APP - Chromium 6 Standards

Schadenfreude

patriot and widower
chromium 3 VS chromium 6 and infants/children in california and water standards - standards being tightened beyond federal - as usual

Calif. to toughen chromium 6 standard​

San Bernardino County Sun

By Jim Steinberg, San Bernardino County Sun, Calif. Jan. 05--New research documenting that young children are more susceptible than the general population to health risks from exposure to carcinogens has prompted a state agency to toughen its proposed goal for the amount of chromium 6 in drinking water.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment now proposes that the state public health goal for chromium 6 in drinking water should be 0.02 parts per billion, instead of 0.06 parts per billion as originally proposed in an August 2009 document.

Residents of Hinkley, a community in San Bernardino County's High Desert, have been dealing with chromium 6 concerns for decades.

The public health goal is based on calculations intended to eliminate cancer risks from chromium 6 over 70 years of drinking tap water every day. That goal will be used as one of several factors in setting the legally enforceable maximum allowable amount.

The public health goal was changed because scientists who reviewed the original document said that its calculations did not sufficiently account for chromium 6 risks in children and other special risk populations, said Sam Delson, spokesman for the agency.

The 145-page revised draft notes that human stomach acids convert ingested chromium 6 into chromium 3, which is not absorbed into the body. But infants' stomachs are only modestly acidic for the first days to weeks after birth.

Early-in-life susceptibility to carcinogens has long been recognized
by the scientific community and clinicians as a public health concern.
Additionally, there are a variety conditions which result in reduced gastric acid production

For more than a year, California has been largely alone in wrestling with standards for chromium 6 in water.

Last month, however, following an environmental group's report on chromium 6 in municipal water supplies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it would launch a series of actions to better understand the risks of chromium 6 in water.

The federal government currently has a standard of 100 parts per billion for all chromium in water, a measurement which includes both both chromium 6 and chromium 3.

The California standard for chromium, including both chromium 3 and chromium 6, in water is 50 parts per billion.

Delson said the public health standard is likely to be finalized in mid-2011.
Ken August, spokesman for the California Department of Pubic Health, said at that point another group will begin working to establish the maximum allowable amount of chromium 6 in drinking water.

That process will consider the public health goal, but also costs for removing chromium, the practicality of detection and other issues, he said. "By law, the maximum level may be established as close as possible to the public health goal," August said.

While it may take the public health group only six months to develop a recommended allowable amount, it will likely take more than three years to advance past comment periods and other aspects of a lengthy approval process, he said.

"That is good, I am glad to hear it," said Roberta Walker, a longtime resident of the Hinkley, when she heard about the new recommendation for a public health goal.

Hinkley residents won a landmark settlement against utility company Pacific Gas and Electric after chromium 6 was found in the community's drinking water.
-----
To see more of the San Bernardino County Sun, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.sbsun.com.

Copyright (c) 2011, San Bernardino County Sun, Calif.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For more information about the content services offered by McClatchy-

Tribune Information Services (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .
 
That's because they can afford to do things like that. New regulations are always cost effective for states that can't afford to pay attention.
 
That's because they can afford to do things like that. New regulations are always cost effective for states that can't afford to pay attention.

I am waiting for Grind to complain that this is just another thread about a browser.
 
Last edited:
chromium 3 VS chromium 6 and infants/children in california and water standards - standards being tightened beyond federal - as usual

Calif. to toughen chromium 6 standard​

San Bernardino County Sun

By Jim Steinberg, San Bernardino County Sun, Calif. Jan. 05--New research documenting that young children are more susceptible than the general population to health risks from exposure to carcinogens has prompted a state agency to toughen its proposed goal for the amount of chromium 6 in drinking water.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment now proposes that the state public health goal for chromium 6 in drinking water should be 0.02 parts per billion, instead of 0.06 parts per billion as originally proposed in an August 2009 document.

Residents of Hinkley, a community in San Bernardino County's High Desert, have been dealing with chromium 6 concerns for decades.

The public health goal is based on calculations intended to eliminate cancer risks from chromium 6 over 70 years of drinking tap water every day. That goal will be used as one of several factors in setting the legally enforceable maximum allowable amount.

The public health goal was changed because scientists who reviewed the original document said that its calculations did not sufficiently account for chromium 6 risks in children and other special risk populations, said Sam Delson, spokesman for the agency.

The 145-page revised draft notes that human stomach acids convert ingested chromium 6 into chromium 3, which is not absorbed into the body. But infants' stomachs are only modestly acidic for the first days to weeks after birth.

Early-in-life susceptibility to carcinogens has long been recognized
by the scientific community and clinicians as a public health concern.
Additionally, there are a variety conditions which result in reduced gastric acid production

For more than a year, California has been largely alone in wrestling with standards for chromium 6 in water.

Last month, however, following an environmental group's report on chromium 6 in municipal water supplies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it would launch a series of actions to better understand the risks of chromium 6 in water.

The federal government currently has a standard of 100 parts per billion for all chromium in water, a measurement which includes both both chromium 6 and chromium 3.

The California standard for chromium, including both chromium 3 and chromium 6, in water is 50 parts per billion.

Delson said the public health standard is likely to be finalized in mid-2011.
Ken August, spokesman for the California Department of Pubic Health, said at that point another group will begin working to establish the maximum allowable amount of chromium 6 in drinking water.

That process will consider the public health goal, but also costs for removing chromium, the practicality of detection and other issues, he said. "By law, the maximum level may be established as close as possible to the public health goal," August said.

While it may take the public health group only six months to develop a recommended allowable amount, it will likely take more than three years to advance past comment periods and other aspects of a lengthy approval process, he said.

"That is good, I am glad to hear it," said Roberta Walker, a longtime resident of the Hinkley, when she heard about the new recommendation for a public health goal.

Hinkley residents won a landmark settlement against utility company Pacific Gas and Electric after chromium 6 was found in the community's drinking water.
-----
To see more of the San Bernardino County Sun, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.sbsun.com.

Copyright (c) 2011, San Bernardino County Sun, Calif.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For more information about the content services offered by McClatchy-

Tribune Information Services (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .

California has been alone because the science behind the proposed more stringent standards has been shoddy and has not done an adequate job of showing that long term exposure at levels between 20 and 60 parts per trillion has ANY significant long term health affects, including children. This smacks of alarmism to me.
 
California has been alone because the science behind the proposed more stringent standards has been shoddy and has not done an adequate job of showing that long term exposure at levels between 20 and 60 parts per trillion has ANY significant long term health affects, including children. This smacks of alarmism to me.

trillion or billion?
 
Trillion. 0.06 parts per billion = 60 parts per trillion.

cute, but why play with the decimal point

still my question is why has not chromium's ld50 been determined and its long term effects

some chromium is natural and other is toxic waste in our drinking water

tap water needs to tested for all toxins and any harmful stuff filtered out

the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat need to be free of toxins
 
cute, but why play with the decimal point

still my question is why has not chromium's ld50 been determined and its long term effects

some chromium is natural and other is toxic waste in our drinking water

tap water needs to tested for all toxins and any harmful stuff filtered out

the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat need to be free of toxins
It has been. You don't find chromium in it's ground state. It's either an oxide or a salt or some other molecular compound. All these chromium compounds have LD50's. The type your concerned about. Cr6+ is usually found in water as chromic acid or sodium chromate. You can eaily google the LD 50 for both. (~100 mg/kg oral rat for chromic acid and 50mg/Kg oral for sodium dichromate).

Shade;

Have you ever studied chemistry or biology or toxicology or hazardous waste management? I applaud the spirit of your intent but you're not very well informed on this issue.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top