This discussion is from an interview in September, 2018 with the Labor Federal member for Paterson Meryl Swanson. In this episode I ask her why Labor voted no to a Senate motion by NSW Senator Brian Burston (United Australia Party) for compensation for residents affected by PFAS. We also discuss Meryl Swanson's thoughts on many other issues connected to PFAS, including livestock; Defence; Food; PFAS Taskforce; Expert Health Panel; and of course her thoughts about the way the contamination was first revealed to residents in her electorate. These residents have been affected by contamination from the RAAF Base Williamtown.

<div>This discussion is from an interview in September, 2018 with the Labor Federal member for Paterson Meryl Swanson. In this episode I ask her why Labor voted no to a Senate motion by NSW Senator Brian Burston (United Australia Party) for compensation for residents affected by PFAS. We also discuss Meryl Swanson's thoughts on many other issues connected to PFAS, including livestock; Defence; Food; PFAS Taskforce; Expert Health Panel; and of course her thoughts about the way the contamination was first revealed to residents in her electorate. These residents have been affected by contamination from the RAAF Base Williamtown.</div>

Talking PFAS contamination with those who live on or near it; with a wide range of experts who study PFAS and its health effects; with those who have worked with this toxic chemical; with those who are trying to remove it from the environment & people, and with the politicians and Government who have the power to fix this problem

PFAS contamination is an Australian & Global Issue affecting people, water, food-chain and our environment

TalkingPFAS

This discussion is from an interview in September, 2018 with the Labor Federal member for Paterson Meryl Swanson. In this episode I ask...

Ep 7 - "They want the chemical banned. They want it to stop coming off the base. They want options." Meryl Swanson, Federal (Labor) Member for Paterson

 

 

Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast and if you are joining me for the first time a very big welcome to you.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.

Last episode I brought you a discussion with Boston Attorney John Gardella from CMBG3 Law.  This was a very informative chat about some PFAS developments in the US, and changes to the US EPA under Trump administration.   Here is a little of what John had to say from Episode 48 where he is talking a change to the environmental justice law in the US.

“Under the Biden Administration there was a large initiative for something we call environmental justice, which is essentially that when enacting environmental laws or pursuing sites to clean up that consideration should be made to historically poorer communities and socioeconomic backgrounds, communities where there has been historically a lot of concentration pollution because they have been in an industrial area for example.  And the environmental justice program in the US has been eliminated under the EPA, under the new Trump Administration.”

There is a lot of key information in that discussion with John Gardella and I encourage you to take a listen.  I included that little portion from the last episode because in today’s discussion my guest and I will be talking about costs of cleaning up PFAS, and the need to reduce PFAS production. 

My guest today is Alison Ling.  She is an Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering and works in the Department of Civil Engineering, at the University of St. Thomas, at St Paul in Minnesota.  Today we will be discussing a couple of her papers. 

Here is a little preview from our discussion:

“When I first ran those calculations it comes out as millions of dollars per kg of PFAS that you remove from the environment and that is millions of dollars whether it is from wastewater effluent, drinking water, wastewater biosolids, soils.  It is almost across the board millions of dollars per kilogram and I was just blown away by those numbers.  That was way more than I was expecting.  But the thought exercise I went through for this paper is if we keep making and emitting PFAS at the rate that we are emitting them right now, which is on the order of millions of tonnes per year, how much would it cost to remove them at the same rate? And so, if you have millions of tonnes of PFAS per year and it costs millions of dollars per kilogram of PFAS to remove it, if you multiply those numbers you get a number that is similar to or greater than the global GDP.”  This is estimated to be around $106 trillion dollars.

I hope you enjoyed today’s discussion, I certainly did.  If you have found value in the Talking PFAS podcast I would be really grateful if you would review and share the podcast so others can find it.  Also please subscribe so you don’t miss an episode. 

I will be back with one more feature episode before the end of the year.  I will also be brining you a new product Talking PFAS News which will be a shorter episode 10-15 minutes about PFAS news in Australia and globally.  I am now accepting expressions of interest from sponsors for the Talking PFAS feature and news episodes.  This is open to remediation companies that are cleaning up PFAS and companies that have removed PFAS chemicals from their manufacturing processes and would like the public to know.

Please note terms and conditions apply to all sponsorships and I will maintain full editorial control over the content of the episodes.   Thank you to Pete Murphy and EPOC Enviro in Australia for being the first Talking PFAS podcast sponsor.  You can email me at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com with PFAS information or sponsorship enquiries.

Thank you again for listening see you next time.

LINKS mentioned in today’s episode.

“Estimated Scale of Costs to Remove PFAS from the Environment at current emission rates.”  

Main webpage not open access/publicly available: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724007861. 

The full "pre-print" which has the same content is available through the SSRN here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4718530

“Is Removal and destruction of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances from wastewater effluent affordable.”

This one is open access, available here:  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wer.10975

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2025/01/14/pfas-the-astronomical-cost-of-depolluting-europe_6737022_8.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/14/cost-clean-up-toxic-pfas-pollution-forever-chemicals

“The Global Threat from the Irreversible Accumulation of Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA) – ACS Publications” Hans Peter H. Arp, Andrea Gredelj, Juliane Gluge, Martin Scheringer, and Ian T. Cousins

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c06189

 

 

 

 

 

&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast and if you are joining me for the first time a very big welcome to you.&nbsp; I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.
Last episode I brought you a discussion with Boston Attorney John Gardella from CMBG3 Law.&nbsp; This was a very informative chat about some PFAS developments in the US, and changes to the US EPA under Trump administration.&nbsp;&nbsp; Here is a little of what John had to say from Episode 48 where he is talking a change to the environmental justice law in the US.
&ldquo;Under the Biden Administration there was a large initiative for something we call environmental justice, which is essentially that when enacting environmental laws or pursuing sites to clean up that consideration should be made to historically poorer communities and socioeconomic backgrounds, communities where there has been historically a lot of concentration pollution because they have been in an industrial area for example.&nbsp; And the environmental justice program in the US has been eliminated under the EPA, under the new Trump Administration.&rdquo;
There is a lot of key information in that discussion with John Gardella and I encourage you to take a listen.&nbsp; I included that little portion from the last episode because in today&rsquo;s discussion my guest and I will be talking about costs of cleaning up PFAS, and the need to reduce PFAS production.&nbsp;
My guest today is Alison Ling.&nbsp; She is an Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering and works in the Department of Civil Engineering, at the University of St. Thomas, at St Paul in Minnesota.&nbsp; Today we will be discussing a couple of her papers.&nbsp;
Here is a little preview from our discussion:
&ldquo;When I first ran those calculations it comes out as millions of dollars per kg of PFAS that you remove from the environment and that is millions of dollars whether it is from wastewater effluent, drinking water, wastewater biosolids, soils.&nbsp; It is almost across the board millions of dollars per kilogram and I was just blown away by those numbers.&nbsp; That was way more than I was expecting.&nbsp; But the thought exercise I went through for this paper is if we keep making and emitting PFAS at the rate that we are emitting them right now, which is on the order of millions of tonnes per year, how much would it cost to remove them at the same rate? And so, if you have millions of tonnes of PFAS per year and it costs millions of dollars per kilogram of PFAS to remove it, if you multiply those numbers you get a number that is similar to or greater than the global GDP.&rdquo;&nbsp; This is estimated to be around $106 trillion dollars.
I hope you enjoyed today&rsquo;s discussion, I certainly did.&nbsp; If you have found value in the Talking PFAS podcast I would be really grateful if you would review and share the podcast so others can find it.&nbsp; Also please subscribe so you don&rsquo;t miss an episode.&nbsp;
I will be back with one more feature episode before the end of the year.&nbsp; I will also be brining you a new product Talking PFAS News which will be a shorter episode 10-15 minutes about PFAS news in Australia and globally.&nbsp; I am now accepting expressions of interest from sponsors for the Talking PFAS feature and news episodes.&nbsp; This is open to remediation companies that are cleaning up PFAS and companies that have removed PFAS chemicals from their manufacturing processes and would like the public to know.
Please note terms and conditions apply to all sponsorships and I will maintain full editorial control over the content of the episodes.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thank you to Pete Murphy and EPOC Enviro in Australia for being the first Talking PFAS podcast sponsor.&nbsp; You can email me at <a href="mailto:TalkingPFAS@gmail.com">TalkingPFAS@gmail.com</a> with PFAS information or sponsorship enquiries.
Thank you again for listening see you next time.
LINKS mentioned in today&rsquo;s episode.
&ldquo;Estimated Scale of Costs to Remove PFAS from the Environment at current emission rates.&rdquo; &nbsp;
Main webpage not open access/publicly available:&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724007861">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724007861</a>.&nbsp;
The full "pre-print" which has the same content is available through the SSRN here:&nbsp;<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4718530">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4718530</a>
&ldquo;Is Removal and destruction of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances from wastewater effluent affordable.&rdquo;
This one is open access, available here:&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wer.10975">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wer.10975</a>
<a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2025/01/14/pfas-the-astronomical-cost-of-depolluting-europe_6737022_8.html">https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2025/01/14/pfas-the-astronomical-cost-of-depolluting-europe_6737022_8.html</a>
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/14/cost-clean-up-toxic-pfas-pollution-forever-chemicals">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/14/cost-clean-up-toxic-pfas-pollution-forever-chemicals</a>
&ldquo;The Global Threat from the Irreversible Accumulation of Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA) &ndash; ACS Publications&rdquo; Hans Peter H. Arp, Andrea Gredelj, Juliane Gluge, Martin Scheringer, and Ian T. Cousins
<a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c06189">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c06189</a>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Ep 49 Alison Ling (Ali) University of St Thomas, St Paul, Minnesota Costs of removing PFAS 

Welcome back to the Talking PFAS podcast.  If you are joining me for the first time a very big welcome to you.   I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.

Last week I brought you a discussion with Peter Murphy, the Managing Director of EPOC Enviro.  This Australian company recently managed to secure patents in Australia and the US for their SAFF technology.  I encourage you to have a listen to that episode to learn more about the SAFF suite of products using foam fractionation to remove PFAS.  And I would like to also take this opportunity to thank EPOC Enviro for sponsoring today’s episode of Talking PFAS podcast.  You will hear a short announcement from Pete about midway through today’s episode.  And at the end of today’s episode there will be a short announcement about how you can get involved with sponsorship for Talking PFAS podcast and you can read about it of course in the show notes.  

Today’s guest is a very welcome return guest to the Talking PFAS podcast.  It is Environmental Lawyer, John Gardella, Boston Attorney, from CMBG3 Law in the United States.  John had the honour of being the only person in the country that was recognised as the thought leader on PFAS in 2020 and 2021 by the esteemed National Law Review.  He writes regularly for the National Law Review and his website on PFAS.

We had a really interesting and informative discussion about litigation, and regulation updates in the US, including the current rollbacks that are currently happening under the Trump EPA. 

There is also some other really important information in today’s episode about PFAS and health effects including some new ones that are being acknowledged by the legal system in the US.   John also talks about how companies need to remain vigilant at looking at their processes to see if PFAS is involved in them to protect themselves from PFAS litigation.  In today’s episode we talk about one particular case which John is currently involved in at the moment where a company is being sued for using water that contained PFAS in their manufacturing and they didn’t know.  

I hope you enjoyed today’s episode and don’t forget to check out the show notes and also if you enjoy the Talking PFAS podcast please consider subscribing so that you don’t miss an episode and also sharing it with your colleagues and friends.  And next episode of Talking PFAS I will be bringing you a discussion I had with Alison Ling she is from the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of St. Thomas in St Paul, Minnesota in the US. 

We are going to be discussing a couple of research papers that Alison Ling has been the main author on and this was from her paper about the estimated scale of costs to remove PFAS from the environment at current emission rates and that paper states that "the current costs to remove and destroy the total PFAS mass released annually into the environment would likely exceed the global GDP of $106 trillion US dollars."  And she goes on to point out that "while this level of treatment is not technically or economically achievable it highlights the unaffordability of using environmental remediation alone to manage environmental PFAS stocks.  Without significant reductions in productions and emissions the mass of PFAS present in the global environment will continue to rise."  So I look forward to bringing you that discussion with Alison Ling.

Lastly if you are a remediation company or a company that specialises in selling PFAS free products please contact me at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com to find out more about how you can get involved with limited sponsorship opportunities.  Please note terms and conditions do apply and I maintain full editorial control.  Also any featured remediation companies is not my endorsement.

Thank you again for listening see you next time.

Thank you again to EPOC Enviro who were today’s sponsor of Talking PFAS podcast.   

