2005 CPEO Military List Archive

From: "Stella Bourassa" <Stellalogic@cfl.rr.com>
Date: 14 Aug 2005 17:13:18 -0000
Reply: cpeo-military
Subject: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Perchlorate not to be listed under California's "Prop 65":
I had a thought after reading the postings regarding this issue - it's not
just a California issue but a national one.  Those who are saying 'there is
no proof' about the physical harm and dangers to human health by such
chemicals should truly 'prove this' to those who have lived with it.  How
about those disregarding the dangers drinking and eating and living on top
of these polluted sites?  No, not just for a week or a year but going out
and buying a home right smack dab in the center of these sites!  'Kinda'
like putting your money where your mouth is.

I remember well using this same type argument when I was a RAB member for
the Camp Bonneville base closure and being told 'it wasn't really that bad'
out there and it was a small section of impact-which is not what the
documentation was telling me.  So I challenge all those who said these
words - 'then why don't you go out there and walk around?  Why is it
completely fenced off?  Would you let your family 'freely' roam around out
there minus the impact area?'

It's a sadly funny fact that when something becomes 'personal' that the
attitudes change.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lenny Siegel" <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
To: "Military Environmental Forum" <military@list.cpeo.org>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:42 PM
Subject: [CPEO-MEF] Perchlorate not to be listed under California's "Prop

> California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
> Press Release
> August 11, 2005
> Scientific Panel Decides Against Adding Perchlorate to Proposition 65
> List of Toxic Chemicals
> Release No. 05-04
> SACRAMENTO - An independent scientific panel today decided against
> adding perchlorate to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the
> State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.
> The state's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant (DART)
> Identification Committee, a panel of independent scientists administered
> by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
> Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), concluded that available
> scientific information on perchlorate was not sufficient for placing the
> substance on the Proposition 65 list.
> Perchlorate is primarily produced for use in rocket fuel, explosives,
> fireworks, road flares and air-bag inflation systems. The chemical has
> been found in a number of California drinking water sources. Studies
> have also detected perchlorate in samples of lettuce and other leafy
> vegetables, and samples of dairy milk and human breast milk.
> The DART Identification Committee's evaluation of perchlorate was
> performed in accordance with Proposition 65, which California voters
> approved in 1986. The statute requires the state to publish and
> periodically update a list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer,
> birth defects or other reproductive harm. Businesses that knowingly
> cause exposures to listed chemicals must provide warnings. Proposition
> 65 warnings are common throughout California. The statute also bans the
> discharge of significant amounts of listed substances into drinking
> water sources. OEHHA is the lead agency for implementation of
> Proposition 65.
> Even though evidence of a substance's adverse health effects may be
> considerable, Proposition 65 says the committee can list a substance
> only if it determines the substance has been "clearly shown" to cause
> reproductive toxicity. A decision that a substance falls short of the
> "clearly shown" standard does not mean that the committee believes the
> substance to be non-toxic. Substances that are not listed under
> Proposition 65 may still be subject to regulation under other state
> environmental programs.
> The committee consists of scientists with expertise in disciplines such
> as toxicology, epidemiology and medicine. Committee members are
> appointed by the Governor.
> The DART committee decided in 2002 to consider the listing of
> perchlorate following formal requests by several environmental groups.
> OEHHA provided the committee with its 2004 assessment of perchlorate as
> a drinking water contaminant, which contains an extensive compilation of
> the scientific literature on perchlorate's health effects. OEHHA also
> provided the committee with the comprehensive January 2005 review of
> perchlorate published by the National Academy of Sciences, and several
> original studies of perchlorate. OEHHA does not make recommendations or
> take positions on the listing of chemicals under consideration by the
> committee.
> When ingested at significant levels, perchlorate can disrupt the proper
> functioning of the thyroid gland (a butterfly-shaped gland in the
> throat), which regulates the body's metabolism and physical growth.
> Certain populations, such as pregnant women and their fetuses, may be
> particularly susceptible to adverse health effects when thyroid
> disruption persists. There is evidence that impairment of thyroid
> function in pregnant women may result in delayed development and
> decreased learning capability of the fetus.
> The committee's decision will have no effect on the state's regulation
> of perchlorate under the California Safe Drinking Water Act. Like many
> environmental laws, the drinking water act recognizes the need to
> regulate contaminants based on highly suggestive evidence of their
> health effects. The act requires OEHHA to set public health goals (PHGs)
> for perchlorate and other contaminants at a level that is "not
> anticipated" to cause adverse health effects, based on an assessment of
> available information. OEHHA's PHG for perchlorate, published in its
> 2004 assessment of the substance, is currently guiding the development
> of a state perchlorate drinking water standard by the Department of
> Health Services. California's water-quality regulators will continue to
> require cleanups of perchlorate contamination where needed.
> For the original press release, go to
> http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/press/perchlorateP65press.html
> -- 
> Lenny Siegel
> Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
> c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
> Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
> Fax: 650/961-8918
> <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
> http://www.cpeo.org
> _______________________________________________
> Military mailing list
> Military@list.cpeo.org
> http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military

Military mailing list
  Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Sasn Martin perchlorate lawsuit fails
Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Birds and jets share same turf
  Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Perchlorate not to be listed under California's "Prop 65":
Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Reactions to Prop 65 perchlorate decision (CA)

CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index