HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » U.S. RADIOACTIVE TAP WATE...

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 01:46 PM

U.S. RADIOACTIVE TAP WATER. TRUMP NOMINEE FAKED DATA TO HIDE CANCER RISK.

Last edited Mon Jan 15, 2018, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.ewg.org/research/170-million-us-drink-radioactive-tap-water-trump-nominee-faked-data-hide-cancer-risk?utm_source=201801RadiationRelease&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=201801RadiationReleaseEE#.Wlzauq6nG1s


Drinking water for more than 170 million Americans contains radioactive elements at levels that may increase the risk of cancer, according to an EWG analysis of 2010 to 2015 test results from public water systems nationwide.

Radiation in tap water is a serious health threat, especially during pregnancy. But the Environmental Protection Agency’s legal limits for several types of radioactive elements in tap water are badly outdated. And President Trump’s nominee to be the White House environment czar rejects the need for water systems to comply even with those outdated and inadequate standards.

The nominee, Kathleen Hartnett White, former chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, admitted in a 2011 interview that the commission falsified data to make it appear that communities with excessive radiation levels were below the EPA's limit. She said she did not "believe the science of health effects" to which the EPA subscribes, placing "far more trust" in the work of the TCEQ, which has a reputation of setting polluter-friendly state standards and casually enforcing federal standards.

Last month, after Hartnett White again admitted to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee she knew the TCEQ had ignored the EPA’s radiation regulations, her nomination was sent back to the White House. But on Jan. 8, the White House renominated her, setting up another confirmation vote before the committee, and then by the full Senate.

snip...

But while Kathleen Hartnett White was chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from 2003 to 2007, the state regularly and deliberately lowered the levels of radiation in tap water it reported to the EPA.

A 2011 investigation by KHOU-TV of Houston unearthed TCEQ emails documenting the deception. Instead of reporting the levels measured in laboratory tests, TCEQ would first subtract the test's margin of error. Because TCEQ’s falsifying of data made it appear that the system met EPA standards, the system did not have to inform its customers that their tap water contained dangerous levels of radiation.


snip...

edited to add original story from 2010
https://www.texasobserver.org/investigation-finds-radiation-in-texas-drinking-water/

13 replies, 2998 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply U.S. RADIOACTIVE TAP WATER. TRUMP NOMINEE FAKED DATA TO HIDE CANCER RISK. (Original post)
withoutapaddle Jan 2018 OP
Freethinker65 Jan 2018 #1
withoutapaddle Jan 2018 #2
Perseus Jan 2018 #10
elehhhhna Jan 2018 #3
barbtries Jan 2018 #4
withoutapaddle Jan 2018 #5
MelissaB Jan 2018 #6
withoutapaddle Jan 2018 #7
not fooled Jan 2018 #8
PatrickforO Jan 2018 #9
NNadir Jan 2018 #11
withoutapaddle Jan 2018 #12
NNadir Jan 2018 #13

Response to withoutapaddle (Original post)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 01:58 PM

1. So she is the perfect choice for this administration

Totally loyal to Trump. Does not give a damn about what she is nominated to oversee nor Americans in general. Totally anti-science and anti-regulations. What’s not to love?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freethinker65 (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 02:05 PM

2. loyalty above anything else

kiss the ring! Screw everyone and ANYTHING else!

I despise this admin with a fury that cannot be put into words

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freethinker65 (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 04:38 PM

10. You forgot to mention the two most important character attributes

required by this administration....corrupt and completely lacking any principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to withoutapaddle (Original post)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 02:16 PM

3. This is criminal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to withoutapaddle (Original post)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 03:04 PM

4. wouldn't this be a prosecutable crime?!

FFS these people are beyond belief. who can be that indifferent to the quality and sanctity of human life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 03:23 PM

5. i'm searching for a story from that timeline

haven't found anything yet.

I'm posting this link. I'm sure everyone knows about the epa, but it's under attack right now.
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/report-environmental-violations





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to withoutapaddle (Original post)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 03:36 PM

6. Great! I live in one of these cities and wouldn't have moved here if I had known this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to withoutapaddle (Original post)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 04:04 PM

8. They don't care

Let the peasantry drink dangerous water. They should be glad the 0.01% gives them access to water, period, and shut up about the rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to withoutapaddle (Original post)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 04:37 PM

9. Another lying Republican.

Slime bag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to withoutapaddle (Original post)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 08:10 PM

11. While I'm not a fan of Trump's nominee's for anything, this concern is nonsense.

Every human being on the planet is "radioactive."

If they weren't, they would die, since potassium is a radioactive element that is essential to living things.

Nowhere in this article is there any reference to any unit of radioactivity, such as a Sievert or a Bequerel or a Gray

Ignorance about radiation, what it is, what it does, and how it is measured does not improve our rhetoric, and can in fact, make us look ridiculous, which by the way, the tenor of this entire thread is.

The biggest threat to human health in connection with the environment is air pollution, which is a chemical hazard, not a radiological one.

Much of the groundwater around the world is radioactive because uranium and its daughters are ubiquitous elements, found in practically all the granite on earth. The question is not if water is radioactive - it almost always is - but how radioactive it is.

I note that in the 1960's pretty much all of the water on this planet was far more radioactive than it is today because of tritium formed from open air nuclear testing.

I once calculated that on the planet at that time, the likely annual death toll from tritium was on the order of 1600 people a year, an amount of loss that is easily dwarfed by deaths from whiffing benzene at a gasoline station while pumping gas during the same period. Today, the death toll from tritium - some of which is formed or delivered by solar radiation - is on the order of 20 people per year. These calculations are made explicit here: Profile of Radioactive Substance Associated With Nuclear Power: Tritium.

A whimsical unit of radioactivity is the "banana equivalent", which refers to the radioactivity of a banana, due to its high potassium load.

Brazil nuts, by contract are more radiologically "risky" than bananas, since they tend to concentrate radium. However, I personally would oppose vilifying an official - even a Trump official - because he or she has allowed the importation of Brazil nuts. They typically have a radiation level of about 100 bequerel/kg or more radioactivity.

Unless we understand radiation and learn how to properly respect it, our planet is in deep shit, since nuclear power is the only truly sustainable and safe form of energy, whether or not the general public - with its well known penchant for selective attention - is educated enough to know this or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 08:33 PM

12. the falsifying of documents

If her agency was willing to "fudge" numbers on radioactive materials, I think it can be at least assumed that other pollutants were probably misrepresented to the public as well.

And, though I'm admittedly not well educated in nuclear or radioactive particles, it is imperative that the people placed into those positions have a clear understanding of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to withoutapaddle (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 15, 2018, 10:22 PM

13. Fudging data is always reprehensible, whether in forensic cases, environmental cases...

...medical cases, or in just pure science.

In many places, it is subject to both civil and criminal prosecution.

But simply saying "radioactive water" and expecting a hysterical response - which one is regrettably likely to get - is nonsense.

In fact, it's toxic, because nuclear energy saves lives, and the bastardization of the word "radioactive" is playing into general public ignorance on this score, and thus leading to unnecessary and preventable deaths from air pollution.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power

(Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

The upper link in your original post however, does give units and points out that detectable radium is found - this is very unsurprising - in a large fraction of the nation's groundwater.

It has always been there, although we can say that certain practices, most notably "fracking" do mobilize radium. Much of the flowback water from gas operations is more radioactive than the radioactivity associated with the seas outside Fukushima, although no one seems to care about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread