An open letter to Benjamin H. Grumbles, Maryland Secretary of the Environment
Maryland should regulate PFAS chemicals in seafood
Pat Elder
April 9, 2020
Maryland should regulate PFAS chemicals in seafood
Pat Elder
April 9, 2020
Dear Secretary Grumbles,
It is gratifying to hear that Maryland’s Department of the Environment intends to sample surface water and oyster tissue in the St. Mary’s River watershed for per– and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
I’m pleased the agency is finalizing a statewide survey for sites where the chemicals have been used, with regulators focusing on remediating any sites with risks to human health. Most of the 300 people who showed up for an open house the Navy held at the Lexington Park Library on March 3rd will be happy to hear the state will be taking action. Many left the meeting frustrated by the Navy’s inadequate and misleading response to the contamination. It is reassuring that the state will tentatively test surface water and seafood tissue at Hog Point and other locations on the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay that are adjacent to the base where PFAS releases have been documented.
It is gratifying to hear that Maryland’s Department of the Environment intends to sample surface water and oyster tissue in the St. Mary’s River watershed for per– and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
I’m pleased the agency is finalizing a statewide survey for sites where the chemicals have been used, with regulators focusing on remediating any sites with risks to human health. Most of the 300 people who showed up for an open house the Navy held at the Lexington Park Library on March 3rd will be happy to hear the state will be taking action. Many left the meeting frustrated by the Navy’s inadequate and misleading response to the contamination. It is reassuring that the state will tentatively test surface water and seafood tissue at Hog Point and other locations on the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay that are adjacent to the base where PFAS releases have been documented.
Recent History of PFAS Contamination in St. Inigoes Creek
I collected a water sample in February, 2020 using a test kit provided by Freshwater Future, a firm located in Petoskey, Michigan. Freshwater Future’s PFAS testing program operates out of the University of Michigan Biological Station. The water sample was analyzed following the EPA method 537 Revision 1.1 for 14 perfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS. See the results here.
The sample was taken from my beach and drawn from water that was less than a foot deep. The 1,894.3 ppt. of PFAS included 1,544.4 ppt of the highly toxic PFOS. These levels are believed to threaten the health of people who consume fish, oysters, crabs, and all seafood taken from contaminated waters. Several states, as I have discussed below, have acted to limit or ban the consumption of seafood taken from waters with PFAS levels lower than those found in St. Inigoes Creek. PFAS are a class of more than 6,000 chemicals that are threatening to human health.
Oysters in New Hampshire near the old Pease AFB contained 55,000 ppt of PFAS. Meanwhile, public health scientists around the world, including Dr. Phillippe Grandjean of Harvard University are warning the public, especially pregnant women, not to ingest more than 1 ppt daily of PFAS. Meanwhile, the EPA has issued a non-mandatory “advisory” of 70 ppt. in drinking water, while taking no measures regarding the consumption of PFAS in food.
After receiving the results shown below, I asked Kathy Brohawn, Environmental Program Manager, Water and Science Administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment if it is OK to eat seafood from St. Inigoes Creek where PFAS was found in the water at 1,894.4 ppt. She responded by email on February 26, 2020:
“The Maryland Department of Environment does not currently have any advisories for contaminants in oysters. The only known PFAS thresholds are associated with drinking water, where the risk of exposure is greatest.
The Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is currently researching the issue and MDE looks for their guidance related to sampling (surface waters and fish or shellfish tissue) and standard/approved methods, as well as considering a threshold for advising the public. MDE does not have any additional information regarding PFAS levels in surface waters or oysters at this time.”
I replied:
“That’s not what I asked. I realize MDE doesn’t have an advisory and I know the EPA is dragging its feet. I wanted to know if it’s OK for us to eat the oysters from the creek.”
I never received an answer, so I am assuming your department is telling me it’s OK to consume the oysters saturated with PFAS.
I am concerned because I live on St. Inigoes Creek, directly across from the Webster Field Annex of the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. The 20’ deep saltwater creek is a half-mile wide where it empties into the St. Mary’s River. The spot is about four miles from the southern extremity of the Potomac River, not far from the Chesapeake Bay.
