of these things, do you see any problem or pushback with maybe altering these items so they don't use PFAs, or you know, a lot of it comes down to money, I'm sure, and the people who manufacture these things wanna keep selling them, but what about maybe changing or altering the formulas of these products?

- Well, that's something that's going to take time, and they'll have to pursue certain alternatives as you mentioned.

But we haven't seen a lot of pushback in terms of communities.

They wanna make sure that their water is safe.

They wanna make sure that PFAs isn't in their dental floss, or in their cookware, or in their cosmetics.

And so it's more so from the industry side of things, and I see it as not really a pushback against the concept, but more so a what are we going to do instead, and how much that is going to cost us.

- Sure.

We were talking earlier off camera about how the PFAs issue, it seems like year after year, it's becoming more and more prevalent.

Is it hard to explain to people why this is bad when it's something that they can't really see?

And it is a complicated issue, with the hundreds of different chemicals that there are, and again, the fact that people can't see them, is it hard to communicate that message that we need to do something about this?

- In my experience, it hasn't been very hard.

Even though people can't see it, they see some of the results of it.

PFAs can cause a lot of problems in the human body, whether it be high cholesterol, it can be linked to cancers and things, and PFAs has been found in human blood for decades at this point.

Almost everyone has PFAs in their blood.

So connecting it to those things, and then connecting it to the products where you find the PFAs, people truly understand that, and see that as a problem.

- You mentioned different states have done different things when it comes to PFAs.

You mentioned Minnesota.

I'm wondering from a federal perspective, what is the federal government doing, if anything, to address this issue?

- Mm-hmm.

Actually, just this year, the US EPA has established a drinking water standard for PFAs.

So that's really lovely.

We really appreciate that, and have been looking forward to it for quite some time.

But essentially, that creates a legally enforceable standard of levels for certain types of PFAs, and that means that people who are relying on public drinking water, they'll eventually know what amounts of PFAs is available in their water, and eventually, those same public water bodies will need to figure out how to take it out of their water.

- So will it be, you know, in the future, will it be something that our individual community water systems have to address, and they're not the ones putting it in the water, but the government's gonna want them to get it out of the water.

So is that going to be an individual thing with the different water companies?

- It'll be an individual thing with the different water companies, and the US government is providing funding, and they have been for a little bit of time as well on that front.

But of course, it's probably going to cost us more.

- Sure.

What else is your organization doing in terms of trying to get the word out about PFAs?

- Mm-hmm.

It's something that we bring up often.

We oftentimes have our issue planning calls with our members.

We hold town halls about various subject matters, but including water quality and the things that are in the water, so we try to get our word out that way, and we also, as I mentioned before, push state legislation forward.

- Would it make a difference, say, we mentioned some of the products if let's say people stop buying carpet, for instance, that has PFAs in it, or stop buying clothes that have water repellent properties to them.

Would that make a difference, or is it just the fact that PFAs, not matter what it's in, it's not going to deteriorate any time soon?

- Well, it'll make a difference, because these companies are essentially creating their product for the public, so if the public stops buying it, they're most likely going to stop creating that product, and it's also helping the individual limit their exposure to PFAs as well, which can help with their longterm health.

So I would say that it would help.

- Okay.

And I guess other than not buying these products, what can everyday people do to try and make sure they're either not exposed to PFAs, or not contributing to the problem?

- Mm-hmm.

Not buying products that, like you mentioned, the rugs, the carpets, the apparels, the cookware, and even things like food packaging, and menstrual products, as well as cleaning products can contain PFAs.

So that's something to be aware of for folks as well.

- And with PFAs, are we finding a lot of that in plastics?

- Yes, we're finding those in plastics as well, especially because of the properties of the PFAs.

- [Mark] And there's a lot of issues, again, with recycling, and plastics, and things like that.

So maybe you can kill two birds with one stone if you do something about plastics, that would maybe help with the PFAs problem.

- Mm-hmm, it would help to an extent, yes.

- Ariel, I know there's been talk about doing more studies to see exactly what the health effects are of PFAs.

You mentioned a few earlier, but we've also heard about kidney and testicular cancer, small decreases in birth weight.

Do you think more studies are needed to, not convince people, but maybe to make them more aware of what the potential side effects of this problem are?

- Mm-hmm.

I do believe people should be more aware, and that studies would be helpful in that awareness piece, but it's also how the studies are reaching the public is very important.

A lot of people are not going to go and look at hundreds of studies, and to see what they say.

They're probably going to catch a news broadcast, like this one, and hearing that information is more accessible.

- And just to wrap it up, your organization, the Illinois Environmental Council, do you find that solving this problem, or helping the problem, is something that, you know, you really need to focus on our state politicians, or are you focusing on other entities?

- Well, we're mostly focusing on our state politicians.

The General Assembly has a lot of impact in the state of Illinois, so we do direct a lot of our efforts that way.

But we also keep in touch with community water ways, MWRD, folks like that, because they have concerns, too, and they're oftentimes on the front lines, and we need to hear what issues that they're having, how we can best help them.

- All right, Ariel Hampton with the Illinois Environmental Council.

Thanks for your time and the information.

We appreciate it.

- Thank you for having me, Mark.

Appreciate it.

- And that's our time for right now.

Thanks for watching.

You can check us out anytime at WTVP.org, and on Facebook and Instagram.

Have a good night.

(bright intriguing music) (bright intriguing music continues) (bright intriguing music continues)