Podcasts about pfoa

Obesogens are chemicals that disrupt the body's normal controls and promote fat cell formation (adipogenesis) and lipid accumulation. These can potentially lead to obesity. Common types of obesogens include BPA, phthalates, herbicides, pesticides, PFOA and nonstick cookware and food additives. Naturopath and wellness expert Erin O'Hara reveals how obesogens affect your body - and how you can minimise your exposure. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Co-host Matthew Wallace just completed his first PFAS sampling!Here's a breakdown of what we wanted to know from the EHS&S Professional:We thought a little breakdown of Do you do much sampling generally?Without telling us who the client was, or giving away too much, can you tell us what the facility was, what it was like?What kind of sampling was this?What was the preparation that you have to for PFAS specifically?What were the special considerations for this particular event? Things you thought about doing, changes up  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Et si votre bière du week-end contenait autre chose que du malt et du houblon ? Aux États-Unis, des chercheurs ont voulu savoir si la pollution de l'eau potable pouvait aussi se retrouver… dans notre mousse. Et la réponse est oui.L'équipe, basée en Caroline du Nord, s'est intéressée aux PFAS, ces substances chimiques persistantes connues pour contaminer de nombreuses ressources en eau. Surnommées "polluants éternels", elles sont utilisées dans des produits industriels, mais une fois dans la nature, elles s'accrochent. Elles s'infiltrent dans les nappes phréatiques, et donc, dans l'eau utilisée pour brasser la bière. Les scientifiques ont analysé 23 bières provenant de différents États américains. Résultat ? 95 % d'entre elles contiennent des traces de PFAS. Et sans surprise, les plus touchées viennent de régions déjà connues pour la pollution de leur eau, comme le bassin de la rivière Cape Fear, en Caroline du Nord. Certaines bières contenaient même les deux composés les plus redoutés : le PFOS et le PFOA, tous deux soupçonnés d'effets nocifs sur la santé humaine. Le constat dépasse les frontières américaines. En avril dernier, un rapport européen révélait des traces de ces substances dans des bouteilles de vin commercialisées en Europe.Pourquoi est-ce inquiétant ? Parce que même les brasseries les mieux équipées ne filtrent pas complètement ces composés. Si les PFAS sont présents dans l'eau municipale, ils finissent dans la cuve… puis dans le verre du consommateur. L'autrice principale de l'étude, Jennifer Hoponick Redmon, espère que ces résultats pousseront les autorités à agir. "Il est temps de revoir nos politiques de traitement de l'eau", alerte-t-elle. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Join hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace, joined by HRP's EHS&S Practice Leader, Jackie Baxley, as we break down the new deadline for PFAS TSCA reporting.EPA announced an interim final rule which extended the dates of the reporting period for data submissions for the TSCA PFAS reporting rule. Submissions are now due by October 13, 2026, for most manufacturers. Small businesses reporting data solely on importing PFAS contained in articles have until April 13, 2027, to submit reports. This rule provides much needed time for the regulated community to assess its manufacturing (including import) from 2011 to 2022 relative to PFAS.  Prior to this rule being published, the reporting period was set to open this July with reports due January 11, 2026. For more information on this rule, refer to HRP's webinar presented February 2025: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNalxzfPxog  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

This Day in Legal History: Standard Oil Breaks UpOn May 15, 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, finding that Standard Oil had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in monopolistic practices. The Court unanimously ruled that Standard Oil's dominance over the oil industry—achieved through aggressive acquisitions, predatory pricing, and exclusive agreements—constituted an illegal restraint of trade. As a remedy, the Court ordered the breakup of Standard Oil into 34 separate and independent companies, a dramatic reshaping of the American oil landscape. Among the entities created were companies that would later become industry giants in their own right, including Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, and Amoco.The decision was a defining moment in U.S. antitrust enforcement, signaling the federal government's willingness to confront corporate consolidation. It aimed to restore competition and prevent the recurrence of monopolistic control in vital sectors of the economy. However, over the next century, many of the separated entities gradually reconsolidated. Notably, Exxon and Mobil merged in 1999 to form ExxonMobil, while Chevron absorbed both Gulf Oil and Texaco, and BP later acquired Amoco.Today, a majority of the original 34 companies—or their direct successors—are now part of just a few massive corporations. This reconsolidation serves as a cautionary tale: without vigilant antitrust enforcement post-breakup, market dominance can re-emerge in new forms. The Standard Oil saga demonstrates not only the power of antitrust law but also its limitations if not actively maintained. It underscores that breaking up monopolies is only one step—the preservation of competition requires ongoing oversight.The EPA announced it will weaken several Biden-era regulations on PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in drinking water. Specifically, the agency plans to rescind enforceable limits on three types of PFAS—PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA (also known as GenX)—as well as on combinations of those and PFBS. At the same time, the EPA is giving water systems two extra years, until 2031, to comply with limits on PFOA and PFOS, the two most well-known and studied PFAS chemicals, citing the challenges especially for smaller and rural systems.The original Biden administration rule had set an enforceable limit of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and a non-enforceable goal of zero exposure due to their cancer and health risks. The EPA says it will revisit its regulatory decisions on the other PFAS types it is now rolling back. Administrator Lee Zeldin framed the delay as necessary flexibility while maintaining protections against the most harmful chemicals, but environmental groups like the Environmental Working Group blasted the move as a concession to industry that puts public health at risk. Some state-level regulators expressed caution and said more time is needed to evaluate the impact of rescinding the additional PFAS limits.EPA Moves to Weaken Biden-era PFAS Limits for Drinking WaterU.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared before Congress for the first time in his new role, facing bipartisan scrutiny over his department's proposed 2026 budget, mass layoffs, and his response to a growing measles outbreak. Since taking office in February, Kennedy has overseen the dismissal of roughly 10,000 workers across major health agencies, aligning with broader Trump administration efforts to downsize the federal government. His budget plan calls for deep cuts, including $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health and $3.6 billion from the CDC.Lawmakers questioned Kennedy's controversial stance on vaccines—particularly during an outbreak that has resulted in over 1,000 infections and three deaths, largely among unvaccinated populations. Representative Rosa DeLauro accused Kennedy of promoting misinformation and endangering public health. Senator Bill Cassidy, who supported Kennedy's confirmation based on promises to uphold vaccine access and collaborate with Congress, emphasized the need for transparency and reassurance amid sweeping departmental changes.Kennedy defended the workforce reductions as a return to pre-COVID staffing levels and projected $1.8 billion in annual savings. Still, critics view the cuts as harmful to the country's public health infrastructure. His personal conduct also drew scrutiny after posting photos of himself swimming in Rock Creek, a site banned for public use due to unsafe water conditions.US health chief Kennedy faces lawmakers' questions on mass firings, measles | ReutersA growing number of major U.S. companies are proposing to leave Delaware as their state of incorporation—a trend being called “Dexit”—following Elon Musk's public fallout with Delaware courts. At least nine publicly traded companies, each valued over $1 billion, are preparing shareholder votes to move their legal homes, while five, including Tesla and Trump Media, have already relocated to states like Texas, Florida, and Nevada. The exodus is driven by concerns over Delaware's increasingly strict scrutiny of deals involving controlling shareholders, highlighted by a 2024 court ruling voiding Musk's $56 billion Tesla pay package.Companies say Delaware's legal environment has become unpredictable, especially for founder-led or insider-controlled firms. By contrast, states like Nevada and Texas offer looser standards and greater protection from shareholder litigation. For example, Nevada's laws shield corporate boards under the business judgment rule unless there is fraud, while Delaware courts still require fairness and transparency in insider transactions.In response, Delaware recently passed laws to limit judicial review of certain deals and curb shareholders' access to corporate records, hoping to stem the corporate departures. Still, critics like legal scholars and corporate counsel argue that Delaware's courts are now perceived as activist and uncertain, prompting companies to seek jurisdictions they believe offer more legal stability and control.In Tesla's wake, more big companies propose voting “Dexit" to depart Delaware | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace as we talk to Jonathan Thorn, Technical Director and PFAS Practice Leader, at Eurofins, as debunk the biggest myths and misconceptions around PFAS from the perspective of the lab.Jonathan Thorn has worked in the field of environmental analytical chemistry for over 28 years. For the last eight years, his primary focus has been the analysis of PFAS in environmental samples, focusing on development and implementation of analytical methods in difficult matrices, including ground water, wastewater, landfill leachate, sediment, soil, biosolids, environmental tissues, agricultural products, and animal blood. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Ripped from the Pulse! Your PFAS headlines for the month of April.We're talking big moves from Trump's EPA to end PFAS bans and eliminate research grants.On the research front, we also take a peek at nanocage PFAS tech!And we talk about new anti-PFAS lobbying efforts from unexpected areas.All articles and studies can be found, linked, on the PFAS Pulse!  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Hey Collectors! On this episode of the Hoardganize Podcast I discuss how to declutter your kitchen of potentially toxic items. Below are some of the utensils and cookware that may contain chemicals that are harmful to you and your family (don't forget your fur kids either).  Utensils & Cookware That May Contain Chemicals 1. Nonstick Cookware (Teflon) Chemical: PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) and formerly PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) Risk: At high temperatures (over 500°F), nonstick coatings can break down and release toxic fumes. Tip: Use nonstick only on low/medium heat, avoid scratched pans, or switch to ceramic-coated alternatives. 2. Plastic Utensils & Storage Chemical: BPA, phthalates, and other plasticizers Risk: Heat (like dishwashers or microwaving) can cause plastics to leach these into food. Tip: Use BPA-free plastics, or switch to glass, stainless steel, or silicone. 3. Aluminum Cookware (especially uncoated) Chemical: Aluminum Risk: Acidic foods (like tomato sauce) can cause leaching; long-term exposure to aluminum is under investigation for health impacts. Tip: Use anodized aluminum or switch to stainless steel. 4. Copper Cookware Chemical: Copper Risk: Can leach into food if not lined (usually with stainless steel or tin). Too much copper can be toxic. Tip: Use only lined copper cookware. 5. Melamine Dishes Chemical: Melamine Risk: Can leach into food, especially when microwaved or used with hot foods. Tip: Avoid microwaving melamine and use ceramic/glass for heating. Remember, you can always see our episodes in person, on our youtube channel! 

We sit down with HRP's Laurel Pickard to talk about the latest PFAS developments regarding the MSGP for 2026. How will it impact big and small businesses when it comes to various stormwater and other sampling concerns.  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace are joined by Lindsay Boone of Pace Analytical for a full spectrum conversation on the state of PFAS science. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Es uno de los mayores escándalos sanitarios europeos: la contaminación por PFAS. Utilizadas durante muchos años para producir sartenes antiadherentes, por ejemplo, estas sustancias contaminan suelos y ríos de numerosos países desde hace décadas. Durante muchos años hemos utilizado sartenes antiadherentes sin sospechar que el PFOA uno de los componentes del Teflón, era tóxico. Esta sustancia, que evita que los alimentos se peguen a las sartenes, fue prohibido en 2020 a nivel internacional debido a los riesgos graves que representa para la salud. El PFOA forma parte de la familia de las 4000 sustancias perfluorolaquiladas y polifluoroalquiladas, (PFAS, por sus siglas en inglés) conocidas también como "contaminantes eternos" por su persistencia en el medioambiente.En 2023, una investigación colaborativa que unió medios de comunicación europeos y ONG reveló la presencia preocupante de PFAS en el suelo o el agua en 23000 sitios en Europa. Y en 2100 zonas, las concentraciones de estas sustancias alcanzan el límite de 100 nanogramos por litro, considerado como peligroso por la salud por los expertos competentes.Tal es el caso en Zwijndrecht, Bélgica, donde la empresa 3M fabricó hasta 2020 ácido perfluorooctanosulfónico (PFOS) y contaminó suelos, ríos y lagos, a sabiendas de que estas sustancias se dispersaban de manera casi irreversible en el medioambiente.En esta región, un estudio independiente reveló que los jóvenes sufren trastornos de pubertad y de su sistema inmunológico. Ante la magnitud del desastre, la empresa 3M pagó 570 millones de euros para remover estas sustancias nocivas del suelo. Casos similares de contaminación por PFAS afectan ya a varias regiones de Europa, lo que ha llevado a los países a intensificar el control sobre la presencia de estas sustancias en el agua.Escuche la versión audio:Las PFAS han sido, durante décadas, sustancias particularmente valoradas en la industria manufacturera: fueron utilizadas como repelentes de agua en textiles, como repelentes de manchas en alfombras y también por sus características antiaceites en utensilios de cocina o ignífugas en productos antiincendios. E incluso en herbicidas y pesticidas.“Por eso están tan esparcidos por el medio ambiente. Hay una gran cantidad de estudios que indican que estos contaminantes se bioacumulan en organismos vivos, por eso son tan preocupantes”, alerta la investigadora española Irene Navarro. Desde el Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas y Medioambientales (CIEMAT), Navarro trabaja en la unidad de contaminantes, encargada de monitorear la cantidad de PFAS en los ríos.Descontaminación imposibleLas obras titánicas que se llevan a cabo en Zwijndrecht donde se limpia el suelo metro cuadrado por metro cuadrado demuestran la dificultad de descontaminar las zonas afectadas por las PFAS, sustancias que pueden ser cancerígenas, pueden alterar la fertilidad, la inmunidad y son perturbadores endocrinos. “Existen varios tratamientos para la limpieza de agua y para la limpieza de lo que son otros compartimentos medioambientales. Pero son estudios a nivel de laboratorio o a nivel de plantas piloto. Es muy complicado ponerlas en marcha en campo. El problema es el coste porque requieren mucha energía”, comenta Irene Navarro en entrevista  con RFI.Las técnicas de absorción con carbón activo o con resinas de intercambio iónico permitan captar las PFAS, pero “generan residuos que hay que tratar con incineración”, agrega.“Hay algunos estudios que indican que PFOS se eliminan mediante incineración utilizando temperaturas de 1100ºC que no alcanzan las incineradoras municipales. Las tecnologías a veces tienen una efectividad muy buena para algunos PFAS, los de cadena larga, por ejemplo, y en cambio los de cadena corta son más difíciles de eliminar. Tienen que evolucionar la tecnología para conseguir esta contaminación real”, concluye Navarro.La carrera sin fin de la industria químicaAnte la multiplicación reciente de estudios que detectaron la presencia de PFAS en los suelos, ríos, fuentes de agua potable y en la sangre de poblaciones que viven cerca de plantas químicas que procesan estas sustancias, las autoridades impusieron progresivamente reglas: desde la prohibición del PFOA en 2020, hasta limites de concentraciones de 20 PFAS preocupantes de 0,10 μg/l en el agua potable en la Unión Europea. Pero la regulación de las PFAS se asemeja a una carrera de prohibición en la que la industria química siempre se lleva la delantera con la creación de nuevas sustancias para esquivar la ley.“Sí, pasa con estos contaminantes y con muchos otros”, confirma la investigadora Irene Navarro. “Estos compuestos se empezaron a utilizar a lo mejor en los años 50 y se han estado utilizando hasta que salta la alarma. Y cuando la comunidad científica comunica su preocupación, las empresas ya están pensando en sustituir estos compuestos por otros. El problema es que se sustituyen a veces por compuestos muy similares. Es y al ser tan similares, pues pueden provocar los mismos efectos que las sustancias iniciales”, indica Navarro.Los grupos de intereses a la ofensiva en BruselasDesde Bruselas, Dolores Romano, responsable de políticas de sustancias químicas en European Environmental Bureau, EEB, principal coalición de ONG ambientalistas europeas, estima que las prohibiciones actuales son muy limitadas frente a los miles sustancias que se usan en la industria.La activista respalda la propuesta de Alemania, Dinamarca, Suecia, Holanda y Noruega para que se prohíban en toda Europa todas las PFAS. “Además, se deberían prohibir de inmediato todo lo que son usos no esenciales de PFAS, o sea, como decoración e inmuebles y. Todos los usos para los que realmente no son críticos para el mantenimiento de la seguridad o de la salud”, dijo a RFI.Pero los intentos por restringir el uso de estos contaminantes eternos se han topado con una ofensiva de los grupos de intereses de la industria química. En abril de 2024, la dirección de la empresa de utensilios de cocina Seb incitó por ejemplo a sus empleados a manifestarse ante la Asamblea Nacional francesa el día del debate de una propuesta de ley para prohibir el uso de PFAS en textiles y cosméticos.“Estamos viendo una influencia y una presión que no se ha visto jamás en Europa, de la cantidad de lobistas, de reuniones, de información falsa que se está de vertiendo sobre sobre las PFAS, sobre su peligrosidad, sobre las alternativas”, observa Dolores Romano.“Estamos frente a una campaña masiva de desinformación por parte de los fabricantes de PFAS en Europa. Es especialmente la filial de Dupont, Chemours, que está liderando la campaña, junto con las asociaciones de empresarios de la química”, subraya la activista.La influencia de los grupos de intereses llevó justamente a un giro espectacular del gobierno alemán. En 2023, el gobierno de Olal Scholz fue uno de los promotores europeos de la prohibición universal de las PFAS antes finalmente de dar marcha atrás.¿Qué decidirá el próximo gobierno? Quién asumirá el costo de la descontaminación de los suelos envenenados por PFAS, estimado en 100 mil millones de euros ? Preguntas que aún quedan pendientes en Europa.Entrevistas:>Irene Navarro, investigadora del Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas y Medioambientales, CIEMAT, España, en la Unidad Contaminantes Orgánicos Persistentes.>Dolores Romano: responsable de políticas de sustancias químicas en European Environmental Bureau, EEB, principal coalición de ONG ambientalistas europeas.

The list of PFAS chemicals subject to TRI reporting grows to 205! Hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace are joined by HRP's EHS&S Practice Leader Jackie Baxley to discuss the additions. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

What do horse riding and leading a utility have in common? Sewer District CEO Kyle Dreyfuss-Wells shares her top projects of 2024, the Cleveland bonds that fuel her enthusiasm, and insights that will resonate with leaders from all walks of life. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District manages both wastewater and stormwater systems and plays a crucial role in restoring local waterways. We delve into the challenges of urban water infrastructure, the importance of partnerships, and the delicate balance needed to address environmental and community concerns. Looking to 2025, we consider the crucial role of leadership at the US EPA and Department of Energy, greenhouse gas and "forever chemicals," and the power of mindful communication in building community.Acronyms used in this episode:CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The Act provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.PFAS - Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a synthetic chemical that's part of PFAS chemicals.