Just to be clear, is the state of Maryland saying it’s OK for me to serve my daughter, who may be pregnant, a fried oyster platter that may contain 500,000 ppt. of the carcinogens?
“The Maryland Department of Environment does not currently have any advisories for contaminants in oysters. The only known PFAS thresholds are associated with drinking water, where the risk of exposure is greatest.
The Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is currently researching the issue and MDE looks for their guidance related to sampling (surface waters and fish or shellfish tissue) and standard/approved methods, as well as considering a threshold for advising the public. MDE does not have any additional information regarding PFAS levels in surface waters or oysters at this time.”
I replied:
“That’s not what I asked. I realize MDE doesn’t have an advisory and I know the EPA is dragging its feet. I wanted to know if it’s OK for us to eat the oysters from the creek.”
I never received an answer, so I am assuming your department is telling me it’s OK to consume the oysters saturated with PFAS.
I am concerned because I live on St. Inigoes Creek, directly across from the Webster Field Annex of the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. The 20’ deep saltwater creek is a half-mile wide where it empties into the St. Mary’s River. The spot is about four miles from the southern extremity of the Potomac River, not far from the Chesapeake Bay.
Just to be clear, is the state of Maryland saying it’s OK for me to serve my daughter, who may be pregnant, a fried oyster platter that may contain 500,000 ppt. of the carcinogens?
PFAS Testing Results for PFAS in St. Inigoes Creek, MD
The Patuxent River Naval Air Station began using the carcinogenic aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF in routine fire training drills in 1970. By the mid-70’s Navy scientists were aware of the toxicity of the substances, although the command took no measures to protect human health or the environment. Nearly fifty years later, in response to questions about the contamination in St. Inigoes Creek, David Steckler, the remedial project manager who runs the environmental restoration program for NAS Patuxent River, said the Navy is ”extremely early in the process” of testing the sites for potential contamination. It's a lengthy process, he said.
Perhaps it will take the Navy another 50 years to clean up the mess.
The “forever chemicals,” as they are known, were allowed to leach into the groundwater and drain into the surface water, contaminating St. Inigoes Creek and the St. Mary’s River.
Ira May, who oversees federal site cleanups for the Maryland Department of the Environment, suggested that contamination in the creek, if it exists, could have another source. The chemicals are often found in landfills, he noted, as well as in biosolids and at sites where civilian fire departments sprayed foam. May’s comment reflects the historical acquiescence of the department regarding the military’s contamination of Maryland’s waterways. Is the department suggesting that the Valley Lee Fire Department, the closest fire department, four miles from the St. Mary’s River, is responsible for the contamination of the creek? Does he think it came from the St. Andrews Landfill ten miles away? If so, shouldn’t the state be testing these areas as well? Is the environmental chief suggesting the testing protocol was entirely bogus?
A navy spokesman told the press there are two locations on Webster Field where the chemicals were released, including an area at the airfield where foam was sprayed and, as a precaution, the fire station on base would also be checked.
Potential Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, CH2M Hill July 2018
Perhaps it will take the Navy another 50 years to clean up the mess.
The “forever chemicals,” as they are known, were allowed to leach into the groundwater and drain into the surface water, contaminating St. Inigoes Creek and the St. Mary’s River.
Ira May, who oversees federal site cleanups for the Maryland Department of the Environment, suggested that contamination in the creek, if it exists, could have another source. The chemicals are often found in landfills, he noted, as well as in biosolids and at sites where civilian fire departments sprayed foam. May’s comment reflects the historical acquiescence of the department regarding the military’s contamination of Maryland’s waterways. Is the department suggesting that the Valley Lee Fire Department, the closest fire department, four miles from the St. Mary’s River, is responsible for the contamination of the creek? Does he think it came from the St. Andrews Landfill ten miles away? If so, shouldn’t the state be testing these areas as well? Is the environmental chief suggesting the testing protocol was entirely bogus?
A navy spokesman told the press there are two locations on Webster Field where the chemicals were released, including an area at the airfield where foam was sprayed and, as a precaution, the fire station on base would also be checked.
Potential Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, CH2M Hill July 2018
The Webster Field Annex is located about 12 miles south of the Naval Air Station Patuxent River’s main complex where the Patuxent River meets the Chesapeake Bay at Cedar Point. Those areas are also contaminated by the Navy.
