Showing posts with label Safe Drinking Water Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Safe Drinking Water Act. Show all posts

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Radium In Tap Water Of Half Of All Americans: Do You Even Know?

It's been bad enough learning about the ubiquity of lead in our drinking water and how more is added each year because of  antiquated lead pipes. (Another aspect of our crumbling infrastructure which includes bridges, sewer systems and airports.)    The lead pipe issue came to the fore in a 2016 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".


The culprit? A cheapo chlorine derivative called chloramine used to disinfect city water supplies. The problem is the stuff also causes lead to leach out of aging pipes and pollute water supplies. 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. 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).


This issue, make no mistake - is a man-made problem- that will take a lot of money to fix but in the end can be resolved.

But now we learn that a new source of water contamination is wholly natural:  radium.  Why important? Because it is a known carcinogen especially for bone cancer (osteosarcoma).   The report on CBS this a.m. noted the finding from the Environmental Working Group that 158 waster systems in 27 states have reported radium in concentrations that exceed the Federal legal limit, that is 5 pCi/ L. 

For those unfamiliar with radiological units, the pCi/L  denoted pico Curie per liter.  Given radium decays at a rate of about 2.2 trillion disintegrations per minute, a picocurie  represents 2.2 disintegrations per minute.. This is given that a picocurie is one trillionth of a curie..

What you really need to process here are the words from the EWG:


Drinking water for more than 170 million Americans in all 50 states contains radioactive elements that may increase the risk of cancer, according to an EWG investigation released today.
Radiation in tap water is a serious health threat, especially during pregnancy, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s legal limits for the most widespread radioactive elements are more than 40 years old. But President Trump’s nominee to be the White House environment czar rejects the need for water systems to comply even with those inadequate standards.
The most common radioactive element in American tap water is radium. EWG’s analysis of test data from almost 50,000 public water systems found that from 2010 to 2015, more than 22,000 utilities in all 50 states reported radium in the treated water delivered to customers’ taps. EWG’s interactive map shows the utilities with radium contamination and how many people were affected.
Worse, Trump’s nominee (Kathleen Hartnett White) to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality,(CWQ) admitted a 2011 investigation by Houston’s KHOU-TV that if utility tests found radiation levels over the EPA limit, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would subtract the test’s margin of error to make it appear the water met federal standards. In some cases, this meant that Texans whose tap water posed the extraordinarily elevated lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 400 were not informed of the danger. . The TX city of Brady turns out to be the poster child for his mishandling of risk with tap water that exceeds the federal level of radium by 4.25 pCI/L.  As the CBS report noted no one in their right mind in this Texas city uses anything but bottled water.
These citizens have their heads screwed on straight since who wants to tempt fate ingesting this stuff,  risking bone cancer or unwanted mutations in a soon to be born child?  It also leaves open the question of what other Texas communities know, or don't. This is given the EWG report found more than 3,500 utilities in the state - serving 22 million (or 80 percent of the population) reported finding radium in tap water.
In Brady, TX, meanwhile, it's been found that radium levels in some wells is nine times higher than it should be.  The mayor,  Tony Groves,  admitted to CBS' correspondent Anna Warner this morning the city faces a tough problem: how to get enough money to build a new water treatment plant.  This will cost in excess of $20 million. It's a sure bet here - knowing Texas and its conservative legislature - the good citizens of Brady will be told to suck salt. There is no way they will process the cost-to benefit for 5,500 residents as being in favor of even offering loan money.
Let us also note the EWG operates outside the domain of the corrupt Trump EPA and its toadies. Thus, it has done its own reporting and research - given the importance of water quality in our lives-- and manages its own website.  One of its mission is to enable Americans to use the EWG website to learn exactly what contaminants are present in their drinking water.  To facilitate that I have provided the EWG link below where you can simply punch in y9ur zip code to learn what's in you water:
At the bottom of the field you also have the option of putting in your email to get the guide to safe drinking water and protecting yourself. Don't count on the money grubbing Trump parasites to protect you! All they want is to protect their own wealth and line their pockets out of your misery and illness.
As noted by EWG's Alex Formuzis this morning on CBS, all of this is something the EPA ought to have done. He went on to say:
"The EPA and the Safe Drinking Water Act have largely failed the American people."
Indeed, and we've seen the failure of the latter Act especially after fracked water was listed as being acceptable. As a 2014 Denver Post report noted,  some 716,982 gallons of the petroleum chemicals spilled during the past decade have stayed in the ground after the initial cleanup. This has contaminated soil, sometimes spreading into groundwater. Recall that a House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2010-11, report found that fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens, supposedly regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Among the toxic fracking chemicals and their adverse effects uncovered by the inquiry:

-Benzene: a powerful bone-marrow poison (aplastic anemia) associated with leukemia, breast and uterine cancer

- Styrene, which may cause eye and mucous membrane irritation, neurotoxic effects in the central and peripheral nervous systems.

