Dangerous Levels of Arsenic in U.S. Wells, EPA knew Since 2008 that Levels were Higher than Reported

[6souls]

Only Minnesota & Texas were willing to provide data on private wells

Arsenic is nearly synonymous with poison. But most people don’t realize that they consume small amounts of it in the food they eat and the water they drink.

Recent research suggests even small levels of arsenic may be harmful. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been prepared to say since 2008 that arsenic is 17 times more toxic as a carcinogen than the agency now reports.

Women are especially vulnerable. EPA scientists have concluded that if 100,000 women consumed the legal limit of arsenic each day, 730 of them eventually would get lung or bladder cancer.

The EPA, however, hasn’t been able to make its findings official, an action that could trigger stricter drinking water standards. The roadblock: a single paragraph inserted into a committee report by a member of Congress, an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found. The paragraph essentially ordered the EPA to halt its evaluation of arsenic and hand over its work to the National Academy of Sciences.

The congressman, Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, said he was concerned that small communities couldn’t meet tougher drinking water standards and questioned the EPA’s ability to do science. But a lobbyist for two pesticide companies acknowledged to CPI that he was among those who asked for the delay. As a direct result of the delay, a weed killer the EPA was going to ban at the end of 2013 remains on the market.

The tactic is among an arsenal of tricks used by industry and lawmakers to virtually paralyze EPA scientists who evaluate toxic chemicals. In 2009, President Barack Obama signed an executive order seeking to stop political interference with science. The EPA unveiled a plan to evaluate far more chemicals each year than had been done during the George W. Bush or Bill Clinton administrations. In the last two years, however, it’s completed only six.

It’s now unclear when the agency’s arsenic review will be finished, even though scores of studies have linked arsenic not just to cancer, but also to heart disease, diabetes and strokes.

Meanwhile, people like Wendy Brennan, who lives in rural Maine with her two daughters and two grandchildren, are left to worry about all the arsenic-tainted water they’ve consumed. Brennan participated in a study by Columbia University researchers, who found levels of arsenic in her well water that were more than five times the federal standard.

“My eldest daughter said … ‘You’re feeding us rat poison,’ ” Brennan said. “I said, ‘Not really,’ but I guess essentially, that is what you’re doing. You’re poisoning your kids.”

Then, another shock: The researchers reported that children who drank water containing arsenic – even at levels that met the federal standard – scored six points lower on IQ tests than children who drank clean water.

“Your job as a mother is to give your kids the best,” said Brennan, who installed an $800 filter that removes arsenic from her water. “Just by giving my kids juice … giving them cups of water, which you are supposed to do, I was actually giving them a sediment that’s settling in their body, and I may not know for 10 years if it’s affected them.”

Key findings:

• Arsenic is consumed by people in small amounts in the food we eat and the water we drink.
• EPA scientists have concluded that if 100,000 women consumed the legal limit of arsenic each day, 730 of them eventually would get lung or bladder cancer.
• A single paragraph inserted into a committee report by a member of Congress essentially ordered the EPA to halt its evaluation of arsenic, or make public its arsenic findings, an action that could trigger stricter drinking water standards.
• A lobbyist for two pesticide companies acknowledged to CPI that he was among those who asked for the delay. As a direct result of the delay, a weed killer the EPA was going to ban at the end of 2013 remains on the market.

http://revealradio.org/arsenic-water/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/...-public-health

About the map: Arsenic makes up part of Earth’s crust and is commonly found in groundwater. In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lowered the drinking water standard from 50 parts per billion of arsenic to 10 parts per billion. The agency initially had proposed a limit of 5 parts per billion but faced criticism that it would be too costly for water companies to hit that target.

Arsenic is known to cause a variety of cancers and has been linked to heart disease, stroke and diabetes. Recent research has found an association between arsenic levels below 10 parts per billion and IQ deficits in children.

This map is based on arsenic readings from 45,000 wells collected by the U.S. Geological Survey throughout the country, going back four decades. In addition, the states of Texas and Minnesota provided data gathered on arsenic in private wells. In several other states, few readings were available.

[Mertron]

i live in nj, looks like ive been building a pretty good arsenic immunity over the years

[Jaybar]

I like how those arsenic levels follow state lines.

[BaneTheBrawler]

This map is based on arsenic readings from 45,000 wells collected by the U.S. Geological Survey throughout the country, going back four decades. In addition, the states of Texas and Minnesota provided data gathered on arsenic in private wells. In several other states, few readings were available.

this is why

[myreality]

The congressman, Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, said he was concerned that small communities couldn’t meet tougher drinking water standards and questioned the EPA’s ability to do science.

[Kohan]

And people wonder why I buy spring water that has been tested to have low levels of everything, including arsenic.

Spoiler: show

I also recycle, and modern plastic bottle recycling is efficient, so any hippies with a problem can go fuck trees.

[Spicyryan]

And people wonder why I buy spring water that has been tested to have low levels of everything, including arsenic.

Spoiler: show

I also recycle, and modern plastic bottle recycling is efficient, so any hippies with a problem can go fuck trees.

There really is no winning. We have had worries over plastics as time goes on.

Also for someone who recycles (assuming you are being "environmentally conscious") doesn't consuming plastic bottles seem to be defeating the purpose? That Britta bottle yo!

AFAIK (I really don't so please correct me if I am wrong) despite if it is efficient or not doesn't it still take more energy to recycle one of those bottles than to just make a new one?

Frankly since I am also in NJ the water generally just tastes like shit more so than me being worried about if it has other shit in it

[Penthesilea]

So isn't this a bit overblown? Arsenic tolerance can develop (generational tolerance, as far as I know there are studies suggesting genetic mechanisms for tolerance) and public water is usually treated to remove any As.

[6souls]

The bigger snub here is that Pesticide & Water industries have been working in tangent by swaying the government decisions on what is considered to be safe drinking water.

[archibaldcrane]

So isn't this a bit overblown? Arsenic tolerance can develop (generational tolerance, as far as I know there are studies suggesting genetic mechanisms for tolerance) and public water is usually treated to remove any As.

Wait, so this is overblown because a few generations from now our kids may have more arsenic tolerance than we do?

wat

[Qalbert]

our descendants will also have a higher tolerance for shitty posts

[Uzor]

There really is no winning. We have had worries over plastics as time goes on.

Also for someone who recycles (assuming you are being "environmentally conscious") doesn't consuming plastic bottles seem to be defeating the purpose? That Britta bottle yo!

AFAIK (I really don't so please correct me if I am wrong) despite if it is efficient or not doesn't it still take more energy to recycle one of those bottles than to just make a new one?

No.

http://epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/...phic/index.htm

[Kohan]

There really is no winning. We have had worries over plastics as time goes on.

Also for someone who recycles (assuming you are being "environmentally conscious") doesn't consuming plastic bottles seem to be defeating the purpose? That Britta bottle yo!

AFAIK (I really don't so please correct me if I am wrong) despite if it is efficient or not doesn't it still take more energy to recycle one of those bottles than to just make a new one?

No, which is what I covered in the spoilered part of my post—that it's more efficient today, and is continuing to improve. There are other concerns, like manufacturing, distribution, and stocking, but many companies are constantly cutting back on the carbon footprint of those things, and for profit-related reasons in addition to environmental ones (though the latter is usually relied on for tax breaks and friendly PR spin more than actual concern). I read about all of this rather comprehensively. I mean, I could talk to you about improved efficiency in semi-tractor trailers, including Volvo's new braking systems, aerodynamic attachments for trailers, hybrid technology integration, and so on, and I can't drive one of the things.

Anything else was covered by Uzor's post.

EDIT: Actually, I'd like to add something more. I'm not sure what you mean about "worries over plastics," but I can presume you're talking about things like phthalates and the like. Some things that are discouraged, like reusing plastic bottles, are not actually concerning. It's extremely unlikely that your liquids will leech noteworthy amounts of chemicals from the bottles, meaning that you can recycle in the sense of reusing something multiple times before actually sending it to a recycling center. I have also used a great multitude of bottles to store filtered tap water in case of an emergency, and I'm rather glad I did, given my state's seemingly perpetual drought plight. They came in handy when I had to shut off my water for a few days, too, enabling my household to do things you normally take for granted, like bathing, brushing your teeth, washing your hands, using the toilet, and so on.

I could talk more about all of the recycling I conduct on a daily basis, but that would be even more off-topic.