non-epa regulated hexavalent cromium found in tap water of 31 cities

Mojo said:
Do you have any evidence to support such an insinuation? If, so, present it.

Unless you're going to attempt to link this thread to the evils of free trade, and affirmative action, or maybe you'll just use your devastating debating tool of "shmo, shmu, shmee"?

Which is it to be?
Click to expand...

It's a question. Are we supposed to assume this carcinogen is really just being used to smear corporations?
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's a question. Are we supposed to assume this carcinogen is really just being used to smear corporations?
Click to expand...


Can you point out the relevance of your question? I don't recall seeing anyone positing that "this carcinogen is really just being used to smear corporations".

Here's what some scientists have to say on the subject, and none of them mentions "corporations", "globalization", "affirmative action" or uses that time honored debating device "shmee shmoo etc.".

"scientists say that's an extremely small amount. One part per billion is equivalent to about a drop in 250 gallon drums of water, or three seconds in a century. Even if a city such as Norman has the highest concentration of chromium-6 of all the cities tested, that doesn't mean it places the residents at a higher risk for developing cancer than in other cities."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellne...ium-drinking-water-alarmist/story?id=12440751

"Allan Smith, a professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, said the concentrations reported by the Environmental Working Group were probably no cause for concern...“The public should not be alarmed by the very small concentrations being reported for most cities,” Dr. Smith wrote...“Raising alarm that chromium in water might be above a “public health goal” is unfortunate,” Dr. Smith wrote. “It diverts energy and resources from more important public health concerns.”

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...-a-chemical-in-tap-water/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Now, can you identify the evil corporate-globalist conspiracy?
 
Mojo said:
Can you point out the relevance of your question? I don't recall seeing anyone positing that "this carcinogen is really just being used to smear corporations".

Here's what some scientists have to say on the subject, and none of them mentions "corporations", "globalization", "affirmative action" or uses that time honored debating device "shmee shmoo etc.".

"scientists say that's an extremely small amount. One part per billion is equivalent to about a drop in 250 gallon drums of water, or three seconds in a century. Even if a city such as Norman has the highest concentration of chromium-6 of all the cities tested, that doesn't mean it places the residents at a higher risk for developing cancer than in other cities."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellne...ium-drinking-water-alarmist/story?id=12440751

"Allan Smith, a professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, said the concentrations reported by the Environmental Working Group were probably no cause for concern...“The public should not be alarmed by the very small concentrations being reported for most cities,” Dr. Smith wrote...“Raising alarm that chromium in water might be above a “public health goal” is unfortunate,” Dr. Smith wrote. “It diverts energy and resources from more important public health concerns.”

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...-a-chemical-in-tap-water/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Now, can you identify the evil corporate-globalist conspiracy?
Click to expand...

So this is just a media attempt to smear corporations then?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No, you need the public to get off their $*%# fat, complacent butts and put the screws to their local, State and Fed representatives to get a BETTER regulatory gov't system so this crap doesn't continue to happen.

Please stop this "free market is the only solution" BS....because we're experiencing just what a little deregulation of big business can do to the American wallet.
Click to expand...



Mott the Hoople said:
That's what bothers me about this sort of alarmism. People read it and accept it at face value cause they assume that the authors of the article have the tehcnical expertise to draw valid conclusions but in this case, it's pretty obvious to me, a professional who works in the field, that they don't know what they are talking about. We do have substantial controls in place to protect drinking water from excesive chromium contamination. 5 parts per billion is pretty high standard dude.
Click to expand...

Put it to you this way.....if we can send a hungry, homeless man to jail for stealing a loaf of bread, we damn sure can apply a high standard to our drinking water. If you see two signs that say, "High standard drinking water" and "Not As High standard drinking water", which one are you going to partake of?
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
"...scientists say there's no good science on just how much of an impact the chemical can have on public health...scientists say that's an extremely small amount. One part per billion is equivalent to about a drop in 250 gallon drums of water, or three seconds in a century.

Even if a city such as Norman has the highest concentration of chromium-6 of all the cities tested, that doesn't mean it places the residents at a higher risk for developing cancer than in other cities...

Experts say inhaling chromium-6 can cause cancer, but there isn't much data on the dangers of drinking it.

"The evidence is fairly good that it's carcinogenic in people in occupational settings who inhale it and get a good dose," said Dr. Shan Yin, assistant medical director of the Cincinnati Drug and Poison Information Center.

"No one has really established what is a carcinogenic level for drinking water," said Alfred Aleguas, managing director at the Northern Ohio Poison Control Center in Cleveland..."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellne...er-alarmist/story?id=12440751&tqkw=&tqshow=WN
Click to expand...

why do we not have an LD-50 on this stuff - especially after the effects shown at hincly
 
Taichiliberal said:
Put it to you this way.....if we can send a hungry, homeless man to jail for stealing a loaf of bread, we damn sure can apply a high standard to our drinking water. If you see two signs that say, "High standard drinking water" and "Not As High standard drinking water", which one are you going to partake of?
Click to expand...

That's a question based on a false premise. First we all ready apply a very high standard for drinking water quality. Do you have any idea how minute a quanity 5 parts per billion is? It's less than a drop in an olympic sized swimming pool. Are you also aware that there has never been published any evidence of a causal link with any disease or toxicity with chromium, even hex chrome at this level? Second, there is no known difference in the standard of quality of water with 5 ppb Cr then there is with water with 1 ppb Cr. They would be of the same standard of quality.
 
Schadenfreude said:
why do we not have an LD-50 on this stuff - especially after the effects shown at hincly
Click to expand...
There is. Cr6+ is just the dissaccociated cation of a chromium compound in solution. For example Sodium Chromate (Na2Cr04) is a chromium compound where the chromium has a +6 valence state (e.g. hexchrome). It has an acute oral toxity (rat) LD50 of 136 mg/kg.

In other words to determine the LD50 for Cr6+ you have to first determine which chromium compound it is.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's a question based on a false premise. First we all ready apply a very high standard for drinking water quality. Do you have any idea how minute a quanity 5 parts per billion is? It's less than a drop in an olympic sized swimming pool. Are you also aware that there has never been published any evidence of a causal link with any disease or toxicity with chromium, even hex chrome at this level? Second, there is no known difference in the standard of quality of water with 5 ppb Cr then there is with water with 1 ppb Cr. They would be of the same standard of quality.
Click to expand...

My question is quite valid...Mott if there was NO difference then you wouldn't have a difference of measurement. Also, the issue is about the cumulative effect of constant consumption of water over years with these various levels. It is inaccurate to assume that because a study hasn't been done (or publicized) that all is well. All one has to do is look at the history of recalls and re-evaluations regarding federal watchdog and regulatory institutions in the last 30 years to know this.
 
Taichiliberal said:
My question is quite valid...Mott if there was NO difference then you wouldn't have a difference of measurement. Also, the issue is about the cumulative effect of constant consumption of water over years with these various levels. It is inaccurate to assume that because a study hasn't been done (or publicized) that all is well. All one has to do is look at the history of recalls and re-evaluations regarding federal watchdog and regulatory institutions in the last 30 years to know this.
Click to expand...

Don't you realize that the Tea Party has spoken and their representatives will begin dismantling those burdensome and expensive bureaucracies next month?

Surely you agree that utilities should be allowed to regulate themselves without the burden of meeting cumbersome federal standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top