Texas officials covered up dangerously radioactive tap water for years

[Ragusa]

Texas officials covered up dangerously radioactive tap water for years.

Texas officials charged with protecting the environment and public health have for years made arbitrary subtractions to the measured levels of radiation delivered by water utilities across the state, according to a series of investigative reports out of Houston.

Those subtractions, based on the test results' margin of error, made all the difference for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ): without the reduction, demonstrated levels of dangerous radiation would have been in excess of federal limits for years.

This was being done in direct contravention of an order by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which told state regulators in 2000 to stop subtracting the margin of error.

The findings are part of an investigation by Houston CBS affiliate KHOU.

Confronted by reporter Mark Greenblatt, TCEQ staffer Linda Brookins claimed that the radiation was "natural" and people shouldn't be concerned. She also refused to read on camera the EPA's order to stop subtracting margins of error from radiation test results.

KHOU called it "Texas math," in part two of its ongoing series.

Thanks to the TCEQ's under-reporting of radioactive content, one particular water provider in Harris County was able to skirt needed maintenance for years, even though uncensored tests showed radiation was almost always above legal limits.

Independent tests, the station noted, showed that some of the radiation contained harmful alpha particles, which can cause cell mutations and increase the risk of cancer.

The practice of under-reporting radiation continued until last year, when the EPA once again demanded Texas comply with the law.

The state, governed a large majority of Republicans, has long flouted the EPA's air quality standards, with TCEQ officials claiming the federal agency does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

"What was illegal and a bad idea yesterday is illegal and a bad idea today," TCEQ chairman Bryan W. Shaw told The Dallas Morning News. "We won't see any environmental benefits from this. We'll just see the additional bureaucracy associated with permitting in this state and across the U.S."

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 ...

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

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.

[Ragusa]

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:

The state, governed a large majority of Republicans, has long flouted the EPA's air quality standards, with TCEQ officials claiming the federal agency does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

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'.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

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.

[Ragusa]

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):

In an editorial, the paper called Republicans' fight to protect industry over environmental regulations a "dangerous roll of the dice" when it comes to federal dollars, noting that new regulations require the state to create a permitting authority to govern emissions, but it refuses. When the new rules take effect next year, the state's energy industry could effectively be brought to a standstill, with no new construction being permitted.

And now water standards, it would seem, may be the next major clash between Texas regulators and federal authorities.

"Is this what [Governor] Rick Perry means when he talks about standing up to the feds?" The Texas Observer asked.

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.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

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.

[Ragusa]

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:

RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINANTS
Radon
National Standard (MCL) (proposed)
300 pCi/L (average)
Alternate MCL of 4,000 pCi/L where approved multimedia
program is in place (average)
National Health Goal (MCLG) (proposed)
0—no known fully safe level
2000 Levels
Average: 700 pCi/L at wellhead29
V I O L AT I O N O F P R O P O S E D S TA N D A R D
Radon, which results from the natural radioactive breakdown of uranium in the ground, is a radioactive gas known to cause lung and internal organ cancers. Houston’s radon levels in well water average more than twice the EPA’s proposed standard. The city provided no information on radon levels in tap water but contends that levels at the tap will be “significantly lower” than the national standard due to radon decay (wherein radon theoretically dissipates after it is pumped up from wells and before it reaches taps). Houston apparently intends to comply with a weaker alternative standard, which allows tap water to exceed the regular standard in water systems that have programs to mitigate radon exposure from other sources—in basements, for example. Even with lower levels, EPA data indicate that radon at half its current level in Houston’s water (350 pCi/L) would nonetheless pose significant cancer risks.

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.

[T2Bruno]

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.

[Chandos the Red]

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.

[Ragusa]

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

... 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.

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.

[T2Bruno]

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.

[Ragusa]

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.

[Taza]

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

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.

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

There is no "no effect" level for radon.

[T2Bruno]

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.

[Ragusa]

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.

[Taza]

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

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

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.

[Chandos the Red]

Arrogance, me?

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

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

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

Originally Posted by Ragusa

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.

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.

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

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.

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.

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

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.

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!

[Ragusa]

Originally Posted by NOG (No Other Gods)

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.

Of course they have

Actually, I was guessing They are sooooooo predictable.

[T2Bruno]

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.

Ionizing radiation is a no-threshold carcinogen, meaning even exposure to one photon of it has the potential to cause cancer.

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:

Why is radon in drinking water a health concern?

Breathing radon in indoor air can cause lung cancer. Radon gas decays into radioactive particles that can get trapped in your lungs when you breathe it. As they break down further, these particles release small bursts of energy. This can damage lung tissue and increase your chances of developing lung cancer over the course of your lifetime. People who smoke have an even greater risk. Not everyone exposed to high levels of radon will develop lung cancer. However, radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung cancer. About 20,000 deaths a year in the U.S. are caused by breathing radon in indoor air.

Only about 1-2 percent of radon in the air comes from drinking water. However breathing radon increases the risk of lung cancer over the course of your lifetime. Some radon stays in the water; drinking water containing radon also presents a risk of developing internal organ cancers, primarily stomach cancer. However this risk is smaller than the risk of developing lung cancer from radon released to air from tap water.

Based on a National Academy of Science report, EPA estimates that radon in drinking water causes about 168 cancer deaths per year: 89% from lung cancer caused by breathing radon released to the indoor air from water and 11% from stomach cancer caused by consuming water containing radon.

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).

[Ragusa]

But that is a complaint that cuts as much against the EPA as the Texan TCEQ - the former errs on the side of caution, the latter on the side of business; ultimately in both cases out of political considerations. As a consumer I'd rather have the former.

While the EPA may be overzealous in their regulations, the DeLay variety of Republicans despises and eschews regulation per se, and if they can't abolish the regulation, they try to weaken it, like by bickering about thresholds or calculation methods.

That later school of thought brought the US the Massey mine accident, with plenty of safety violations cited, and none sanctioned. The DeLay variety of Republicans in the Bush era had gutted the responsible oversight body MSHA, and called that 'business friendly' politics.

[T2Bruno]

As a consumer I'd rather have the former.

Doesn't that really depend on cost you'll bear as a consumer. If my chances of dying from cancer drop by a factor of one in two million at a cost of $5,000 per year is it really worth it? I know I can reduce my risk of melanoma even more by simply never going in the sun ... but I like being outside so I take the risk. It's basically the same.

By the way, residents in a municipal utility district near Austin were paying nearly $1,000 per month for water (with no way to opt out) back in the 90's. The reason was mostly political but driving the purification costs of water up could cause the same types of increases.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

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.

It's a matter of statistics and where the radiation hits. If it hits DNA, repairs aren't so simple.

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

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.

In the case of alpha radiation, 'photon' was a misnomer, as you probably know. An alpha particle is an He4 nucleus. This makes a difference because these highly energetic particles can easily punch through a cell wall and wreak havoc inside, including damaging DNA. One lucky particle in one unlucky cell has the potential to create a cancer-causing mutation. It's very unlikely, but it's possible. For this reason, any reduction down to 0 means a reduction in risk. It may be a small reduction, but it's defensible if it's balanced against cost.

That last part is the issue, of course.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

An alpha particle is an H4 nucleus

Not only was I unaware of this, I was unaware that such an atom existed. Hydrogen with an atomic mass of 4? I know deuterium (atomic mass 2) and tritium (atomic mass 3) - is there a word for hydrogen with an atomic mass of four - like quatrium or something?

EDIT: Actually, hydrogen-4 is called quadrium. After reading about it, I'm dubius that this could be the cuase of of most alpha radiation. According to the article, hydrogen-4 through hydrogen-7 are not not naturally occurring, and have only been synthesized in laboratories. Furthermore, while they do decay through nuetron emission, the half life of all of these isotopes is 10-22 seconds.

[Blackthorne TA]

He meant He; Helium, not Hydrogen...