|
Can't plan a healthy future for our citizens if our governments are incompetent, dishonest and unable to perform their function -
TO GOVERN THE PEOPLE,
BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE! |
|
Australian PFAS health impacts cover up
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Estimates
CHAIR - …under standing order 26, ...I remind all witnesses that in giving evidence to the committee they are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee, and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt.
It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence.
CHAIR - …under standing order 26, ...I remind all witnesses that in giving evidence to the committee they are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee, and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt.
It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence.
2023-24 Senate ESTIMATES
|
Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe had the guts to ask a simple question about PFAS to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) at Senate Estimate on 23 May 2023, as noted in the transcript from Hansard pages 95-97.
"When did the department last review the evidence around the health impacts of PFAS?" |
|
Little did the Senator know that less than a month later the mother of all PFAS health impact cover ups has been exposed by journalist, Carrie Fellner from the Sydney Morning Herald.
The seemingly simple question put forward to department representatives by the Senator and responded by the attending government public servants were entirely unsatisfactory to the point it appeared deliberately misleading. This of course is to avoid admitting the Australian Government is not reviewing evidence around the health impacts of PFAS especially in highly exposed areas. It appears they well and truly know the impacts as all the departments dealing with PFAS must and are sharing information for a coordinated framework of action.
The only coordination I can see through their deliberate shambolic website of disinformation is about inaction and denial, except for Defence Department personnel.
Answer - The Australian Government has not updated health advice since 2019.
The seemingly simple question put forward to department representatives by the Senator and responded by the attending government public servants were entirely unsatisfactory to the point it appeared deliberately misleading. This of course is to avoid admitting the Australian Government is not reviewing evidence around the health impacts of PFAS especially in highly exposed areas. It appears they well and truly know the impacts as all the departments dealing with PFAS must and are sharing information for a coordinated framework of action.
The only coordination I can see through their deliberate shambolic website of disinformation is about inaction and denial, except for Defence Department personnel.
Answer - The Australian Government has not updated health advice since 2019.
- The Australian Government’s Expert Health Panel for PFAS found that although the scientific evidence in humans is limited, reviews and scientific research to date have provided fairly consistent reports of an association with several health effects. The health effects reported in these associations are generally small and within normal ranges for the whole population. There is also limited to no evidence of human disease or other clinically significant harm resulting from PFAS exposure at this time.
Protection for a person's human rights is foresaken by government's coverup of their liability. This is a conflict of interest as Australia do not have a national independent EPA.
australian government & scientists hiding pfas health impacts?
Thorpe's interest should now inform what she does next to challenge all of government on the new evidence that the Australian Government appears to have deliberately interfered with 'independent' university research to falsify PFAS health impact conclusions using taxpayers monies. See the background to this story here.
This also goes back to the PFAS Taskforce in Canberra - taxes funding their gravy train when they knew this corruption was going on. Sucking up our money and achieving what?
We need to call out public servants and politicians as they do not have protection to lie to the Australian people and jeopardise their health and their families children and their children for decades to come.
The universities that are taking taxpayer money for research purposes need to be held accountable being complicit in the corruption as they are at the base of government cover up recording there are no human health effects. This is a stain on scientific research.
Studies have already proven the enormous societal cost of PFAS contamination.
If the scientists did their jobs properly and with integrity they would have come up with the same evidence of health impacts as America, Europe and others across the world have done. Then the government would have to change the levels - in water, food.
This cover up will cost the public purse a lot more in the future than fixing the problem up now.
THE CORRUPTION NEEDS TO END WITH LIDIA.
The following are the disturbing excerpts exposed by the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 June 2023 based on FOIs about the Australian National University (ANU) PFAS health study for Defence bases, 'Officials tried to change study on cancer spikes to avoid undue alarm' (paywalled).
This is the government investigating itself, then interfering for a predetermined outcome of nothing to see here!
Some snippets from that article for context.
- The government is lying to the Australian public.
- The university research scientists are lying to the public while being paid by the public purse. They did not disclose that the study was a sham.
- The government did not change the levels because the university study was false.
- Government bureaucrats were sending emails to the university to make sure the study was false.
- The Dept of Health were conducting the study but how much questionable data was supplied by Defence to the university. What were the terms of reference? Could the health results been worst?
- This is corruption impacting people's safety.
- This is fraudulent misuse of taxpayers monies paid to be corrupt because they accepted the money.
This also goes back to the PFAS Taskforce in Canberra - taxes funding their gravy train when they knew this corruption was going on. Sucking up our money and achieving what?
We need to call out public servants and politicians as they do not have protection to lie to the Australian people and jeopardise their health and their families children and their children for decades to come.
The universities that are taking taxpayer money for research purposes need to be held accountable being complicit in the corruption as they are at the base of government cover up recording there are no human health effects. This is a stain on scientific research.
Studies have already proven the enormous societal cost of PFAS contamination.
If the scientists did their jobs properly and with integrity they would have come up with the same evidence of health impacts as America, Europe and others across the world have done. Then the government would have to change the levels - in water, food.
This cover up will cost the public purse a lot more in the future than fixing the problem up now.
THE CORRUPTION NEEDS TO END WITH LIDIA.
The following are the disturbing excerpts exposed by the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 June 2023 based on FOIs about the Australian National University (ANU) PFAS health study for Defence bases, 'Officials tried to change study on cancer spikes to avoid undue alarm' (paywalled).
This is the government investigating itself, then interfering for a predetermined outcome of nothing to see here!
Some snippets from that article for context.
- 'Health officials asked university researchers to remove references about potential community concern over elevated rates of cancer found in towns contaminated with “forever chemicals”, even as the federal government was defending multimillion-dollar litigation over the pollution.'
- ...While Australia’s Department of Health says any health effects of PFAS are “minimal”, authorities in the United States and Europe have warned the chemicals may increase the risk of some cancers, suppress the immune system, raise cholesterol, decrease fertility, interfere with hormones and cause developmental effects in children.
- ...Last year the US Environmental Protection Agency declared there was no safe level of PFAS in drinking water and introduced tough new standards to “prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses”.
- The study, published in December 2021, found elevated rates of prostate cancer in Katherine, stillbirth, developmental vulnerability and laryngeal cancer in Oakey and postpartum haemorrhage, pregnancy-induced hypertension, kidney cancer and lung cancer in Williamtown.
Deaths from coronary heart disease were elevated in both Oakey and Williamtown and the research team noted exposure to PFAS can lead to higher levels of cholesterol.
The study concluded there was no proof people’s illnesses were caused by exposure to the chemicals because the results were not consistent among the towns and could have been due to chance or confounding, where a factor other than PFAS caused the result. - ...The department suggested researchers “highlight the significance of ‘null findings’” and say their study found “no consistent links between PFAS contamination and the health outcomes observed”.
The researchers declined to add the suggested line.
- ...It does include the statement: “Overall, our findings are consistent with previous studies, which have not conclusively identified causative links between PFAS and these health outcomes.”
How many PFAS chemicals are there?
Back to Senate Estimates and the dodgy information exposed.
One public servant thought they were smart stating "that there are over 4,700 different PFAS chemicals" which is a very outdated fact from 2018. Meanwhile the chemical industry are pumping out PFAS compounds unchecked.
So, was it deliberately misleading and/or why are these public servants not up-to-date and informed?
One public servant thought they were smart stating "that there are over 4,700 different PFAS chemicals" which is a very outdated fact from 2018. Meanwhile the chemical industry are pumping out PFAS compounds unchecked.
So, was it deliberately misleading and/or why are these public servants not up-to-date and informed?
- 2018 - at least 4,730 distinct PFASs noted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
- 2022 - 14,735 unique PFAS chemical compounds detailed on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) PFAS Structure Lists
- June 2023 - approximately 6 million are listed on PFAS and Fluorinated Compounds in PubChem Tree based on agreed OECD PFAS definition.
Are environment and human health impacts interlinked?
