January, 1999
Vol. 3, No. 1
Subscribe!
Table of Contents
Sediment Circus
Paper or Tobacco Mill?
GE Denies PCB Health Risks
If I were a PCB polluter --- what would I do
Clean Water's New Homepage
Carcinogens Everywhere
Lead in Kids
What You Can Do
Bring in the clowns. The DNR has completely mishandled it's
first
demonstration of how it would conduct Fox River PCB sediment cleanups.
1. Angered 3 Communities
First, the DNR tried to quietly dispose of the Fox River sediments
in Rusk County, in western Wisconsin, before anyone realized what they
were
doing. Local citizens quickly responded, and the local
sewage treatment
plant (which would be forced to treat PCB contaminated leachate from
the
site) raised objections. The private landfill operator backed
out of the
deal.
Then, the DNR tried the same trick near Eau Claire, and were
pounded in a political firestorm. The DNR staff had just finished
saying
the disposal was a technical decision, not a political one, when Tommy
Thompson got cold feet and nixed the deal 2 days before hundreds of
local
citizens were prepared to blast them at the public hearings.
It was right
before the Governor's election after all.
And finally, the DNR struck out a third time in the Town of
Oshkosh. They thought they had a quiet deal wired by getting
approval from
the Winnebago County Board, but they forgot to ask the local Town's
permission and were threatened with lawsuits and hundreds of irate
residents who hadn't been properly consulted. This situation
quickly
soured for the DNR and now Winnebago County has rescinded its approval.
This whole scenario was predictable, and we warned them they were
heading for trouble, but DNR tried to go behind the public's back instead
of being honest and open. It's important for
the DNR to allow
plenty of time for public discussions and for DNR to adjust their actions
to address public concerns. Democracy does work, but DNR
hasn't learned
this yet and we all have to suffer because of their arrogance.
We hate to think how many taxdollars and DNR staff hours have been
wasted because of all this.
2. High vs. Low-level PCBs
While the Oshkosh fiasco played out, DNR mislead Clean Water
members and many news media by saying that only the low-level PCB wastes
(under 50 parts per million) would be disposed of there.
They also
implied that the Oshkosh landfill was only for sediments generated
by the 2
demonstration projects, not the whole river cleanup effort.
In fact, the DNR was quickly pushing through permits to allow much
larger quantities of hazardous waste levels of PCBs (over 50 ppm) to
be
dumped at this landfill --- side-stepping the full public review and
public
hearing process which is due this spring under the Superfund Remedial
Investigation & Feasibility Study process. DNR wanted
a "done deal" and
fully intended to ignore public concerns this spring, because they've
already made up their minds about simple landfilling.
3. Screwed-up Dredging
After all the concern this past year about stirring up PCBs and
making the contamination worse, DNR has played right into the paper
industry's hands.
DNR kept waiting for landfill approval before starting its first
demonstration project at the Little Chute and Kimberly site, called
Deposit
N. Finally, because DNR was desperate to show some kind
of progress this
past (election) year, they finally started dredging the PCB hotspot
in late
November and December (before they were sure of a disposal site.)
Not
surprisingly, the Wisconsin winter caught up with them and they were
forced
by serious ice problems to stop the project before it was completed.
How could they make such a serious mistake with one of the worst PCB
hotspots in the river? They claim they got 80% of the most contaminated
muds, but at this point, how can we trust them? They say they
may, or may not, go back for the rest in
the spring.
In other words, they cut into and exposed extremely contaminated
PCB layers in the river, but didn't remove them all, which means the
PCBs may not be there in the spring to come back for. We
can be sure the
polluters are tracking the increased movement of PCBs downstream.
Because of ice shoves on the river, the silt curtains around the
project designed to catch PCB particles would be ripped up and useless
very
quickly. By now, DNR has removed the screens completely,
exposing the
site.
Because of the enormous costs, DNR isn't likely to try setting up
all their equipment and staff again to finish the job at Deposit N
in
spring. They're already over budget because so much of
the high-level PCB
sediment had to be shipped to a site near Detroit.
4. No True Demonstration
We've been disgusted with the design of DNR's two demonstration
projects, because we feel they should demonstrate something new besides
a
"dig and dump" mentality. DNR staff have admitted
at public hearings
that all the technologies used are "proven," and this fall they admitted
that it was misleading to call these "demonstrations" at all.
