#it falls below the regulatory weight threshold in many countries | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

azeemsafiofficial · 9 months

Text

DJI Mini 3 Review: The Ultimate Drone Camera for Beginners

The DJI Mini 3 is the latest iteration of DJI's popular line of compact drones, designed with beginners in mind. It builds upon the success of its predecessors, the Mini and Mini 2, offering an even more impressive package for those looking to dip their toes into the world of aerial photography and videography.

Read Article: The DJI Mini 3 Review: Best Drone Camera For Beginner

Buy On Amazon: Check Price

Design and Portability:

One of the standout features of the DJI Mini 3 is its compact and lightweight design. Weighing in at just 249 grams, it falls below the regulatory weight threshold in many countries, which means you often won't need a license or registration to fly it. The foldable arms make it incredibly portable, fitting comfortably into a small bag or even a pocket. This makes it a fantastic travel companion for capturing breathtaking footage on the go.

Camera Performance:

The camera on the Mini 3 is a notable improvement over its predecessors. It boasts a 1/2.3-inch sensor, capable of shooting 12MP photos and 4K video at 30fps. The image quality is impressive for its size, delivering vibrant colors and sharp details. While it may not compete with DJI's more advanced models like the Mavic Air 2 in terms of camera capabilities, it certainly exceeds expectations for a beginner-focused drone.

Flight Performance:

DJI's Mini drones have always been known for their user-friendly flight experience, and the Mini 3 is no exception. It comes equipped with GPS and downward-facing sensors for stable and precise hovering, even in less-than-ideal conditions. The addition of obstacle avoidance technology helps prevent collisions, further enhancing its safety and ease of use for beginners.

Battery Life:

The Mini 3 comes with an upgraded battery that offers a respectable flight time of up to 31 minutes on a single charge. This extended flight time provides more opportunities to capture stunning aerial footage without constantly worrying about returning to the base for a recharge.

Read Article: The DJI Mini 3 Review: Best Drone Camera For Beginner

Buy On Amazon: Check Price

Intelligent Flight Modes:

DJI has included several intelligent flight modes that make capturing professional-looking shots a breeze, even for newcomers. QuickShot modes, such as Dronie and Circle, automate complex maneuvers, allowing users to focus on framing their shots. ActiveTrack 4.0 lets the drone autonomously follow a subject, while Smart Return to Home ensures a safe and accurate return even in challenging environments.

Controller and App:

The Mini 3 is compatible with the DJI Fly app, which provides an intuitive interface for controlling the drone and accessing various features. The included remote controller offers precise and responsive control, and it can hold most smartphones for a live view of the camera feed.

Price:

One of the most appealing aspects of the DJI Mini 3 is its affordability. It provides access to DJI's renowned technology and features at a price point that won't break the bank, making it an excellent choice for beginners or those on a budget.

Conclusion:

In summary, the DJI Mini 3 is a fantastic drone for beginners and amateur aerial photographers and videographers. It combines portability, ease of use, and impressive camera capabilities at an affordable price. While it may not match the advanced features of DJI's higher-end models, it more than satisfies the needs of those looking to capture stunning aerial content without a steep learning curve. If you're in the market for a beginner-friendly drone that delivers on both performance and value, the DJI Mini 3 should be at the top of your list.

