Login to account Create an account  


  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
PFAS Exceeds Recommended Allowance
#1
PFAS Exceeds Recommended Allowance


Got a letter from the utility district today stating that the PFAS(forever chemicals) tested at 23.3 parts per trillion which exceeds the 20 PPT maximum recommended allowance.

Coincidently, I just posted in my "Funky Flakes" thread (it was gross) about flaky residue forming at the bottom of tap water-based drinks and/or drinks containing ice made with tap water, and it didn't seem to make any difference using a Pur filtration system. The two probably aren't related (but could be), but it's just another negative concerning the municipal water supply.

I haven't trusted the municipal water for a while, and now this. I use purified for most everything now. I use it for cooking, drinks, and ice. Even started giving the cats purified water recently. Still bathe using the city water though.

I caught my friend using the purified tap water during Thanksgiving Day prep, but even that isn't going to fly anymore. I need to tell them. No more tap water for consumption (filtered or otherwise), period.
Reply
#2
Are you in an older/more populated state?
If I believe my city announcement they said 'we have detected no PFAS in our source or treated waters during a voluntary 2020 sampling programme'
I am in a Western state

I am surprised that your Pur wouldnt filter whatever flakes you are talking about.
Reply
#3
(12-06-2024, 06:16 PM)sahgwa Wrote: Are you in an older/more populated state?
If I believe my city announcement they said 'we have detected no PFAS in our source or treated waters during a voluntary 2020 sampling programme'
I am in a Western state

I am surprised that your Pur wouldnt filter whatever flakes you are talking about.

I'm in the capital of a northeastern state with immediate surroundings consisting mostly of rural areas. The population is less than 20k.

I think the "flakes" were materializing after the fact. I wrote a little about it here.
Reply