TalkingPFAS

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell. And if you are joining us for the first time welcome.  My guest today is Professor Ian Cousins from the Department of Environmental Science at Stockholm University in Sweden.  Now I have interviewed Ian before in Episode 21 when we spoke about his PFAS Essential Use paper and I highly recommend a listen to that one. Professor Cousins has a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of York and a PhD in environmental science from Lancaster University.  He is well-known for his research on the sources, transport and fate and exposure pathways of PFAS.  In recent years Professor Cousins has written a series of policy related articles driven by his concern about the continued use of PFAS.  Today we are going to be discussing his recent perspective paper “Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS” published in the Environmental Science & Technology journalist on the 2/8/2022. Ian and colleagues state in their conclusion: “We conclude that PFAS define a new planetary boundary that has been exceeded based on PFAS levels in environmental media being ubiquitously above guideline levels.  Irrespective of whether or not one agrees with our conclusion that the planetary boundary for PFAS is exceeded. It is nevertheless highly problematic that everywhere on earth where humans reside, recently proposed health advisories can not be achieved without large investment in advanced clean up technology.” I will be heading to Adelaide in a couple of days (actually here now) for the International Clean Up Conference Adelaide 2022 where I hope to talk to a range of experts in Australia and around the world about some of those advanced clean up technologies that might exist now or be emerging so stay tuned for that one.  The US EPA has made some significant announcements regarding PFAS in the last couple of months and in today's episode I will provide details of these.  Ian Cousins et al paper “Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 EPA's proposed rule to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances Federal Register https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-06/pdf/2022-18657.pdf EPA Announces New Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS Chemicals https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-new-drinking-water-health-advisories-pfas-chemicals-1-billion-bipartisanSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast, and if you are joining me for the first time, welcome. I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell. You can reach me at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com. The following show notes and all information in today's episode are copyright. Permissions must be sought to reproduce. The episode (and show notes) may be shared in its original form and its entirety for others to listen to. Today's guest is Boston Attorney John Gardella a shareholder at CMBG3 Law. He is a member of the firm's PFAS team which counsels clients on PFAS related issues ranging from state violations to remediation litigation. John has been a repeat guest on Talking PFAS before and due to his experience and expertise it is always a pleasure to speak with him about PFAS and litigation in the US.In today's discussion we will be talking about several of his articles that he has written for the National Law Review. I will put a link to the articles we discuss today and his website in the show notes.There are several points of significance in today's discussion with John which I will briefly mention here but we will unpack the details in our chat.California OEHHA added PFOA to list of chemicals known to cause cancer:On February 25, 2022, another significant step was taken when the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added PFOA to the list of chemicals known to cause cancer. The listing will create new warning label requirements for any product sold in California that contains PFAS, and may also increase enforcement action targeting of PFOA-containing products.US EPA PFAS Roadmap:The US EPA is taking many actions in regards to PFAS, outlined in a 20-page document called the PFAS Roadmap. John says for the first time they put a timetable on when they intend to release enforceable regulations for two PFAS in drinking water. There are currently no enforceable drinking water limits at the Federal level in the United States. This is something that many people in the US and the world are watching very closely.John says, “So, by this fall we will know what their intent is and then they have to go through a required process where they open up their proposal to public comment and so they are opening that up for one year and they intend to have by the fall of 2023 a drinking water standard in the United States for all states, which would be enormous.”In addition, “The US EPA intends to designate at least two types of PFAS, the PFOA and the PFOS as hazardous substances under the Super Fund Law. Rob Bilott – Lead attorney in lawsuit brought by a firefighter:On March 8 2022 the Ohio Court issued an opinion in the Hardwick v 3M case in which it certified a PFAS class action lawsuit that would include over seven million people. This is in relation to a lawsuit by a firefighter who is the lead plaintiff, with Taft lead Attorney Rob Bilott. The Ohio court ruled that the class of plaintiffs that would be allowed to proceed with the lawsuit (which is seeking medical monitoring) will be the “citizens of Ohio who have 0.05 ppt of PFOA and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum.For those who are unfamiliar with Attorney Rob Bilott's work on PFAS there is plenty online and you can watch the Dark Waters Movie to see where his decades of PFAS litigation work all began. John said Attorney Rob Bilott's team famously secured the now renowned C8 Science Panel in his PFAS litigation in West Virginia nearly two decades ago. It was the C8 Science Panel findings that significantly influenced litigation activity, regulatory and legislative activity with respect to PFAS and media attention on PFAS issues.John said what he believes will be significant is that Mr Bilott wants a new science panel convened that would include all residents of Ohio.John says, “there are 7 million people that live in Ohio, give or take a few but it is 7 million people and so just to put that in context a little bit. When he was in West Virginia about two decades ago now and he got his science panel through the litigation there, there were 70,000 citizens”Washington – PFAS Bill to regulate various consumer goods which contain PFAS & the DOE to name PFAS containing firefighting gear a priority product: Just after my discussion with John, on the 31 March Washington's Governor signed into law a Bill that we discussed in today's episode. This Bill significantly accelerates the state's initiative to develop regulations for various consumer goods that contain PFAS. This Bill also requires the Department of Ecology to name PFAS containing firefighting gear a priority product under the State's Safer Products for Washington initiative.John says, “there has been a lot of regulation and legislation in the US in many States about firefighting foam, but this is certainly one of the first examples in the United States with respect to the firefighting gear.”PFAS in cosmetics:I have talked in detail about PFAS in cosmetics with John Gardella before in the Talking PFAS podcast, in episode 29. Since that discussion, as John's team at CMBG3 Law predicted in early 2021, “the increased attention on the industry presented significant risks to the cosmetics industry and the developments made the cosmetics industry the number two target for future PFAS lawsuits.” In less than three months four industry cosmetic giants were hit with lawsuits related to their cosmetics and PFAS, which John says is significant news.LINKS:John Gardella's firm CMBG3 Law Bostonhttps://www.cmbg3.com/US EPA 20-Page PFAS Roadmaphttps://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-action-2021-2024A selection of John's recent articles in National Law Review (many more available at his firm's website)https://www.natlawreview.com/article/cosmetics-and-pfas-lawsuit-alleges-false-marketinghttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/prop-65-lists-pfoa-carcinogenhttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/astm-pfas-standards-closer-to-adoption-epahttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/astm-standards-and-pfas-not-so-fasthttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-class-action-lawsuit-updateshttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-consumer-goods-target-washingtonhttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/pennsylvania-pfas-drinking-water-standards-commenthttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/wisconsin-pfas-standards-one-step-closer-to-realityhttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-cercla-exemptions-movement-growsThis episode is dedicated to my darling Molly cavoodle dog and best companion ever who lay dying at my feet (and we didn't know she was that sick) while I tried to edit this. We lost her on the 11.4.22 that is why this episode was up so late. This episode was recorded with John Gardella on the 29/3/2022.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast. I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.If you are joining me for the first time a very big welcome to you. I want to say thank you so much to my regular listeners for being patient with me while I took an extended break, which unfortunately became longer than I wanted due to an injury I suffered, but I am very much on the mend now.I appreciate you coming back to listen to Season 5 of Talking PFAS Podcast. As always I encourage you to share the podcast with your networks, if you have found value in it, and I would appreciate your review on iTunes, or feedback via email to TalkingPFAS@gmail.com.As the content in this podcast series, even the earliest episodes, is relevant to any person working with, researching or trying hard to avoid PFAS chemicals, I do encourage you to go back and visit previous episodes. Even though I believe all episodes of this podcast series are worth a listen, if you are new to the podcast and are interested in my editor's choice selection, I strongly suggest a listen to Episode 1, 4, and 9 to start, followed by Episodes 17, 18, 22, 24 and 31.Since learning about this class of chemicals in 2018, I have travelled to many states of Australia, and interviewed people in person or over the phone from Oakey, Williamtown, Salt Ash, Fullerton Cove, Richmond, Katherine, Tasmania, Adelaide, Canberra, Sydney, Perth and Newcastle. This year I hope to visit many more people in many more towns to discuss with residents and others how PFAS chemical contamination has affected their properties and their lives.I have also had the privilege of interviewing many international experts to discuss PFAS from their medical, scientific, remediation, political, or expert opinion. I have interviewed some fantastic international guests from California, Sweden, Texas, Washington, Boston, Michigan, Switzerland, Colorado and California.This season I will bring you some more great discussions with Australian and International guests with the one goal being to understand PFAS chemicals better, and learn what is new regarding regulations and scientific discoveries about this complex class of compounds.Whilst health effects are still debated regarding PFAS chemicals, they have definitely been associated by experts with some PFAS compounds. However, one thing is abundantly clear from the experts I have spoken to, the persistence of this class of chemicals is something which warrants a high degree of caution, and attention. Many experts argue that the persistence of this class of chemicals requires swift action and they recommend banning the whole group of PFAS chemicals.In Australia, a class action between three communities in Australia and the Department of Defence settled out of court in 2020, and these communities received a payout of $212 million dollars, which after paying a huge amount of legal fees was divided amongst many thousands of impacted community members, but most as I understand, and I have not spoken to all, have not received enough compensation to move from their contaminated property.The class action payout was awarded due to property value losses that residents with contaminated properties had experienced. One of the conditions of the class action though was that they could have no future claims against the Department of Defence for PFAS contamination to their properties. However, they can still in the future make a claim against the Department of Defence for PFAS related health issues.This season, along with interviewing more experts, and discussing the latest PFAS research and regulatory actions in Australia and around the world, I hope to re-visit some people who were involved in the first PFAS class action in Australia. I will attempt to find out where are they now, and whether their lives have changed since the class action settled. This is important because in Australia right now SHINE Lawyers are involved in a further, larger super class action involving communities in WA, NT, SA, QLD, NSW and VIC.“Shine Lawyers is seeking compensation for property owners for economic loss, including the diminution in value of their land. Any action would be an open class action, meaning residents living in eight affected communities who meet certain criteria will automatically be included unless they choose not to be involved. National Special Counsel Joshua Aylward said he estimates up to 40,000 people live in these communities, and are affected by these chemicals.”Finally, as Australia is facing an election in 2022, I will also hope to find out what the Government intends to do about PFAS more broadly in Australia, and how much money they intend to set aside to contribute to PFAS Research and remediation or compensation in Australia. I was interviewed by ABC just prior to the 2019 Election and sadly many of the issues faced then still remain today.I hope you enjoy the recap of Season 3 & 4 today of Talking PFAS today and I hope you will join me for Season 5 of Talking PFAS, which will return on 29/3/21.