EPOC Enviro home page: https://epocenviro.com/

SAFF Family: https://epocenviro.com/saff-family/

Technical Publications: https://epocenviro.com/technical-publications/

Case Studies: https://epocenviro.com/projects/

Socials: https://www.linkedin.com/company/epoc-enviro/?viewAsMember=true 

Contact Details: info@epocenviro.com

Welcome back to the Talking PFAS podcast.&nbsp; If you are joining me for the first time a very big welcome to you.&nbsp;&nbsp; I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.
Last week I brought you a discussion with Peter Murphy, the Managing Director of EPOC Enviro.&nbsp; This Australian company recently managed to secure patents in Australia and the US for their SAFF technology.&nbsp; I encourage you to have a listen to that episode to learn more about the SAFF suite of products using foam fractionation to remove PFAS.&nbsp; And I would like to also take this opportunity to thank EPOC Enviro for sponsoring today&rsquo;s episode of Talking PFAS podcast.&nbsp; You will hear a short announcement from Pete about midway through today&rsquo;s episode.&nbsp; And at the end of today&rsquo;s episode there will be a short announcement about how you can get involved with sponsorship for Talking PFAS podcast and you can read about it of course in the show notes.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Today&rsquo;s guest is a very welcome return guest to the Talking PFAS podcast.&nbsp; It is Environmental Lawyer, John Gardella, Boston Attorney, from CMBG3 Law in the United States.&nbsp; John had the honour of being the only person in the country that was recognised as the thought leader on PFAS in 2020 and 2021 by the esteemed National Law Review.&nbsp; He writes regularly for the National Law Review and his website on PFAS.
We had a really interesting and informative discussion about litigation, and regulation updates in the US, including the current rollbacks that are currently happening under the Trump EPA.&nbsp;
There is also some other really important information in today&rsquo;s episode about PFAS and health effects including some new ones that are being acknowledged by the legal system in the US. &nbsp;&nbsp;John also talks about how companies need to remain vigilant at looking at their processes to see if PFAS is involved in them to protect themselves from PFAS litigation.&nbsp; In today&rsquo;s episode we talk about one particular case which John is currently involved in at the moment where a company is being sued for using water that contained PFAS in their manufacturing and they didn&rsquo;t know.&nbsp;&nbsp;
I hope you enjoyed today&rsquo;s episode and don&rsquo;t forget to check out the show notes and also if you enjoy the Talking PFAS podcast please consider subscribing so that you don&rsquo;t miss an episode and also sharing it with your colleagues and friends.&nbsp; And next episode of Talking PFAS I will be bringing you a discussion I had with Alison Ling she is from the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of St. Thomas in St Paul, Minnesota in the US.&nbsp;
We are going to be discussing a couple of research papers that Alison Ling has been the main author on and this was from her paper about the estimated scale of costs to remove PFAS from the environment at current emission rates and that paper states that "the current costs to remove and destroy the total PFAS mass released annually into the environment would likely exceed the global GDP of $106 trillion US dollars."&nbsp; And she goes on to point out that "while this level of treatment is not technically or economically achievable it highlights the unaffordability of using environmental remediation alone to manage environmental PFAS stocks.&nbsp; Without significant reductions in productions and emissions the mass of PFAS present in the global environment will continue to rise."&nbsp; So I look forward to bringing you that discussion with Alison Ling.
Lastly if you are a remediation company or a company that specialises in selling PFAS free products please contact me at <a href="mailto:TalkingPFAS@gmail.com">TalkingPFAS@gmail.com</a> to find out more about how you can get involved with limited sponsorship opportunities.&nbsp; Please note terms and conditions do apply and I maintain full editorial control.&nbsp; Also any featured remediation companies is not my endorsement.
Thank you again for listening see you next time.
Thank you again to EPOC Enviro who were today&rsquo;s sponsor of Talking PFAS podcast. &nbsp;&nbsp;
EPOC Enviro home page:&nbsp;<a href="https://epocenviro.com/">https://epocenviro.com/</a>
SAFF Family:&nbsp;<a href="https://epocenviro.com/saff-family/">https://epocenviro.com/saff-family/</a>
Technical Publications:&nbsp;<a href="https://epocenviro.com/technical-publications/">https://epocenviro.com/technical-publications/</a>
Case Studies:&nbsp;<a href="https://epocenviro.com/projects/">https://epocenviro.com/projects/</a>
Socials:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/epoc-enviro/?viewAsMember=true">https://www.linkedin.com/company/epoc-enviro/?viewAsMember=true</a>&nbsp;
Contact Details:&nbsp;<a href="mailto:info@epocenviro.com">info@epocenviro.com</a>

Ep 48 PFAS regulation and litigation in US with Boston Attorney John Gardella from CMBG3 Law

Welcome back to the Talking PFAS podcast.  If you are joining me for the first time a very big welcome to you.   I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.