CoM can assure readers the environment and human health impacts are interlinked and cannot be separated with PFAS health-based guideline values (HBGVs) related to recreational water and site risk assessments for human health in PFAS exposed areas. Those communities interact with the environment everyday being exposed to PFAS compounds via the air, soil and water. These are the lands and waters where we live, where Australia's livestock and foods are raised and produced for human consumption and fed to our families, pregnant women and children with unknown dosing of dangerous PFAS chemicals.
The DCCEEW public servants know this but do nothing except pass the buck to the Department of Health and Aged Care who have already proven to be dangerous and irresponsible along with each state and territories health departments to undermine the existing extent of human health impacts.
FSANZ's response is a shocker.
The following information on the Australian Government PFAS portal, How might PFAS affect us, contains the links to the 2019 health advice.
The DCCEEW public servants know this but do nothing except pass the buck to the Department of Health and Aged Care who have already proven to be dangerous and irresponsible along with each state and territories health departments to undermine the existing extent of human health impacts.
- 'When it comes to looking at the potential health impacts, that is a responsibility of the Department of Health and Aged Care. They take forward the work on commissioning and overseeing research into the potential health effects, particularly around long-term exposure to PFAS, but then also taking that information and evidence to develop health based guidance and values to support the health risk assessments.'
- '...enHealth considers that the 2008 European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) derivation of Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) values for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is appropriate as interim national guidance for use in site investigations in Australia.'
FSANZ's response is a shocker.
The following information on the Australian Government PFAS portal, How might PFAS affect us, contains the links to the 2019 health advice.
- The Environmental Health Standing Committee (enHealth) has released guidance statements to help assess any public health risks when PFAS have been released into the environment. The statements also provide guidance on the potential health impacts from exposure to three types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS); the major human exposure pathways; development of human health reference values for PFOA, PFOA and PFHxS; breast feeding and pregnancy; and blood tests. The enHealth statements were first issued in 2016, and revised in 2019 to reflect the most current evidence relating to PFAS.
Another misleading comment in the transcript about PFAS chemicals, "Most are safe"
- Who determined they are safe?
- Where is the evidence to support this statement?
One public servant even had the audacity to admit,
- "My information on PFAS and its health impacts is just too out-of-date for me to give you great assurances. But previously—and this is going back a few years—health departments internationally had not concluded on the impact on human health. We have concluded on the impact on the environment, and that's why we're taking this action. I wanted to clarify that."
The transcript
Relevant persons are noted commenting on this section of the transcript. The following section is a copy and pasted uncorrected excerpt from the original Hansard transcript.
Chair:
CHAIR: Senator Thorpe?
Senator THORPE: I've got some questions on PFAS. When did the department last review the evidence around the health impacts of PFAS?
Ms Lynch: I'll endeavour to enter that question for you, but I'll also invite my colleague, Ms Burgess, up to the table.
Senator THORPE: Thank you.
Ms Lynch: I'll start responding to your question by outlining that this department works really closely with colleagues across the rest of the APS. Typically, when it comes to the health impacts of PFAS that's a matter that the department of health is responsible for.
Senator THORPE: You've got to clean it up, though? Are you responsible for cleaning it up?
Ms Lynch: It depends on the nature of the incident and it depends what land it is. For example, if it is Commonwealth land then it's the relevant Commonwealth agency.
Senator THORPE: Crown land? Stolen land?
Ms Lynch: For example, if it's a site that's currently leased by the Department of Defence then the Department of Defence will take the lead role in terms of any remediation occurring on the site. If it's not a Commonwealth leased site--
Senator THORPE: I have questions for all the other departments so this one's relevant to you. I am aware of that.
Mr Knudson: It might be helpful to walk through what our responsibilities are as a portfolio.
Ms Lynch: Sure. In terms of what DCCEEW takes responsibility for and the role that we play helping to convene and coordinate and support colleagues across the Commonwealth, we aim to help to implement a nationally consistent approach as much as possible. We manage the intergovernmental agreement on a national framework for responding to PFAS. that agreement outlines principles and protocols for well-coordinated and timely responses from all responsible agencies. In the instance that your--
Senator THORPE: Just to cut there, because I know I'm going to get caught up on time. My question was when did the department last review the evidence around the health impacts of PFAS?