My special guest today is Alissa Cordner an Environmental Sociologist and Associate Professor in the Sociology Department at Whitman College which is in Eastern Washington State in the US. She has been working on PFAS since about 2014. She is the co-director of the PFAS Project Lab which is based at North Eastern University with Phillip Brown who is the other co-director. Alissa says "over the last 6-7 years we have been working on PFAS from a variety of social science perspectives, starting by trying the understand the social and scientific discovery of this class of chemicals and understand why they remain in such wide use, and production, and why they are such a ubiquitous contaminant, given that at least some actors have known for 50 years about their toxicity and exposure concern. What it is that has gotten us into this situation? We have worked on PFAS activism, trying to understand the rise of social movement activity related to PFAS and currently we are working on a number of projects and one of them is trying to understand the full and multifaceted costs of PFAS contamination." Today we discuss a commentary paper she and her team of experts have written called The True Cost of PFAS and the Benefits of Acting Now" which was published in Environment Science and Technology Journal on the 7 July 2021.Today's episode of Talking PFAS is the Season Finale and the last episode for 2021. The podcast will return on the 25th of January, 2022. I will be taking a 3 month break to recharge my batteries, and then begin research and production of the next season of Talking PFAS, and I have some great guests lined up already. I hope in this extended break that you re-listen to some of your favourite episodes. I will also tweet some of my favourite episodes each month.Episodes mentioned in today's discussion, or episodes which complement today's discussion, are Episode 2, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, and I highly recommend listening for the first time or listening again to these.A very big thank you to all my listeners since 2018, and a very big thank you to all the guests in this podcast. I hope you will join me again in Jan 2022. Kayleen Bell, Journalist.Show Note Links: “The True Cost of PFAS and the Benefits of Acting Now”Alissa Cordner, Gretta Goldenman, Linda S. Birnbaum, Phil Brown, Mark F. Miller, Rosie Mueller, Sharyle Patton, Derrick H. Salvatore and Leonardo Trasandehttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c03565Environ.Sci.Technol. 2021, 55, 14, 9630-9633 Publication Date July 7, 2021“Evaluating the effects of living with contamination from the lens of trauma: a case study of fracking development in Alberta, Canada.” Debra J. Davidson debra.davidson@ualberta.ca.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23251042.2017.1349638Environmental Sociology July 28, 2017

