The Brief

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today unveiled the first nationwide limits on dangerous “forever chemicals” in drinking water, setting standards that will have sweeping, costly effects throughout California.

Several thousand water systems around the country are expected to exceed the new limits for the chemicals, which have been linked to an array of diseases — including cancer and heart disease — and have contaminated people and animals worldwide, including newborns.

In California alone, traces of the compounds have been detected in water systems serving more than 25 million people, nearly a third in disadvantaged communities, according to an analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances have contaminated everything from Arctic ice to household dust to food. Previously used to make Teflon and found in some firefighting foam, stain-resistant coatings and other products, the chemicals leach into soil and water from industrial facilities, military bases, airports and landfills. Nearly everyone in the United States has been exposed.

A CalMatters analysis of 2023 state data found 214 water systems in California with 796 public wells that exceed the new federal drinking water standards. That’s more than half of the California systems that tested their water and reported their findings to the state.

California has state guidelines for the chemicals that are far less stringent. Now, under the new federal standards, the number of California wells that contain unacceptable levels will grow by 255% — an additional 572 wells, according to CalMatters’ analysis. The agencies with the contaminated wells provide water to millions of Californians, although not all of them drink the affected well water. Some suppliers may already have begun treatment or rely more heavily on other supplies.

Drinking water wells likely to violate the new limits are found throughout California, including in parts of Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside County, the Santa Clarita Valley, San Jose, Fremont, Visalia, Fresno and some military facilities, including Camp Pendleton.

Water agencies nationwide must now test water for the chemicals and will have five years to comply with the new federal limits.

Utilities and cities warned that the cost of water will rise for many consumers. Those with elevated levels will have to install treatment systems, shut down wells and replace them with more expensive imported water, or blend contaminated water with other supplies.

The EPA estimates that the costs could reach $1.5 billion per year. But a water industry report last year estimated that the cost could reach between $2.5 and $3.2 billion, based on a previous EPA proposal.

Cindy Tuck of the Association of California Water Agencies said the high cost raises questions about whether the new standards are feasible. But, she added, “at the end of the day, our members are going to comply, and they need financial assistance.”

“Some money will come in from the polluters, some money will come in from low interest loans or loans in general. And then some money will have to come from the customer,” said Mike Alvord, director of operations and maintenance for the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, which serves more than a quarter million people.

Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, announced $1 billion through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help fund testing and treatment for public water suppliers and private well owners, part of a $9 billion package to tackle emerging contaminants.

“The only level that is truly protective would be zero,” said Jamie DeWitt, an Oregon State University professor of toxicology and member of an EPA science advisory board. But given the costs and the technology available, Dewitt said, “This is the best we’re going to get right now.”

Dewitt added, “Maybe the costs today seem really high, but if you spread those costs out over a lifetime, then it’s lower than the anticipated health care costs we may experience from higher exposure levels of those particular (chemicals).”

‘Forever chemicals’ have an array of health effects

The EPA estimates that the rule will prevent 30,000 illnesses and 9,600 deaths, and save $1.5 billion from reduced cancers, heart disease, strokes and birth complications.

The health effects of the chemicals came to light with the high-profile case of a DuPont factory in West Virginia that contaminated drinking water in the Ohio River Valley. Long-term studies in the communities have reported a “probable link” between drinking the water and heart disease, colitis, thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancer and pregnancy disorders. In 2017, DuPont paid $671 million to settle a class action lawsuit representing about 3,000 people in a case dramatized by the film Dark Waters.

In recent years, California has passed laws restricting “forever chemicals” in consumer products, including certain food packaging, new clothing, fabric accessories, furnishings and other textiles, and cosmetics. Lawmakers are also weighing a bill this year that would ban the sale of products that contain intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals.

Now cities and utilities must meet new federal standards called maximum contaminant levels for five “forever chemicals.” A sixth chemical is limited when it’s found in mixtures.

Perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, known as PFOA and PFOS, each cannot exceed the new standard of 4 parts per trillion in drinking water — equivalent to four cups of the chemical in a trillion cups of water. (California’s guidelines limited PFOA to 10 parts per trillion and PFOS to 40 parts per trillion.) In addition, three other chemicals, including some used as replacements for PFOA, will be limited to 10 parts per trillion, and there’s a cap for certain mixtures, too.

Many California water agencies have already started to reckon with “forever chemicals” under the state’s guidelines. But they say that their costs will now climb steeply. In January, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed cutting more than $100 million from the budget of a state program aimed at cleaning up the contaminants.

