PFAS leaching and contamination remains the most extraordinary environmental event across the entire planet. PFAS substances comprise a group of over 4,000 chemicals and are found in a range of applications such as:
Water and stain protection for carpets, fabric, furniture and apparel
Paper coating (including a range of food packaging)
Metal plating
Photographic materials
Aviation hydraulic fluid
Cosmetics and sunscreen
Medical devices
Ingredients in fire-fighting foam (a particular substance of impact in Australia)
PFAS chemicals are effective in resisting heat, stains, grease and are film forming in water. As a result they are called 'forever chemicals" and have permeated across the planet and largely into the biology of most human beings. The chemicals are known to be carcinogenic but the overall level of exposure and the length of time required to be fully toxic has yet to be determined. In some towns and villages where contamination has been substantial, the health effects are already apparent.
As knowledge and information has come to light with growing public awareness, consumer products such as kitchenware with labelling stating "non PFAS" have increasingly become available.
A landmark legal settlement has once again focused our attention on the dangers of “forever chemicals”.
This class of chemicals, technically known as per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are widely used to make nonstick or waterproof products. The problem is, the chemicals move easily around the environment, pollute groundwater and rivers, are often carcinogenic – and they don’t degrade.
This month, one of the largest makers of these chemicals, 3M, had its offer of A$16 billion to clean up PFAS-contaminated waterways approved by a US court. It’s just the latest in a series of PFAS lawsuits across the United States.
While increased attention is welcome, there’s no guarantee of success. Removing and destroying PFAS from wastewater streams across a single US state, Minnesota, would cost a minimum of $21 billion over 20 years. Globally, a recent report by the chemical safety nonprofit ChemSec found the costs of PFAS remediation alone amount to around $26 trillion per year – not including rising healthcare costs from exposure to PFAS, or damage to the environment. The 3M settlement is just the tip of the iceberg.
The problem now is how to actually clean up these chemicals – and prevent further pollution.
Remediation is expensive – and uncertain
In Australia, contamination is worst in firefighter training grounds and on defence force bases, due to the long-term use of firefighting foams full of PFAS. The discovery of this contamination triggered a wave of lawsuits. The Department of Defence has since paid out more than $366 million in class action lawsuits.
Defence has also assumed responsibility for managing, remediating and monitoring PFAS contamination on and around its bases. In 2021, the department began to actively set about remediation.
That sounds promising – find the pollution and fix the problem. But the reality is much more complicated.
A 2022 parliamentary inquiry described PFAS remediation as an emerging and experimental industry.
This is correct. There’s a great deal of basic scientific research we have to do. This is not a simple problem. These chemicals seep into the soil and groundwater – and stay there. It’s hard to get them out.
As a result, most remediation work at defence bases to date has been part of research and development, rather than a wide-scale permanent cleanup.
To help, the defence department has brought in three major industry partners, including Emerging Compounds Treatment Technologies. We don’t know how they are doing the cleanup or if their methods work, as this information is not publicly accessible. The three companies have sought intellectual property protection to support their technological advantage in the growing PFAS remediation market.
One of the companies, Venetia, told the parliamentary inquiry:
[there] are still significant gaps in knowledge in keys areas such as human health toxicology, PFAS behaviour in the environment and remediation of PFAS in soil and water
PFAS is a much bigger problem
Significant PFAS contamination has now been reported in:
– Melbourne’s West Gate Tunnel construction site. Soil contamination at the most polluted site is hundreds of times worse than a threshold set by the state’s environmental protection agency
The full extent of PFAS contamination in Australia is still emerging. Recent research has found Australia is one of several toxic hotspots for PFAS, relative to the rest of the world.
Getting forever chemicals out of groundwater is going to be hard – but necessary.Mumemories/Shutterstock
Worse, current monitoring practices are likely to be underestimating how much PFAS is lingering in the environment, given we usually only track a handful of these chemicals – out of more than 16,000.
improved understanding of the range of PFAS embodied in consumer and industrial products […] to assess the environmental burden and develop mitigation measures
The more we look, the more alarming the picture appears. Emerging research has found PFAS in consumer products such as cosmetics, packaging, waterproofing, inks, pesticides, medical articles, polishes and paints, metal plating, pipes and cables, mechanical components, electronics, solar cells, textiles and carpets.
