EPA And Academics Fight Over Notifying Public Of Weed-Killer In Drinking Water
Atrazine—a widely-used herbicide—is one of those chemicals for which there is no evidence it will kill you or give you cancer or make your eyes fall out. It's true that it's been linked to egg production in male frogs, but I think we can all agree that frogs pretty much want to mutate and will apparently do so at the slightest chemical nudge. The question for Americans is, should the EPA have notified affected citizens in the four states where atrazine has exceeded federal safety limits? Because it didn't.
The Huffington Post used the Freedom of Information Act to pull data on the herbicide and discovered that
...more than 40 water systems in [Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansa] showed spikes in atrazine levels that normally would have triggered automatic notification of customers. In none of those cases were residents alerted.
The EPA says it didn't notify anyone because there's no evidence atrazine hurts humans. It's true, so far—other than the gender-bending frogs, there's no study that proves a link between atrazine and deleterious effects in humans. (Europe has in fact banned it, but Europe and the U.S. don't exactly share the same philosophy when it comes to banning chemicals.)
More troubling is the idea that perhaps the EPA and water utilities have been deliberately hiding information about atrazine measurements from the public to avoid PR or media disasters. The Huffington Post notes that water bills sent out to customers during the period of the study contained quarterly data on measurements, which conveniently missed the spikes that the EPA's weekly measurements documented. Because of this, the water bills weren't required to mention those spikes to customers. In addition, the Huffington Post notes that information about atrazine was hidden from the public EPA site:
Asked why the results of the weekly tests had not been published, the EPA's Bradbury said "no data is withheld from the public." Bradbury said the information has been posted on the agency's electronic public docket. In fact, the weekly test results are one of the only items on the docket that are not posted on the site.
Instead they are listed as available only through the Freedom of Information Act.
Robert Denver, a neuroendocrinologist at the University of Michigan who has worked with the EPA, told the Huffington Post that "This is an issue of the EPA not being forthright about what they know." An ecotoxicology specialist at the University of South Florida said, "It is the responsibility of the EPA and [atrazine manufacturer] Syngenta to inform the public of accurate levels of atrazine in their drinking water."
To be clear, we're not ready to get all up in arms about Killer Atrazine just yet; we just want the EPA to be forthright. The current levels of atrazine may not turn any watersheds into chemical wastelands, but we're not sure why the EPA would require the testing and yet sit on the results.
"EPA Fails To Inform Public About Weed-Killer In Drinking Water" [Huffington Post]
(Photo: stefanie says)
Post a comment
Comments:
Why are libruls always complaining about stuff like herbicide in the drinking water?
The atrazine levels exceeded federal safety limits and should have triggered automatic notifications. Why didn't they? Was it that the data wasn't sent to where the automatic notification would be triggered or were the automatic notifications turned off?
Don't think the EPA can have it both ways - if they decided that atrazine is safe then why were the safety limits and corresponding automatic notification system(s) there?
why do the maximum allowed levels exist?
they either need to be removed or adjusted to a level at which we SHOULD be worried, or (my preference) we treat the current maximum as a dangerous level, and alert affected peoples. (otherwise, there's no point of the maximum, the maximum is meaningless)
@Brent: I think its because they hate America. We don't need big government monitoring things like our safety and health; the free market can take care of that!
@gStein: Remember, if the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum. They really need to try harder. Atrazine levels are like pieces of flare...you don't HAVE to have more of it, but do you really want to do JUST the minimum?
@CompyPaq: The Bible says Atrazine is OK, paul harvey, jr., said so. You all are violating my free speech and gun rights by talking about it.
FAIR WARNING! I will so call out the first mother fucker that say something like "without chemicals, life itelf would be impossible". Also, stay away from any of that other convoluted crap like "well it must be harmless, it's found in nature". I am a little testy right now with all the "Clean Coal, Yes Clean Green Carbon Neutral Coal" and "I Love Coal" ads where I live right now.
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):
And I bet you serve it in those plastic bpa-laden health care rationing cups don't you?, you know the cups with those United Nations bar codes on the bottom to direct their troops.
I love the irony...why are their safety limits for this great substance when all it does is make your pee smell like apple blossoms?
I'm not aware of any studies that say smashing a framing hammer it to my big toe *wouldn't* hurt...but I'm pretty f'ing sure it would.
So let's see, it's a "potential hormone disruptor" according to the EPA in the linked article ...
...and now...
...this article hot off the presses:
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer - Mon Aug 24, 4:41 pm ET
WASHINGTON - Women with more testosterone tend to behave more like men when taking financial risks, according to a new study. "Women with higher levels of testosterone turn out to be less risk averse, more willing to take risks," Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago said in a telephone interview.
So will this make men better at managing money? I might very well agree to grow an ovary if I can be a better consumer. This is really a public service!
"Europe and the U.S. don't exactly share the same philosophy when it comes to banning chemicals."
You know, considering how many family meals that our busy chemical lobbyists are forced to skip and the largess they expend promoting their companies' free speech rights in our national capitol, I think they deserve just a bit more credit for a job well-done, Chris.
Now they're going to have a more stunted sense of self-worth. Do you really want that on your conscience?
@wvFrugan: So I take it "they" also love the 388,000 metric tons of runaway "clean coal" sludge that gently caress your towns and waterways every few months, too?
@Trai_Dep: Yes. The local Caterpillar Dealer (Walker Machinery) that provides the heavy equipment to the mountaintop removal mines pays for these ads and those blasted "Friends of Coal" bumper stickers. Have you every seen a permanently (OK, maybe only a few hundred years?) stained orange river from acid mine drainage? After they stop the offending run-off and treat the river with limestone rock to neutralize it, some of the most primitive forms of life might return to it in 100 years!
"Almost Level, West Virginia" has replaced "Almost Heaven, West Virginia". I grew up as a child in the Anthracite coal region of Pennsylvania, that nightmare was a beautification project compared to the disaster occurring here in WV.
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I bet you feed it to your baby, too, you damn librul. Your boobs are probably full of it. (Too far? Heh.)
"McClure, Ohio, showed a spike of 33.83 ppb in June 2008, but the town told its residents the highest level that year was 3.4 ppb." well, if it's so very safe, why lie?
Time to look at your local water utility. Mine has none detected, as the federal level is .003 People, look at the inserts in your water bills instead of throwing them away!
here's my theory. everything requires testing of some sort to determine it's effects. So... since they hadn't previously done testing to see how safe or unsafe this is for humans... a perfect testing scenario presented itself.
Now.. FUTURE water drinkers will know one way or another if it's safe or not. Unfortunately those poor folks in the four states didn't realize they were testing anything. But kudos to them anyway. I sure hope things work out for the best.
I can't resist...
Twisted Tail! A thousand eyes!!
TRAPPED FOREVER!!
EPA... EPA... EPAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
This is the same EPA that told New Yorkers that the 9-11 air was safe to breathe:
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.
[www.commondreams.org]
The same EPA that launched the "CHEERS" program which used children as guinea pigs:
The Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (or CHEERS) was a study conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency designed to examine how children may be exposed to pesticides and other chemicals used in U.S. households, such as phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and perfluorinated compounds (PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and others).To qualify, the family had to have a confirmed history of residential pesticide use, a child under the age of 13 months, and agree to continue residential use of pesticides.
Participating families were promised monetary compensation (up to $970), a study t-shirt, a framed Certificate of Appreciation, a study bib for the baby, a calendar, a study newsletter, and a camcorder.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Our EPA: proving Dr. Mengele was an amateur.
We end up with so much crap in our drinking water in the spring that we can't use it in our fish tank even after putting water treatment in it. The nitrates and PH are so wacked it killed our freshwater fish tank.
