The Environmental Working Group released a study last month that showed nearly 90% of American cities have unhealthy levels of cancer-causing chemicals in their tap water. Norman, Oklahoma topped the list, just above Honolulu.
Laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG) have detected hexavalent chromium, the carcinogenic “Erin Brockovich chemical,†in tap water from 31 of 35 American cities. The highest levels were in Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, Calif. In all, water samples from 25 cities contained the toxic metal at concentrations above the safe maximum recently proposed by California regulators.
The National Toxicology Program has concluded that hexavalent chromium (also called chromium-6) in drinking water shows “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity†in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of gastrointestinal tumors. In September 2010, a draft toxicological review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) similarly found that hexavalent chromium in tap water is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.â€
Norman, Oklahoma has just studied and given a public response to the EWG findings.
Water samples recently collected by the city of Norman found levels of chromium-6 ranging from 10 to 90 parts per billion, Utilities Director Ken Komiske said Thursday.
Komiske said the findings were no surprise given Norman’s location and well-documented history of having heavy metals in its drinking water.
[…]
Currently, the limit set by the EPA for total chromium in drinking water is 100 parts per billion.
[…]
“It is naturally occurring here … it’s going to be in the soil, it’s going to be in your plants and it’s going to be in your water,†Komiske said. “But is it safe to drink? Absolutely.â€
An interesting clue to this story is that Komiske is reported to have tested for chromium-6, but he is quoting an EPA limit for total chromium. The two are not the same and the story does not make it clear.
A similar report comes from Syracuse, New York:
[Onondaga County Health Commissioner Dr. Cynthia] Morrow says comprehensive testing programs are in place, and those tests show the amount of chromium is well below state standards. “We have a huge margin of safety before we have any level of concern and that’s for total chromium,” she said.
Total chromium again.
The question raised by the EWG is not for total chromium. It is specific to chromium-6. The EPA has no maximum contaminant level set for chromium-6.
The story from Hawaii shows a far more detailed and informed report than the above two cities.
The Board of Water Supply found the highest level of chromium-6 in Waipahu and the lowest in Wahiawa.
“You don’t want any chromium-6 in the water because there’s always a risk of cancer, but it’s understanding that at very low levels the risk of getting any kind of illness is very low,” said interim Health Director Neal Palafox. “The water by present science is very safe.”
California has a goal of 0.06 ppb for chromium-6 in drinking water.
The chromium-6 is most likely derived from naturally occurring volcanic soils, according to Gary Gill, DOH deputy director for environmental health. “Levels are far below any EPA action levels at this point,” Gill said. “The goal for any contaminant should almost always be zero — that’s a goal, that’s not a health standard.”
Total chromium levels among the Oahu sites tested ranged from 0 to 4.8 ppb.
“To have citizens and people concerned about anything that’s unsafe in the water is always good and should raise red flags,” Palafox said. “The other part of the responsibility is to help people interpret what it means.”
Again we see an official point to EPA levels, yet they fail to mention there is no EPA level for chromium-6. That is the issue. At least the reporter makes it clear. The EPA defends themselves by claiming they simply have not been able to update their rules with current science since 1992:
The current standard is set at 100 parts per billion. EPA’s regulation assumes that the sample is 100% chromium-6. This means the current chromium standard has been as protective and precautionary as the science of that time allowed. The current standard is based on potential adverse dermatological effects over many years, such as allergic dermatitis.
[…]
…EPA is proposing to classify hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6) as likely to cause cancer in humans when ingested over a lifetime. EPA will make a final determination by the end of 2011.
They are not saying chromium-6 should be allowed at 100 parts per billion, they are just saying they are not disallowing chromium-6 as part of the 100 parts per billion because other forms of chromium are not toxic.
In stark contrast to news in Hawaii is a FOX report from Maryland, where an official says there is no need for any safety concern at all until after disaster:
“There is nothing to fear. I’m a Bethesda resident. I drink it all of the time. You’re talking about one test taken at one tap out of 435,000 customers and the level at the tap. There is no science to say what kind of harm this would do to human beings,” said Jim Neustadt with WSSC.
[…]
Why not just test for it? “Because there is nothing that indicates .19 is anything to be concerned about at this time,” said Neustadt.
Nothing indicates risk?
If I lived in Bethesda I would either move away about now or call for Neustadt to test immediately or resign. Even Norman, Oklahoma ran tests before making a public statement on their levels.
Likewise, Maryland fails the Hawaii safety test and education standard because the only data point from Bethesda’s spokesman is that he drinks the water himself; so in just two sentences he completely contradicts himself “I drink it all of the time. You’re talking about one test taken at one tap out of 435,000 customers and the level at the tap.” Either you accept a study methodology or you do not. Which is it?
He also clearly has not read the EPA report that says chromium-6 is considered carcinogenic, and he has not read independent research, let alone the book from 1933 called 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs: Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics
…the manufacturer is not required to prove that the substances he adds are safe for human consumption; his customers by dying or by becoming ill in large numbers—and in such a way that the illness can be directly traced to the foodstuff involved and to no other cause—must first prove that it is harmful before any action will be considered under the Food and Drugs Act. If prohibition of the poison will not interfere with the business of any large and influential interest, the Government may then take action.
If the poison is such that it acts slowly and insidiously, perhaps over a long period of years (and several such will be considered in later chapters), then we poor consumers must be test animals all our lives; and when, in the end, the experiment kills us a year or ten years sooner than otherwise we would have died, no conclusions can be drawn and a hundred million others are available for further tests.
American regulation of toxicity changed after 1933 because of awareness generated by this book. When a large number of children were killed by poison additive in cough syrup a huge backlash (arguably instigated by the book) led to changes in the laws — poof of safety was increasingly required, rather than proof of harm.
Neustadt must have missed almost 70 years of memos on American health, ethics and risk management. Perhaps he could explain why scientific studies that describe chromium-6 as “toxic” should mean something different in Maryland.
The hexavalent form is toxic. Adverse effects of the hexavalent form on the skin may include ulcerations, dermatitis, and allergic skin reactions. Inhalation of hexavalent chromium compounds can result in ulceration and perforation of the mucous membranes of the nasal septum, irritation of the pharynx and larynx, asthmatic bronchitis, bronchospasms and edema. Respiratory symptoms may include coughing and wheezing, shortness of breath, and nasal itch.
[…]
…health problems that are caused by chromium(VI) are:
– Skin rashes
– Upset stomachs and ulcers
– Respiratory problems
– Weakened immune systems
– Kidney and liver damage
– Alteration of genetic material
– Lung cancer
– Death
Maryland residents may be pleased to hear that a new bill that claims to be based on science instead of one man’s health has been introduced at the federal level to address the risk of chromium-6, timed with the EPA’s re-classification.
S. 79, The Protecting Pregnant Women and Children From Hexavalent Chromium Act of 2011
S. 79 would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the health of vulnerable individuals, including pregnant women, infants, and children, by requiring a health advisory and drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium.