A water fountain at Rio Hondo Park in Pico Rivera. Some wells in the city violated limits on “forever chemicals,” forcing the city to treat the water.

(

Tash Kimmell

/

CalMatters

)

Jason Dadakis of the Orange County Water District said 62 out of roughly 200 large municipal wells in the basin, which serves northern and central parts of the county, were taken offline to comply with the California guidelines.

Of those, 38 now undergo treatment and have come back online. Treatment facilities for the remaining wells are expected to be completed by early 2025 at an upfront cost of roughly $300 million, Dadakis said. He estimates that operations and maintenance are likely to climb to $700 million over the next 30 years.

Now, under the new federal limits, Dadakis estimates that another 40 wells in the basin could be affected — almost doubling construction costs and increasing yearly treatment costs to roughly $1.2 billion over 30 years.

The water district is weighing a 10% rate increase to the cities and water providers to help cover the costs.

“It’s pretty unprecedented to have an enforceable standard at that level — that very single-digit, parts-per-trillion level,” said Jason Dadakis, executive director of water quality and technical resources for the Orange County Water District. “So a lot of people are kind of grappling with that, and doing testing right now to understand what the impacts to their systems could be.”

DuPont, 3M and other manufacturers of the chemicals have agreed to multi-billion dollar settlements following nationwide, class action lawsuits. But California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who called the payout too little, too late, filed a separate lawsuit against the companies seeking water treatment as well as funds for testing, medical monitoring, replacement water and more, according to the complaint.

The Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency took out of service more than half of its 45 wells after detecting the chemicals above the state guidelines, though five are now back online with treatment. Alvord said treating the water could cost $200 million, plus yearly operation and maintenance costs — and that was before considering the new, more stringent federal guidelines.

Alvord said the agency was able to shut off the wells while installing treatment because it had other sources, unlike water suppliers with fewer resources. He expects smaller utilities to struggle even more now.

“Once you exceed a (federal standard) there’s no way out. There’s no ifs, ands or buts… You’re done.”

The Pico Water District, which serves part of Pico Rivera in Los Angeles County, has already raised customers’ rates to help cover the costs of treating wells, which are the city’s only source of drinking water, said General Manager Joe Basulto.

Though much of the $5.5 million project was covered by a grant, the district still has to come up with the remainder, plus yearly operation costs of at least $650,000.

“It’s really hitting our reserves pretty hard right now to come up with the rest. And on top of that too, we’ve got to plan to keep the treatment facilities online,” Basulto said. “It’s a tough road.”

Data journalist Jeremia Kimelman contributed to this report.

It's not your mother's podcast — or your father's, or anyone else's. The Washington Post's new offering, "Your Personal Podcast," uses artificial intelligence to customize podcasts for its users, blending the algorithm you might find in a news feed with the convenience of portable audio.

The podcast is "personalized automatically based on your reading history" of Post articles, the newspaper says on its help page. Listeners also have some control: At the click of a button, they can alter their podcast's topic mix — or even swap its computer-generated "hosts."

The AI podcast immediately made headlines — and drew criticisms from people questioning its accuracy, and the motives behind it.

Nicholas Quah, a critic and staff writer for Vulture and New York magazine who writes a newsletter about podcasts, says the AI podcast is an example of the Post's wide-ranging digital experiments — but one that didn't go quite right.

"This is one of many technologically, digitally oriented experiments that they're doing" that is aimed at "getting more audience, breaking into new demographics," he says. Those broader efforts range from a generative AI tool for readers to a digital publishing platform. But in this case, Quah adds, "It feels like it's compromising the core idea of what the news product is."

On that help page, the newspaper stresses that the podcast is in its early beta phase and "is not a traditional editorial podcast."

Bailey Kattleman, head of product and design at the Post, calls it "an AI-powered audio briefing experience" — and one that will soon let listeners talk back to it.

"In an upcoming release, they'll be able to actually interact and ask follow up questions to dig in deeper to what they've just heard," Kattleman says in an interview with NPR.

As technically sophisticated as that sounds, there are many questions about the new podcast's accuracy — even its ability to correctly pronounce the names of Post journalists it cites. Semafor reported that errors, cited by staffers at the Post, included "misattributing or inventing quotes and inserting commentary, such as interpreting a source's quotes" as the paper's own stance.

In the newspaper's app, a note advises listeners to "verify information" by checking the podcast against its source material.

In a statement, the Washington Post Guild — which represents newsroom employees and other staff — tells NPR, "We are concerned about this new product and its rollout," alleging that it undermines the Post's mission and its journalists' work.

