Guarding Against Cancers In the Pruitt- Wheeler Deregulated (I.e. 'Swamp critter') EPA Era

Panel from recent EDF 'Solutions' issue on avoiding chemical contaminants

The recent news (July 12) in The Denver Post that drinking water in north metro Denver - serving 50,000 residents- has been contaminated by perflourinated chemicals (PFCs) is not inspiring news - especially in the era of the swamp rats (like Scott Pruitt, and now Andrew Wheeler) controlling the EPA.  As we know the regulations on water pollution have now been massively loosened, spreading potential carcinogens far and wide. In north metro Denver, for example, the citizens - if they're not drinking bottled water- face increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer, as well as developmental damage to fetuses and liver tissue damage, this according to the Post.

An EPA warning map of high density PFC locations - before the swamp rats took over the agency - is shown below:


Meanwhile, in Fayetteville, West Virginia, the water in the area's schools still runs orange, but kids are expected to drink it. And Flint, Michigan is still trying to recover from the lead in its own water supply,    In southern Colorado we are dealing with high levels of perchlorates, the chemical in rocket fuel - and known to cause cancers of the liver, kidneys, breast and prostate.

Since the ascension of Pruitt, and now his underling Andrew Wheeler, contamination of water is going on at a frenetic clip. Especially since the Trump administration, after heavy lobbying by the chemical industry, is scaling back the way the federal government determines health and safety risks associated with the most dangerous chemicals on the market, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency show.

To get a perspective here, under a law passed by Congress during the final year of the Obama administration, the E.P.A. was required for the first time to evaluate hundreds of potentially toxic chemicals and determine if they should face new restrictions, or even be removed from the market. The chemicals include many in everyday use, such as dry-cleaning solvents, paint strippers and substances used in health and beauty products like shampoos and cosmetics.

But under pressure from Pruitt, and as it moves forward reviewing the first batch of 10 chemicals, the E.P.A. has been ordered to exclude from its calculations any potential exposure caused by the substances’ present  in the air, the ground or water, according to more than 1,500 pages of documents released last week by the agency.

Instead - in a "softball" approach,  the agency will focus on possible harm caused by direct contact with a chemical in the workplace or elsewhere.  In other words you will actually have to make direct contact with the carbon tetrachloride or 2, 4 dinitrophenylhydrazine to ascertain that it actually killed or poisoned you. 

The approach means that the improper disposal of chemicals — leading to the contamination of drinking water, for instance — will often not be a factor in deciding whether to restrict or ban them. Fracking companies,  like many here in Colorado, . can then toss out as many drums of hydrogen cyanide as they want with impunity, and no one will be the wiser.  Until people get sick - and maybe not even then.

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired last year after nearly four decades at the E.P.A., where she ran the toxic chemical unit during her last year. said flatly (ibid.):

“It is ridiculous! You can’t determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation.”

The latest EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) Bulletin ('Solutions', Spring, 2018) , as if the preceding isn't enough, now also reports a further loosening of rules for disposal of 1,4 - dioxane, a solvent linked to liver cancer.   

The news is that while Pruitt, and now Wheeler, have been getting a lot of press attention, less has been paid to their top henchmen and a industry hired gun - Dr. Michael Dourson. He's now nominated to oversee the EPA's chemical safety office, which will mean lowering the safety rules to the minimum. According to Dr, Sarah Vogel, EDF VP for Health (op. cit., p. 9):

"He's not a person you want as EPA's top regulator of chemicals He is well known in the business as the go to guy to get your chemical blessed."

  For example, in terms of the liver cancer -causing 1,4- dioxane, Dourson has proposed (ibid.) "setting a safety level in drinking water that's 1,000 times higher than the original EPA level."  This means paint companies will be able to literally dump tons of the stuff into rivers, lakes etc.

And  if you are unlucky enough to reside near a  prime paint solvent dumping site, you will have to possibly contend with the same liver cancer that took down my youngest brother, Mike, barely 6 weeks ago.

Faced with this prospect, readers may wish to consult the table of precautions at the top, compliments of the same EDF Solutions issue.

Another highly toxic chemical for which Dourson wants the safety margins lowered is methylene chloride.  In one research paper, published  in n obscure industry journal, Dourson "lowballed the risks and called for EPA's safety standard on the chemical to be significantly loosened." (ibid.)

While many hailed the passage of the new chemical reform bill passage in 2016 a huge victory for better health and wellness in this country, we're now faced with rollbacks on multiple fronts - poisoning our water air, as well as soil.  (The bill amended a 1976 law so deeply flawed that regulators could not even ban asbestos a "notorious and deadly carcinogen."

