Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
June 30, 2009
4. Water Quality –
Feds: NM well water not apparent health hazard
The
Clear Thinking on Drinking Water
S.F. Examiner
Is your water bottle safe?
S.F. Examiner
Avoiding mercury and choosing safer fish
Red Bluff Daily News
Did toxic chemical in
Turn on clean water and the trust of the Iraqi people will flow
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feds: NM well water not apparent health hazard
The
By Susan Montoya Bryan
Well water near a Superfund site in western
Test results show wells being used for drinking water do not contain enough contamination to cause adverse health effects, according to a federal report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released Friday.
An earlier draft of the health consultation report on the Homestake mill had classified the site as a public health hazard because samples from some wells showed uranium and selenium concentrations above drinking water standards.
The agency, however, found concentrations of uranium above natural levels in a few wells that are not used for drinking water. It recommended that those wells not be used and that residents have their well water tested before using it for household purposes.
Agency spokeswoman Pam Watson said Monday that officials revised the draft version from May 2008 based on information gathered during a public comment period. She was unable to provide specifics.
The New Mexico Environment Department has been warning residents in the area that their wells may contain contaminants from naturally occurring ore deposits and from previous uranium mining operations.
"We continue to believe that a more comprehensive and detailed study of potential health impacts from past uranium mining and milling in the area is warranted," state Environment Secretary Ron Curry said Monday.
The San Mateo Creek basin, which spans parts of
The state also has an agreement with Homestake Mining Co. of California to connect more than a dozen homes to
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated the Homestake mill as a Superfund site in 1983 and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has required remediation of groundwater contamination there since the 1970s. Under the 1980 Superfund law, the federal agency has the authority to compel responsible parties to clean up the nation's most contaminated sites or reimburse the government for EPA-led cleanups.
Residents close to the Homestake site first notified the state Environment Department of well water problems at a public meeting in August 2005. The department and Homestake agreed to start sampling well water in response to the concerns.
According to the federal report, remediation efforts have helped to capture some of the contamination from the mill. Concentrations of uranium, selenium and molybdenum recorded from the 1970s through the 1990s were sometimes as much as 100 times greater than samples taken in the past three years.
Cleanup at the Homestake site is expected to last until 2015, but the report said Homestake is required only to reach federally approved background contaminant concentration standards, not drinking water standards.
Clear Thinking on Drinking Water
S.F. Examiner-6/28/09
By Dr. Cathleen V. Carr
Last year the Associated Press revealed that tap water in 24 large
These systems supply most Americans, and private well serve the rest. The agency sets acceptable levels for dozens of substances, including chemicals, microorganisms, minerals, and metals. States can establish their own standards as well.
The EPA requires water suppliers to send customers annual reports on the quality of the local supply and levels of various contaminants.
These Consumer Confidence Reports, or CCRs, are available through the EPA website (epa.gov/safewater). The site also provides information on how to read and understand the reports, as does the website of the Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water, an advocacy group (safe-drinking-water.org).
In general, it is important to check for contaminants that exceed the maximum contaminant level, or MCL, the highest level of a substance permitted in drinking water. But is this information reliable? EPA oversight has been shown to be less than dependable.
A 2003 study of the water systems of 19
What are the options available to those of us who do not have reliable information about our public drinking water supply? A water filter can be a barrier between you and the tap.
A properly installed home filter can be a good compromise between costly, environmentally unfriendly bottled water and questionable public water supplies. Home filters can be effective against microorganisms, including salmonella, cryptosporidium, and giardia, as well as heavy metals, pesticides, sediment, chlorine, and other substances that pose health risks or make water taste bad. They also remove lead and other elements that water may pick up from the pipes inside a home.
When out and about carry your home filtered water in reusabel containers made form ploy-carbonate plastic which no longer contain the chemical called bisphenol-A (BPA) or use a stainless steel bottle.
http://www.examiner.com/x-12841-Holistic-Health-Examiner~y2009m6d28-Clear-Thinking-on-Drinking-Water
Is your water bottle safe?
S.F. Examiner-6/24/09
By Laurie Wiker
Check the number on the bottom of your plastic bottle before you drink. Clear, hard plastic bottles with a # 7 recycling code on the bottom and the letters PC are polycarbonate and contain Bisphenol-A (BPA). Research has shown that this potentially harmful chemical can leach into food and drink and has been linked to elevated levels of estrogen in the body. Both water and baby bottles have been made of this type of plastic. Some beverage cans also contain BPA
Since 2007 when a report by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences said a chemical in polycarbonate plastic bottles, called BPA, caused reproductive abnormalities in mice, various reports have linked BPA to a range of problems including diabetes, liver problems and even reduced sperm production. Some studies have shown that BPA can cause health problems such as infertility and cancer.