My guest today is Dr Katie Pelch from Fort Worth Texas. She is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Centre. Dr Katie Pelch and colleagues published the PFAS-TOX Database in April, 2021. The database currently includes 29 of the most commonly studied PFAS mapped to 15 health outcome categories. Katie said what they found was quite a surprise. Contrary to the notion that there is very little research on replacement PFAS, the PFAS-TOX Database identified 742 studies on 29 select PFAS other than PFOS and PFOA that have been measured in the environment or in people.Many of the findings reflect health effects already linked to PFOA and PFOS, yet few PFAS in the data base have received regulatory attention. PFAS manufacturers continue to make and use new PFAS with very little oversight. This is one reason why experts in the field are urging the management of all PFAS as a single class of chemicals.Katie says the purpose of this database is to support government, businesses, academics and impacted citizens in quickly assessing the state of the science so that they can make timely decisions that protect public health and the environment. For today's discussion you might find it helpful to have the PFAS-TOX Database open (see link below) but you can certainly listen to the episode without that.SHOW NOTE LINKS:PFAS-TOX Databasehttps://pfastoxdatabase.org/Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class Kwiatkowski et alPublished June 30, 2020 Environmental Science & Technology Lettershttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255“Cancer-causing chemicals found in Fort Worth well. Could they be in city water?” - Article Haley Samsel Fort Worth Star-Telegram July 10, 2020https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article244096547.htmlATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry – Statement on Potential Intersection between PFAS Exposure and Covid-19https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-cosmetics-financial-and-insurance-companies-noticePFAS in Cosmetics: Financial and Insurance Companies on Notice – Monday, June 21, 2021John Gardella CMBG3 LawToday's Talking PFAS News Episode is a discussion with Boston Attorney John Gardella from CMBG3 Law in Boston. John has been a previous guest on the podcast in Episode 24 and I highly recommend a listen to that Episode too.Today we will be discussing PFAS in cosmetics in the US. We will be focusing our discussion on John's recent article published 21/6/21 in The National Law Review "PFAS in Cosmetics: Financial and Insurance Companies on Notice." In this article he writes about a recent Bill that was introduced into the Senate on the 15/6/21, called the "No PFAS in Cosmetics Act 2021." John also wrote about a recent study published in the Environmental Science & Technology Letters by Whitehead et al (corresponding author Graham F. Peaslee) called "Fluorinated Compounds in North American Cosmetics." John writes in his article "This study examined 231 cosmetic products sold in the United States and Canada. 52% of the products contained some degree of PFAS."https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00240Study “Fluorinated Compounds in North American Cosmetics” Environmental Science & Technology Letters Whitehead et al – Corresponding author Graham F. PeasleeAt the time of publishing today's episode of Talking PFAS News, this article has had 47219 views.Listeners you might remember in Episode 22 I discussed the use of PFAS in cosmetics with Juliane Gluge from Zurich Switzerland, as we discussed her paper “An Overview of the Uses of PFAS” In the supplementary material link below she described many cosmetic and personal care products where PFAS have been used, and may still be used. I highly recommend a listen to that episode as well.https://www.rsc.org/suppdata/d0/em/d0em00291g/d0em00291g1.pdf2.28 Personal care products and cosmetics – Page 198“PFAS have been used in cosmetics as emulsifiers, lubricants, or oleophobic agents (Kissa 2001). PFAS in hair-conditioning formulations can enhance wet combing and render hair oleophobic (Kissa 2001). PFAS have been used in creams e.g. to make the creams penetrate the skin more easily, make the skin brighter, make the skin absorb more oxygen, or make the cosmetic product more durable and weather resistant (Brinch, Jensen, and Christensen 2018). PFAS have been identified in cosmetics and personal care products in general, but also in anti-aging, anti-frizz, bar soap, BB/CC cream/foundation, blush/highlighter, body lotion/body cream, body oil, brow products, concealer/corrector, cream/lotion, cuticle treatment, eye cream/eyeshadow, eye pencil/eyeliner, face cream, facial cleanser, hair creams and rinses/conditioner, hair spray/mousse, hair shampoo, hand sanitizer, highlighter, lip balm/lip stick/lip gloss, lip liner, manicure products, makeup remover, mask, mascara/lashes, moisturer, nail polish/nail strengthener/nail treatment, powder, primer/fixer, scrub/peeling, shaving cream/shaving foam/shaving gel, sunscreen, and sunscreen makeup.” Juliane Gluge

My special guest today is Garret Ellison, an investigative environment reporter, at MLive and Grand Rapids Press in Michigan who covers Michigan environment and The Great Lakes. Since 2016 he has specialised on reporting on PFAS and their impact on Michigan's people and environment. From 2017 to 2019 PFAS was about the only issue he was writing about, but he says he has lost count of how many PFAS articles he has written. As an investigative reporter he has broken many PFAS stories. His PFAS work has directly influenced State environmental policy and the creation of Michigan's first State specific drinking water standards for harmful chemicals. My discussion with Garret today will include the following 3M's lawsuit against the State of Michigan. We will also discuss PFAS contamination in the Wolverine Worldwide contamination in Rockford, where a nearby resident's blood test results returned at a staggering level of 5,000,000 ppt! We also discuss PFAS in Wurtsmith Air Force Base, in Oscoda. I highly recommend a listen to the previous episode 27 Talking PFAS News where Garret discusses two new bills just introduced into Congress this month, and if passed will directly affect the military regarding PFAS. Also in that episode we discuss some new preliminary research from Indiana, that reveals PFAS levels in a rain sample from Cleveland Ohio returned levels of 1000ppt. You can read many PFAS articles that Garret has written here:https://muckrack.com/garretellison/bio

