A Common 'Forever Chemical' Has Just Been Linked to Liver Cancer in Humans

A new study shows that a common chemical called PFOS has been linked to cancer in humans.

After the turn of the century, PFOS was phased out due to concerns over its toxicity and environmental impact.

Environmental levels of this and closely related substances remain alarmingly high around the globe, despite the fact that it didn't earn its label of'forever chemical'for nothing.

A study by researchers from the University of Southern California and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in the US has shown an association between PFOS and the development of a deadly form of cancer.

There are more than four out of five cases ofHCC in the world. It has a five-year survival rate of less than 20% and is considered to be one of the most deadly of cancers.

Although the incidence ofHCC has declined over the past decade in the wake of dropping hepatitis infections, a rise in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease could confound efforts to keep cases down.

We might add contaminated drinking water to the list of risk factors.

The long-chains of synthetic compounds known as perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are now widely recognized as particularly nasty saboteurs of our body.

Over the last few years, there have been a number of bans of PFAS in countries around the world.

Along with substances like perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), and perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), PFAS and PFOS take their time breaking down in the environment.

Today's population is exposed to whatever was being dumped into waterways decades ago despite efforts to slowly wind down their production and replace their use in anything from cosmetics to fabric protection. Will for a while.

With more than 98 percent of the adult US population having detectable concentrations of these compounds in their blood, researchers are now looking at what might be considered a'safe' level ofContamination.

There have been animal studies that show a link between PFAS and damage to the body. There was a need for a population-scale analysis of exposure and risk of ill health.

Veronica Wendy Setiawan, a cancer epidemiologist from the University of Southern California, says that part of the reason for the lack of human studies is due to the need for the right samples.

It takes time for cancer to develop if you don't have samples from the environment.

The researchers analyzed the blood taken from 50 people who were diagnosed with non-viralHCC.

They were compared with a sample of blood taken from 50 volunteers.

The strongest evidence yet that we're capable of absorbing dangerous levels of these notorious substances is provided by those in the top 10 percent of blood-PFOS levels.

The study fills an important gap in our understanding of the consequences of exposure to these chemicals.

Knowing where we can draw the line on a safe level of exposure will go a long way to refining regulations and supporting measures on monitoring environmental levels.

Future generations will be better off if we can learn how bad chemicals are before they become a problem.

The research was published in a journal.