The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:50 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:18 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Blah.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
I wonder what the bottled water content looks like.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:52 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Likely a very minimum "safe" estimate.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
I thought this was going to be about Google.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:24 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
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.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:08 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
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.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Last edited by Rorinthas on Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:31 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
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.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
That study wasn't done by the EPA, and the 'standard' being used is California's, not the Feds.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:01 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Their state equivalents are just as bad when it comes to this thing. Here in Ohio we tend to call them both "the EPA"

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:34 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
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.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Mmmmm.. Chromium .....
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:53 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
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.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:56 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
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

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:26 am
Posts: 24
Rorinthas wrote:
However the body is breaking it down at levels below toxicity.

I have never heard about it.

_________________
I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:31 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
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.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:32 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
I wonder what the bottled water content looks like.
Bottled water = tap water

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Kind of my point, Coro.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
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."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group