It\u2019s been called \u201cthe champagne of tap water.\u201d<\/p>\n
The H2O coming through New York City\u2019s pipes is so clean, in fact, that NYC is one of the only major US cities that doesn\u2019t use filtration.<\/p>\n
If you get your hydration right from the tap, you know it just tastes good \u2014 and it\u2019s been said it\u2019s at least partly responsible for why our bagels are superior<\/a>.<\/p>\n So when Culligan<\/a> gave us the chance to try out their at-home water testing kit \u2014 which looks for contaminants like lead, copper and arsenic as well as forever chemicals \u2014 we jumped at the chance to find out for ourselves: How healthy is New York City\u2019s tap water, really?<\/p>\n Culligan tested a sample of New York City\u2019s tap water for contaminants like lead \u2014 plus PFAS, or \u201cforever chemicals.\u201d Stephen Yang<\/p>\n Testing for forever chemicals<\/p>\n Collecting the samples at my Manhattan apartment was was super easy \u2014 though it was actually for two tests, one covering contaminants and another that looks for PFAS<\/a>, also known as \u201cforever chemicals<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Earlier this year, a study found that 97 million Americans<\/a> are exposed to these forever chemicals through their tap water.<\/p>\n PFAS have been linked to a bunch of health concerns including reproductive issues, an increased risk of cancer, reduced immunity, higher cholesterol, higher obesity risk and developmental effects in children.<\/p>\n And the bad news? New Yorkers aren\u2019t totally shielded while sipping our on-tap champagne.<\/p>\n \u201cWe identified one compound: PFBA, which stands for Perfluorobutanoic acid,\u201d Culligan\u2019s lab manager Maria Mozdzen explained, going over our test results. \u201cWe found that to be at 2.2 parts per trillion.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s higher than EWG [Environmental Working Group]\u2019s health guidelines, which are set at one part per trillion. The EPA doesn\u2019t yet set limits on PFAS in water.<\/p>\n So how bad are these results, really?<\/p>\n It was really easy to colelct the sample, which was then sent back to Culligan to be analyzed. NY Post<\/p>\n Between contaminants and PFAS, nearly 100 things were tested for. NY Post<\/p>\n It turns out\u2026 not that bad at all. Culligan had tested for 55 PFAS compounds.<\/p>\n \u201cI think your municipality is doing a great job,\u201d Mozdzen said. <\/p>\n Though PFBA was identified, it was \u201cvery lower level\u201d in the sample tested. Mozdzen noted that I may still want to address it \u2014 like with a PFAS filtration system<\/a> \u2014 depending on my comfort level.<\/p>\n \u201cIf this was me or my household, I would definitely want to protect myself from it,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Forever chemicals can also be found in a load of other products we use<\/a>, from cookware to makeup. Scientists have been on the hunt for ways to limit our exposure<\/a> \u2014 even if it\u2019s bit by bit.<\/p>\n It\u2019s important to note, though, that this test captured a single point in time \u2014 and what\u2019s found in the water can change slightly throughout the year.<\/p>\n Dr. Eric Roy, Culligan\u2019s Head of Science, said that New York City does a \u201creally good job\u201d of conducting different types of tests, so their results have shown variability.<\/p>\n Everything tested for had levels below EPA limits \u2014 or so low that they weren\u2019t detected at all. NY Post\/Jared Larson<\/p>\n They have found, at times, the presence of another forever chemical that wasn\u2019t in my sample, PFOA. (That was also only at about 2.1 parts per trillion \u2014 so higher than the EWG recommends, but not particularly high.) If I were to test again in a few months, I might have a different result.<\/p>\n What else is in the water?<\/p>\n That covers forever chemicals, but what about all of the other stuff that could be dripping out of our faucets? According to Culligan\u2019s test, we\u2019re doing even better in that department.<\/p>\n Of the 42 different things they tested for, not a single one was detected above the national standard limit \u2014\u00a0including the total amount of minerals, which at 61.89 mg\/L was well below the EPA\u2019s limit of 500 mg\/L.<\/p>\n Even better, about half weren\u2019t even above the minimum detection level. Those include lead, copper, iron, magnesium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, silver, uranium and nitrate.<\/p>\n The others all had levels below the national standard limit, including calcium, magnesium, silica, sodium, potassium, aluminum, chloride, fluoride, sulfate and bicarbonate. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s actually great water,\u201d Mozdzen said. \u201cI\u2019m on Lake Michigan, and I like to think we\u2019re on good water, but nothing compared to you.\u201d<\/p>\n Culligan sells filtration systems, including ones that filter out PFAS. Culligan<\/p>\n About that lead measurement\u2026<\/p>\n Dr. Roy stressed once again that this is just a snapshot \u2014 and in fact, a 2023 report by the NYC Coalition to End Lead Poisoning found that about 21% of residents may be drinking water delivered via lead service lines, which could contaminate the water with lead.<\/p>\n