91ɫ��Ƭ

Until recently, Australia’s efforts to tackle “forever chemical” pollution focused on highly polluted and sites.

But last year, elevated levels of some of these chemicals were detected in the for the Blue Mountains in New South Wales. Residents were understandably concerned.

Community groups threatened to , while residents sought to have their . NSW Water Minister Rose Jackson moved to reassure residents their “”, and a Sydney Morning Herald editorial said the state government was .

Earlier this year, Australia of these chemicals – PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS. PFOA is by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, while PFOS is considered possibly carcinogenic. But the environmental and health effects of forever chemical exposure remain a , as the risk depends on concentration. In November, a made dozens of recommendations to better regulate these chemicals.

All too often, authorities respond to legitimate community concerns by pointing to the low level of risk. But as these chemicals build up in drinking water, wastewater and farming soils, this trust-the-experts approach isn’t going to work.

Risks and concentration levels

Forever chemicals are properly known as (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). They’re used in products such as carpets, clothes, food packaging and paper, as well as firefighting foams, pesticides and stain repellents. They don’t break down easily, and steadily accumulate in soil, surface water and groundwater. Around 15,000 PFAS chemicals are now ubiquitous .

In highly contaminated sites such as firefighter training facilities or defence bases, the and responses can target specific facilities and geographic locations.

But the question of what to do becomes much harder when forever chemicals become widely distributed in drinking water and , generally at levels well below thresholds considered dangerous according to Australian standards.

In response to the Blue Mountains issue, Water NSW stopped two dams from supplying water as a . Sydney Water installed a new .

Community backlash

Australian authorities began responding to PFAS contamination a decade ago. Since then, policymakers have restricted the import and manufacture of certain forever chemicals, of PFAS-containing firefighting foams, developed a to manage PFAS chemicals, officially set the levels of PFAS a person could safely consume in a day and for drinking water.

Even with such actions, authorities have been subject to from community groups and the media over the speed, adequacy and level of protections compared to the more restrictive thresholds set by the and .

At Williamtown in NSW, authorities were for three years before revealing it. Community groups in official responses, turning to external experts before ultimately launching a against the Department of Defence.

Some flowed from this based on financial losses. But researchers compensation does little to actually address residents’ health and environment concerns.

Independent reviews official responses to PFAS should be more transparent. But little has changed. The same distrust is emerging in the Blue Mountains, while and inquiries have raised questions over how PFAS risks are communicated and falling public trust in government agencies.

Better communication misses the point

Community backlash against issues such as PFAS contamination can as non-experts misunderstanding the science.

Authorities often think the answer is to communicate better and more clearly to fix the . For instance, the national PFAS policy as essential:

if people affected by PFAS contamination cannot understand what governments are saying, they are more likely to view the information with scepticism or as a deliberate attempt to disguise the facts.

The risk here is that focusing on better official communication is still about speaking, rather than listening. The community can become a noisy stakeholder to be managed rather than an active collaborator. But people in these communities are legitimately worried. They want to speak and be heard as equal partners.

Is there a better way?

PFAS contamination isn’t just a technological or legal issue. It’s also a – it affects communities.

When facing a pollution problem, affected communities often and advocate for better outcomes. Community groups commission independent research or conduct citizen science, while scientists and engineers.

Officials and residents should collectively work through the options and costs associated, as well as discussing what level of risk different communities are . Public forums aren’t enough, as these tend to put experts at the centre, answering questions.

The launch of the first community-based under the new is a positive initial step. Collaborative efforts like this are . Authorities and community leaders can view each other with suspicion, and the unequal power dynamics play a role.

As NSW Information Commissioner Rosalind Croucher , making contamination data easily available to communities helps ensure management is “transparent, evidence-based, and accountable to the communities it affects”.

Hard but not impossible

Like forever chemicals themselves, the issue of PFAS pollution isn’t going away. Finding better ways of responding will be essential, as the issue can’t be solved by scientists, engineers and policymakers in a top-down approach. Communities who have to drink the water must be given the right to speak – and be heard.

, Professor of Environment & Society, ; , Professor, Law and Justice, ; , Postdoctoral Research Associate in Law and Justice, ; , Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, , and , Research Fellow in Anthropology,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .