Fwd: Cancer Risk Due to Arsenic in Water

[Guest guest]

Comments?Mistyhttp://www..com

 

 

13 Mill in US at Increased Cancer Risk Due to Arsenic in Water

http://www.mercola.com/2001/sep/22/arsenic_water.htm

 

By Katharine Q. Seelye

 

The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that arsenic is so dangerous in

drinking water that stringent levels set by the Clinton administration and later

suspended by the Bush White House were justified but perhaps not strict enough.

 

Details of a report by the academy that were made available by government

officials, give the Bush administration little latitude in which to maneuver on

this sensitive issue, one that even President Bush has acknowledged was a public

relations disaster for his administration.

 

For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency set an acceptable arsenic level

of 50 parts per billion in drinking water. But recent studies suggested that

this level was too high and increased the risk of bladder and lung cancer.

 

A report by the National Academy of Sciences in 1999 said the standard should be

made stricter " as promptly as possible. " President Bill Clinton ordered the

limit to be lowered to 10 parts per billion in 2006.

 

The Bush administration suspended the Clinton ruling on March 20, drawing a wave

of protest that it was more sympathetic to the chemical industry than to

consumers. Officials said they were reevaluating the levels and would wait for

the new report by the academy before determining whether to set the level at 3

parts per billion, or 5, 10 or 20.

 

A senior administration official said tonight that the report found an increased

risk of cancer if the level was above 10 parts per billion.

 

" We are not considering anything higher than 20, " this official asserted. And

another said: " We may be looking at something lower than 10, but we have an

awful lot to look at. It's not inconceivable. "

 

The officials said that Christie Whitman, the administrator of the E.P.A., would

make a ruling by February of next year.

 

By signaling that a prudent level might be lower than 10, the report, which was

based on a review of 300 recent arsenic studies, will put enormous pressure on

the administration to stay at that level or below.

 

" It boxes them in, " said Joan Mulhern, legislative counsel for the Earthjustice

Legal Defense Fund. " With the public and the Hill, there is tremendous political

pressure already to adopt the standard of 10 or something more strict. If this

is what the National Academy is saying, it pretty much closes

the door on the administration doing anything higher than 10. "

 

The House passed a bill earlier this year saying the limit should be no higher

than 10.

 

The Senate did not specify a number but said that the administration needed to

set a standard immediately that protected sensitive populations like children

and the elderly.

 

The 10 parts per billion standard for drinking water set by the Clinton

administration was the same as the one set by the World Health Organization and

most European countries.

 

Some 13 million people in the United States routinely drink water with more than

10 ppb of arsenic. Most of them are in small towns and rural areas but some in

cities as large as Albuquerque.

 

The arsenic decision by Ms. Whitman in March was among the most explosive of the

administration's early days and one that even President Bush has acknowledged

was part of a chain of events that made the administration appear tone-deaf on

environmental issues.

 

" I think we could have handled the environmental issue a little better, " Mr.

Bush said in an interview last month with ABC News, pointing in particular to

the arsenic decision. But he defended Ms. Whitman's suspension of the Clinton

standard, saying she had " pulled back a rushed piece of legislation to look at

it, to make sure the science was sound, and therefore we got labeled for being

for arsenic in water. "

 

Ms. Whitman has said she regretted the decision.

 

" Politically, if I'd been smart, I would have never changed it, " Ms. Whitman

told USA Today last month. " I never would have gone back. I would have let the

courts decide. We were going to be sued anyway by the Western states and a bunch

of water companies, and I should have just left it there. "

 

The Clinton decision to lower the level to 10 parts per billion was challenged

by several Western states, utilities and the mining industry. Municipalities

that would have to correct their water systems have argued that the cost to them

would far outweigh the benefits to the public in cleansing arsenic, which

occurs naturally, out of drinking water.

 

Arsenic is a common byproduct of mining operations, so stricter standards for

its content in drinking water would translate into stricter standards for many

mining sites.

The wood products industry had supported the Bush administration's ruling

suspending the Clinton ruling because arsenic is used to pressure-treat lumber.

 

The report by the academy examined only the public health consequences of

arsenic and did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis for water suppliers.

 

Abstracted From New York Times September 11, 2001

 

 

--

 

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

 

Pure water, about one quart per day for every 50 pounds of body weight, is one

of the absolute basic foundations for optimal health.

 

If you are unsure if arsenic is present in any significant quantities in the

water you consume, you should check your source of bottled water and/or your

filter to confirm that it removes arsenic. For those of you who receive water

from a well, it would also be prudent to have your water analyzed for arsenic.

 

Ideally one should use filtered water whenever possible as this far more

environmentally friendly.

 

You should limit your choice of water to spring or bottled water. Also don't

forget the shower filters that are listed in my eating plan, as one can absorb

more chlorine and arsenic from bathing in unfiltered municipal (not well) water

than drinking it. This problem with arsenic is also another reason why water

fluoridation is a bad idea, as it adds additional arsenic as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.