Texas officials covered up dangerously radioactive tap water for years

Remove all ads!

Texas officials covered up dangerously radioactive tap water for years.

That's the spirit! When your kids glow in the dark, that can only benefit your electricity bill (the more kids, the brighter it gets)! This regulation only causes bureaucracy! And shutting down that water supplier would only kill jobs! And that in this dire economy! Now more than ever it is essential to keep the Federal Government off the backs of hard working American employers!

That radioactivity causes cancer is just a wild speculation that those nanny state sissies at the EPA have cooked up anyway to increase the scope and reach of the Federal Government and encroach on State Rights. And tapeworms are great for losing weight. But they are banned by the FDA! Texas' will probably show'em ...

 

I'm confused by one thing:
"What was illegal and a bad idea yesterday is illegal and a bad idea today," TCEQ chairman Bryan W. Shaw.

What was illegal and a bad idea yesterday was the cheating on the regulations and testing reports. So, is he saying that what they did was a bad idea? I think there's some context missing here.

 

Nothing missing. He maintains that the EPA has no right to demand Texas obeys the law. Because they maintain so, they have a legal reason to not do what they don't want to do anyway*. It is right there in the article, let me requote:

These folks would act well out of character if they wouldn't they take the same stance towards EPA standards on water quality.

Spoiler

* We hate environmental regulation out of principle, but we can't just say that, so we say the EPA isn't authorised to regulate over the matter, thus reframing it as a veeery complicated legal matter on which people can agree or disagree - making it easier for prospective conservative voters to swallow than 'Screw you, if you don't like radioactive tap water, buy yourself some soda, sucker'.

 

I understand they don't think they have the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses. That's a seperate issue from radiation in the drinking water, though.

 

To you and for me it's a separate issue; I doubt it's for them. And indeed, the article continues (hint: I put the link there for a reason):

Doh. In doing their 'Texas Math' the TCEQ has deliberately ignored the explicit guidelines of the EPA (p.76727) on how to measure radiation contamination in tap water.

As for why they would do such a peculiar thing, I think my assumption that it is simple unwillingness, covered up with legalese, is pretty close - their priorities are to first protect industry over environmental regulations for ideological (and donation related) reasons, never mind the consumers.

 

I'm still uncertain on exactly what industries are putting radiation into the drinking water. Uranium mining would be the most likely source as I see it, but I don't think there's much uranium mining in Harris County. From what I can see, it's outside Texas' uranium mining areas. Of course, ground water is known to move around, so that may be the issue.

 

Who speaks about industries causing this radiation in the water? Sure, if it was Amarillo, Texas I would immediately think of Pantex, but that isn't necessarily man made. Here's something for Houston [p.143; PDF] that should give you the idea:

So they don't want to comply with the EPA i.e. federal standard. As for the reasons, I stated what I think they are.

The impact on industries in this would be that the EPA rule requires water providers (which since they are in Texas are most probably long privatised) to meet the higher EPA standards, which would come at a cost. IMO that is what the TCEQ wants to protect these companies from, at consumer's expense.

 

You do of realize the EPA standard are rather random and are typically the 'no effect' levels divided by 1000. 'No effect' divided by 500 would still be ... no effect. Water districts in many areas of Texas are simply local co-ops, purifying the water to even more extremely low levels of contamination is extremely expensive -- the people may not be able to afford it. If the water is safe, why would there be an issue except some bureaucrat (usually without a knowledge of chemistry or medicine) decided to draw a line in the sand.

 

Yeah, the water quality here is really horrid. Last year, I think it was, the kids were warned to bring their own bottled water with them to school because there was some issue with the water. I don't drink the tap water, but bottled water instead; the tap water has a funny smell to it. I am now making the coffee and tea with bottled water as well. During the summer my plants barely survive on it. It will keep them alive, but they thrive much better when it rains.

 

Who says that the EPA standards were set by bureaucrats and not by a panel of experts i.e. scientists? People are not rolling dice there.

As for Texas authorities, from what I have been reading they apparently have a habit of erring on the side of industry. No news there. That has apparently been so ever since the exterminator days of Tom DeLay, who famously held an irreconcilable grudge against the EPA ever since they dared ban his favourite insecticide, Mirex. Point is Mirex, aside of it killing fire ants just splendidly, was found in mother's milk all over the South, is very likely carcinogenic, and it is highly toxic for marine life.

For DeLay that was just government regulation getting in the way of him doing his job, cutting into his profits, hassling him with bureaucracy. Stupid EPA. Stupid shrimps. Stupid cancer. And what's wrong about termite proofing woman's breasts?

I think DeLay is still representative for attitudes and priorities among Texas Republicans. 'Reflexive and myopic pro-industry/anti-regulation bias', or 'ideological blinkers' also describes what I have in mind. It mirrors the equally cherished ideological sentiment that tax cuts are good for and against everything, always. And they have learned to appreciate that that is an attitude that industry lobbies reward.

That's a long shot from Republicans like Nixon, himself anything but a saint, who set up the EPA, for good reason. The comparison to Nixon all but underlines the mindless extremism of DeLay Republicans.

I think that higher prices of water of a better quality would be an incentive for water preservation, and in that beneficial. If water is expensive people will think twice about watering their lawn in the summer, or affording themselves the luxury of a swimming pool.

I can drink my tap water here, and I can afford it. It is very probably more expensive than tap water in the US, but as I said, I can drink it.

 

Ragusa, the EPA takes into account the opinions of experts and then does just whatever they want. Sometimes they ignore the opinions, sometimes they apply a knee jerk reaction to public perception and sometimes they put ridiculous safety factors on it. Seriously, the 'no effect' level is determined by a thorough examination of the data -- when all data is gathered they look for the dosage where ... wait for it ... no effect is seen in any test. Then the EPA divides that already safe level by 1000.

When you look at radon, realize places where the water levels of radon are high the amount in the air is also high. Does it really make any sense at all to require communities to drop the radon levels in the water (at an incredible expense) to far below what they are already breathing in the air? How does that make anything safer? Radon is a huge problem in many areas of the US and most of those areas have issue with the EPA because the agency refuses to accept reality of locale in determining levels of naturally occuring contaminates.

I also guaranty you that you do not pay as much for water as some communities in Texas.

 

T2,
are you telling me that EPA values are lower or more stringent than in Germany, Sweden or Switzerland - or the EU for that matter? Because I don't believe that.

Besides, we have Radon here, too. If we can handle these things economically, America can do that as well.

 

Sorry, you tripped the ":BS:" flag.

There is no "no effect" level for radon.

 

Environmental standards vary from country to country (even within a country) and no country is more stringent in all categories.

Ragusa, you just displayed the typical arrogance I see when dealing with European engineers and regulators. It's absolutely ridiculous -- whenever there is a US standard more stringent it is waved off by the Europeans as an unrealistic standard, but anytime the European standard is more stringent it is vital issue which puts public safety at risk. Give me a break. I would also argue the issue of radon is more complex than "if we can handle these thing economically..." (which is again an example of the typical arrogance I see when dealing with Europe in general and especially with German engineers and regulators). There are areas in the US where the radon levels are well above average -- face it, Germany just doesn't have the geographical variation to be considered equivalent in any way and to assume similar solutions are possible is simply folly.

Taza, argue with things I actually wrote, not with what you think I wrote.

 

Arrogance, me? Not today I refuse to accept that America is so very special. If you read my post carefully you'll see that I actually said that the US and Europe are generally comparable as far as regulations go, with Germany being a tad worse. We cope.

As I said, we do have Radon here as well, in particular in Thuringia where there is uranium ore to be found. We process drinking water there as well. And if we speak of geographical diversity, Europe is largish as well. In Czechoslovakia Radon is actually so common that there are plenty cure centres offering Radon cures (using Radon water externally). Such cures are still on offer, also in Germany and Austria.

Generally, alpha radiation cannot penetrate a sheet of paper or human skin. The problem with Radon and alpha ray emitters in water is that it is ionizing radiation that when digested can directly irradiate cells and DNA inside the body. As Taza said, there is no 'no effect zone' for that.

The problem is that what counts is the dose of radiation you get, not necessarily how much is in the water. However, if there is a lot of Radon in the drinking water you do reach that threshold after which the risk of cancer rises more quickly. I mean, you can go visit Chernobyl, if you don't stay too long. That simply means that after that you are well advised to stay away from other sources of ionizing radiation if your health means anything to you.

 

Do you perchance mean "argue with things I thought I wrote, not what I actually wrote"?

There is NO SAFE LEVEL for radon or any potentially dangerous radioactivity. There isn't a point where it's safe, merely a point where it's below background radiation and pointless to worry about.

 

Well, do you EVER see Americans being arrogant, Ragusa? I don't.

Our water is the best --- especially when it comes in a bottle.

 

Ah. I didn't realize Texas had privatized their water supply. Looking at this, though, (and figuring that Harris County falls in with Dallas), I guess they have.

That may be valid for most toxins, but not for anything radioactive. Ionizing radiation is a no-threshold carcinogen, meaning even exposure to one photon of it has the potential to cause cancer. The odds just drop as you drop levels, but don't reach 0 until you do. The EPA's regulations may be ridiculous elsewhere, but here that arguement doesn't apply.

Again, things are different for radiation, especially Radon. Radon produces alpha radiation. When it's outside you, alpha radiation is pretty much harmless, as it can't even penetrate the dead layer of skin on top of your live skin, much less the layer of live skin that is about to die and fall off. If it does hit something living and long-term, though, it can cause massive damage. That's bad enough in the air, but it'll only hit the lungs (Radon equalizes and effectively isn't absorbed by the lungs, so the alpha radiation only hits the lung tissue), but if ingested, it gets ready access to every major organ you have (it can enter the blood stream and is even water soluble, meaning it can penetrate the blood-brain barrier). Breathing radon is bad enough, but drinking it is horrible!

 

Of course they have

Actually, I was guessing They are sooooooo predictable.

 

The body can and does repair damage from radiation all the time. Threshhold levels for radiation exposure exist and are followed in the nuclear power industry.

While accurate this is not a very realistic approach, people are exposed to photon radiation all the time and most have little to no effect. It is impossible to evaluate someone at zero exposure (or even at exposure to one photon) so you really cannot say at what minimum level there is any potential to cause cancer. However, there are many studies (which may or may not be accurate) which have shown at what level above background there is an increase in risk.

As far as radon risks, this is from the EPA:

With the numbers they are listing the cancer deaths from radon in drinking water are guess work. Less than one percent of radon related deaths are estimated to come from drinking water (I think error in the data may be higher than that) and overall increase in death rate of one in two million -- these are not big numbers and the accuracy is questionable. It is distinctly possible that a reduction in radon in drinking water will not significantly impact the numbers at all. That's not to say we shouldn't act on it, but I'm just tired of knee jerk reactions by the EPA (and other regulatory officials).