Today's Talking PFAS News is focused on PFAS in Michigan, Great Lakes, and also some new pending legislation that could result in stricter rules for the US military regarding PFAS. My special guest is Award Winning investigative/enterprise environment reporter Garret Ellison from MLive and Grand Rapids Press in Michigan. Today we discuss three of his recent stories, and because of Garret's extensive PFAS reporting, he will also be the special guest in the next Talking PFAS Feature which will publish on June 17, 2021. In today's episode we only have time to briefly mention that in April, 2021 3M filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan which seeks to invalidate their new drinking water and groundwater clean-up limits for PFAS. In Talking PFAS Feature Garret talks much more about the 3M lawsuit as well as many other PFAS contamination issues in the Michigan and Great Lakes area.For today's show notes I am publishing links to three of Garret's articles (with short excerpts) published by MLive and used with Garret's permission. It might be useful to have Garret's articles open as you listen today.Links & Excerpts to articles in today's discussion by Garret Ellison, content used with permission“It's literally raining PFAS around the Great Lakes, say researchers.” June 8, 2021“CLEVELAND, OH — Rain that fell on Ohio this spring contained a surprisingly high amount of toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, according to raw data from a binational Great Lakes monitoring program that tracks airborne pollution.Rainwater collected in Cleveland over two weeks in April contained a combined concentration of about 1,000 parts-per-trillion (ppt) of PFAS compounds. That's according to scientists at the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN), a long-term Great Lakes monitoring program jointly funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Canada.” Source Garret Ellison MLive gellison@mlive.comhttps://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/06/its-literally-raining-pfas-around-the-great-lakes-say-researchers.html“Two Michigan air bases on “Filthy Fifty” Senate PFAS priority list.” June 9, 2021https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/06/two-michigan-air-bases-on-filthy-fifty-senate-pfas-priority-list.html“WASHINGTON, DC — Two former Air Force bases in Michigan are on a “Filthy Fifty” list of sites where the U.S. Defense Department would have to expedite cleanup of toxic “forever chemical” contamination under new Congressional legislation.Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda and K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base in the Upper Peninsula are among priority installations with toxic PFAS pollution marked for speedier cleanup under the bill package, which allocates $10 billion for remedial work nationwide and puts the Pentagon under a deadline schedule to complete construction.“Filthy Fifty Act” and “Clean Water for Military Families Act” were introduced in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, June 8. The bills were introduced by Democratic Sens. Alex Padilla of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, representing the two states with the most bases on the list.” Source credit Garret Ellison MLive gellison@mlive.comhttps://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/05/3m-sues-michigan-seeks-to-invalidate-pfas-drinking-water-rules.html“3M sues Michigan, seeks to invalidate PFAS drinking water rules” May 7, 2021“LANSING, MI — Minnesota chemical manufacturing giant 3M has sued the state of Michigan, claiming the state's new drinking water limits for the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS are flawed because they were created through a “rushed and invalid regulatory process.”The lawsuit, filed in the state Court of Claims on April 21, seeks to invalidate the state's drinking water limits and groundwater cleanup criteria for seven different per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, that went into effect last summer.”

Today's extended Talking PFAS News edition is discussing the use of firefighting foams containing PFAS in Tasmania. Primarily this episode focuses on the use of PFAS firefighting foams by the Tasmanian Fire Service (TFS). PFAS became an issue of focus during the recent State election in May. My guests today are journalist Rob Inglis from The Examiner and Advocate Newspapers in Hobart, and Sharon McLay who was a candidate for the Animal Justice Party in the recent election. Sharon also has a 30 year history of previously being a professional firefighter for the MFB in Victoria. Rob Inglis wrote some recent articles about PFAS foams in Tasmania after firefighters refused to use foams which contain PFAS. The United Firefighters Union have also shared their opinion with Rob Inglis and at a press conference (prior to the May State election) in Hobart. Today's episode also will include statements from AirServices and TasPorts regarding their use of firefighting foams containing PFAS or actions to remove them. In 2018 the Tasmanian EPA published a PFAS Action Plan for Tasmania, which was updated in August, 2019. This update provides a record of actions taken so far by TFS, Airservices and Tasports. Plus I received updated comments from these organisations which are read throughout today's episode.SHOW NOTES:Rob Inglis Journalist - Recent PFAS Articles discussed today:https://www.examiner.com.au/story/7219762/really-nasty-firies-ablaze-over-use-of-toxic-foam-in-tasmania/https://www.examiner.com.au/story/7233142/tasmanian-firefighters-refuse-to-use-pfas-foam-linked-to-cancer/Remediation of PFAS-related impacts ongoing scrutiny and review - Australian PFAS Inquiry JSCFADT https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/PFASRemediationTasmania PFAS Action Plan - Progress Update August 2019:https://epa.tas.gov.au/Documents/PFAS%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Tasmania%20Progress%20Update%20Aug%202019.pdf

My special guest today is Environmental Lawyer Claire Smith from Clayton UTZ in Sydney, Australia to discuss and explain the NSW EPA PFAS Firefighting Ban,Below is a portion of her written commentary on 18 March, 2021."The Environmental Operations (General) Amendment (PFAS Firefighting Foam) Regulation 2021 has been introduced and will impose a ban on the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam in NSW, subject to some exceptions.On 1 March 2021, The NSW Government Introduced the Environmental Operations (General) Amendment (PFAS Firefighting Foam) Regulation 2021. The Regulation will amend the Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2009 and impose a ban on the use of per- and poly- fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).NSW is the third jurisdiction in Australia to regulate PFAS use, and the second jurisdiction to introduce a ban, after Queensland began regulating PFAS-containing firefighting foams in 2016 and South Australia introduced a similar ban in 2018.The Ban on the use of PFAS firefighting foam for the purposes of training and demonstrations came into effect on 1 April, 2021 with other restrictions operating from 26 September, 2022 onwards.The Regulation will make it a criminal offence to:Use PFAS firefighting foam for the purposes of firefighting training or demonstrationsUse PFAS except to extinguish a "catastrophic" fire, or fire that has the potential to be catastrophic (a catastrophic fire is defined in the Regulation to mean a fire involving a combustible accelerant, including petrol, kerosene, oil, tar, paint or polar solvents including ethanol) or to extinguish a fire on a watercraft in State or prescribed watersSell a portable fire extinguisher containing the precursor to PFAS firefighting foam.The maximum penalty for any of these offences will be $44,000 for a corporation and $22,000 for an individual."Written by Claire Smith & Cloe Jolly Clayton UTZhttps://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2021/march/nsw-introduces-ban-to-prevent-pfas-contaminationhttps://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/contaminated-land/regulation-of-pfas-firefighting-foamsCopyright Kayleen Bell Journalist

