MIL Submissions Engine

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

It was US president Harry S. Truman who, in the years just after the second world war, kept a little wooden sign on his desk which read: “The buck stops here!”. It emphasised his willingness to accept ultimate responsibility for his decisions and actions as president, even the ones that didn’t quite work out.

This phrase has since become emblematic of presidential accountability and leadership. Truman wasn’t interested in trying to pass the buck, not as a man and certainly not as president.

Interestingly, the sign was made in the Federal Reformatory (prison) at El Reno, Oklahoma, suggesting an implicit moral dimension to this issue of responsibility and accountability. We’re all accountable for our actions, whoever we are, but the president above all.

But how things seem to have changed with Donald Trump in the White House.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Trump continually takes personal credit for any perceived successes as president – fixing global tariffs, Nato members paying more, the Middle East (even taking credit for things that were completed before he took office). But he makes sure that any failures are immediately attributed elsewhere.

He frequently positions himself as surprised or “blindsided” by unpopular decisions, which are always somebody else’s doing, somebody else’s fault. Subordinates are held responsible. He is not averse to pointing the finger directly at them, and often in public, high-profile settings.

That great loyal Trump supporter, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, for example, has recently been in the firing line for being personally responsible for pausing the delivery of missile shipments to Ukraine. US defence officials had apparently become concerned that weapons stockpiles were becoming low, as they needed to divert arms to Israel to help in the war with Iran.

But the pause in supplying some weapons to Ukraine announced by the Pentagon on July 2 was a hugely unpopular decision that resonated around the world. Hegseth was blamed.

Some have suggested that having loyalists such as Hegseth in critical positions like secretary of defense is highly strategic, and not just for the more obvious reasons. You could argue that having loyal supporters with delegated but overlapping authority is highly advantageous when it comes to the blame game.

Trump can publicly distance himself when things go wrong (as he did here), claim a degree of surprise, and swiftly change course. That way he is publicly reasserting his role as leader without admitting fault.

It is also noteworthy that Trump often reverses these decisions made by his subordinates in high-visibility environments, which suggests a determined pattern of strategic image management.

It’s a simple set of moves – you allow a subordinate to initiate a controversial decision, then you rein it in publicly and reassert your authority, thus showcasing your resolve. In other words, delegation to loyal insiders like Hegseth becomes a useful buffer against political fallout.

Loyal insiders still stay loyal (for the foreseeable future at least). They won’t sling mud, like some might in their position. So Trump can appear masterful.

But of course, there’s more to this than everyday political shenanigans. Personality plays a major role. Some psychologists have argued that not internalising failure is psychologically beneficial.

If you take credit for success but externalise failure, that makes you resilient (and happy). But there are clearly limits to this, and there’s a darker side.

People with high levels of narcissism (“I like to be the centre of attention”; “I am an extraordinary person” – both items on the narcissism personality inventory, a method of measuring personalities) often avoid accountability because they perceive themselves as superior to others. But only, it should be noted, in certain “key” aspects of life.

In the words of Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, authors of The Narcissism Epidemic: “Narcissists think that they are smarter, better looking and more important than others, but not necessarily more moral, more caring or more compassionate.”

Narcissistic individuals tend to externalise blame to protect their fragile self-esteem and maintain their self-image. They may refuse to admit fault because doing so threatens their grandiose concept of self.

Individuals exhibiting Machiavellian traits, characterised by manipulativeness and a lack of empathy, are also more prone to shifting blame. They may deflect responsibility to serve their self-interest, which is clearly a highly manipulative manoeuvre. You just do whatever is required.

Research also indicates that individuals with low conscientiousness, one of what are considered the “big five” personality traits, are less likely to accept responsibility for their actions. They may be somewhat careless or irresponsible in their work or actions, and when mistakes do occur – which they will – they blame external factors or other people.

In other words, certain personality traits are associated with a tendency to avoid accountability and responsibility.

It has been said that Trump’s inner circle consists of loyal sycophants who, even when it’s cringeworthy for outsiders, publicly praise him to amplify and protect his self-image. He needs this from them.

