January 8, 2024 by Contributing Author

Commentary: New Drinking Water Data Uncovers Flaws in EPA’s Proposed PFAS Rules

| By Chad Seidel

---

Recently released drinking water quality testing data calls into doubt major assumptions underpinning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed National Drinking Water Standards for PFOA and PFOS.

Continue Reading

This archived story is available after you provide your email address and accept our Privacy Policy.

Instagram

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Email Address*

Benjamin Media uses the information you provide to us to contact you about our relevant content, products, and services. Benjamin Media will share the information you provide to us with sponsor(s) of requested content. You can unsubscribe from communications from Benjamin Media at any time. For more information, check out Benjamin Media's Privacy Policy.*

I agree with the Benjamin Media privacy policy.

Benjamin Media uses the information you provide to us to contact you about our relevant content, products, and services. Benjamin Media will share the information you provide to us with sponsor(s) of requested content. You can unsubscribe from communications from Benjamin Media at any time. For more information, check out Benjamin Media's Privacy Policy.

Δ

Tags: Corona Environmental Consulting, Drinking Water, EPA, PFAS, PFOA, PFOS, Safe Drinking Water Act

Share this post

Tweet

1 Comments

1. Kevin Callahan says:

   January 9, 2024 at 9:01 am

   So, to sum up the argument, the author claims that ‘scientists’ argue over the whether or not the EPA proposed 4ppt target is of a public health benefit and therefore society should not spend the capital necessary to mitigate said proposed MCL.

   This is the standard argument by those who do not want to mitigate the contamination because it is too ‘costly.’ It never enters into the argument as to whether or not firstly, that the author’s interpretation of the standing science (and which scientists is he referencing) is correct; secondly, that the public never, ever signed off on having their potable water contaminated to begin with; thirdly, that the industries responsible for the contamination pay for the mitigation; fourthly, infrastructure is valued over integrity of the water supply itself.

   Reply