The size and complexity of PFAS contamination suggests we are in for a very long and expensive process to begin cleaning it up – especially given we are still making and using these chemicals.
How should we respond?
To start addressing the problem, here are three important steps.
The introduction of this concept is what forced 3M to pay up in the US. Australia has yet to follow suit, which is why the public has been footing the bill. If we introduce this legal principle, manufacturers will have to take responsibility. This would make it much less attractive for companies to make polluting products – and shift the burden from taxpayers to the companies responsible. Australia’s government is considering pursuing similar legal action against 3M.
2. Set PFAS contamination standards in line with other OECD countries, or better.
Earlier this month, the US implemented the first legally enforceable national drinking water standards for five PFAS compounds and two PFAS mixtures. Australia’s current acceptable drinking water guidelines allow up to 140 times more PFAS in our water than these strict new US standards. In the US, these new standards are drawing new investment in remediation.
3. Take it seriously.
For years, many of us thought all you had to do to avoid PFAS was not to buy nonstick pans. But these chemicals are now everywhere. They’re highly persistent and don’t leave our bodies easily. Every single person on the planet is now likely to have detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. Reducing this dangerous chemical load is going to take a lot of work to clean up existing hotspots, stop further production, and prevent recirculation of PFAS in recycled products or in our food.
The 3M settlement is a good start. But it’s only a start. Tackling this problem is going to be hard, but necessary.
The Tasmanian salmon industry has long been promoted as ecological, natural, sustainable and providing healthy food consumption for humans. Author, Richard Flanagan comprehensively proves otherwise in his expose on this industry. Published in 2021, the book attracted initial controversy and outrage and highlighted many uncomfortable truths ensnaring well-known companies, Tassal and Huon Aquaculture.
There have been a few stories, rumours and a small number of comments from scientists that all was not well with the salmon industry in Tasmania. In only 189 pages, Flanagan's book brings all of the evidence and information to bear in an unequivocal condemnation of the aquaculture methods used for salmon farming in the Apple Isle.
To quote from the book " And so we discover that a food product marketed as capable of treating cancer, of miraculously increasing male virility and restoring women's beauty, is in reality a compound of synthetic dye, antibiotics, petrochemical derivatives, the macerated remains of battery hen beaks, skulls, claws. guts and feathers once destined for abattoir waste streams, along with fishmeal made from jeopardised fish stocks stabilised with pesticide also used to stop car tyres cracking that happens to be a carcinogen, and soy meal that has possible links to slave labour and the deforestration of the Amazon and the destruction of the Cerrado and that drives global warming'" [page 72]
It is no small claim to compare the importance of this book to the seminal work by Rachel Carlson 'Silent Spring' which has been a foundation block for environmental science for decades.
Of note, Australian mining magnate and known environmentalist, Andrew Forrest attempted to take over Huon Aquaculture in 2021 but was beaten by Brazil-based international meat processor giant JBS in November 2021. It remains to be seen whether JBS cleans up Huon's operations in Tasmania or not.
After decades of seeking mainstream public attention, the dangers of plastic contamination in the environment has finally become accepted across international borders. Alas, this recognition has only occured now that the problem has reached a critical scale and impact across the world's oceans and reached as far away as Antarctica and the Northern polar region.
How much plastic is leaking into the ocean ? Estimates are still being calculated however the quantity ranges from 4.8 to 12.7 mega tonnes per year. This is a staggering amount of which 80% of plastics in the ocean originate from land-based sources.
Plastic is not a single type of manufactured artificial substance but comes in multiple forms. Control, reduction of use and recycling has become a critical issue in the world's environment and continuing failures have led widespread plastic contamination across the world. Ocean litter is commonly found to comprise cigarette butts, food wrappers, bottle tops, plastic bags and straws hence the current moves to ban many of these plastic items.
What are the categories of plastic that are eligible for recycling ?
at the top of the list is is polythylene terephthalate (commonly referred to as PET) comprises roughly more than half of the the recyclable plastics. It is denoted on packaging with the no "1"
the second most common form is high-density polyethylene (or HDPE) that is denoted by the no "2" on packaging. HDPE comprises a bit over a third of the recycling market and typically is used for packaging (milk and shampoo bottles) and pipes.
next is low density polyethylene which has a "4"on its packaging and is used in clear plastic film. This plastic accounts for around 4% of the recycling market
also with around 4% of the market is polyproplene which is denoted by the number "5". This plastic is used in yoghurt and food spread containers.
