ammonium perchlorate in your water supply: dont worry the FED is not trying to poison you ! they most likely already have!!

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/science/earth/02FUEL.html?th= & pagewanted=print\ & position=March 2, 2004Second Thoughts on a Chemical: In Water, How Much Is Too Much?ByJENNIFER 8. LEEWASHINGTON, March 1 — The Defense Department and the Environmental ProtectionAgency have squared off in a continuing dispute over the danger from awidespread contaminant of groundwater. Billions of dollars in cleanup costs areat stake.The contaminant is ammonium perchlorate, an additive that NASA and the Pentagonused for rocket fuel and munitions starting in the 1950's. For disposal,perchlorate was often dissolved in water and poured on the ground becauseofficials did not consider low levels hazardous for people. Perchlorate remainsin use and is

unregulated.Traces of perchlorate have been found in groundwater from California toMaryland. It has been detected in the Colorado River, which provides water tomore than 15 million people in the Southwest. In addition, low levels have beenfound in some lettuce samples and milk around the country, the Food and DrugAdministration said. According to Pentagon documents, perchlorate was used in 49states, with contamination found in 30; Vermont appears to be the sole statewhere it was not used.Perchlorate has medical and military uses. It is used to treat Graves' disease,the thyroid disorder, because it suppresses certain hormones.Officials and scientists dispute whether the amounts in groundwater, usually 4to 100 parts per billion, are enough to suppress hormone levels in people, whichfluctuate slightly anyway.Scientists at the E.P.A. say that although variations may have few effects onhealthy adults, they may hurt

the development of fetuses and young children.A study by the Arizona Department of Health Services found that newborns inYuma, which obtains its water from the perchlorate-contaminated Colorado Riverat levels of about five parts per billion, were more likely to have abnormalthyroid functions than the babies who were born in Flagstaff, which does nothave such water.The environmental agency's findings on perchlorate have come under vigorousattack from the Pentagon, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration andthe weapons industry."We have reviewed the E.P.A. risk assessment, and we think the document isbiased, unrealistic and scientifically imbalanced," said Col. Dan Rogers of theAir Force, chief of the environmental law and litigation division at thePentagon.Olga M. Dominguez, a deputy assistant administrator at NASA, said, "We do notbelieve the E.P.A. has used good science."The Pentagon and the

industry say the environmental agency is being overlyconservative by not looking at the relevant physiological effects, but insteadat a precursor change in the body. Scientists at the agency, say they areconsidering the most sensitive populations, including fetuses.Dr. Paul Gilman, assistant administrator for science for the environmentalagency, said, "I've good confidence in the work that we have done."The environmental agency first raised concerns about perchlorate in 1985, whenit found high concentrations of chemicals linked to munitions, includingperchlorate, in the San Gabriel Valley in California.The agency found perchlorate contamination ranging from 50 parts per billion to2,600 parts per billion in its test samples. The tests were never finalizedbecause five of the six control samples, supposed to be perchlorate free, werecontaminated.In one case, the control sample matched the highest contamination in the

SanGabriel Valley samples.In 1993, the Pentagon teamed up with Kerr-McGee, Lockheed Martin and Aerojet, aGenCorp subsidiary, and others to form the Perchlorate Study Group to show thatthe environmental agency's science was wrong.In December the group released a study that compared birth records fromCalifornia from 1983 to 1997 in Redlands, where perchlorate has been detected,with communities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, where perchlorate hasnot been detected. The study found that there was no statistically validdifference in levels of thyroid hormone between the groups.The environmental agency has recommended no more than one part per billion indrinking water, equivalent to a grain of salt in an Olympic-size pool. ThePentagon and the industry are arguing for a human standard of 200 parts perbillion.A standard of 200 parts per billion for people would probably exempt much of thecontamination from

cleanup, because most such contamination in the United Statesranges from 4 to 100 parts per billion.The environmental agency's recommendation is largely based on a study of ratspublished in 2001 and financed in part by the Perchlorate Study Group. The studyfound crude effects on rats' brains from exposure to perchlorate. Parts of thebrains were enlarged.Using a standard safety margin for people, the agency scientists arrived at the1 part per billion.In the same study, benign tumors were spotted on two 19-week-old baby rats outof a group of 30 whose mothers had been exposed to high levels of perchlorate.Scientists from the environmental agency say it is unusual to see tumors in babyrats that young, leading them to believe that something must have occurred inthe womb.The Pentagon and the industry say that the study was flawed because just oneslice was taken per rat brain and that the baby rats' benign tumors are