Today's 'Talking PFAS Feature' (recorded 30/4/2021) is a very open and insightful discussion with Boston Attorney, John Gardella, from CMBG3 Law. If you have any interest at all in PFAS Litigation, you don't want to miss this episode. In this episode we discuss litigation in detail in Michigan, Alaska, and we touch on recent litigation in Sweden. This episode will be of interest to a very broad audience.John says currently 550 lawsuits sit on a docket in South Carolina related to PFAS in AFFF, but there are hundreds of PFAS litigation matters in the US that do not relate to AFFF.John Gardella is a Shareholder at CMBG3 Law in Boston, a law firm specialising in the regulatory, litigation, and compliance aspects of numerous environmental and toxic torts issues. He is a member of the firm’s PFAS Team, which counsels clients on PFAS related issues ranging from state violations to remediation litigation. Mr. Gardella has over 15 years of experience litigating environmental and toxic torts matters, including asbestos, PFAS, benzene, lead paint, mold, talc, hazardous waste and pollution matters.John has written two articles recently for The National Law Review (see show notes for Ep 23) about a recent PFAS suit against a paper mill and associated landfill, that settled for 11.9 million in Michigan and a very recent litigation action filed by the Attorney in Alaska against 30 companies for PFAS contamination of the environment. We discuss these today, see links below. The state is looking to collect costs for any past, current or future costs it has or will need to expense to clean up PFAS. Alaska also seeks triple damages, John explains how this works.John says "CMBG3 Law has handled several PFAS litigation cases but numerous compliance related questions (so a company that has not been sued but is looking to take steps to curb PFAS use, comply with regulations, or needs help figuring out where their risks are). We actually do not represent either DuPont or 3M (the two primary makers of PFAS) so our corporate clients are other manufacturing or industrial companies using PFAS or considering doing so if they cannot find substitutes. In some instances it’s even just landowners who bought (unknowingly) polluted land and use it for things not having anything to do with PFAS."John believes when it comes to regulated drinking water levels in the US 'the writing is clearly on the wall that the EPA does intend to take action when it comes to PFAS'. He says 'it is going to happen' and he believes if it doesn't happen this year (2021) it will happen next year (2022). He says there is no doubt in his mind regarding this.https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-paper-mill-settlement-reflects-growing-trendhttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/alaska-pfas-lawsuit-latest-state-action-pfas*The next Talking PFAS Feature episode will publish on 17/6/2021 - guest will be announced in Talking PFAS News on 14/6/2021.*The next Talking PFAS News episode will publish on 17/5/2021Copyright Kayleen Bell Journalist

It is so good to be back after a long season break, for Season 4 of Talking PFAS podcast. There is some important changes this season, as you might have noticed. Today's episode includes a short recap of Season 3 guests and also incorporates the NEW Talking PFAS News. There is so much PFAS news occurring that I decided to create news episodes to cover more PFAS information from Australia and around the world. These news episodes will publish every fortnight, on a Monday. But don't fret if you really love the old format I will still be doing longer interviews and putting these episodes up about every six weeks, these will be called Talking PFAS Features. Please feel free to let me know what you think of this change and send me leads at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com. The next Talking PFAS News will publish on 19/5/2021.Today's Talking PFAS News features discussion about several PFAS litigation events that have occurred or are currently in motion, in Alaska, Michigan, and Sweden. I also include some of my recent interview with Environmental Attorney John Gardella from CMBG3 Law in Boston. He breaks down the current litigation action in Alaska which was filed by the Attorney General against 30 companies, and John also fills us in on the recent PFAS settlement, against a paper mill in Michigan, which settled for $11.9 million US dollars. I had a fabulous and very interesting talk with John Gardella who is the guest in the first Talking PFAS feature for the year which will publish on 6 May 2021, and you don't want to miss this one, if you have any interest in PFAS litigation. John Gardella wrote about both the Alaska and Michigan PFAS litigation in The National Law Review and I will include links in the show notes below.Also in this episode I was kindly given permission by Dave Russell, from Radio Sweden Weekly to play a portion of audio from his show which aired on 15/4/2021. Special thanks to Dave and his team for allowing me to do this. He explains a recent class action which settled in favour of 165 citizens in Kallinge, Ronneby Sweden.Show Notes:Radio Sweden Weekly: Triumph for David over Goliath in water poisoning case. 15/4/2021 -Produced by Dave Russell ( & audio used with permission)https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/1689181Articles by Attorney John Gardella - CMBG3 Law Boston - John is the special guest of the first Talking PFAS Featurewhich will publish this week Thursday, May 6, 2021.PFAS Paper Mill Settlement Reflects Growing Trend - The National Law ReviewWednesday, April 28, 2021 - Attorney John Gardella CMBG3 Law, Bostonhttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-paper-mill-settlement-reflects-growing-trendAlaska PFAS lawsuit - Latest State Action on PFAS - The National Law ReviewThursday, April 22, 2021 - Attorney John Gardella CMBG3 Law, Bostonhttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/alaska-pfas-lawsuit-latest-state-action-pfas

This is the last episode for 2020, and the podcast will be on a season break, as I take a break and am in production for a new season in 2021 (publishing end of April). Thank you to all my amazing guests in 2020, and to all the listeners who have continued to listen in a very challenging year.Today's discussion is a fascinating talk with my guest from Zurich, Switzerland. Juliane Gluge and her team spent over a year writing her PFAS Uses paper, "An Overview of the Uses of PFAS," and compiling very detailed extra material to go with her paper. The paper was peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the Environmental Science Processes and Impacts Journal on the 23rd of September, 2020. Juliane is a Senior Researcher in the Environmental Chemistry Group at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, called ETH Zurich and this is one of the largest universities in Switzerland. She has done her PhD under the supervision of Martin Scheringer. She studied Biotechnology in Germany, so by training is an engineer in biotechology. She is an environmental scientist who has worked on sources, fate and transport of persistent organic pollutants, including PFAS. There are so many PFAS uses that I had no idea about until this discussion, including PFAS in ammunition, climbing ropes, guitar strings, contrast agents in MRI, and other medical applications. Juliane and her team provide three extra ESI - Electronic Supporting Information documents which are well worth a look, especially ESI-1 which expands on the uses listed in the Appendix of her main paper.I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation, and I know you will too, and there will be plenty of information for your to look at while Talking PFAS is on a break. Thank you again for listening.SHOW NOTES:Article: 2017, "A Breath of Fresh Perfluorocarbon" by Daniel Carroll with video presentation by PhD student Diane Nelson (Biomedical Engineering) - "Drug delivery to the lungs using Perfluorocarbon emulsions."https://engineering.cmu.edu/news-events/news/2017/11/20-nelson-perfluorocarbon.html"Deposition of PFAS 'forever chemicals' on Mount Everest" Kimberley Miner published 17 December 2020https://umaine.edu/news/blog/2020/12/17/miner-finds-outdoor-gear-forever-chemicals-in-snow-near-everest-summit/

My guest today is Professor Ian Cousins, from the Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry (ACES), Stockholm University, Sweden. He has been studying PFAS chemicals for over 20 years, and is well known in the field for his PFAS research. The focus for today's discussion is his paper published in 2019 called "The concept of essential use for determining when use of PFASs can be phased out." Ian and his colleagues state in their paper that "A phase-out of many uses of PFASs can be implemented because they are not necessary for the betterment of society in terms of health and safety, or because functional alternatives are currently available that can be substituted into these products or applications. Some specific uses of PFASs would be considered essential because they provide for vital functions and are currently without established alternatives. However, this essentiality should not be considered as permanent; rather, constant efforts are needed to search for alternatives."Ian also gives some detail about his latest PFAS project Perforce3, a large European funded project focusing on PFAS called Perforce3. The project will be training 15 PhD's in a wide range of aspects of PFAS science including understanding exposure and toxicology of PFAS, and solutions to remove PFAS from the environment. The project started on 1/1/2020 and . It is a collaboration between different organisations in Europe from 6 different countries and 9 Universities and 4 independent research centres. The project will continue until the end of 2023.SHOW NOTES:"The concept of essential use for determining when uses of PFASs can be phased out." Ian T Cousins et al 2019https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM00163H"Are Fluoropolymers really of low concern for human and environmental health and separate from other PFAS?" Rainer Lohmann, Ian T. Cousins et al 2020DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03244"An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)" Juliane Gluge et al 2020DOI: 10.1039/D0EM00291GPerforce3 & Webinar on PFAS and the essential use concepthttps://perforce3-itn.eu/events/perforce3-webinar-on-pfas-and-the-essential-use-concept/Madrid Statementhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/275663380_The_Madrid_Statement_on_Poly-_and_Perfluoroalkyl_Substances_PFASsMontreal Protocol Factsheet Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environmenthttps://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/publications/montreal-protocol-factsheetStockholm Convention & POPShttps://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/ag-vet-chemicals/international/stockholm#:~:text=Australia%20ratified%20the%20Stockholm%20Convention,disposal%20and%20use%20of%20POPs

Dr Paul Bertsch is the Science Director of Land and Water at CSIRO Ecosciences Precinct in Dutton Park, Brisbane, QLD. "Well the big turning point for the whole scientific community, and I know my colleague in CSIRO really took notice as well, would be 2001." Paul says the CSIRO has been mainly involved in looking at the fate and transport of PFAS contaminants in the environment. CSIRO are interesting in developing models to predict the transport. Developing models to predict how it's partitioned in soil, how it moves in groundwater, and then how it is taken up by eco receptors. He says PFAS is a significant global challenge. Paul said he "would really like to see a future where science would inform policy in a way that is transparent to not only to government but also to community."

This is a fascinating talk with QLD researcher Leisa-Maree Toms from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in Brisbane. It was recorded before the Covid-19 lockdown in Australia on the 17/2/2020. Leisa has been involved in human biomonitoring in Australia, looking at a range of contaminants in human blood including PFAS. Blood samples for the human biomonitoring program in Australia were first collected as part of The National Dioxin Program in Australia. Out of curiosity researchers used these samples, first collected in 2002, to have a look for PFAS. They have been monitoring for PFAS since that time. Leisa-Maree explains that the human biomonitoring program looks at background levels in the general population, with its main focus being on PFAS in blood samples collected from people in South East Queensland. However Leisa-Maree has been successful in obtaining funding from a NHMRC grant to broaden her their research to other states and territories of Australia.Sample:Kayleen: "Do you think that the continued monitoring of PFAS chemicals in Australia is an important thing to do, both for background levels, and also individuals?" Leisa-Maree: "So certainly for background levels, since we have seen this decrease over time. If you want to be comparing occupationally exposed or residentially exposed concentrations you need an up to date background level. So for that reason, it is important to keep monitoring because we have seen a decrease, are we now going to plateau? Are we going to keep on decreasing? Are there secondary exposures that we might be exposed to? Will we see an increase? I think to stay up to date, it is really important to keep that monitoring going."

Today's episode is a fascinating discussion with Professor Chris Higgins from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines U.S. Chris was visiting Australia in March 2020 to discuss work on a PFAS soil washing project being conducted in Adelaide SA. Chris was attending a project meeting to discuss this project at QHAES, Brisbane and this interview was conducted there on the 3/3/2020, just before everything started to get locked down because of Covid-19. I am very glad I got the chance to talk with Professor Chris Higgins about PFAS because his chemistry background plus his extensive knowledge of PFAS chemicals produced a very informative and interesting discussion. It is an episode that you do not want to miss if you want to understand the behaviour of this complex group of chemicals known as PFAS. Chris said " I have certainly described this as what I think is a major challenge for my generation of environmental engineers. We are going to be dealing with this for a long time to come."

