PFAS: Science, Risk, and Communication
“The most effective thing to do when communicating about PFAS to a public audience is telling people what they can do and giving them information on how to figure out if your water is ok, and if it’s not, the steps that you can take. ”
“So there are a couple ways to protect ourselves, (1) if you are in a private well, get your water tested and if you are in a municipality, they now have to test for PFAS—you can go and look at what the PFAS levels are in your water to know what the levels are”
A conversation with Gavin Dehnert (Emerging Contaminants Scientist, University of Wisconsin–Madison) and Lyn van Swol (Professor of Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin–Madison) about Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)--also known as "forever chemicals". We discuss their movement and origin, toxicity, and strategies for communicating risks and resources for different communities. Released September 25, 2026. Access the PFAS Communications Guide here.
guests on the show
Gavin Dehnert
Dr. Gavin Dehnert is an Emerging Contaminants Scientist in the Aquatic Sciences Center at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Dr. Dehnert’s aquatic toxicology group at UW–Madison focuses on the impacts of contaminants on aquatic plants and organisms. His team studies the fate of contaminants, such as PFAS, pesticides, and microplastics, across the food web and within organisms. They study the impacts of the contaminants on the health of the animals including immunological, hormonal, and behavioral endpoint. By studying these impacts on aquatic animals, Dr. Dehnert aims to understand how ecologically relevant concentrations of contaminants impact our aquatic ecosystems and provide data driven science for management agencies to protect our natural resources.
Lyn van Swol
Dr. Amaya Atucha is a Professor and the Gottschalk Endowed Chair for Cranberry Research in the Department of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Dr. van Swol researches information sharing in groups, utilization of advice, persuasion, language use in groups, chatbot communication, and the role of strategic persuasive messages in environmental communication. All of her research shares the theme of examining what factors are likely to increase acceptance of information during an interaction. The role of group discussion in facilitating persuasion, especially concerning environmental topics is a theme of several current research projects. She is especially interested in how peer groups can set norms through group discussion to encourage pro-environmental behavior. Current research examines how strategic messages can increase acceptance of advice for the mitigation of PFAS harms. Other research projects examine how language used in groups or by chatbot partners can affect emotions, conflict, and persuasion in a group discussion. Language use may be a window into group processes.
TRANSCRIPT
Mallika Nocco
Welcome to Water Talk Season 7. We are talking about PFAS today. PFAS stands for per and polyfluoral alkyl substances. They're often known as synthetic forever chemicals. So oftentimes you'll hear PFAS as a term that's used, and it's often described as these long-lasting forever chemicals. Some information on PFAS from the EPA. So there are these long-lasting chemicals. They have widespread use and they persist in the environment. So they're found in the blood of people, they're found in animals, they're found in plants, they're found in water, they're found in the air, they're found in soils. So they're pretty ubiquitous.
Exposure to PFAS in the environment can be linked to some harmful public health effects. There's a lot of uncertainty around the topic, so communication is challenging. And that's why we wanted to talk about PFAS in general as well as the communication around PFAS. So in this episode, you're going to hear the term PFAS. So PFAS, that's what I just described. But then you're going to hear two other acronyms. PFOA or perfluoroctanoic acid is another man-made forever chemical that is within the class of PFAS. And then the other one you're going to hear is PFOS or perfluoroctane sulfonate. And that again is within the class of these PFAS chemicals. Those two are going to come up because they're among the better studied chemicals within the class of PFAS. And we also know more about their health effects related to others, and there's more concerns associated with them.
So, yes, our plan today is to talk to two experts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Professor Lyn van Swol and Dr. Gavin Dehnert, who have been collaborating on a project around communication and resources for PFAS in communities, really targeting, for example, different municipalities, different governments, tribal governments trying to provide resources for folks who are searching for information on PFAS. So, Faith, Sam, anything to add for our listeners as they they go through and listen to us talk more about PFAS?