The following releases of AFFF have been documented at Webster Field, according to the CH2M Hill report:
(Correction - The following locations below pertain solely to the Pax River River Base. The specific reports were labeled Patuxent River and Webster Field. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) was used in Fire Station/ Building #8076 at the Webster Field Annex. According to The CH2M Hill report, 3M Light Water AFFF 3% mil spec F-24385 F was used at Webster Field.)
Hangar 2133 2002
Hangar 2133 2005
Why is the insignia redacted?
See the warning letter from the Navy.
Hangar 2133 2010
Hangar 2905 2011
Hangar 2185 2014 & 2015
According to the report, mechanics were asked, “How are the discharges handled when the suppression system goes off?" They answered, “Depends on location. Some areas have automated actuator valves that divert flow into a containment tank, while at least one hangar needs to be manually diverted by inserting a T-Bar into a valve box outside the hangar doors (2133).
Temporary/tension fabric hangars have zero containment and collection areas.” One Webster Field employee described an old photo of a “shipping container-type building being foamed at B-102 apparently as a training exercise.” “Tension Fabric Hangar 2185 has had at least 2 AFFF releases in the past couple of years (2014, 2015) but the Spill Mgr should have more details on these releases.”
Service personnel were asked to provide a list of trucks and trailers currently carrying AFFF and where they are parked/stored:
The following releases of AFFF have been documented at Webster Field, according to the CH2M Hill report:
(Correction - The following locations below pertain solely to the Pax River River Base. The specific reports were labeled Patuxent River and Webster Field. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) was used in Fire Station/ Building #8076 at the Webster Field Annex. According to The CH2M Hill report, 3M Light Water AFFF 3% mil spec F-24385 F was used at Webster Field.)
Hangar 2133 2002
Hangar 2133 2005
Why is the insignia redacted?
See the warning letter from the Navy.
Hangar 2133 2010
Hangar 2905 2011
Hangar 2185 2014 & 2015
According to the report, mechanics were asked, “How are the discharges handled when the suppression system goes off?" They answered, “Depends on location. Some areas have automated actuator valves that divert flow into a containment tank, while at least one hangar needs to be manually diverted by inserting a T-Bar into a valve box outside the hangar doors (2133).
Temporary/tension fabric hangars have zero containment and collection areas.” One Webster Field employee described an old photo of a “shipping container-type building being foamed at B-102 apparently as a training exercise.” “Tension Fabric Hangar 2185 has had at least 2 AFFF releases in the past couple of years (2014, 2015) but the Spill Mgr should have more details on these releases.”
Service personnel were asked to provide a list of trucks and trailers currently carrying AFFF and where they are parked/stored:
- Bldg 103 (50gallons)
- Fire Station 1 Bldg 103 (9 gallons)
- Reserve Foam Unit Fire Station 1 Bldg 103 (210 gallons)
- Engine 132 Fire Station 2 Bldg 443 (42 gallons)
- Brush 13 Fire Station 2 Bldg 443 (30 gallons)
This is all we know. Unlike scores of installations across the country, the Navy has not released the analytical results for PFAS in surface water, groundwater or soil samples at Webster Field. We don’t know the extent of PFAS contamination in the sanitary sewer or how these substances are disposed of.
What we do know is that just four drops of PFAS into an Olympic-sized pool of fresh water would be sufficient to make the water unsafe for drinking. Miniscule amounts of these dangerous chemicals can poison seafood in waters for many miles. It seems many areas around the country have gotten the memo, although not Maryland.
What we do know is that just four drops of PFAS into an Olympic-sized pool of fresh water would be sufficient to make the water unsafe for drinking. Miniscule amounts of these dangerous chemicals can poison seafood in waters for many miles. It seems many areas around the country have gotten the memo, although not Maryland.
This is extraordinarily upsetting to many native Marylanders who come to understand the gravity and magnitude of the problem caused by the Navy’s contamination. Maryland’s history is closely linked to this property dating back to 1634. The oysters, crabs, and many species of fish have sustained Marylanders for nearly 400 years.
