John Henry channelling Thomas Sowell:
>As science develops the ability to detect ever more
>minute traces of all sorts of impurities in water and
>in the air, politicians have developed propaganda to
>scare the daylights out of the public, in pursuit of
>votes, money or power. Who can be against "clean
>water" or "clean air"? But those things have never
>existed and probably never will.
Sowell has no business talking about science. In a 1994 NY Post article he
challenged the global warming thesis on the basis that temperatures did not
go up after major volcano eruptions when in fact any fool knows that
volcano emissions have the opposite effect. They tend to cool off the
atmosphere because sulfur dioxide acts as a filter. In any case, people
like Sowell, John Stossel and Rush Limbaugh are little more than whores who
write what big corporations pay them to write. Let me take that back.
Whores actually perform a useful social service, while Thomas Sowell will
do nothing except get people killed.
====
http://www.rachel.org
#722 - Arsenic From Your Tap, April 12, 2001
Arsenic From Your Tap
by Rachel Massey*
President Bush has canceled a health regulation that would have reduced
allowable levels of arsenic in U.S. drinking water from 50 parts per
billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), arsenic in drinking water causes cancer of the skin, lungs,
bladder and prostate in humans.[1] Arsenic in drinking water is also linked
to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, anemia, and disorders of the immune,
nervous and reproductive systems, EPA says.[1] Furthermore, recent evidence
suggests that arsenic even at very low levels equivalent to 10 ppb in water
interferes with hormones, making it a potent endocrine disrupter. Hormones
are chemical messengers that the body produces to regulate critical life
processes.[2]
The current U.S. arsenic standard of 50 ppb was adopted in 1942. After a
decade of study and public review of scientific evidence, EPA proposed the
stricter standard while Bill Clinton was president. Mr. Bush reversed EPA's
decision shortly after taking office.
Arsenic appears in two forms, organic and inorganic; in general, the
inorganic form is more dangerous. Inorganic arsenic occurs naturally in
some locales. In addition, at least six million pounds of arsenic are
released into the environment of the U.S. each year by mining, coal
burning, copper and lead smelting, wood-preserving treatments, municipal
incinerators and the use of certain pesticides.[3,pg. 249] The
International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health
Organization (WHO), and the U.S. EPA both agree that arsenic is known to
cause cancer in humans.[4] According to EPA, at least 11 million people in
the U.S. currently drink water contaminated with arsenic at levels above 10
ppb.[5]
The 10 ppb arsenic standard would have put the U.S. squarely in the
mainstream. In 1993, the World Health Organization (WHO) set 10 ppb as the
recommended limit for arsenic in drinking water. The 15-nation European
Union adopted 10 ppb as a mandatory standard for arsenic in drinking water
in 1998.[6] WHO says even this level is not safe; for example, WHO
estimates that lifetime exposure to water containing 10 ppb of arsenic will
lead to six cases of skin cancer per 10,000 people.[7]
A 1999 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended
that the allowable levels of arsenic in U.S. drinking water should be
lowered "as promptly as possible." Taking into consideration all forms of
cancer, NAS said the current standard of 50 ppb "could easily result in a
combined cancer risk on the order of 1 in 100."[8,pg.301] A one-in-100 risk
is 10,000 times as great as the one-in-a-million risk that EPA usually
deems "acceptable."
EPA estimated that cutting allowable arsenic from 50 to 10 ppb would
prevent 1000 bladder cancers and 2000 to 5000 lung cancers during a human
lifetime. EPA did not estimate the reductions in skin or prostate cancers,
diabetes, nervous system damage, immune system damage, or cardiovascular
disease.[1]
Now a new study suggests that arsenic is a potent hormone disrupter.[9]
Working with rat tumor cells, researchers have found that low-level arsenic
exposure interferes with the activity of hormones known as glucocorticoids.
Glucocorti-coids are involved in most of the human body's basic systems.