But they have another use as well. When things don’t go so well, they take it on the chin for him. That’s almost part of the job description. When things go wrong, his inner circle all understand the buck really stops with them.

Geoff Beattie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why Trump blames decisions on others – a psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/why-trump-blames-decisions-on-others-a-psychologist-explains-260877

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Layla Khoo, PhD Candidate, Public Participatory Contemporary Art, University of Leeds

My project A Virtuous Woman is both an artwork and a piece of ongoing research into the role of participatory artwork in heritage sites. As such, the artwork was always intended to be dynamic, responding to the ways in which people wanted to take part.

The artwork was inspired by the embroideries of the ancient noble women commissioned by one of the most notable women in Elizabethan court and society, Bess of Hardwick, four of which are on display at the National Trust property, Hardwick Hall. The new work was intended to be a reimagining of the missing fifth embroidery, made from recycled fabrics donated by the National Trust staff and volunteers.

Visitors to the hall could take part in sewing, cutting and adding their own expressions through embroidery. But after two participants added the name of author J.K. Rowling to the piece and another embroidered a line of stitches through both instances, things became complicated.

A protest was staged at Hardwick Hall and the artwork became the centre of a media storm. I have been subject to accusations and abuse online for displaying the work complete with these conflicting pieces of participation and the National Trust have received a barrage of complaints. So where does this leave participatory arts, the artists who create and facilitate them and the sites which commission and host them?

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Participatory arts have to consider not only the freedom of expression of the artist, but of every person who participates. Both the National Trust and I had to attempt to balance the expressions of participants in a political polarised climate, while witnessing a media fallout when groups and individuals disagree with the choices made.

Participation with the artwork took place between April and November 2024. Throughout this time, the work prompted discussion and debate around the subject of virtues and the women that visitors felt upheld these values.

Thousands of people added their embroideries. In total 186 words of virtue or value, and 804 names were added to the piece. Some were embroidered by more than one person (a few stitches, or a letter each), some participants embroidered more than one contribution, and many virtues and names were repeated multiple times.

The Hardwick Hall team and I had previously agreed that no names would be censored or removed from the work, and that participants would not be allowed to unpick each other’s embroidery. However, while not encouraged, participants would be allowed to interact with and adapt the embroidery of other participants.

In August 2024, a complaint was raised after two people added Rowling’s name to the piece. The author has sparked controversy in the last few years as a result of her “gender critical” views, which many see as transphobic (a claim which Rowling denies), while others see her as a figurehead for women’s rights. A participant then embroidered a line of stitches through both instances of the name on two separate panels (in the colours of the trans pride flag), while leaving the name clearly visible.

We now needed to consider whether staff, volunteers and visitors might feel offended, unsafe or unwelcome when encountering the recognition of a person seen by some as harmful. We also needed to think about the dismissal of someone admired by others for their cultural influence and beliefs.

At the request of the National Trust, the project was “paused” for a month while advice was taken on the most appropriate way forward. Staff were prepared through workshops run by the National Trust team on how to deal with potentially difficult interactions with participants.

I was asked by the National Trust team if I was willing to remove any embroidered names from the work, including repetitions. I said I was not, as participants had taken part in good faith and were expecting to see their contribution in the completed work.

The Hardwick Hall team and I agreed that all names would remain, and all subsequent names added would not be subject to censorship. We agreed that the lines stitched through Rowling’s name would also remain. I felt that removing them would remove an act of protest – a valid act of participation – and that leaving it on display would demonstrate the difficulties and friction involved in creative expression and participation in our often-polarised society.

Many participants saw Rowling’s crossed out name while embroidery was still taking place, and some responded by adding her name again. Participants discussed cancel culture, polarised views and the complexity of the people they admire.

When the artwork was complete, Rowling’s name appeared seven times – twice with a line stitched through, five times unaltered. The completed artwork was placed on display at Hardwick Hall in January this year.