Read Article: The DJI Mini 3 Review: Best Drone Camera For Beginner

Buy On Amazon: Check Price

#The DJI Mini 3 is the latest iteration of DJI's popular line of compact drones #designed with beginners in mind. It builds upon the success of its predecessors #the Mini and Mini 2 #offering an even more impressive package for those looking to dip their toes into the world of aerial photography and videography.#Design and Portability:#One of the standout features of the DJI Mini 3 is its compact and lightweight design. Weighing in at just 249 grams #it falls below the regulatory weight threshold in many countries #which means you often won't need a license or registration to fly it. The foldable arms make it incredibly portable #fitting comfortably into a small bag or even a pocket. This makes it a fantastic travel companion for capturing breathtaking footage on the #Camera Performance:#The camera on the Mini 3 is a notable improvement over its predecessors. It boasts a 1/2.3-inch sensor #capable of shooting 12MP photos and 4K video at 30fps. The image quality is impressive for its size #delivering vibrant colors and sharp details. While it may not compete with DJI's more advanced models like the Mavic Air 2 in terms of came #it certainly exceeds expectations for a beginner-focused drone.#Flight Performance:#DJI's Mini drones have always been known for their user-friendly flight experience #and the Mini 3 is no exception. It comes equipped with GPS and downward-facing sensors for stable and precise hovering #even in less-than-ideal conditions. The addition of obstacle avoidance technology helps prevent collisions #further enhancing its safety and ease of use for beginners.#Battery Life:#The Mini 3 comes with an upgraded battery that offers a respectable flight time of up to 31 minutes on a single charge. This extended fligh #Intelligent Flight Modes:#DJI has included several intelligent flight modes that make capturing professional-looking shots a breeze #even for newcomers. QuickShot modes #such as Dronie and Circle #automate complex maneuvers #allowing users to focus on framing their shots. ActiveTrack 4.0 lets the drone autonomously follow a subject #while Smart Return to Home ensures a safe and accurate return even in challenging environments.#Controller and App:#The Mini 3 is compatible with the DJI Fly app

1 note · View note

billehrman · 5 years

Text

It’s Darkest Before Dawn

It’s amusing to us to listen to the pundits/experts shifting their views almost daily staying one step behind the markets.

Forbes wrote an article about us on August 14, 1995 titled “Looking Beyond the Valley” in which we discussed our methodology to successfully invest which has been influenced over the years by partnering with great global investors such as George Soros. We always say that a successful investor must look through the windshield and “beyond the valley” rather than in the rear-view mirror. Our strength is a thorough understanding of global dynamics: political, economic, monetary, trade and regulatory and all of the inter/intra relationships amongst them. We are fundamentalists at heart always looking for that inflection point recognizing that the past is not necessarily prologue for the future.

Change is occurring everywhere which offers great opportunities to profit for the patient investor. Real change cannot occur unless the problems are recognized and action plans are enacted to right the ship. In fact, that was the topic of last week’s blog. Interestingly, over 90% of the 50,000 investors who read the piece felt that the future was bleak and that we have already, or will soon, enter a recession and bear market. Essentially, many do not agree with our positive longer-term view that the global economy will improve later in the year through 2020. Investor pessimism and cash levels remains high. Markets climb walls of worry and peak when exuberance is too high. By the way, the financial markets had a great week as both stock prices rose and bond yields fell.

You might be curious why both can occur simultaneously. It remains our contention that the global creation of capital is far in excess of the global needs for capital since the global economy is soft. This excess capital is finding its way into financial assets, namely stocks and bonds, which explains why both are rising. The logical question is whether this is creating a bubble or not.

We believe we are nearing an inflection point for global growth. We expect global growth to accelerate in future quarters benefitting from aggressive monetary ease coupled with a ton of fiscal stimulus like in China. And, in the U.S., too. None of this occurs overnight as there are lags between changes in policy, actual implementation and seen impacts. Finally, we remain optimistic that trade deals will be reached which will be a real boost for global growth bringing a sharp improvement in business confidence that will lead to increased hiring and spending. Right now, we are in a goldilocks environment…. growth has bottomed out, no inflation and ridiculously low interest rates. What’s not to like?

We are therefore not surprised that the global economic stats remain weak. Let’s review what is occurring by region:

1.) Economic stats in the U.S. remain weak: U.S. factory production fell for a second month in a row in February. We continue to believe that the threat of higher tariffs in January and the government shutdown as well as a very harsh winter along with poor seasonal adjustments are all putting downward pressure on recent economic statistics. There was a sharp rebound in retail sales in January off of what we believe was poor data reported for December which even revised lower to a 1.6% drop from the previous month. We don’t hold much credence in these numbers, too, as the key retailers continue to report really strong sales. Yes, autos are weak but not by that much to more than offset strong store and online retail sales.

Inflation data continues to be very tame as we had anticipated months ago when we constantly criticized the Fed for not putting more weight in their decisions to inflation remaining well below their 2% threshold despite falling unemployment. We are not saying that inflation is dead, but we do believe that the confluence of global competition, technology and the rise of disruptors will continue to put downside pressure on inflation keeping it under control. It appears that the Fed finally agrees with our view as it has said as such recently. Their primary objective is to promote sustainable economic growth. Thank heaven!