Ms Burgess: When it comes to looking at the potential health impacts, that is a responsibility of the Department of Health and Aged Care. They take forward the work on commissioning and overseeing research into the potential health effects, particularly around long-term exposure to PFAS, but then also taking that information and evidence to develop health based guidance and values to support the health risk assessments.
Senator THORPE: Okay. So, basically handballing it everywhere else. This department doesn't do a review on PFAS?
Ms Burgess: We work closely with our colleagues in the department of health as well as infrastructure and defence. Our key role is really about drawing together the relevant agencies, including jurisdictions, and facilitating those relationships and conversations. We also provide advice, technical support and guidance to Commonwealth entities.
Senator THORPE: You don't do a review?
Ms Burgess: Not of the health impacts.
Mr Knudson: We do a review with respect to the environmental impacts, not the health impacts.
Senator THORPE: On PFAS?
Mr Knudson: On PFAS. We do that coordination role, and then we are the experts with respect to the environmental impacts.
Senator THORPE: Excuse me for being a black person, a First Nations person, in this country, because we don't separate it. We don't separate environment from health. It's all one. That's a colonial interruption that we've had in this country, so excuse me for that—maybe. What's your department's review of PFAS saying?
Ms Lynch: At the moment, the department is also taking the lead on the implementation of the industrial chemicals environmental management standard, which essentially takes the form of a register. We are currently assessing that, so we've looked at the listing of a number of PFAS chemicals. I should clarify, for the purpose of the record here, that there are over 4,700 different PFAS chemicals that all fall into that family. We have identified some of the worst offenders and we're going through the process of scheduling them in this new industrial chemicals register. What that will do is it will basically allocate them to a part of the register according
to their environmental risk. If they go onto one of the higher ends of the schedule, then it will allow consistent regulation across the country, not just by the Commonwealth but also by all the states and territories who are implementing this industrial chemicals scheme with us, to, for example, ban or severely restrict the use of these chemicals. If they go onto a lower schedule, there might be other conditions—for example, that they can be used but only in certain circumstances, and state and territory EPAs might provide a licence for their use in some situations. At the moment, there are some that Ms Burgess might want to speak to in terms of the PFAS chemicals that we're currently consulting on and expect to register in that process this year.
Ms Burgess: As Ms Lynch mentioned, PFAS is a group of over 4,700 chemicals. Most are safe; however, there are those that are severely harmful. Those are typically listed on the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The department is proposing to schedule all of the Stockholm listed persistent organic pollutants—these include some of the more commonly known ones, such as PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS—by the end of this calendar year. We are proposing to consult on scheduling decisions very shortly and looking at proposing that those particular three PFAS be considered in either schedule 6 or schedule 7, which means they can potentially be banned or only used in very limited circumstances.
Senator THORPE: Why hasn't the government banned PFAS? They're the ones that are killing people. We know they're in our rain and in the water that we're drinking. We're all drinking PFAS, right?
Ms Burgess: The purpose of the industrial chemicals environmental management standard is to set those national standards for the regulation, which includes banning. The scheduling decisions are then implemented by all jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth is in the process of developing legislation to give effect to that.
Senator THORPE: Okay. Thank you.
Mr Knudson: I just want to underscore that the intention that was mentioned by Ms Burgess is that we will be listing these, or we expect to, as being harmful to the environment at the end of this year under that schedule, which then could lead to them being banned in the country. We're very much working towards that. I just wanted to say that it's not on the never-never. It is within this calendar year that we're working towards this.
Senator THORPE: People are dying now and people are sick with cancers now, so the longer you wait the more lives you're going to lose as a result of being poisoned.
Mr Knudson: That's why these will be some of the first chemicals listed under this new register.
Senator THORPE: I appreciate that. What are the best methods for cleaning up PFAS from the environment, including filtering it out of our drinking water?
Ms Burgess: It is very difficult to say that one method will suit all circumstances. It will, of course, depend on the nature of the contamination, how it got there, the type—which particular PFAS—and those sorts of things. It really is very site specific. The department does provide that advice, particularly to Commonwealth entities, to support that through frameworks such as—forgive me if I get it slightly wrong—the Australian contaminated sites national environment protection measure. Although that does not specifically refer to PFAS, it does provide guidance on how to address contamination matters. So bringing that together can then inform the best way to go forward.
