February 18, 2005 was the original deadline for introduction of legislation in the California Senate and Assembly. However, that deadline got extended by a few days; the extension in turn gave Assembly Member Baca (see Posts below) the opportunity to introduce yet one more bill to regulate perchlorate in drinking water.
On February 22, 2005 (the day before yesterday), Mr. Baca introduced AB 1354, which the Legilsative Counsel's Digest describes as follows:
"This bill would require the department [DHS] to establish a maximum contaminant level for perchlorate of 6 parts per billion, to be phased in over a period of 2 years commencing January 1, 2006."
The 6 ppb standard is already set forth as a public health "goal", see California Dept of Health Services Perchlorate in California Drinking Water: Overview and Links; however, this goal does not establish the rigorous requirments that making the 6 ppb standard a maximum contaminant level, or "MCL", would institute.
A new study by Texas Tech University's Institute of Environmental and Human Health is sure to add fuel to the fire of debate over proper perchlorate drinking-water levels. The study investigated the perchlorate content of the breast milk of 20-36 mothers (news reports vary) in 18 States. The highest level found was 92 ppb (mother in New Jersey); the average level found was 10.5 ppb--signficantly higher than the 6 ppb MCL proposed by AB 1354 but signficantly lower than the 24 ppb standard recently proposed by federal EPA (see Post below).
The Texas study does not necessarily help one to choose a preferred ppb standard, however. For one thing, instant reaction to the study may to an extent be based on errors in reporting. For example, yesterday (February 23) the Los Angeles Times in reporting on the Texas study asserted: "Perchlorate levels are particularly high in the lower Colorado River, which supplies irrigation water to almost 2 million acres of cropland. The river, government officials believe, has been tainted by leaks from a Kerr-McGee plant near Lake Mead." LA Times February 23, 2005:THE NATION Rocket-Fuel Found In Breast Milk This supposed fact seemed particularly ominous.
However, within 24 hours the Times had to post the following correction:
"FOR THE RECORD:
Perchlorate contamination —An article in Wednesday's Section A about chemical contamination of breast milk said levels of perchlorate, a toxic component of rocket fuel, are particularly high in the lower Colorado River. The levels used to be high but are now low because a remediation system has been cleaning contaminated ground water at a now-defunct Kerr-McGee chemical plant."[As of March 12, 2005, the linked page was no longer available. This quote was taken from the linked page when it was still available].
Additionally, critics and scientists are themselves divided over how much signficance to attach to the Texas study. On the one hand, the above-referenced February 23 LA Times article reported:
" 'This is not just another study,' said Renee Sharp, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group, which advocated a strict national standard. 'It ends the questions about whether women are passing along perchlorate to their kids through breast milk, and the sky-high levels the scientists found put more than half the kids over the safe levels the NAS now recommends.'"
The Times' article ended quoting another environmental activist, as follows:
"Sujatha Jahagirdar, clean-water advocate at Environment California, an advocacy group, said it was 'absolutely appalling' that a component of rocket fuel was found in mother's milk."
Perhaps the most colorful activist commentary, however, comes from The Anti-Capatalist [sic] Patriot blog:
"Babies Always Choose Acme Brand Rocket Fuel!
"Environmentalists have urged the EPA to set its standard based on the body weight and perchlorate intake of an infant rather than an adult. Toxicologists said that would probably mean a standard of a few parts per billion. Pentagon...officials have said that would shut down many water systems across the country and cost the military and its contractors billions of dollars in cleanup costs. They have instead lobbied for a standard of about 200 parts per billion based on thyroid studies of adults.
"Oh, Ok. I guess as long as the pentagon says so, the dose for an adult will be just fine for our developing kids. This is unreal. Those bastards spilled the stuff, now they should have to clean it up. Costs billions of dollars you say? Didn't Bush just give you a few Billion?"
On the other hand, a report today from the Associated Press "Fuel Chemical Found in Mothers' Milk" quotes Ed Urbansky, a former Environmental Protection Agency chemist who has published several papers on perchlorate and who was not involved with the Texas study:
" 'It's very difficult to determine what the findings might be other than to know it might be in so many milk samples,' he said. 'It's important not to raise undue alarm over the significance of the finding.'
" 'We shouldn't be running through the streets screaming and not drinking milk because of this.' "
[As of March 12, 2005, the linked page was no longer available. This quote was taken from the linked page when it was still available].
And the same AP article went on: "Pernendu Dasgupta, a Tech chemistry professor who led the study, said it 'raises more questions than answers' ".
Stay tuned.
Steve
Review by Lisa M. Ricci for Rating: I bought this kit as well as First Alert WT1 Drinking Water Test Kit. Both from Amazon.com, thniking I would try two different kinds just to be sure. When I opened the packages. The exact same contents were inside, right down the the instruction booklet. They are made by the same company and put in different boxes. However, The First Alert WT1 Drinking Water Test Kit is only $12.99.
Posted by: Dmartins | September 27, 2012 at 04:16 AM