They
consider the projects to simply be the start of a river cleanup.
In other
words, they got a $500,000 grant from the EPA under false pretenses
to
conduct a "demonstration."
Clean Water Action Council's position is that the PCBs should be
treated and detoxified as much as possible before landfilling, and
that any
landfill should be considered "temporary storage" with the polluters
held
responsible for further detoxification of the material when technologies
improve. Landfills shouldn't be considered final disposal and
the mills
shouldn't be allowed to walk away from continuing liabilities at the
landfill sites.
5. Polluters Not Paying
DNR and the news media persist in describing both the Deposit N and
Deposit 56/57 "demonstrations" as "paid for by the paper companies"
--- yet
this is not true.
The Deposit N fiasco was paid for with our taxdollars primarily.
Out of the approximately $4,500,000 dollars allocated for Deposit N,
the
Fox River Group paid only about $150,000. Another 500,000 came
from the
federal EPA and federal taxpayers, and the rest, about $3,850,000 came
from
Wisconsin taxpayers, through a special fund set up with our money by
Tommy
Thompson. The landfill problems added many thousands of
dollars to
taxpayers' costs.
The DNR and media should make this crystal clear. Don't
pretend
the mills are being generous.
6. Other Site On Hold?
The other demonstration at Deposit 56/57 near Fort James in Green
Bay was to be covered under the $10 million sweetheart deal between
the
Governor and the mills. It was supposed to happen this
spring, but
because of the landfill problem, DNR is telling the mills they must
cough-up a great deal more money for trucking the high-level PCBs out
of
state. The mills are balking and saying they want to simply scale
back the
size of their "demonstration" to match the $7 million they allocated
for
this project.
To its credit, DNR is resisting this mill proposal to scale back,
because the Fort James hotspot is the worst site in the entire river,
with
a large continuous bed of hot PCB layers. DNR says, "Either
remove it
all, or don't disturb it for now." It would be a disaster
to cut into
these layers, take only some, and leave the rest behind exposed to
the
river currents to flow downstream.
We were already concerned about the timing of this Fort James
demonstration, because they had delayed until spring, when the river
would
be at high flow and it would be more difficult to prevent downstream
PCB
drift.
The DNR's overall performance on this PCB sediment issue does
not
inspire confidence.
Appleton Paper Company, one of the major sources of PCB
contamination to the Fox River, issued a press release last week announcing
that cancer deaths in the Fox River Valley are actually lower than
in other
parts of the state. They implied that their "study" showed
no link
between PCBs and cancer.
Their style reminded us of tobacco companies who have spent decades
denying the well-documented links between cigarette smoking and cancer.
Anyone familiar with cancer statistics thought Appleton Paper's
report was laughable. It's even stranger when we remember
Appleton
Paper's righteous calls for "Sound Science" and "fact-based decisions."
They should lose a lot of credibility from the press release, but the
media
always surprise us by giving junk science from local polluters front
page
coverage.
The fact is that raw cancer statistics can be very misleading, and
Appleton Paper's report should have undergone a rigorous peer-review
by
qualified independent toxicologists before it ever saw the light of
day.
But of course, that didn't happen.
Here are just a few concerns raised by their statistics:
1. Which Cancer? Appleton Paper lumped together all kinds
of cancer, but
PCBs have been linked to only a few kinds.
2. Average Age? The statistics have not been adjusted for
the average age
of the local population. The Fox Valley is full of young
families, and
other parts of the state have aging populations at higher risk for
cancer.
3. PCB Exposed? The statistics didn't distinguish between
PCB-exposed
people, and those not exposed --- a basic requirement before jumping
to
conclusions. How many people ate lots of PCB contaminated
fish? If you
don't eat local fish or ducks, your cancer risk is much lower.
4. Lived Here Long? The Fox Valley is growing rapidly with
an
influx of many new people. Cancer often develops 15 or 20 years
after a
toxic exposure, so credible studies look at how long a person has lived
in
an exposed community.
5. Other Risks? Appleton Paper acknowledged that between
1990 and 1996
cancer incidences increased across Wisconsin by 5%. Obviously,
PCBs
aren't the only factor at work here, and Northeast Wisconsin isn't
the only
area hosting probable chemical carcinogens.
6. Cancer isn't Everything!
One of our main concerns over PCBs is the damage it does to kids exposed
in
the womb of fish-eating mothers. PCBs are a developmental
poison, causing
lower birth weight, smaller head circumference, and sluggish responses
in
behavior tests. Exposed children can lose 6 IQ points, and develop
behavioral
problems, which may be even more alarming than cancer over the long
term.
PCBs are also suspected of damaging our immune systems, making us sick
in
other ways.
Just a Coincidence?
At the same time Appleton Paper Company is denying cancer risks
here in Wisconsin, General Electric (GE) is doing the same thing in
Massachusetts.
When asked to comment on the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health study
that showed that Pittsfield, Massachusetts residents exposed to GE's PCBs
had higher than expected levels of bladder, prostate and kidney cancers,
GE countered with their own experts.
"There is no evidence of a causal relationship to cancers from
PCBs," Dr. John Whysner of the American Health Foundation in New York
told
the Boston Herald. GE had referred the Herald reporter to Dr.
Whysner.
(This Whysner is the same "expert" who was brought to Wisconsin
last summer by the Fox River paper companies, to debate against EPA
and Dr.
Colburn.)
GE spent more than $100,000 in advertising to convince local
residents they shouldn't be overly concerned about the company spreading
a
probable human carcinogen throughout their community. Some ads
read "There
is no direct scientific evidence that PCBs cause cancer in humans."
Only
"eating large amounts of dirt" would increase risk. Other
GE ads warned
that bad publicity would keep businesses away from Pittsfield and
suggested, "Why don't we ... stop all the frightening talk?"
GE is exploiting scientific uncertainties to avoid cleaning up the
PCB contamination caused when they dumped PCBs in several areas of
Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and gave barrels of PCB-laced dirt to local
residents to use as fill in the 1940s and 1950s. To date,
more than 100
homes in Pittsfield have been found to be contaminated. (By the way,
Wisconsin DNR is considering the use of Fox River PCB sediments for
fill in
basement foundations and other construction.)
from GE information provided in the Center for Health, Environment and
Justice's Winter 98-99 newsletter
If I were a PCB polluter --- what would I do
by Rebecca Leighton Katers
I thought it would be interesting to imagine what I would do if I
was the leader of a group of multinational corporations accused of
polluting a river with toxic PCBs. It might give
us fresh insight, and
point the way to more effective activities by Clean Water Action Council.
So, here are a few ideas I came up with. They might sound familiar
...
* Throw Money at It. Obviously, it would be a good business investment
for
our industry group to spend a few million dollars on a damage-control
strategy to avoid paying for a potential $1,000,000,000 cleanup.
* Hire PR Consultants to carefully craft a public relations campaign
to put
a positive "spin" on our efforts.
* Hire Teams of Lawyers to intimidate public officials, finesse government
procedures, and pursue every possible legal loophole.
* Buy Politicians with large election campaign donations. Give
the
Governor $155,000, and get our insurance and law firms to also give
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
* Eliminate Bad Politicians, like Congressmen who dare to support
river
clean-up. Bring in movie stars and well-known national leaders
to promote
our chosen replacement.
* Lobby Constantly. Hire reps to attend every possible meeting
and
visit
with every official over and over and over again. The squeaky
wheel gets
the grease.
* Buy Public Support by giving lots of grants to public institutions
like
the University, United Way, Library, Zoo, Museum, the Boys & Girls
Club,
local Gardens, or other civic charities. Employees of those
institutions
won't dare criticize us.
* Blackmail Our Workers by telling them they must fight against Superfund,
or other cleanup efforts, or our industry will go bankrupt and they'll
be
out of work. Be sure to tell them environmentalists are self-centered
dreamers who don't care who they hurt as long as the environment is
protected for fish and birds.
* Terrorize Local Government and Small Businesses by threatening to
go
bankrupt or leave town if we are forced to clean the river.
* Extortion. Threaten to drag the Municipal Sewage Treatment
Plants and
local governments into liability if Superfund is imposed.
Then draft a
resolution for local governments to sign and send to EPA against Superfund
designation of the river.
