The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Mmmmm.. Chromium .....
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5019
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Midgen [ Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

http://static.ewg.org/reports/2010/chro ... /home.html

ewg.org wrote:
Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water
Cancer-causing chemical found in 89 percent of cities sampled

Laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG) have detected hexavalent chromium, the carcinogenic “Erin Brockovich chemical,” in tap water from 31 of 35 American cities. The highest levels were in Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, Calif. In all, water samples from 25 cities contained the toxic metal at concentrations above the safe maximum recently proposed by California regulators.

The National Toxicology Program has concluded that hexavalent chromium (also called chromium-6) in drinking water shows “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of gastrointestinal tumors. In September 2010, a draft toxicological review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) similarly found that hexavalent chromium in tap water is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

In 2009, California officials proposed setting a “public health goal” for hexavalent chromium in drinking water of 0.06 parts per billion (ppb) to reduce cancer risk. This was the first step toward establishing a statewide enforceable limit. Despite mounting evidence of its toxic effects, the EPA has not set a legal limit for hexavalent chromium in tap water nationally and does not require water utilities to test for it. In 25 cities where EWG’s testing detected chromium-6 — in the first publicly available national survey for the contaminant — it was found in concentrations exceeding California’s proposed maximum, in one case at a level more than 200 times higher.

At least 74 million Americans in 42 states drink chromium-polluted tap water, much of it likely in the cancer-causing hexavalent form. Given the scope of exposure and the magnitude of the potential risk, EWG believes the EPA should move expeditiously to establish a legal limit for chromium-6 and require public water suppliers to test for it.

Author:  Lenas [ Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Blah.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

I wonder what the bottled water content looks like.

Author:  Midgen [ Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

I have lots of questions about this to be honest.

They are using California's standard here. How do they know how much is safe? What if I drink 200oz of water a day? Is that level still safe?

If you take this at face value, people in Normal Oklahoma should all be walking around with (or dying of) cancer. But apparently they aren't (I looked at some cancer mortality maps on different cancer sites).

Also, I should have pointed out that my quoted text above is just a small part of the overall article.

Here is an graph showing the study findings.

Image

Author:  Lenas [ Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Likely a very minimum "safe" estimate.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

I thought this was going to be about Google.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:24 am ]
Post subject:  Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

Do you have any idea how small .06 ppb is? I need to get the chart from my dad's office.

Feel free to check my math

At .06 ppb there would be .00000012 oz or 3.5 nanoliters of chromium in 200 oz of water. You'd die of water poisoning way before you consumed one "drop" in a days time.

I have no idea what a lethal dose is or how fast the body can process it. My daddy is a water technician not a doctor.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

Rorinthas wrote:
Do you have any idea how small .06 ppb is? I need to get the chart from my dad's office.

Feel free to check my math

At .06 ppb there would be .00000012 oz or 3.5 nanoliters of chromium in 200 oz of water. You'd die of water poisoning way before you consumed one "drop" in a days time.

I have no idea what a lethal dose is or how fast the body can process it. My daddy is a water technician not a doctor.


Generally, the risk is not the consumption of a lethal dose. The risk is consumption of miniscule doses every day, for years. It builds in selective tissue (not spread evenly throughout the body) until it achieves toxic concentrations.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

That's what I meant, and I cant comment on how (fast) the body can break down or handle chromium. I was just trying to point out how minuscule .06 ppb is. Though I imagine the .06 threshold is based on that.

Life expectancy is going up still so we must be doing something right.

Author:  Midgen [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

From the Chromium Wiki Page

emphasis mine
Wiki wrote:
The acute oral toxicity for chromium(VI) ranges between 50 and 150 µg/kg. In the body, chromium(VI) is reduced by several mechanisms to chromium(III) already in the blood before it enters the cells. The chromium(III) is excreted from the body, whereas the chromate ion is transferred into the cell by a transport mechanism, by which also sulfate and phosphate ions enter the cell. The acute toxicity of chromium(VI) is due to its strong oxidational properties. After it reaches the blood stream, it damages the kidneys, the liver and blood cells through oxidation reactions. Hemolysis, renal and liver failure are the results of these damages. Aggressive dialysis can improve the situation.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

So in closing even at 200 times the Cali standard you're coming nowhere near toxicity? So this is as I figured much hype about nothing. Sounds like the EPA trying to justify their budget and scare the electorate into submission. Color me unsurprised.

Author:  Midgen [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

That study wasn't done by the EPA, and the 'standard' being used is California's, not the Feds.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

Their state equivalents are just as bad when it comes to this thing. Here in Ohio we tend to call them both "the EPA"

Author:  Stathol [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

Rorinthas wrote:
So in closing even at 200 times the Cali standard you're coming nowhere near toxicity? So this is as I figured much hype about nothing. Sounds like the EPA trying to justify their budget and scare the electorate into submission. Color me unsurprised.

Direct toxicity isn't really the problem. The issue is that it's carcinogenic. The question is, "how much hexavalent chromium can you be chronically exposed to before it significantly increases your risk of (various) cancer(s)?" This is naturally going to be a smaller number than what's required for direct toxicity, though I don't know whether or not the CA standards are reasonable as far as that goes.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

I don't think anyone knows that. However the body is breaking it down at levels below toxicity. I guess it comes down to how much of an increase in your water bills is it worth to you.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

There are tons of studies on this:
Here's A Search on the National Toxicology Program Site
You folks who deal with the more "sciency" jargon (or who's daddies do) will probably have an easier time than I did. It seemed to me that the concentrations consumed by the test subjects was rather larger than we're looking at on this list.
This was an interesting article:
Yahoo

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

Rorinthas wrote:
So in closing even at 200 times the Cali standard you're coming nowhere near toxicity? So this is as I figured much hype about nothing. Sounds like the EPA trying to justify their budget and scare the electorate into submission. Color me unsurprised.


Either way it's not hype about nothing. It should not be in our water supply at all.

Author:  Alice [ Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

Rorinthas wrote:
However the body is breaking it down at levels below toxicity.

I have never heard about it.

Author:  Müs [ Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....

Alice wrote:
Rorinthas wrote:
However the body is breaking it down at levels below toxicity.

I have never heard about it.

Perhaps you should research more.

Author:  Corolinth [ Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
I wonder what the bottled water content looks like.
Bottled water = tap water

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Kind of my point, Coro.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:39 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
"Bottled water is not necessarily any safer than tap water," said Sutton. "We just don't have any guarantee that hexavalent chromium isn't in that water."

So how can you protect yourself? Sutton says your best bet is buying an effective water filter.

"Getting the water filter is a great way to protect yourself and your family," says Sutton. "It's a step you can take yourself; you don't have to wait for government action."

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/