|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Physicians Group Says Science Sufficient for Lower Arsenic Standard |
Current rating: 0 |
by Physicians for Social Responsibility
(No verified email address) |
19 Apr 2001
|
|
New National Academy of Sciences Study Should Confirm Need For Arsenic Standard Lower Than Clinton Rule |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 18, 2001 7:05 PM
CONTACT: Physicians for Social Responsibility Tarek Rizk, 202.898.0150 x215
WASHINGTON - April 18 - Physicians for Social Responsibility believes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to launch a new round of study on the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water will undoubtedly confirm what science has already shown: there is no safe amount of this well-known toxin, and the best standard given existing technology is the lowest one available, three parts per billion (ppb).
"There is no safe level of arsenic," said Robert K. Musil, Ph.D., M.P.H., Executive Director and CEO of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR). "A mountain of existing research -- including a new report on the dangers of low-levels of exposure published just last month -- shows that the safest standard the United States can adopt is the lowest one: three parts per billion."
The cost-benefit analysis cited by Administrator Whitman when she recently revoked the 10 ppb rule is flawed. That report assessed only the dangers posed by arsenic for bladder cancer. Arsenic is also known to cause cancers of the skin and lung, and there is substantial evidence that it increases the risk for cancers of the kidney, liver, colon, and prostate. Arsenic has also been linked to non-cancer endpoints such as heart disease, diabetes and stroke. When addressing the threat of all these health outcomes, the benefits of prevention far outweigh the cost of arsenic reduction.
"The National Academy of Sciences has concluded based on the threat of bladder cancer alone that the 50 ppb standard for arsenic in drinking water is not protective of human health and should be reduced ‘as promptly as possible," said Musil. "If the new study requested by EPA today includes the myriad health threats from arsenic, it can only point to the lowest technologically feasible standard, three parts per billion."
When the National Academy of Sciences analyzed arsenic exposures in 1999, its report asserted that the 50 ppb standard poses a fatal cancer risk as high as 1 excess death per 100 persons. The standard eventually adopted by the Clinton Administration -- and later repealed by Whitman -- only reduced the fatal risk to 1 in 5,000. This is far from the acceptable risk range of 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000 that the agency has historically used for drinking water standards.
The 10 ppb standard withdrawn last month has already been endorsed or enforced by the European Union, and nations such as Laos, Japan, Namibia and Jordan. The World Health Organization has also endorsed the standard but stated that, "Based on health concerns alone it would be lower still." Similarly, the EPA already has in place a health-based goal of zero ppb. This target is set for all carcinogens in drinking water. The EPA should make very clear that there is no safe level of exposure to this toxin.
"The EPA’s goal should be to do no harm and protect human health," said Musil. "The American public expects tap water that is absolutely safe and surely better than the water available in Laos." |
See also:
http://www.psr.org
|