It's our top PFAS stories of 2024! We'll hear from our regular contributors to the podcast on what stories top their lists for the year. We've got HRP's Tom Darby, Jackie Baxley, and hosts Matthew Wallace, and Tom Simmons. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Join host Ryan Feldman in an insightful episode of "The Poison Lab" as he sits down with Dr. John Downs, Director of the Virginia Poison Center, and one of the leading experts on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as "forever chemicals." Known for their persistence in the environment and human body, PFAS have raised significant public health concerns over the past few decades. Dr. Downs shares his journey through occupational medicine, toxicology, and public health, which uniquely positioned him to provide expertise on PFAS exposure, health risks, and ongoing regulatory efforts. Together, they delve into the origins, uses, and potential health effects of these ubiquitous compounds, while examining government policies, environmental impact, and strategies to reduce exposure. A must-listen for anyone interested in the intersection of environmental health and toxicology! Episode Breakdown:2:42 – What Are Forever Chemicals?8:01 – History of PFAS and Associated Health Concerns15:41 – Government Regulation of PFAS20:42 – Shortcomings in PFAS Regulation25:20 – How Individuals Can Mitigate Risk31:15 – Testing for PFAS Levels and Exploring Treatment Options41:14 – Future Directions and Research Needs for PFAS45:29 – Conclusion and OutroKey Topics Discussed2:42 – What Are Forever Chemicals?PFAS are a large group of man-made chemicals that are persistent in the environment and human body.The podcast focuses primarily on PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctanoic sulfonic acid), as these were the first compounds identified as having very long elimination half-lives, measured in years, and not undergoing significant human metabolismThe podcast mentions that there are potentially thousands of different PFAS compounds and that more research is needed to determine if they all induce the same health effects as PFOA and PFOSCommonly used for their water- and oil-resistant properties in nonstick cookware, fast food wrappers, firefighting foams, and more.8:01 – History of PFAS and Associated Health ConcernsFirst created by Dupont chemical, used widely in 1940's in TeflonLarge contamination of water by PFAS identified in West Virginia townLed to landmark study in West Virginia (the C8 study) on epidemiological data of PFAS-related health risks.Effects noted: High cholesterol, thyroid dysfunction, ulcerative colitis, hypertension in pregnancy, decreased immune response to vaccine, and certain cancers (testicular and kidney cancer).PFAS in the EnvironmentPFAS are not easily degraded, leading to bioaccumulation in humans and animals.Non-stick cookware: Teflon, the trade name for non-stick cookware, was one of the earliest applications of PFAS, utilizing PFOA.Firefighting foam: PFAS was used in firefighting foams, particularly for aviation fuel fires. This has led to contamination of groundwater around military installations and airports.Fast food wrappers and other consumer products: PFAS are used to make products water and oil resistant, including fast food wrappers, clothing, upholstery, and popcorn bags.Biosolids: The nitrogenous waste produced after wastewater treatment, have been found to contain concentrated PFAS. These biosolids are sometimes sold to farms as fertilizer, potentially contaminating water and crops.Ski wax: Ski waxers have been found to have a high degree of PFAS...

Matthew and Tom are joined by HRP's CEO, and Maine sport hunting enthusiast, Dan Titus, to talk about the state's advisory on consuming game meat, specifically, deer and turkey. The advisory comes on the heels of lab results showing dangerously elevated levels of PFAS in wildlife.  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Contains Distressing ContentScott Joined the Police in 1995. He had been a professional footballer, and his selection process was extremely smooth! He had played for Alloa Athletic and Scotland under 16 and played against Saudi Arabia in the Youth World Cup Final alongside Paul Dickov .Prior to joining the police Scott worked in the travel industry. His first day at training school wasn't the best start. He had been told to wear casual clothing. However, the drill sergeant had other ideas and a public telling off and was one of a handful who had to put their uniform on in the car park! He has fond memories of his time in training school and it was a platform that served him well throughout his career. His conclusion of training he went to his force for local procedure. On his first day, as he sat in the canteen, he was informed that there had been a shooting at Dunblane primary school. Along with his young colleagues he was dispatched to the school and was placed on scene preservation and to prevent the press and parents from entering the area. He saw the aftermath of the shooting and he describes his experiences as unforgettable. His first week became even more memorable when he broke the wrist of a suspect who he had handcuffed.Scott served at the Court in Holland where the Lockerbie Suspects were tried. This experience was carried out in the spotlight of the worlds press. The camp was in lockdown at night and the staff worked hard and played hard. Scott discovered a liking for firearms and undertook the tough process to qualify. His skills were recognised and he became the Chief Firearms instructor. The success in the work place came at a cost. The impact on his family was such that it put an end to his marriage. His depression was overwhelming but the death by suicide of a friend had a significant impact, and he found that with the support of the PFOA he was able to make the changes he needed to put his life back on track.The motivation to retire from Police Scotland was as a result of the pension changes. He wanted to stay but it became cost prohibitive.Since retirement Scott has been working for a number of different organisations and concentrates on wellbeing and has supported organisations such as PFOA Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Seychelle founder and Chairman of the Board, Carl Palmer, joins the show today! Carl discusses the importance and connection between hydration and human health and takes a deep dive into different types of contamination including aesthetic, chemical and radiological. Using Seychelle's water bottle, Carl explains the scientific data behind the removal of inorganics, PFOA's and other contaminants from the water we drink at home and away. See our Seychelle Affiliate on www.jimbakkershow.com for products, discounts and information.

The deadline for PFAS reporting has been pushed!  Hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace are joined by compliance expert Jackie Baxley, HRP's EHS&S Practice Leader, to detail the deadline update and go over the key details of the rule.Check out our previously recorded webinar linked here for some background context, but be sure to check out this episode for the latest! Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

How are PFAS affecting your work and our world?Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are a large class of long-lasting, synthetic chemicals used extensively in industrial and household products. Many PFAS don't degrade readily on their own, and some are highly mobile in the environment. They can be found worldwide in water, soil, air, plants, animals and even our bloodstreams. We're still uncovering the full impact of these chemicals on the health of humans and our environment, but here's what is clear: it's a complex challenge at scale to remediate these so-called “forever” chemicals.  Add fast-changing regulations in different geographies and regional differences to the scale and response to the PFAS challenge, and it all compounds the difficulty. The way forward requires a greater understanding of the risks and challenges of PFAS, but it's just the start. We'll need cross-sector collaboration and innovation to tackle these issues and apply the right measurement tools and technology.    Our guests for this episode are defining the solutions for clients and the industry at large: Sharon Minchak, Global Solutions Director for Remediation and Regeneration at Jacobs, and Dr. Russell Ford, Global Director for Drinking Water & Reuse Solutions at Jacobs.Follow Jacobs:Website: jacobs.comIf/When podcast series: If/When podcast seriesLinkedIn: @jacobsconnectsInstagram: @jacobsconnectsX: @JacobsConnectsFollow our guests:Sharon MinchakRussell FordMore episode details available here. 