commonenough to be a statistical anomaly.The level that the Pentagon wants is largely based on a 14-day study thatexposed human adults to perchlorate. The Pentagon says the lowest level thatshowed an effect on the adults translates into 200 parts per billion, though theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies using that studyarrived at much lower levels.Ms. Dominguez of NASA said a program to clean up water contaminated with 1 partper billion would cost four times as much as a program for 32 parts per billion,though the differences in health risks are minimal. For the Colorado Riveralone, the Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise, an environmental consultingfirm, estimated that a cleanup mounted to meet the E.P.A. standard would cost$40 billion over 10 years.Other jurisdictions are establishing safety levels similar to the environmentalagency's. California has set an interim safety level of 2 to

6 parts per billionfor drinking water, telling water systems not to go higher than 40 parts perbillion. The toxicology branch of the disease control centers has a draft riskassessment that puts the safety level for medium-term exposure at three partsper billion.At least some Pentagon scientists have advocated safety levels similar to theenvironmental agency's. A study of rats in December 1995 by researchers at theAir Force Institute of Technology found that the level where no negative effectswere observed, a standard in toxicology, was "consistent with the assumptionsmade by the E.P.A."The deputy for cleanup, munitions and environmental technology at the Pentagon,Lt. Col. Jeff Cornell of the Air Force, said the study was important though"there was not a consensus position developed."In 2003 the White House referred the debate to the National Academy of Scienceswhich set up a panel to study the issue. The original

chairman of the panel, Dr.Gilbert S. Omenn, a professor at University of Michigan, resigned after helearned that he served on the board of a company that had started developing atechnology to clean up perchlorate.Two scientists on the panel, Dr. Richard Bull, an adjunct professor atWashington State University, and Dr. Charles Capen of Ohio State University,have consulted for Lockheed Martin on perchlorate. The National Academy ofSciences says the previous work does not constitute a conflict of interest. "Weeliminate conflicts of interest," said Dr. James J. Reisa, director ofenvironmental studies and toxicology at the academy. "We don't try to eliminatebias. We try to balance it."Even as the battle continues, the Pentagon has begun exploring legal options todelay or avoid cleanups, in part because states are starting to set their ownstandards.In 2003, the Pentagon lobbied Congress for several exemptions from

federalenvironmental laws, including one that covers cleanups of explosive residue atoperational sites, a legal description that could be used to includeperchlorate. Though the perchlorate exemption was not one of the two exemptionsattached to other legislation, the Pentagon has said it will push for it again.In addition, a perchlorate policy distributed in June by a deputy assistantsecretary of defense, John P. Woodley Jr., hints at its next strategy, claiminglegal immunity as part of the federal government. The policy said the Pentagonwould comply with state legal requirements to respond to perchlorate only "tothe extent that Congress has clearly and unambiguously authorized a waiver" ofimmunity from lawsuits, hinting that the Pentagon will act only if there is aregulation, not just a recommendation."They've retreated to the next trench, which is to fight a legal battle eitherin the courts or in Congress to wipe out their

liability," Erik Olson, a lawyerat the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. "It's clear they are not goingto voluntarily fix this problem. They are going to be forced to fix it."Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

 

 

 

 

karl theis jr

http://groups.msn.com/exposureofthetruth

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

[Guest guest]

Speaking of water contaminants, Anyone got a good link to water

filtration systems? There's many to choose from, looking for a

couple of recommentations.

 

cbf

[Guest guest]

--- if you do a web search on reverse osmosis technology you should

find pay for instructions on how to build your own RO system ranging

from a few hundred to 1000's for the technolgy to build the giant

systems like they use in Israel

karl

 

In , " hepcpete " <hepcpete>

wrote:

> Speaking of water contaminants, Anyone got a good link to water

> filtration systems? There's many to choose from, looking for a

> couple of recommentations.

>

> cbf