* Gut the DNR by having the Governor take political control of the DNR
Secretary, cut the budget and 450 staff people, and re-organize all
the
departments. Shuffle the most experienced staff into unfamiliar
jobs.
Demoralize the whole agency.
* Eliminate the Intervenor. Have the Governor eliminate the Public
Intervenor Office which protects public rights in natural resources,
especially when the intervenors start to investigate our involvement
in the
PCB problem in the river.
* Neutralize Native Americans
by having the Governor threaten to destroy their economies by taking
away
their gaming rights, unless the Tribes abandon their environmental
initiatives and cool their support for a strong river cleanup.
* Create Ineffective Committees charged with solving the river's PCB
problem, but don't give them any power or money. Make the
community feel
it is being consulted. Stack the committees with pro-industry
people, to
make sure the committees aren't too effective. Flatter an environmentalist
by giving them one seat at the table. Eliminate troublemakers.
After one
committee proves its ineffectiveness over a period of years, abandon
it and
create a new one. Start the whole process over again.
It gives the
impression that "somebody is working on it."
* Rig the Laws in Our Favor. While we buy years of delay with
our useless
committees, systematically alter or stifle agency rules or legislation
to
favor our industry. Get exemptions from the federal Toxic Substances
Control Act to allow hazardous waste levels of PCBs to be disposed
of in
ordinary landfills. Stifle efforts to tighten groundwater
standards for
PCBs, and quietly push for limits on our liability.
* Blitz the Media. Organize a series of media events to
create
positive coverage for our industry. Hold numerous "Editorial
Board
Meetings" with local newspapers and other media --- and dazzle them
with
piles of information, custom-made videos, and hired "experts." Issue
lots
of press releases about our great environmental record and progress,
and
the unfairness of government processes. Call the media to complain
when
they release news unfavorable to us, or when they quote "radical"
environmentalists.
* Buy the Media. Remind the media that our industry buys a lot of
advertising space from them and our workers are unhappy to read falsehoods
about their employer. Warn them that they could lose subscribers
and
advertising dollars if they say too many negative things about our
industry. Remind newspapers of the source of their raw
materials. Recruit
other business leaders to reinforce the message. Threaten legal action
over
"questionable" reports.
* Create a Phony "Environmental Group" and subsidize their activities
to
allow them to compete aggressively for members and grants against real
environmental groups. Have our phony group interfere with those
groups and
try to slow down funding we can't totally block. Try to starve
and cripple
these opponents. (At the same time, talk to regional foundations
to
discourage them from funding "radical" groups.) Make sure
our phony group
does some legitimate good work on environmental issues other than PCBs,
to
build goodwill and credibility which can be used to our advantage at
the
proper times.
* Marginalize True Enviros. Keep calling them "wackos,"
"radicals,"
"extremists," "hysterical," "emotional," "uncompromising," "adversarial,"
or "confrontational." Describe them as "impossible to work with."
Have
people join and destroy groups from within. Talk about how nice
it is to
work with our phony environmentalist, who is more "moderate" and
"reasonable."
* Appeal to the Public's Goodness. "Let's all share the costs.
We all
benefited from this industry, we all share the blame, so let's all
work
together to find solutions." Maybe we can at least get taxpayers
to cover
the bulk of the cleanup costs.
* Frighten the Public about downstream drift of PCBs caused by dredging
out
sediment hotspots. Tell them "Maybe it's better to leave the
PCBs alone."
Produce cartoon videos, with sinister music in the background, to
misrepresent the dredging equipment.
* Call for Sound Science, and ignore the fact that more than $25 million
has already been spent by government agencies researching the situation.
Ask for more studies, because we know there's not enough money available
to
provide multiple definitive studies of every possible impact from river
contamination and cleanup. To ensure continuing doubts, lobby
successfully
for elimination of federal and state funding for independent scientific
research related to this issue.
* Question Health Effects of PCBs. Hire prostitute scientists
willing to
dismiss concerns about PCB toxicity. In the absence of government
funding
for research, our science reports will have more influence.
* Rig Studies for Desired Results. Fund our own"scientific"
studies which
are deliberately designed to show that PCBs cause no health
problems, or that dredging is too risky or expensive.
* Promote Phony Demonstrations. As part of our "science disinformation
campaign," design sediment cleanup demonstrations which are guaranteed
to
show poor results. Demand that cleanup planning stop until results
of our
demonstrations are available.
* Control Clean-up Planning. Sign a sweetheart deal with the Governor
which grants us the right to pick our own industry consultants to control
the definition of the health risks, cost/benefits, and technical options.
Have the consultants push for "no action." or limited river cleanup.
* Find Industry Allies from other parts of the country dealing
with the
same problem. Copy their successful tactics, borrow their
experts, and
team up with them against river cleanups across the country.
* Lobby Washington Intensively in a coordinated campaign with
allies.
Quietly work to gut the federal Superfund law and slip riders into
unrelated federal bills to exempt our industry from Superfund. Try
to get
veto power for our Governor over Superfund cases. Delay river cleanup
until
we succeed in Washington.
* Keep it Local. Keep repeating the phrase "it's a local problem
that
needs local solutions." Stifle concerns about regional,
multi-state or
even international impacts from our pollution This maintains
our local
political leverage over the cleanup.
* Demonize Federal Agencies and repeatedly claim that local governments
can
do a better job. Ignore the fact that local governments
allowed the river
to become contaminated, have done little to clean it up over the decades,
and have little experience in how to accomplish a cleanup. Appeal to
local
leaders' egos.
* Limit the Issue. Stifle or ridicule any discussion which would
broaden
the issue to include such things as drinking water concerns, local
cancer
rates, or health effects in children.
* Pit Upstream vs. Downstream by convincing one community that they
shouldn't do anything because another community on the river isn't
doing
enough. Divide and conquer. Get local governments to actively
blame each
other for cleanup problems, then sit back and laugh at the show.
* Focus on Costs / Not Benefits. Keep scaring people about the
enormity of
the cleanup costs and huge amount of material to be removed from the
river.
Stifle talk about the enormous economic, health, and social costs caused
by
our pollution, or the enormous longterm benefits of restoring the health
of
the river.
* Divert Attention to Other Issues. Call attention to erosion
on farmers'
fields or fertilizer run-off from home lawns. Keep referring
to
"non-point pollution" (land run-off) as the most serious environmental
problem facing the river. Fund studies which illustrate
how serious this
problem is. Promote kids activities on "non-point," promote litter
pickups
along the river, and organize ceremonies to give awards to companies
(which
are under court order to clean-up.) Keep asking why environmentalists
and
the government aren't doing more about non-point pollution.
* Strangle Agencies with FOIA Requests, which agencies are legally required
to honor. "Freedom of Information Act" requests tie up
staff time as they
are forced to find, copy, sort, and mail thousands of documents to
the
polluters.
* Anger Local Citizens by deliberately mishandling the disposal of river
sediments, to build public support for leaving the PCBs in the river.
Encourage the Governor's DNR to quickly push through misleading permits
for
inadequate disposal. Set public comment deadlines for the day after
Christmas.
* Brag About Our Industry's Environmental Record even if we have
to
stretch the truth, or brag about improvements required by laws we fought
against originally.
* Donate to Unrelated Causes. Buy goodwill by funding
nature centers,
wildlife habitat purchases, and other environmental causes which have
nothing to do with our industry.
* Infiltrate the Schools with our own carefully crafted pro-industry
school curriculums. Offer financial support to provide
pro-industry
classroom materials, guides, and teacher training. Create
special youth
clubs to indoctrinate children with pro-industry ideas.
* Require Employee Involvement in community civic organizations, to
show
that our industry is a benign and indispensable friend in the community.
Use our employees' sincerity and good intentions as a cover for our
toxic
corporate policies.
Have I missed anything?
Clean Water Action Council is publicly launching it's new Internet
Homepage this week, thanks to hundreds of volunteer hours by our new
"web
meister" Alice McCombs. Our address is:
Alice has done a terrific job of loading all sorts of interesting
information about Clean Water onto the page, and created several
directories to help readers find their way.
She is converting all of our old newsletters to Internet format,
and providing a 'clickable" Table of Contents for each one.
In addition, she is cross-indexing the newsletters on an "Issues"
page where readers can access all past articles we've written by subject.
It will be a great research tool for new readers, and will also help
our
staff jog their memories on when and how events took place in our past.
It will also save time and money in the office by saving us the
trouble of locating, copying and mailing information when we are called
with questions.
The Homepage will be under constant revision as new information is
posted, but it will always include these sections:
* Issues (a wide range)
* Take Action (Recent issues where you
can get
involved and make a difference)
* Events (Public hearings,
programs, etc.)
* Meetings (CWAC's own)
* Publications (other reports or newletters
* Newsletters (CWAC's)
* About CWAC (our history)
* Contact Us
* Support CWAC (where to send donations)
* Join CWAC (how to join)
* Volunteer (opportunities and needs)
* Advertise (Selling paid
advertising space to help support our
newsletters and Homepage.)
* Affiliations (key coalitions which CWAC belongs
to)
* Links (to other Homepages for other
organizations)
* Employment (Job Openings with CWAC)
Alice is also setting up a "listserve" to broadcast up-to-the-minute messages to our members who want to be more active. Tune in and take a look!
The U.S. EPA published a report in 1998 saying that 100% of the
outdoor air in the continental U.S. is contaminated with eight
cancer-causing industrial chemicals at levels that exceed EPA's "benchmark"
safety standards.[1] (Alaska
and Hawaii excluded.)
Using 1990 data on toxic industrial emissions, EPA applied
well-known mathematical models to estimate year-round average outdoor
air
concentrations for 148 industrial poisons in each of the nation's 60,803
census tracts.
For each of the 148 toxicants, EPA established a "benchmark"
level they consider safe. Eight of the 148 industrial poisons exceed
EPA's
benchmark safety levels all of the time in all 60,803 census tracts.
All
eight are known to cause cancer: bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; benzene;
carbon tetrachloride; chloroform; ethylene dibromide; ethylene dichloride;
formaldehyde; and methyl chloride.
EPA said outdoor air concentrations provide a reasonable estimate
of toxic concentrations both outdoors and indoors, given the high rates
of
penetration into indoor environments for various hazardous air pollutants.
In other words, EPA believes that being inside your home or
workplace does not protect you from constant exposure to these
eight carcinogens.
EPA said its mathematical models probably underestimate the true levels
to which the population is exposed. Where actual measurements of toxic
contaminants were available, EPA found that the measured levels exceeded
the levels estimated by their
mathematical models.
EPA also acknowledged that it may have underestimated the health
effects because the eight chemicals combined may have additive or
multiplier effects since people experience all of them simultaneously.
However, the agency also acknowledged that it has no way to take such
combined effects into account.
The agency also acknowledged that many of the chemicals may have
health effects for which the agency has established no "benchmark"
standards. For example, benzene and 1,3-butadiene have both been associated
with reproductive and developmental damage, but EPA currently has set
no
safety levels for such effects, and so those effects were ignored in
this
study.
And finally, most (if not all) individuals are exposed to far more
than just eight industrial poisons. These eight merely provide a toxic
background to which other toxicants are added, depending upon a person's
(or a community's) individual situation: automobile and truck exhaust,
second-hand cigarette smoke, prescription drugs, emissions from power
plants, mills, smelters, incinerators, and so on.
Several of the eight chemicals exceed EPA safety levels by a wide
margin. For example, the average day-in-and-day-out concentration of
carbon
tetrachloride exceeds EPA's benchmark level by a factor of 13, and
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate exceeds EPA's benchmark by a factor of
6.4.
For more information, read the EPA's article in the journal
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 106, No. 5 (May 1998), pgs.
245-251.
The article is by Tracey J. Woodruff and others, and entitled:"Public
Health Implications of 1990 Air Toxics Concentrations across the United
States,"
from RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT
& HEALTH WEEKLY #633, 1/14/99, Env. Research Foundation (erf@rachel.org)
The Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) in
Atlanta recently issued a report saying that from 1991 to 94, 4.4%
of
American children between age 1 and 5 had the toxic metal lead
in their
blood at "levels of health concern," which CDCP defines as concentrations
of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (10 ug/dL) or higher.[1]
Although 4.4% sounds low, it represents 890,000 individual children
whose intellectual capacity is being permanently diminished by exposure
to
lead.
CDCP established 10 ug/dL as the "unsafe" level of lead in blood
in 1991.[2] The limit was set at 10 not because 10 is a magic
number that
protects children but because it was the lowest level that could be
detected with an inexpensive test, and because, CDCP said, setting
the
standard lower would burden the country's health-care system.
When it set the official safety level at 10, CDCP acknowledged
that something besides pure concern for public health went into
the decision. "The recommendations [of 10 ug/dL]... are based
mainly on the scientific data showing adverse effects of lead in
young children at increasingly lower blood lead levels. They are
tempered, however, by practical considerations, for example, of
the numbers of children who would require followup and the resources
required to prevent this disease," wrote Vernon Houck on behalf of
CDCP.[2,pg.iii] In other words, when it set 10 as the "safe" standard,
CDCP
acknowledged that it was reluctant to set the standard lower because
too
many children would then qualify for medical help, and too much money
would
have to be spent removing lead from the environment.
Numerous studies have now shown there is no "safe" dose of lead in
children's blood. Five years ago the National Research Council (NRC)
said,
"There is growing evidence that even very small exposures to lead can
produce subtle effects in humans. Therefore, there is the possibility
that future [safety] guidelines may drop below 10 ug/dL as the mechanisms
of
lead toxicity become better understood."[3]
The NRC offered evidence that lead at 5 ug/dL (half the official
"safe" level) can cause attention deficit in children and in monkeys;
reduced birthweight in children; and hearing loss in children. [3]
In 1993 the NRC summarized a series of recent studies, then said,
"Those studies support the general conclusion that there is growing
evidence that there is no effective threshold for some of the adverse
effects of lead."[3] In other words, in 1993 there was
good evidence that
there is no safe level of lead.
According to careful measurements of human bones, pre-Columbian
inhabitants of North America had average blood lead levels of 0.016
ug/dL -
625 times as low as the 10 ug/dL now established as "safe" for children.
On the face of it, it seems unlikely that levels of a potent nerve poison
625 times as high as natural background -or even 300 times as high as natural
background - can be "safe" for children.[4]
The CDCP's 1998 study reported that the average concentration of
lead in all 20 million American children between the ages of 1 and
5 was
2.7 ug/dL, or 43 times as high as natural background.
The main effect of lead in blood is to reduce a child's IQ.
Five
years ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed 18 scientific
studies showing that lead diminishes a child's mental abilities. "The
relationship between lead levels and IQ deficits was found to be remarkably
consistent," the Academy said. "A number of studies have found that
for
every 10 ug/dL increase in blood lead levels, there was a lowering
of mean
[average] IQ in children by 4 to 7 points."
This may not sound like a major loss, but an average IQ loss of 5
points puts 50% more children into the IQ 80 category, which is borderline
for normal intelligence.
It also reduces the number of high IQs; for example, one small group
that
statistically should have contained 5 children with IQs of 125, contained
none.[5]
In recent years, many studies have shown that lead not only
diminishes intellectual capacity, but it also causes loss of hearing,
reduces hand-eye coordination, impairs the ability to pay attention,
and
creates a propensity toward violence. Children who have
been poisoned by
lead are less able to handle stress and are more prone to violent
outbursts.
The source of the lead poisoning children today is chiefly paint
containing lead. In the U.S., approximately 83% of privately
owned housing units and 86% of public housing units built before
1980 contain lead-based paints.
Public health authorities have acknowledged openly since 1952
that black children are being preferentially poisoned by lead in paint.
The
City of Baltimore began a lead-toxicity screening program in 1931.
With 20 years of data in hand, the head of the Baltimore health department
wrote in 1952,
that the rate of poisoning among children was "7.5 times as high
among the Negro population as it was among the white population....
The
high rates among Negro children are a problem of considerable public
health
significance since 30 percent of Baltimore's pre-school population
is
Negro. The racial difference in incidence is believed to be due to
environmental factors probably resulting chiefly from economic disadvantage."[6]
Today, 47 years later, the situation has changed little. According
to CDCP's 1998 study, today the highest concentrations of lead are
occurring in non-Hispanic black children. Among non-Hispanic black
children
ages 1 to 5 living in housing built before 1946, 21.9% have blood lead
levels at or above 10 ug/dL,and among those living in housing built
between
1946 and 1973,13.7% had blood lead levels at or above 10 ug/dL.