- Toluene, which may cause muscular incoordination, tremors, hearing loss, dizziness, vertigo, emotional instability and delusions, liver and kidney damage, and anemia.

- Xylene, with cancer-causing (mainly in the kidneys, liver) and neurotoxic effects, as well as reproductive abnormalities.
But don't look for the Trump government to protect you or to even make available the medical care you will need once you get all the cancers from the contaminants - whether fracked chemicals, lead or radium-  in our water. Nope. It's all too expensive, and these glorified rats value their own wealth over your health.
 
 

 


Saturday, June 11, 2016

New Fracking Report Shows Water Resources At Ever Greater Risk


Map above highlights the areas most compromised by fracking.

The latest report from Food & Water Watch shows ever greater water resources (see map) at risk from current as well as future fracking zones - many close to water supplies, as well as consuming vast volumes of water.  Those who care about the quality of their water, its accessibility as well as effects of fracking on soil and air need to pay more attention as the frackers are again setting up to go all out. This has especially been since the price of oil has hit $50 a barrel once more, and new natural gas deposits have been found, e.g. in Colorado.

Among the sobering revelations in the latest report:

-Fracking a single well typically consumes at least 3 5o 5 million gallons of water which can never be replaced, especially in arid states like Colorado.

- There are no good disposal options for the massive volumes of toxic and radioactive waste fracking creates.  Conventional treatment plants are not equipped to treat fracked wastewater and injecting it underground is causing earthquakes (as in OK) and putting our drinking water at risk.

- Most dangerous fracking chemicals are kept secret and fossil fuel corporations are averse to disclosing the chemicals which are called "trade secrets".

Nevertheless an inquiry by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2010-11, learned that fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens, supposedly regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Which was rendered toothless for fracking by lobbyists) Among the most toxic of the chemicals used (11.4 million gallons in all) were: benzene, toluene, xylene and ethyl benzene.

Nearly all of the above have been linked to: cancer (breast, prostate, liver, colon) as well as neurological problems, respiratory difficulties and even birth defects.

- A recent study issued by the Colorado School of Public Health and Brown University has also linked birth defects to the proximity of fracking near a mother's home. The study found "an association between the density and proximity of natural gas wells within a 10-mile radius of the maternal residence and the prevalence of congenital heart defects" as well as "defects of the brain and spinal cord."

Two more disgusting aspects you may not know:

1) Fracking corporations are exempt from critical statutes in all the major environmental laws, including: the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and laws pertaining to disposal of toxic waste."

2) Fracking corporations are now banking on not only doing their foul deeds in residential neighborhoods but expanding their operations to national parks and densely populated urban areas.

If anyone needs more proof that capitalism is hell bent to destroy whatever is left of this planet as livable abode for humans, there you have it.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Changes_Everything

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Frackers Continue To Run Amuck - Despoiling Soil, Air and Water

No photo description available.
A frack rig goes up in Montana - ready to despoil more air, soil and water.

Where does it end? The relentless, unregulated fracking I mean, which continues to despoil the landscape of the nation,  rapidly converting it to a de facto moonscape.  But don't take my word. A recent NDRC investigation into the oil and gas industry has identified ExxonMobil and Shell as the two top fracking violators in Colorado, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.  These companies have been placed on the 'most wanted' list and charged by state environmental groups and authorities with violations and crimes that include: illegal dumping and spills, illegal pollution of air, and contamination of drinking water - as well as failure to conduct safety tests.

