United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Probable carcinogen hexavalent chromium found in drinking water of 31 U.S. cities
Source:
Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 010/12/18/AR2010121802810.html
Published: Dec 21, 2010
Author: Lyndsey Layton
Post Date: 2010-12-21 09:23:15 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 3093
Comments: 8
An environmental group that analyzed the drinking water in 35 cities across the United States, including Bethesda and Washington, found that most contained hexavalent chromium, a probable carcinogen that was made famous by the film "Erin Brockovich." It comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is considering whether to set a limit for hexavalent chromium in tap water. The agency is reviewing the chemical after the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, deemed it a "probable carcinogen" in 2008. The federal government restricts the amount of "total chromium" in drinking water and requires water utilities to test for it, but that includes both trivalent chromium, a mineral that humans need to metabolize glucose, and hexavalent chromium, the metal that has caused cancer in laboratory animals. Last year, California took the first step in limiting the amount of hexavalent chromium in drinking water by proposing a "public health goal" for safe levels of 0.06 parts per billion. If California does set a limit, it would be the first in the nation. Hexavalent chromium was a commonly used industrial chemical until the early 1990s. It is still used in some industries, such as in chrome plating and the manufacturing of plastics and dyes. The chemical can also leach into groundwater from natural ores. The new study found hexavalent chromium in the tap water of 31 out of 35 cities sampled. Of those, 25 had levels that exceeded the goal proposed in California. The highest levels were found in Norman, Okla., where the water contained more than 200 times the California goal. Locally, Bethesda and Washington each had levels of 0.19 parts per billion, more than three times the California goal. The cities were selected to be a mix of big and smaller communities and included places where local water companies had already detected high levels of "total chromium." "This chemical has been so widely used by so many industries across the U.S. that this doesn't surprise me," said Erin Brockovich, whose fight on behalf of the residents of Hinkley, Calif., against Pacific Gas & Electric became the subject of a 2000 film. In that case, PG&E was accused of leaking hexavalent chromium into the town's groundwater for more than 30 years. The company paid $333 million in damages to more than 600 townspeople and pledged to clean up the contamination. "Our municipal water supplies are in danger all over the U.S.," Brockovich said. "This is a chemical that should be regulated." Max Costa, who chairs the department of environmental medicine at New York University's School of Medicine and is an expert in hexavalent chromium, called the new findings "disturbing."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: No Gnu Taxes, Capitalist Eric (#0)
(Edited)
Let's apply "No Gnu Taxes / Capitalist Eric" logic - since chromium is only a very small part of drinking water (0.19 parts per billion), it poses no threat. Nothing to worry about here.
Well, the Brokovich suit was BS, as while Cr VI is established as a carcinogen when inhaled as a dust, it's not when consumed by drinking water and even it's toxicity is very debatable. It's highly doubtful that levels as low as 0.19 ppb would be causing ill health effects.
Sure, and remember all those who argued that dropping a tiny amount of plutonium in a reservoir would contaminate drinking water? How could a a small amount of plutonium possibly contaminate millions of gallons of water? Right? Wow, science is easy when you approach it with a 3rd grade education.
Fact: Even the EPA does not list Cr VI as a carcinogen IN ANY CONCENTRATION when present as dissolved in water. In concentrations as low as described here, it would be converted to the non-toxic trivalent form in the stomach and almost certainly would be harmless. You probably have consumed Cr VI in these concentrations your whole life and just don't realize it.
What happened to the arsenic?
False logic. You constantly push the global warming agenda, even after empirical data shows that it doesn't exist. Hell, there's so much anecdotal evidence that one can't open a weather report without seeing news about record lows, blizzards, etc. OTOH, contamination levels of water supplies, poisons, etc. can be measured, and their effects don't need to be extrapolated using easily-manipulated and grossly flawed computer models. Like the climate-change "scientists," you foolishly make wild claims and comparisons, to push a predetermined agenda. You pretend to be "green," but you're RED inside. In other words, you're a "watermelon" environmentalist. Your agenda has nothing to do with the environment, and *everything* to do with control.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
False: YOU keep on denying global warming DESPITE the empirical data. We can measure atmospheric CO2 and its' impact on warming. Nope, I cite the evidence. I have no agenda except to follow the data and not dismiss something because I refuse to believe it, despite a mountain of evidence. Nope, sorry, check your delusional conspiracy theory at the door. The reality, IMHO, is that the planet is warming. At this point I'm not convinced anyone or anything can do anything about it.
LMAO. You post NASA data? STUNNING: NASA admits its climate data is “garbage” LMAO!!! Thanks for playing!
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#2. To: go65 (#0)
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#2)
Well, the Brokovich suit was BS, as while Cr VI is established as a carcinogen when inhaled as a dust, it's not when consumed by drinking water and even it's toxicity is very debatable. It's highly doubtful that levels as low as 0.19 ppb would be causing ill health effects.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#4. To: go65 (#3)
#5. To: go65 (#0)
An environmental group that analyzed the drinking water
#6. To: go65 (#1)
#7. To: Capitalist Eric (#6)
(Edited)
even after empirical data shows that it doesn't exist
OTOH, contamination levels of water supplies, poisons, etc. can be measured, and their effects don't need to be extrapolated using easily-manipulated and grossly flawed computer models
Like the climate-change "scientists," you foolishly make wild claims and comparisons, to push a predetermined agenda.
You pretend to be "green," but you're RED inside. In other words, you're a "watermelon" environmentalist. Your agenda has nothing to do with the environment, and *everything* to do with control.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#8. To: go65 (#7)
NASA’s global warming evidence page filled with lies, half truths and suspect data.
Senators Question Flawed NASA Climate Data
NASA admits to error in global warming data
WikiLeaks and Claim of Warmest Year On Record, Expose Climate Criminality
The Global Warming Scam
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]