Cancer-Causing Hexavalent Chromium In Tap Water For 89% Of US Sampled Cities
Editor's ChoiceMain Category: Water - Air Quality / Agriculture
Also Included In: Public Health; Nutrition / Diet; Cancer / Oncology
Article Date: 20 Dec 2010 - 7:00 PDT
email to a friend
printer friendly
opinions'Cancer-Causing Hexavalent Chromium In Tap Water For 89% Of US Sampled Cities'
| Patient / Public: |  |
|
| Healthcare Prof: | |
4.14 (43 votes) |
| Article opinions: | 16 posts |
Carcinogenic hexavalent chromium, the "Erin Brockovich chemical" was found in the tap water of 31 cities out of a total of 35 tested by the Environmental Working Group. The scientists estimate that at least 74 million people in the USA in 42 states regularly drink chromium-tainted water, and a considerable proportion of it is in the carcinogenic hexavalent form.
Hexavalent chromium is recognized as a human carcinogen. Some workers are exposed to the chemical, and exposure is known to sometimes occur among those who handle chromate-containing products, as well as those who arc weld stainless steel. The European Union has the world's strictest laws regarding hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium use in the European Union in electronic equipment, for example, is largely prohibited by the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive.
Highest levels of hexavalent chromium in tap water were found in Norman; Oklahoma, Riverside; California, and Honolulu; Hawaii. Safety limits proposed by California regulators were exceeded in samples from 25 US cities, the scientists revealed.
Hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6 in drinking water shows "clear evidence of carcinogenic activity" in animal studies, significantly raising the likelihood of the development of gastrointestinal tumors.
An EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) draft toxicological review this year also found that tap water tainted with hexavalent chromium is "likely to be carcinogenic to humans".
A public health goal of 0.06 ppb (parts per billion) was proposed by Californian authorities in 2009, in an attempt to protect humans from cancer risk. The aim was to eventually set this limit nationwide.
Despite growing evidence of the dangers of hexavalent chromium in tap water, the EPA has done nothing about legal limit requirements. Water utility companies don't even have to test for levels in their tap water.
The average hexavalent chromium levels in the tested tap water was 0.18 ppb, compared to the recommended 0.06 ppb.
Top five cities tested:
- Norman, Oklahoma, population - 89,952
Hexavalent chromium level 12.9 ppb - Honolulu, Hawaii: population - 661,004
Hexavalent chromium level 2.00 ppb - Riverside, California, population - 280,832
Hexavalent chromium level 1.69 ppb - Madison, Wisconsin, population - 200,814
Hexavalent chromium level 1.58 ppb - San Jose, California, population - 979,000
Hexavalent chromium level 1.34 ppb
With so many tens of millions of Americans exposed to hexavalent chromium on a daily bases, the Environmental Working Group is urging the EPA to act - to set a legal limit on chromium-6, and make water utility companies regularly test levels of it in their tap water.
In a communiqué, the Environmental Working Group wrote:
-
"The state of California must establish a strong standard for hexavalent chromium in tap water immediately. A truly health-protective hexavalent chromium regulation will reduce the cancer risk for Californians and serve as a model for the nation. With an enforceable standard already six years past the statutory deadline and the health of millions of Californians at stake, the state cannot move too quickly."
Full Report (login required)
Source: Environmental Working Group
Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
22 May. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/212079.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/212079.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
Visitor Opinions (latest shown first)
Conservatives don't Conserve Anything
posted by Another poster on 26 May 2011 at 7:16 amPlease show me where Republicans are shown being the champions of anything that would help our environment. These modern day Republicans do nothing with our environment but rape it for profit (we actually had some good R leaders in the past it would seem). Show me some policies in the decade before the current administration that did anything positive for the environment.
If you mention Bush's protection of the wetlands, make sure you include how he re-classed things like resorts and golf courses as wetlands, so REAL wetlands could actually be developed and destroyed, while still being considered a wetland under the law.
Dems do shady things too, for certain, but let's be honest here. Today's republicans are best known for their ability to bash the current president, while doing very little positive for our country.
The Public Must Be Informed!
posted by vmv on 25 Mar 2011 at 1:34 amI'm sure most people are unaware of this. They think that their tap water is safe. I've even seen articles saying that we shouldn't use bottled water, but we should drink tap water. This should be headline news--the public needs to be informed.