The full report on the nefarious acts, released in March by NDRC and the FracTracker Alliance, shines a harsh spotlight on a renegade industry shrouded in secrecy as it not only corrupts the locations its frack wells bore into, but distant ones through which its assorted 'bomb' trains pass - any one of which could explode at any time. See e,g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-train-explosion-another-reason.html

But is anyone paying attention? Don't count on the Neoliberal gov't which is ok with the industry being shrouded in secrecy and the difficulty of gaining any access to fracking operations. So long as the proles are kept in the dark they don't have to worry or fret about the pitchforks and protests. To give an idea of the extent of the secrecy - and btw, if these operations are so great as the pro-frack ads proclaim, why the need?- the public records on violations are available in only 3 of the 36 states where fracking occurs.

According to Amy Mall, an NDRC senior policy activist:

"You'd want to know if the company or companies operating in your backyard is a responsible corporate citizen or a serial violator. But as it stands now, it's nearly impossible to uncover a company's track record"

This isn't just blowing smoke as the Union of Concerned Scientists has also made clear. The public's need to know is more urgent than ever as a growing body of evidence points to the serious and far reaching health effects of fracking.  Leave out for the moment just the 4 million gallons on average it takes to frack one well - a disaster in dry states like Colorado. Many of the chemicals used in fracking fluid are toxic and they contaminate water resources when leaked or spilled. A report in a Denver Post investigation in May of last year found:

State data also show that 12.3 percent of the past 1,000 spills (since June 24, 2012) already had contaminated groundwater before companies began cleanups.


Thanks to a trio of diligent Democrats: Henry Waxman of California, Diana DeGette of Colorado, and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, we now know the extent of the pollution of our precious watersheds thanks to the hydro-fracking industry. We know, for example, the oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005- 09.

According to the report, the product of an inquiry by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2010-11, fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens, supposedly regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Which was rendered toothless for fracking by lobbyists) Among the most toxic of the chemicals used (11.4 million gallons in all) were:

Benzene: a powerful bone-marrow poison (aplastic anemia) associated with leukemia, breast and uterine cancer

- Styrene, which may cause eye and mucous membrane irritation, neurotoxic effects in the central and peripheral nervous systems.

- Toluene, which may cause muscular incoordination, tremors, hearing loss, dizziness, vertigo, emotional instability and delusions, liver and kidney damage, and anemia.

- Xylene, with cancer-causing (mainly in the kidneys, liver) and neurotoxic effects, as well as reproductive abnormalities.

- Methylene chloride, which may cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, central nervous system disorders and COPD.


 As we know from Devra Davis' landmark book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, the first two of these toxic chemicals have well known correlations to brain carcinomas and chordomas. The other two, to liver, breast and prostate cancers.

Apart from this, it has been found that the gas allowed to escape from frack wells can also leak into the ground into nearby water wells - presenting a different hazard because it is highly flammable. This was demonstrated by Josh Fox in his excellent documentary exposing the fracker criminals, 'Gasland':
 Gasland
Water catching on fire from methane having diffused into it.

While such documented flaming water from the tap has prompted numbskulls to get cheap jollies, the facts are a bit different. According to Food & Water Watch there are dozens of cases of methane leaks near drill sites that have caused houses and wells to explode.

Then there is the air pollution. According to NDRC senior scientist Miriam Rotkin-Ellman:

"The risks are not limited to what's in our drinking water. Oil and gas operations are also poisoning the air we breath."

A new analysis by NDRC pinpoints five major health threats from fracking-related air pollution, including: respiratory difficulty, nervous system impacts (brain blackouts, memory loss), blood disorders, birth defects, and cancer.

At least one state has acted on this information on behalf of its citizens. This occurred last December when Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York banned fracking in the state because of the lack of scientific evidence that it can be done safely. In doing this, Governor Cuomo broke from the Neoliberal imperative by invoking the precautionary principle.  To refresh reader memories, this entails placing the onus on the maker of the product or those performing the process to prove their product or process is safe. It is not the job of the consumer or citizens to prove they are unsafe, yet Neoliberal business has adopted this specious plank as noted by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in  Toxic Sludge Is Good For You.

Think of it! By negating the precautionary principle the Neoliberal market is able to dump all manner of crap on unwary citizens and disarming them so that they can't fight back. "You have to prove to us there is cancer risk!" they shout. Turning the principle on its head.

But unless the rest of us fight for that principle we may all end up in early graves from some kind of cancer or other condition that shortens lifespan.   IN the 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' book, the PR industry backing the fertilizer manufacturers argued that the people were wrong because "toxic sludge was great for crops". And besides the complainers had no proof of ill effects.   Never mind the vomiting, breakouts in rashes, sexual dysfunction, brain anomalies and convulsions, which "were just in their minds."