Maryland has been asleep at the switch
Until recent developments, Maryland has not been proactive in testing the waters near military installations across the state that have a long history of carelessly using deadly PFAS substances. Maryland’s Department of the Environment is aware of the use of carcinogens reported by the military at eight bases, although it has not publicly acknowledged additional contamination at numerous other installations in the state. Alarmingly, there have been no advisories issued regarding the consumption of seafood from highly contaminated waters, like there have been in other states. Women who may be pregnant must be warned not to consume seafood containing PFAS.
The Navy is responsible for much of the PFAS contamination in Maryland. The Naval Research Laboratory Chesapeake Beach Detachment, the US Naval Academy, the Patuxent River Naval Air Center and the Naval Surface Warfare Center are known to have contaminated the environment with these extraordinarily deadly chemicals.
Several states have acted to limit or ban the consumption of seafood taken from waters with PFAS levels much lower than those found in St. Inigoes Creek.
Numerous studies have shown the major source of PFAS exposure in the general population is through the consumption of seafood. See, for instance, Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Fish Consumption Cross, et.al Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 2017.
The Navy downplays the environmental threat posed by its continued use of PFAS, emphasizing biomonitoring studies showing levels of PFOS and PFOA have been decreasing in recent years. The Navy, however, leaves out a discussion of replacement PFAS. Studies indicate that the human health risks of “non-PFOS/PFOA” types of PFAS have been significantly underestimated.
The following toxic varieties of PFAS and their concentrations were found in St. Inigoes Creek. These associated links describe their toxicological profiles: PFNA (131.6 ppt.), PFDA (90.0 ppt), PFBS (38.5 ppt), PFUnA (27.9 ppt), and PFHxS (13.5), along with traces of five additional types of PFAS totaling 26.8 ppt.
These substances are often found in water samples adjacent to military bases where AFFF has been routinely used, including the sample taken from St. Inigoes Creek.
Although the public is largely unaware of the health risks associated with these replacement PFAS chemicals, epidemiological data indicate a positive association between human serum levels of PFNA (found in St. Inigoes Creek at 131.6 ppt) and total cholesterol, suggesting that PFNA exposure may alter cholesterol metabolism. In rats, PFNA negatively impacts survival and development of pups. PFNA also causes male-specific reproductive toxicity in rats. This is particulalry concerning because PFAS bioaccumulates in sea life and it bioaccumulates in people. Findings like this explain why public health professionals say we shouldn't be ingesting these chemicals. See the National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.
These substances are often found in water samples adjacent to military bases where AFFF has been routinely used, including the sample taken from St. Inigoes Creek.
Although the public is largely unaware of the health risks associated with these replacement PFAS chemicals, epidemiological data indicate a positive association between human serum levels of PFNA (found in St. Inigoes Creek at 131.6 ppt) and total cholesterol, suggesting that PFNA exposure may alter cholesterol metabolism. In rats, PFNA negatively impacts survival and development of pups. PFNA also causes male-specific reproductive toxicity in rats. This is particulalry concerning because PFAS bioaccumulates in sea life and it bioaccumulates in people. Findings like this explain why public health professionals say we shouldn't be ingesting these chemicals. See the National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.
Comparing Maryland’s inaction to other states
Let’s examine PFAS levels in surface water, the levels in fish tissue, and corresponding fish consumption advisories in a handful of states.
Pine Lake, New Jersey, near Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, had PFAS totaling 170.7 ppt with PFOS found at 102.0 ppt. The lake is impacted by the hydrologic connection with the military base, which has been identified as the source of PFAS due to its use of aqueous film-forming foam in routine fire-fighting exercises. See the comparison between Pine Lake, NJ and St. Inigoes Creek, MD:
Let’s examine PFAS levels in surface water, the levels in fish tissue, and corresponding fish consumption advisories in a handful of states.
Pine Lake, New Jersey, near Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, had PFAS totaling 170.7 ppt with PFOS found at 102.0 ppt. The lake is impacted by the hydrologic connection with the military base, which has been identified as the source of PFAS due to its use of aqueous film-forming foam in routine fire-fighting exercises. See the comparison between Pine Lake, NJ and St. Inigoes Creek, MD:
At Pine Lake, the average PFOS concentration in the American eel was 162.5 ppt, while the largemouth bass had a concentration of 114 ppt, and the Pumpkinseed Sunfish had an average concentration of 119.2 ppt. There was also evidence of bioaccumulation of other longer chain compounds, with PFHxS, PFDA, PFDoA, and PFUnA at detectable levels in the fish tissue.
