We tend to take that for granted. You turn on the faucet, fill your cup with water, and trust that it is safe to drink.
But for some neighbors in Merrimack, New Hampshire, this everyday act is a luxury they haven’t had in their homes in a decade.
In 2016, Saint-Gobain reported that toxic PFAS were detected in the tap water of its textile mill in Merrimack. A state investigation found that the source of the contamination was the plant’s own operations, which spewed contamination into the air and seeped into local wells and the city’s drinking water supply.
PFAS is a type of chemical used in many manufacturing industries. There are thousands of different types, and scientists have linked some types to health concerns such as some cancers, high cholesterol, and reduced fertility. These are sometimes referred to as “eternal chemicals” because they remain in the environment and in the body for years.
The chemicals, officially called perfluorinated and polyfluorinated substances, are widespread. In the United States, they are present in the blood of the majority of people and in many water systems. As WBUR environmental correspondent Barbara Moran reported, “They are so pervasive that they might even be called ‘ubiquitous chemicals.'”
(Learn more about WBUR’s report on PFAS and the steps Massachusetts officials have taken to limit the chemicals in drinking water.)
In Merrimack, PFAS levels were found to be so severe that some residents still rely on bottled water 10 years later. Their fight for answers is the subject of New Hampshire Public Radio’s new podcast “Safe to Drink.” If you want something with the tension of a real crime and the science of a documentary, this is your next listen.
The podcast begins several years after the contamination, after Saint-Gobain closed its Merrimack plant, when city kids were accustomed to brushing their teeth with bottled water and PFAS were a part of their daily lives.
I spoke to “Safe to Drink” host and lead reporter Mara Hoplamazian about the podcast and why this story matters today, far beyond Merrimack.
Ben Pearce and his family live in Londonlea, New Hampshire, and were affected by the Saint-Gobain contamination. His children grew up brushing their teeth with bottled water. (Raquel C. Zaldivar/New England News Collaborative)
Below are some excerpts from our conversation. Edited for length and clarity.
So, Mara, please take us to Merrimack. I did some field reports. How did the residents view the past 10 years?
“So I think a lot of Merrimack residents feel, in some ways, this is old news. They’ve been dealing with this issue for a long time.
“Alongside that, there is a deep sense of dissatisfaction, especially among people who, 10 years later, still don’t have access to tap water, have experienced major long-term life changes, and it shows no signs of going away. And they don’t have a timeline for when to improve the water in their homes.”
There was also an outbreak of disease in the community you were covering. Can you explain the situation?
“So I talked to a woman named Wendy Thomas. She’s a state representative in Merrimack and she lives in this area where a lot of her neighbors have cancer. She took me and my producer Jason Moon for a walk down the street and basically pointed out, ‘In this house, the father has this type of cancer. In this house, the son has this type of cancer, and the father has this type of cancer.’
“And we can’t say that all of these illnesses were caused by water pollution. That’s not how epidemiological studies work. I think that’s really frustrating for people who are trying to understand why they’re sick and why their whole community is sick. But research from Dartmouth College shows that Merrimack does indeed have higher rates of kidney cancer than other areas of New Hampshire.”
Well, there is tension in this community about what science can offer people. Obviously, this is the title of the podcast, but can you elaborate on why it’s so difficult to define what level of PFAS is “safe to drink”?
“This is a really complex question. There are several reasons why. One is that the companies producing these chemicals, primarily DuPont and 3M, were researching the health effects of the chemicals, but they weren’t sharing that research with the federal government. So the Environmental Protection Agency didn’t have oversight of PFAS until long after they started being manufactured.”
“Another reason is that the companies that produce these chemicals have influence over how they are studied.
“The third reason is that regulation takes a very long time. The EPA has to have a strong defense of why it’s regulating a chemical. They have to have a ton of science on their side to basically make sure it holds up in court. If they decide the science isn’t good enough, companies can sue the EPA.”
“We’ve created a situation where, although there is evidence that these chemicals are harmful to human health, there is not enough evidence for EPA regulators to say, ‘We need to remove these from drinking water.'”
(Editor’s note: In 2024, the EPA took action to restrict several PFAS chemicals in drinking water due to their potential to harm human health. The Trump administration has delayed those restrictions for two chemicals and is reviewing others.)
What if you don’t know what’s in your water and want to know?
“The most important thing to know is that PFAS chemicals have no taste, odor, or color. Therefore, the only way to know if they are in your water is to get tested. A 2023 study by the U.S. Geological Survey found that at least 45% of drinking water samples collected in the United States contained PFAS.”
“Once you know the concentration of PFAS in your water, there are tools from the CDC that can help you estimate the concentration of PFAS in your blood.”
(Editor’s note: PFAS are found in many consumer products beyond drinking water. Click here for expert tips on how to reduce your exposure.)
I know your report was very focused on New Hampshire, but what lessons have you learned about the state of water at the local and national level?
“I’ve talked to people all over the country. These chemicals are everywhere.
“While I was reporting on this story, what struck me most was that in each new community where PFAS were discovered, it seemed as if it was happening for the first time in history.
“When this happened in Merrimack in 2016, regulators told the public, ‘These are emerging contaminants. We don’t know much about them.’ And this was decades after they were created and started being studied by the companies that were creating them.
“I was so shocked that communities in different states heard that and said, ‘Look, something’s wrong here, I don’t think we should be drinking PFAS, and I want to urge the leaders in my town and state to regulate PFAS.'”
“And to me, this shows an example of people seeing their leaders not doing enough to protect their health and deciding to intervene themselves. This is an example of a truly resilient community.”
