« What's the Question, Again? | Main | The Virtues of Sensationalist Scaremongering »
February 24, 2005
Rocket Fuel in Mother's Milk
A toxic chemical used in rocket fuel was found in virtually every sample taken in a new study of nursing mothers' milk, but researchers said it is too early to know whether the perchlorate levels are dangerous....
Perchlorate has been linked to thyroid ailments, and is considered particularly dangerous to children. It has been found in drinking water supplies in 35 states and also in vegetables. While the chemical occurs naturally, the National Academy of Sciences has said most of the contamination is from its use in rocket fuels, fireworks and explosives.
Contamination is especially widespread in California because of the many current and former defense and space program sites in the state.
According to public health advocates, perchlorate is in the water that supplies more than 16 million Californians. It has also been found in the Colorado River, the major source of drinking water and irrigation in Southern California and Arizona.
But don't worry. No undue alarm.
However, the milk study shouldn't raise "undue alarm" because the seriousness of its findings is unclear, said Ed Urbansky, a former Environmental Protection Agency chemist who has published several papers on perchlorate. He was not involved with the study."It's very difficult to determine what the findings might be other than to know it might be in so many milk samples," he said. "It's important not to raise undue alarm over the significance of the finding.
"We shouldn't be running through the streets screaming and not drinking milk because of this."
Don't scream. Don't run through the streets. Don't be alarmed.
It's only rocket fuel in milk.
Posted by zeynep at February 24, 2005 05:26 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/mt-tb.cgi/407
Comments
> Don't scream. Don't run through the streets.
> Don't be alarmed.
> It's only rocket fuel in milk.
"Um, flatly put" :
- The report says nothing about "parts per million", notning about "concentration". It says, in essence: "They found what could've been X, in Y".
- Maybe anyone could bone-up about some chemistry, before writing about it - original author of the piece, included.
- Rebounding sensationalism" can be like as some "bad sport".
- I intend no offense with this -- "above, or next" -- but flatly put, in explanation of this: I am very tired of - "around the info-world" - seeing writing, such that appears quite "sensationally" made, and as-if about science, and while not any of it does evidence any non-trivial "understanding" of what's being writ about, to begin with.
So, this ain't politically intended.
Some "more" objective regard, about technology & science, in "The left" just might serve to help with analysis of anything, furthemore.
So, then, would you kindly let the officials take their authoritative time about determining the causes for "chemical" alarm?
Thank you.
Posted by: Sean Champ at February 24, 2005 08:10 PM
Actually there is very much reason to be concerned about this report.
The report stated that the average concentration found is 10.5 ppb and of course ther were some women who had much higher concentrations.
The EPA does not have any standard for perchlorate at the moment, but the EPA has a draft drinking water standard of 1ppb. http://www.valleywater.org/Water/Water_Quality/Protecting_your_water/_Perchlorate_Information/_pdf/EPA_Perchlorate_Update_2002-03_New.pdf
The Texas Comision of Environmental quality has a interim standard of 4ppb
http://www.georgetown.org/citynews/frontpagelink.php?id=132
so even though Ed Urbansky of the EPA is not concenrened that on averaeg womens breast milk is 10 time greater than his own agency's draft standard, I think people who care about their chilren's health should be concerned.
by the way people who aren't concerned about their childrens health should give them up for adoption (poor kids).
Posted by: Bob Castro at February 24, 2005 10:11 PM
I actually study perchlorate ... and I find this development very distressing.
The Colorado River provides the irrigation water for the Imperial Valley and parts of Arizona, where most of the winter salad crops for the whole country are grown. The water is contaminated with perchlorate, and plants take up perchlorate. So, these women either got perchlorate in their milk or in their food.
Perchlorate by itself might not be a big deal in low concentrations, say 4 ppb. But what if you start adding it to all the other chemicals that interfer with thyroid health, like nitrate, chloride, fluoride, etc.?
We don't set standards to protect healthy adults, and the one study that has been done was done on healthy adults for a short period of time.
If perchlorate is a contaminant that people are exposed to in small doses for long periods of time, extrapolating the short-term effects of perchlorate on healthy adults says nothing about the chronic effects of perchlorate on pregnant women, developing children and the elderly.
Hypothyroidism is a terrible problem, because often the effects are difficult to trace back to the thyroid. Our tests for hypothyroidism are not particularly helpful, in that if T4 and T3 fall within "normal" ranges a person is not treated for hypothyroidism ... what if that persons hormone requirements are outside of normal? What is the normal hormone level for small children? How would we even know our children were hypothyroid unless they developed a big fat goiter?
The problem is that our bodies cannot tell the difference between iodine and perchlorate, and our body will take up perchlorate instead of iodine. What if it is a natural function of mother's milk to concentrate iodine in the milk for the express purpose of providing the infant with enough iodine for healthy growth and brain development?
Another troubling aspect of chronic perchlorate exposure is the fact that it is described in the literature as a "potent bone resorption inhibitor." Bones are living tissue, that dissolve and reform on a continual basis. What this is saying is that the bone dissolves, but does not reform. How will this affect our elderly who tend to have bone density issues anyway?
And, there was a man who said we should all be taking kelp pills. Right on the packaging of responsible natural food supplement suppliers it says, "Not for extended use." So what, another ephedra-type overuse effect?
On top of all this, the DoD would like to set the perchlorate standard for cleanup at 200 parts per billion. If they are successful, there would be no cleanup requirement for perchlorate contaminated water unless the concentration was 50 times the proposed health standard originally set by the EPA.
I can't think of anything more vital to our national security than our public health. Why spend billions of dollars a year on weaponry and troops to protect our citizens if we are willing to turn a blind eye to poisonous air, food and water??
Before you answer, "that's where the big whigs make the most money," there is money to be made in clean technology too. People are willing to pay to have children that are not retarded, elderly family members who are not crippled and overall a better quality of life.
A friend of mine who works in the activated carbon industry told me that if the State of Texas were to require carbon filters on its industries that produce mercury emissions, they calculated the cost to each individual in Texas at $2 per year. Sure, that is millions of dollars--but I would be thrilled to pay $2 per year to assure that my air, water and food were mercury free.
It's a national disgrace that we are willing to risk the health of our loved ones to save a couple bucks a year.
[Rant over.]
Posted by: Ellen at February 25, 2005 12:06 AM