This is the final episode for Season 2 and 2019 - Taking a longer break (for other PFAS work) next one due approximately May/June 2020In today’s episode I will be talking PFAS in the waste streams and their release back into the environment, and possible effects of some of these transmission pathways on agriculture and hence the food chain.For the main discussion I will be talking with researcher, Christie Gallen, from the University of Queensland in Brisbane, discussing her research into PFASs in landfill leachate, WWTPs, biosolids and QLD floodwaters.Christie has a background in Chemistry and Biology and has an Honours degree in Chemistry. She currently works as a research assistant in Brisbane.Throughout today’s episode I will bring in some facts from Christie’s research papers and also put a link to her four papers in the show notes. I will also incorporate other relevant information about PFAS in landfills, biosolids, and WWTPs, and also highlight some brief overseas case study examples from Michigan, Maine, and even Alaska. Show Notes: Research Gallen et al1. PFAS flood watersSpatio-temporal assessment of perfluorinated compounds in the Brisbane River system, Australia: Impact of a major flood event (2014)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X140011062. A mass estimate of perfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) release from Australian wastewater treatment plants (2018)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00456535183109813. Australia-wide assessment of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in landfill leachates (2017)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389417300870?via%3Dihub4. Occurrence and distribution of brominated flame retardants and perfluoroalkyl substances in Australian landfill leachate and biosolids (2016)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389416302539?via%3DihubBloomberg Environment Parts Per Billion Podcast - Maine Dairy Farmer Fred Stone PFAS & Biosolidshttps://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/the-farmer-who-got-punished-for-reporting-pollution-podcast

Helena Hinrichsen is an Environmental Engineer from EnvyTech Solutions AB, Sweden was a presenter at the 2019 Clean Up Conference held in Adelaide between 8-12 September. I caught up with her at the conference for a short interview, where we discuss some of the challenges with remediation of PFAS. Helena believes there is not one solution for a PFAS problem, and that collaboration is key to solving the PFAS problem. She says the main three treatments for PFAS are thermal, chemistry and mechanical and Helena says "by combining them we can get a better solution than just using one of them." Helena is involved in, what she believes is the first project in the world, where they are using two combined methods for stabilisation both for groundwater and unsaturated soil, which is the soil above the groundwater. Today's talk is a bit technical but it was great to hear about some methods for treating PFAS. Helena also says, "I think what we all need to know is that we actually are moving forward. It is not always bad things. Yeah it is bad, it is really bad, but good things are happening. Man created it and we are really good at creating things so solutions are coming along so I see there is hope."Show Note Links:Guest speaker Helena Hinrichsen, Project Manager, EnvyTech Solutions AB Sweden http://envytech.se/om-envytech/"Helena has long experience in planning and project management of remediation works and possesses top-level expertise in soil and groundwater treatment techniques. Helena also has long experience of working with overall commitments on remediation projects, which includes all information from the notification and public contacts to planning, project management, monitoring and final reporting."CRC Care has published a link from the 2019 Clean Up Conference where you can download presentations from a range of sessions, including many PFAS sessions. This is where you can see the full presentation by Ian Cousins, Stockholm University, Sweden (mentioned briefly in today's episode) - you will see where he got the number of 4700 PFAS chemicals as well.http://adelaide2019.cleanupconference.com/presentations/IPEN has some great reports on PFAS - here is their latest report referred to briefly in today's episodehttps://ipen.org/news/new-report-perfluorohexane-sulfonate-pfhxs%E2%80%94-socio-economic-impact-exposure-and-precautionary

Today's discussion is with Professor Ravi Naidu the founder of CRC Care. This interview was recorded at the CRC Care 2019 Clean Up Conference held in Adelaide, Australia between 8-12 September. There were 700 delegates representing 35 countries, with many world leaders in the field of remediation. In this episode Professor Naidu talks about the important work that CRC Care do in bringing industry, regulators, polluters, and academic professionals together. He says "CRC Care is a Co-operative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment. Our job is to develop innovative technologies and solutions for the prevention, assessment and remediation of contaminated land." He said there are over 160,000 contaminated sites in Australia (*NB there are not all PFAS sites). He said if PFAS sites were included there would be more than 160,000 contaminated sites in Australia mainly in urban areas. In the last 20 years, he says Australia has only managed to remediate about 5% of these sites. Professor Naidu believes PFAS is a far more challenging contaminant than arsenic or lead to come up with solutions. Professor Naidu also discusses CRC Care's funding challenges as their Commonwealth Government funding is due to expire 30 June 2020 and he explains what that would mean in relation to contaminated sites in Australia, if CRC Care failed to continue.

Jennifer Spencer had a dream of training race horses on her own property. In 2012, she bought a property in Oakey, QLD to fulfil that dream where she wouldn't have water worries. But shortly after buying that property she discovered that the abundant bore was contaminated with PFAS chemicals, from AFFF fire fighting foam used by Defence, at the Oakey Army Aviation Centre since the 1970's. Jennifer along with many hundreds of residents in Australia have been fighting to get compensation. The Australian Government has still not responded to the recommendations from the 2018 PFAS Inquiry. The Australian Government has also just stopped the free PFAS blood tests for Oakey, Katherine and Williamtown and the free mental health counselling via Support Now, as at 30 June, 2019.

Today's episode is the journey of two QLD stud producers, Dianne Priddle and David Jefferis, who live in the Department of Defence's PFAS management area in Oakey. Dianne also has MS and fears that the stress will advance her condition. They are proud stud producers, and fear for their future because of PFAS contamination that is migrating towards them from the Army Aviation Centre Oakey. This is their story and it is also a pre-election special as they talk about what they want and need the Government to do for them. Australia is one week away from a Federal election. The commencement of the joint class action trial for Oakey Williamtown and Katherine residents has been put off - it is no longer the 12/8/2019 - no new date has been set. Residents all around Australia are disappointed by the news. The Australian Liberal Government is yet to respond to the recommendations of the Committee from the 2018 PFAS Inquiry.