The consumption of eel, largemouth bass, and pumpkinseed sunfish from Pine Lake is limited to once a year. New Jersey became the first state to issue advisories for the consumption of fish containing PFAS chemicals in 2018 and several states have followed suit.
PFOS levels in St. Inigoes Creek in Maryland were 9 times higher than the water in New Jersey, while overall levels of PFAS in the water in Maryland were 11 times higher.
In Lake Monoma, Wisconsin, near Truax Field Air National Guard Base, water is contaminated with 12 ppt of PFOS and 3 ppt of PFOA. Authorities limit eating carp, pike, bass, and perch to one meal a month.
The PFOS level in St. Inigoes Creek is 128.7 times greater than those found in Lake Monoma.
See the PFAS Advisory for Lake Monoma, Wisconsin
Maryland has instituted fish advisories for fish and crabs caught throughout the state and in St. Mary’s County, although PFAS is not addressed. The advisory sites polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as the predominant contaminant for limiting consumption. The MDE advises the public to eat the crab “mustard” sparingly because PCBs and other contaminants are concentrated there. PCBs were used widely in electrical equipment like capacitors and transformers. Military bases and industrial sites throughout the state, including the Pax River Naval Air Station have contaminated the environment with these substances.
In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey collaborated with the University of Maryland and sampled the Patuxent River specifically for PFOS, and found concentrations of 22 ppt, although the state took no actions regarding the consumption of seafood.
In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey collaborated with the University of Maryland and sampled the Patuxent River specifically for PFOS, and found concentrations of 22 ppt, although the state took no actions regarding the consumption of seafood.
Surface water samples in Lake St. Clair, Michigan, very close to the Selfridge Air National Guard base were found to contain PFOS up to 610 ppt. The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services immediately issued fish advisories for bluegill and sunfish as a result of the PFOS concentrations. PFOS level in St. Inigoes Creek were 2.5 times higher than the Michigan Lake.
PFOS was found at levels of 17,000 ppt and PFOA was found at 5,500 ppt in the groundwater at the fire training area on the Selfridge ANG base, according to engineer’s reports documenting the contamination. PFAS contamination is perhaps Michigan's most serious environmental crisis with contamination flowing from 40 military bases, many that have been closed for years.
PFOS was found at levels of 17,000 ppt and PFOA was found at 5,500 ppt in the groundwater at the fire training area on the Selfridge ANG base, according to engineer’s reports documenting the contamination. PFAS contamination is perhaps Michigan's most serious environmental crisis with contamination flowing from 40 military bases, many that have been closed for years.
New York has established a fish advisory that warns people not to eat the fish taken from Washington Lake, Beaverdam Lake, Lockwood Basin, Moodna Creek, Recreation Pond, and Silver Stream. All are bodies of water close to Stewart Air National Guard base.
The Pumpkinseed fish found in Recreation Pond had more than 3,000,000 ppt of PFOS. (PFAS in New York State Fish, 2010 –2018 Jesse Becker. Bureau of Ecosystem Health Division of Fish and Wildlife.)
These levels are not surprising considering the astronomical levels on base of 480,000 ppt of PFOS in the drainage system Building 104, the fire station on base. Floor drains in Building 104 are routed to Recreation Pond (off-site).
(Regional Site Inspection Report for PFOS/PFOA (Part 04 of 11) Stewart Air National Guard Base - Building 104 Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.)
The Pumpkinseed fish found in Recreation Pond had more than 3,000,000 ppt of PFOS. (PFAS in New York State Fish, 2010 –2018 Jesse Becker. Bureau of Ecosystem Health Division of Fish and Wildlife.)
These levels are not surprising considering the astronomical levels on base of 480,000 ppt of PFOS in the drainage system Building 104, the fire station on base. Floor drains in Building 104 are routed to Recreation Pond (off-site).
(Regional Site Inspection Report for PFOS/PFOA (Part 04 of 11) Stewart Air National Guard Base - Building 104 Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.)