Professor Joseph Allen directs the Healthy Buildings Program at Harvard Chan School of Public Health. His expertise extends far beyond what makes buildings healthy. He has been a leading voice and advocate during the Covid pandemic for air quality and ventilation. He coined the term “Forever Chemicals” and has written extensively on this vital topic, no less other important exposures, which we covered In our wide-ranging conversation. You will see how remarkably articulate and passionate Prof Allen is about these issues, along with his optimism for solutions.A video snippet of our conversation: buildings as the 1st line of defense vs respiratory pathogens. Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The audios are also available on Apple and Spotify.Transcript with External Links and Links to AudioEric Topol (00:00:06):Well, hello. It's Eric Topol from Ground Truths and I am just delighted to have with me, Joseph Allen from the Harvard School of Public Health, where he directs the Healthy Buildings Program that he founded and does a whole lot more that we're going to get into. So welcome, Joe.Joseph Allen (00:00:24):Thanks. It's great to be here. I appreciate the invitation.Joe Allen's Background As A DetectiveEric Topol (00:00:28):Well, you have been, as I've learned, rocking it for many years long before the pandemic. There's quite a background about you having been a son of a homicide detective, private eye agency, and then you were going to become an FBI agent. And the quote from that in the article that's the Air Investigator is truly a classic. Yeah, you have in there, “I guarantee I'm the only public health student ever to fail an FBI lie detector polygraph in the morning and start graduate school a few hours later.” That's amazing. That's amazing.Joseph Allen (00:01:29):All right. Well, you've done your deep research apparently. That's good. Yeah, my dad was a homicide detective and I was a private investigator. That's no longer my secret. It's out in the world. And I switched careers and it happened to be the day I took the polygraph at the FBI headquarters in Boston, was the same day I started graduate studies in public health.Sick vs Healthy Buildings (Pre-Covid)Eric Topol (00:01:53):Well, you're still a detective and now you're a detective of everything that can hurt us or help us environmentally and my goodness, how grateful we are that you change your career path. I don't know anyone who's had more impact on buildings, on air, and we're going to get into chemicals as well. So if we go back a bit here, you wrote a book before the pandemic, talk about being prescient. It's called Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Can Make You Sick - or Keep You Well with John Macomber, your co-author. What was it that gave you the insight to write a book before there was this thing called Covid?Joseph Allen (00:02:41):Yeah, well, thanks for making the connection too, my past career to current career. For many years, I thought there wasn't a connection, but I agree. There's actually a lot of similarities and I also am really appreciative. I am lucky I found the field of Public Health, it's clearly where I belong. I feel like I belong here. It's a place to make an impact that I want to make in my career. So yeah, the Healthy Buildings book, we started writing years before the pandemic and was largely motivated by, I think what you and others and other people in my field have known, is that buildings have an outsized impact on our health. Yet it's not something that comes to the forefront when you ask people about what matters for their health. Right, I often start presentations by asking people that, what constitutes healthy living? They'll say, I can't smoke, I have to eat well.(00:03:30):I have to exercise. Maybe they'll say, outdoor pollution's bad for you. Very few people, if any, will say, well, the air I breathe inside my building matters a lot. And over the years I had started my public health career doing forensic investigations of sick buildings. People really can get sick in buildings. It can be anything from headaches and not being able to concentrate all the way to cancer clusters and people dying because of the building. And I've seen this in my career, and it was quite frustrating because I knew, we all knew how to design and operate buildings in a way that can actually keep people healthy. But I was frustrated like many in my field that it wasn't advancing. In other words, the science was there, but the practice wasn't changing. We were still doing things the wrong way around ventilation, materials we put in our building, and I would lecture over and over and give presentations and I decided I want to try something new.(00:04:22):I do peer-reviewed science. That's great. I write pieces like you for the public, and I thought we'd try a longer form piece in a book, and it's published by Harvard Press. John Macomber for those who know is a professor at Harvard Business School who's an expert in real estate finance. So he'd been talking about the economic benefits of healthier buildings and some hand waving as he describes around public health. I've been talking about the public health benefits and trying to wave an economic argument. We teamed up to kind of use both of our strengths to, I hope make a compelling case that buildings are good for health and they're also just good business. In other words, try to break down as many barriers as we can to adoption. And then the book was published right as Covid hit.Indoor Air Quality and CognitionEric Topol (00:05:05):Yeah. I mean, it's amazing. I know that typically you have to have a book almost a year ahead to have it in print. So you were way, way ahead of this virus. Now, I'm going to come back to it later, but there were two things beyond the book that are pretty striking about your work. One is that you did all these studies to show with people wearing sensors to show that when the levels of CO2 were high by sensors that their cognition indoors was suffering. Maybe you could just tell us a little bit about these sensors and why aren't we all wearing sensors so that we don't lose whatever cognitive power that we have?Joseph Allen (00:05:56):Well, yeah. First I think we will start having these air quality sensors. As you know, they're starting to become a lot more popular. But yeah, when I first joined the faculty full-time at Harvard, one of the first studies I conducted with my team was to look at how indoor air quality influences cognitive function. And we performed a double-blind study where we took people, office workers and put them in a typical office setting. And unbeknownst to them, we started changing the air they were breathing in really subtle ways during the day, so they didn't know what we were doing. At the end of the day, we administered an hour and a half long cognitive function battery, and like all studies, we control for things like caffeine intake, baseline cognitive performance, all the other factors we want to account for. And after controlling for those factors in a double-blind study, we see that indoor air quality, minor improvements to indoor air quality led to dramatic increases in cognitive function test scores across domains that people recognize as important for everyday life.(00:06:59):How do you seek out and utilize information? How do you make strategic decisions? How do you handle yourself during a crisis and importantly recover after that crisis? I don't mean the world's ending crisis. I mean something happens at work that's stressful. How do you handle that and how do you respond? Well, it turns out that amongst all the factors that influence how we respond there, indoor air quality matters a lot. We call that study the COGfx Study for cognitive function. We replicated it across the US, we replicated it across the world with office workers around the world, and again, always showing these links, the subtle impact of indoor air quality on cognitive function performance. Now, that also then starts to be the basis for some of the economic analysis we perform with my colleague at Harvard Business School. We say, well, look, if you perform this much better related to air quality, what would happen if we implemented this at scale in a business?(00:07:51):And we estimate that there are just massive economic gains to be had. On a per person basis, we found and published on this, that's about $6,000 to $7,000 per person per year benefit across a company. It could lead to 10% gains to the bottom line performance of the company. And again, I'm a public health professor. My goal is to improve people's health, but we add a lens, mental health, brain health is part of health, and we add the economic lens to say, look, this is good for a worker of productivity and the costs are downright trivial when you compare it against the benefits, even just including the cognitive function benefits, not even including the respiratory health benefit.Eric Topol (00:08:33):And I mean, it's so striking that you did these studies in a time before sensors were, and they still are not widely accepted, and it really helped prove, and when we start to fall asleep in a group session indoors, it may not just be because we didn't have enough sleep the night before, right.Joseph Allen (00:08:56):It's funny you say that. I talk about that too. It's like, do we actually need the study to tell us to quantify what we've all experienced these bad conference rooms, you get tired, you can't concentrate, you get sleepy while you're driving your car. Yeah, a whole bunch of other factors. Maybe the speaker's boring, but a key factor is clearly indoor air quality and things like good ventilation, the chemical load in the space are all contributing.Eric Topol (00:09:20):Yeah. No, it's pretty darn striking. Now we're going to get into the pandemic, and this of course is when your work finally crystallized that you've been working on this for years, and then finally your collaboration with some of the aerosol experts. It was a transdisciplinary synergy that was truly extraordinary. And when you were on 60 Minutes last October, you said, “Think about the public health gains we've made over the past hundred years. We've made improvements to water quality, outdoor air pollution, our food safety, we've made improvements to sanitation: absolute basics of public health. Where has indoor air been in that conversation?” You brought it to us. I mean, you led the Lancet Commission on this. You've done a White House Summit keynote. You had a lot of influence. Why did it take us to finally wake up to this issue that you've been working on for years?Covid is Airborne, DenialJoseph Allen (00:10:31):Yeah. Well, I appreciate that, but I also liked what you started with. I mean, there's been a lot of us pulling on this, and I think one of the magical moments, if you could say that when the pandemic happened was that it forced these collaborations and forced a lot of us in our field to be a bit more vocal. And even that comment about the gains we made in public health, that comes from an article that we co-authored with 40 plus scientists around the world in science, trying to drive home the point that we've ignored one of the key factors that determines our health. We were all frustrated at the beginning of the pandemic. The first piece I wrote was January 2020, talking about healthy buildings as the first line of defense, airborne spread, ventilation, filtration. I could not get it published. I could not get it published.(00:11:20):So I moved it to an international paper. I wrote it in the Financial Times in early February, but it wasn't until mid-March that the Times took my piece on this airborne spread buildings ventilation. At the same time, we know people like Linsey Marr, Rich Corsi, many others, Shelly Miller out there publishing, doing the fundamental research, all trying to elevate, and I think we started to find each other and say, hey, someone's trying to hit the medical journals. We're not landing there. I'm trying to hit the Times, and we're not landing there. We're trying to get the reporters to pay attention. It's not landing there. Let's team up. Let's write these joint pieces. And I think what happened was you saw the benefit of the collective effort and interdisciplinary expertise, right? We could all start to come together, start instead of having these separate voices, a little bit of a unified voice despite important scientific minor disagreements, but start to say, hey, we started elevate each other and said, this is really important. It's the missing component of the messaging in the early days of the pandemic, and to know how to defend yourself.Eric Topol (00:12:20):Well, I think a lot of people think the big miss, and I know you agree, was the lack of recognition of aerosol transmission instead of just liquid droplets. But what you brought to this was really your priors on the buildings themselves and the ventilation systems and air quality that was highly, I mean, critical to it isn't just the aerosol, it's obviously how buildings are set up. Now, there's an amazing piece of course that appeared in the summer of 2021 called the Air Investigator, which profiled you, and in it brings up several things that finally are, we're starting to get our act together. I mean, ultimately there was in May 2023 years later, the CDC says, we're going to do something about this. Can you tell us what was this very distinct new path that the CDC was at least saying? And also couple that with whatever action if or not action has been taken.Joseph Allen (00:13:33):Yeah. So there really was a monumental shift that took, it was years in development, but we finally won the argument, collectively that airborne spread was the dominant mode of transmission. Okay, we got that. Then the question is, well, what changes? Do we actually get guidance here? And that took a little bit longer. I give Rochelle Walensky a lot of credit when she came into the CDC, we talked with her about this. That's when you start to first see ventilation starts showing up and the guidance, including guidance for schools. So I think that was a big win, but still no one was willing to set an official target or standard around higher ventilation rates. So that's important. Early in the pandemic, some people started to hear a message, yes, ventilation is important. What's the obvious next question, well, how much, what do I need? So in the summer of 2020, actually Shelly Miller and I collaborated on this.(00:14:23):We published some guidance on ventilation targets for schools. We said four to six air changes per hour (ACH) and target that. Well, it wasn't until 2023, spring of 2023 that you mentioned that CDC published target ventilation rates, and they went with five air changes per hour, which is right where we were talking about in summer 2020. It's what the Lancet of COVID-19 Commission adopted, but it's momentous in this way. It's the first time in CDCs history they've ever published a ventilation rate target for health. Now, I know this seems slow at the time, and it was, but if we think about some of the permanent gains that will come out of the pandemic. Pandemic changes society and science and policy and practice this, we are never going back. Now buildings will be a first line of defense for respiratory pathogens going forward that can no longer be ignored. And now we have the published target by CDC. That's a big deal because it's not just a recognition, but there's actually something to shoot for out there. It's a target I happen to like, I think there are differences between different scientists, but ultimately we've lifted the floor and said, look, we actually have to raise ventilation rates and we have something to shoot for. The public needed that kind of guidance a lot earlier, of course, but it was a big deal that it happened. It's just too bad it took until spring 2023.Eric Topol (00:15:46):Yeah, I certainly agree that it was momentous, but a year plus later, has there been any change as a result of this major proclamation, if you will?Joseph Allen (00:15:59):Well, I actually see a lot of change from a practitioner level, but I want to talk about it in two aspects. I see a lot of schools, universities, major companies that have made this shift. For example, in the 60 Minutes piece, I talk that I advised Amazon and globally they're measuring indoor air quality with real-time sensors in their buildings. I've worked with hundreds of school districts that have made improvements to indoor air quality. I know companies that have shifted their entire approach to how they design and operate their buildings. So it's happening. But what really needs to happen, Eric, if this movement is going to benefit everyone, is that these targets need to be codified. They need to go into building codes. It can't just be, oh, I've heard about this. So I made the decision. I have the resources and the money to make this improvement.(00:16:44):To create a healthy building or a healthy school, we need to be sure this gets built into our code. So it just becomes the way it's done. That is not happening. There are some efforts. There are some bills at the national level. Some states are trying to pass bills, and I have to say, this is why I'm optimistic. It feels very slow. I'm as frustrated as anybody. I wanted this done before the pandemic. As soon as the pandemic hit, we saw it. We knew what we needed to get done. It didn't happen. But if we think about the long arc here and the public health gains we're actually, it's remarkable to me that we actually have bills being introduced around indoor air quality that ASHRAE has set a new health focused target for the first time really in their history. CDC, first time. New buildings going up in New York City designed to these public health targets. That's really different. I've been in this field for 20 plus years. I've never seen anything like it. So the pace is still slow, but it really is happening. But it has to reach everybody, and the only way that's going to happen is really this gets into building codes and performance standards.The Old Efficient Energy BuildingsEric Topol (00:17:52):Yeah. Well, I like your optimistic perspective. I do want to go back for a second, back decades ago there was this big impetus to make these energy efficient buildings and to just change the way the buildings were constructed so that there was no leak and it kind of set up this problem or exacerbated, didn't it?Joseph Allen (00:18:19):Yeah. I mean, I've written about this a lot. I write in the book our ventilation standards, they've been a colossal mistake. They have cost the public in terms of its health because in the seventies, we started to really tighten up our building envelopes and lower the ventilation rates. The standards were no longer focused on providing people with a healthy indoor space. As I write in the book, they were targeted towards minimally acceptable indoor air quality, bare minimums. By the way that science is unequivocal, is not protective of health, not protective against respiratory pathogens, doesn't promote good cognitive function, not good for allergies. These levels led to more illness in schools, more absences for teachers and students, an absolute disaster from a public health standpoint. We've been in this, what I call the sick building era since then. Buildings that just don't bring in enough clean outdoor air. And now you take this, you have a building stock for 40 years tighter and tighter and tighter bumps up against a novel virus that spread nearly entirely indoors. Is it any wonder we had, the disaster we had with COVID-19, we built these bills. They were designed intentionally with low ventilation and poor filtration.Optimal Ventilation and FiltrationEric Topol (00:19:41):Yeah. Well, it's extraordinary because now we've got to get a reset and it's going to take a while to get this done. We'll talk a bit about cost of doing this or the investment, if you will, but let's just get some terms metrics straight because these are really important. You already mentioned ACH, the number of air changers per hour, where funny thing you recommended between four and six and the CDC came out with five. There's also the minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV). A lot of places, buildings have MERV 8, which is insufficient. We need MERV 13. Can you tell us about that?Joseph Allen (00:20:23):Yeah, sure. So I think when we think about how much, you have two ways to capture these respiratory particles, right? Or get rid of them. One is you dilute them out of the building or you capture them on filters. You can inactivate them through UV and otherwise. But let's just stay on the ventilation and filtration side of this. So the air changing per hour is talking about how often the air is change inside. It's an easy metric. There are some strengths to it, there's some weaknesses, but it's intuitive and I'll you some numbers so you can make sense of this. We recommended four to six air changes per hour. Typical home in the US has half an air change per hour. Typical school designed to three air changes per hour, but they operate usually at one and a half. So we tried to raise this up to four, five, or six or even higher. On the filtration side, you mentioned MERV, right? That's just a rating system for filters, and you can think about it this way. Most of the filters that are in a building are cheap MERV 8 filters, I tend to think of them as filters that protect the equipment. A MERV 13 filter may capture 80 or 90% of particles. That's a filter designed to protect people. The difference in price between a MERV 8 and a MERV 13 is a couple of bucks.(00:21:30):And a lot of the pushback we got early in the pandemic, some people said, well, look, there's a greater resistance from the better filter. My fan can't handle it. My HVAC system can't handle it. That was nonsense. You have low pressure drop MERV 13 filters. In other words, there really wasn't a barrier. It was a couple extra bucks for a filter that went from a MERV 8 might capture 20 or 30% to a filter, MERV 13 that captures 80 or 90% with very little, if any impact on energy or mechanical system performance. Absolute no-brainer. We should have been doing this for decades because it also protects against outdoor air pollution and other particles we generate indoors. So that was a no-brainer. So you combine both those ventilation filtration, some of these targets are out there in terms of air change per hour. You can combine the metric if we want to get technical to talk about it, but basically you're trying to create an overall amount of clean air. Either you bring in fresh outdoor air or you filter that air. It really is pretty straightforward, but we just didn't have some of these targets set and the standards we're calling for these minimum acceptable levels, which we're not protective of health.Eric Topol (00:22:37):So another way to get better air quality are these portable air cleaners, and you actually just wrote about that with your colleagues in the Royal Society of Chemistry, not a journal that I typically read, but this was an important article. Can you give us, these are not very expensive ways to augment air quality. Can you tell us about these PACs ?Joseph Allen (00:23:06):These portable air cleaners (PACs), so the same logic applies if people say, well, I can't upgrade my system. That's not a problem for very low cost, you could have, these devices are essentially a fan and a filter, and the amount of clean air you get depends on how strong the fan is and how good the filter is. Really pretty simple stuff here, and you can put one of these in a room if it's sized right. My Harvard team has built tools to help people size this. If you're not quite sure how to do it, we have a technical explainer. Really, if you size it right, you can get that four, five or six air changes per hour, very cheap and very quickly. So this was a tool I thought would be very valuable. Rich Corsi and I wrote about this all through the summer of 2020 to talk about, hey, a stop gap measure.(00:23:50):Let's throw out some of these portable air cleaners. You increase the air changes or clean air delivery pretty effectively for very low cost, and they work. And now the paper we just published in my team a couple of days ago starts to advance this more. We used a CFD model, so computational fluid dynamics. Essentially, you can look at the tracers and the airflow patterns in the room, and we learn a couple things that matter. Placement matters, so we like it in the center of the room if you can or as close as possible. And also the airflow matters. So the air cleaners are cleaning the air, but they're also moving the air, and that helps disperse these kind of clouds or plumes when an infected person is breathing or speaking. So you want to have good ventilation, good filtration. Also a lot of air movement in the space to help dilute and move around some of these respiratory particles so that they do get ventilated out or captured in a filter.Eric Topol (00:24:40):Yeah. So let me ask you, since we know outdoors are a lot safer. If you could do all these things indoors with filtration, air changing the quality, can you simulate the outdoors to get rid of the risk or markedly reduce the risk of respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and others?Joseph Allen (00:25:04):Yeah, you can't drop it to zero. There's no such thing as zero risk in any of these environments. But yeah, I think some of the estimates we've seen in my own team has produced in the 60-70% reduction range. I mean, if you do this right with really good ventilation filtration, you can drop that risk even further. Now, things like distancing matter, whether or not somebody's wearing a mask, these things are all going to play into it. But you can really dramatically drop the risk by handling just the basics of ventilation and filtration. And one way to think about it is this, distance to the infector still matters, right? So if you and I are speaking closely and I breathe on you, it's going to be hard to interrupt that flow. But you can reduce it through good ventilation filtration. But really what it's doing also is preventing super spreading events.(00:25:55):In other words, if I'm in the corner of a room and I'm infectious and you're on the other side, well if that room is sealed up pretty good, poor ventilation, no filtration, the respiratory aerosols are going to build up and your risk is going to increase and we're in there for an hour or two, like you would be in a room or office and you're exposed to infectious aerosol. With good ventilation filtration, those respiratory particles don't have a chance to reach you, or by the time they do, they're much further diluted. Linsey Marr I think was really great early in the pandemic by talking about this in terms of cigarette smoke. So a small room with no ventilation filtration, someone smoking in the corner, yeah, it's going to fill up over time with smoke you're breathing in that secondhand smoke. In a place with great ventilation filtration, that's going to be a lot further reduced, right? You're not going to get the buildup of the smoke and smoke particles are going to operate similarly to respiratory particles. So I think it's intuitive and it's logical. And if you follow public health guidance of harm reduction, risk reduction, if you drop exposure, you drop risk.(00:26:58):The goal is to reduce exposure. How do we do that? Well, we can modify the building which is going to play a key role in exposure reduction.Eric Topol (00:27:06):Now, to add to this, if I wear a sensor or have a sensor in the room for CO2, does that help to know that you're doing the right thing?Joseph Allen (00:27:17):Yeah, absolutely. So people who are not familiar with these air quality sensors. They're small portal air quality sensors. One of the things they commonly measure is carbon dioxide. We're the main source of CO2 inside. It's a really good indicator of ventilation rate and occupancy. And the idea is pretty simple. If the CO2 is low, you don't have a buildup of particles from the respiratory tract, right? And CO2 is a gas, but it's a good indicator of overall ventilation rate. This room I'm in right now at the Harvard School of Public Health has air quality sensors. We have this at Harvard Business School. We have it at the Harvard Health Clinics. Many other places are doing it, Boston Public schools have real-time air quality monitors. Here's the trick with CO2. So first I'll say we have some guidance on this at the Harvard Healthy Buildings page, if people want to go look it up, how to choose an air quality sensor, how to interpret CO2 levels.Carbon Dioxide Levels(00:28:04):But here's a way to think about it. We generally would like to see CO2 levels less than 800 parts per million. Historically, people in my field have said under 1,000 is okay. We like to see that low. If your CO2 is low, the risk is low. If your CO2 is high, it doesn't necessarily mean your risk is high because that's where filtration can come in. So let me say that a little bit better. If CO2 is low, you're diluting enough of the respiratory particles. If it's high, that means your ventilation is low, but you might have excellent filtration happening. Either those MERV 13 filters we talked about or the portable air cleaners. Those filters don't capture CO2. So high CO2 just means you better have a good filter game in place or the risk is going to be high. So if you CO2 is low, you're in good shape. If it's high, you don't quite know. But if you have bad filtration, then the risk is going to be much higher.Eric Topol (00:29:01):I like that 800 number because that's a little lower than some of the other thresholds. And why don't we do as good as we can? The other question about is a particulate matter. So we are worried about the less than 5 microns, less than 2.5 microns. Can you tell us about that and is there a way that you can monitor that directly?Joseph Allen (00:29:25):Sure. A lot of these same sensors that measure CO2 also measure PM 2.5 which stands for particular matter. 2.5 microns is smaller, one of the key components of outdoor air pollution and EPA just set new standards, right? WHO has a standard for 5 microgram per cubic meter. EPA just lowered our national outdoor limit from 12 to 9 microgram per cubic meter. So that's a really good indicator of how well your filters are working. Here again, in a place like this or where you are, you should see particle levels really under 5 microgram per cubic meter without any major source happening. What's really interesting about those like the room I'm in now, when the wildfire smoke came through the East coast last year, levels were extraordinary outside 100, 200, 300 microgram per cubic meter. But because we have upgraded our filters, so we use MERV 15 here at Harvard, the indoor levels of particles stayed very low.(00:30:16):So it shows you how the power of these filters can actually, they do a really good job of capturing particles, whether it be from our lungs or from some other source. So you can measure this, but I'll tell you what's something interesting, if you want to tie it into our discussion about standards. So we think about particles. We have a lot of standards for outdoor air pollution. So there's a national ambient air quality standard 9 microgram per cubic meter. We don't have standards for indoor air quality. The only legally enforceable standard for indoor particles is OSHA's standard, and it's 5,000 microgram per cubic meter 5,000.