On May 24, the Women’s Rights Network (WRN) posted a thread on X detailing a visitor complaint regarding the crossing out of Rowling’s name. They called for the National Trust to add a statement to the artwork, explaining why the crossing out remains on display. Members of the WRN subsequently carried out a protest on site and created a short film explaining their position.

On May 31, two visitors to Hardwick Hall cut away the line of stitches and posted images and video of themselves doing so on X.

The subsequent mainstream media coverage, blog posts and widespread social media attention resulted in threats of further activism.

The National Trust initially covered the work to protect it, but then removed it from display on June 4, as there was now also a risk to other artworks and collection items at Hardwick Hall, and to the staff and volunteers on site.

The National Trust released a statement on X, which appeared to do little to answer questions being raised. There are now growing calls for commentary from me, as the artist responsible for the work, to explain what has happened, how decisions were made and where I stand both on the actions taken and the wider gender debate this speaks to.

Limitations in creative expression

I believe that the arts are in a unique position to tackle difficult subjects, and participatory arts can provide an opportunity for more voices to be heard. But with this approach comes the inevitable balancing act of where freedom of expression ends and causing harm begins.

Consideration must be given to intention versus impact. Making these editorial and ethical choices creates a changing power dynamic. The participants have been invited to take part and do so in a way that is meaningful to them in what they believe to be the overall context of the work.

In participatory arts, the artist is part author, part facilitator of the expressions of others. The commissioning body or hosting site then holds the ultimate control, in being able to choose whether to display the work created.

My part in the decision to allow the stitching through of Rowling’s name essentially comes from a shared belief in singer Nina Simone’s view that “an artist’s duty … is to reflect the times”.

In my opinion, the acts of protest and activism in the crossing out of the name and the removal of that crossing out epitomise the lack of tolerance for other people’s views and beliefs that is becoming prevalent in our increasingly polarised society. As such, I think it is entirely appropriate to display these actions in the artwork. This polarisation and intolerance has been compounded in the subsequent outpouring of online vitriol and demands for what this work should and should not represent.

Both acts of activism changed the artwork, and disregarded the previous participant’s contribution. The difference is that the crossing out took place while participation was invited and expected – the removal of that crossing out was not. As the artist responsible for the artwork I have faced increasing demands not just to clarify the events leading to this point, but also to openly share my views on the actions taken by all parties. However, an artist sharing their opinion is not simple, or necessarily safe.

In its recent report, Freedom of Expression in the Arts (a five-year project aiming to tackle the culture of fear and intimidation some artists face for expressing their views) found that artists are increasingly afraid to express themselves on dangerous topics for fear of backlash from the public and cancellation of work opportunities by commissioning bodies.

My own experience has shown that social media is neither the place for nuanced, balanced, nor reasonable debate. I have been accused of transphobia for allowing the inclusion of Rowling’s name in the first place, and called (among other things) a “gender traitor” for allowing her name to be crossed out. But when a commissioning body or host site cancels a work which speaks to these debates, how else are artists able to speak out?

In a comment sent to The Conversation, a National Trust spokesperson said: “A Virtuous Woman is formed of people’s views from a variety of age groups, life experiences and beliefs … We understand that everyone may not agree on all the names included, but they are the choices of individual participants. Everyone is welcome at the National Trust, and the artwork reflects the diversity of the community and individuals we serve. Our approach is to make space for a variety of creative and personal responses to the collections and to encourage conversation.”

At the time of writing, I have been told that the redisplay of a projection of the artwork and explanatory panels is under review and is unlikely to take place until September 2025. Participatory arts hold up a mirror first to those who take part, and then again in the reception and judgement of subsequent viewers. The difficulty comes when we don’t like what it reflects.

Layla Khoo receives funding from the Frank Parkinson Scholarship for her PhD research.

