Earlier this week the Environmental Working Group issued a report showing the presence of hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6, in water supplies of 31 cities in the United States. As a mother of two and the head of the EPA, this report is troubling. While each of the cities in the EWG report meet federal standards for total chromium, advances in science, and reports like this one have raised new questions. That's why EPA is continuing the process of reviewing that new science as part of its current chromium-6 risk assessment. Once the science undergone a rigorous peer review process, EPA will likely revise drinking water standards for chromium-6. In the meantime, I've announced a series of actions EPA will take in the coming days to address chromium-6 in our drinking water, including working with local and state officials on sampling efforts to get a better picture of exactly how widespread this problem is.
But, the emergence of this issue raises another important point. As everyday people voice their concerns over the presence of chromium-6 in our drinking water, others have called EPA's science into question and pledged to curtail EPA's ability to tackle challenges just like this one. But what we hear from people all across America on this issue and so many others is that people are not interested in weakening the protections for the water they drink, the air they breathe, or the lands where they build homes and businesses. What we see, instead, are parents and communities calling for commonsense, science-based protections. Those calls for action, like all environmental issues, are based on health concerns -- not partisan politics.
Our job at EPA is to protect human health and the environment using the best science and the law. We are the first line of defense against not just chromium-6 but pollutants like mercury, lead, ground-level ozone and more.
We are taking important actions to ensure that water flowing into our homes and through our communities is safe. We will continue to address the immediate and long-term concerns over chromium-6, and will seek to ensure that our water is safe and that we are dealing with conventional and emerging threats. In all of our efforts, we will rely on the best available science to identify risks and work with partners to find solutions. That is how we fulfill our mission to protect human health and the environment, and serve the American people, to the fullest extent, using science and under the rule of law.
John Shore: Environmentalism is Satan's Cause!
(1) the EPA may be regulating the wrong thing (total chromium) and
(2) it is critical for the EPA to move quickly in determining the safe level of chromium(IV).
more details on chromium(IV) technology discussion at:
http://contaminationinnovation.com/tag/chromium-6/
Lisa Jackson’s paraphrase of the EPA’s mission statement confuses means with end. “to protect human health and the environment†is an end, but “science and the law†are but a means to the end of the sound governance necessary to ensure such protections.
Sound governance begins with reliable information, but the possession of mere facts alone is not enough. Sound governance requires is a coherent presentation of evidence based fact derived from science and law, told plainly and simply within a context of values and principles which give priority to the well being of the governed over every other consideration.
Ted Dracos’ new book, “Biocidal†is an exemplar of the type of information policy makers need concerning each of the pollutants they must address.
Ted Dracos, Biocidal, Confronting the Poisonous Legacy of PCBs
 294 pp. 2010, Boston, Beacon Press, $34.95
ISBN: 978-0-8070-0612-2
This book is nothing less than the complete story of the poisoning of most of the human beings on the planet, now available for the first time as a single, coherent, and highly readable narrative. Don’t be deceived by its accessibility.It may be the most valuable to those who rightly have a claim to expertise on the subject.
Seems like a fun read.
Won't all that be in our drinking water/soil?
And don't think they will be recycled- NO ONE KNOWS about the hazmat cleanup if broken or how to dispose of them......What will that do? Regular bulbs will be gone in 1 year and how many toxins will be around (while saving all that energy of course) in our soil/water?
Really- I am serious about this....
Because the amount of potable, fresh water is rapidly declining, our water resources are very quietly and very aggressively becoming privatized.
Find out who owns the water rights for the source of your tap water; contact scientists, inform the community, and take back the water, and have the courts force the company to clean it up!
MAYOR PARKER: "We have met every standard the federal government sets."
KHOU: "The federal government has a 'legal' standard which you may meet, but the federally recognized 'health' standard of zero radiation in the water, you don't meet. So I would respectfully ask you one more time, what are you going to do to help get the citizens of Houston closer to meeting that EPA recognized, federally recognized 'health' standard, of zero radiation in the water?"
MAYOR PARKER: "We are going to continue to meet every legal requirement the federal government gives us."
KHOU: "But if it puts you at increased risk for cancer, shouldn't you be striving for more than just the legal requirements?"
MAYOR PARKER: "We will continue to meet every legal standard the federal government gives us."
http://www.khou.com/news/investigative/I-TEAM-City-of-Houston-shuts-down-two-radioactive-water-wells-112364389.html
I realize that the "planned" (and even the "ongoing") only gives ammunition for the selfish and self-centered foes of improving our environment, but I would appreciate knowing that the EPA is proactive as well as reactive.
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/HexChromfacts082009.pdf
Read the second link on how it is not an enforceable standard.
Your attitude seems to be that the corporate daddy is always right.
I don't happen to buy that type of philosophy myself.
A PHG is not a regulatory standard. Page 2, 2n paragraph.
Link:http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/HexChromfacts082009.pdf
Bogus radon gas issue? Unethical to continually attempt to scare the uneducated? How ethical is it not to address an issue that causes disease and death?
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/radon
I don't always agree with what government or the EPA proposes, but as the old saying goes. You are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. What I find indicates nearly 22,000 people die every year in the U.S. from cancer related to radon. How bogus is that?