Citing the paper's standing practice of issuing a correction if a story contains an error, the guild added, "why would we support any technology that is held to a different, lower standard?"

So, why is the Post rolling out an AI podcast? And will other news and audio outlets follow its lead?

Here are some questions, and answers:

Isn't AI podcasting already a thing?

"The Post has certainly gone out on a ledge here among U.S. legacy publishers," Andrew Deck tells NPR. But he adds that the newspaper isn't the first to experiment with AI-generated podcasts in the wider news industry.

Deck, who writes about journalism and AI for Harvard University's Nieman Lab, points to examples such as the BBC's My Club Daily, an AI-generated soccer podcast that lets users hear content related to their favorite club. In 2023, he adds, "a Swiss public broadcaster used voice clones of real radio hosts on the air."

News outlets have also long offered an automated feature that converts text articles into computer-generated voices.

Even outside of the news industry, AI tools for creating podcasts and other audio are more accessible than ever. Some promise to streamline the editing process, while others can synthesize documents or websites into what sounds like a podcast conversation.

Why do publishers want to experiment with AI podcasts?

"It's cost-effective," says Gabriel Soto, senior director of research at Edison Research, which tracks the podcast industry. "You cut out many of the resources and people needed to produce a podcast (studios, writers, editors, and the host themselves)."

And if a brand can create a successful AI virtual podcast in today's highly competitive podcasting market, Soto adds, it could become a valuable intellectual property in the future.

Deck says that if the Post's experiment works, the newspaper "may be able to significantly scale up and expand its audio journalism offerings, without investing in the labor that would normally be required to expand."

In an interview, Kattleman stresses the new product isn't meant to replace traditional podcasts: "We think they have a unique and enduring role, and that's not going away at the Post."

What's unique about the Post AI podcast?

For Deck, the level of customization it promises is an innovation. Being able to tailor a podcast specific to one person, he says, "is arguably beyond what any podcast team in journalism right now can produce manually."

In an example the Post published, listeners can choose from voice options with names like "Charlie and Lucy" and "Bert and Ernie."

Kattleman says her team was working from the idea that for an audience, there isn't a "one size fits all" when it comes to AI and journalism.

"Some people want that really straight briefing style; some people prefer something more conversational and more voicey," she says.

Quah says that adding an AI podcast is a bid to make stories accessible to a broader audience.

He says that with the podcast, the Post seems to be trying to reach young people who "don't want to read anymore, they just want to listen to the news."

A key goal, Kattleman says, is to make podcasts more flexible, to appeal to younger listeners who are on the go.

Outlining the process behind the Post's AI podcast, Kattleman says, "Everything is based on Washington Post journalism."

An LLM, or large language model, converts a story into a short audio script, she says. A second LLM then vets the script for accuracy. After the final script is stitched together, Kattleman adds, the voice narrates the episode.

Will listeners embrace an AI news podcast?

Soto, of Edison Research, says that 1 in 5 podcast consumers say they've listened to an AI-narrated podcast.

But, he adds that for podcast listeners, "many prefer the human connection, accepting AI tools to assist in creating the content, but not in executing or hosting the podcast."

The new AI podcast reminds Deck a bit of the hyper-personalized choices for users offered by TikTok and other social media.

"There is a level of familiarity
and, arguably, comfort with algorithmic curation among younger audiences," he says.

But while younger audiences tend to be tech savvy, many of them are also thoughtful about authenticity and connection.

"Community is at the core of why people listen to podcasts," Soto says.

Then there's the idea of a host or creator's personality, which drives engagement on TikTok and other platforms.

"These creators have built a relationship with their audience — and maybe even trust — even if they haven't spoken to sources themselves," Deck says. "This type of news content is a far cry from the disembodied banter of AI podcast hosts."

What are the potential downsides of AI podcasts?

One big potential consequence is the loss of jobs — and for companies, the loss of talent.

"The automation of it kind of erases the entire sort of voice performance industry," Quah says. "There are people who do this for a living," he adds, who could "produce higher quality versions of these recordings."

There are also concerns that, if AI chooses a story and controls how it's presented, it might create an echo chamber, omitting context or skepticism that a journalist would likely provide.

"AI-based news personalization tends to land firmly in the camp of delivering audiences what they want to know," Deck says.

Deck says he's willing to give the Post's AI podcast a bit of time to see how it plays out. But Deck does have a chief concern: "I can say point blank, generative AI models hallucinate."

