I stood at the edge of Chilliwack Lake last week, watching families fill water bottles directly from what appears to be pristine glacial runoff. The scene was picturesque—mountains reflecting on the surface, children splashing near the shore. But beneath this tranquil scene lurks an invisible reality that scientists have been tracking with growing concern.
“Most people think contamination looks or smells obvious,” Dr. Leona Wilson told me as we walked the shoreline. Wilson, an environmental toxicologist at the University of British Columbia, has spent fifteen years studying chemical contaminants in Canadian watersheds. “The truth is the most dangerous substances we’re exposed to daily are completely invisible.”
A groundbreaking new study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials reveals that exposure to common chemicals found in everyday items—from food packaging to furniture—significantly increases risk for both cancer and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s. Researchers have dubbed this the “invisible tsunami” of chemical exposure threatening public health across North America.
The international team, led by researchers from the Silent Spring Institute and Harvard School of Public Health, analyzed data from more than 5,000 participants over 12 years. They found those with higher blood concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) showed a 34% higher risk of developing certain cancers and a 27% increased likelihood of cognitive impairment when compared to those with lower exposure levels.
For Indigenous communities living along the Fraser River watershed, these findings carry particular significance. “Our entire cultural and physical sustenance depends on these waters,” explains Carol Summers, a health advocate from Stó:lō Nation. “When elders began showing unusual memory problems ten years ago, many dismissed it as normal aging. Now we’re wondering if there’s more to the story.”
PFAS chemicals earned the nickname “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down naturally in the environment or our bodies. They accumulate over time, potentially reaching levels that trigger cellular damage. Originally developed for their water and stain-resistant properties, these compounds now appear in everything from non-stick cookware to waterproof clothing, dental floss, and even some cosmetics.
Walking through my local grocery store after interviewing Wilson, I found myself pausing at the prepared foods section. The convenience of grab-and-go meals wrapped in slick packaging suddenly seemed less appealing when considering the potential long-term health implications.
What makes this study particularly significant is its focus on low-level, chronic exposure—the kind most Canadians experience daily without awareness. Previous research had established links between industrial-level exposure and health problems, but this study suggests even background levels present in municipal water supplies and common consumer products may pose substantial risks over time.
“We’re not talking about dramatic, immediate poisoning,” explains Dr. Marissa Chen, neurologist at Vancouver General Hospital, who was not involved in the study but specializes in environmental triggers for neurological conditions. “These exposures create subtle damage that accumulates over decades. By the time symptoms appear, significant harm has already occurred.”
Health Canada currently regulates only a small fraction of the more than 12,000 PFAS compounds in commercial use. The European Union has taken more aggressive steps, announcing plans to ban all non-essential uses of these chemicals by 2025.
“The regulatory approach in Canada follows an outdated model,” argues environmental lawyer Megan Thompson of EcoJustice. “Chemicals are presumed safe until proven harmful, rather than requiring manufacturers to demonstrate safety before market approval.”
For vulnerable populations, the stakes are particularly high. Pregnant women, young children, and the elderly show heightened sensitivity to these compounds. Children born to mothers with higher PFAS blood levels demonstrate subtle cognitive differences that persist into adolescence, according to companion research from the same team.
What can ordinary citizens do while waiting for regulatory changes? Dr. Wilson suggests several practical steps: filtering drinking water with activated carbon filters, avoiding non-stick cookware, minimizing fast food (where grease-resistant packaging is common), and checking consumer products against environmental databases like the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database.
When I called Carol Summers to share these recommendations, her response was measured. “These are good steps for individuals, but they put the burden on people who may lack resources. Many of our community members can’t afford specialized water filters or organic food options.”
Her point underscores the environmental justice dimension of chemical exposure. Communities already facing socioeconomic challenges often experience higher exposure levels due to proximity to industrial sites, older water infrastructure, and limited access to alternatives.
The findings have catalyzed renewed calls for the federal government to adopt the precautionary principle in chemical regulation—an approach that would require proving safety before approval rather than requiring proof of harm after widespread use.
As I finished my conversation with Dr. Wilson, watching the sun set over Chilliwack Lake, she offered a perspective that stayed with me: “I don’t share this research to frighten people, but to empower them. Knowledge is the first step toward both personal protection and collective action. We’ve removed dangerous substances from consumer products before—lead, asbestos, certain pesticides. We can do it again.”
For now, that pristine-looking lake continues to draw visitors seeking connection with nature. The challenge ahead lies in ensuring that such connections nurture rather than harm the health of generations to come.