The final group of plastic types have little value in manufacturing and thus no recycling. These are polyvinyl chloride (no "3"), polystyrene (no "6"), other mixed plastics (no "7").
The top exporters of plastic waste in 2019 were the European Union, Japan and the United States with the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Mexico and Australia being next. The importers of plastic waste comprise predominantly Malaysia, Hong Kong (interestingly), Turkey, the US, Vietnam, Indonesia, Korea, India, Thailand and now much less significantly, China.
The UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures has tracked the movement of plastic waste as shown in the diagram below -
Environmentally responsible trade in waste plastics in the Asia Pacific Region - UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures
The leakage of waste plastic has a variety of reasons - the difficulty in disposal of residual, unrecyclable plastic, no environmental control in processing plastics, poor management of stockpiling and transport of waste plastic, poor quality of bales being exported, labelling of shipments which is false or incorrect, trading at low or negative prices. Waste leakage most often occurs at the destination country rather than the country of origin or during transit according to UTS.
So what are the solutions ?
In a nutshell, there are improvements that can be implemented such as -
for exporting countries, improving their collection and sorting of plastics before despatching offshore
improving the accountability for shipments for both exporters and importers
checking destination processing and monitoring at the importing countries
redesign and re-engineering of packaging design and using fewer low value or composite plastics.
A central principle and mechanism for community engagement used in the mining industry generally is termed the 'Social License to Operate' or SLO. This term is used to describe the approval and / or ongoing acceptance for a development granted by the local community and other related stakeholders. It's not a static arrangement but a dynamic approval which must be renegotiated continually as new information comes to light or circumstances change. Arguably the coal seam mining sector has failed to adequately address this critical link to communities with whom they interact and ultimately also affect with their mining operations. SLO has five key features -
Starting point is that no SLO exists until one is negotiated - miners cannot assume they have any social licence from the community until they engage in dialogue to establish one.
Dynamic is the descriptive term underpinning the SLO and an SOL must be earned and then maintained.
Key values for an SLO must include credibility, transparency and fundamentally, trust.
Dialogue enabling communties and stakeholders to engage meaingfully with miners on issues around the acceptibility of new or continuing operations.
Information which is sufficient and from a range of perspectives for public education to enable communities and the broader public to make informed decisions, consider trade-offs and develop realistic expectations concerning coal seam gas mining.
To the degree that there is a high level of opposition to coal seam gas mining, there is equally apparent an absence of a social license to operate.
Ecology Today has drawn attention to the huge plastic waste dump which has grown and expanded in the Northern Pacific Ocean measuring twice the size of the continental United States. It stretches from around 500 nautical miles off the coast of California all the way to Japan to a depth of 10 metres below the surface of the sea.
Sea currents transport the waste into ocean “dead zones”, large areas of water that are slow moving circular currents which trap debris into one large constantly moving mass of plastic. This mass of plastic is slowly being broken down into a plastic dust that marine wildlife mistake for food with the result that many species in the food chain from fish through to ocean birds are being affected. The UN Environmental Program estimates that over a million seabirds, as well as more than 100 thousand marine mammals, die every year from ingesting plastic debris.
Ecology Today reports that the area is known as the Northern Pacific Gyre, one of five gyres in the world’s oceans. These gyres are areas of sea where water circulates clockwise in a very slow spiral. As winds are light the currents tend to force any floating material into the low energy centre of the gyre thus everything afloat becomes trapped in these “dead zones”.
Besides being a danger in itself, these vast areas of plastic pollution act as chemical sponge attracting other damaging pollutants, such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), hydrocarbons and pesticides such as DDT that have leached or been released into the oceans from runoff or drainage. While this pollution contains huge amounts of plastic waste not all of it is floating on the surface as wave action and the heat of the sun degrades the plastic into smaller particles.
The need for action to reduce plastic contamination could not be greater given the scale of the existing environmental degradation.