And when AI models are wrong, he says, they're often confidently so.

Blurring boundaries between human and AI voices could also raise questions of trust — a critical factor for a news organization.

As Soto puts it, "What happens when your audience expects content from the real you and ends up finding AI instead?"

Storylines about abortion and conversations about it showed up on television 65 times this year, on prestigious dramas like The Pitt and Call the Midwife, on reality shows such as W.A.G.s to Riches and Love is Blind and on lowbrow animated comedies like Family Guy and South Park. That's about the same as last year. In 2024, TV shows featured 66 such plotlines.

But in the past few years, there's been a significant drop in the number of characters who actually went through with an abortion. 37% obtained an abortion in 2025, a 14% decline since 2023.

That's according to the annual Abortion Onscreen report. It comes from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, a research program on abortion and reproductive health based at the University of California San Francisco.

"I think there still is a lot of stigma, even in allegedly liberal Hollywood," says researcher Steph Herold. She says the report, which has come out for about a decade, reflects a profound lack of accurate representation of abortion use in America. For example, she points to research showing that about 60% of real life Americans who seek an abortion deal with some sort of barrier.

"But only about a third of people who are characters on screen face any kind of barrier to abortion," Herold said. "Whether it was not being able to come up with the cost of the abortion, not having somebody to watch their kids or cover for them at work, having to deal with clinics that are miles away, or in other states having insurance that wouldn't cover the cost." Most TV shows in 2025 depicting women struggling to get abortions focused on legal obstacles in the past and present.

On TV, 80% of characters seeking abortions are upper or middle class, but in real life, most abortion patients struggle to make ends meet. "This [disparity] obscures the role that poverty plays in obstructing access to abortion, and perhaps explains why we so rarely see plotlines in which characters wrestle with financial barriers to abortion access," the study says.

This year, a teenager on The Pitt sought abortion pills to end her pregnancy — one of only three stories depicting medication abortion out of 65 plotlines about abortion this year. That's another disparity between representation on-screen and real-world numbers: research shows that abortion pills account for the majority of abortions in the U.S. Another difference: only 8% of people seeking abortion on TV are parents. In real life, most abortion patients have at least one child.

It is unrealistic, says Herold, to expect TV to perfectly reflect current abortion use in the U.S., but she said she was disappointed by certain trends. Fewer characters this year received emotional support around their abortions, and more shows, she said, including Chicago Med, 1923, Breathless and Secrets We Keep featured plotlines that emphasized shame and stigma around abortions, especially because of religion. These storylines, the report says, "both obscure the diversity of religious observance among people having abortions, portraying religious patients as exclusively Christian, and also only associating religion with prohibiting abortion, instead of being a meaningful or supportive part of someone's abortion decision-making and experience."

But even though abortion has long been a hot-button political issue, Herold says millions of Americans have had some sort of experience with abortions. "Whether it's having one themselves or helping a daughter or a friend," she said, adding that stories that reflect a diversity of abortion experiences will be familiar to many viewers.

One bright spot, she added, was that television is doing a better job of reflecting the racial realities of abortion. A slight majority of characters in abortion plotlines are people of color — and although they are by far the majority of abortion seekers in real life, this marks a notable improvement from a decade ago, when TV shows more often portrayed women seeking abortions as wealthy and white.

Geminids, the strongest meteor shower of the year, hit a peak this weekend, sending over 150 meteors per hour through the night sky tonight and Sunday.

Vanessa Alarcon, an astronomical observer at the Griffith Observatory, says despite being the best and brightest every year, these meteors don’t tend to get many fans.

" It's usually not as heavily attended, I think because it's a lot colder in the winter. So it's definitely a deterrent, but technically, it's more meteors per hour than the Perseids are," Alarcon said.

The Perseids are typically visible between July and August, but this summer, they were mostly drowned out because of light pollution from the full moon.

Alarcon says it will be a different story this weekend.

" The Geminids ... there's about a 25% crescent moon. So it's actually going be even better than the Perseids," Alarcon said.

Where to go for the best view

For the best viewing experience, you'll have to brave the cold of the deserts and mountains at night, but it should be worth the trip.

"You should go to a darker sky," Alarcon said. "And basically, you just want to get away from the city lights — anything away from the city lights is going to be an improvement from trying to watch it at home."

When to best see it

The Geminids are notable for being exceptionally bright, burning like fireballs for several seconds. The meteors can be seen after 8 p.m. tonight, Alarcon said, peaking between 1:20 and 2:20 a.m. and visible until 5:20 a.m.