Faith Kearns
I think the only thing I would add is just where do they come from, right? So at this point, I think we all know that they're ubiquitous in the environment, but I think it's also really important when we sort of start talking about how to deal with them, is just to realize that they really have been a pretty mainstream component of a lot of consumer goods.
So for example, nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpets and upholstery, your favorite outdoor, waterproof clothing, microwave popcorn bags is another big one, right? So these things are really everywhere and they have been. I think they gained popularity around the 60s, 70s. Firefighting foams, I think, include them or traditionally did.
So these things are still out there, although I think some of them have been, you know, regulated to more and less degrees, but we can still get them in a lot of our consumer goods and things that we use every single day.
Mallika Nocco
All right, without further ado, let's talk about PFAS. In today's episode, we are talking about PFAS or forever chemicals, what they are, the risks, and the way that we process and talk about these risks as scientists and also with the public.
And we're talking with Gavin Dehnert and Lyn van Swol. Dr. Gavin Dehnert is an emerging contaminant scientist at UW Madison whose aquatic toxicology group studies the fate of contaminants, pesticides, and microplastics across the food web and within organisms. They provide data-driven science for management agencies to protect our natural resources.
Professor Lyn van Swol is a professor in the Department of Communication Arts at UW Madison. Her research focuses on information sharing in groups, the utilization of advice, persuasion, language use in groups, chatbot communication, and the role of strategic persuasive messages in environmental communication. It shares this theme of examining what factors are likely to increase acceptance of information during interactions.
So both Professor van Swol and Dr. Dehnert have been working on a large collaborative project about strategic messaging, communication, advice, and public acceptance of different strategies for the mitigation of harms from PFAS. So, Lyn and Gavin, welcome to Water Talk. Thanks so much for joining us today.
Gavin, we provided listeners with a very basic definition of PFAS from the EPA. But we're wondering if you could introduce us to these chemicals, you know, in a systems context and tell us just a little bit about how they move through ecosystems and why they're so difficult to get rid of.
Gavin Dehnert
Yeah, so we'll we'll start at the beginning. So PFAS are per and polyfloral alkyl substances. They're nicknamed forever chemicals because they really do not break down in the environment or they take a very long time to break down. And what's interesting about PFAS is there's potentially over 14,000 of them. Scientists can't even really agree to how many different types of PFAS there are. Some people say over a million, some people say less than 4,000. So there's a lot of different types.
And the different types of PFAS can be because they can have different chain lengths or different, you know, short ones versus long ones. They can have different functional groups, so we call them head groups and tail groups, and then there can be combinations of all of them. And you know, to get to the point of why they're so hard to break down is because of that carbon-defluorine bond. But why they move so much in the environment is all dependent on the different types of PFAS. So if there's a specific head group can be hydrophilic, so actually likes to be in water, then there can be a tail portion, which can be hydrophobic, but as well as proteinophilic and a whole bunch of different types of you know connections.
And so because they you know have these two different groups, they can move throughout our groundwater, they can move through our surface water, they can even move through the rain. So, you know, there's atmosphere deposition, but as well because of the the tail end, right, they can get into you know people, they can get into plants, they can get into animals, and so they can not only move through the groundwater, they can move through animals up the food chain. So there's a lot of different ways that they're moving.
Mallika Nocco
I had heard of the other ways, but I didn't know about atmospheric deposition of PFAS and that they could move to the rain. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? Because I think we've talked a lot about other pollutants and how they move, but we've never I don't think we've talked about atmospheric deposition before.
Gavin Dehnert
Yeah, so there's the getting back to it, there's the short chain and the long chain. So short chain ones are more likely to be move through air deposition. So if you think of ones that are three-chain, four-chain, or five-chain, the lighter versions, they can actually be when in the process of making them, they get you know combusted out into the air and they can connect to dust particles, and therefore then be uptaken in clouds and then you know have the rain deposition. So you can think of these low levels of the short chains, are kind of, I don't want to say ubiquitous because they're not necessarily in every single lake that's detectable. Um, but you will find these short chain PFAS pretty much everywhere that you start looking from them at very, very low levels.