A recent study of children visiting a clinic in Philadelphia's
inner city reported that 68% of the children there have lead levels
that
exceed the "safe" 10 ug/dL.[7]
In sum, roughly a million black children who live in the inner
cities are being continuously poisoned by exposure to lead.
In 1991, the Centers for Disease Control published a study showing
that the nation's taxpayers would save $60 billion in health-care and
special-education costs by spending $32 billion to eradicate lead from
inner city homes.[8] Congress has never been willing to adopt
this
cost-effective prevention strategy,evidently preferring to produce
generation after generation of black inner city children with diminished
intellectual capacity and a propensity toward violence.
Children, can you spell R-A-C-I-S-M?
References:
[1] James L. Pirkle and others, "Exposure of the U.S. Population to
Lead,
1991-1994," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 106, No. 11 (Nov.
1998),
pgs. 745-750.
[2] William L. Roper and others, PREVENTING LEAD POISONING IN YOUNG
CHILDREN (Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control, October, 1991).
[3] National Research Council (Bruce A. Fowler and others, editors),
MEASURING LEAD EXPOSURE IN INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND OTHER SENSITIVE
POPULATIONS (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993).
[4] A. Russell Flegal and Donald R. Smith, "Lead Levels in Preindustrial
Humans," NEW ENGLAND JOURN. OF MEDICINE Vol. 326 (May 7, 1992), pgs.
1293-1294.
[5] Committee on Environmental Health, American Academy of Pediatrics,
"Lead Poisoning: From Screening to Primary
Prevention," PEDIATRICS Vol. 92 (July 1993), pgs. 176-183. And see:
John F.
Rosen, "Health Effects of Lead at Low Exposure Levels," AMERICAN JOURNAL
OF
DISEASES OF CHILDREN Vol. 146
(November 1992), pgs. 1278-1281. And see: John F. Rosen, "Effects of
Low
Levels of Lead Exposure," SCIENCE Vol. 256 (April 17, 1992), pg. 294.
And:
Herbert L. Needleman and others, "Deficits in Psychologic and Classroom
Performance of Children with Elevated Dentine Lead Levels," NEW ENGLAND
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 300, No. 13 (March 29, 1979), pgs. 689-695.
And
see: Joel
Schwartz, "Low-Level Lead Exposure and Children's IQ: A Meta-analysis
and
Search for a Threshold," ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Vol. 65 (1994), pgs.
42-55.
And see: Herbert L. Needleman and
Constantine A. Gastonis, "Low-Level Exposure and the IQ of Children,"
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 263, No. 5 (February
2,
1990), pgs. 673-678.
[6] Huntington Williams and others, "Lead Poisoning in Young Children,"
PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS Vol. 67 (March, 1952), pgs. 230-236.
[7] Shoshana T. Melman and others, "Prevalence of Elevated Blood Lead
Levels in an Inner-city Pediatric Clinic Population," ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
PERSPECTIVES Vol. 106, No. 10 (October 1998), pgs. 655-657.
[8] This study was described in Marianne C. Fahs, "White House Should
Stay
With Lead Cleanup [letter to the editor]," NEW YORK
TIMES September 18, 1991, pg. A18.
from RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT
& HEALTH WEEKLY #633, 1/14/99, Env. Research Foundation (erf@rachel.org)
Contact Your Elected Officials
Contact Wisconsin Governor Thompson
Governor Tommy ThompsonContact your Wisconsin State LegislatorsOnline & Toll-Free
Room 115 East, State Capitol
P.O. Box 7863
Madison, WI 53707
Ph: 608-266-1212
FAX: 608-267-8983
wisgov@mail.state.wi.us
Representatives: Email & Web Page Addresses and Toll-Free NumbersWrite a Letter to Your Wisconsin State Legislators
Senators: Email & Web Page Addresses
State SenatorUp to Top
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707State Rep. (Last Name, A thru L)
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708State Rep. (Last Name, Mc thru Z)
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708(If you don’t know who your elected state representatives are,
call the Legislative Hotline 1-800-362-9472 on weekdays.)
|
|
|
|
|