– ref. My artwork, A Virtuous Woman, has become the centre of a protest – it shows how our polarised society can affect art – https://theconversation.com/my-artwork-a-virtuous-woman-has-become-the-centre-of-a-protest-it-shows-how-our-polarised-society-can-affect-art-260349

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colm Murphy, Lecturer in British Politics, Queen Mary University of London

Last week, the MP for Coventry South, Zarah Sultana, made an audacious decision. Having already lost the Labour party whip for opposing the two-child benefit cap, Sultana announced she would co-lead a new left-wing party with Jeremy Corbyn, who was expelled from Labour in 2024.

From one angle, her decision may seem simple. Discontent with Keir Starmer’s Labour government, on everything from welfare cuts to Gaza, has never been higher, and Sultana is a vocal critic. Yet, launching a (still unnamed) new party is bold. It tackles head-on an old and vexing question for socialist critics of capitalism in the UK.

In 1976, the socialist theorist Ralph Miliband (yes, Ed and David’s dad) described the faith in Labour’s capacity to become a socialist vehicle as “the most crippling of all illusions”. But socialists who agree with Miliband senior then have an almighty problem.

Writing months after the 2019 defeat of Corbyn’s Labour party, the veteran “New Left” academics Colin Leys and Leo Panitch echoed Miliband in their book Searching for Socialism. But they also saw few immediate alternatives with “any prospect of electoral success”. This, they wrote, is the “central dilemma” for British democratic socialists.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

The reaction to Sultana’s announcement from the British left has been accordingly mixed. Leaks revealed that Corbyn’s team was caught off guard. Responses from prominent potential supporters were reserved. Momentum, the left-wing grassroots organisation, hastily distributed the pamphlet Why Socialists Should Be in the Labour Party.

It’s too early to know whether these issues are teething problems or portents. But the barriers to Sultana’s venture are formidable. What would it take for a new left-wing party to succeed? What would “success” even look like?

A careful reading of political history can help us answer these questions. This is not the first time that new parties have emerged from Labour factionalism. Many readers will be aware of the 1981 departure of the “gang of four” Labour figures, who founded the Social Democratic party (SDP) that later merged with the Liberal party to form the Liberal Democrats.

Nor is it the first time that smaller parties have appeared on Labour’s left. Between 1920 and 1991, the Communist party of Great Britain was a potent force in the trade union movement. From the 1990s to the 2010s, several vehicles contested local and national elections against Labour, from the Socialist Alliance to Left Unity.

Challenges for a new party

Each of these iterations had its historical peculiarities. But stepping back, we can identify three recurring challenges that any left-wing insurgent party must confront.

First, they must agree on an electoral strategy and purpose, given the institutional brutality of British democracy. The UK has some proportional elections, including in Scotland and Wales (expected to be next contested in 2026). Councils are also possible avenues of influence.

But there is no avoiding the fact that legislative and executive power is hoarded in the House of Commons, elected by first past the post. Labour will discourage possible defectors by warning that a split in the left vote will let in the right. Neil Kinnock, Labour’s former leader who found himself fighting off the SDP while trying to evict Thatcher in the 1980s, dubbed Sultana and Corbyn’s venture the “Farage assistance party”.

Left of Labour parties are often aware of the risk. Indeed, far left activists have in the past advocated voting Labour, with “varying degrees of (un)enthusiasm”.

Advocates of a new party will note that Labour is only polling in the low 20s, suggesting a pool of ex-Labour voters potentially interested in shopping around. However, there are others it could torpedo too.

One recent poll on support for a hypothetical Corbyn-led party – which we should take with some salt – found that its 10% support comes partly from eating into the Green vote. An electoral arrangement with the Greens, on the other hand, may require shared policy platforms, raising the question of why a separate party is needed.

A poll from More in Common conducted specifically about a Sultana-Corbyn party found 9% of Labour voters and 26% of current Green voters saying that would vote for such a party.

The Socialist Labour party (SLP) – founded in 1996 by the prominent trade unionist Arthur Scargill in reaction to Tony Blair’s New Labour – is the obvious cautionary tale. Scargill wanted a purer, better Labour party. Yet, Labour looked set to kick out an 18-year-long Conservative government.