This episode is an interview with Professor Cathy Banwell. We discuss the Focus Group Study Report that was released by ANU Canberra on 19 March, 2019. This report is one component of the PFAS Health Study which is being conducted by ANU Canberra. Professor Banwell is a Co-Investigator on the PFAS Health Study and was the Lead of the Focus Groups. Focus groups were conducted in three communities, Katherine (NT) Williamtown (NSW) and Oakey (QLD). These three communities are the only communities the ANU has been commissioned to work in, even though there are many sites in Australia, including 27 Defence bases which have been or are currently being investigated for PFAS. Additional focus groups were held in three Aboriginal communities on the outskirts of Katherine and also separate focus groups were held in Williamtown, Oakey and Katherine for Defence personnel, contractors and their families. This report provides more detail of the many social, physical, financial, mental and emotional effects PFAS is having on communities. The Australian Government now has recommendations from two PFAS Inquiries conducted in Australia in 2015 & 2018 and now the ANU Focus Group Study Report to inform their decision making and hopefully help them respond to the many communities around Australia who are struggling with the many effects of PFAS contamination on and around their properties. The Australian Government is still due to respond to the recent 2018 PFAS Inquiry.https://rsph.anu.edu.au/files/FINAL%20PFAS%20Health%20Study%20Focus%20Groups%20Report%20February%202019_3.pdf

Today’s episode is a conversation with Assistant Professor Andres Cardenas from the University of California, Berkeley. Dr Cardenas has been the lead author of two PFAS studies but the focus of today’s conversation is his research published in 2018.The objective of the study was to determine the extent to which PFASs are associated with increases in weight and body size and evaluate whether a lifestyle intervention modifies this association.“We found that PFASs measured in blood are associated with weight gain. However we see that exercise and diet, so this is a lifestyle intervention of exercise and diet was able to attenuate this weight gain, that is associated with this PFAS exposure.”The importance of Dr Cardenas’s research is because PFASs are chemicals that are suspected endocrine disruptors.Show Notes: Episode 111. Research Paper Cardenas et al Published 2/10/2017 in Environmental Health Perspectives: “Plasma Concentrations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances at Baseline and Associations with Glycemic Indicators and Diabetes Incidence among High-Risk Adults in the Diabetes Prevention Program Trial.” https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP16122. Research Paper Cardenas et al Published August 31, 2018 in JAMA Network Open: “Association of Perfluoroalkyl Substances with Adiposity.” 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.14933. Research Paper (Dr Cardenas referred to in the show by colleagues whofound similar PFAS & weight gain associations) https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002502

In Episode 6, I interviewed Dr Brett Turner from the University of Newcastle and we discussed the original work he, and his team have been doing using HEMP plant proteins to remove PFAS from water. Last time we spoke in 2018 he was waiting on funding to take his 'Australian first' research to the next level. In Episode 8, Senator Brian Burston from the United Australia Party was confident he could arrange funding for Dr Brett Turner's work with the Finance Minister Senator Mathias Cormann. His efforts were successful and the Australian Government will be providing $4.7 million to support the work of Dr Brett Turner and Professor Scott Sloan from the University of Newcastle. This episode features interviews with Senator Brian Burston, Dr Brett Turner and also the Federal Member for Paterson Meryl Swanson, who was also working behind the scenes to try and get funding for the HEMP project.

In Australia in 2018 a PFAS Inquiry looking at PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases was conducted. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade presented their report to Government on the 3/12/2019. The Australian Government is due to respond to the committee's report and their recommendations by the 3/3/2019. In this episode you will hear Mr Andrew Laming, the former Chair of the Committee's address to the House of Representatives plus many voices and stories from residents affected by PFAS contamination from Williamtown (NSW), Oakey (QLD) and Katherine (NT) plus a few other witnesses from the various public hearings.Show Notes:Home page to the 2018 PFAS Inquiry - where you can access submissions, transcripts from public hearings, the Committee's Report plus the Governments response (when available - due 3/3/2019)https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/InquiryintoPFAS/Report_1

This is a jam packed Season #1 Finale of TalkingPFAS. Please listen right to the end to hear about what's coming for Season #2. This episode features a discussion about #PFAS with NSW Senator Brian Burston from the United Australia Party. He has also met with new PM of Australia Scott Morrison to talk about #PFAS, and he will share in this episode the many ways he has been fighting for justice for residents who have been affected, and had their lives turned upside down, by #PFAS contamination. He is also willing to travel anywhere in #Australia. As this is Season #1 Finale, there is some extra content as well, plus announcements about Season 2.

This discussion is from an interview in September, 2018 with the Labor Federal member for Paterson Meryl Swanson. In this episode I ask her why Labor voted no to a Senate motion by NSW Senator Brian Burston (United Australia Party) for compensation for residents affected by PFAS. We also discuss Meryl Swanson's thoughts on many other issues connected to PFAS, including livestock; Defence; Food; PFAS Taskforce; Expert Health Panel; and of course her thoughts about the way the contamination was first revealed to residents in her electorate. These residents have been affected by contamination from the RAAF Base Williamtown.

Researcher Dr Brett Turner from Newcastle University and his team have developed a natural and effective solution for removing toxic PFAS chemicals from groundwater. He also explains how their research is also looking at how hemp plants can be used to remediate PFAS contaminated soil. Dr Turner and his team require funding to take this unique, ground breaking research to the next level.

Today's important discussion is with Professor Martyn Kirk, the lead researcher of the PFAS Health Study being conducted by the Australian National University (ANU) Canberra. The study is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health. We discuss, amongst many things, the ANU's research methodology, and reasons behind their study design, plus the health findings they reported in the Systematic Literature Review. Professor Kirk also discussed where more health research is required. This episode also includes a bonus five minute summary of Professor Nicholas Buckley's keynote speech that he gave at the PFAS Summit in Sydney on the 2/10/2018. Professor Buckley was the Chair of the Government's Expert Health Panel, that reported on PFAS health effects.

Associate Professor Robert Niven from the University of NSW Canberra has (along with his team) just been awarded a grant by ARC to develop remediation methods for PFAS. He has real concerns about the scope of the PFAS contamination problem in Australia. This episode is jam packed with discussion about many complexities and some possible solutions concerning PFAS.

Kate Washington, the Labor Member for Port Stephens, NSW shares her perspective on how PFAS contamination from the RAAF Base Williamtown, has affected Salt Ash, Fullerton Cove and Williamtown communities in her electorate. The effects on these communities, though unique, may be similar to what many other communities around Australia and the World are experiencing.

Pam & Len O'Connell's property at Salt Ash have been in Pam's family for 100 years, they dreamed of a peaceful retirement on this land .....now they are desperate to leave!

This will give you a good overview of some of the great content to come