(00:30:59):And it's absurd, right? It's an absurdity. Here we are EPAs, should it be 12, should it be 9, or should it be 8? And for indoors, the legally enforceable limit for OSHA 5,000. So it points to the big problem here. We talked about earlier about the need for these standards to codify some of this. Yes, we have awareness from the public. We have sensors to measure this. We have CDC now saying what we were saying with the Lancet COVID-19 Commission and elsewhere. This is big movement, but the standards then need to come up behind it and get into code and new standards that are health focused and health based. And we have momentum, but we can't lose it right now because it's the first time in my career I felt like we're on the cusp of really getting this and we are so close. But of course it's always in danger of slipping through our fingers.Regulatory Oversight for AirEric Topol (00:31:45):Well, does this have anything to do with the fact that in the US there's no regulatory oversight over air as opposed to let's say Japan or other places?Joseph Allen (00:31:57):Yeah, I mean, we have regulatory oversight of outdoor air. That's EPA. There's a new bill that was introduced to give EPA more resources to deal with indoor air. EPA has got a great indoor air environments division, but it doesn't have the legally enforceable mandate or statute that we have for outdoor. So they'd give great guidance and have for a long time. I really like that group at EPA, but there's no teeth behind this. So what we have is worker health protections at OSHA to its own admission, says its standards are out of date. So we need an overhaul of how we think about the standards. I like the market driven approach. I think that's being effective, and I think we can do it from voluntary standards that can get adopted into code at the municipal level. I think that's a real path. I see it happening. I see the influence of all this work hitting legislators. So that's where I think the most promising path is for real change.The Risks of Outdoor Air Pollution Eric Topol (00:33:03):Yeah, I think sidestepping, governmental teeth, that probably is going to be a lot quicker. Now, before we get to the cost issue, I do want to mention, as you know very well, the issue of air pollution in Science a dedicated issue just a few weeks ago, it brought up, of course, that outdoor air pollution we've been talking about indoor is extraordinary risk for cancer, dementia, diabetes, I mean everything. Just everything. And there is an interaction between outdoor pollution and what goes on indoor. Can you explain basically reaffirm your concern about particulate matter outdoors, and then what about this interaction with what goes on indoors?Joseph Allen (00:33:59):Yeah, so it's a great point. I mean, outdoor pollution has been one of the most studied environmental pollutants we know. And there's all of these links, new links between Alzheimer's, dementia, Parkinson's disease, anxiety, depression, cardiovascular health, you named it, right? I've been talking about this and very vocal. It's in the book and elsewhere I called the dirty secret of outdoor air pollution. The reality is outdoor air pollution penetrates indoors, and the amount depends on the building structure, the type of filters you have. But let's take an infiltration value of say 50%. So you have a lot of outdoor air pollution, maybe half of that penetrates inside, so it's lower, the concentration is lower, but 90% of the breaths you take are indoor. And if you do the math on it, it's really straightforward. The majority of outdoor air pollution you breathe happens inside.(00:34:52):And people, I think when they hear that think, wait, that can't be right. But that's the reality that outdoor pollution comes inside and we're taking so many breaths inside. Your total daily dose of outdoor air pollution is greater from the time you spend inside. I talk about this all the time. You see any article about outdoor air pollution, what's the cover picture? It's someone outside, maybe they're wearing a mask you can't really see. It's smoky hazy. But actually one of the biggest threats is what's happening inside. The nice thing here, again, the solutions are pretty simple and cost-effective. So again, upgrade from MERV 8 to MERV 13, a portable air cleaner. We are just capturing particles on a filter basic step that can really reduce the threat of outdoor air pollution inside. But it's ignored all the time. When the wildfire smoke hit New York City. New York City's orange, I called colleagues who are in the news business.(00:35:48):We have to be talking about the indoor threat because the guidance was good, but incomplete. Talk about Mayor Adams in New York City. Go inside, okay, that's good advice. And go to a place that has good filtration or they should have been giving out these low cost air cleaners. So just going inside isn't going to protect your lungs unless you're actually filtering a lot more of that air coming in. So trying to drive home the point here that actually we talk about these in silos. Well, wildfire smoke and particles, Covid and respiratory particles, we're all talking about these different environmental issues that harm our health, but they're all happening through or mediated by the building performance. And if we just get the building performance right, some basics around good ventilation, good filtration, you start to address multiple threats simultaneously. Outdoor air pollution, wildfire smoke, allergens, COVID-19, influenza, RSV, better cognitive function performance, anxiety. You start addressing the root cause or one of the contributors and buildings we can then start to leverage as a true public health tool. We have not taken advantage of the power of buildings to be a true public health tool.Eric Topol (00:36:59):Oh, you say it so well, and in fact your Table on page 44 in Healthy Buildings , we'll link it because it shows quantitatively what you just described about outdoor and indoor cross fertilization if you will. Now before leaving air pollution outdoors, indoors, in order for us to affect this transformation that would markedly improve our health at the public health individual level, we're talking about a big investment. Can you put that in, you did already in some respects, but if we did this right in every school, I think in California, they're trying to mandate that in schools, in the White House, they're mandating federal buildings. This is just a little piece of what's needed. This would cost whatever trillions or hundreds of billions of dollars. What would it take to do this? Because obviously the health benefits would be so striking.What's It Gonna Cost?Joseph Allen (00:38:04):Well, I think one of the issues, so we can talk about the cost. A lot of the things I'm talking about are intentionally low cost, right? You look at the Lancet of COVID-19 Commission, our report we wrote a report on the first four healthy building strategies every building should pursue. Number one commission your building that's giving your building a tune-up. Well, guess what? That not only improves air quality, it saves energy and therefore saves money. It actually becomes cost neutral. If not provides an ROI after a couple of years. So that's simple. Increase the amount of outdoor air ventilation coming in that has an energy cost, we've written about this. Improved filtration, that's a couple bucks, really a couple bucks, this is small dollars or portable air cleaners, not that expensive. I think one of the big, and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has written this famous paper people like to cite that shows there's $20 billion of benefits to the US economy if we do this.(00:38:59):And I think it points to one of the problems. And what I try to address in my book too, is that very often when we're having this conversation about what's it going to cost, we don't talk about the full cost benefit. In other words, we say, well, it's going to cost X amount. We can't do that. But we don't talk about what are the costs of sick buildings? What are the costs of kids being out of school for an entire year? What are the costs of hormonal disruption to an entire group of women in their reproductive years due to the material choices we make in our buildings? What are the costs to outdoor air pollution and cardiovascular disease, mental health? Because we don't have good filters in our buildings that cost a couple dollars. So in our book, we do this cost benefit analysis in the proforma in our book, we lay out what the costs are to a company. We calculate energy costs. We say these are the CapEx costs, capital costs for fixed costs and the OpEx costs for operating expenditures. That's a classic business analysis. But we factor in the public health benefits, productivity, reduced absenteeism. And you do that, and I don't care how you model it, you are going to get the same answer that the benefits far outweigh the cost by orders of magnitude.Eric Topol (00:40:16):Yeah, I want to emphasize orders of magnitude. Not ten hundred, whatever thousand X, right?Joseph Allen (00:40:23):What would be the benefit if we said we could reduce influenza transmission indoors in schools and offices by even a small percent because we improve ventilation and filtration? Think of the hospitalization costs, illness costs, out of work costs, out of school costs. The problem is we haven't always done that full analysis. So the conversation gets quickly to well, that's too much. We can't afford that. I always say healthy buildings are not expensive. Sick buildings are expensive. Totally leave human health out of that cost benefit equation. And then it warps this discussion until you bring human health benefits back in.Forever ChemicalsEric Topol (00:40:58):Well, I couldn't agree more with you and I wanted to frame this by giving this crazy numbers that people think it's going to cost to the reality. I mean, if there ever was an investment for good, this is the one that you've outlined so well. Alright, now I want to turn to this other topic that you have been working on for years long before it kind of came to the fore, and that is forever chemicals. Now, forever chemicals, I had no idea that back in 2018 you coined this term. You coined the term, which is now a forever on forever chemicals. And basically, this is a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), but no one will remember that. They will remember forever chemicals. So can you tell us about this? Because this of course recently, as you know well in May in the New Yorker, there was an expose of 3M, perhaps the chief offender of these. They're everywhere, but especially they were in 3M products and continue to be in 3M products. Obviously they've been linked with all kinds of bad things. What's the story on forever chemicals?Joseph Allen (00:42:14):Yeah, they are a class of chemicals that have been used for decades since the forties. And as consumers, we like them, right? They're the things that make your raincoat repel rain. It makes your non-stick pan, your scrambled eggs don't stick to the pan. We put them on carpets for stain resistance, but they came with a real dark side. These per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, as I say, a name only a chemist could love have been linked with things like testicular cancer, kidney cancer, interference with lipid metabolism, other hormonal disruption. And they are now a global pollutant. And one of the reasons I wrote the piece to brand them as forever chemicals was because I'm in the field of environmental health. We had been talking about these for a long time and I just didn't hear the public aware or didn't capture their attention. And part of it, I think is how we talk about some of these things.(00:43:14):I think a lot about this. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, no one's going to, so the forever chemicals is actually a play on their defining feature. So these chemicals, these stain repellent chemicals are characterized by long chains of the carbon fluorine bond. And when we string these together that imparts this and you put them on top of a product that imparts the property of stain resistance, grease resistance, water resistance, but the carbon fluorine bond is the strongest in all of organic chemistry. And these chains of the carbon fluorine bond never fully break down in the environment. And when we talk in my field about persistent organic pollutants, we talk about chemicals that break down on the order of decades. Forever chemicals don't break down. They break down the order of millennia. That's why we're finding them everywhere. We know they're toxic at very low levels. So the idea of talking about forever chemicals, I wanted to talk about their foreverness.(00:44:13):This is permanent. What we're creating and the F and the C are the play on the carbon-fluorine bond and I wrote an article trying to raise awareness about this because some companies that have produced these have known about their toxicity for decades, and it's just starting the past couple of years, we're just starting to pay attention to the scale of environmental pollution. Tens of millions of Americans have forever chemicals in their drinking water above the safe limit, tens of millions. I worked as an expert in a big lawsuit for the plaintiffs that were drinking forever chemicals in their water that was dumped into the drinking water supply by a manufacturing company. I met young men with testicular cancer from drinking forever chemicals in their water. These really has escaped the public's consciousness, it wasn't really talked about. Now of course, we know every water body, we use these things in firefighting foams or every airport has water pollution.(00:45:17):Most airports do. Firefighters are really concerned about this, high rates of cancer in the firefighter population. So this is a major problem, and the cleanup is not straightforward or easy because they're now a global pollutant. They persist forever. They're hard to remediate and we're stuck with them. So that's the downside, I can talk about the positives. I try to remain an optimist or things we're doing to try to solve this problem, but that's ultimately the story. And my motivation was I just to have people have language to be able to talk about this that didn't require a degree in organic chemistry to understand what they were.Eric Topol (00:45:52):Yeah, I mean their pervasiveness is pretty scary. And I am pretty worried about the fact that we still don't know a lot of what they're doing in terms of clinical sequela. I mean, you mentioned a couple types of cancer, but I don't even know if there is a safe threshold.Joseph Allen (00:46:16):Eric, I'll tell you one that'll be really interesting for you. A colleague of mine did a famous study on forever chemicals many years ago now and found that kids with higher levels of forever chemicals had reduced vaccine effectiveness related to these chemicals. So your point is, right, a lot of times we're using these industrial chemicals. We know a couple endpoints for their affecting our bodies, but we don't know all of them. And what we know is certainly alarming enough that we know enough to know we shouldn't be using them.Eric Topol (00:46:51):And you wrote another masterful op-ed in the Washington Post, 6 forever chemical just 10,000 to go. Maybe you could just review what that was about.Joseph Allen (00:47:02):Yeah, I've been talking a lot about this issue I call chemical whack-a-mole. So forever chemical is the perfect example of it. So we finally got people's attention on forever chemicals. EPA just regulated 6 of them. Well, guess what? There are 10,000 if not many more than that. Different variants or what we call chemical cousins. Now that's important for this reason. If you think about how we approach these from a regulatory standpoint, each of the 10,000 plus forever chemicals are treated as different. So by the time EPA regulates 6, that's important. It does free up funding for cleanup and things like this. But already the market had shifted away from those 6. So in other words, in the many thousand products that still use forever chemicals, they're no longer using those 6 because scientists have told people these things are toxic years ago. So they switch one little thing in the chemical, it becomes a new chemical from a regulatory perspective.(00:47:57):But to our bodies, it's the same thing. This happens over and over. This has happened with pesticides. It happens with chemicals and nail polish. It happens in chemicals in e-cigarettes. It happens with flame retardant chemicals. I wrote a piece in the Post maybe six years ago talking about chemical whack-a-mole, and this problem that we keep addressing, these one-off, we hit one, it changes just slightly. Chemical cousin pops up, we hit that one. Five years later, scientists say, hey, the next one doesn't look good either. We're doing this for decades. It's really silly. It's ineffective, it's broken, and there are better ways to handle this going forward.Eric Topol (00:48:31):And you know what gets me, and it's like in the pharma industry that I've seen the people who run these companies like 3M that was involved in a multi-decade coverup, they're never held accountable. I mean, they know what they're doing and they just play these games that you outlined. They're still using 16,000 products, according to the New Yorker, the employee that exposed them, the whistleblower in the New Yorker article.Joseph Allen (00:48:58):That was an amazing article by Sharon Lerner talking to the people who had worked there and she uncovered that they knew the toxicity back in the seventies, and yes, they were still making these products. One of the things that I think has gotten attention of some companies is while the regulations have been behind, the lawsuits are piling up.Joseph Allen (00:49:21):The lawsuit I was a part of as an expert for that was about an $800 million settlement in favor of the plaintiffs. A couple months later is another one that was $750 million. So right there, $1.5 billion, there's been several billion dollars. This has caught the attention of companies. This has caught the attention of product manufacturers who are using the forever chemicals, starting to realize they need to reformulate. And so, in a good way now, that's not the way we should be dealing with this, but it has started to get companies to wake up that maybe they had been sleeping on it, that this is a major problem and actually the markets have responded to it.Eric Topol (00:50:02):Well, that's good.Joseph Allen (00:50:03):Because these are major liabilities on the books.Eric Topol (00:50:05):Yeah, I mean, I think what I've seen of course with being the tobacco industry and I was involved with Vioxx of course, is the companies just appeal and appeal and it sounds really good that they've had to pay $800 million, but they never wind up paying anything because they basically just use their muscle and their resources to appeal and put it off forever. So I mean, it's one way to deal with it is a litigation, but it seems like that's not going to be enough to really get this overhauled. I don't know. You may be more sanguine.Joseph Allen (00:50:44):No, no, I agree with you. It's the wrong way. I mean, we don't want to, the solution here is not to go after companies after people are sick. We need get in front of this and be proactive. I mentioned it only because I know it has made other companies pay attention how many billion does so-and-so sue for. So that's a good signal that other companies are starting to move away from forever chemicals. But I do want to talk about one of the positive approaches we're doing at Harvard, and we have a lot of other partners in the private sector doing this. We're trying to turn off the spigot of forever chemicals entering the market in the first place. As a faculty advisor to what we call the Harvard Healthier Building Materials Academy, we publish new standards. We no longer buy products that have forever chemicals in them for our spaces.(00:51:31):So we buy a chair or carpet. We demand no forever chemicals. What's really neat about this is we also say, we treat them as a whole class. We don't say we don't want PFOA. That's one of the regulated chemicals. We say we don't want any of the 10,000. We are not waiting for the studies to show us they act like the other ones. We've kind of been burned by this for decades. So we're actually telling the suppliers we don't want these chemicals and they're delivering products to us without these chemicals in them. We have 50 projects on our campus built with these new design standards without forever chemicals and other toxic chemicals. We've also done studies that a doctoral student done the study. When we do this, we find lower levels of these chemicals in air and dust, of course. So we're showing that it works.(00:52:19):Now, the goal is not to say, hey, we just want to make Harvard a healthier campus and the hell with everybody else. The goal is to show it can be done with no impact to cost, schedule or product performance. We get a healthier environment, products look great, they perform great. We've also now partnered with other big companies in the tech industry in particular to try and grow or influence the market by saying, look how many X amount of purchasing dollars each year? And it's a lot, and we're demanding that our carpets don't have this, that our chairs don't have it, and the supply chain is responding. The goal, of course, is to just make it be the case that we just have healthy materials in the supply chain for everybody. So if you or I, or anybody else goes to buy a chair, it just doesn't have toxic chemicals in it.Eric Topol (00:53:06):Right, but these days the public awareness still isn't there, nor are the retailers that are selling whether it's going to buy a rug or a chair or new pots and pans. You can't go in and say, does this have any forever chemicals? They don't even know, right?Joseph Allen (00:53:24):Impossible. I study this and it's hard for me when I go out to try and find and make better decisions for myself. This is one of the reasons why we're working, of course, trying to help with the regulatory side, but also trying to change the market. Say, look, you can produce the similar product without these chemicals, save yourself for future lawsuits. Also, there's a market for healthy materials, and we want everybody to be a part of that market and just fundamentally change the supply chain. It's not ideal, but it's what we can do to influence the market. And honestly, we're having a lot of impact. I've been to these manufacturing plants where they have phased out these toxic chemicals.Eric Topol (00:54:03):That's great to hear.Joseph Allen (00:54:06):And we see it working on our campus and other companies' campuses.Eric Topol (00:54:10):Well, nobody can ever accuse you of not taking on big projects, okay.Joseph Allen (00:54:15):You don't get into public health unless you want to tackle the big ones that are really going to influence.Micro(nano) PlasticsEric Topol (00:54:20):Well, that's true, Joe, but I don't know anybody who's spearheading things like you. So it's phenomenal. Now before we wrap up, there's another major environmental problem which has come to the fore, which are plastics, microplastics, nanoplastics. They're everywhere too, and they're incriminated with all the things that we've been talking about as well. What is your view about that?Joseph Allen (00:54:48):Well, I think it's one, well, you see the extent of the pollution. It's a global pollutant. These are petrochemicals. So it's building up, and these are fossil fuel derivatives. So you can link this not just to the direct human health impacts, the ecosystem impacts, but also ecosystem and health impacts through climate change. So we've seen our reliance on plastics grow exponentially over the past several decades, and now we're seeing the price we're paying for that, where we're seeing plastics, but also microplastics kind of everywhere, much like the forever chemicals. Everywhere we look, we find them and we're just starting to scratch a surface on what we know about the environmental impacts. I think there's a lot more that can be done here. Try to be optimistic again, at least if you find a problem, you got to try and point to some kind of solution or at least a pathway towards solutions.(00:55:41):But I like some of the stuff from others colleagues at Yale in particular on the principles of green chemistry. I write about them in my book a little bit, but it's this designing for non-permanence or biodegradable materials so that if we're using anything that we're not leaving these permanent and lasting impacts on our ecosystem that then build up and they build up in the environment, then they build up in all of us and in our food systems. So it seems to me that should be part of it. So think about forever chemicals. Should we be using chemicals that never break down in the environment that we know are toxic? How do we do that? As Harvard, one of the motivating things here for forever chemicals too, is how are we ignoring our own science? Everyone's producing this science, but how do we ignore even our own and we feel we have responsibility to the communities next to us and the communities around the world. We're taking action on climate change. How are we not taking action on these chemicals? I put plastics right in there in terms of the environmental pollutants that largely come from our built environment, food products and the products we purchase and use in our homes and in our bodies and in all the materials we use.Eric Topol (00:56:50):When you see the plastic show up in our arteries with a three, four-fold increase of heart attacks and strokes, when you see it in our testicles and every other organ in the body, you start to wonder, are we ever going to do something about this plastic crisis? Which is somewhat distinct from the forever chemicals. I mean, this is another dimension of the problem. And tying a lot of this together, you mentioned, we are not going to get into it today, but our climate crisis isn't being addressed fast enough and it's making all these things exacerbating.Joseph Allen (00:57:27):Yeah, let me touch on that because I think it is important. It gets to something I said earlier about a lot of these problems we treat as silos, but I think a lot of the problems run through our buildings, and that means buildings are part of the solution set. Buildings consume 40% of global energy.(00:57:42):Concrete and steel count for huge percentages of our global CO2 emissions. So if we're going to get climate solved, we're going to have to solve it through our buildings too. So when you start putting this all together, Eric, right, and this is why I talk about buildings as healthy buildings could potentially be one of the greatest public health interventions we have of this century. If we get it right, and I don't mean we get the Covid part, right. We get the forever chemicals part, right. Or the microplastics part, right. If you start getting this all right, good ventilation, better filtration, healthy materials across the board, energy efficient systems, so we're not drawing on the energy demand of our buildings that are contributing to the climate crisis. Buildings that also address climate adaptation and resilience. So they protect us from extreme heat, wildfire smoke, flooding that we know is coming and happening right now.(00:58:37):You put that all together and it shows the centrality of buildings on our collective health from our time spent indoors, but also their contribution to environmental health, which is ultimately our collective human health as well. And this is why I'm passionate about healthy buildings as a real good lens to put this all under. If we start getting these right, the decisions we make around our buildings, we can really improve the human condition across all of these dimensions we're talking about. And I actually don't think it's all that hard in all of these. I've seen solutions.Eric Topol (00:59:12):I'm with you. I mean, there's innovations that are happening to take the place of concrete, right?Joseph Allen (00:59:20):Sure. We have low emission concrete right now that's available. We have energy recovery ventilation available right now. We have real time sensors. We can do demand control ventilation right now. We have better filters right now. We have healthy materials right now.(00:59:33):We have this, we have it. And it's not expensive if we quantify the health benefits, the many, many multiple benefits. So it's all within our reach, and it's just about finding these different pathways. Some of its market driven, some of it's regulatory, some of it's at the local level, some of it's about raising awareness, giving people the language to talk about these things. So I do think it's the real beginning of the healthy buildings era. I really, truly believe it. I've never seen change like this in my field. I've been chasing sick buildings for a long time.Joseph Allen (01:00:11):And clearly there's pathways to do better.Eric Topol (01:00:13):You're a phenom. I mean, really, you not only have all the wisdom, but you articulate it so well. I mean, you're leading the charge on this, and we're really indebted to you. I'm really grateful for you taking an hour of your busy time to enlighten us on this. I think what you're doing is it's going to keep you busy for your whole career.Joseph Allen (01:00:44):Well, the goal here is for me to put myself out of business. We shouldn't have a healthy buildings program. It just should be the way it's done. So I'm looking forward to the time out of business, hopefully have a healthy building future, then I can retire, be happy, and we'll be onto the next big problem.Eric Topol (01:00:57):We'll all be following your writings, which are many, and fortunately not just for science publications, but also for the public though, they're so important because the awareness level as I can't emphasize enough, it's just not there yet. And I think this episode is going to help bring that to a higher level. So Joe, thank you so much for everything you're doing.Joseph Allen (01:01:20):Well, I appreciate it. Thanks for what you're doing too, and thanks for inviting me on. We can't get the word out unless we start sharing it across our different audiences, so I appreciate it. Thanks so much.Eric Topol (01:01:28):You bet.***********************************************A PollThanks for listening, reading or watching!The Ground Truths newsletters and podcasts are all free, open-access, without ads.Please share this post/podcast with your friends and network if you found it informative!Voluntary paid subscriptions all go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks for that—they greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for 2023 and 2024.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio and video support at Scripps Research.Note: you can select preferences to receive emails about newsletters, podcasts, or all I don't want to bother you with an email for content that you're not interested in. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Today, on the Hudson Mohawk Magazine: First, Troy resident and Compassion & Choices Senior Campaign Director Corinne Carey is at the Democratic National Convention and shares her observations with Blaise Bryant. Then, Moses Nagel speaks with Barbara Smith, who attended the protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Il in 1968, about how the DNC compares then and now. Later on, Mark Dunlea spoke with the Hoosick Falls Mayor Rob Allen about the status of the PFOA water contamination cleanup when the village is expected to receive $3million from a national class action settlement. After that, H Bosh Jr interviews Gina Torres of Torres Social about building a social media company. Finally, Willie Terry speaks with Mark Emanatian about why people should celebrate Labor Day in the Capital District.