Last episode I brought you a discussion with Adjunct Professor David Beale.  He is a senior research scientist who leads the CSIRO’s Ecosurveillance Systems team in Queensland.  We discussed David’s work looking at the effects of PFAS on some freshwater turtles in Queensland, following a PFAS contamination event.  And I encourage you to have a listen to that episode.

Today my guest and I will be discussing in depth one of many remediation methods for removing PFAS from water.  Specifically we will be talking about the method of foam fractionation to remove PFAS. 

My guest is Peter Murphy, the Managing Director of EPOC Enviro.  This Australian company has recently managed to secure patents in Australia and the US for their SAFF technology.

On the 10/03/2025 EPOC Enviro announced the recent approval of its foam fractionation patent by the US Patent and Trademark Office, securing exclusive rights for SAFF technology in the territory through to December, 2040.

And on the 1/04/2025 EPOC Enviro announced the approval of its foam fractionation patent by IP Australia securing exclusive rights for SAFF technology Down Under through to December 2038.

EPOC Enviro first conceived of foam fractionation as a method for PFAS removal in 2015 and has since developed a fleet of PFAS remediation technologies based on this principle.  The technology has now successfully treated nearly 2 billion litres (or 530,000,000+ gallons) of PFAS impacted waters across three continents.

EPOC Enviro also has just released the news of the latest addition to their fleet of PFAS remediation technology being the SAFF 10 unit and you will hear more about that today from Peter.   The systems have been used in Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, England, Australia and the US.  At the moment they are going to be looking to expand into Japan and Israel.

I hope you enjoyed today’s discussion.  

Next episode I will be bringing you a discussion I had with John Gardella an Attorney from CMBG3 Law in Boston.  John is a return guest to the Talking PFAS podcast and it is always very informative to speak with him.  John had the honour of being the only person in the country that was recognised as a thought leader on PFAS in 2020 and 2021 by the esteemed National Law Review.  He writes regularly for the National Law Review and his website on PFAS. 

We had a really interesting and informative discussion about litigation, and regulation updates, including the rollbacks that are happening under the Trump EPA.  There is also some other really important information in next week’s episode about the health effects of PFAS including some new ones that are being acknowledged by the legal system in the US. I highly recommend you come back and listen to this episode which is not to be missed.   We also talk about how companies need to remain vigilant in protecting themselves from PFAS litigation.

I also would like to announce that today’s guest EPOC Enviro have agreed to sponsor my next episode. If you are a remediation company and are interested in finding out more about sponsorship opportunities please email TalkingPFAS@gmail.com.  Please note terms and conditions do apply, including being subject to the usual journalism rigour I apply to all my interviews, and the agreement that I will maintain editorial control over the discussion about your company’s technology, discussing pros and cons.

I look forward to you coming back to join me again for some more great PFAS discussions.  Lastly, to my valued listeners, thank you for listening!  Please consider subscribing to the podcast so you don’t miss an episode and also consider posting a review and consider sharing the podcast with a colleague or friend.  Thank you, it would just help more people get to hear this podcast. 

Thank you again for listening, see you next time.

 