The best way to avoid BPA is to switch to a reusable water bottle. Very good stainless steel bottles are available at kleankanteen.com or the Newark Natural Foods Cooperative on
If you have polycarbonate bottles now, don't reuse them, especially with hot liquids. A study published by the Environmental News Network found that drastically higher levels of BPA were released once these bottles were briefly exposed to boiling water. In fact, many experts recommend that to keep food safe from the chemicals used to make plastic you should never heat food in plastic, rather, in glass or ceramic containers only.
What can you do with # 7 bottles you already have? Since polycarbonate plastic is not recyclable, it will become landfill waste if you discard it in the trash. Instead, be environmentally conscious and observe the Reuse concept in Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Consider using it to store loose change, craft accessories like glitter or beads or other small items such as tacks, screws or nails.#
http://www.examiner.com/x-6785-Wilmington-Wellness-Examiner~y2009m6d24-Is-your-water-bottle-safe
Avoiding mercury and choosing safer fish
Red Bluff Daily News-6/29/09
We've been told seafood is good for us because it's low in calories and fat, full of protein and packed with Omega-3s, which may protect against coronary heart disease and stroke, and are thought to help neurological development in unborn babies. But we've also been warned about the potentially harmful mercury content in fish.
What's with the flip-flop advice?
-What is mercury? Mercury occurs naturally and can also be released through industrial pollution. It falls from the air and can accumulate in streams and oceans, turning into methylmercury, a neurotoxin. Excessive amounts of mercury can cause brain and kidney damage, but most of the concern is focused on unborn babies and children under 6 because smaller amounts of mercury can damage developing nervous systems.
Fish absorb the methylmercury as they feed. It builds up more in some types of fish and shellfish than others, depending on what they eat. If you regularly eat types of fish that are high in methylmercury, it can accumulate in your bloodstream over time. The body purges it naturally, but it may take more than a year, which is why women who are pregnant or trying to conceive are warned about eating too much fish.
-The bad news: Nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury. In 2002, the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency issued a joint advisory that pregnant women, nursing women and children younger than 6 should limit seafood consumption
to no more than 12 ounces, or two average meals, a week. In addition, moms and young children should avoid larger fish - shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish (found mostly in
-The good news: Most adults need not worry about the risks unless they consume large amounts of high-mercury fish. A number of public health groups now fear the government advisory was too cautious and that too many people cut fish, which is extremely healthy, from their diet. The FDA now says that for most kids and adults the benefits of eating fish outweigh the risks.
-The best fish: Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock and catfish. A variety of small fish is best. Don't fret over wild vs. farmed fish. A Harvard School of Public Health report shows that farm-raised fish contain as much, if not more, healthy Omega-3 fatty acids as wild species do. Fish sticks and fast-food sandwiches are commonly made from fish that are low in mercury, the EPA says.
-What about tuna? Albacore or "white" tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. The EPA says it's OK to eat up to six ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.
-Learn more: Mercury levels in various types of fish, including a geographical breakdown on fish from local waters, is at www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish.#
Did toxic chemical in Iraq cause GIs' illnesses?
Fairfield Daily Republic-6/27/09
By Sharon Cohen
Larry Roberta's every breath is a painful reminder of his time in
James Gentry came home with rashes, ear troubles and a shortness of breath. Later, things got much worse: He developed lung cancer.
David Moore's postwar life turned into a harrowing medical mystery: nosebleeds and labored breathing that made it impossible to work, much less speak. His desperate search for answers ended last year when he died of lung disease at age 42.
What these three men — one sick, one dying, one dead — had in common is they were National Guard soldiers on the same stretch of wind-swept desert in Iraq during the early months of the war in 2003.
These soldiers and hundreds of other Guard members from
No one disputes that. But that's where the agreement ends.
Among the issues now rippling from the courthouse to Capitol Hill are whether the chemical made people sick, when KBR knew it was there and how the company responded. But the debate is about more than this one case; it has raised broader questions about private contractors and health risks in war zones.