We continue to believe that the Fed will remain on pause for the rest of the year and will end unwinding its balance sheet in a few months further easing its policy. If there is no trade deal, we would expect the Fed to cut rates within a month or two. Don’t forget that the U.S. will continue to run a huge budget deficit which is stimulative for sure.

And what if there are trade deals as we expect?

2.) China’s Congress ended its annual meeting with Premier Li Keqiang pledging government support of over $300 billion including lower fees, tax cuts and massive infrastructure spending. The VAT will be cut meaningfully for all manufacturers too. All of this is in addition to the huge increase in monetary stimulus including reductions in capital ratios which just had been increased a year ago.

All of this stimulus is in reaction to the sharp deceleration in growth as we had predicted. In fact, industrial output fell to a 17-year low in the first two months of the year. We understand that output numbers may have been overstated in November/December of the last year due to trade concerns making comparisons this year difficult. Unemployment rose to 5.35 in February from 4.9% in December.

Growth in China will improve sequentially benefitting from all of this stimulus but the truth is that China needs a trade deal fast as manufacturers are moving production off shore at an increasing rate which will impede China’s future in a big way if not curtailed.

3.) The ECB has reached out to local governments asking them to “step up their game” as there is not much more that the ECB can do at this point. Economic growth remains anemic and inflation is weak. The OECD has said that the region would be best served by coordinated action involving fiscal support and structural reforms. Unless Europe addresses its structural issues, its future will continue to deteriorate. Sounds just like what we have been saying for well over a year now.

It won’t be easy for Europe to resolve its trade issues with any of its trading partners, including the U.S. and China, as each country has different needs and preferences. Europe is really between a rock and a hard place as change does not come easy. By the way, we expect Brexit to be kicked down the road for another few months.

4.) The Bank of Japan lowered its view of its economy on Friday penalized by weakness in exports and production. No surprise! Japan needs an acceleration in global growth to boost its economy so trade deals are the keys to its success. We now expect Prime Minister Abe to delay a sales tax increase to 10% from 8% which was to take effect in October. Japan’s central bank and the government have their hands tied doing much more to stimulate the domestic economy. It’s all about trade.

Looking beyond the valley reveals that it is clear that China and the United States hold the keys to an acceleration in global growth later this year into 2020. We remain optimistic that global growth has not only stabilized at these levels but will improve in the spring as the full impact of all the additional monetary and fiscal easing finds its way through their economies. Then there are the prospects of trade deals.

We remain hopeful that China and the U.S. will reach a deal over the next few months. Even with a deal, we do not expect all existing tariffs to be removed right away until both sides become convinced that the deal is working. A deal with Japan seems likely to follow the one with China and then there is Europe. It won’t be easy reaching a deal with the Eurozone as there are too many players and one deal is not likely to satisfy all. Notwithstanding, Europe needs a deal and fast. So, time will tell.

The bottom line is that we expect China and the U.S. will be the engines driving global growth. Emerging markets, Europe and Japan will be the byproduct beneficiaries which is why we believe that 2020 will be a much better year economically than 2019. And if the responses to last week’s blog were representative of most investors, there is nothing in the market for an acceleration in growth therefore we are not paying for it today. We like these odds as we hold companies today that will do well without faster growth but would absolutely benefit from stronger growth too.

Our portfolios include drug companies with new product flows; global industrial and capital goods companies with volume growth 1.5+ GNP with rising margins and cash flow; technology at a fair price to growth including semis; low cost industrial commodity companies generating huge free cash flow; cable with content like Comcast and Disney; housing related; domestic steel and many, many special situations where internal actions will close the gap between current and intrinsic price. We are flat the dollar and own no bonds whatsoever.

Remember to review all the facts; pause, reflect and consider mindset shifts; analyze your asset mix with risk controls; do independent research and…

Invest Accordingly!