EPOC Enviro home page: https://epocenviro.com/

SAFF Family: https://epocenviro.com/saff-family/

Technical Publications: https://epocenviro.com/technical-publications/

Case Studies: https://epocenviro.com/projects/

Socials: https://www.linkedin.com/company/epoc-enviro/?viewAsMember=true 

Contact Details: info@epocenviro.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome back to the Talking PFAS podcast.&nbsp; If you are joining me for the first time a very big welcome to you.&nbsp;&nbsp; I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.
Last episode I brought you a discussion with Adjunct Professor David Beale.&nbsp; He is a senior research scientist who leads the CSIRO&rsquo;s Ecosurveillance Systems team in Queensland.&nbsp; We discussed David&rsquo;s work looking at the effects of PFAS on some freshwater turtles in Queensland, following a PFAS contamination event.&nbsp; And I encourage you to have a listen to that episode.
Today my guest and I will be discussing in depth one of many remediation methods for removing PFAS from water.&nbsp; Specifically we will be talking about the method of foam fractionation to remove PFAS.&nbsp;
My guest is Peter Murphy, the Managing Director of EPOC Enviro.&nbsp; This Australian company has recently managed to secure patents in Australia and the US for their SAFF technology.
On the 10/03/2025 EPOC Enviro announced the recent approval of its foam fractionation patent by the US Patent and Trademark Office, securing exclusive rights for SAFF technology in the territory through to December, 2040.
And on the 1/04/2025 EPOC Enviro announced the approval of its foam fractionation patent by IP Australia securing exclusive rights for SAFF technology Down Under through to December 2038.
EPOC Enviro first conceived of foam fractionation as a method for PFAS removal in 2015 and has since developed a fleet of PFAS remediation technologies based on this principle.&nbsp; The technology has now successfully treated nearly 2 billion litres (or 530,000,000+ gallons) of PFAS impacted waters across three continents.
EPOC Enviro also has just released the news of the latest addition to their fleet of PFAS remediation technology being the SAFF 10 unit and you will hear more about that today from Peter.&nbsp;&nbsp; The systems have been used in Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, England, Australia and the US.&nbsp; At the moment they are going to be looking to expand into Japan and Israel.
I hope you enjoyed today&rsquo;s discussion.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Next episode I will be bringing you a discussion I had with John Gardella an Attorney from CMBG3 Law in Boston.&nbsp; John is a return guest to the Talking PFAS podcast and it is always very informative to speak with him.&nbsp; John had the honour of being the only person in the country that was recognised as a thought leader on PFAS in 2020 and 2021 by the esteemed National Law Review.&nbsp; He writes regularly for the National Law Review and his website on PFAS.&nbsp;
We had a really interesting and informative discussion about litigation, and regulation updates, including the rollbacks that are happening under the Trump EPA.&nbsp; There is also some other really important information in next week&rsquo;s episode about the health effects of PFAS including some new ones that are being acknowledged by the legal system in the US. I highly recommend you come back and listen to this episode which is not to be missed.&nbsp;&nbsp; We also talk about how companies need to remain vigilant in protecting themselves from PFAS litigation.
I also would like to announce that today&rsquo;s guest EPOC Enviro have agreed to sponsor my next episode. If you are a remediation company and are interested in finding out more about sponsorship opportunities please email&nbsp;<a href="mailto:TalkingPFAS@gmail.com">TalkingPFAS@gmail.com</a>.&nbsp; Please note terms and conditions do apply, including being subject to the usual journalism rigour I apply to all my interviews, and the agreement that I will maintain editorial control over the discussion about your company&rsquo;s technology, discussing pros and cons.
I look forward to you coming back to join me again for some more great PFAS discussions.&nbsp; Lastly, to my valued listeners, thank you for listening!&nbsp; Please consider subscribing to the podcast so you don&rsquo;t miss an episode and also consider posting a review and consider sharing the podcast with a colleague or friend.&nbsp; Thank you, it would just help more people get to hear this podcast.&nbsp;
Thank you again for listening, see you next time.
&nbsp;
EPOC Enviro home page:&nbsp;<a href="https://epocenviro.com/">https://epocenviro.com/</a>
SAFF Family:&nbsp;<a href="https://epocenviro.com/saff-family/">https://epocenviro.com/saff-family/</a>
Technical Publications:&nbsp;<a href="https://epocenviro.com/technical-publications/">https://epocenviro.com/technical-publications/</a>
Case Studies:&nbsp;<a href="https://epocenviro.com/projects/">https://epocenviro.com/projects/</a>
Socials:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/epoc-enviro/?viewAsMember=true">https://www.linkedin.com/company/epoc-enviro/?viewAsMember=true</a>&nbsp;
Contact Details:&nbsp;<a href="mailto:info@epocenviro.com">info@epocenviro.com</a>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Ep 7 - "They want the chemical banned. They want it to stop coming off the base. They want options." Meryl Swanson, Federal (Labor) Member for Paterson

In 1 playlist(s)

TalkingPFAS

Follow podcast

Recent clips