They help to regulate the immune system, the central nervous system, and
changes in blood, bones and kidneys, as well as the body's use of sugars,
starches, fats, and proteins. Glucocorticoids affect weight, growth, and
development.[10]
Arsenic's hormone-disrupting activity may explain how arsenic promotes
cancer. Studies of laboratory animals show that glucocorticoids suppress
some tumors. Arsenic may promote cancers by interfering with this
tumor-suppressing mechanism.
For President Bush, arsenic poisoning provides an opportunity for humor. At
a dinner speech in March the President said, "As you know, we're studying
safe levels for arsenic in drinking water. (laughter) To base our decision
on sound science, the scientists told us we needed to test the water
glasses of about 3,000 people. (laughter) Thank you for participating.
(laughter)"[11]
It is not entirely clear why Mr. Bush takes arsenic poisoning so lightly,
but it may have something to do with his ties to the coal industry. Burning
coal is a major source of arsenic contamination. Many landfills contain
arsenic-laden ash produced by coal-burning power plants. Arsenic is likely
to leak out of these landfills, contaminating groundwater.[3,pg.250]
Coal companies were major contributors to Mr. Bush's election
campaign.Mr.Bush recently announced he was abandoning his campaign promise
to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants,[13] and he has
turned his back on the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to combat
global warming. Representative Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) says Mr. Bush's
arsenic policy is "another example of a special interest payback to
industries that gave millions of dollars in campaign contributions."[5]
The wood products industry, which uses arsenic to pressure-treat lumber,
also stands to benefit from unsafe arsenic standards. A representative of
the American Wood Preservers Institute said members of his organization
were "relieved and delighted" by Mr. Bush's decision.[5]
EPA spent ten years studying the dangers of arsenic in a public process
before proposing the 10 ppb standard. The Bush administration now says the
science behind the 10 ppb standard is "unclear." Furthermore, the Bush EPA
questions whether the Clinton administration "fully understood" the costs
of reducing arsenic contamination, even though the Clinton EPA published
detailed cost estimates for public review and comment.[14]
In developing the 10 ppb standard, EPA estimated that the total cost of
reducing arsenic contamination to 10 ppb nationwide would be around $181
million a year. If this cost were paid entirely by households that use
affected water supplies,it would average about 12 dollars per person per
year.EPA says the total annual benefits from avoiding unnecessary bladder
and lung cancers would range from $140 million to $198 million. In other
words, the monetary benefits from reducing these two illnesses alone would
match the costs of removing arsenic from drinking water. EPA did not
estimate monetary benefits from avoiding other illnesses associated with
arsenic exposure, such as skin, prostate, and lung cancer, diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, and damage to the immune and nervous systems.[15]
NEW YORK TIMES writer Gina Kolata has gone to bat for Mr. Bush on arsenic.
By carefully selecting information, Kolata has managed to make the proposed
10 ppb arsenic regulation seem scientifically muddled and ultimately not
worth the cost.[16] To begin with, she points out correctly that arsenic is
natural: "God put it there," she quotes one scientist as saying, but she
does not mention the millions of pounds of arsenic that corporations dump
into air and water each year.
Kolata quotes an industry consultant who says he would bet a dollar that
the "minuscule" number of lives to be saved by reducing arsenic levels is
not statistically different from zero. Given that we know arsenic causes
many different human diseases and given that we even know the mechanism by
which this seems to occur (hormone disruption), it seems scientifically
untenable and ethically bankrupt to assume "zero" effect when exposing tens
of millions of people to arsenic in their drinking water.
Kolata cites EPA's estimate of how many bladder and lung cancers could be
prevented by adopting the 10 ppb standard, but she does not mention the
many other diseases that could be prevented by a safer standard. Kolata
points out, correctly, that NAS did not recommend a specific level to which
contamination should be reduced. However, she forgets to mention that the
NAS urged the U.S. to reduce its arsenic "as promptly as possible," and
that the NAS indicates that no level of arsenic exposure is known to be
safe.[8,pg.300]
Kolata mentions correctly that the World Health Organization has set 10 ppb
as its standard for arsenic in drinking water, but she says, "Most European
countries have set their maximum arsenic levels at 20 parts per billion in
water..." thus making it seem as if the WHO and the EPA are outside the
mainstream. This is incorrect. The 15-nation European Union in 1998 adopted
10 ppb arsenic as a standard for drinking water; EU member nations are
specifically prohibited from adopting a standard less stringent than 10
ppb.[6] Thirteen other European nations have applied for membership in the
EU; when they achieve it, they too will be bound by the EU's 10 ppb arsenic
standard.
