Blood Test Results for 49 Residents: What Was Reported, and What Is Not Yet Known
On 23 September 2026, 49 Thornton-Cleveleys residents received PFAS blood test results from testing arranged by the law firm Leigh Day. Reports say 69.4% were above the higher of the US guidance thresholds and none were below the lower one. This post sets out what was reported, what the thresholds mean, and what has not yet been published.
- Environment Journal, 24 September 2026: ‘High-risk PFAS levels found in blood of Thornton Cleveleys residents’. https://environmentjournal.online/pollution/high-risk-pfas-levels-found-in-blood-of-thornton-cleveleys-residents/
- Regional press syndication (Newsquest), September 2026: ‘High levels of forever chemicals found in Thornton-Cleveleys residents’. https://www.theoldhamtimes.co.uk/news/26577154.high-levels-forever-chemicals-found-thornton-cleveleys-residents/
- Leigh Day, ‘PFAS Blood Testing Fact Sheet’, handed out at its results day in Thornton-Cleveleys on 23 September 2026. Not published online; quotations are verbatim.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2022). Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-Up. https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26156/chapter/7
- Wyre Council FOI response, 6 March 2026, as published in this site’s FAQ. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/asking_wyre_council_why_they_hav
What has happened
On 23 September 2026, 49 residents of Thornton-Cleveleys received the results of blood tests for PFAS, the group of “forever chemicals” that includes PFOA. The testing was arranged by the law firm Leigh Day and carried out by Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU). It was not provided by the NHS or Wyre Council (FAQ).
This site does not publish any individual’s results. Everything below is taken from the published press reports and from Leigh Day’s own fact sheet for participants.
What was reported
Environment Journal, 24 September 2026, reported that of the 49 residents tested:
- “69.4% had PFOA concentrations above 20 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml)”
- “the average reading was 26 ng/ml”
- “None of those tested had levels below 2 ng/ml, classified as the low-risk category under guidance from the National Academies of Sciences”
- “Among participants who regularly ate home-grown fruit and vegetables, 75% recorded results in the high-risk category”
- “Every participant who reported frequently eating eggs produced on their property had a high-risk result”
- “Those living within one kilometre of the site had the highest average PFAS levels”
Regional press reports also said: “Tests also detected a replacement chemical, EEA-NH4, in the blood of 10 residents.”
Leigh Day’s fact sheet says MMU tested for eight specific PFAS (PFHxS, PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFDA, N-MeFOSAA, PFUnDA and EEA-NH4), and that “the most common type of PFAS that we have found across all residents who were tested in Thornton-Cleveleys is PFOA.”
What the thresholds mean
The UK has no official guidance on safe levels of PFAS in blood (Bentham comparison). The thresholds in these reports come from 2022 guidance by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM):
- Below 2 ng/ml: adverse health effects are not expected.
- 2 to 20 ng/ml: potential for adverse effects, especially in sensitive populations.
- Above 20 ng/ml: increased risk; additional screening advised.
NASEM applies these thresholds to the combined total of seven PFAS: MeFOSAA (listed by MMU as N-MeFOSAA), PFHxS, PFOA, PFDA, PFUnDA, PFOS and PFNA (NASEM, 2022). Those are seven of the eight compounds MMU tested.
A note on “PFOA” in the reports
The press reports describe the 69.4% figure and the 26 ng/ml average as PFOA. The thresholds they cite are defined for the combined total of seven PFAS, and Leigh Day’s fact sheet says each participant’s letter “will indicate the total amount of PFAS in your blood.” The reported figures may therefore describe that combined total rather than PFOA alone. The breakdown by compound has not been published, so this site cannot say which.
How this compares
Testing of 39 people near a PFAS source in Bentham, North Yorkshire, earlier this year found 9 (23%) above the 20 ng/ml threshold (Bentham comparison). The Thornton-Cleveleys figure as reported is 69.4%. The two groups differ in size, in how people came to be tested, and in the source of exposure, so the comparison shows the scale of the difference and no more than that.
The council’s position before testing
In an FOI response on 6 March 2026, Wyre Council said blood testing would be “not appropriate,” that results would be “uninterpretable,” and that testing would cause “additional distress” to residents (FAQ). MMU has since assessed the results against the NASEM and NHANES benchmarks, which Leigh Day’s fact sheet describes as “US guidelines which help experts to interpret PFAS results and the risks, if any, that may be associated with certain levels.” The same fact sheet also says blood results alone cannot show whether PFAS has caused, or will cause, any particular health condition (see below).
What happens next
Leigh Day’s fact sheet says: “Our next steps will be to analyse the results of the blood testing with experts.” It also says it will hold “a further community meeting, with all residents, and our experts Dr Megson and Professor Tony Fletcher during the autumn of 2026.”
For anyone concerned about their health, the fact sheet advises: “If you are concerned about your health generally, we would advise you to see your GP for more general queries. You may wish to take your individual letter with you to that appointment.”
To contact Leigh Day, see Contacting Leigh Day.
What is not confirmed in available documents
- The figures for PFOA alone, and whether the reported percentages and average refer to PFOA or to the combined total. The breakdown by compound has not been published.
- How participants were chosen. The 49 took part in a programme arranged by a law firm; the figures describe the people tested, not the whole area. In August the Blackpool Gazette reported that 56 people were being tested; the results reports give 49, and the difference has not been explained.
- Levels of EEA-NH4. The reports say it was detected in 10 residents but give no concentrations.
- Whether PFAS has affected anyone’s health. Leigh Day’s fact sheet is explicit: “your blood results alone cannot determine whether PFAS exposure has caused, or will cause, any particular health condition.”