The Village of Hoosick Falls is expected to receive $3 million from a national class action settlement connected to PFAS manufacturers 3M and DuPont. The settlement differs from ongoing negotiations with Honeywell International and Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics. Village Mayor Rob Allen discusses the status of the PFOA water contamination cleanup with Mark Dunlea for Hudson Mohawk Magazine.

Tom and Matt are back to talk PFAS. First, is EPA's CERCLA designation of PFAS in danger, due to the supreme court eliminating the chevron deference? Plus, Maine farmers sue EPA over PFAS regulation in biosolids. We finish with some advanced chemistry on PFAS destruction. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace are joined by HRP's Carly Saindon to discuss a recent study showing that PFAS absorption into the skin is significantly worse than previously thought. We go over the details and talk about the current state of PFAS skin absorption in various products.  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Sophia Ruan Gushée is a nontoxic lifestyle expert and author of A to Z of D-Toxing: The Ultimate Guide to Reducing Our Toxic Exposures and several detox workbooks. She is praised by experts in both medical and wellness fields for her practical approach to avoiding toxins and cultivating a healthier home environment. Sophia served on the Brown University School of Public Health Advisory Council and Well + Good Council. A graduate of Brown University and Columbia Business School, Sophia has helped thousands of people enjoy healthier lives by simplifying nontoxic living, while protecting the ease and convenience of modern life.   https://www.ruanliving.com/nontoxic-cleaning-guide-may   Website & Social media links (Facebook, instagram, twitter) - Instagram: @ruanliving, https://www.instagram.com/ruanliving/ - Facebook: Ruan Living, https://www.facebook.com/ruanliving - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/srgushee/ - TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@ruanliving     For more information about Michelle, visit www.michelleoravitz.com   The Wholesome FertilityFacebook group is where you can find free resources and support: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2149554308396504/   Instagram: @thewholesomelotusfertility   Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/thewholesomelotus/     Transcript:   Michelle (00:01) Welcome to the podcast, Sophia.   Sophia Gushee (00:03) Thank you for having me.   Michelle (00:05) It's a pleasure to have you and to talk about something that I feel is so important. It's definitely like an uphill battle. I think that a lot of people are facing, but can be done in a easier way and approached in easier way. And I'm really happy to have you on to talk about this important topic. But before we get started, I would love for you to introduce yourself and give us a background and what got you into the work that you're doing.   Sophia Gushee (00:34) I'd be happy to. I never could have imagined that I would be focused on simplifying non -toxic living. I grew up in upstate New York, always interested in eating healthy. I grew up in a tennis loving family. I exercised a lot since I was really young. And yet I always felt poor energy, felt really bad. And since...   People always said to me, you're the healthiest person I know. And I felt really bad. I just thought something was wrong with me. I ended up after graduating from college, working on Wall Street for about 10 years in distressed investing. So I would focus on high risk, high return investments with imperfect information. And my job was to figure out.   what are the value creation strategies we can execute to create the most value? And when I became a mom at age 34, I started accidentally learning about toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and radiation from what I was buying for my infant. And since I never heard about this before, my like,   highly respected physicians never put it on my radar. My reaction ended up being very similar to what I did professionally with distress investing. I had to figure out are there credible sources to back up what I'm reading? What are the good facts? Why do the physicians not know about this? And what's a reasonable level of concern?   always I ended up finding enough information that made me want to make a healthier choice. And I ended up developing a platform and a lifestyle to simplify how to make safer choices with shopping and simple things you do at home. So Ruan Living is based on the easy things you can do to reduce your toxic exposures. I ended up   spending about eight years sharing the science that I learned about that I wish I knew sooner in a book that was published in 2015 and that's called A to Z of Detoxing, The Ultimate Guide to Reducing Our Toxic Exposures. But since I never wanted to read a book about this, I just wanted an informed mom to tell me what I should know and what I could do in as little time as possible. And I never found that resource. I've been   building offerings to serve that desire of my younger self because learning how to not buy toxic exposures to bring into your home should not be as hard as it's been.   Michelle (03:40) Oh my God, when you said simplify, I'm like, yes, that is exactly what we need because I find, and I found this when I first started working with fertility and of course learned about what the impacts were from these endocrine disruptors and the toxins that were exposed to from the chemicals that are in our products to our like healthcare and not healthcare them.   I mean, the clean products in our, not clean products, I don't know why I'm getting, I'll delete this part. Cleaning products in our house, you know, there's so many different ways that it sneaks in, but it also in receipts, you know, things that you would never even consider. And then also pesticides and I mean, you can just like, you can keep going and EMFs too. That's another, that's a whole other topic.   Sophia Gushee (04:15) cleaning products.   Michelle (04:36) But yeah, we're exposed to a lot of things that we're not supposed to be exposed to. And when I first learned about this, I remember myself feeling overwhelmed, but then also being afraid to overwhelm my patients and my clients, because it can be really overwhelming to hear about. First of all, it makes you feel bad and then worried like, well, what happened up until this point? You know what I mean? I've been doing all these things and not realizing that I'm harming my body.   But secondly, how does one get started? You know, that it feels like such an uphill battle and it feels like it's so overwhelming. I think that that was one of the things that I always struggled with in explaining things to my patients.   Sophia Gushee (05:21) It's hard. Not everyone wants to know. And so I don't push it on people. But for those who are curious, I want them to know what I have to offer so that they can learn to modify things in their lifestyle and their purchases that they don't mind making. And the thing...   Michelle (05:25) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (05:49) The main thing is, I forgot to finish a point I started with. Even though I felt really poor energy most of my life, it wasn't until after I started detoxing my home and detoxing my diet and other things to reduce my toxic exposures that I started to feel better than ever. And this is now during a stage in my life where I don't eat as well as I used to.   I don't exercise as much as I used to. I have three kids, so I've been busy with that and working a ton. I don't sleep as well, and yet I feel better than ever. And I really do believe it's the reduced body burden that I undoubtedly now have. And when I look at images of mice who have been exposed to a lot of bisphenol A,   a popular hormone disrupting chemical found in many household products like plastics. And I see how obese the mouse is in comparison to the control mouse who was not exposed to BPA. I think that's how I felt like all of high school. So what I encourage people to do is to follow an elimination diet. Pick one thing.   one change you don't mind making often cleaning products is a really good start or your food containers or your pots and pans. Most people don't feel an emotional connection to those things and make a small change. And over time, you're going to feel really good about it, whether you feel better or you're just feeling empowered and you'll feel ready for another change. And over time,   There are a variety of symptoms that are alleviated for a lot of people, whether it's skin issues or energy or other outcomes. A lot of studies actually show that these toxic exposures are influencing reproductive health and assisted reproductive technology outcomes. So if you're struggling to get pregnant,   and you want to do everything you can for the healthiest pregnancy outcome possible, then detoxing your home and the other aspects of your life that you can do at a pace that's comfortable for you will be an invaluable investment for yourself and your offspring and also their offspring.   Michelle (08:35) Absolutely. Actually, let's talk about pots and pans because I feel like that's always a confusing subject. What are good ones that you recommend?   Sophia Gushee (08:47) I stick to the materials that have been around since before the Industrial Revolution. So cast iron, stainless steel, and glass are the staples in my home. After about 12, 13 years of just those pots and pans, which are black and metal, I went through a period of really missing color. And so I bought a ceramic   Michelle (08:58) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (09:17) cast iron skillet thinking at the time based on my research that that was probably safe and then after spending probably about $200, very expensive pan, but it was a very pretty pink. I read that it could have lead in it and so my practical approach is I'm not going to throw it out. I like seeing the color around. I use it sparingly and   Acidic foods like tomatoes can wear at the coating of cast iron and stainless steel. So you want to try and not like make tomato sauce in those materials. And so I eventually bought glass cookware. And so the glass is for the tomatoes and other acidic foods. But I also use the...   ceramic glazed cast iron sometimes.   Michelle (10:19) Got it. But the ceramic glazed cast iron, you were saying sometimes it can have lead. Is that what it is?   Sophia Gushee (10:25) Yeah, studies on ceramics and ceramic glazed cookware have found mixed results. Some of them have found lead and probably other toxic chemicals too. It's just, you know, if they were just testing for lead, that's all they're going to find. But if they tested for a longer list of things, I have no doubt they'd find other things.   Michelle (10:37) Mm -hmm.   God, I wish they just didn't do this in the first place. So it would make our life so much easier. No, that they didn't put these chemicals in there or these like things that are harmful for the human body.   Sophia Gushee (10:54) that they don't test.   Well, they serve a purpose. I mean, sometimes these toxic exposures or substances are there accidentally, not intentionally. But sometimes lead is often used in many household products to create a desired color, to create weight in costume jewelry and children's jewelry. So if you think about it, this   Michelle (11:08) Mm -hmm.   Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (11:27) like let's call it fake jewelry is made out of plastic. That's pretty light to make it feel more weighty, like a real, like, I don't know, heavy gold necklace. Heavy metals are used. And when lead has been replaced, it's often been replaced by cadmium, another heavy metal that is also toxic. So I have a 40 -day home detox that really tries to...   Michelle (11:49) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (11:55) inform your common sense in this way because it's not really practical or effective to avoid chemical by chemical. I started out when I started learning about this topic, I developed a list of chemicals to avoid. So I'd read product labels to avoid BPA or phthalates or parabens. And then I just realized that substitute chemicals are   Michelle (12:07) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (12:24) not always safer, sometimes they're more harmful. So BPA, for example, is a chemical that is used in the inner lining of canned foods and plastics on receipts, as you said earlier. In trying to use a safer formula or less controversial one, manufacturers would replace it with things like BPS or others.   and scientists have found that BPS can be even more harmful. And so I ended up, you know, it is, we're now shifting, like governments are shifting towards regulating families of chemicals, which is much more impactful. For example, California is looking to regulate the family of forever chemicals, not just specific ones, like specific forever chemicals, like   Michelle (12:56) Oh, wow.   Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (13:22) PFOA or PFOS. But I actually in my book, A to Z of Detoxing, identified what I call household repeat offenders. So as you get to know materials or just things like, like I was saying, colors in your home, in like costume jewelry and ceramics, and understand that colors are used.   for example, lead and cadmium used to create weight or lead is used to deepen, I think it's red or orange. I specify this in the 40 day home detox program. It just tells your common sense, oh, that's high risk. Most likely there's a heavy metal in there to create that rich deep color or to create weight for plastic. But...   Michelle (14:10) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (14:19) I forgot your question.   Michelle (14:20) Oh, no. I mean, it's just, it's just, yeah, it's all, it's all important. Like I think it's all important because when it comes to really understanding and kind of navigating through this, it could be very overwhelming. And one of the things is like you were saying, when you're focusing on one ingredient at a time, I mean, who can remember all of those things? That's the reality. Another thing that comes to my mind too, is you would think like,   Sophia Gushee (14:23) Pots and pans, lots of hands.   Yeah.   Michelle (14:48) water or like a sparkling water, I know a lot of them have forever chemicals in them.   Sophia Gushee (14:56) Yeah, water is tricky. Bottled water will have lots of micro plastics or nano plastics if it's in a plastic bottle, but even tap water can get contaminated through the pipes and the kitchen fixtures. So I think it's really worth investing in a water filter that is comfortable for your budget.   Michelle (15:06) Mm -hmm.   Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (15:24) Any level of filtration is better than none. But just going back to pots and pans, just so listeners know there's a resource. I have a blog on my website that's the most popular blog on my website and it's on pots and pans. And so I list the specific ones that I use for my home because it is, I research every product I can. I find it.   Michelle (15:26) Mm -hmm.   Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (15:51) not only important but intellectually really interesting and even some stainless steel pots and pans, you know, they're not all the same and glass is not all the same. So I try and make it really easy for people to click and buy if that's what they want to do or share my thought process so people can do their own research.   Michelle (16:01) Mm -hmm.   Right.   That's awesome. So you do have a lot of resources on specific brands or what you've looked into that is clean. Like another thing is spatulas, you know, they say that the silicone spatulas are better because they could withstand high heat, but then sometimes they, they overlay rubber, which isn't good. So I don't know. What are your thoughts on that?   Sophia Gushee (16:43) I'd like to use the example of chocolate chip cookies. There's so many formulas, there's so many recipes for chocolate chip cookies. I grew up with chocolate chip cookies being made of white... Well, if you think about it, I grew up with chocolate chip cookies being really unhealthy. They were made of white sugar, white flour, bad oils. And nowadays there's some really great...   Michelle (16:55) I am now craving chocolate chip cookies.   Sophia Gushee (17:12) paleo recipes made of almond flour. I'm making it up. I don't know if it's almond flour, but like super healthy flour, healthier sugars, healthier chocolate. It can almost be healthier than most American breakfast options. And that idea is true for plastics, for silicone.   for glass, for stainless steel. It depends on the recipe. And so silicone, I'm skeptical of. I'm sure like ideally medical grade silicone is what you wanna use. So for things like pacifiers or baby bottle nipples, I did my best to find medical grade silicone. For cooking, I avoided silicone and plastics for a while.   Michelle (17:43) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (18:07) I would just use wooden spatulas and metal just when I need it. But you want to be careful not to use metal on cast iron and stainless steel because the scratching of the surface, even if you have nonstick pots and pans, scratches just facilitate the leaching of chemicals and metals into your food. So wood is better. But sometimes, like if you're making pancakes or you want to scoop up an egg,   from your pan then silicone. I finally bought one silicone spatula.   Michelle (18:43) So yeah, so in certain circumstances, but ultimately would be the best.   Sophia Gushee (18:50) Wood is ideal. And if I remember correctly, I read this trick to tell if silicone was high risk. And if you bend it, like some bakeware is made of silicone, even a spatula, you can maybe like bend the tip. If you can see, let's say your spatula is a blue silicone. If you see a little white and you bend it, then that's a signal that it might not be the healthiest.   Michelle (19:14) Right.   Sophia Gushee (19:20) So let's go.   Michelle (19:20) Right, because it has rubber inside. Yeah, I remember reading that as well. I was like, oh, that's interesting. So some are just better quality that they're like more thorough or there's a certain grading, right?   Sophia Gushee (19:23) Yeah.   next.   Yeah, there are love different levels of purity.   Michelle (19:38) Awesome. And then are there filters you recommend? I know I'm getting into the details, but I know that I have those questions and I think a lot of people do. It's like all those details are things that people know because water is so important. And of course they had Berkey, which was huge. Now they shut down. So like what's next? Yeah, I heard this is what I heard. I mean, I have, I have one and I have one at my office, but I know, but I did actually hear.   Sophia Gushee (19:42) Yeah, I know, I'm happy to see it.   versus Chess now.   Michelle (20:08) And I don't know that they had like a lawsuit and they lost. And so they shut it down. So now that there are other companies that distribute them, but you don't know which one's official. So it's kind of, I'm not sure.   Sophia Gushee (20:26) Excuse me.   I have spent so much time on water filtration and air filtration. I...   Michelle (20:33) Yeah.   Sophia Gushee (20:40) This is what I do. I have, I'm so paranoid about what's in the water that I have invested to the best of my ability. And so under our kitchen sink, we have a nine stage water filtration system. So there's reverse osmosis, which removes everything, but one water.   Michelle (20:59) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (21:09) expert explained to me, I'd never heard it before and I couldn't verify it online, but it kind of made sense. One water expert said to me that if you're drinking water that's stripped of everything and therefore unbalanced, as it goes through your body, it's looking to balance itself so it can leach your bones of minerals and take in other ways.   Michelle (21:28) Mm -hmm. Mm -hmm. Yeah, I heard about that.   Sophia Gushee (21:33) So that made me really nervous. So I also have other materials in the water filtration system to rebalance the water. There's also activated carbon. And in our country home, we also have, our country home is in an area that has cancer clusters. So I'm even more paranoid about water out there. So I have a whole house water filtration system. So it's about, I think,   Michelle (21:55) Oh, wow.   Sophia Gushee (22:03) I don't know how many pounds, like a huge tank of activated carbon in our basement. So all the water entering our home gets filtered through the activated carbon and then distributed throughout the rest of our home, which was important to me at the time I installed it because my young kids were taking long backs. And...   Michelle (22:26) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (22:29) but I still felt like I don't think that's enough, because there's just so much bad activity around our country home with a pharmaceutical company there and like some industrial activity. And so I also installed this nine stage water filtration system under the sink. But if you can't do that for whatever reason, then even a...   picture with activated carbon is better than nothing. When I travel, I have water bottles that have a water filtration system in the water bottle. Because I notice when I travel, I end up not really drinking water because I'm afraid to drink water. And so that's helped. But my kids won't use it. They all have it, but they refuse to drink from it. So I'll keep trying.   Michelle (23:00) Mm -hmm.   Mm -hmm.   I know the kids don't like to listen to us sometimes, but also when you use that, so you were talking about that charcoal. So that's not reverse osmosis. It's too simple. Right. So it just basically cleans it out with the charcoal.   Sophia Gushee (23:37) That's not.   the water filter, the water bottle.   Michelle (23:44) The water, yeah.   No, no, the water filter in the house. You had mentioned that you had the charcoal and then you had the night.   Sophia Gushee (23:51) The basement has just the activated charcoal. And so that's actually a specific thing you want to ask for because not all charcoal is the same. So you want activated charcoal. And that just absorbs a lot of toxins. But after the water gets distributed through the pipes, it's going to pick up other things from the pipes.   Michelle (23:59) Okay.   Sophia Gushee (24:18) But also I don't think the activated charcoal is necessarily getting the forever chemicals or nanoplastics. So that's why I feel crazy talking about this or admitting it, but I then have the nine -stage water filtration system underneath the spout for drinking water. And it's just for drinking water. I don't use it for cooking.   Michelle (24:41) Mm -hmm. It's not crazy. That's the thing. It's not crazy to want clean water. You know, it's really not. It's just so common to really be exposed to things we shouldn't be exposed to that we have to go out of our way to add all these reinforcements in order to just have clean water, you know, in our life.   Sophia Gushee (25:07) Plus, I was learning about all the contaminants in water with really young kids and during pregnancies and nursing and knowing how influential these toxic exposures can be to young developing life. I would do anything to protect my children from these endocrine disruptors and neurotoxicants and carcinogens.   So I did my best, but it was really hard to figure out. It really took probably over 10 years because not all the water filtration experts had a holistic understanding of my concern. So it just took many conversations and it took a while to find experts that were informed.   Michelle (26:02) And are there ones you recommend or do you have anything on your website of which types of water filtration you recommend from like a pitcher to something under your sink?   Sophia Gushee (26:15) I don't remember if I do in the blog. I have a detox Academy. It's a membership where that's where I am much more personal about the products in my home. I share a lot on the blog too, but I often, I, I often want to be able to provide more context for things because nothing's perfect. So I just want to be able. So in my detox Academy, there's more context for.   Michelle (26:28) Mm -hmm.   Yeah.   Sophia Gushee (26:44) the pros and cons of a product, why I chose it. So for example, sunscreen. I reevaluate every year. It's highly complex. When my kids are really young, there is a certain brand of sunscreen that was rated the most non -toxic, but it's a thick white cream. So as my kids became more verbal, they're like, no. And now they're teenage girls. And so,   Michelle (26:48) Mm -hmm.   Yes, and the kids don't like it. They don't like it. Yeah.   Sophia Gushee (27:14) branding matters, you know, like there are a lot of things that go into whether a teenage girl is going to reapply or apply sunscreen. So I had to go more toxic with some products. And so I just explain a lot more of those personal things in the detox academy because I was raised being told if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. And so I just am shy or reserved about.   Michelle (27:17) Oh yeah.   Mm -hmm, right.   Sophia Gushee (27:43) talking about brands or products that are more toxic, but in the detox academy, I'll say, you know, this brand has a higher toxicity rating, but I use it because if I don't, then my children won't reapply sunscreen.   Michelle (27:45) Mm -hmm. Mm -hmm.   But no, it makes sense. I mean, I think it is something that can be addressed in a balanced way because otherwise, I mean, it'll, it'll create your, you know, it'll really create a lot of stress, which I feel like is also toxic. So you got to do it in a way that's balanced and sensible and a way that works.   Sophia Gushee (28:21) Yeah, it's really important to not aim to be perfect about it and non -toxic does not exist. That's why I often say, like my podcast is called Practical Non -Toxic Living because you also have to enjoy life and that means taking risks and branding.   Michelle (28:30) Right.   Yeah, it's true.   Sophia Gushee (28:48) Brings a lot of joy to teenage girls.   Michelle (28:50) For sure. Well, I'm glad that you're saying that because I think that that is, you know, it's definitely an important aspect to address because I do think that that's what happens. It's like with anything you start to learn about it. You almost become almost like a toxic phobe. It's just like we become germaphobes when we have that microscope that we could see what it looks like, you know, so it starts to get in our minds and we're like, oh my God, I don't want that.   And there's this like high level of resistance. And the truth is we really can't resist all of it. We cannot go completely clean. So it is important to realize that always it's never going to be perfect. And that's okay. I mean, part of it is obviously trying to alleviate the body's load, but it also, another part of it is actually making the body adaptable, you know, so the body adapts because the body knows how to detoxify as well.   I mean, I know there's activated charcoal that people can take as well to help take out the toxins or bind to toxins in the body. So it's a real holistic balance for sure.   Sophia Gushee (29:58) I really think of it as yoga off the mat. And I just, I support conscious, just conscious choices and whatever you choose, you shouldn't judge yourself. I had a client who was trying to help her mom detox her home, just detox cleaning products. And the mom was so resistant. And finally, after a few years, the mom finally admitted,   Michelle (30:09) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (30:28) I just love my certain perfume and my red lipstick and I'm so afraid you're going to tell me it's so toxic I can't use it. And I said, tell your mom that she can hold on to what she loves and there will be plenty of other changes that she won't mind making. And that's really my philosophy. Hold on to what you love or what brings you great convenience. Let's work together on finding the changes you won't mind making.   Michelle (30:37) Yeah.   Yeah.   That's actually really important. I mean, I will say like that, you know, my daughter likes this one perfume and, and it's not a non -toxic perfume, but I feel like if I get so strict, it's going to cause the opposite effect. And I said, okay, it's not a big deal. Just put it on your clothes, not on your skin. You know, sometimes you just do it once in a while and it's not like every day. So it's like, I think that that's a great way to look at it. It's just like, it doesn't have to be.   all or nothing and a little bit it's not going to like be the end all be all like make such a big deal.   Sophia Gushee (31:36) I'm sorry. It was really meaningful to me when I spoke to the former dean of the School of Public Health at Brown University, Bess Marcus, who did a lot of research on behavioral change with smokers, cigarette smokers. And a lot of her research in the 60s and 70s, she ended up using in her visits.   to physicians to educate physicians on what scientists were understanding about the health risks from cigarette smoking. And after a while, a lot of when she would revisit the physicians, they often were really demoralized and they would say, I tell my patients that if they don't stop smoking cigarettes, their chances of lung cancer are gonna be much higher, but they won't quit. So what's the point?   There's no point. And she said, the research shows that a patient, a smoker needs to hear this message at least seven times before the smoker will consider changing. So you have to be among the voice of seven, which helped me so much because if you're trying to educate your children, for example,   Michelle (32:48) Mm.   Sophia Gushee (33:01) to know that your goal shouldn't be to get them to stop something right away and listen to you, but just to be among the voices of the messages that will give them the right information or the right goals, then at some point, maybe they'll listen to it, but you really can't control other people. You shouldn't try. It'll just ruin your relationship. And so all we can do is just try and be a voice out there without the expectation of,   Michelle (33:21) It's true. Yeah, 100%.   It's true.   Sophia Gushee (33:31) controlling behavior.   Michelle (33:33) Oh, 100%. I think that you teach and if people want to take it, they take it. If they can't, if they don't want to, you know, we're all given free will. I have a very big proponent of that because it's important to respect that in others. And ultimately it's their decision. Um, but educate, I, I'm really big on, I think that it's so important to educate people and let them know, because then, then you can make an informed decision. However, that decision wants to end up.   but you can make an informed decision because you have information to make that decision. And then if you choose to ignore certain things, that's your choice, but you at least you know before making that decision.   Sophia Gushee (34:14) Yeah.   Yeah, I just think people have a right to know if you're a health conscious person, then often this is an overlooked pillar of health that can be really empowering.   Michelle (34:29) of without a doubt. And then let's talk about actually EMFs, because you had mentioned that I've seen that on your list. So EMFs are definitely something that a lot of it's invisible. So I think that sometimes out of sight out of mind, we can't smell it, we can't really hear it. It's like invisible, but we know it's there and we read about it, but sometimes forget about it. And it's something that we use, especially like if you're going to a library, I mean, anywhere that   even a hotel, you know, with all the wifi, it's there in so many places. So talk about the role of EMF and how that can impact reproductive health.   Sophia Gushee (35:14) I'll start by trying to explain EMFs in a way that can maybe help listeners visualize it, because I think that has helped me. So I now think of EMFs as just radiation. It's just energy. I think of it as energy. And our cell phones, for example, will maybe use energy from a 3G wavelength or   maybe 4G also and 5G and Bluetooth, then cellular, 3G, 4G, 5G, Bluetooth, Wi -Fi, cellular, their energy wavelengths will differ, but also like the, there are other things about the wavelengths that will be different. So Bluetooth, for example, will be something like,   whereas Wi -Fi will maybe be more gentle. And if you think of sound as energy too, but that it's almost like a harsh wavelength, it's pecking at our membranes. So if you have Bluetooth earphones in your ear, the...   Michelle (36:31) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (36:42) that part of your skull is actually really vulnerable. So even if you're not using the earphones, it's open. So the earbuds are still trying to, they still emit energy towards each other through your skull. A wonderful scientist named Debra Davis, she's highly accomplished. She,   Michelle (36:49) Because it's open. It's open.   Sophia Gushee (37:11) She was integral in banning smoking on cigarette planes decades ago. She has been, God bless her, she's been pioneering science on how these electromagnetic fields from our technology are affecting our health and development and reproductive health outcomes. Side note, she won a Nobel Prize with   Michelle (37:18) God bless her.   Sophia Gushee (37:40) Vice President Al Gore on their work for climate change. So she's an amazing scientist, but she...   I just lost my train of thought.   Michelle (37:55) That happens to me all the time. We were talking about the earbuds and the yeah.   Sophia Gushee (37:59) the earbud. She has, uh, she's published a few wonderful books, but she just re -released a book called Disconnect, which explains the science on how radiation from things like our cell phones and laptops are threatening our health and wellbeing. So if listeners want to get a great overview on that, I highly recommend Disconnect. And I also have...   one podcast episode with Debra Davis on the Practical Non -Toxic Living podcast if they want to listen and her executive director is on another one. But she and another great scientist, David Carpenter, were part of a team that filed a lawsuit against the FCC for not considering   the scientific studies, the peer -reviewed scientific studies that have come out since the wireless standards were set in 1996. And the judge ruled in their favor. But the judge said to the FCC, you have these list of things you have to now respond to, but there's no deadline for the FCC to respond by. So progress isn't really going to go anywhere, but at least the judge acknowledged that   standards need to be updated and the FCC needs to consider what scientists have learned since 1996. But studies have shown that laptop radiation and cell phone radiation near like the male reproductive area damages sperm quality. So men should be really mindful of where they place the laptop and...   Michelle (39:44) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (39:51) If you're going to have a cell phone on your body, ideally you don't, but that's really hard to do nowadays. If it is on your body, the perfect solution is to turn off your phone. Most people can't do that. The next best thing is to disable cellular Wi -Fi and Bluetooth. And so I just work on having my family members, my children and my husband use airplane mode to disable those things.   Michelle (40:19) Mm -hmm. Yeah.   Sophia Gushee (40:21) And so when you're walking, just know you're taking, you're disconnecting, taking a little break. And then when you need to check your messages, then you can easily enable all that. So that's, that's how I approach EMFs. So male sperm quality, sperm quality is easier to measure than female reproductive health. So even though they're,   scientists don't know how radiation affects our ovaries or the DNA in our reproductive in the ovaries, that doesn't mean that it doesn't cause harm. It's just the studies for women are much more complex.   Michelle (41:10) Right, right. I mean, if it impacts men, you would imagine, I mean, and then a lot of people put their laptop on their bodies or they put like other devices on their bodies. I've, you know, people have the Apple watch, you know, all the basically the smartwatches and it's constantly on their body. And I, I look at it from a Chinese medicine perspective and how we have energetic meridians and we do have an energetic body around us.   and it's intelligent. So having anything interfere with that definitely impacts our bodies and our vitality. And, you know, so I definitely think about that. And let me ask you, what are your thoughts? Because some people say the 5G is like the most strong radiation. So I always have my kids opt in for LTE.   And I do myself on my phone because I'm like, okay, maybe it's a little less radiation. Maybe it's not as good quality, but like the radiation is a little lower. I mean, I don't even know anymore.   Sophia Gushee (42:17) They, again, all the like 3G, 4G, 5G, they're just different layers of energy. And so I think of the home as a sea of radiation. So the more you can take out or silence, the better for you, the less burden on your body. So it's hard. I mean, I live in New York City and I think what I aim to do with, I'm always using airplane mode.   Michelle (42:22) Mm -hmm.   Mm -hmm.   Yeah.   Sophia Gushee (42:47) which annoys most people that they can't call me and reach me right away, but so be it. But my, you know, I have to work within like, what can I ask of my family that won't have them completely reject everything I ask. And so for me right now, I'm just trying to get them to use airplane mode when they don't need to be wirelessly connected. If you're able to,   Michelle (42:51) Mm -hmm. Yeah.   Yes.   Sophia Gushee (43:16) have your family, your loved ones do even more than that, then that's better. It's just less of a stressor on your body. And so I just want to make the point again that some of these wavelengths like Bluetooth can weaken your membrane. So for example, studies show that cell phone radiation can weaken the blood brain barrier.   which protects our brain from toxic compounds in the blood. So just keep in mind that idea that if you never give your body a break from a growing intensity of radiation in our environment, at home, school, work, even public areas, then your organs like your brain are more likely to...   be more vulnerable to toxic compounds in your blood and elsewhere. So that's why it's just important to be mindful and to be able to create recovery periods for your body. And so the bedroom is a great area to focus on. It's hard to control many things in life and sometimes even in our homes if we live with other people.   Michelle (44:29) Mm -hmm.   Sophia Gushee (44:39) But the bedroom is a really good focus because hopefully you're sleeping seven to eight hours. You won't miss being wirelessly disconnected. So just make that energy in your sleep area be as silent as possible so your body can get higher quality sleep and be more resilient to what we can't control.   Michelle (45:02) Yeah, one of the things that I love is earthing or getting a grounding mat because it does absorb excess like, you know, frequencies in our body just brings it down and it does it's been shown to help with inflammation. I mean, it does so much so much to help the body. I feel like it is one way we can kind of organize our energy again, like our body's energy.   a way that is, you know, it gives us something that we can do to help. And then I've also read about shungite. And I think that there was a study done on shungite because of its high carbon content that does tend to neutralize radiation.   Sophia Gushee (45:49) Yes, I'm actually wearing a shangite now.   Michelle (45:51) Oh, look at you and I have this look.   Sophia Gushee (45:57) Bye.   After talking to scientists about different EMF protection products and other experiences, I'm now at a place where I like to assume they don't work just because I don't want to have a false sense of security. Because some products, some EMF protection products, especially ones that you plug into an electrical outlet, sometimes they cause more   Michelle (46:21) Right.   Sophia Gushee (46:33) harm than good or they just create. So for example, you can, for example, I have a router which I can't move outside a daughter's bedroom. So her bedroom gets a lot of radiation and an EMF expert recommended paint that   to paint her walls, special paint that would block out the radiation. It took me years later and another EMF expert to realize that the cell phone towers beaming into her bedroom from outside her apartment that are on rooftops across the street.   bounce off the walls of her painted walls and create a chaotic energy that's even more stressful for my daughter's body. I don't really know what's true, what the big picture is, but it just made me nervous about. That's one example among others that made me feel like I don't really know how to use these things safely. And so I am.   Michelle (47:28) Mm.   Yeah.   Yeah.   Sophia Gushee (47:51) Like I think shungite probably does work, but how much shungite do we need? Like plants do detox the air, but for plants to be an effective air purifier, you probably have to live in a greenhouse. You need a lot of plants.   Michelle (47:55) Bye.   Right, right, right. This is true. I mean, yeah, we could definitely like, we can keep going and dive deep and, and, you know, enter the rabbit hole, go down the rabbit hole with so many of these things. So I definitely, I could see that for sure, but it is important to know.   Sophia Gushee (48:23) But natural ways of earthing, like I'm a big proponent of, which is just skin contact with earth. I really like on grass and soil, the sea is great, immersing yourself in sea water and the ocean, those are really excellent healing ways to ground.   Michelle (48:32) Yeah.   No doubt nature is incredible and it really knows how to balance us. I mean, because we are part of nature, it's designed that way. So it is pretty amazing. So, I mean, this is just such a great conversation. I could literally pick your brain for hours. And I love some of the things that we talked about, really good information. And for people who are interested and want to learn more, how can they find you? Where should they go?   on your website or, you know, navigate through this.   Sophia Gushee (49:19) My website is great. The newsletter is the best way to follow the podcast, the detox academy, 40 day home detox and new blog articles and so much more. So I also have detox workshops online. So Ruan living R U A N is a Nancy living .com has also and I can share this link with you. I have a free.   non -toxic cleaning guide, which is super helpful in explaining the safest way to clean your home.   Michelle (49:58) Awesome. Yeah, that would be great. So Sophia, thank you so much for coming on today. This is such an informative episode. I really appreciate everything that you shared today. So thank you so much.   Sophia Gushee (50:11) My pleasure.