=====
*Rachel Massey is a consultant to Environmental Research Foundation.
[1] EPA Office of Water, "Technical Fact Sheet: Proposed Rule for Arsenic
in Drinking Water and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source
Contaminants Monitoring [EPA 815-F-00-011] ," (May 2000). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/prop_techfs.html.
[2] See http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/New/newstuff.htm#arsenicanedc.
[3] Syracuse Research Corporation, TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR ARSENIC
(Atlanta, Ga.: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September
2000).
[4] See International Agency for Research on Cancer, "List of IARC
Evaluations," Group 1 (list updated April 5, 2000). Go to
http://193.51.164.11/monoeval/grlist.html and click on "Group 1." Also see
Environmental Health Information Service, "Ninth Report on Carcinogens,"
Group A (revised January, 2001). Go to
http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc9.html and click on "Known Human
Carcinogens."
[5] Douglas Jehl, "E.P.A. to Abandon New Arsenic Limits for Water Supply,"
NEW YORK TIMES (March 21, 2001), pg. A1.
[6] Council of the European Union, "Council Directive 98/83/EC of November
1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption," OFFICIAL
JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES May 12, 1998, pgs. L330/32-L330/52.
Available for purchase at http://eudor.eur-op.eu.int.
[7] World Health Organization, "Water, Sanitation and Health: Guidelines
for Drinking Water Quality," information extracted from World Health
Organization, GUIDELINES FOR DRINKING-WATER QUALITY , 2nd edition, Vol. 1
(Geneva: World Health Organization, 1993), pgs. 41-42. Available at
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ/Chemicals/arsenicsum.htm .
[8] National Research Council, ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER [ISBN 0309063337]
(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999). Available at
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063337/html/index.html
[9] Ronald C. Kaltreider and others, "Arsenic Alters the Function of the
Glucocorticoid Receptor as a Transcription Factor," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PERSPECTIVES Vol. 109, No. 3 (March 2001), pgs. 245-251.
[10] See
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/newsources/glucocorticoids.htm .
[11] Frank Bruni, "Word for Word/Bushspeak; The President's Sense of Humor
Has Also Been Misunderestimated," NEW YORK TIMES (April 1, 2001), Week in
Review, pg. 7.
[12] John Harte and others, TOXICS A TO Z: A GUIDE TO EVERYDAY POLLUTION
HAZARDS [ISBN 0520072243] (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991),
pgs. 217-221.
[13] Douglas Jehl and Andrew C. Revkin, "Bush, in Reversal, Won't Seek Cut
in Emissions of Carbon Dioxide," NEW YORK TIMES (March 14, 2001), pg. A1.
[14] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA to Propose Withdrawal of
Arsenic in Drinking Water Standard; Seeks Independent Reviews," Press
Release (March 20, 2001). Available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc68
6/77e59dbb919fdf4785256a150063d6a0?OpenDocument
[15] EPA Office of Water, "Technical Fact Sheet: Final Rule for Arsenic in
Drinking Water [EPA 815-F-00-016] ,"(January 2001). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/ars_rule_techfactsheet.html.
[16] Gina Kolata, "Putting a Price Tag on the Priceless," NEW YORK TIMES
(April 8, 2001), Week in Review, pg. 4.
Rachel's Environment & Health News is a publication of the Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403. Fax (410)
263-8944; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Back issues available by E-mail; to get
instructions, send Email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word HELP in
the message. Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, E-mail the words
SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTICE:
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS free of charge even though it costs our
organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to
continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a
tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or
$500.00). Please send your tax- deductible contribution to: Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not
send credit card information via E-mail. For further information about
making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone
us toll free at 1-888- 2RACHEL. --Peter Montague, Editor
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