Questions, says Sen. Evan Bayh, who plans to hold hearings on the issues, such as these:
“How should we treat exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals as a threat to our soldiers? How seriously should that threat be taken? What is the role of private contractors? What about the potential conflict between their profit motives and taking all steps necessary to protect our soldiers?”
“This case,” says the Indiana Democrat, “has brought to light the need for systemic reform.”
For now, dozens of National Guard veterans have sued KBR and two subsidiaries, accusing them of minimizing and concealing the chemical's dangers, then downplaying nosebleeds and breathing problems as nothing more than sand allergies or a reaction to desert air.
KBR denies any wrongdoing. In a statement, the company said it actually found the chemical at the Qarmat Ali plant, restricted access, cleaned it up and “did not knowingly harm troops.”
Ten civilians hired by a KBR subsidiary made similar claims in an arbitration resolved privately in June. (The workers' contract prevented them from suing.)
This isn't the first claim that toxins have harmed soldiers in
This also isn't the first challenge to KBR, whose billions of dollars of war-related contracts have been the subject of congressional scrutiny and legal claims.
Among them are lawsuits recently filed in several states against KBR and Halliburton Co. — KBR's parent company until 2007 — that assert open-air pits used to burn refuse in Iraq and Afghanistan caused illnesses and death. (KBR says it's reviewing the charges. Halliburton maintains it was improperly named and expects to be dismissed from the case.)
This case stems from the chaotic start of the war in 2003 when a KBR subsidiary was hired to restart the treatment plant, which had been looted and virtually stripped bare. The Iraqis had used hexavalent chromium to prevent pipe corrosion at the plant, which produced industrial water used in oil production.
It's the same chemical linked to poisonings in
Hexavalent chromium — a toxic component of sodium dichromate — can cause severe liver and kidney damage and studies have linked it to leukemia as well as bone, stomach and other cancers, according to an expert who provided a deposition for the civilian workers.
The chemical “is one of the most potent carcinogens know to man,” declared Max Costa, chairman of
KBR, however, says studies show only that industrial workers exposed to the chemical for more than two years have an increased risk of cancer — and in this case, soldiers were at the plant just days or months.
The company also notes air quality studies concluded the Indiana Guard soldiers were not exposed to high levels of hexavalent chromium. But Costa says those tests were done when the wind was not blowing.
Both soldiers and former workers say there were days when strong gusts kicked up ripped-open bags of the chemical, creating a yellow-orange haze that coated everything from their hair to their boots.
“I was spitting blood and I was not the only one doing that,” recalls Danny Langford, who worked for the KBR subsidiary. “The wind was blowing 30, 40 miles an hour. You could just hardly see where you were going. I pulled my shirt over my nose and there would be blood on it.”
Larry Roberta, a 44-year-old former Oregon National Guard member, remembers 137-degree heat and dust everywhere. He sat on a bag of the chemical, unaware it was dangerous.
“This orange crud blew up in your face, your eyes and on our food,” he says. “I tried to wash my chicken patty off with my canteen. I started to get sick to my stomach right away.”
Roberta had coughing spells and agonizing chest pains, he says, that “went all the way through my back. ... Every day I went there, I had something weird going on.”
Russell Kimberling, a former Indiana National Guard captain, had severe sinus troubles that forced his medical evacuation to
“I jumped out of the truck and I turned around and they (KBR staff) had full chemical gear on,” he says. “I looked at some of my soldiers and said, 'This can't be very good.' ... They could have told us to put chemical suits on.”
Ed Blacke, hired as plant health, safety and environmental coordinator, says he became worried after workers started having breathing problems and a former colleague sent him an internal KBR memo outlining the chemical's dangers. Blacke says he complained, was labeled a troublemaker and resigned under pressure.
“Normally when you take over a job, you have a briefing — this is what's out there, here's what you need for protective equipment,” says Blacke, who testified at a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing last year. “There was nothing, nothing at all.”
Blacke and Langford were among those whose civil claims were resolved in arbitration.
Kimberling is among nearly 50 current or former Guard members — most from Indiana, a smaller number from
Mike Doyle, a
“Once they (KBR) found out about it, they didn't tell anybody and they did everything to conceal it,” he contends. “Their staff was getting reports and soldiers and civilians who were in the field were told ... 'There's nothing to worry about.”'
The lawsuit cites minutes of an August 2003 KBR meeting that mentions “serious health problems at the water treatment plant” and notes “almost 60 percent of the people now exhibit the symptoms.”