Mallika Nocco
And just as a clarifying question, PFAS are completely human-made, right? You wouldn't have found those before. I don't know what the year would be. Maybe you could tell us what year it would be where there was no PFAS, and all of a sudden there's PFAS.
Gavin Dehnert
Yeah. So it's about that sometime in the 1940s was when the first PFAS was created. They are a family of man-made chemicals, so you know, there's nothing that existed before them. So if you actually go into historical records, you could you know, before the 1930s, there's no PFAS in those water samples or you know, core samples, etc.
After that, obviously you get, you know, there's a really high amount of PFAS that's used, and I want to say the 70s, and that's also at the same time when we started learning about PFAS and PFOA having some detrimental health effects. Forgive the acronyms, but there's 14,000 of them, so they're all gonna be some four-letter to 10-letter ones. But PFOA and PFAS, which are the two most studied PFAS, I believe they were created in the 60s and the 70s, but they were also phased out or in 2002 and 2015.
So we no longer make PFOA and PFAS in the United States, they're still made everywhere else, or they're made in other places around the world, but we at least know they're not produced here anymore. And those two specifically PFOA and PFAS are going to be the ones that are still of the most concern. But once we stopped using PFOA and PFAS, we actually just started doing what we call next generation PFAS, and so you will start to have you know more of those shorter chain ones, more of the ones that were supposed to break down a little bit faster, things Gen X and ADANA, again, a lot of acronyms. They they do it, they start to get better names.
But this might be a you know good lead-in. But what's interesting about PFAS is I've told you now, there's more than 14,000 of them, but we can really only measure about 40 to 50 of them. Um, and our EPA guidelines or the method that we all use to measure for PFAS actually only looks at 40 of them. So these 40 are chosen because they're usually the most commonly found, but as well as the ones that are suspected to have more, let's say, health effects. And so of those 15,000, we only look at 40 for the most part. And you know, some of them are the legacy PFAS, some are the next generation, some are precursors, but mostly still looking at PFOA, PFAS.
Samuel Sandoval
Yeah. When before moving forward, one thing. So you talked about short chain PFAS. What about long chain?
Gavin Dehnert
Ah, yes, good question. Sorry. So short chain ones, they move they're because they're lighter, they can move through groundwater, surface water more longer distances, even in the rain. The longer chain PFAS, let's call them anything that's eight chain or above, they tend to move a lot slower. You know, they will trickle down into your groundwater still, but they take a lot longer to get through the sediments to get down there. They will also, these longer chains in surface water, they will tend to be a lot higher in the sediment in the lakes compared to swimming or floating in the water. And that's partially because they will bind more likely to the particles in the water, and then I almost call it settling out.
So the amount of PFAS, you know, these longer chain ones tend to be a lot higher in the sediment and lower in the water, but they also are the ones that don't break down, they have longer, even longer half-lives. So PFOA, PFAS, they have half-lifes that are almost, you know, what do we claim, somewhere between five to seven years in the environment. So they still are slowly but surely breaking down, but it takes a very long time. That's why they're nicknamed the forever chemicals.
Faith Kearns
Thank you so much, Gavin. Lyn, just given the technical complexity, I guess, of what Gavin just described, you know, pivoting a little bit to talking just about the communication of this particular topic. I know health is obviously a big concern for people and seems a major entry point for just, you know, for people to start searching about PFAS. Um, but can you talk a little bit about who is searching for information about PFAS and what kinds of things they're looking for?
Lyn van Swol
Sure. So some of the research we've done, we've looked at Google searches where we can't get demographic information, but we've also put PFAS persuasive messages on Instagram and Facebook, and then we can get demographic information about who's clicking. And generally we find that people who are seeking the most information about PFAS tend to be women and they tend to be older. Um that tends to be the demographic that's most interested, which is is consistent with other environmental topics.
Other things we found with people searching information about PFAS is we wanted to know what terms they're using because as you notice with Gavin, there's a lot of Lingo. There's a lot of Gen X, PFAS, fiberchemicals. And if you're going to put your message out there, you want to use the same message that people are using to search for it. And what we found is people, by a very large majority, are using the term PFAS. And so that was important for public health communicators to know.
Like if you want people to find your message, that seems to be the go-to catch-all term that people are using for these chemicals. And right, and people are generally searching because they they don't really necessarily want to know what PFAS is. They want to know what they should do about it. And so what we found is a lot of the searches are not like, what is PFAS? Like, teach me what it is.
People are like, how do I get it out of my water? Like what bottled waters have PFAS in them? And so people are just jumping right into figuring out how to protect themselves. And that's the information they're searching for the most. It's in health communication research, we call this efficacy information about how you can make effective actions towards protecting your health.
Faith Kearns
And just to follow up, do you find that there are - I have found it seems there's times when it is more in the news and not. Around the EPA rule last year or whenever a year or two ago, I can't remember exactly. It seemed there was a flurry of trying to communicate about this issue and then it dies off a little bit. I don't know if that's just what I'm paying attention to or if that really is that there is a cycle around it.
Lyn van Swol
Yeah, that's probably the case. We were not studying that because we took a a segment of about a month and looked at searches within that month. So we weren't tracking over time. But based on what people are looking for and the terms they're searching in, it sounds it's very much reflecting what they've seen in the news. And so they're just if they've heard some information about certain bottled water or sparkling water having PFAS, suddenly, you know, people are are searching it.
Gavin Dehnert
I would add to it, you tend to get when there's a new consumption guideline that comes out or a new fine or hot spot. If they if they all sudden detect PFAS in a a private well, it will you know take over a whole bunch of the news. It does come and go, but it's it's usually when the next the next one is found tends to drive a lot of that.
Samuel Sandoval
So this goes a lot to the public health concerns and that us and our audience might be interested. So Gavin, could you explain us how and why PFAS can harm humans, animals, and ecosystems?
Gavin Dehnert
Sure. Start with a caveat. So we don't know a lot about PFAS. They I call it the Wild Wild West, where we're still learning, we are still learning what the effects are. Um most of the work that we know about are gonna be from about PFOA and PFAS. So that's two of the two of them. Um and most of it has been done on rats and mice. Um, so and then there's some epidemiology studies that are going on, but we really don't know too much. So let's to set the stage there.
Most of what we know about PFAS, though, is that these high levels can cause increased cholesterol, they can have decreased antibody response, so our ability to deal with diseases, and then there are some fertility reproduction issues with high levels of PFAS. PFAS has also been associated with a bunch of different cancers, whether that be kidney cancer, testicular cancer, different versions. And most of it though, you know, I'm saying, is we know this from the mice and and rat studies. And the issue with that though is we are talking about those studies being done with one PFAS, but when you're out in the in the world, right, you there's you're exposed to a lot more than just a single one at a whole bunch of different doses. So it's really hard to pinpoint which PFAS is causing it, or you know, all of these things.
We do know the good news is well, we do know PFOA and PFAS are going to be the most toxic out of all of them. And that's why our groundwater standard for drinking water for the country is actually four parts per trillion. So that's 30 Olympic-sized swimming pools. That's the safe level of PFOA and PFAS.
Samuel Sandoval
No, Gavin, and I was about to say, because as you were mentioning, the different parts of the water of the water column that we can found it, so this may also affect ecosystems, so plants living things throughout the environment that ultimately some of us will get into our food chain.
Gavin Dehnert
Yeah, that's the other thing about this. So for where we are with our understanding of PFAS is at learning what plants and animals uptake it quite a bit. So you know, some plants will actually uptake it a lot more. Terrestrial plants tend to really take up a lot of PFAS compared to what I call the semi-aquatic ones, they don't seem to uptake it at the same rate. But we also know that PFAS can for sure bioaccumulate in our you know, fish and other animals, but it can also potentially even biomagnify, so it can get you know higher and higher as we go up the food chain, our food web.
As of really recently, in 2025, 2026, we're starting to learn a little bit of what are the let's call it health effects on you know plants and animals. Particularly, we've learned that PFAS, these higher levels tend to decrease again, bald eagles' ability to deal with diseases or have lower antibody responses. So a lot of the similar things that we were seeing in the laboratory, we're also seeing that. Kind of out in the field too.
Samuel Sandoval
And Gavin, you were talking about how I mean PFAS gets into our vegetables, right?
Gavin Dehnert
Yeah. So we can have when you have things biosolids that get spread out onto agriculture fields, we could actually have uptake of PFAS, you know, in the plants, even corn, soybeans will uptake it. And then those are that's the other way of how PFAS is really getting into our groundwater, right? Is if you're putting it out on the agriculture fields, it's both seeping down, but as well as being uptaken by the plants. And then of course, we eat the plants, and therefore that's you know, one of the main sources of PFAS is going to either be water consumption or foods.
Faith Kearns
So, Lyn, I guess this adds another complication in addition to how complex just the topic is. There's also all this, you know, emerging contaminant type issues where, as Gavin was describing, we don't necessarily even really know all the impacts. And so what can you tell us about communicating with general audiences about emerging contaminants PFAS and what some guiding ideas that listeners could use might be?
Lyn van Swol
Sure. Yeah. I mean, it's really tricky because as Gavin mentioned, the science is uncertain and these chemicals haven't been around a long time and their use spiked in the 70s. So you haven't been able to study them for a very long time to see what the effects are. The a lot of the jargon is very technical, four parts per trillion. Um, and a lot of the the tables put out by municipalities about you know their water can be really hard to read.
And there's changing standards, which can be really confusing to people and can undermine trust. Is people are like, wait, I thought this was okay, now this is okay. Like, what what are you telling me? And so in terms of trying to develop persuasive messaging to get people good information that they can use, if you if you want them to know that their water is okay, or if it's not okay, to start using water pitcher filters. As a science communicator, we've been looking at different variables that you might use in the messaging. And so one of the variables that we we manipulate is the level of anxiety and fear you might put in the message. Lots of health messaging has researched the effect of fear on messaging.
And then we also looked at the the role of efficacy information, so giving people information they can use. And what we've generally found is that this high-risk, fearful information is not as effective. And we've also found a lot of water utilities, local governments, municipalities really don't want to use fear messaging in in their because they don't want to get people scared. And so probably the most effective thing to do is to communicating about this to a public audience is telling people what they can do and giving them information about like, here's how you can figure out if your water's okay, whether that's your municipal water or if you have well water. And then if it's not, here's steps you can take.
And so efficacy seems to be the most important thing in terms of science communication. I mean, the other thing we've been doing is called framing of messaging, where we create messages that emphasize different aspects of the message. So you can have the same information, but sometimes you might highlight the health risks, or you might highlight ways that people can, you know, protect themselves, or you might highlight where does PFAS come from? And we put messages out there in social media and we just see what gets the most engagement, and then we know how to structure messages and design messages so that they're gonna be the most engaging to audiences. And so that's another way that we're trying to find out what people want. And so if you're putting a message out there on the internet, you want it to match what people are searching for and what's gonna get engagement.
Faith Kearns
Could you give an example of what a high fear message might look and what an example of a more sort of efficacious message might be?
Lyn van Swol
Sure. So a high fear message, right, is gonna be high highlighting the possible cancers that have been linked to PFAS and fertility issues and vaccine issues, and it's gonna forefront that more. An effective message is going to, it's going to quickly give you solutions. So, yes, there's been these health effects with PFAS, but there's things you can do. And so a highly effective message wouldn't just leave you in a state of fear.
And research has found that when you when you generate negative emotions in your audience and you don't give them a way to deal with those negative emotions, they often engage in a backlash against the message. So they'll say, like, I don't know if this is true, or they'll just put it out of their mind, right? Because it's anxious. And so the highly effective message has to say, like, here's steps you can take. Um, you can make your water safe, and there's things you can do. And so that's that's what we would want to do with a high efficacy message. And it's really bad practice to use fear alone and persuasive messaging. It tends to be ineffective.
Mallika Nocco
That's very relieving, actually, to hear from you folks that it is that it is not very effective. Sometimes we hear things that are very disturbing to us on Water Talk, but this is one of those times where I was like, oh, that's actually a very relieving thing to hear that fear is not effective for this type of communication.
Samuel Sandoval
Following up on that one, I mean, I'm seeing the webpage that you have and the self-efficacy, so auto eficiencia. And I'm seeing that also you have a lot of this in Spanish. And things that you can do, which I think is super cool. I was reading it. Very good messages to what people can do, and you're mentioning for cooking and so on. Would you mind elaborating on that?
Mallika Nocco
Actually, Sam, let's ask one question before, which is can you talk about the big project that the two of you have been working on together about PFAS? And it, you know, give us a little bit of an overview about the project and any outcomes that you're super excited about. Maybe that's a time to mention some of the Spanish resources.
Lyn van Swol
Sure. Yeah, I mean, we wanted to develop effective messaging on PFAS. We were afraid that there would be backlash if the messaging was too fearful from what we we we know about using fear and risk and messaging. I hadn't done research on PFAS before, but we had done stuff on aquatic invasive species and showing that efficacy was really well received.
We also wanted to reach out to the Latino community in Wisconsin to make sure they're getting getting really good resources. PFAS often is higher in rural communities, especially if there's agriculture runoff, and Latino communities in in Wisconsin tend to have higher exposure to PFAS in the rural areas. So we worked with Wisconsin Eco Latinos to develop messaging for both in English and in Spanish to see what was effective. But we found that generally Latinos are more worried about PFAS in their water, and and they were actually responding a bit better to the risk messaging than we generally find.
We find people respond better to efficacy messaging, but they were slightly more interested in in risk messaging, at least on social media. So yeah, we were we were able to manipulate variables and see what people responded to the most effectively. And then we went out on social media and put messages out there to see where we got engagement. And then we developed resources based on the project and we created a toolkit.
And so the messages that we found were the most engaging and the most effective, we put on online on a toolkit for public health communicators, and we had created professional messages, and people can download those from the site, both in English and in Spanish. And then based on our studies of what variables we manipulated, we gave examples this is a really effective message because it's it's using risk, but it's pairing risk with efficacy. And so we tried to give examples of effective messages both in English and Spanish that people, if they wanted to, they could just cut and paste off our website or tailor to how they're how they need it.
Gavin Dehnert
And I'll just add the way that the project started was really at the time there really was no communication about PFAS, right? It's people were still asking the questions, what are PFAS and why do we care? And we wanted to find an approach that would actually be helpful for local health departments, right? So they are constantly getting these questions, and they are not maybe let's say the the experts in in PFAS, but they need to be able to communicate this out to you know all the people that are reaching out.
So the greatest outcome of this was to provide communication tactics for local and tribal health departments that are can be, let's say, used around, you know, the state of Wisconsin, but really the entire nation. Because this PFAS isn't just a our problem. It's truly a nationwide problem. And so just being able to provide a little bit of information about how people can protect themselves goes a long way for the local health departments that probably don't have the capacity to deal with this, you know, yet another issue.
Mallika Nocco
Yeah, I thought that too, Gavin. When I looked at the website, I thought, okay, this is a Wisconsin, you know, University of Wisconsin extension site, but it has relevance across the country, I think.
Faith Kearns
Well, and I feel we'd be remiss if as we're talking about some of these issues and efficacy that we didn't at least address what are some of the steps that people can actually take to protect themselves against PFAS.
Gavin Dehnert
Can take a couple stabs for you. So the most important one is you know, the two sources of where we get PFAS, right? Is one being drinking water. And so there's a couple ways that to to protect ourselves. Number one is if you are on a private well, you should get your water tested. If you are on municipalities, they now thankfully actually have to test for PFAS. So you can, at least in Wisconsin, you can go and I can look at what my PFAS levels are in my water. And so, number one thing that you can do is know what the levels are. Number two is if you know you have high levels of PFAS, or if you just want to get rid of PFAS, you can put either a really basic water filter. There's a couple Britta water filters that will actually take out PFAS.
Then you can also do something a reverse osmosis as well as something called GAC, which is granulated activated carbon. Um, so that will actually take the PFAS out of your drinking water.
The number one thing though, and that you have to remember is those only work if you upkeep with the filters. So, you know, if you have the same Brita water filter for the last three years, it's no longer taking PFAS out of it. So you have to stay up with that. And then the other main way that we're thinking about PFAS uptake is through your food sources.
So, you know, if you are hunting or gathering or collecting your food, fishing, know what the levels are of you know in that system through things consumption guidelines. So, in the state of Wisconsin, we have known PFAS consumption guidelines for different lakes, river systems, even our backyard, Lake Monona has a fish consumption guideline on it. Um so just not saying don't you know collect those foods or eat those foods, but just do them in different spots. So those are the two biggest ways to you know eliminate PFAS. Reduce, I should say reduce your PFAS. You're not gonna eliminate it.
Lyn van Swol
Right, yeah, and being aware, I mean, different areas of the states have more exposure to PFAS or less. Um, so in one of our studies, we only targeted people who lived in counties that had PFAS in the municipal water that had been tested.
Faith Kearns
And I guess one of the things y'all aren't saying is a solution is bottled water, right? And my understanding is you actually get much more information about how much PFAS is in your municipal water system than you do about anything coming out of a bottle, right? Just to clarify that point for folks that that isn't a way to necessarily get around PFAS.
Lyn van Swol
Right. There's really no regulations that I know of about bottled water, and then you're getting microplastics and the expense and then you know environmental problems. So I think that's one thing you don't want people to switch to bottled water when they're worried about PFAS and their water. It's been found in sparkling water, it's been found in beer, right? So filtering municipal water or well water would be a better solution.
Samuel Sandoval
I want to make a shout out to both of you because I mean basically I'm seeing a lot of these guidelines in Espanol, in Spanish. And I think they are pretty well explained, just to the point that treatment plants may not get rid of it. Uh at home, what you're saying, filter the water, use it, and you're reducing the risk. So yeah, big, big shout out for both of you that are doing great, great work that is relevant throughout the nation.
Mallika Nocco
Yeah, and just so needed, right? Like it there's such a gap here. So I just got it, yeah, very excited when I saw the project and the the work that you guys have been doing.
Samuel Sandoval
We always ask our guests if there is anything else that you want to add that's for our audience to to know about you and your work, and how can we support the work that both of you are doing?
Gavin Dehnert
I could throw out one thing first. So the one thing that I'd be remiss not to say is for PFAS, they are not all the same, as in the the health levels are not all the same. So when we're talking things PFOA and PFAS, those ones are the most toxic. And we talked about that being a four parts per trillion is the say, let's call it safe levels or below that. But other ones have you know levels that are maybe 10,000 parts per trillion, and some of them even have ones that are safe levels are 450,000 parts per trillion. So different PFAS are have different toxic groups.
So it's really hard to lump them all into one because they're not equally they're they're not equally toxic. That's the easiest way to think about it. When we're talking about the health stuff, we're really focusing on these ones that we know to be more toxic, PFOA and PFAS. Those longer chain ones tend to have a little bit more toxicity than than the shorter chain ones. Yeah, that's the last thing to make sure we say get out there.
Lyn van Swol
I guess putting out our website where public health communicators can get get our messaging. We also have short videos of each each of our studies that people can watch so they don't have to wait through the whole academic article that gives you the highlights and in the takeaways. I think we want this research to be as useful as possible so that people understand ways that they can reduce PFAS.
I'll also say the project really looked at self-efficacy, but we're also really interested in collective efficacy. So filtering at the water municipality level or legislation that can reduce people's exposure to PFAS would be another thing. But I think as people learn about what they can do, I think they also get interested in in what can be done at a more collective level to reduce exposure.
Gavin Dehnert
I would just encourage people to learn about PFAS more where is it, how do we reduce the amount of PFAS that you know we can get in our bodies. But I do also think it stems all the way to a consumer thing, right? We have PFAS. PFAS exists for a reason because they make our life easier, and there really is no way to get rid of PFAS besides just creating a world in which we don't want to have PFAS anymore. So, you know, my goal is to hopefully find some environments that don't have high levels of PFAS, and you know, how do we actually remediate the ones that do? So, yeah, just go learn more about PFAS.
Mallika Nocco
Well, thank you both so much. That feels a great place to end, and we really appreciate your time and your efforts. And thanks so much for joining us on Water Talk. All right, well, that was a very riveting episode. It's time for our parting gift and to think a little bit about what we just heard and what we learned about PFAS. Faith, any thoughts?
Faith Kearns
That was a super interesting episode. Obviously, PFAS is an issue that's just gonna continue to be part of our lives for the rest of our lives, right? And so I think Gavin had sort of started to talk about it at the end there. But I think one of the big challenges just is that these these things are, as I mentioned in the intro, still being produced. And so we can do all the things we can do to treat our own water in our homes or at the municipal level. But the challenge is they're still being added, right? So I think that's gonna be something that we're gonna have to talk about more into the future.
Mallika Nocco
Yeah, I was at a water conference last year for the University Council on Water Resources, and one of the keynote speakers basically said that we cannot solve at this point the problem of microwaveable popcorn without PFAS. So just, you know, think about that of just how what we want from that bag involves a certain type of chemical that maybe we don't want in our environment. So when I heard that, I called my sister-in-law, who my niece and nephew just love microwave popcorn. And I was just like, guys, we gotta maybe step away from this. Sam, how about you? Any parting gifts? I had my big microwave popcorn moment just now.
Samuel Sandoval
No, you know, I had a parting gift, but I will start with a parting worry. And my worry was that as mentioned by Faith, ubiquitous that is everywhere in the environment and that we're exposed, how to reduce the risk. And that is actually my parting gift today. How to communicate not only the risk or the scary part, but the efficacy. What can we do about it? And they mentioned it filters, so the water that comes out of your tap may not may still have PFAS.
If you want to filter it again, some of the filters that they are available for us to reduce and be aware of where are you buying your produce, your foods, and what are the environments that they are harvesting, so you can get an idea of how many PFAS and read as what Faith is mentioning, that we are just treating this problem at the tail end. The production of PFAS is still there, so how can we reduce our exposure? And what about you, Mallika? What are your parting gifts?
Mallika Nocco
Yeah, I mean, the biggest one for me or me is around the communication. That they found that the fear-based communication was not effective. So I think that was that was a win. That made me feel good, that made me feel relieved, and I love the resources that they came up with.
And I think the other parting gift for me is that this is a changing topic. There's a ton of uncertainty around this topic. There's uncertainty about what we know in terms of, you know, that the science of PFAS and systems, they're still, we're still learning. And then there's uncertainty around the health exposure and the health risks. Like Gavin said, there's over 14,000 compounds, and we're learning just about a few of them.
So I would say, you know, keep checking out that resources page, stay connected, stay connected to the policies around this. That is also a rapidly changing space in terms of what the standards should be for drinking water, what the standards should be for our food that's grown in the soil and the water where these PFAS exist. So just stay engaged on the topic, stay politically engaged on the topic, is what I would say is a parting gift.