When I related the content of my blog post to Janice, she asked: "Don't these Trumpie swamp rats realize lowering of regulations for chemicals allowed in water will just make more people sick. Send more people to hospitals for cancer and other treatments, especially those in Trump won states?"

I replied: "That is why these degenerates are racing to try to gut the ACA and also limit Medicaid access - unless those that need it are prepared to work almost an extra job!"

She screamed: "Bastards!"

But that's what things have devolved to:   more illness, more hospital treatments, more debt, more  grief and for those citizens who can least afford it. Which elicits the question: How much pain will it take before the Trump backers, voters turn against their mutant, orange ape leader and traitor? Foreclosures on family farms, businesses from his nutso tariffs?  Or  contracting stage IV  liver cancer- such as took down my brother Mike-  from exposure to chemicals in water like 1,4- dioxane, causing them to medically spend themselves into poverty.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/christopher-brauchli/80148/scott-pruitt-the-wall-street-journal-and-trumps-swamp

PFC Contamination Also Theatens U.S. Water Supply

EPA map showing cities where PFC levels exceeded 70 parts per trillion

While we have already seen, as in the case of Flint, MI and other cities, the extent to which lead contamination threatens the water supply, e.g

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/02/mark-ruffalo-bill-maher-expose-degraded.html

 that is not the only contaminant to worry about. More than 55 % of the U.S. watersheds and millions of citizens are also at risk from PFC (perflourinated chemical) contamination.

As noted from a Denver Post story (June 16, p. 16 A) "these perflourinated chemicals rank among the worst in an expanding multitude of unregulated chemicals that federal scientists are detecting in city water supplies, including hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and anti-depressants."

And as further observed: "Perflourinated chemicals don't break down"

In Colorado now, as in  many other states and cities, it has reached the critical crisis mark as the water in all 32 wells of the Security, CO water district has been found contaminated by - you guessed it - PFCs. (DPost, p. 1A) In every case the contamination levels have exceeded 70 ppt and in one case hit 1,367 ppt - nearly 20 times higher than the putative limit (and hence inimical for the consumption of pregnant women and small children).

And while PFC ingestion might not lead to retardation as does lead, it can lead to a whole raft of cancers, including the one I am currently fighting (prostate).  It has also been linked to "kidney and testicular cancer (p. 16A) as well as "developmental damage to fetuses, low birth weight, accelerated puberty, distorted bones and liver tissue damage".

Incredibly, despite the fact these horrendous chemicals are persistent in the environment (don't break down) "they aren't regulated under any national water standard although Vermont and New Hampshire have launched state-level action."

So it appears the country as well as most states, have made a deal with the corporate 'devil' to allow as much contamination of water as it likes to further prospective business (and employment) - devil take the hindmost (or the most cancer sensitive). No wonder so many insurance companies are running up huge, outstanding losses under the ACA  - they probably can't keep up with all the poor health as a result of our contaminated water supply.

The situation doesn't get better nationally. Hence (ibid.):

"The EPA has measured PFCs exceeding the limit in one percent of 4,464 public water systems nationwide. That means more than 5 million Americans in 33 states may regularly be drinking contaminated water with perflourinated chemicals".

Would you willingly and knowingly give your loved one a glass of poison? Well, that's pretty much what you are doing if you inhabit one of those PFC contaminated areas. And then triggering one cancer or another, or one of the other damaging medical horrors.

But, of course, it doesn't stop with PFCs since as I noted our water is literally awash with other toxins too, virtually none of which are regulated, including antibiotics, atrazine-laden weedicides and pesticides and other industrial byproducts - all carcinogenic crap for which the cancers generated will likely need painful, invasive biopsies as well as treatments later.

The situation just south of us in Security (ironic name, eh?) is now so bad that summer school students at four elementary schools began to use bottled water. Meanwhile, the residents themselves- worried over the terrible effects - have begun to stock their shelves with bottled water only.  (They hope that showering in the stuff won't prove too deleterious, but who knows?)

Again, more evidence that the neoliberal state and agenda doesn't really care about its citizens other then to make money off them, and use them as temporary cogs in its machine before tossing them away. Or ditching them entirely if they get too sick to work -or too expensive for continued medical benefits.

Mark Ruffalo & Bill Maher Expose Degraded State Of Our Water

"The whole nation is Flint. We just don't hear about it until people get sick". Mark Ruffalo on REAL TIME last night.