What about the so-called "war on cancer." People are often asked to contribute to cancer research, and at the same time, are not told about the carcinogens in their food and water.
possibly more than cancer?
posted by William on 19 Feb 2011 at 8:05 pmThe area where I live has a large amount of multiple sclerosis.We live within 5-7 miles of a coal fired power plant. Could the ms in our srea have been caused by the pollution caused by this plant?
Filter
posted by aaron on 23 Dec 2010 at 9:42 amI saw this and did some reading. It seems like a good reverse osmosis (RO) water filter will greatly reduce this as well as several other contaminants. Also read that a good one will have at least a few year warranty and be 4-5 stage filter. From what I saw for an under counter unit for kitchen tap is anywhere from a few hundred on up.
You are kidding right?
posted by Darwin on 21 Dec 2010 at 6:52 pmSure, it must be big business. That way if they poison the water supply then there will be no one around to buy their products. That makes perfect sense. Move to Mexico and find out what a real tainted water supply is like. Wait maybe the republicans went down there also. It is a conspiracy I am sure of it. You people need help, honestly.
Chromium 6
posted by Tim Hall on 21 Dec 2010 at 10:24 amThe USEPA listed Chromium 6 as a contaminant in the 1976 Safe Drinking Water Act. The maximum contaminant level established was for chromium (total) as 0.1 mg/L or 100 ppb. EPA has set this level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems. Chromium 3 is naturally occurring and is found in most fruits and vegetables. A revisitation of the standard was undertaken in 1992 by the USEPA and it was decided that the standard at 100 ppb was very protective.
What do I do about it?
posted by Lonnie on 21 Dec 2010 at 9:53 amHow about some advice on how to avoid it? Is there a filter that people can use?!
The Legislators live on another planet
posted by averageanne on 20 Dec 2010 at 11:04 amI just knew the legislators lived on another planet. They and their families must have another source of clean water!
When the Legislators come down to earth, maybe they will realize they all breathe the same air, eat the same foods and live alongside people who have no health insurance.
Clean water
posted by Don on 20 Dec 2010 at 10:24 amThis lays right at the feet of the GOP and blowhards on the right who decry the environmentalists for interfering on the rights of business to make a profit unfettered by regulation.
The cry for deregulation on safety, environment and finance is their stock in trade and has resulted in a stressed-out working class, dysfunctional biology and corrupt ruling class.
Is it better to err on the side of caution and support science when an alarm is ringing in your ears or continue on in ignorance risking tragedy and hardship on your family or self?
Drink bottled water
posted by Bill on 20 Dec 2010 at 10:16 amEPA is another bureaucratic waste of tax payer dollars. States can test and self regulate their individual problems. It’s obvious the EPA has failed in its duty to protect the environment and giving them another cent is wasteful in itself.
California?
posted by frank on 20 Dec 2010 at 10:14 amThe EPA is the main governing body of all MCLG maximum contaminant level goals as well as MCL maximum contaminant levels. The article based its data on a
0.06 ppb proposed limit from California. As far as I know California does not set national primary drinking water standards. So Norman,Oklahoma has a hexavalent chromium level 200 times higher than a level that has no meaning.
Let's see the evidence
posted by MD Smith on 20 Dec 2010 at 9:57 amInteresting that there is no cancer cluster at Hinckley, CA either, where levels were presumably, kind of high. The 0.06ppb limit was derived how? How much is natural?
Oh my God!!!
posted by jmw5745 on 20 Dec 2010 at 9:34 amWe're all going to die!! Durn those Republicans!!!
How is it getting there?
posted by John Heidema on 20 Dec 2010 at 9:19 amOne thing that ought to be in these articles -- but is not -- is a discussion of WHERE these chromium ions/salts are coming from. Why do we have this problem? Is it mostly industrial water pollution? Or is it consumer pollution? (E.g., via battery wastes?). Absent that, you have little more than alarmist articles. If the answers are clear, then say so! And then make reasonable conjectures.
Great country we live in....
posted by inverse137 on 20 Dec 2010 at 7:28 amProfit first, human life and safety second.
No surprise
posted by Rick on 20 Dec 2010 at 7:26 amThe EPA has been constantly assaulted by members of Congress (mostly republican) to loosen standards for tap water.
As long as our legislators are for sale to the highest corporate bidder, we will continue to drink unsafe water.
Add Your Opinion On This Article
'Cancer-Causing Hexavalent Chromium In Tap Water For 89% Of US Sampled Cities'Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
