04-03-2017, 11:02 PM
Interesting little twist in the never ending PFOS saga;
Army firefighting chemical exposure levels revised down by federal regulator
BY ISOBEL ROE
MON APR 03 16:29:39 EST 2017
Safe exposure limits for toxic firefighting foam chemicals that have contaminated land and water near Army bases across the nation have been dramatically reduced by the federal agency, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.
The chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) are contained in a firefighting foam that was used widely on the Oakey Aviation Base on Queensland's Darling Downs and RAAF Base Williamtown in NSW from the 1980s until 2003.
Last year, the Federal Health Department was widely criticised by residents in those towns when a review of the country's safety standards for the chemical maintained an exposure limit 78 times higher than the level set in the United States, where some towns have experienced similar problems with the chemicals.
Australian standards had dictated a safe level of PFOS in drinking water was 0.5 micrograms per litre, and the safe level of PFOA was 5 micrograms per litre.
But Food Standards today announced humans should not drink water with more than 0.07 micrograms of PFOS per litre or more than 0.56 micrograms per litre of PFOA-contaminated water.
The new standards are closer to US exposure limits, although still less stringent.
Oakey resident Brad Hudson, whose bore has chemical readings up to 400 times higher than the previously acceptable amount, said the new guidelines raised questions about years of information gathered by the Australian Defence Department.
"All their research ... nearly has to be invalid," he said.
"They were doing it with those other levels as the guidelines and if their guidelines have moved then they've got to go out and do a lot more research."
Mr Hudson said it made sense for Australia to follow the United States.
"It was inevitable would come on board with [lower safety standards] and stop keeping their heads in the sand," he said.
In a statement, the Health Department said the adoption of new safe levels did not mean the old levels were wrong.
"Both sets of values are precautionary and protective of public health," the statement read.
"An independent review in August 2016 confirmed that the [former] values, adopted by enHealth [the environmental health standing committee] were appropriate and, as an interim measure, protective of public health.
"The new Australian values take into account the data, parameters and methodology that are most suitable to Australia."
'Defence safety screen has been removed'. More than 400 Oakey landholders have signed up to a class action that will seek damages for loss of land value from the Defence Department.
Rory Ross from Shine Lawyers, which is running the class action, said the revised exposure limit was significant.
"They are a validation of the concerns that we and others have expressed about the findings of the Human Health Risk Assessment that was undertaken at Oakey," he said.
"The conclusions of that assessment ... I think that's all now undermined.
"It's gut wrenching, I think, for the people of Oakey because they've received assurances from the things the Commonwealth has said and done, that the previous levels were entirely protective.
"Now to say, 'well we're actually going to make this an order of magnitude stricter than the interim measures' ... it's gut wrenching.
"The Department of Defence has to some extent been hiding behind a screen of scientific uncertainty in regard to what does and doesn't constitute an appropriate level in drinking water. I think that screen is now gone."
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-03...1224092055
TICK TOCK Malcolm Turdball, Chief of Defence Mark Foreskin and Minister Payne (who looks like she has been snacking endlessly on cup cakes and Macca's laced with PFOS).
Army firefighting chemical exposure levels revised down by federal regulator
BY ISOBEL ROE
MON APR 03 16:29:39 EST 2017
Safe exposure limits for toxic firefighting foam chemicals that have contaminated land and water near Army bases across the nation have been dramatically reduced by the federal agency, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.
The chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) are contained in a firefighting foam that was used widely on the Oakey Aviation Base on Queensland's Darling Downs and RAAF Base Williamtown in NSW from the 1980s until 2003.
Last year, the Federal Health Department was widely criticised by residents in those towns when a review of the country's safety standards for the chemical maintained an exposure limit 78 times higher than the level set in the United States, where some towns have experienced similar problems with the chemicals.
Australian standards had dictated a safe level of PFOS in drinking water was 0.5 micrograms per litre, and the safe level of PFOA was 5 micrograms per litre.
But Food Standards today announced humans should not drink water with more than 0.07 micrograms of PFOS per litre or more than 0.56 micrograms per litre of PFOA-contaminated water.
The new standards are closer to US exposure limits, although still less stringent.
Oakey resident Brad Hudson, whose bore has chemical readings up to 400 times higher than the previously acceptable amount, said the new guidelines raised questions about years of information gathered by the Australian Defence Department.
"All their research ... nearly has to be invalid," he said.
"They were doing it with those other levels as the guidelines and if their guidelines have moved then they've got to go out and do a lot more research."
Mr Hudson said it made sense for Australia to follow the United States.
"It was inevitable would come on board with [lower safety standards] and stop keeping their heads in the sand," he said.
In a statement, the Health Department said the adoption of new safe levels did not mean the old levels were wrong.
"Both sets of values are precautionary and protective of public health," the statement read.
"An independent review in August 2016 confirmed that the [former] values, adopted by enHealth [the environmental health standing committee] were appropriate and, as an interim measure, protective of public health.
"The new Australian values take into account the data, parameters and methodology that are most suitable to Australia."
'Defence safety screen has been removed'. More than 400 Oakey landholders have signed up to a class action that will seek damages for loss of land value from the Defence Department.
Rory Ross from Shine Lawyers, which is running the class action, said the revised exposure limit was significant.
"They are a validation of the concerns that we and others have expressed about the findings of the Human Health Risk Assessment that was undertaken at Oakey," he said.
"The conclusions of that assessment ... I think that's all now undermined.
"It's gut wrenching, I think, for the people of Oakey because they've received assurances from the things the Commonwealth has said and done, that the previous levels were entirely protective.
"Now to say, 'well we're actually going to make this an order of magnitude stricter than the interim measures' ... it's gut wrenching.
"The Department of Defence has to some extent been hiding behind a screen of scientific uncertainty in regard to what does and doesn't constitute an appropriate level in drinking water. I think that screen is now gone."
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-03...1224092055
TICK TOCK Malcolm Turdball, Chief of Defence Mark Foreskin and Minister Payne (who looks like she has been snacking endlessly on cup cakes and Macca's laced with PFOS).