"I know people don't want to hear about any more bad shit, that hurts you. ...but chloramine - you really gotta put that at the top of your list." Bill Maher on REAL TIME.

 Last night's 'Real Time' instalment was notable for not only the way it totally trashed the juvenile Repuke debate the night before  ("the level of toilet humor and kindergartners") but also exposing the deplorable state of our municipal water systems. This was especially thanks to guest Mark Ruffalo, currently starring in the Oscar nominated film 'Spotlight', and also nominated for Best Actor. Ruffalo is also the founder of the non -profit: www,waterdefense.org

Ruffalo began by pointing out that contrary to the myth California was some liberal, environmental bastion, it actually more resembled a "regressive, libertarian, wild West oil and gas state". In other words, with California guv Jerry Brown fulfilling the role of John Hickenlooper here in Colorado - both in the pockets of the fossil fuel frackers.

Ruffalo also related taking a group of actors,  producers and artists on the 'toxic tour' of LA. This included going to four drill sites in Los Angeles proper, all in relatively poor (91 % minority) neighborhoods.  At each venue the fossil-fuel monkeys were using acidification, extreme drilling, fracking to get their stuff out of the ground with horrific health consequence, including nosebleeds, stomach issues and neurological problems as well as asthma.

As he pointed out, sadly  - thanks to the bought and sold media which prefers PR to facts and truth - "the whole nation is like Flint (Michigan). We just don't hear about it until people get sick".

This then led into the discussion of the mass use of a toxic water purifier called chloramine, with Bill Maher referencing a recent visit by activist Erin Brockovitch to get people to pay attention to what's happening to their water. Chloramine is a cheaper substitute for chlorine - that used to be used in the 'old' days (1960es, 70s)  but has now become too expensive for budget -stressed, low tax cities that think they can run only on Repuke administrations and "less government".

Chloramines (one form of which is what was used to purify the water in Flint) are basically ammonia and chlorine compounds that are far more corrosive to lead pipes (which are all across the country) than chlorine. As Bill read out the chloramine -affected cities: Washington, DC, San Francisco, LA, Denver, Miami, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Diego, Portland, Austin, Houston - viewers had to sit up and take note, or should have.

As Bill also pointed out: "It kills all fish and other animals, people on kidney dialysis treatments can't drink it  and these should be indicators that maybe we shouldn't be using it"

As Ruffalo asked: "We are one of the biggest industrial nations in the world. Why can't we trust the water that comes out of our tap?"

Then answering: "Because we don't trust the agencies that are supposed to take care of us! We're the richest country in the world and we don't give a damn about our people!"

Which is also a point I've made multiple times before, in connection with the refusal to label GMO foods, the extent of fracking's contamination of our air, soil and water and the use of cancer causing pesticides and weedicides. All have been swept under the rug by a complicit and now useless media that is often compromised by having the CEOs of the offending industries sitting on their boards.

The water and lead contamination issue has only come to the fore because of the outside investigations of a Univ. Of Virginia prof who found extraordinary corrosion in lead pipes- thanks to a chloramine used to disinfect Flint River water. But now we  know this isn't confined to Flint by any means as noted in a recent WSJ piece ('Lead Pipes Vex Many Cities').

The piece noted that Flint alone "has no choice but to spend an estimated $55 million to replace all the lead pipes leading to homes".

But adding:

"Now, utility officials across the country are calculating the cost of getting rid of their lead water lines, a task that could take years, disrupt tens of millions of homes and businesses and require billions of dollars in spending".

Will the cheapskate bastards who rule our cities finally raise taxes and get the damned job done? Not bloody likely, despite the risk that hundreds of Flints are now likely to erupt in the coming years thanks to: 1) using cheap disinfectants to purify water supplies, and 2) inattention to our overall crumbling infrastructure -which some morons actually believe to be just a ruse of the American Society for Civil Engineers. What? So THEY can get rich? Give me a fuckin' break. But I suppose these deadheads think it's similar to "climate scientists getting rich from the global warming hoax".

The bottom line, as the article also notes, is the EPA estimates there are "10 million lead service lines that link water mains in streets to buildings"

The American Water Works Association, which represents 4,000 water utilities, estimates the average cost for each replacement line at about $5,000 - for a total of $32. 5 billion (based on a lower limit of 6.5 million lines to replace).

Tracy Mehan III, executive director of government affairs for the AWWA believes all lead lines will eventually have to be replaced, adding that municipalities will likely have to raise funds through a blend of local, state and federal sources"

And dare I say the T -word? Yes, I will: TAXES!

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/66222/a-vote-for-hillary-clinton-is-a-vote-for-fracking