10 years after PFAS discovery, a new podcast looks at a New Hampshire town's search for answers

It’s something easy to take for granted: You turn on the tap, fill a cup with water and trust it will be safe to drink.

But for some neighbors in Merrimack, New Hampshire, this every-day act is a luxury — one they haven’t experienced in their homes for a decade.

In 2016, the company Saint-Gobain reported it had found toxic PFAS in tap water at its textile plant in Merrimack. A state investigation found the plant’s own operations were at the root of the contamination, which spewed into the air and seeped into area wells and municipal drinking water.

PFAS are a class of chemicals used in lots of manufacturing. There are thousands of different kinds, and scientists have linked several with health concerns including some cancers, high cholesterol and decreased fertility. They’re sometimes called “forever chemicals” because they stick around for years — in the environment and in your body.

Officially named per- and polyfluorinated substances, the chemicals are widespread. In the U.S., they’re present in the vast majority of people's blood and in many water systems. As WBUR’s environmental correspondent Barbara Moran has reported “because they are so pervasive, they may as well be called ‘everywhere chemicals,’ too.”

(You can find more of WBUR’s reporting on PFAS, and the steps Massachusetts officials have taken to limit the chemicals in drinking water here.)

In Merrimack, the PFAS levels turned out to be so severe that some residents still rely on bottled water 10 years later. Their fight for answers is the subject of the new podcast “Safe to Drink” from New Hampshire Public Radio. If you want something with the tension of true crime and the sciencey-ness of a documentary, this should be your next listen.

The podcast begins years after the contamination, after Saint-Gobain closed the Merrimack plant, when the kids in town had grown used to brushing their teeth with bottled water, and PFAS had become a part of everyday life.

I spoke to Mara Hoplamazian, host and lead reporter of “Safe to Drink” about their podcast and why the story matters today, well beyond Merrimack.

Here are some excerpts from our conversation, edited for length and clarity:

So, Mara, take us to Merrimack. You did some field reporting. How were residents making sense of the past 10 years? 

“ So I think a lot of residents at Merrimack feel like, in some ways, it's old news. They've been dealing with this for so long now.

“In tandem with that, there's a deep frustration, particularly among people who, 10 years later, still can't drink their tap water, and are experiencing a long-term, major life change that doesn't seem to be going away. And they don't have a timeline for when they will have their water remediated in their homes.”

There were also diseases cropping up in the communities that you were reporting in. Can you describe that landscape?

"So I spoke with a woman named Wendy Thomas. She's a state representative for Merrimack, and she lives in this neighborhood where so many of her neighbors have cancer. She took me and my producer Jason Moon on a walk down the street and basically pointed out like, ‘in this home, the dad has this type of cancer. In this home, the son has this type of cancer, and the dad has this type of cancer.’

”And, we can't say all of these illnesses were caused by the water contamination. That’s just not how epidemiological research works. I think that’s really frustrating for people who are trying to understand why they're sick and why their whole community is sick. But there was some research out of Dartmouth College that showed Merrimack does have a higher incidence of kidney cancer than other parts of New Hampshire.”

Yeah, there is a tension around what science can offer people in this community. Obviously, it’s the title of the podcast, but can you say more about why it’s so hard to define what levels of PFAS are “safe to drink”? 

“This is a really complicated question. There are a few reasons. One of them being the companies making these chemicals, mainly DuPont and 3M, were studying the health effects of the chemicals, but weren’t sharing that research with the federal government. So the Environmental Protection Agency didn’t have oversight of PFAS until long after they had started being produced.

“Another part of it is that companies that make these chemicals have influence over how they’re researched.

“A third reason is that it takes a really long time to regulate things. The EPA has to have an airtight defense of why they’re regulating a chemical. They have to have a ton of science on their side, basically to make sure it can hold up in court. Companies can sue the EPA if they think the science isn’t strong enough.

“It created the situation where there was evidence that these chemicals were harming human health, but just not enough evidence for EPA regulators to say ‘we need to get these out of our drinking water.’ ”

[Editor’s note: In 2024, the EPA took steps to limit several PFAS chemicals in drinking water, citing potential harm to human health. The Trump administration has delayed those limits for two chemicals and is reviewing the others.]

What can people do if they’re unsure about what’s in their water and they want to find out? 

“The biggest thing to know is PFAS chemicals have no taste or smell or color. So the only way that you can tell they’re in your water is by getting it tested. There was a 2023 study from the U.S. Geological Survey that found that at least 45% of drinking water samples collected in the U.S. contained PFAS.

“There’s this tool from the CDC that can help you estimate the levels of PFAS in your blood if you know the level in your water.”

[Editor’s note: In addition to drinking water, PFAS are present in many consumer products. For expert tips on how to reduce your exposure, click here.]

I know that your reporting was very much focused on New Hampshire, but what are some lessons that you’ve learned about the state of our water on a regional and national level? 

“ I talked to people all across the country. These chemicals are all over the place.

“While I was reporting the story, one of the most striking things was the way that in each new community where PFAS was discovered, it seemed like it was happening for the first time ever.

“When this happened in Merrimack in 2016, regulators told the public ‘these are emerging contaminants. We don't know a lot about them.’ And this was decades after they had started being created and studied by the companies that were creating them.

“I was just so struck by the communities in all these different states who heard that and said, ‘you know, something’s not right here, I want to push my leaders in my town and state to regulate PFAS because I think we shouldn’t be drinking them.’

“And to me it shows an example of people seeing their leaders not doing enough to protect their health and deciding to step in themselves. It’s an example of really resilient communities.”