Scargill could not convince many sympathetic activists to join. As historian Alfie Steer argues, the SLP instead became dominated by socialists hostile to the Labour party. The party could not overcome the resultant contradictions in its purpose and collapsed into acrimony.

The SLP also illustrates the second key consideration: timing. The SLP struggled partly because it launched just as Labour was sweeping triumphantly into power. Sultana’s timing is arguably more astute. She has waited for Starmer’s bubble to burst and for disillusionment to fester.

However, the broad left within Labour has also just found its voice by rebelling against government policy. The temptation for a risk-averse Labour activist may be to leap onto this critical bandwagon without taking the more dangerous step of defecting.

Read more:
The mistakes Keir Starmer made over disability cuts – and how he can avoid future embarrassment

The final challenge is securing institutional durability without debilitating splits. It is telling that Sultana felt compelled to include Corbyn’s name despite his reported reservations.

Sultana herself has an impressive political profile, especially on TikTok. Any new party will rely heavily on prominent spokespeople to force it into the national conversation. Yet, such vehicles can become trapped by their dependence on individuals. The Respect party of the 2000s, for example, was reliant on the charismatic but polarising figure of George Galloway.

The fledgling party will also need a lasting structure that determines how candidates are selected and policy is formed. This risks dragging it into dreaded constitutional debates. It is already reportedly divided over the existence of co-leaders.

Intra-party democracy is off-putting to outsiders. But as constitutional scholar Meg Russell argues, it speaks to fundamental questions about the extent, and limits, of democracy. Such disputes have frequently wracked the left (and the radical right, as Reform’s recent constitutional changes show).

To what extent should policy be “democratically” decided? Should a new party limit who can join, and if so, on what criteria? How will leaders be selected? From the CPGB to the SLP, these questions have proven divisive in the past. They could easily prove so again.

The new party faces severe challenges, but it would be unwise to write it off completely. In a volatile context, it has a chance to make its mark if it is clear in its strategic electoral purpose, cultivates an institutional and activist base and times its interventions astutely. But the obstacles to success are enormous – and with Reform currently polling top, the risks are high.

Colm Murphy is currently a member of the Labour Party, but he is writing purely in an academic capacity.

– ref. What would it take for a new British left-wing party to succeed? – https://theconversation.com/what-would-it-take-for-a-new-british-left-wing-party-to-succeed-260599

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Frances Fowle, Personal Chair of Nineteenth-Century Art, History of Art, University of Edinburgh

In 2018 an oil painting of a nude by the Italian artist Amedeo Modigliani broke a world record when it sold at Sotheby’s for US$157.2 million (£115.2m). It was created in 1917, at a time when Modigliani was unable to sell his pictures for more than a few francs.

Johnny Depp’s new film Modi: Three Days on the Wings of Madness explores the artist’s struggle to sell his work, and the tension that existed between his own idealism and the need to be commercially minded.

The film also addresses Modigliani’s mental instability, brought on by self-medication while suffering from tuberculosis. He took refuge in hashish and alcohol (including absinthe), and this movie pulls out all the stops when it comes to visualising the horrors and hallucinations that afflicted him as the illness progressed and the drugs took hold.

Set against the background of Paris during the first world war, the action takes place over three days in 1916. It takes its inspiration from Modigliani – A Play in Three Acts by Dennis McIntyre and remains remarkably faithful to the plot.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

This revolves round Modigliani’s friendship with the artists Chaïm Soutine (Ryan McParland) and Maurice Utrillo (Bruno Gouery); his tempestuous relationship with the English poet and writer Beatrice Hastings (Antonia Desplat); and his reliance on the art dealer Léopold Zborowski (Stephen Graham). It is Zborowski who sets up a much-anticipated meeting with an important collector, Maurice Gangnat (Al Pacino).

Modigliani, brilliantly and energetically portrayed by Riccardo Scamarcio, comes across as a passionate, idealistic and irresistible genius. However, he is also haunted by ghosts, and a slave to his drug addiction, perhaps echoing Depp’s own past.