Senator THORPE: Should Australian people listening right now be concerned that PFAS is in our water and poisoning us with every glass of water we drink?
Ms Burgess: Again, this comes back to PFAS as a very broad range of chemicals. As I mentioned, most are safe. It is when those that are not, such as those listed on the Stockholm Convention—yes, we should be careful and act when those chemicals are identified. This is again referring back to where IChEMS not only has the potential to place controls on introducing those chemicals into the supply chains but also around their safe handling, use and disposal. An example is that some things can be dangerous if handled poorly, in certain circumstances, but if handled carefully and appropriately, in the right circumstances, then the risk is reduced.
Senator THORPE: It's like handling a bomb: you've got to handle that carefully, otherwise it's going to kill everyone, right? So PFAS is a bit like that: we've got to handle it carefully, otherwise it's going to kill everyone too—is that kind of it?
Ms Burgess: This is where the national standards go into play, in providing that advice.
Mr Knudson: I need to emphasise, Senator, again, the IChEMS, what we're responsible for, is about the potential harm to the environment. In terms of your questions about, and concern about, the impact on humans, the experts on that issue will be the Department of Health and Aged Care. My information on PFAS and its health impacts is just too out-of-date for me to give you great assurances. But previously—and this is going back a few
years—health departments internationally had not concluded on the impact on human health. We have concluded on the impact on the environment, and that's why we're taking this action. I wanted to clarify that.
Senator THORPE: So it hurts the environment.
Mr Knudson: Absolutely.
Senator THORPE: But maybe it doesn't hurt—it's not out there that it hurts people--
Mr Knudson: It's not concluded, is a fair way of saying it.
Senator THORPE: even though we're drinking the water from the environment.
Mr Knudson: But it's not clear what impact that has on humans at this point. Again, I would encourage you to talk to the Department of Health and Aged Care. They are the authority and experts on that.
Senator THORPE: I will be, tomorrow. I have one more question left with my time. Are you aware of the research last year from Stockholm University that found that rainwater—in most locations on earth—contains levels of PFAS that greatly exceed safety levels? I have articles, which I'm happy to table, on that—that we're drinking poisonous water every day. Do you want to comment?
Ms Lynch: Yes, the department is aware of that research that was released and has also had discussions with other Commonwealth agencies in relation to that. It's one of the matters that continues to be raised in our ongoing consultation with industry and also with state and territory governments. One thing I can say categorically is that there is no sense that we are doing nothing in relation to PFAS contamination. It remains a very high-concern series or group of chemicals, and something there's a huge amount of interest in trying to resolve. That study draws out one of the main complexities, which is that some PFASs are pervasive in the environment. They don't break down and they have a long impact. As a result, they can find their way into different food chains, and that is one of the characteristics that makes them a dangerous chemical and something that has led to them being listed on the Stockholm Convention.
Senator THORPE: Thank you so much. I'll put the rest on notice.
Chair:
- Senator Grogan
- Mr Dean Knudson, Deputy Secretary
- Ms Kate Lynch, Division Head
- Ms Rachel Burgess, Branch Head, Waste Policy and Planning
- Senator Lydia Thorpe
CHAIR: Senator Thorpe?
Senator THORPE: I've got some questions on PFAS. When did the department last review the evidence around the health impacts of PFAS?
Ms Lynch: I'll endeavour to enter that question for you, but I'll also invite my colleague, Ms Burgess, up to the table.
Senator THORPE: Thank you.
Ms Lynch: I'll start responding to your question by outlining that this department works really closely with colleagues across the rest of the APS. Typically, when it comes to the health impacts of PFAS that's a matter that the department of health is responsible for.
Senator THORPE: You've got to clean it up, though? Are you responsible for cleaning it up?
Ms Lynch: It depends on the nature of the incident and it depends what land it is. For example, if it is Commonwealth land then it's the relevant Commonwealth agency.
Senator THORPE: Crown land? Stolen land?