Bill Ehrman Paix et Prospérité LLC

4 notes · View notes

bharatiyamedia-blog · 5 years

Text

Impossible Burger 2.0: Where to buy, availability, taste, price

https://bharatiyamedia.com/?p=366 Veggie burgers historically are dry, crumbly and composed of some combination of soy, beans and lentils — not this one. The Impossible Burger from Impossible Foods has everything a meat lover looks for in a burger: a slightly pink middle, juicy dribbles, a smoky flavor and the ability to get the characteristically charred crust that only a grilled burger can offer. This meatless patty even bleeds like beef. In fact, vegetarian CNET reporter Joan Solsman found it to be so meatlike that she couldn’t even finish a sample. After not eating beef for more than a decade, she mumbled through a mouthful: “It’s kind of grossing me out.” The other thing that might put you off about this cool, meatless burger? It’s created in a lab, not in green pastures. Read more: Impossible Burger vs Beyond Meat Burger: Which one is the better burger? The meatless burger from Impossible Foods grills just like a real beef patty. What is in the Impossible Burger? Impossible Foods’ unprecedented burger concoction is built on four ingredient foundations: protein, fat, binders and flavor. The protein in an Impossible Burger isn’t animal flesh; rather, it’s a blend of soy and potato proteins. This is different from the Impossible Burger 1.0, which used wheat protein (Impossible Burger 2.0 is gluten-free). Soy has had a bad reputation with some, but Impossible’s vice president of nutrition has some thoughts about common soy myths. The juicy sizzle when an Impossible Burger hits the pan or grill comes from coconut and sunflower oils, the burger’s fat sources. To hold everything together, Impossible Foods uses methylcellulose, a bulk-forming binder that also serves as a great source of fiber. Now playing: Watch this: The Impossible Burger gets a beefy upgrade at CES 2019 4:46 As for flavor, well, this is where things get interesting. Impossible Foods employs heme as the main flavor compound in its burger. Heme is an iron-containing compound found in all living organisms. Plants, animals, bacteria, fungi… if it’s alive, it contains heme. In animals, heme is an important part of the protein hemoglobin, which carries oxygen throughout your body via blood. Know how your mouth tastes metallic when you accidentally bite your lip? That’s heme. In plants, heme still carries oxygen, just not via blood. The Impossible Burger contains heme from the roots of soy plants, in the form of a molecule called leghemoglobin. Food scientists insert DNA from soy roots into a genetically modified yeast, where it ferments and produces large quantities of soy heme. GMOs also have a bad rap, but read what this scientist has to say about genetically modified organisms (TL;DR: GMOs don’t cause cancer, autism or any other illness they’re claimed to cause). What does it taste like? The short answer: The Impossible Burger tastes like beef. Remember that vegetarian whose stomach was repulsed by the Impossible tartare? That’s because it tastes, smells and feels like real beef. For vegetarians, vegans and probably the average omnivore, the Impossible Burger is an incredibly similar substitute for beef. For beef connoisseurs and picky eaters, Impossible is getting close, but may still have some work to do. Where can I get an Impossible Burger? Impossible rolled out the Burger 2.0 in about a dozen restaurants shortly after CES 2019. Since then, the company has made it available to all of its partners, and there are more locations serving Impossible’s burger in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Chicago and many other big cities. Even if you don’t live in or near a big metro area, you can still find Impossible Burgers. Many national chain restaurants are going to have them or already do, including Burger King and Red Robin. You can also find Impossible Burgers at regional chains, including White Castle and Umami Burger. Little Caesar’s is the first pizza chain to put Impossible Burger sausages on a pizza, which is available in select locations. You can use Impossible Foods’ location finder to locate Impossible Burgers near you. By the end of the year, Impossible also plans to offer a “raw” version of its ground beef patties in grocery stores. Now playing: Watch this: Burger King’s Impossible Whopper: see the technology… 7:19 How much does it cost? Prices for an Impossible Burger vary from location to location, but these deceivingly meaty plant-based burgers generally cost more than a regular beef burger. At Red Robin, an Impossible cheeseburger costs $13.49, while the gourmet cheeseburger made of beef costs $9.99. Impossible plans to roll out the raw version in grocery stores at a price comparable to prices for USDA premium ground beef. Is the Impossible Burger safe? You can safely eat an Impossible Burger unless you are allergic to soy, coconut or sunflower. The ingredients in Impossible Burgers are simple and free of any toxic additives, flavorings or artificial ingredients. The soy-based heme is approved by the FDA as safe to eat. While