1-25-2008
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) is considering a proposal to change the state’s water quality standards with regard to cancer risks associated with toxic chemicals. Currently, the state standard is based on the probability of one person in 100,000 contracting cancer from water use or from water and/or fish consumption. The proposed change would reduce the probability to one person in 1,000,000.
Simply viewing the proposed change in the context above makes it appear that because of the one person in 100,000 standard at least 45 Alabamians are at risk of getting cancer from using or drinking our water or eating our fish. Moreover, environmentalist groups that are pushing for the change have created a public perception that the higher standard is literally a matter of life and death.
In fact, one environmental activist group claimed that
It is a misrepresentation of facts to lead Alabamians to believe that the one person in 100,000 standard has caused any documented cancer deaths, consequently changing the standard is not likely to have anything other than a very costly impact on the
Even though they apparently don’t have any hard evidence to back up their claims, the environmental activists continue in their pursuit of the change. In fact, one of their leading proponents for changing the standard admits he has no evidence that anyone, anywhere in the
David Ludder, a lawyer who represents environmental activists groups, admitted during the Environmental Management Committee’s (EMC) rulemaking committee meeting in June 2007 that he had no proof that any of the approximately 500,000 cancer deaths each year in the
According to the minutes of that meeting, the following exchange took place between Sam Wainwright, a member of the ADEM board of directors, and Ludder:
Wainwright: “Have you found anywhere any record of a cancer victim and traced it to fish consumption anywhere?
Ludder: “You know…”
Wainwright: “Haven’t proved otherwise.”
Ludder: “Yeah. I mean, haven’t proved otherwise but -- I -- I may have. I can’t recall them right now but I may have come across one. I can go back and look.”
Wainwright: “The mortality rate is 500,000 people a year. There ought to be one case that we can find.”
Ludder: “That’s pretty hard to prove. You’re a latency period of 20 years and so many other confounding causes, it’s almost impossible to say this person died because of fish consumption. But I will go back and search the literature and see if there is anything but I can’t recall any specific study.”
Mr. Ludder’s response seems to indicate there is no real scientific proof that
It should also be noted that the CDC’s Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals has found no evidence of exposure levels to environmental chemicals that constituted a health risk for the vast majority of chemicals included in the report. The CDC report included data gathered from the biomonitoring of 148 environmental chemicals, including metals, pesticides and tobacco smoke. According to the CDC, this report was the largest study ever done on human exposure to environmental chemicals.
The CDC reports that, “Just because people have an environmental chemical in their blood or urine does not mean that the chemical causes disease. The toxicity of a chemical is related to its dose or concentration in addition to a person’s individual susceptibility.” And the CDC’s presentation on biomonitoring states that, “We know that small amounts may be of no health consequence.”
Citing the cancer death rate as justification for changing the water quality standards is a misleading fear tactic because the standards are not in relation to the cancer death rate, they are in relation to the cancer incidence rate. In that regard,
Certainly, no one is against reducing the risk of cancer, but the idea that Alabamians are at serious risk of contracting or dying from cancer caused by exposure to chemicals in our water is apparently not supported by any evidence.
The best way to further reduce
And if the state makes any changes to our environmental regulations, they should be based on solid facts, not unjustified fear that could cost many Alabamians their jobs.
January 25, 2008
Note: This column is a copyrighted feature distributed free of charge by the Alabama Policy Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and API are properly cited. For information or comments contact: