The Latest Unlikely Source of 'Forever Chemicals' Is a Memorial Day Menu Staple

"Forever chemicals," or synthetic compounds that have been linked to cancer and other health problems, have now been found in beer
Researchers with the American Chemical Society found in a new study that beer brewed in regions of the U.S. with forever chemicals in their tap water had the highest concentration of such chemicals
"I hope these findings inspire water treatment strategies and policies that help reduce the likelihood of PFAS in future pours," research lead Jennifer Hoponick Redmon saidThe synthetic compounds known as "forever chemicals" that have been linked to cancer and other health problems have been found in a popular beverage — and researchers believe these compounds make their way in through drinking water.
A new study from the American Chemical Society published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology has found forever chemicals, or PFAS, have been found in beers from several regions around the U.S.
According to a press release from researchers, it was previously proven that forever chemicals are present in hundreds of tap water systems around the country. This new study found that "beers produced in parts of the country with known PFAS-contaminated water sources showed the highest levels of forever chemicals."
Research lead Jennifer Hoponick Redmon said in the release, "As an occasional beer drinker myself, I wondered whether PFAS in water supplies was making its way into our pints."
Beer is made of about 90% water, and the rest is malt from grains such as barley, hops and yeast. The study found that almost two gallons of water are sometimes used to produce just one quart of beer. Although breweries usually have a water filtration system in place their tap water, "they are not necessarily effective at removing [forever chemicals]," and during production, tap water can potentially introduce "contaminants."
To conduct the study, Hoponick Redmon and her colleagues tested 23 beers, some produced by "U.S. brewers in areas with documented water system contamination, plus popular domestic and international beers from larger companies with unknown water sources."
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
Forever chemicals were found in 95% of the beers they tested. The Environmental Protection Agency recently updated regulations for such chemicals — including perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — when they extended deadlines to reduce the amount of PFOS and PFOA in Americans' tap water earlier this month.
Although the study didn't name specific brands of beer, researchers found that beers brewed near Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina had the highest levels and largest mix of forever chemicals. Beer from St. Louis County, Mo. also had large amounts of PFAS present.
is now available in the Apple App Store! Download it now for the most binge-worthy celeb content, exclusive video clips, astrology updates and more!
According to Hoponick Redmon, this strong correlation between forever chemicals in tap water and locally-brewed beer has not yet been studied in U.S. retail beer. Researchers now hope that this data can spread awareness to beer companies, and that regulators will step in and try to limit consumers' exposure to forever chemicals. The study also highlights the "possible need for water treatment upgrades at brewing facilities," as well as updates to tap water treatment centers.
"I hope these findings inspire water treatment strategies and policies that help reduce the likelihood of PFAS in future pours," Hoponick Redmon added.
Read the original article on People

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

ChatGPT Has Already Polluted the Internet So Badly That It's Hobbling Future AI Development

The rapid rise of ChatGPT — and the cavalcade of competitors' generative models that followed suit — has polluted the internet with so much useless slop that it's already kneecapping the development of future AI models. As the AI-generated data clouds the human creations that these models are so heavily dependent on amalgamating, it becomes inevitable that a greater share of what these so-called intelligences learn from and imitate is itself an ersatz AI creation. Repeat this process enough, and AI development begins to resemble a maximalist game of telephone in which not only is the quality of the content being produced diminished, resembling less and less what it's originally supposed to be replacing, but in which the participants actively become stupider. The industry likes to describe this scenario as AI "model collapse." As a consequence, the finite amount of data predating ChatGPT's rise becomes extremely valuable. In a new feature, The Register likens this to the demand for "low-background steel," or steel that was produced before the detonation of the first nuclear bombs, starting in July 1945 with the US's Trinity test. Just as the explosion of AI chatbots has irreversibly polluted the internet, so did the detonation of the atom bomb release radionuclides and other particulates that have seeped into virtually all steel produced thereafter. That makes modern metals unsuitable for use in some highly sensitive scientific and medical equipment. And so, what's old is new: a major source of low-background steel, even today, is WW1 and WW2 era battleships, including a huge naval fleet that was scuttled by German Admiral Ludwig von Reuter in 1919. Maurice Chiodo, a research associate at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge called the admiral's actions the "greatest contribution to nuclear medicine in the world." "That enabled us to have this almost infinite supply of low-background steel. If it weren't for that, we'd be kind of stuck," he told The Register. "So the analogy works here because you need something that happened before a certain date." "But if you're collecting data before 2022 you're fairly confident that it has minimal, if any, contamination from generative AI," he added. "Everything before the date is 'safe, fine, clean,' everything after that is 'dirty.'" In 2024, Chiodo co-authored a paper arguing that there needs to be a source of "clean" data not only to stave off model collapse, but to ensure fair competition between AI developers. Otherwise, the early pioneers of the tech, after ruining the internet for everyone else with their AI's refuse, would boast a massive advantage by being the only ones that benefited from a purer source of training data. Whether model collapse, particularly as a result of contaminated data, is an imminent threat is a matter of some debate. But many researchers have been sounding the alarm for years now, including Chiodo. "Now, it's not clear to what extent model collapse will be a problem, but if it is a problem, and we've contaminated this data environment, cleaning is going to be prohibitively expensive, probably impossible," he told The Register. One area where the issue has already reared its head is with the technique called retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), which AI models use to supplement their dated training data with information pulled from the internet in real-time. But this new data isn't guaranteed to be free of AI tampering, and some research has shown that this results in the chatbots producing far more "unsafe" responses. The dilemma is also reflective of the broader debate around scaling, or improving AI models by adding more data and processing power. After OpenAI and other developers reported diminishing returns with their newest models in late 2024, some experts proclaimed that scaling had hit a "wall." And if that data is increasingly slop-laden, the wall would become that much more impassable. Chiodo speculates that stronger regulations like labeling AI content could help "clean up" some of this pollution, but this would be difficult to enforce. In this regard, the AI industry, which has cried foul at any government interference, may be its own worst enemy. "Currently we are in a first phase of regulation where we are shying away a bit from regulation because we think we have to be innovative," Rupprecht Podszun, professor of civil and competition law at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, who co-authored the 2024 paper with Chiodo, told The Register. "And this is very typical for whatever innovation we come up with. So AI is the big thing, let it go and fine." More on AI: Sam Altman Says "Significant Fraction" of Earth's Total Electricity Should Go to Running AI

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

OpenAI Concerned That Its AI Is About to Start Spitting Out Novel Bioweapons

OpenAI is bragging that its forthcoming models are so advanced, they may be capable of building brand-new bioweapons. In a recent blog post, the company said that even as it builds more and more advanced models that will have "positive use cases like biomedical research and biodefense," it feels a duty to walk the tightrope between "enabling scientific advancement while maintaining the barrier to harmful information." That "harmful information" includes, apparently, the ability to "assist highly skilled actors in creating bioweapons." "Physical access to labs and sensitive materials remains a barrier," the post reads — but "those barriers are not absolute." In a statement to Axios, OpenAI safety head Johannes Heidecke clarified that although the company does not necessarily think its forthcoming AIs will be able to manufacture bioweapons on their own, they will be advanced enough to help amateurs do so. "We're not yet in the world where there's like novel, completely unknown creation of biothreats that have not existed before," Heidecke said. "We are more worried about replicating things that experts already are very familiar with." The OpenAI safety czar also admitted that while the company's models aren't quite there yet, it expects "some of the successors of our o3 (reasoning model) to hit that level." "Our approach is focused on prevention," the blog post reads. "We don't think it's acceptable to wait and see whether a bio threat event occurs before deciding on a sufficient level of safeguards." As Axios notes, there's some concern that the very same models that assist in biomedical breakthroughs may also be exploited by bad actors . To "prevent harm from materializing," as Heidecke put it, these forthcoming models need to be programmed to "near perfection" to both recognize and alert human monitors to any dangers. "This is not something where like 99 percent or even one in 100,000 performance is sufficient," he said. Instead of heading off such dangerous capabilities at the pass, though, OpenAI seems to be doubling down on building these advanced models, albeit with ample safeguards. It's a noble enough effort, but it's easy to see how it could go all wrong. Placed in the hands of, say, an insurgent agency like the United States' Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, it would be easy enough to use such models for harm. If OpenAI is serious about so-called "biodefense" contracting with the US government, it's not hard to envision a next-generation smallpox blanket scenario. More on OpenAI: Conspiracy Theorists Are Creating Special AIs to Agree With Their Bizarre Delusions

New York Post

4 hours ago

• New York Post

Why Ozempic users should be extra careful during heatwaves

Talk about melting the weight off. Summer may be filled with beach days and barbecues, but it can also bring blistering temperatures. This week, millions of Americans — including New Yorkers — are bracing for what forecasters are calling a 'very sweaty' heatwave. People who are on GLP-1s need to be on particularly high alert amidst the high degrees. New Africa – And people who are on weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro need to be on particularly high alert amidst the high degrees. That's because these drugs work by suppressing appetite, which means they can wind up curbing thirst as well. This, in turn, can unwittingly lead to dehydration — a dangerous condition that can cause dizziness, headaches, low blood pressure, blurred vision, kidney problems and, in extreme cases, fatal heatstroke. Since eating normally stimulates saliva flow, eating less while on Ozempic can mean less stimulation to the salivary glands, which can in turn lead to dry mouth — another symptom of dehydration left unchecked. And if you've heard about Ozempic teeth, you know some of the most common side effects of GLP-1s pose their own dangers during a heatwave. 'You'll need to be extra careful about hydration during hot weather as these medications often cause nausea, vomiting or diarrhea — all of which can lead to fluid loss,' nutritional therapist Deborah Grayson told The Daily Mail. 'This is particularly important for new users of the weight loss medication, whose bodies are still adjusting.' 'You'll need to be extra careful about hydration during hot weather as these medications often cause nausea, vomiting or diarrhea — all of which can lead to fluid loss,' Grayson said. millaf – To remain vigilant, Grayson recommends the following: Drink plenty of water, even if you don't feel thirsty Put a timer on to remind you to hydrate Avoid alcohol and caffeine Avoid being outdoors during peak heat hours Eat easy-to-digest foods such as those on the BRAT diet In addition to suppressing thirst and potentially inducing vomiting/diarrhea, GLP-1s could mess with your body's ability to regulate body temperature, making it harder to tolerate heat. This is all the more reason to drink lots of water — sprinkle some electrolytes into the mix to stay hydrated longer. Use urine as your barometer — light yellow means you're in the clear, whereas darker colors are a bad sign. And avoid physical exertion, especially outside. It might be excruciatingly hot, but perhaps the heatwave is a good excuse to stay on your Ozempic butt for a bit.