Depp’s film – his second as director – never loses pace. In one scene Modigliani plunges through a stained-glass window. In another he shocks potential buyers by setting fire to a painting; in a third he trashes his studio, destroys his most recent sculptures and slashes several canvases.

The title of the film, Modì, was the artist’s nickname, but is also a play on the French word maudit, meaning cursed. As a young man Modigliani was an avid reader of the German philosopher Nietzsche, whose own descent into madness was punctuated by periods of lucidity.

Nietzsche saw no clear distinction between dreaming and waking, and the film reflects this in the way in which hallucination, memory and reality become confused. Modí masks his increasing pain with alcohol, drinking with his artist friends Utrillo and Soutine in the seedy Bateau Lavoir in Montmartre.

Of Belarusian extraction, Soutine, like Modigliani, was a Jewish outsider. In 1916 the two artists occupied neighbouring studios in La Ruche, a down-at-heel artists’ residence in the 15th arrondissement of Paris. Before he achieved commercial success, Soutine lived in abject poverty, forced to sleep rough in stairways and on park benches. He suffered from depression and anxiety, and his internal turmoil is reflected in his highly expressive work.

The third member of the triumvirate, Maurice Utrillo, also suffered from mental health issues, and took up art to ward off depression. The movie alludes to this as the reason he was unable to enlist during the war. Instead, he spent regular periods in hospitals and mental institutions and painted many of his views of Paris from postcard images.

Modigliani, too, tried to join up, but was refused due to poor health. In the film this memory sparks an episode of disturbing hallucinations, featuring walking wounded with horrific injuries, and a plague doctor doubling as a spectre of death, a leitmotif for Modigliani’s own fear of dying.

Following such nightmarish episodes, Modigliani turns to Beatrice Hastings, who adopts the role of carer (and, as the film implies, substitute mother) as well as lover. She was however, motivated as much by Modigliani’s genius, as by her own burgeoning career as a poet, literary critic and co-editor of the British avant-garde magazine The New Age.

In the film she is frustrated by Modigliani’s idealism. She encourages him to be more pragmatic and commercially minded and berates him, not for embracing life, but for constantly “running from death”.

She is also the artist’s muse, the model for his “masterpiece”, a reclining nude, and an unfinished sculpted head of a woman. Both are cinematic devices; there is no evidence that Beatrice ever posed nude, while the sculpted head was produced in 1911-12, before the two had even met. Despite this, both works play a central role in the film’s denouement, sparking the artist’s falling out with Zborowski.

The climax of the movie is the artist’s much-anticipated meeting with Gangnat, a rich industrialist and significant figure in art history, whose collection included 160 works by Auguste Renoir. The meeting, predictably, is a disaster, but, even though he leaves without a penny, Modigliani has the last word: “I am much richer than you, Monsieur Gangnat,” he insists, “You have merely existed…I have lived”.

Was Modigliani as idealistic as the film portrays? Possibly, but perhaps not, for by 1916 he had already met a new and influential dealer, Paul Guillaume, who would ensure a commercially successful future, not only for our hero, but also for Soutine and Utrillo.

In the end, the film is an enjoyable romp, even if it is in danger of downplaying Modigliani’s importance as an artist in favour of the more sensational aspects of his life.

And yet it is undeniable that his life really did read like a film script. He died of tuberculosis in January 1920 at the age of 35. Two days later his common-law wife, Jeanne Hébuterne, pregnant with their second child, took her own life. Soon after, however, thanks to dealers such as Zborowski and Guillaume, the importance of Modigliani’s work was finally recognised, and today he is remembered as one of the most significant artists of his generation.

Frances Fowle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Johnny Depp’s new film about Modigliani is in danger of downplaying his importance as an artist – an art expert’s verdict – https://theconversation.com/johnny-depps-new-film-about-modigliani-is-in-danger-of-downplaying-his-importance-as-an-artist-an-art-experts-verdict-260340

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Drage, Associate Professor of Environmental Health, University of Birmingham

Most UK rivers are contaminated by a chemical called trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). This is a type of human-made chemical known as perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), often called “forever chemicals”.