In a recent wide-ranging Associated Press interview, KBR chairman William P. Utt said the company has been unfairly targeted for its military work.
“People think there's an opportunity here in
As for the water plant, KBR says once it learned of the chemical, it took precautions to protect workers, notified the Army Corps of Engineers and led the cleanup. It says the Corps had previously deemed the area safe.
KBR also points to Army tests of Indiana Guard soldiers that showed no medical problems that could be linked to exposure, as well as a military board review that found it unlikely anyone would suffer long-term medical consequences.
But Bayh and Doyle say those tests were done too late to be valid and note that soil tests were taken after the contaminated area was covered.
Doyle also disagrees with KBR's contention that workers weren't there long enough to have elevated cancer risks.
It can take a long time for symptoms of illness to surface — five to 10 years or more for cancer. But some of those who say they were exposed are already ill.
James Gentry, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Indiana Guard, is in the late stages of lung cancer and the disease has spread to his ribs and spine, according to his friend, Christopher Lee.
Gentry hasn't sued but in a December 2008 deposition he said it was “very disappointing” KBR managers didn't share information soldiers were around cancer-causing chemical.
“I'm dying because of it,” he said.
While acknowledging he wasn't 100 percent certain that's why he has cancer, Gentry — who served a second tour in Iraq — said his doctor “believes the most probable cause was my exposure to this chemical.”
The
Bayh has introduced a bill calling for a medical registry that would require the Department of Defense to notify all military members of exposure to potential toxins and ensure their medical care. A similar measure that only mandates notification was approved Thursday in the U.S. House as an amendment to the defense authorization bill.
All these steps come too late for 1st Sgt. David Moore.
When he returned from
Even when doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong,
“He was always upbeat,” he recalls. “He said, 'They'll figure it out, they'll figure it out.' He thought that until the last time I talked to him.”
Larry Roberta, the former Oregon Guardsman who needed stomach surgery after his return, says he suffers from post-traumatic stress, mood swings, nose polyps, chest pains and debilitating migraines.
“I have 100 percent disability,” he says. “I've got a long laundry list of things that happened to me while I was there. If you add it all up, I'd be almost 200 percent disabled.”
Kimberling, the former Indiana Guardsman, struggles as well.
The father of two young children — he's a pharmaceutical salesman in
Sometimes, he says, it's hard to separate his ailments — sinus problems and joint pains — from his fears.
“I feel like I'm a 38-year-old in a 60-year-old's body,” he says. ... “I'm not sure if it's the anxiety of finding out about it or not. I kind of know and feel it's just a matter of time before it catches up with me.”#
http://search.dailyrepublic.com/display.php?id=110407
Turn on clean water and the trust of the Iraqi people will flow
By Matt Schofield
Opinion
This week,
---
Imam Mahnood al-Bayati, at the Hajia Sidaa Mosque, thinks there's a simple answer to creating a government here that Iraqis will rally around: water.
He suggests a massive effort to fix the nation's water system, make it possible again for people to turn on the tap and trust the water flowing from it.
He's right.
The
U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, whose history as
''It's a lot of wasted treasure,'' she said. ''We have to learn from what's gone wrong and improve. We do want to leave
So much money has been spent without results. It's one of the most common topics around
''War profiteering is the new art form of
In one
Everywhere, Iraqis talk about how American contracts were awarded to companies that quickly took a portion of the money and subcontracted to companies who took a portion, and subcontracted, and on, until finally a company would do the work with insufficient funds, meaning poor materials and shoddy work.
Iraqis don't blame the
And once that is in place, the
Al-Bayati says the needs of everyday Iraqis simply haven't been met. And citizens without basic services aren't as likely to support what the
Which is why he suggests water. Think back to the founding of
In
Children routinely get sick. Families wonder how many elderly people die of diseases. Health officials fear that again this summer they'll be fighting a cholera outbreak, as raw sewage is far too often mixing with drinking water.
And everyone talks about the people who've actually opened a tap and found worms sliming out.
Iraqis, from
''Water is the only issue in
It is doable.
City officials note that they tried to make improvements between 2003 and now, but at least 500 engineers were murdered during that spell, often on the job, by terrorists and insurgents looking to destabilize the government.
Officials here think the
In terms of improving basic services, nothing has more of a symbolic impact than the water system. As a non-military project, this would be a perfect issue to push with European and Middle Eastern nations.#
http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=565604952149721264
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DWR’s California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader’s services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news . DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of
No comments:
Post a Comment