Ms Lynch: For example, if it's a site that's currently leased by the Department of Defence then the Department of Defence will take the lead role in terms of any remediation occurring on the site. If it's not a Commonwealth leased site--
Senator THORPE: I have questions for all the other departments so this one's relevant to you. I am aware of that.
Mr Knudson: It might be helpful to walk through what our responsibilities are as a portfolio.
Ms Lynch: Sure. In terms of what DCCEEW takes responsibility for and the role that we play helping to convene and coordinate and support colleagues across the Commonwealth, we aim to help to implement a nationally consistent approach as much as possible. We manage the intergovernmental agreement on a national framework for responding to PFAS. that agreement outlines principles and protocols for well-coordinated and timely responses from all responsible agencies. In the instance that your--
Senator THORPE: Just to cut there, because I know I'm going to get caught up on time. My question was when did the department last review the evidence around the health impacts of PFAS?
Ms Burgess: When it comes to looking at the potential health impacts, that is a responsibility of the Department of Health and Aged Care. They take forward the work on commissioning and overseeing research into the potential health effects, particularly around long-term exposure to PFAS, but then also taking that information and evidence to develop health based guidance and values to support the health risk assessments.
Senator THORPE: Okay. So, basically handballing it everywhere else. This department doesn't do a review on PFAS?
Ms Burgess: We work closely with our colleagues in the department of health as well as infrastructure and defence. Our key role is really about drawing together the relevant agencies, including jurisdictions, and facilitating those relationships and conversations. We also provide advice, technical support and guidance to Commonwealth entities.
Senator THORPE: You don't do a review?
Ms Burgess: Not of the health impacts.
Mr Knudson: We do a review with respect to the environmental impacts, not the health impacts.
Senator THORPE: On PFAS?
Mr Knudson: On PFAS. We do that coordination role, and then we are the experts with respect to the environmental impacts.
Senator THORPE: Excuse me for being a black person, a First Nations person, in this country, because we don't separate it. We don't separate environment from health. It's all one. That's a colonial interruption that we've had in this country, so excuse me for that—maybe. What's your department's review of PFAS saying?
Ms Lynch: At the moment, the department is also taking the lead on the implementation of the industrial chemicals environmental management standard, which essentially takes the form of a register. We are currently assessing that, so we've looked at the listing of a number of PFAS chemicals. I should clarify, for the purpose of the record here, that there are over 4,700 different PFAS chemicals that all fall into that family. We have identified some of the worst offenders and we're going through the process of scheduling them in this new industrial chemicals register. What that will do is it will basically allocate them to a part of the register according
to their environmental risk. If they go onto one of the higher ends of the schedule, then it will allow consistent regulation across the country, not just by the Commonwealth but also by all the states and territories who are implementing this industrial chemicals scheme with us, to, for example, ban or severely restrict the use of these chemicals. If they go onto a lower schedule, there might be other conditions—for example, that they can be used but only in certain circumstances, and state and territory EPAs might provide a licence for their use in some situations. At the moment, there are some that Ms Burgess might want to speak to in terms of the PFAS chemicals that we're currently consulting on and expect to register in that process this year.
Ms Burgess: As Ms Lynch mentioned, PFAS is a group of over 4,700 chemicals. Most are safe; however, there are those that are severely harmful. Those are typically listed on the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The department is proposing to schedule all of the Stockholm listed persistent organic pollutants—these include some of the more commonly known ones, such as PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS—by the end of this calendar year. We are proposing to consult on scheduling decisions very shortly and looking at proposing that those particular three PFAS be considered in either schedule 6 or schedule 7, which means they can potentially be banned or only used in very limited circumstances.
Senator THORPE: Why hasn't the government banned PFAS? They're the ones that are killing people. We know they're in our rain and in the water that we're drinking. We're all drinking PFAS, right?
Ms Burgess: The purpose of the industrial chemicals environmental management standard is to set those national standards for the regulation, which includes banning. The scheduling decisions are then implemented by all jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth is in the process of developing legislation to give effect to that.
Senator THORPE: Okay. Thank you.
