By John Q. Hosedrinker 
High levels of PFAS, from firefighting foam used at Jersey’s airport, have been detected in the blood of many islanders, exceeding safe thresholds and potentially causing serious health issues. As a result, the government, advised by an independent scientific panel, is exploring bloodletting as a treatment option, alongside the drug cholestyramine, to reduce PFAS in affected individuals. However, concerns remain about ongoing water contamination, with elevated PFAS levels found in both public and private water sources, potentially impacting health and agricultural products. The government’s previous confidential settlement with 3M, the manufacturer of the foam, restricts its ability to pursue more aggressive action.
Read the original article here
Bloodletting, a practice seemingly relegated to the history books, is being considered as a treatment option for Jersey residents grappling with PFAS contamination. The sheer audacity of the suggestion alone is enough to spark conversation, particularly given the eye-watering cost associated with this “medieval solution” to a modern problem. The proposed therapy carries a hefty price tag: approximately £100,000 upfront, followed by annual expenses potentially reaching £200,000. This staggering figure, however, applies to the treatment of 50 individuals, not to a single person, making the per-person cost significantly lower. Still, the question remains: why is such a seemingly simple procedure so expensive?
The cost seems exorbitant at first glance, especially when compared to the readily available and significantly cheaper alternative of regular blood donation. Donating blood, or even better, plasma, is demonstrably effective in reducing PFAS levels in the blood and is far more accessible and affordable than the proposed therapeutic bloodletting. Studies support this claim, indicating that regular blood donation contributes to a reduction in PFAS. The relative ease and affordability of blood donation beg the question of why the government is even considering this significantly more expensive option.
One possible explanation for this apparent disparity could lie in the comprehensive nature of the proposed treatment plan. The £200,000 annual cost encompasses not only the actual bloodletting but also a multitude of additional expenses. This could include the cost of specialized equipment, the salaries of medical professionals, ongoing facility maintenance, and a host of other logistical requirements needed to establish and maintain a functional and safe service. The initial £100,000 investment might cover the purchase of necessary equipment such as apheresis machines, staffing costs to initially set up the treatment facility, and training personnel. The high cost highlights the complex logistical challenges inherent in such a specialized treatment program.
The high upfront costs may also be attributed to a lack of existing infrastructure and the necessity of establishing a dedicated facility for the procedure. There appears to be a perceived benefit in treating affected residents within a controlled clinical setting, which differs from the typical processes used in blood banks. This, in turn, potentially necessitates the purchase of specialized equipment and the employment of additional medical professionals, thus driving up the overall cost. The focus on providing the treatment within this specific clinical environment could be aimed at ensuring high standards of patient care and data collection for future research.
Furthermore, the situation is complicated by a confidential agreement Jersey’s government signed with 3M in 2005, which limits the government’s ability to pursue legal action for cleanup costs. This raises significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the prioritization of corporate interests over the well-being of the island’s residents. The agreement, in effect, prevents any large scale screening program that could potentially trigger class-action lawsuits, and it only allows individual blood tests, pushing for a more expensive and individualized approach to the problem.
The entire situation underscores a larger problem: the widespread and largely unaddressed issue of PFAS contamination. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are known to be harmful and persistent environmental pollutants. The fact that Jersey’s residents are facing this crisis highlights the global nature of the PFAS issue and the urgency with which it needs to be tackled. The ongoing debate around treatment options underlines the lack of readily available solutions and points towards the need for a comprehensive investigation into both treatment and prevention strategies for PFAS contamination worldwide.
While bloodletting might be considered a relatively straightforward procedure, the costs associated with providing this service within the context of this particular situation, given the lack of pre-existing infrastructure, are far from simple. The debate surrounding the method raises crucial questions about the cost-effectiveness of different solutions, the accountability of corporations involved in PFAS contamination, and the efficacy of proposed solutions in tackling a complex environmental problem. The high cost also opens the door for criticism and debate on whether simpler and cheaper approaches could be just as effective. Ultimately, the situation in Jersey is a stark reminder of the long-term and costly consequences of environmental pollution and the difficulties faced by communities when dealing with corporate negligence.