Barksdale AFB, LA
Astronomical levels of PFOS in bodies of water adjacent to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana are the result of the use of AFFF on the base. Concentrations of PFOS exceeded 2 million ppt. in adjacent waters while PFOS levels were found in fish at 2.5 million ppt. Flag Lake, Flat River, Macks Bayou, South Coopers, and Weapon’s Bridge by the base are all heavily poisoned, although it is criminally negligent that there are no fish advisories in effect in Louisiana regarding fish contaminated with PFAS. (Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Vol. 36 No 8 pgs. 2022-2029, 2016. Temporal Monitoring of Perfluoroactane Sulfonate.. Lanza, et. al.)
Astronomical levels of PFOS in bodies of water adjacent to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana are the result of the use of AFFF on the base. Concentrations of PFOS exceeded 2 million ppt. in adjacent waters while PFOS levels were found in fish at 2.5 million ppt. Flag Lake, Flat River, Macks Bayou, South Coopers, and Weapon’s Bridge by the base are all heavily poisoned, although it is criminally negligent that there are no fish advisories in effect in Louisiana regarding fish contaminated with PFAS. (Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Vol. 36 No 8 pgs. 2022-2029, 2016. Temporal Monitoring of Perfluoroactane Sulfonate.. Lanza, et. al.)
Conclusion
While municipal water systems in Maryland and across the country have been hurriedly addressing PFAS contamination in drinking water by installing filter systems and other remedies, the primary route of exposure to PFAS is through the diet, namely seafood from contaminated water bodies. (Christenson et. al. 2017)
Fish consumption advisories due to PFOS are warranted because PFOS accumulates in fish (Stahl et al. 2014) and there is reliable evidence showing human health risks are associated with elevated levels of PFOS (Darrow et al. 2013)
Several significant associations between fish and shellfish consumption and serum PFAS levels in a sample of the general U.S. population after adjusting for demographic characteristics and other exposures, have been observed. (Nelson et al., 2012; Tyrrell et al., 2013)
Studies have found a positive association between serum PFAS and fish consumption (Denys et al., 2014; Hansen et al., 2016; Haug et al., 2010; Holzer et al., 2011; Rylander et al., 2009, 2010; Yamaguchi et al., 2013).
Positive associations between shellfish and PFAS have been described in the literature. Shellfish were consistently associated with increased concentrations of several PFAS. A cross-sectional study that examined the dietary patterns and plasma concentrations of PFOS among Norwegian women found that shellfish intake was particularly positively associated with PFOA (Rylander, 2010).
The Navy is misleading the public and downplaying health concerns associated with its continued use of PFAS, while the EPA is missing in action. The people of Maryland look to the Department of the Environment to test the waters and seafood to safeguard their health.
Thank you,
Pat Elder
St. Mary’s City, MD
While municipal water systems in Maryland and across the country have been hurriedly addressing PFAS contamination in drinking water by installing filter systems and other remedies, the primary route of exposure to PFAS is through the diet, namely seafood from contaminated water bodies. (Christenson et. al. 2017)
Fish consumption advisories due to PFOS are warranted because PFOS accumulates in fish (Stahl et al. 2014) and there is reliable evidence showing human health risks are associated with elevated levels of PFOS (Darrow et al. 2013)
Several significant associations between fish and shellfish consumption and serum PFAS levels in a sample of the general U.S. population after adjusting for demographic characteristics and other exposures, have been observed. (Nelson et al., 2012; Tyrrell et al., 2013)
Studies have found a positive association between serum PFAS and fish consumption (Denys et al., 2014; Hansen et al., 2016; Haug et al., 2010; Holzer et al., 2011; Rylander et al., 2009, 2010; Yamaguchi et al., 2013).
Positive associations between shellfish and PFAS have been described in the literature. Shellfish were consistently associated with increased concentrations of several PFAS. A cross-sectional study that examined the dietary patterns and plasma concentrations of PFOS among Norwegian women found that shellfish intake was particularly positively associated with PFOA (Rylander, 2010).
The Navy is misleading the public and downplaying health concerns associated with its continued use of PFAS, while the EPA is missing in action. The people of Maryland look to the Department of the Environment to test the waters and seafood to safeguard their health.
Thank you,
Pat Elder
St. Mary’s City, MD