Fracking will not go away in other states unless we the citizens demand it and fight for it. The Neoliberals are too invested in this crap  - which really has no business even leaving the ground. It's too degraded an energy source and also doesn't deliver on its energy promise no matter what its PR rats claim.   As Richard Heinberg explains (p. 110) it in his book, 'Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future':
No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market.

Regarding the promises for kerogen or oil shale, he writes:
"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. "

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Obama's SOTU - So So....

Obama State of the Union

The rhetoric was soaring - often even Reaganesque- especially as it accented the notes of nationalism, and the promise of the nation's future. Of course, this is what any President delivering his SOTU aspires to. Only a guy like the fictional character 'Bulworth' would tell Americans the truth: that their nation is caught in a gulf of inequality from which it will never emerge (given the 'pay to play' system), it's in decline because of corroding infrastructure (needing $1.6 TRILLION to repair - according to the American Society of Civil Engineers) and the energy promise of fracking is about like fool's gold.

Let's take the last first. Recall from last year's State of the Union, Obama sang the praises of natural gas exploration via fracking.  He actually expatiated on a  "100 year supply of natural gas that's right beneath our feet" and the goal to "develop it safely".  This time he even rivaled that, claiming the U.S, is now nearly energy independent and did briefly mention the need to "safely" extract the energy, but of course the evidence is not there. Anyone who saw Erin Brockovitch's  map - displayed on Bill Maher's REAL TIME last Friday - of the contaminated water sites from fracking would get that. 

The frackers claim, and the corpora-media have attempted to bolster, the notion that "fracking is safe for water". But IF it is, why is fracking exempt from compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act? Surely, NO exemption is needed if it was truly safe! This is like the misbegotten trope that GMO foods don't need to be labeled because they're "proven safe". Well, how about just humoring me. You know, I'd like to KNOW what I'm ingesting!

More importantly fracking does NOT solve the problem of climate change /global warming as Obama claimed last night. Indeed, it makes it worse.  People-citizens need to process this, and I suggest they get hold of  Richard Heinberg's 'Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future'.

As Heinberg observes  (p. 110):

Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. Therefore the EROEI in processing oil shale is bound to be pitifully low. According to the best study to date, by Cutler Cleveland and Peter O'Connor, the EROEI for oil shale production would be about 2:1. That tells us that oil from kerogen will be far more expensive than regular crude oil.

Recall 'EROEI' denotes energy returned on energy invested.

Heinberg  also disposes of the myth of "100 years of natural gas".

He observes, for example(ibid.), that "a study of the EROEI for electrical heating of methane hydrate deposits between 1000 and 1500 meters deep yielded ratios from 2:1 up to 5:1, depending on the source of the electricity"

Also, the methane extracted is a major contributor to accelerated global warming. It is not innocuous as Obama appears to believe. Hence, his clarion call for attention to climate change while approving of natural gas fracking is exponentially cognitively dissonant.

Obama's challenge to the Reepo congress to reinstate unemployment benefits was spot on, but his praising of the "budget deal" in December didn't mesh with that call. The fact is that deal was an abomination and gave away the store to the Repukes by leaving unemployment extension out of the plan.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/12/latest-budget-deal-seeks-to-preserve.html

Now the Dems call for reinstating benefits but that's like shutting the barn door after the cow's vamonosed.  The time to have ensured the benefits was when leverage existed - at the time of the budget dealing. Not now when the Reeps will simply ignore all calls .....oh, unless "equal cuts" can be found elsewhere. (How about the military? Like that F35 white elephant?)

The most stirring part of the address was the promise to "take action", presumably by Executive orders - not Executive "actions" - which are far weaker. (Recall JFK's Exec. ORDER 11,110 actually approved the printing of U.S. Notes outside the Federal Reserve system. It translated to $4.2 bllion such notes being generated.)

But as The UK Guardian observed:

 the executive orders will have only limited impact in comparison with legislative action, and his speech laid bare how powerless Obama is in the face of intransigence from the Republican-controlled House.

Finally, the one inspiring note I wanted to hear was sounded when Obama proclaimed the need to end the fiasco in Afghanistan, and the necessity to cease "permanent war".  However, whether he's true to his word here will depend on whether ALL troops leave at the end of this year, or some new deal is struck that allows 12,000 or so to remain another ten years.

THAT is not halting perma-war!