Navy Contaminates Local Groundwater and Sewer System in Maryland

The groundwater was contaminated at the Calverton Navy facility on Long Island. That site has been closed since '94, but they are still chasing the groundwater contamination.
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
No mention of building 516, the old fuel building. I know of 3 people that died from brain tumors after working in there for years.
 

Smokey1

Active Member
Fortunately it is likely only the shallow unconfined aquifer and not one that is used for most domestic wells that gets contaminated. Its also ridiculous to claim that the water supply for DC could be impacted. DC gets their water from reservoirs way upstream of the Naval Base. Water doesn't flow upstream and somehow gets back up into the reservoirs.
 
Last edited:

Tech

Well-Known Member
All naval air facilities have the problem with contamination from AFFF, use to clean the deck with it till the problem was discovered.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Reading on:
There are no restrictions currently on military or industrial PFAS discharges under either the federal Clean Water Act or the federal Clean Air Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a non-binding, non-regulatory advisory to states and municipalities of 70 ppt in drinking water. Neither the military nor chemical companies are currently required to report releases of PFAS through the federal Toxic Release Inventory.​

It's so dangerous, there's a non-binding, non-regulatory advisory against it.

The CDC is looking to start studying the potential health impacts

This concern sounds far more like it is a lawsuit waiting for a reason to be filed than an actual concern. The source is AFFF (firefighting agent/additive for liquid fires like grease or fuel oil).
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
They also tested for PFAS in Chesapeake Beach at the Research Lab and didn't find that it leached into drinking water aquifers.
The Navy identified NRL-CBD as a site with potential off-site PFAS migration and exposure via consumption of groundwater used a drinking source. A review of county records led the Navy to believe that drinking water wells located with the area of potential off-base migration to be cased through the Calvert Formation (clay) and into the deeper Piney Point aquifer, with little to no potential for PFAS exposure pathway for human consumption.
The assumption of no PFAS migration to the deeper Piney Point Aquifer was confirmed in the Navy’s 2017 investigation of the FTA. The results of this site investigation found that although the surficial groundwater at the FTA contained PFAS, the deeper Piney Point aquifer did not contain detectable levels of PFAS. In May 2018, the Navy learned that there may be limited number of private drinking water wells screened in surficial groundwater in an area south of the base where shallow groundwater from the FTA could be migrating off-base.
https://www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/env_restoration/installation_map/navfac_atlantic/washington/nrl_cbd/nrl_cbd_pfas.html
 

jazz lady

~*~ rara avis ~*~
This sounded vaguely familiar so I searched to see who wrote it.


Pat Elder is the director of the National Coalition to Protect Student Privacy, an organization that works to prohibit the automatic release of student information to military recruiting services from the nation’s high schools. He is also creator of the website Counter-Recruit.org, which documents the deceptive practices used by the U.S. military to recruit students into the armed forces.
So who is this guy?


He is the whackadoodle who was running against Steny Hoyer in the last election. :lol:

 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
This sounded vaguely familiar so I searched to see who wrote it.




So who is this guy?


He is the whackadoodle who was running against Steny Hoyer in the last election. :lol:

He also taught Bug 8th grade. He was a lot of fun! :lol:
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

This sounded vaguely familiar so I searched to see who wrote it.
So who is this guy?
He is the whackadoodle who was running against Steny Hoyer in the last election. :lol:
Yes, however, he is writing and commenting about, citing, and linked to, the actual naval report in his article. Just because he's a whackadoodle doesn't mean we shouldn't take heed to the seriousness of the issue. Also, lots of, "assumptions", are being by the Navy. While there may be one year where nothing was found, the next year there might. Unfortunately, testing is not consistent, nor all encompassing of the area, especially outside of base property.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If I may ...


Yes, however, he is writing and commenting about, citing, and linked to, the actual naval report in his article. Just because he's a whackadoodle doesn't mean we shouldn't take heed to the seriousness of the issue. Also, lots of, "assumptions", are being by the Navy. While there may be one year where nothing was found, the next year there might. Unfortunately, testing is not consistent, nor all encompassing of the area, especially outside of base property.
The "seriousness of the issue" is, at best, vague. There are no legal limits to the discharging of the chemical on anyone, no legal limits on what may be in the water.... in short, no one did anything technically "wrong", nor is there anything technically "wrong" with the amount in the aquifer.

This reminds me a lot of the di-hydrous oxide warnings.


Beware scary sounding terms!!!
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

The "seriousness of the issue" is, at best, vague. There are no legal limits to the discharging of the chemical on anyone, no legal limits on what may be in the water.... in short, no one did anything technically "wrong", nor is there anything technically "wrong" with the amount in the aquifer.
Well now don't I feel all warm and fuzzy. No legal limits for a chemical that causes endocrine disruptions, birth defects, and cancer. Well, at least that then leaves the Navy off the hook, huh? Yeah, it really doesn't matter that the EPA, in 2016, lowered a non-binding health advisory limit for some PFAS compounds to 70 parts per trillion. Since it's non-binding, still leaves the Navy off the hook, huh? And, as well, everyone living around and near the base can continue drinking their well water, eating the local fish and crabs and oysters without fear because no, [enforceable], "legal limits", have been set. Doesn't matter that PFAS are absorbed, and can accumulate in the body over time, causing illness and cancers. No set legal limit, so technically, no one will get sick or die from it. Not to worry though, "terms", never scare me. Ignorance, however ....
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If I may ...


Well now don't I feel all warm and fuzzy. No legal limits for a chemical that causes endocrine disruptions, birth defects, and cancer. Well, at least that then leaves the Navy off the hook, huh? Yeah, it really doesn't matter that the EPA, in 2016, lowered a non-binding health advisory limit for some PFAS compounds to 70 parts per trillion. Since it's non-binding, still leaves the Navy off the hook, huh? And, as well, everyone living around and near the base can continue drinking their well water, eating the local fish and crabs and oysters without fear because no, [enforceable], "legal limits", have been set. Doesn't matter that PFAS are absorbed, and can accumulate in the body over time, causing illness and cancers. No set legal limit, so technically, no one will get sick or die from it. Not to worry though, "terms", never scare me. Ignorance, however ....
"...that causes..."? Can you show me the study that demonstrates your claim that PFAS actually causes any of those things? It's shocking that no administration has set an actual legal limit on PFAS if it is true (huge assumption there) that PFAS actually causes those things.

It's almost as if....there's no proof of that.

Here's what the CDC says:
CDC said:
What are the health effects?


The health effects of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA have been more widely studied than other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Some, but not all, studies in humans with PFAS exposure have shown that certain PFAS may:
  • affect growth, learning, and behavior of infants and older children
  • lower a woman’s chance of getting pregnant
  • interfere with the body’s natural hormones
  • increase cholesterol levels
  • affect the immune system
  • increase the risk of cancer
Scientists are still learning about the health effects of exposures to mixtures of PFAS.
For the most part, laboratory animals exposed to high doses of one or more of these PFAS have shown changes in liver, thyroid, and pancreatic function, as well as some changes in hormone levels. Because animals and humans process these chemicals differently, more research will help scientists fully understand how PFAS affect human health.
I'm not convinced that there's any reason to assume the levels in the water are a problem. I'm not convinced that there's any reason to assume the levels in the water are NOT a problem. Because, well, it's really stupid to assume.

Whether or not you have a warm fuzzy is completely up to you, but I think you're listening to propaganda intended to incite a lawsuit, not facts.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

"...that causes..."? Can you show me the study that demonstrates your claim that PFAS actually causes any of those things? It's shocking that no administration has set an actual legal limit on PFAS if it is true (huge assumption there) that PFAS actually causes those things.

I think you're listening to propaganda intended to incite a lawsuit, not facts.
Pretty sure the information in these links is, 'factual'.

From the CDC ... PFOS and PFOA are two of the most studied PFAS

 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If I may ...



Pretty sure the information in these links is, 'factual'.

From the CDC ... PFOS and PFOA are two of the most studied PFAS
From this link: PFOS and PFOA may pose potential adverse effects for human health given their potential toxicity, mobility, and bioaccumulation potential. The likelihood of adverse effects depends on several factors such as amount and concentration of PFAS ingested as well as the time span of exposure.

A group of chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs—used in everything from carpets to nonstick cookware to firefighting foams—may pose much greater health risks than previously thought.
Are there health effects from PFAS?
There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans. If humans, or animals, ingest PFAS (by eating or drinking food or water than contain PFAS), the PFAS are absorbed, and can accumulate in the body. PFAS stay in the human body for long periods of time. As a result, as people get exposed to PFAS from different sources over time, the level of PFAS in their bodies may increase to the point where they suffer from adverse health effects.

Studies indicate that PFOA and PFOS can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals. Both chemicals have caused tumors in animal studies. The most consistent findings from human epidemiology studies are increased cholesterol levels among exposed populations, with more limited findings related to:

  • infant birth weights,
  • effects on the immune system,
  • cancer (for PFOA), and
  • thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS).
This one has a lot more in it. Lots of claim of "studies", then way down on the bottom of the page they get to the studies. The studies were on lab animals.

The CDC link I previously provided discussed those studies. It said, "Because animals and humans process these chemicals differently, more research will help scientists fully understand how PFAS affect human health."

The EPA link above is essentially a copy-paste from the CDC website, with the exception of that sentence.

"We cannot accurately predict what health effects individuals may experience if they are exposed to PFAS."

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nominated the PFC class to the NTP for study, due to concerns of:
  • Widespread exposure to humans
  • Persistence in the environment
  • Observed toxicity in animal models
  • Insufficient information to properly assess human health risk across the entire structural class"
"Scientists are not sure about the possible health effects of human exposure to PFC/PFAS."

It was the first damned sentence!!! :lmao:

This is the same one I quoted previously, but, here it is again:

"Some, but not all, studies in humans with PFAS exposure have shown that certain PFAS may:"

That one was nothing more than a news report showing all of the caveats, "may", "might", "could", "can't be sure"s of all the links provided above.





It's sensationalism. You're freaking out over sensationalism.

I'm not convinced that there's any reason to assume the levels in the water are a problem. I'm not convinced that there's any reason to assume the levels in the water are NOT a problem. Because, well, it's really stupid to assume.

Buy a Brita.
 

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
Having worked with many toxic chemicals during my career some have surprising positive effects, take my 3 wieners for instance.....
They should have left the lead in 115/145 avgas.
 
Top