This widespread contamination highlights the extensive scale of work required to remove synthetic forever chemicals from our environment.

Many PFAS are known to be toxic (including associations with altered liver and thyroid function and various cancers). PFAS all contain at least two carbon-fluorine (C-F) chemical bonds, one of the toughest bonds to break so they tend to be persistent. Once they are released to the environment, they don’t easily degrade.

The PFAS class incorporates a vast but unknown number of different chemicals – estimates vary from around 5,000 to 6.5 million. TFA is just one of many PFAS.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

TFA enters the environment from different sources. It’s used to make blowing agents (used to make things like expanded foams and plastics such as packaging materials), pesticides and pharmaceuticals. So it is intentionally used for some useful applications.

But it can also be produced unintentionally as a by-product from various processes that involve “pre-cursor” PFAS chemicals. The biggest environmental source of TFA is as a by-product from manufacturing “F-gases” or flourinated greenhouse gases – these are used as refrigerants instead of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) which are known to cause ozone depletion.

While F-gases may not deplete ozone, they are greenhouse gases with extremely high global warming potential with some several thousand times more potent then CO₂. An F-gas called fluoroform has a global warming potential of 14,800. This means that when fluoroform is released into the atmosphere, it will trap 14,800 times more heat for an equivalent amount of CO₂.

TFA is highly persistent so it resists most forms of physical, chemical and biological degradation. TFA is also highly mobile so it can enter waterways and move around them easily, while remaining in the environment for hundreds of years. This is why it’s now accumulating and cropping up in our environment more often, contaminating our rivers, food and even our wine.

TFA has been found in rivers across the globe including the US, China, Germany and Switzerland. These findings have triggered joint research between environmental charity Fidra and scientists at the University of York to sample water from and analyse the TFA levels in 32 UK rivers, streams and lakes. They found TFA present in 31 of the 32 sites investigated, including an exceptionally high level in the River Kelvin, Glasgow (the second highest recorded globally to date). This is approaching levels where TFA has been previously observed to start having adverse effects on aquatic organisms.

The trouble with TFA

Apart from its major source being as a breakdown product from the production of greenhouse gases (and knock on climate change effects), the presence of TFA in our environment represents a genuine threat to human and environmental health.

Currently there is no guidance for safe levels of TFA in drinking water, and it is not something that is measured. However, if it is present in our rivers and lakes, then there is a potential pathway for it to enter our drinking water. This needs to be addressed so that our levels of exposure, and the level of threat that TFA poses, can be assessed by scientists, industries and regulators.

While evidence is limited on human toxicity of TFA, studies dating back more than 25 years have highlighted its potential effects on aquatic organisms, including effects on development of zebrafish, as well as various algaes, which act as important food sources in aquatic ecosystems. Studies on mammals have that continuous TFA exposure could lead to shown increased liver sizes (suggesting the possibility of a significant underlying, unknown medical condition) and potential disruption to reproductive hormones, causing fertility and foetal development issues.

The EU’s chemical regulator, the European Chemicals Agency is responsible for ensuring chemical safety in Europe. They suggest TFA poses a low threat if exposure is short term. However, longer-term exposure effects remain unknown. With other PFAS, recommended weekly maximum intakes have been substantially reduced as knowledge has advanced.

While TFA pollution continues unabated, levels in the environment beyond those 32 rivers – and in our food and drink – remain difficult to quantify. It is also hard to confidently suggest methods to reduce personal TFA exposure. However, work by myself and colleagues has shown that exposure to many PFAS can be reduced by filtering tap water with activated carbon or charcoal filters. Other researchers have suggested that this could be an effective way to remove TFA from drinking water, as long as filters are changed regularly.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Daniel Drage has previously received funding from the Natural Environment Research Council, DEFRA, Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland. He is an Associate Professor at University of Birmingham and an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Queensland.

– ref. What’s the forever chemical TFA doing in the UK’s rivers? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-forever-chemical-tfa-doing-in-the-uks-rivers-259411