Mr Knudson: I just want to underscore that the intention that was mentioned by Ms Burgess is that we will be listing these, or we expect to, as being harmful to the environment at the end of this year under that schedule, which then could lead to them being banned in the country. We're very much working towards that. I just wanted to say that it's not on the never-never. It is within this calendar year that we're working towards this.
Senator THORPE: People are dying now and people are sick with cancers now, so the longer you wait the more lives you're going to lose as a result of being poisoned.
Mr Knudson: That's why these will be some of the first chemicals listed under this new register.
Senator THORPE: I appreciate that. What are the best methods for cleaning up PFAS from the environment, including filtering it out of our drinking water?
Ms Burgess: It is very difficult to say that one method will suit all circumstances. It will, of course, depend on the nature of the contamination, how it got there, the type—which particular PFAS—and those sorts of things. It really is very site specific. The department does provide that advice, particularly to Commonwealth entities, to support that through frameworks such as—forgive me if I get it slightly wrong—the Australian contaminated sites national environment protection measure. Although that does not specifically refer to PFAS, it does provide guidance on how to address contamination matters. So bringing that together can then inform the best way to go forward.
Senator THORPE: Should Australian people listening right now be concerned that PFAS is in our water and poisoning us with every glass of water we drink?
Ms Burgess: Again, this comes back to PFAS as a very broad range of chemicals. As I mentioned, most are safe. It is when those that are not, such as those listed on the Stockholm Convention—yes, we should be careful and act when those chemicals are identified. This is again referring back to where IChEMS not only has the potential to place controls on introducing those chemicals into the supply chains but also around their safe handling, use and disposal. An example is that some things can be dangerous if handled poorly, in certain circumstances, but if handled carefully and appropriately, in the right circumstances, then the risk is reduced.
Senator THORPE: It's like handling a bomb: you've got to handle that carefully, otherwise it's going to kill everyone, right? So PFAS is a bit like that: we've got to handle it carefully, otherwise it's going to kill everyone too—is that kind of it?
Ms Burgess: This is where the national standards go into play, in providing that advice.
Mr Knudson: I need to emphasise, Senator, again, the IChEMS, what we're responsible for, is about the potential harm to the environment. In terms of your questions about, and concern about, the impact on humans, the experts on that issue will be the Department of Health and Aged Care. My information on PFAS and its health impacts is just too out-of-date for me to give you great assurances. But previously—and this is going back a few
years—health departments internationally had not concluded on the impact on human health. We have concluded on the impact on the environment, and that's why we're taking this action. I wanted to clarify that.
Senator THORPE: So it hurts the environment.
Mr Knudson: Absolutely.
Senator THORPE: But maybe it doesn't hurt—it's not out there that it hurts people--
Mr Knudson: It's not concluded, is a fair way of saying it.
Senator THORPE: even though we're drinking the water from the environment.
Mr Knudson: But it's not clear what impact that has on humans at this point. Again, I would encourage you to talk to the Department of Health and Aged Care. They are the authority and experts on that.
Senator THORPE: I will be, tomorrow. I have one more question left with my time. Are you aware of the research last year from Stockholm University that found that rainwater—in most locations on earth—contains levels of PFAS that greatly exceed safety levels? I have articles, which I'm happy to table, on that—that we're drinking poisonous water every day. Do you want to comment?
Ms Lynch: Yes, the department is aware of that research that was released and has also had discussions with other Commonwealth agencies in relation to that. It's one of the matters that continues to be raised in our ongoing consultation with industry and also with state and territory governments. One thing I can say categorically is that there is no sense that we are doing nothing in relation to PFAS contamination. It remains a very high-concern series or group of chemicals, and something there's a huge amount of interest in trying to resolve. That study draws out one of the main complexities, which is that some PFASs are pervasive in the environment. They don't break down and they have a long impact. As a result, they can find their way into different food chains, and that is one of the characteristics that makes them a dangerous chemical and something that has led to them being listed on the Stockholm Convention.
Senator THORPE: Thank you so much. I'll put the rest on notice.
|
Page created 21 June 2023
|
Connect with CoM and like Gippsland PFAS Facebook for news updates.
|