News reports warned Australians that "forever chemicals" known as "forever chemicals" have been found in drinking water supplies around our country and are exceeding unsafe levels. These include human-made chemicals: perfluorooctane sulfonate (known as PFOS) and perflurooctanic acid (PFOA). They are classed under the broader category of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS chemicals. - நம் நாட்டை சுற்றிலும் குடிநீர் விநியோகங்களில் “forever chemicals” என்று அறியப்படும் “எப்போதும் அழியா வேதியியல் பொருட்கள்” கண்டறியப்பட்டுள்ளதாகவும் அது பாதுகாப்பற்ற நிலைகளைத் தாண்டியிருப்பதாகவும் செய்திகள் தெரிவிக்கின்றன. மனிதனால் உருவாக்கப்பட்ட (PFOS எனப்படும் perfluorooctane sulfonate, PFOA எனப்படும் perflurooctanic acid என்பவற்றை உள்ளடக்கிய) PFAS எனப்படும் பாலிஃப்ளூரோஅல்கைல் பொருட்கள் (polyfluoroalkyl substances) நாம் அருந்தும் நீரில் அதிகளவில் இருப்பதால் எங்களுக்குப் புற்று நோய் அதிகளவில் ஏற்படுவதற்கு சாத்தியம் இருப்பதாக வெளியாகியுள்ள செய்தி குறித்து 40 வருடங்களுக்கு மேலாக நீர் வளத் துறையில் பணியாற்றி விட்டு அண்மையில் ஓய்வு பெற்றிருக்கும் திரு மு தயாநிதி அவர்களுடன் உரையாடுகிறார் குலசேகரம் சஞ்சயன்.

Your June PFAS headlines! We've got three big stories to tell you about in this installment. As always, all articles can be read in full on the Pulse. It looks like it's shaping up to be a hot litigation summer in the PFAS world. Let's talk about whose going to be feeling the heat! Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Host's Tom and Matt are joined by HRP's Jackie Baxley, EHS&S Practice Leader, to discuss her upcoming webinar on PFAS related compliance updates to EPCRA and TSCA.Register here: https://events.teams.microsoft.com/event/522be166-64fa-4ad9-ba48-a95637c38630@e9f3fd58-05d3-4b9a-9485-e694b61feb49Webinar Description:In this webinar, Jackie Baxley, HRP's EHS&S Practice Leader, will guide the audience through recent regulatory changes as it relates to PFAS and TSCA Reporting and EPCRA Toxic Inventory Release Reporting.  In late 2023, EPA finalized a new rule under TSCA requiring manufacturers and importers to conduct a 12 year look back at PFAS mixtures, articles and byproducts.  This one time report under TSCA will open in November 2024 and be due May 8, 2025.  Also in late 2023, EPA removed the “de minimis” exemption for PFAS in EPCRA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting.  This EPCRA rule change will impact the 2024 Reporting Year whose report is due July 1, 2025.  In this webinar we aim to provide awareness of these new/amended rules, help identify if they potentially apply to your organization, and if applicable, what you should be doing NOW to prepare for these reports.  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of chemicals known as PFAS, are often called “forever chemicals” because of how long they persist in the environment. They are prevalent in drinking water and have been linked to negative health outcomes. A slew of cleantech start-ups are cropping up with the aim of breaking down and destroying PFAS molecules. In this episode of C&EN Uncovered, reporter Britt Erickson explores the technologies behind these companies and the competition among them. C&EN Uncovered, a project from C&EN's podcast, Stereo Chemistry, offers a deeper look at subjects from recent stories. Check out Britt's cover story on the destruction techniques for these “forever chemicals” at cenm.ag/foreverchemicals. Cover photo: Argon gas plasma, which can break down PFAS, on the surface of liquid water Subscribe to Stereo Chemistry now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   A transcript of this episode will be available soon at cen.acs.org. Credits Executive producer: Gina Vitale C&EN Uncovered host: Craig Bettenhausen Reporter: Britt Erickson Audio editor: Ted Woods Copyeditor: Bran Vickers Story editor: Michael McCoy Episode artwork: Courtesy of Selma Mededovic Thagard/Clarkson University Music: “Hot Chocolate,” by Aves Contact Stereo Chemistry: Contact us on social media at @cenmag or email cenfeedback@acs.org.

Have you ever considered that your quest for eternal youth could be silently sabotaging your health? My latest solo episode peels back the glossy labels of skincare and anti-aging products to reveal the 'Fatal Conveniences' hidden within. I unmask the startling truth about hazardous chemicals like mercury and PFOAs that are infiltrating our bodies through our largest organ - our skin. Join me as I illuminate the path to becoming a conscious consumer, urging you to support brands that hold our wellbeing in high regard and challenging you to rethink the potions and lotions that promise the fountain of youth.   The conversation doesn't stop at skincare; it's a rallying cry for mindfulness in our daily routine. Tune in as I dissect the everyday choices that could be undermining our health and share how even the most minor shifts in our buying habits can yield monumental gains for our well-being and the planet.  Together, we're fostering a community dedicated to sidestepping these hidden dangers and championing products that are kind to both our bodies and the environment.   Don't forget… You can order now by heading to https://darinolien.com/fatal-conveniences-book or order now on Amazon.   LINKS & RESOURCES: FDA article on Mercury The Mercury Product Database Anti-aging Products Linked To Breast Cancer Cosmetic Safety Report – Downloadable PDF on PFOA's  Get The Facts – Finding Safer Products Mercury Poisoning Linked to Skin Products Public Health Statement for Mercury      Thank you to our sponsors: Vivo Barefoot: Get 15% off your first Vivobarefoot order with DARINV15 at www.vivobarefoot.com Find more from Darin: Website: https://darinolien.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/Darinolien/ Book: https://darinolien.com/fatal-conveniences-book/ Down to Earth: https://darinolien.com/down-to-earth/    Use code OLIEN20 for a Viome discount Candiani Denim: https://www.candianidenim.com/

PFAS has been added to CERCLA as a Hazardous Substance. Host Tom Simmons and Matt Wallace are joined by HRP's Environmental Practice Leader, Tom Darby, to talk through what this huge announcement means. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

We're releasing episodes from our mini failure library while we're on production hiatus. This week's Mini Failure is about PFOA/C8 Contamination (Dupont Scandal). PFOA has been poisoning living creatures in the Ohio river basin for decades. One brave lawyer took on a huge corporation in this real life David and Goliath story. Original Air Date: December 12, 2022 Episode Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/dupont-lawsuits-re-pfoa-pollution-in-usa/ https://peri.umass.edu/toxic-100-air-polluters-index-current https://www.alleghenyfront.org/ohio-river-communities-are-still-coping-with-teflons-toxic-legacy/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/chemicals/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html#:~:text=IARC%20has%20classified%20PFOA%20as,cause%20cancer%20in%20lab%20animals. Podcast - https://www.alleghenyfront.org/category/fullepisodes/ Ways to get in touch with us Email - thefailurologypodcast@gmail.com Website - www.failurology.ca

This Day in Legal History: WIPO EstablishedOn April 26, 1970, a significant advancement in the protection and management of intellectual property took place with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This marked the enforcement of the Convention Establishing WIPO, making it one of the specialized agencies under the United Nations focused on intellectual property (IP) issues. WIPO's primary mission is to promote and protect intellectual property across different countries by fostering international cooperation. As of now, 184 countries are signatories to the convention, showcasing a global commitment to the principles laid out by WIPO.WIPO plays a crucial role in the development of a balanced and accessible international IP system, which benefits both creators and the public, thereby contributing to economic, social, and cultural development worldwide. The organization administers 26 international treaties, including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. These treaties serve as the backbone for international IP law, standardizing the protection of IP across borders and promoting creative activity globally.WIPO also assists countries in developing their IP strategies and provides a platform for dispute resolution concerning IP. Through its various programs, WIPO enhances the ability of countries to utilize IP for economic development. Additionally, WIPO's efforts include tackling the challenges of IP in relation to new technologies, which continually reshape the boundaries of law and creativity.The creation of WIPO in 1970 was a response to the growing significance of intellectual property in the age of technological and artistic innovation, recognizing the need for a systematic approach to IP issues that transcended national borders. Today, WIPO continues to evolve as it addresses emerging issues in intellectual property influenced by the digital age and globalization, underscoring its ongoing relevance in international legal and economic landscapes.The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on Donald Trump's assertion of immunity from prosecution regarding charges that he illegally tried to remain in power. During a hearing, there was notable skepticism from the justices towards Trump's broad claims of immunity relating to his efforts to overturn the election results of 2020. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested possibly remanding the case back to lower courts for a more detailed examination of the allegations, indicating that the appeals court had not sufficiently scrutinized the specifics of the actions and documents in question.Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns about the potential long-term implications of making presidents vulnerable to prosecution for their official acts, fearing it could cyclically affect future presidents. Meanwhile, the liberal justices questioned the absence of constitutional immunity for presidents, highlighting the risk of a president acting without fear of legal consequences. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also challenged the idea that former presidents could only be prosecuted post-impeachment.The case underscores the urgency from Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is pressed by time constraints to try Trump before the upcoming election, given that a trial and subsequent conviction could adversely affect Trump's electoral prospects. Trump, facing multiple prosecutions, has argued for absolute immunity for actions taken while in office, which include his conduct leading up to and on January 6th.There are fundamental questions that must be addressed about the scope of presidential power and its limits, which are central to the case's legal and constitutional stakes.Supreme Court Wary of Trump Immunity But May Keep Trial on HoldThe Biden administration's Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, a key component of the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at reducing the costs of certain Medicare Part D drugs by 2026, has attracted significant legal attention. Numerous former government officials, scholars, and patient advocacy groups have filed amicus briefs supporting the administration in response to legal challenges from the pharmaceutical industry, which contests the constitutionality of the program.These challenges involve several constitutional claims by the pharmaceutical companies, including violations of compelled speech under the First Amendment, the takings clause and due process under the Fifth Amendment, and excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment. The industry argues that the program unlawfully compels them to sell their products at government-dictated prices without just compensation.However, a notable decision by Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly dismissed AstraZeneca's due process claims, asserting that the manufacturer did not have a constitutional property interest jeopardized by the program. This decision aligns with several key legal precedents cited in various amicus briefs that reinforce the government's position.The case also touches on broader implications for governmental regulatory powers and the limits of constitutional protections for businesses under economic regulation frameworks. Legal experts and scholars have argued that the claims raised by the pharmaceutical industry stretch constitutional interpretations to protect against price negotiation practices that have been historically upheld as constitutional.The legal battle also involves a debate over the First Amendment, with the government asserting that the program does not compel speech from drug manufacturers. Judges and legal experts have scrutinized these claims, emphasizing the potential impact of accepting such an interpretation on a wide range of regulatory activities.While the majority of amicus briefs support the government, a few filed on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry focus on concerns about stifling drug innovation and the severe financial penalties imposed for non-compliance with the program's pricing mandates.The ongoing legal proceedings at the district court level, though less common for amicus filings than higher courts, play a crucial role in shaping the preliminary legal landscape before potentially reaching the Supreme Court. The involvement of high-level legal expertise in the form of amicus briefs underscores the significant stakes and complex legal issues at play, reflecting the profound implications of the outcome on the healthcare sector and regulatory practices.Wave of Amicus Briefs Back Drug Price Plan at Trial Court StageThe EPA's recent final rule under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as the Superfund law, designates two PFAS chemicals—perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)—as hazardous substances. This designation is expected to significantly impact companies responsible for contaminated sites, potentially leading to the reevaluation and cleanup of sites previously considered resolved.The rule aims to address sites contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, which are part of a group of chemicals known as "forever chemicals" due to their persistence in the environment. Currently, only a small fraction of National Priorities List (NPL) sites have been identified as contaminated with these substances, but this number is expected to rise as more comprehensive testing is implemented. The EPA's action follows increasing evidence of the health risks associated with high concentrations of these chemicals, including potential links to cancer and other serious health issues.Companies and other entities responsible for releases of these chemicals will face new reporting requirements if they release one pound or more of PFOA or PFOS within a 24-hour period. These reports will contribute to the Toxics Release Inventory and are part of broader efforts to increase transparency and regulatory oversight regarding PFAS releases into the environment.The designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA is likely to lead to significant legal and financial implications for responsible parties due to the costly nature of cleanup efforts and potential litigation. Moreover, the rule's implications extend beyond immediate cleanup efforts, potentially impacting water utilities and prompting them to seek remediation and accountability from polluters as stricter limits on PFAS in tap water are set to take effect.This regulatory change reflects a growing recognition of the serious environmental and health impacts of PFAS chemicals, and it aligns with broader environmental justice efforts to address pollution exposure disparities among racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. The long-term challenges of managing PFAS contamination will involve complex legal, environmental, and public health considerations, particularly as affected communities and regulatory agencies navigate the implications of these pervasive pollutants.New PFAS Designation Expected to Spark Rise in Superfund SitesHarvey Weinstein's 2020 conviction for sexual assault and rape was overturned by New York's highest court on April 25, 2024. The court, in a closely contested 4-3 decision, cited critical errors by the trial judge, particularly in allowing testimony about alleged assaults that were not directly related to the charges Weinstein faced. This decision has reignited discussions about the challenges in prosecuting powerful figures and has been met with dismay by many, including actress Ashley Judd, who viewed it as an institutional betrayal.The Manhattan District Attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, has indicated plans to retry the case, underscoring their ongoing commitment to addressing sexual assault. The overturned conviction, which had been a significant victory for the #MeToo movement, involved allegations by Miriam Haley and Jessica Mann that dated back to 2006 and 2013, respectively.Weinstein's legal team celebrated the decision as a triumph for justice, noting Weinstein's relief and resilience despite his ongoing incarceration. He remains imprisoned on a separate 16-year sentence in California for similar charges, which stands unaffected by the New York ruling.This case has had broad implications, influencing legislation and public awareness about sexual misconduct. New York, among other states, has passed laws allowing civil lawsuits for sexual misconduct outside the typical statutes of limitations, reflecting a legislative response to #MeToo. The case's developments continue to be closely watched, with potential impacts on both legal precedents and societal norms concerning accountability for sexual violence.Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction is overturned by top New York court | ReutersThe defamation lawsuit filed by Jack and Leslie Flynn against CNN, which involved claims of being wrongfully associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory, has been dismissed by a judge. The case revolved around a CNN segment that showed the Flynns at a barbecue raising their hands while Michael Flynn, the former National Security Advisor, recited a phrase linked to QAnon. The Flynns argued that this portrayal falsely labeled them as QAnon followers, which they considered defamatory.CNN countered that the phrase "where we go one, we go all" used by Michael Flynn during the event is widely recognized as associated with QAnon, and that the Flynns were visible participants in the event. The court, upon review, determined that the term "QAnon followers" as used in the context of the CNN segment is a non-defamatory opinion, not a statement of fact. The judge ruled that opinions, especially when based on disclosed, non-defamatory facts, do not constitute defamation.Furthermore, the court highlighted that the portrayal of the Flynns in the segment was based on their actual appearance and participation in an event alongside Michael Flynn, which is not disputed by the Flynns. The dismissal reflects judicial recognition of the challenges in proving defamation when the statements in question are based on interpreted opinions rather than explicit facts. The decision underscores the importance of context in defamation cases, particularly when public figures and political movements are involved. This case also reflects ongoing legal debates about the limits of free speech and the scope of media responsibility in reporting on controversial public figures and events.Flynn Family's SLAPP Suit Against CNN Slapped Down By Judge | TechdirtThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven.For this week's closing piece of classical music, where we will once again delve into the towering genius of Ludwig van Beethoven and his monumental Piano Sonata No. 29 in B-flat major, Op. 106, known as the "Hammerklavier." Composed in 1819, the "Hammerklavier" Sonata stands as one of the pinnacles of Beethoven's creative output and showcases his profound depth in musical structure and expressive range.This sonata is particularly renowned for its technical difficulty and ambitious scope, pushing the boundaries of the piano sonata form of the time. Beethoven's late period, during which he composed the "Hammerklavier," is marked by an increased use of complex structures and an exploration of new musical ideas, and this sonata is a testament to his innovative spirit.This week, we will focus specifically on the second movement of this sonata, the Scherzo: Assai vivace. In stark contrast to the grandiose and deeply serious first movement, the Scherzo bursts with energy and playfulness. Its rapid tempo and lively rhythms present a dazzling display of technical prowess and artistic flair. This movement is a brilliant example of Beethoven's ability to juxtapose contrasting moods within a single piece, providing a refreshing and exhilarating counterpart to the sonata's more introspective segments.The Scherzo is structured around a lively theme that leaps and dances across the keyboard, filled with syncopated rhythms and sudden dynamic changes that challenge even the most skilled pianists. It embodies a sense of joy and almost mischievous playfulness, showcasing Beethoven's mastery in transforming musical ideas into a vivid emotional narrative.As we close this week's episode with the Scherzo from Beethoven's "Hammerklavier" Sonata, let the vivacity and brilliance of this music inspire you. It serves not only as a showcase of Beethoven's technical mastery but also his undiminished spirit and the enduring power of his music to evoke a wide range of profound emotions. Enjoy the spirited journey through one of the most challenging yet rewarding pieces in the piano repertoire.Without further ado, Beethoven's Piano Sonata no. 29 “Hammerklavier”, Op. 106 - II. Scherzo - Assai vivace. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

HRP Associates leads the way on PFAS, bringing you this breakdown on the EPA's finalization of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in drinking water. Guests Bryan Massa and Tom Darby represent the top talent in the PFAS field at HRP and are here to bring you the details. A reminder that our Play Hard segment is also available in video form! Watch that on our YouTube Channel. Make sure you subscribe, give us a review & check us out on social media!YouTubeLinkedInInstagramTwitterFacebookWebsite

Here's the Work Hard segment from the 3:12 Podcast, where we bring you a breakdown on the EPA's finalization of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in drinking water. Guests Bryan Massa and Tom Darby represent the top talent in the PFAS field at HRP and are here to bring you the details. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Dr. Marissa Jablonski is an educator, researcher and Executive Director of the Freshwater Collaborative of Wisconsin where she works to bring together academia, industry, non-profit organizations, and community around all things water. Marissa is also a zero waste influencer under her name Plastic-Free Marissa. *PFAS and PFOA research is growing very rapidly and we have a correction: PFAS and PFOA do not accumulate in fat cells, they tend to accumulate in body tissues like the lungs, liver and kidneys. Here are a couple of resources that back this up: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc#:~:text=Exposure%20to%20certain%20PFAS%20may,such%20as%20in%20the%20liver. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412013001220 The Person & Planet theme song is an original song by singer/songwriter Barbara Stephan. Click here to listen to “Gonna Be There.” --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/personandplanet/support

Darren is joined by Jack Prince this week to discuss these topics:Jack explains an effort to inform the Michigan Education Association about the detriments of Medicare Advantage.New tactics are being employed to sign up seniors to Medicare Advantage, including in person seminars. Jack attended one such seminar and gave his account of what happened.Arizona's Supreme Court ruled that a draconian 1864 anti-abortion law can take effect, which bans the procedure except to save the life of the mother.The Biden Administration has set new limits on the amount of "forever chemicals" like PFAS and PFOA can be in drinking water. This is the first time the government has set limits on these cancer causing chemicals.Internet providers now have to be more transparent about what you get for money, thanks to new Federal Communications Commission rules.President Biden is trying to cancel more student debt. Again, the Republicans are suing him to stop the effort.The parents of the Oxford High School, Michigan shooter are sentenced to 10-15 years in prison each for their roles.And former Ottawa County, Michigan Administrator John Gibbs has sued the county board of commissioners and board chair Joe Moss for wrongful termination, among other claims.

