Directions: When journalists write about a news event, they gather the most

important information by answering the five Ws and one H: Who? What? Where?
When? Why? How? Listen to the news report on Forever Chemical.. Then use
the graphic organizer below to record the answers to these questions.

(Speaker) Who Who is reporting ? What experts (Context) When ? Time Period / When are the
are being interviewed? Would you consider this to events taking place? What do you already know about
be valid and accurate reporting? those times or gather from the reading.

e interview was aired March 15, 2023, this has been a

Here & Now’s Scott Tong talks with Sharon Lerner a recent interview from almost a week ago. is has
reporter for ProPublica whos been covering the issue of been a long going problem since the 1950’s when PFAS
“forever chemicals” or also known as PFAS chemicals for chemicals have been shown in are blood stream. is
year. e PFAS have been linked to birth defect, health was all because of chemicals spreading from inustrical
problems, and cancer. e EPA now wants to limit the factors to water or even products.
chemicals in drinking water. e interview to me is
considered accurate because Sharon Lerner has been
reporting the matter for years and has a long history of
reporting a verity of topics.
Where?Where are the events taking place? What
might you already know about this place or gather from
the reading?

It all started in the late 1950s when the industrial

revolution was prospering, the chemicals from factors
where spreading through water and products
beginning made. eres also a history of these
chemicals, with new versions that are still around even
if you regulate them. In 2006, the EPA reached an
agreement with some companies to hopeful faze out
some PFAS. e replacements caused some of the
same problems that are still polluting the air.

What? What is the subject and the argument about it? What is each side arguing?

With the EPA wanting to limit the amount of toxic PFA chemical in drinking water, it can be seen as an aggressive move
because its usual for the EPA to regulate a chemical in drinking water especially when its been around for decades. Sharons
Lerner agrees thats it a step in the right direction, though there can be set backs with the clases that PFOA and PFOS which
is the chemicals in drinking water contains thousands. It has been a long time argument that the chemicals need to be
regulated. Since the early 2000s the EPA has come to an agrement with some companies to hopefully faze out some PFAS
though before the faze out they put chemicals that where similar, which caused the replacements to cause problems. No
matter the compounds long or short they can last in the environment forever. eres been push back from companies that
make these chemicals about the cost, Sharron believes that the companies should be responsible but the EPA is going to try
to find help to decide that these chemicals should not be in drinking water but it all comes down to whos going to pay.

Why? (use the back side of the paper for this part)
● What message is the author delivering and Why does it matter? (conisder the impact the events had on the speaker
and lesson they learned)
● How does it change your thinking? (consider the importance it holds even today)

is interview didn’t change my thinking because I didn’t know it was problem until hearing about the problem. ough it
has altered my thinking on th way I use water and what goes in my body or not it, especially if there toxins in the most
simplest items. Overall, I thnk it matters to hear Sharrons Lerners message because shes warning other about whats
happening and trying to reglobalize the issues of why toxic drinking water will never get fixed because of how long the
problems has been stretched and if we keep trying to regulate the chemicals its just going to get worse because of the
di ferent variants.