A Concerned Scientist @BE@qoto.org

@Nonya_Bidniss

Yeah, that's why if I were really curious, I'd be looking for the breakdown chemical signatures.

But, you can assume you have PFAs, micro and nanoplastics, etc. in your tap water and act accordingly. They're ubiquitous.

@Nonya_Bidniss

If you felt like getting deep into the science of plastics breakdown and possible indicator chemicals, this is the paper:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00178

@Nonya_Bidniss

Looks like the fifth is mostly PFAs along with Lithium. I should have linked you to all 5, and not just the most recent. The fourth is here and ended in 2021:

https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/fourth-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule

You might have some luck under the alcohols. 1-butanol, for instance, is used in many plastics and may indicate breakdown of plastics.

If you're looking out for something like "Here's the number of microplastics in x volume of water" then I don't think that number exists for municipal water to date. The EPA's in the early days of coming up with a standard test for that:

https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/assessing-methods-measuring-microplastics-water

As of 2019 the WHO only found 2 studies on microplastic concentrations in tap water to date:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135419301794

If they take up the same pace that they did for PFAs then local utilities won't be giving a microplastics concentration number for another decade, at least.

@Nonya_Bidniss

Most states and local utilities haven't been. The new PFA rules came from the EPA's monitoring under UCMR(Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule) for example, and there's a chance they have data on your water here:

https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/fifth-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-data-finder#data-finder

@Infoseepage @deewani @Nonya_Bidniss @HelenBranswell

I don't disagree at all that in a situation like this, it's less than ideal. However, it's not just for H5N1 that they have to have a trained sample collector and/or veterinarian.

I pulled up a few of the labs and their submission details. They all require veterinarians, premises ID's, etc. for *all* types of tests of milk.

Here's a representative one that's not hard to read:

http://vdl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/PriceList/TestForms/vdl-milk-submission-form.pdf

@Infoseepage @deewani @Nonya_Bidniss @HelenBranswell

Alright, I caved and looked it up. The COC requires a Veterinary license number to run "NAHLN-approved PCR testing: FluA matrix, H5"

"Samples are to be collected by an accredited veterinarian, or a state licensed veterinarian, or a sample collector approved by the appropriate state animal health official. Designated individuals on production sites can be trained to collect milk samples and nasal swab samples for diagnostic
testing."

"Samples must be collected under the supervision of a licensed or accredited veterinarian or as
determined by the respective State Animal Health Official."

While I don't see anything about the farm needing to approve, the COC does require a "PREMISES ID" which I assume you wouldn't know off hand.

It also requires the "Animal ID", species, breed, sex and age of the cow.

Running it without all of that info could, conceivably, risk that lab's accreditation. I wouldn't doubt that there might be a lab willing to do it, but, that would require a reported calling their way through all 58 trying to find someone willing.

@Infoseepage @deewani @Nonya_Bidniss @HelenBranswell

Or, pick up the phone and say, "Hey, I'm driving down to Texas and I'd like to drop off some raw milk samples with you at the end of the day for testing" and not waste your time.

Not that you can't walk in, but, most labs get most of their samples in the mail anyway. They'd probably even give you a proper sample bottle, with the proper stabilizing agents, or whatever the SOP requires, so that you can collect and mail it to them.

@Infoseepage @deewani @Nonya_Bidniss @HelenBranswell

A quick look into it shows that there's 58 labs approved to do the test, they all have phone numbers and mailing addresses listed. There's really no reason for NPR to wander into one with a sample without checking ahead of time. Generally there's SOPs that need to be followed and COCs that need to be filled out. That's a poor way to go about it, honestly. No one wants to lose their accreditation over a rando wandering in with an unknown sample that probably wasn't even collected properly.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/labs/nahln/approved-labs/iav-a

In EPA certified water testing, for example, if someone walked into a lab with a sample you couldn't test it. You'd have to give them a sheet that explained how to properly collect the sample and ask them to come back after they did it properly and signed off on a COC that they did so. Testing it without that could lead to losing your accreditation.

@andymoose

The bill says that they're only changing the exemptions:

"AN ACT TO REPEAL THE PHYSICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OTHERS EXEMPTION TO CERTAIN LAWS PROHIBITING WEARING MASKS; TO ENHANCE PUNISHMENT IF THE DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A MASK OR OTHER CLOTHING OR DEVICE TO CONCEAL OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE DEFENDANT'S IDENTITY"

Therefore I'm assuming no last minute attempts to change the law itself, which states:

"No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State."

and

"No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina."

I'd say anything that doesn't "conceal the identity of the wearer" is fair game.

A timely update from the ACLU on the subject:

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/states-dust-off-obscure-anti-mask-laws-to-target-pro-palestine-protesters

I think it's worthy of noting here that Virginia, for example, has a similar law to North Carolina, but, the health exemption requires carrying around a doctor's note. Democrats in the North Carolina senate reportedly offered this solution to Republicans who rejected it.

There's been some wishy-washy discussion around this about how they're "not really" trying to ban masks for health, it's just being caught up in the bill. Don't buy that. They are very specifically rejecting masks for health related reasons.