the Impossible Burger is perfectly safe to eat, other countries have cracked down on what kind of language companies can use to label faux meat products. In 2018, France banned the terms burgers, steaks, sausages, or fillets from labels on vegan and vegetarian substitutes for meat products. The move was intended to alleviate any confusion shoppers might have distinguishing fake meat from the real thing. What’s the deal with glyphosate? Impossible Foods’ burger is made from genetically modified soy, and its characteristic “bleed” comes from soy leghemoglobin (which later turns to heme) that’s made from genetically engineered yeast. The FDA approved the leghemoglobin as safe, and there’s no proof that genetically modified organisms cause disease, but some consumers worry about traces of glyphosate in Impossible Burgers, which comes from those genetically modified soybeans. Glyphosate is an herbicide that’s been linked to a significantly increased risk of cancer, but the US Environmental Protection Agency says the herbicide “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Conflicting evidence and statements abound across research studies and regulatory agencies. Moms Across America, a large consumer advocacy group that is anti-GMO, says it tested Impossible Burgers at Health Research Institute Laboratories and found “highly dangerous” levels of glyphosate in the patties. In May 2019, Impossible Foods committed to using genetically modified soybeans, a choice the company says supports its mission of scaling to the point of eradicating animal agriculture for food by 2035 — and a choice that likely sparked Moms Across America to launch its campaign. In its unofficial company response to Moms Across America, Impossible Foods says the level of the herbicide detected is “almost 1000 times lower than the no-significant-risk level for glyphosate ingestion (1100 micrograms per day) set by California Prop 65.” The World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the US Environmental Protection Agency also have set safe daily limits for glyphosate exposure, but they are much higher than those of California Prop 65, so Impossible Burgers falls even further below the threshold for those agencies. Is it healthier than beef? As far as calories go, an Impossible patty and a typical beef patty are pretty close. A 4-ounce Impossible Burger 2.0 patty is 240 calories, whereas 4 ounces of ground beef ranges from about 250 to 300 calories, depending on the fat content. Also, the Impossible Burger contains less cholesterol, sodium and fat than beef does, so it may be a good choice for you if you’re watching those particular nutrients. Impossible Burgers also contain 3 grams of fiber per serving, whereas animal meat contains no fiber. Impossible Foods uses heme from the roots of soy plants to mimic the texture and color of ground beef. CNET en Español Because it’s made from plants, the Impossible Burger contains a broader range of vitamins and minerals than beef does. But there is one thing no plant patty can match (yet) — the protein content in animal meat. A 4-ounce serving of beef contains close to 30 grams of protein, while the Impossible Burger contains 19 grams. Impossible Burger vs. Beyond Meat Impossible Foods isn’t the only company using plants in unconventional ways. Beyond Meat, another meatless meat company, makes burgers, sausages and crumbles out of plants. (Check out this list of meat alternatives for the grill.) The Beyond Burger looks similar to the Impossible Burger in terms of color and consistency, but the Beyond Burger uses different ingredients. The main protein source in a Beyond Burger is pea protein, and its red color comes from beets. The beet juice is what gives the Beyond Burger the same “bleeding” effect as the Impossible Burger. Beyond Meat’s burger is available in a few restaurants and in grocery stores nationally. The cost varies by location, but a two-pack of burger patties generally costs $5.99. Why eat meat substitutes? In terms of health, research tells us that high intake of animal protein, especially red meat, is linked to a higher risk of weight gain, stroke, diabetes and heart disease. However, the benefits of meat substitutes extend past the health of humans; they reach as far as the health of our entire planet. Production of meat from livestock is thought to result in 10 to 40 times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions as production of plant crops. And according to the Environmental Working Group, the livestock agriculture process required for meat products releases those gases — as well as manure, fuel and pesticides — into our air and water. Additionally, livestock is Earth’s largest user of land, with about 80 percent of all farm land attributed to animal agriculture. This holds serious implications for erosion, water usage and even grain consumption — the grain that feeds livestock could feed 800 million people. In sum, products like those from Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have the potential to impact a few pertinent things: human health, environmental sustainability and global resources. Source link

0 notes

paullassiterca · 6 years

Text

Firefighting Foam Chemicals Pollute Millions of Gallons of Water

Firefighting foam liberally used by the South Dakota Air National Guard and Sioux Falls Fire Department decades ago is the source of significant pollution to the drinking water of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, residents. Nineteen municipal wells representing 28 percent of the city’s water coming from the Big Sioux aquifer have been shut down.1

Fifteen of them contain polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFASs) from the firefighting foam, which include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), one of the highly toxic chemicals used in the production of Teflon, and a similar chemical, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). The toxic legacy persists because once PFAS enters the environment, it doesn’t break down but rather persists indefinitely.

The extent of the contamination remains unclear, as do the potential health risks to longtime residents of the area. As reported by the Rapid City Journal, “As city officials grapple with the well shutdowns … it may soon face an even larger challenge when citizens begin to learn how long their drinking water was contaminated before it was detected and the wells taken offline.”2

Residents Weren’t Notified of the Pollution for Three Years After the First Detection

It was 2011 when water leaving the Sioux Falls water purification plant was first tested for PFAS. It was tested again in 2012, but the city didn’t receive the results until 2013. PFAS was detected but at levels below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) health advisory level. The city then tested all of their wells for PFAS and eventually shut down all that contained PFAS.

The city then tested for PFAS again in 2014 and 2016, when the EPA lowered its health advisory level for PFAS to 70 parts per trillion (ppt). The 2016 tests found PFOS, which led to more wells being shut down. It was that year that the city finally released an announcement to tell residents about the contamination that had been found.

The culprits, as detected by a consultant hired by the Department of Defense (DoD) and reported by the Rapid City Journal, was firefighting foam used for decades, beginning in 1970. First the Sioux Falls Fire Department sprayed the PFAS-laden foam at the city’s airport weekly during tests and training.

In 1991, the South Dakota Air National Guard took over the firefighting duty and continued to release firefighting foam into the city’s sewer system.

At least a dozen wells have been found to contain PFOA/PFOS at levels above the EPA’s advisory level, one with concentrations 3,500 times over and another at 200 times the limit. Ten of the wells, which produced an average of 440 million gallons of water per year, may be shut down indefinitely. According to the Rapid City Journal:3

“Further investigation by the Air Guard is scheduled for 2019, including the possibility of off-base testing. Another report will follow, though it’s unlikely to be published until late 2019 or in 2020.

It’s been nearly five decades since the Air Force first used firefighting foam, one decade since the EPA set its first advisory level for PFOA/PFOS and a half-decade since the base learned of the city’s municipal well contamination. The Air Guard, however, shows no sense of urgency in completing its inspections.”

PFAS Contamination in Drinking Water Common Near Military Bases

DoD has reported that at least 126 drinking water systems near military bases are contaminated with PFASs, due to their use in firefighting foam.4 However, although other countries are now using firefighting foam that does not contain these toxic chemicals, the U.S. military is not.

As reported by Sharon Lerner, a reporting fellow at The Investigative Fund and an investigative journalist for The Intercept and other major media outlets:5

“[E]ven as the Army, Navy and Air Force have begun the slow process of addressing the contamination, which is expected to cost upwards of $2 billion, the Department of Defense isn’t abandoning this line of chemicals.

While some of the precise formulations that caused the contamination are off the table, the U.S. military is in the midst of an expensive effort to replace older foam with a newer formulation that contains only slightly tweaked versions of the same problematic compounds …

Some of the studies showing the dangers of these persistent chemicals came from the manufacturers themselves … The new foam contains no PFOS and ‘little or no PFOA,’ according to an Air Force press release.6 Instead, it uses the closely related molecules that pose many of the same dangers … ”

This includes shorter-chained replacement PFAS chemicals such as PFHxS, which have very similar concerns as other PFASs, according to a report prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) HHS’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).7

The fact remains that much is unknown about the extent of contamination and the resulting human health and environmental damage that may have occurred. “Important questions about today’s PFAS contamination remain unanswered,” the Rapid City Journal reported, adding:8

“From the date PFAS entered a private well or municipal water system to the date it was detected and mitigated, what was the effect and on whom? How many airmen and women handled and used the foam for decades without proper protection? What was the effect and where are they now?”