Federal PFAS Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking water have been finalized!The Biden administration (through the EPA) on Wednesday 4/10 finalized strict limits on PFAS in drinking water that will require utilities to reduce them to the lowest level they can be reliably measured! Subscribe to the PULSE to see the announcement and supporting documents and keep your eyes on this feed for our full breakdown! Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

This Day in Legal History: Patent Act ApprovedOn April 10, 1790, a significant milestone in U.S. legal and innovation history was reached when Congress approved America's first Patent Act. This foundational legislation was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the protection of intellectual property in the United States, a concept that has become a cornerstone of the modern global economy. The Patent Act of 1790 empowered inventors with the "sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others" their inventions, providing them with a fourteen-year period of protection. This period was designed to incentivize innovation while balancing the public's interest in the eventual free use of inventions. Moreover, the Act led to the creation of the U.S. Patent Board, marking the establishment of an official body responsible for the examination and awarding of patents. This entity is recognized as the precursor to today's U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), an institution that plays a pivotal role in the protection of intellectual property rights and the encouragement of technological advancement and creativity. The enactment of the Patent Act of 1790 not only recognized the importance of protecting inventors' rights but also set the stage for the United States to become a global leader in innovation and economic development.The EPA recently established the first-ever drinking water standards for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), commonly referred to as "forever chemicals," due to their persistence in the environment. This rule aims to reduce exposure to these carcinogenic substances, affecting up to 6,700 utilities and potentially benefiting around 100 million Americans. Specifically, the EPA has set an enforceable limit of 4 parts per trillion for two primary PFAS compounds—PFOA and PFOS—and a non-enforceable goal of zero exposure due to associated health risks, including cancer. Additionally, a limit of 10 parts per trillion is applied to three other PFAS categories, covering compounds like PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX chemicals.This regulatory action reflects growing concern over PFAS presence in approximately 45% of U.S. drinking water sources, posing significant risks to public health. Utilities will be mandated to monitor, reduce, and notify customers of PFAS levels exceeding these new limits, incorporating advanced treatment technologies such as granular activated carbon and reverse osmosis for removal.To support compliance, the federal government has allocated about $1 billion for PFAS testing and removal, with an additional $12 billion for broader drinking water system improvements. The implementation of these standards represents a critical step by the Biden-Harris Administration towards ensuring environmental justice and safeguarding clean water, contrasting with the World Health Organization's less stringent PFAS guidelines.However, compliance is expected to be costly, with estimates suggesting an annual financial burden of up to $3.8 billion for water utilities. This financial challenge underscores the broader issue of funding essential infrastructure updates and addressing emerging contaminants, highlighting a significant shift in regulatory approach to protect public health from PFAS contamination.Final PFAS Drinking Water Rule to Affect Up to 6,700 UtilitiesUS sets first standard to curb 'forever chemicals' from drinking water | ReutersThe litigation involving Donald Trump's merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) concerning his social media platform, Truth Social, has been assigned to Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn in Delaware Chancery Court, known for her experience with meme stock litigation. This case is among four lawsuits filed over the Trump-Truth Social merger, plus an additional insider trading case. Despite an attempt to block the merger, it concluded in March, leading to an initial surge in Trump Media & Technology Group Corp.'s value, which later saw a significant decline, diminishing billions in value.By way of very brief background, a SPAC operates as a shell corporation designed solely to merge with a private company, thereby taking it public (that is, listing its shares for trade publicly on the market) without going through the traditional and often lengthy initial public offering (IPO) process. SPACs are initially created by a group of investors—often led by a seasoned entrepreneur or business executive—known as the sponsors, who raise capital through an IPO of the SPAC itself, even though it has no existing business operations. The funds raised are placed into a trust account, and the SPAC is given a predetermined timeframe, typically 18 to 24 months, to identify and complete a merger with a target company. If the merger is successfully executed within the allotted time, the target company becomes public as a result. However, if the SPAC fails to find a suitable company to merge with or the shareholders disapprove of the proposed merger, the SPAC is dissolved, and the funds are returned to the investors. This mechanism provides a faster, albeit sometimes riskier, alternative to the traditional IPO, offering private companies a streamlined path to public market access and investors a unique investment opportunity tied to the SPAC sponsors' expertise and the potential of the target company.Vice Chancellor Zurn, recognized for her adept handling of cases involving meme stock traders and complex market manipulation theories, now faces the Truth Social lawsuit, highlighting the increasing intersection of retail trading phenomena with legal disputes in the corporate sector. This case centers on allegations that Trump wrongfully diluted the equity of two former "The Apprentice" contestants who co-founded Trump Media, with Trump counter-suing to cancel their shares. The legal battle involves claims of breach of fiduciary duties and retaliatory actions against the co-founders, with new complaints recently allowed to be updated.The assignment of this high-profile case to Zurn underlines the Delaware Chancery Court's role as a crucial arena for major corporate and shareholder disputes, now expanded to include the unique challenges posed by the involvement of meme stock traders. The outcome of this litigation could have broader implications for corporate governance, investor rights, and the regulation of digital and social media ventures in the rapidly evolving landscape of retail trading and online community-driven investment strategies.Trump SPAC Litigation Heads to Judge With Meme Stock ExperienceA Russian court has upheld a significant fine against Google, rejecting the tech giant's appeal against a 4.6 billion rouble ($49.4 million) penalty. This fine was imposed for Google's failure to delete content that the Russian government deems to be false information about the conflict in Ukraine. The decision comes amid ongoing tensions between Russia and foreign tech companies over issues of content censorship, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.The Moscow City Court confirmed the decision made by the Tagansky District Court, effectively leaving Google's challenge unsatisfied. The fine also pertains to Google's inability to remove extremist content and what the Russian authorities label as LGBT propaganda, indicating a broader crackdown on the digital content distributed by international tech firms within Russia.Notably, Google's YouTube platform, while under scrutiny, has not faced the same fate as Twitter and Facebook, which have been blocked in Russia. This penalty against Google is part of a series of fines based on the company's annual turnover in Russia, with Google facing increasing financial penalties over similar issues in the past. This ruling underscores the escalating conflict between the Russian government and global technology companies over the control and regulation of online content and freedom of expression.Russian court rejects Google's appeal against $50-mln fine over Ukraine content | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Hosts Matt and Tom take a look at the overturned PFAS ban on PFAS leeching containers. In 2020 the EPA banned Inhance Technologies containers, due to a manufacturing process that causes the containers to leech PFAS. Earlier this year, the 5th Cricut Court of Appeals overturned that ban. Here are our thoughts.  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

C dans l'air du 4 avril 2024 - Polluants éternels : le nouveau scandale sanitaire ? C'est le nouveau scandale sanitaire qui inquiète. À Rumilly (Haute-Savoie), qui compte une usine Tefal, du PFOA, "un polluant éternel", a été découvert en février 2023 dans le réseau d'eau potable de la ville. Après des tests sanguins, des habitants de la commune ont découvert avec horreur qu'ils avaient des taux de PFOA cinq fois supérieurs à la moyenne française (2,08 µg/L). La molécule est pourtant interdite depuis 2020 en raison de son potentiel cancérogène. Ces substances per- et polyfluoroalkylées, dont certaines sont toxiques, sont notamment consommées ou rejetées lors du processus de revêtement antiadhésif des poêles Tefal. Face à la pression médiatique, SEB (propriétaire de Tefal) assure que le seul PFAS qu'elle utilise est le PFTE, "une substance reconnue depuis plus de 50 ans pour son innocuité". Ce qui n'est pas de l'avis de tous. Le député écologiste Nicolas Thierry a déposé une proposition de loi visant à "interdire à partir de 2025 la fabrication, l'importation, l'exportation et la mise sur le marché de tous les produits contenant des PFAS". Étudié dès aujourd'hui à l'Assemblée nationale, le texte a été accueilli par plusieurs centaines de salariés de SEB envoyés par la direction pour protester. Selon la direction du groupe, la proposition de loi menacerait près de 3 000 emplois en France, dont 1 500 emplois pour la seule ville de Rumilly. La direction de SEB a encore le temps de réagir. D'autres, comme Buitoni, n'en ont pas eu l'occasion. Le 30 mars dernier, Nestlé a décidé de fermer son usine de production de pizzas à Caudry (Nord) mise en cause dans le décès de deux enfants et l'intoxication de dizaines d'autres, par la bactérie Escherichia coli. À l'époque, l'affaire avait fait grand bruit. Une information judiciaire est ouverte depuis mai 2022 à Paris pour homicide involontaire. Avant elle, l'entreprise Ferrero (qui produit les chocolats Kinder) s'était retrouvée au cœur d'un scandale similaire après avoir intoxiqué des centaines d'enfants à travers l'Europe. Conscientes des risques, les grandes entreprises se forment à la communication de crise pour répondre à ce genre de situation. "En matière de gestion de crise, le pire est de ne rien dire", expliquait à La Croix Géraldine Michel, responsable de la chaire marques et valeurs à la Sorbonne. Lors de la révélation du scandale Kinder en avril dernier, il avait par exemple fallu attendre quatre jours pour que Ferrero reconnaisse dans un communiqué "des défaillances internes". Un réaction bien trop tardive pour espérer calmer la colère des familles touchées. En la matière, la direction de Nestlé Waters (San Pellegrino, Vittel, Perrier…) est actuellement acculée. Le groupe est accusé depuis plusieurs jours d'avoir voulu cacher la contamination généralisée de ses sources d'eau minérale. Le 4 avril, Le Monde et France info ont révélé le contenu d'une expertise menée par l'Agence de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation (Anses) sur les eaux du groupe. Le rapport, remis au gouvernement en février, conclut à une contamination généralisée aux bactéries, pesticides, PFAS, des sources d'eau minérale naturelle exploitées par le groupe Nestlé. Non seulement, le gouvernement n'a rien communiqué aux Français, mais il n'a rien transmis non plus aux autorités européennes "ce qui est quand même assez fou, parce que toutes ces eaux dont on parle aujourd'hui de grande marque, sont aussi vendues et consommées dans d'autres pays européens", répond à France info l'association Foodwatch, qui a porté plainte pour "tromperies" contre Nestlé. Un comité de la Commission européenne est d'ailleurs prévu le 30 avril pour faire la lumière sur cette affaire. Quelle est la dangerosité des fameux PFAS ? Pourquoi le gouvernement français veut-il les interdire ? Comment les grands groupes réagissent-ils aux crises qu'ils provoquent ? Et quelle est l'ampleur du scandale de l'eau qui plane au-dessus de Nestlé ? LES EXPERTS : - GÉRALD KIERZEK - Médecin urgentiste, directeur médical - Doctissimo - ÉMILIE TORGEMEN - Journaliste chargée des questions d'environnement - Le Parisien - KARINE JACQUEMART - Directrice de Foodwatch France - PHILIPPE DESSERTINE - Économiste, directeur de l'Institut de Haute Finance DIFFUSION : du lundi au samedi à 17h45 FORMAT : 65 minutes PRÉSENTATION : Caroline Roux - Axel de Tarlé - REDIFFUSION : du lundi au vendredi vers 23h40 PRODUCTION DES PODCASTS: Jean-Christophe Thiéfine RÉALISATION : Nicolas Ferraro, Bruno Piney, Franck Broqua, Alexandre Langeard, Corentin Son, Benoît Lemoine PRODUCTION : France Télévisions / Maximal Productions Retrouvez C DANS L'AIR sur internet & les réseaux : INTERNET : francetv.fr FACEBOOK : https://www.facebook.com/Cdanslairf5 TWITTER : https://twitter.com/cdanslair INSTAGRAM : https://www.instagram.com/cdanslair/

Non-stick pans are incredibly convenient -- they save hours of time, and make cooking less labor-intensive. Some might say the technology sounds too good to be true! As it turns out, that just might be the case. Tune in to learn how 3M, DuPont and other corporate entities conspired (for decades) to suppress research indicating serious medical dangers posed by Teflon and related substances.They don't want you to read our book.: https://static.macmillan.com/static/fib/stuff-you-should-read/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Goodson grew up in Missouri and graduated from the University of Missouri Columbia and Harvard Medical School. He trained as a general surgeon and specialized in breast surgery before it was a recognized field. He was a member of the research group that established breast conservation, i.e., lumpectomy, as the preferred treatment for early breast cancer. Recognizing that he was treating more young women with breast cancer, he joined with Dr. Shanaz Dairkee in 2005 to investigate how common environmental chemicals such as BPA, methylparaben, PFOA, etc. disrupt the normal biology of non-cancerous, human breasts. He has been a professor at the University of California San Francisco and a Senior Scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute. He is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, a member of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, and a spokesperson for The Halifax Project. In addition to research, he enjoys photography, writing, and creating hand-drawn animation as on his website, www.drwilliamgoodson.com A Ternary Mixture of Common Chemicals Perturbs Benign Human Breast Epithelial Cells More Than the Same Chemicals Do Individually. Dairkee SH, Luciani-Torres G, Moore DH, Jaffee IM, Goodson WH 3rd. Toxicol Sci. 2018 Sep 1;165(1):131-144. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfy126. PMID: 29846718 Free PMC article.   Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead. Goodson WH 3rd, Lowe L, Carpenter DO, Gilbertson M, Manaf Ali A, Lopez de Cerain Salsamendi A, Lasfar A, Carnero A, Azqueta A, Amedei A, Charles AK, Collins AR, Ward A, Salzberg AC, Colacci A, Olsen AK, Berg A, Barclay BJ, Zhou BP, Blanco-Aparicio C... See abstract for full author list ➔ Carcinogenesis. 2015 Jun;36 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S254-96. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgv039. PMID: 26106142 Free PMC article.   Consensus on the key characteristics of endocrine-disrupting chemicals as a basis for hazard identification. La Merrill MA, Vandenberg LN, Smith MT, Goodson W, Browne P, Patisaul HB, Guyton KZ, Kortenkamp A, Cogliano VJ, Woodruff TJ, Rieswijk L, Sone H, Korach KS, Gore AC, Zeise L, Zoeller RT. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2020 Jan;16(1):45-57. doi: 10.1038/s41574-019-0273-8. Epub 2019 Nov 12. PMID: 31719706 Free PMC article.   Exposure to the polyester PET precursor--terephthalic acid induces and perpetuates DNA damage-harboring non-malignant human breast cells. Luciani-Torres MG, Moore DH, Goodson WH 3rd, Dairkee SH. Carcinogenesis. 2015 Jan;36(1):168-76. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgu234. Epub 2014 Nov 19. PMID: 25411358 Free PMC article.   The Key Characteristics of Carcinogens: Relationship to the Hallmarks of Cancer, Relevant Biomarkers, and Assays to Measure Them. Smith MT, Guyton KZ, Kleinstreuer N, Borrel A, Cardenas A, Chiu WA, Felsher DW, Gibbons CF, Goodson WH 3rd, Houck KA, Kane AB, La Merrill MA, Lebrec H, Lowe L, McHale CM, Minocherhomji S, Rieswijk L, Sandy MS, Sone H, Wang A, Zhang L, Zeise L, Fielden M. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Oct;29(10):1887-1903. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1346. Epub 2020 Mar 9. PMID: 32152214 Free PMC article.   Testing the low dose mixtures hypothesis from the Halifax project. Goodson WH, Lowe L, Gilbertson M, Carpenter DO. Rev Environ Health. 2020 Aug 24;35(4):333-357. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2020-0033. Print 2020 Nov 18. PMID: 32833669 Review.   Using the Key Characteristics of Carcinogens to Develop Research on Chemical Mixtures and Cancer. Rider CV, McHale CM, Webster TF, Lowe L, Goodson WH 3rd, La Merrill MA, Rice G, Zeise L, Zhang L, Smith MT. Environ Health Perspect. 2021 Mar;129(3):35003. doi: 10.1289/EHP8525. Epub 2021 Mar 30. PMID: 33784186 Free PMC article.   Bisphenol-A-induced inactivation of the p53 axis underlying deregulation of proliferation kinetics, and cell death in non-malignant human breast epithelial cells. Dairkee SH, Luciani-Torres MG, Moore DH, Goodson WH 3rd. Carcinogenesis. 2013 Mar;34(3):703-12. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgs379. Epub 2012 Dec 7. PMID: 23222814 Free PMC article.   Activation of the mTOR pathway by low levels of xenoestrogens in breast epithelial cells from high-risk women. Goodson WH 3rd, Luciani MG, Sayeed SA, Jaffee IM, Moore DH 2nd, Dairkee SH. Carcinogenesis. 2011 Nov;32(11):1724-33. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgr196. Epub 2011 Sep 1. PMID: 21890461 Free PMC article.  

The show welcomes Carl Palmer, founder, CEO and COB of Seychelle! Mr. Palmer shares his research into water quality issues with the panel and viewers. Topics include lead in drinking water at home and schools, plastic particles leaching from bottles into our water, and the presence of PFOA's in the bodies of millions of people. To find out more and what you can do to protect yourself and loved ones from harmful chemicals in water, watch the show and go to our Seychelle affiliate page!

HRP's regional manager for Massachusetts, and all around PFAS expert, Bryan Massa, joins host Tom Simmons for a wide ranging conversation on PFAS forensics, sampling techniques, working in Massachusetts, and what's coming up this year for HRP's newest office.Watch the full episode on our YouTube channel!Make sure you subscribe, give us a review & check us out on social media!YouTubeLinkedInInstagramTwitterFacebookWebsite

The Biden administration is set to impose first-ever federal limits that will require thousands of public water systems to capture and dispose of toxic contaminants in drinking water that have been linked to infertility and cancer. POLITICO's Jordan Wolman breaks down the details of the standards and how utilities will face significant challenges in order to meet them. Plus, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin is pledging to hold a hearing about the Biden administration's recently announced LNG moratorium.    For more news on energy and the environment, subscribe to Power Switch, our free evening newsletter: https://www.politico.com/power-switch And for even deeper coverage and analysis, read our Morning Energy newsletter by subscribing to POLITICO Pro: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletter-archive/morning-energy   Josh Siegel is an energy reporter for POLITICO.  Jordan Wolman is a sustainability reporter for POLITICO.  Nirmal Mulaikal is a POLITICO audio host-producer.  Annie Rees is a senior audio producer-host at POLITICO.  Gloria Gonzalez is the deputy energy editor for POLITICO.  Matt Daily is the energy editor for POLITICO.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has added addressing exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as a new regulatory priority in its National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives for 2024-2027. With this announcement, the number of PFAS-related regulations and enforcement issues is expected to rise over the next several years. Briefly Legal is launching its first spin-off podcast focusing on environmental and energy law issues. In the inaugural episode, energy and environmental attorneys Tim Sowecke and Alyssa Sloan summarize EPA's enforcement and compliance priorities for 2024-2027 and do a deep-dive on upcoming PFAS regulations, including drinking water standards and increased reporting requirements for manufacturers and processors of PFAS. About Tim Sowecke and Alyssa SloanAddition Resources: EPA Regulations - PFAS as Far as the Eye Can SeeConnect with Crowe & Dunlevy:Website | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn