Here is a comment I received from a lawyer colleague who has worked in the environmental field for decades:
"The bill sounds like it contains two major pieces of evidence that the drafters of AB 492 do not know what they are talking about. First, of course, is the inability to distinguish perchlorate from perchloroethylene. That is garden variety ignorance of chemistry that we see all the time.
“The other is the general furor over perchlorate. It reduces iodine uptake, and can therefore lead to iodine deficiency. That is a serious problem in many countries, but not a problem at all in the United States, because consumption of almost any meat will provide sufficient iodine.
“I have spoken at length with a professor / consultant who studied vegetarians to see if they ingested sufficient iodine. Almost all consume some meat, even if infrequently. The only persons potentially at risk are absolutely strict vegans, and he found that they are very aware of the multitude of supplements that they need to consume. I do not doubt that the military can do a much better job of disposal of perchlorate, but the money can be much better spent.”
Comments?
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS: ANOTHER EXPERT WEIGHS IN ON AB 492 AND THE GENERAL PERCHLORATE FUROR ebcypfnroll">http://www.bnmachinery.com/">roll forming machine
parajumpers http://www.hoeker.dk/P/index.asp
Posted by: parajumpers | November 24, 2013 at 07:01 PM
That doesn't make sense to me. If it were that dangerous to peolpe three feet away it would be much worse for her.Theoretically if someone swallowed something extremely radioactive, and if it emitted intense gamma rays (which are like powerful X-rays) they could travel through her body into someone else. Alpha- and beta-radiation are particles instead of photons, so they are not going to be able to get through a person's body unless the beta radiation level is so high its instantly deadly.So, radiation doesn't travel like bacteria, but the effects of the radioactive substances can theoretically affect peolpe around the person.But, again, this makes no sense to me, since it would make the iodine significantly dangerous to the person who took it. Added. Well, who listens to me anyway? It turns out that this IS a standard recommendation. Iodine will concentrate in the thyroid which is presumably where the cancer was. And so others should stay a bit away from the neck.Although, I still don't see how it can be THAT bad, but, I would take the doctors word over some guy on Yahoo Answers with a blimp for an icon.
Posted by: Mika | September 27, 2012 at 06:26 AM
Re Paul Nunez' question:
Is perchlorate a known carcinogen?
From the sources I've reviewed, no. See, e.g., http://www.councilonwaterquality.org/
This is an industry-funded organization; but its conclusion that perchlorate isn't a carcinogen just concurs with the fact that other entities cited in my Posts also don't mention perchlorate as a carcinogen.
The main concern about perchlorate is that ingestion of the chemical inhibits iodine uptake.
Re Will Gaston's comment:
The lawyer providing the info wants to
remain anonymous.
Posted by: stephen holzer | March 22, 2005 at 04:37 PM
I may be putting my ignorance on display for all the world to see, but isn't perchlorate also a heavy-hitting carcinogen?
Posted by: Paul P. Nunez | March 14, 2005 at 11:01 AM
Who is this Masked Expert?
Posted by: Will Gaston | March 11, 2005 at 11:15 AM