We receive a postcard maybe every other year with some annual report telling us everything is safe. But at the same time the regional water authority is begging the farms around the river to limit chemicals and cattle runoff.
Our water frequently smells like pool water because they use so much chlorine in it. It can't pass a health department test intended for public swimming pools. Drinking tap water around here gives many people reflux or other GI issues likely due to all the chemicals they have to put in it to try to undo the other crap in the water.
Don't think the EPA can have it both ways - if they decided that atrazine is safe then why were the safety limits and corresponding automatic notification system(s) there?
@Shoelace: THIS
In fact, EOD (End of Discussion).
Here is how it will go:
Roughly 100% of the tests done by those with a financial stake in the matter will deem all tests as safe.
Roughly 100% of the tests done by a no financial interest, no affiliation outsider, independent contractor will deem the tests as a risk.
@gStein: Yep. It's how the dino's are able to breed, because the holes in their DNA were replaced with frog DNA.
@bohemian: I don't know what kind of fish you have, but I would have to say drink bottled water. from somewhere far away.
If my tap water (after treatment) is unsafe for my fish, I'm going to the doctor.
Is there anywhere we can find out exactly which communities are affected?
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): If you guys could just keep your hands off the Atrazine you all wouldn't be so fat!
@gethenian: You may want to check with the Huffington Post. These are the specific cities they mention in their article:
Residents of Mt. Olive, Ill., were told that the highest level of atrazine in their drinking water last year was 2 ppb. However, the EPA data shows a spike in June of 16.47 ppb.
In Baxter Springs, Kan., atrazine spiked above 11 ppb in May 2008 while the town told its residents the highest level during the year was 1.3 pbb.Chanute [Kan.] recorded one reading of 6.51 ppb last year. The city reported a high of 1.4 ppb to the public.
Osawatomie, Kan., showed a spike of 8.70 ppb in May 2008, although the city reported to the public a high of 0.89 ppb for the year.
McClure, Ohio, showed a spike of 33.83 ppb in June 2008, but the town told its residents the highest level that year was 3.4 ppb.
@gethenian:
There's a map on this site that shows areas of usage: [www.treehugger.com]
But I'm not finding anything that shows exactly which places had it in the water supply. I live in Kansas so I'm a bit concerned. Wonder if my Brita pitcher filters out atrazine.
@utensil42: Not exactly:
EPA recruiting information for CHEERS claimed that participation in the study presented "no risk" to the study subjects or their families. [then what's the 'point' of the study?] Critics contend that the state of knowledge about pesticide exposure risks to infants and children is imprecise, but suggests that residential pesticide exposures pose developmental risks to infants and children.However, EPA has canceled residential use of some of the pesticides CHEERS was to study, based on potential harm to infants and children.[Actually, congress made them shut it down!] CHEERS made no provision for informing subjects of risks associated with continued residential use of those pesticides.
The study was also criticized for using disproportionately black, lower-income families as subjects.
"Informed" in this regard appears to be a relative term, eh?
@mrsultana: Actually, no they will not. There are no frogs that can do that. There are fish that can do that, but no amphibians, and no reptiles.
@gStein: The maximum levels are very controversial. There are levels set by the EPA based on studies - but when they were set, there were people from the board of Syngenta placed at high ranking positions in the EPA - which is also how they pushed atrazine's approval along. The studies showing that atrazine caused sex change in frogs were originally funded by Syngenta (and carried out by Tyrone Hayes at Berkeley) but when he found this out, Syngenta freaked and wouldn't let him publish. He got it externally funded, and redid the studies, and got same results.
But through this whole thing, Hayes has spearheaded a lot of this - and as I said, it's been quite controversial.
Europe takes a different approach on max allowable level, where they say anything more than I think 0.1 ppb is too much because it's simply there, and that's not ok.
Actually, some species of frog WILL "mutate" from one gender to the other if there is too much pressure from one overwhelming side. Too many boy frogs? Some become girl frogs? Just like freshman year at MIT...