16.5 Million Americans Could Be Drinking PFAS-Contaminated Water

According to a 2016 Harvard study, 16.5 million Americans have detectable levels of at least one kind of PFAS in their drinking water, and about 6 million Americans are drinking water that contains PFAS at or above the EPA safety level.9

While toxic water supplies were found in 33 states, 75 percent of the samples with elevated PFAS came from 13 states: California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Georgia, Minnesota, Arizona, Massachusetts and Illinois.

Not surprisingly, the highest concentration levels of PFAS were found in watersheds near industrial sites, military fire training areas and wastewater treatment plants, but private wells were also found to be contaminated. According to the study:10

“Among samples with detectable PFAS levels, each additional military site within a watershed’s eight-digit hydrologic unit is associated with a 20 percent increase in PFHxS, a 10 percent increase in both PFHpA and PFOA, and a 35 percent increase in PFOS.

The number of civilian airports with personnel trained in the use of aqueous film-forming foams is significantly associated with the detection of PFASs above the minimal reporting level.”

It’s known, also, that people with such chemicals in their drinking water have higher levels in their bodies as well. For instance, one study compared detection of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in public drinking water with PFAA concentrations for 1,566 California women.

The researchers found serum concentrations of two PFAAs, PFOS and PFOA, were 29 percent and 38 percent higher, respectively, among women with detectable levels in their drinking water compared to those without detectable levels.11

What’s more, the ATSDR report suggests that in order to protect public health, the EPA’s safety threshold levels should be much lower than 70 ppt, down to 7 ppt for PFOS and 11 ppt for PFOA.12 If the EPA safety level were lowered according to ATSDR’s recommendation, it means far more Americans are actually at risk.

Already, certain states, including Vermont and Minnesota, have proposed or set lower drinking water standards for PFOA, including 14 ppt in New Jersey. Michigan even proposed setting a standard of 5 ppt for PFAS in December 2017.

There are other questionable chemicals in firefighting foam as well, but the EPA has only set standards for PFOS and PFOA — and these are the only two chemicals the military is looking to remediate.

“The exclusive focus on PFOA and PFOS means that some people who have the broader category of chemicals at considerable levels in their drinking water do not receive clean water from the military,” The Intercept reported.13

What Are the Health Risks of Drinking PFAS-Contaminated Water?

In May 2015, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed the Madrid Statement, which warns about the harms of PFAS chemicals and documents the following potential health effects of exposure:14

Liver toxicity

Disruption of lipid metabolism, and the immune and endocrine systems

Adverse neurobehavioral effects

Neonatal toxicity and death

Tumors in multiple organ systems

Testicular and kidney cancers

Liver malfunction

Hypothyroidism

High cholesterol

Ulcerative colitis

Reduced birth weight and size

Obesity

Decreased immune response to vaccines

Reduced hormone levels and delayed puberty

Environmental concerns regarding firefighting foam first surfaced in the 1970s, and in 2000 its maker, 3M, finally said it would stop making the chemical. The decision came in response to an animal study that found PFOS led to weight loss, enlarged livers and premature death in monkeys, even at the lowest dose of exposure.

The EPA acknowledged such risks to the Pentagon at the time, but although 3M stopped making the toxic foam, other companies did not. Further, they (DuPont and other chemical companies) also created the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition to present to the EPA on the firefighting foam’s supposed safety and usefulness for protecting military personnel from fires. The Intercept continued:15

“One of the coalition’s biggest tests came at an October 2003 meeting that was part of the EPA’s investigation of perfluorinated chemicals. The agency was considering whether telomers used in AFFF [firefighting foam], as well as the foam itself, should be part of that regulatory investigation.

Had the agency concluded that the other surfactants in AFFF posed a significant threat, that step could have led fairly quickly to restrictions — or at least to a voluntary phase-out of the chemicals — as it eventually did with PFOA and PFOS.

But at the meeting, the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition asked the EPA to exempt it from the regulatory process [which they did] … It was a major victory. Since then, the Army, Navy and Air Force have continued to use AFFF across the country and abroad with little involvement from the EPA or pressure to replace its products.”

The foam remains in use even as PFASs have been linked to negative liver, cardiovascular, endocrine, immune, reproductive and developmental effects, while other studies have revealed subtle effects such as an increased risk of obesity in children when exposed in utero and lowered immune response.16

Can PFAS Be Removed From Your Drinking Water?

PFAS has no taste or smell, so the only way to know if it’s in your drinking water is to have your water tested. Because drinking water contaminants are so widespread, it’s wise to filter your water, but be aware that most water filters, such as those commonly sold at supermarkets, will not remove PFASs.

The New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute recommends using granulated activated carbon “or an equally efficient technology” to remove chemicals such as PFOA and PFOS from your drinking water.17 Activated carbon has been shown to remove up to 90 percent of these chemicals. If you suspect you’ve already been exposed, implementing a detox program is highly recommended.

In addition, it’s wise to avoid other sources of PFAS. Aside from firefighting foam, these chemicals are also widely used in nonstick cookware, water- and stain-repellant clothing, furniture and carpets, fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags.

At the very least, if you live anywhere near a military installation or fire department fire-training area, consider getting your tap water tested for PFAS and other toxic contaminants, and in the meantime, assume it’s contaminated and start filtering it as soon as possible.

from Articles http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/11/20/perfluoroalkyl-from-firefighting-foam-linked-to-water-pollution.aspx source https://niapurenaturecom.tumblr.com/post/180300484881

0 notes

jerrytackettca · 6 years

Text

Firefighting Foam Chemicals Pollute Millions of Gallons of Water

The extent of the contamination remains unclear, as do the potential health risks to longtime residents of the area. As reported by the Rapid City Journal, “As city officials grapple with the well shutdowns ... it may soon face an even larger challenge when citizens begin to learn how long their drinking water was contaminated before it was detected and the wells taken offline.”2

Residents Weren’t Notified of the Pollution for Three Years After the First Detection

In 1991, the South Dakota Air National Guard took over the firefighting duty and continued to release firefighting foam into the city’s sewer system.

PFAS Contamination in Drinking Water Common Near Military Bases

As reported by Sharon Lerner, a reporting fellow at The Investigative Fund and an investigative journalist for The Intercept and other major media outlets:5

Some of the studies showing the dangers of these persistent chemicals came from the manufacturers themselves ... The new foam contains no PFOS and ‘little or no PFOA,’ according to an Air Force press release.6 Instead, it uses the closely related molecules that pose many of the same dangers ... ”

This includes shorter-chained replacement PFAS chemicals such as PFHxS, which have very similar concerns as other PFASs, according to a report prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) HHS' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).7

16.5 Million Americans Could Be Drinking PFAS-Contaminated Water

The number of civilian airports with personnel trained in the use of aqueous film-forming foams is significantly associated with the detection of PFASs above the minimal reporting level.”

What Are the Health Risks of Drinking PFAS-Contaminated Water?

In May 2015, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed the Madrid Statement, which warns about the harms of PFAS chemicals and documents the following potential health effects of exposure:14

Liver toxicity

Disruption of lipid metabolism, and the immune and endocrine systems

Adverse neurobehavioral effects

Neonatal toxicity and death

Tumors in multiple organ systems

Testicular and kidney cancers

Liver malfunction

Hypothyroidism

High cholesterol

Ulcerative colitis

Reduced birth weight and size

Obesity

Decreased immune response to vaccines

Reduced hormone levels and delayed puberty

But at the meeting, the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition asked the EPA to exempt it from the regulatory process [which they did] ... It was a major victory. Since then, the Army, Navy and Air Force have continued to use AFFF across the country and abroad with little involvement from the EPA or pressure to replace its products.”

Can PFAS Be Removed From Your Drinking Water?

The New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute recommends using granulated activated carbon "or an equally efficient technology" to remove chemicals such as PFOA and PFOS from your drinking water.17 Activated carbon has been shown to remove up to 90 percent of these chemicals. If you suspect you’ve already been exposed, implementing a detox program is highly recommended.

from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/11/20/perfluoroalkyl-from-firefighting-foam-linked-to-water-pollution.aspx

source http://niapurenaturecom.weebly.com/blog/firefighting-foam-chemicals-pollute-millions-of-gallons-of-water

0 notes

jakehglover · 6 years