=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #371
—January 6, 1994—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are
available here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s
free.
===Previous
Issue==========================================Next
Issue===
CHEMICALS AND HEALTH–PART 3
Several studies of industrial dumps and contaminated water
supplies during the last decade have reported adverse health
effects among exposed human populations. [1] The principal health
findings include:
** Significantly reduced stature (height) for a given age among
children who lived near Love Canal, the chemical waste dump in
Niagara Falls, N.Y., compared to a control group of children
living further from the dump. [2]
** A higher prevalence of birth defects and liver disease among
persons living near a thorium waste disposal site in Wayne, New
Jersey, compared to persons living further away from the site. [3]
(Thorium is a naturally-occurring radioactive element processed
on this site by a private firm under contract to the old Atomic
Energy Commission, now called the Department of Energy.)
** Low birth weight and birth defects in California children born
in census tracts having waste disposal sites. [4]
** Enlargement of the liver (hepatomegaly) and abnormal liver
function tests reported in residents exposed to solvents from a
toxic waste dump in Hardemann County, Tenn. [5]
** Dermatitis, respiratory irritation, neurologic symptoms and
pancreatic cancer at 7 waste disposal sites. [6]
** Significantly elevated rates of illness, including chronic
kidney disease, stroke, hypertension [high blood pressure], heart
disease, anemia, and skin cancer in a population exposed to toxic
metals (cadmium and lead) from mine wastes in Galena, Kansas. [7]
** Leukemia (cancer of the blood-forming cells) among a group of
children drinking water contaminated with industrial solvents in
Woburn, Mass. In addition, a study of 4936 pregnancies and 5018
residents of Woburn aged 18 or younger revealed significant
positive associations between intake of contaminated water and
birth defects of the central nervous system, eye, ear, and face
(e.g., cleft palate), as well as abnormalities of the
chromosomes. [8]
** In Lowell, Mass., a group of 1049 people living 1200 feet from
a large chemical waste dump was higher in self-reported
complaints of wheezing, shortness of breath, cough, and
persistent colds; irregular heart beat; constant fatigue and
bowel dysfunction, compared to people living 2 and 3 times as far
from the dump. [9] This study examined the possibility of recall
bias (people selectively remembering health problems, or chemical
exposures) and concluded that recall bias did not explain the
findings.
** In Hamilton, Ontario, a study of people who lived and/or
worked near an industrial dump revealed significantly elevated
rates of the following conditions: bronchitis; difficulty
breathing; cough; skin rash; arthritis; heart problems (angina
[chest pain], and heart attacks); muscle weakness in arms and
legs; tremors, cramps, and spasms; headaches; dizziness;
lethargy; balance problems; and mood symptoms (anxiety,
depression, insomnia, irritability, and restlessness) compared to
populations living further from the site. [10] Recall bias was
examined and rejected as the source of these problems.
** A survey of 2039 persons in 606 households living near the
Stringfellow Acid Pits in Riverside County, California revealed
significantly elevated rates for the following conditions: ear
infections; bronchitis; asthma; angina [chest pain]; skin rashes;
blurred vision; pain in the ears; daily cough for more than a
month; nausea; frequent diarrhea; unsteady gait; and frequent
urination. [11] Recall bias was examined and rejected as the cause
of these problems.
** In Tucson, Arizona, a study of 707 children born with heart
defects revealed that 35% of them were born to parents living in
a part of the city where the water supply was contaminated with
industrial solvents (trichloroethylene [TCE], and
dichloroethylene). The rate of birth defects of the heart was
three times as high among people drinking the contaminated water,
compared to people in Tucson not drinking contaminated water. [12]
** A study of 296 women experiencing a spontaneous abortion
during the first 27 weeks of pregnancy, compared to 1391 women
having live births, revealed an association between spontaneous
abortion and drinking water contaminants (detectable levels of
mercury, or high levels of arsenic, potassium and silica). [13]
** Residents of Bynum, North Carolina, drinking raw river water
contaminated by industrial and agricultural chemicals, have
developed cancers 2.4 to 2.6 times more often than expected. [14]
To summarize: Epidemiological studies cannot prove a cause and
effect relationship. Nevertheless, available information
indicates that hazardous waste dumps can harm, and have harmed,
humans living nearby. Likewise, contaminated water supplies have
harmed people.
The problem of waste dumps is continuing to grow. As the
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
said in 1991, “A limited number of epidemiologic studies indicate
that increased rates of birth defects, spontaneous abortion,
neurologic impairment, and cancer have occurred in some
residential populations exposed to hazardous wastes. We are
concerned that other populations at risk might not have been
adequately identified.” And the Council said, “Millions of tons
of hazardous materials are slowly migrating into groundwater in
areas where they could pose problems in the future, even though
current risks could be negligible.” [15]
There is a move afoot now in Washington, and in the mass media,
to divert attention away from the problem of toxic wastes. The
goal seems to be to cut funding for the federal Superfund program
of toxic waste cleanup. It seems clear that such a move, if
successful, will result in increased health costs for the
American people.
                
                
                
                
    
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
===============
[1] For a review of several studies, see Arthur C. Upton,
Theodore Kneip and Paolo Toniolo, “Public Health Aspects of Toxic
Chemical Disposal Sites,” ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 10
(1989), pgs. 1-25.
Descriptor terms: hazardous waste disposal; landfilling;
morbidity; mortality; studies; children; growth; love canal;
niagara falls; ny; birth defects; liver disease; thorium; wayne;
nj; aec; doe; low birth weight; ca; liver disease; hepatomegaly;
solvents; hardemann county; tn; dermatitis; neurologic disease;
pancreatic cancer; kidney disease; stroke; hypertension; high
blood pressure; heart disease; circulatory disease; anemia; skin
cancer; cadmium; lead; galena; ks; leukemia; woburn; ma; eye;
ear; cns; central nervous system; cleft palate; chromosomes;
lowell; respiratory disease; colds; fatigue; cough; bowel
disorders; recall bias; hamilton; ontario; cn; bronchitis; skin
rash; arthritis; angina; heart attack; tremors; cramps; spasms;
headache; dizziness; lethargy; anxiety; depression; incomnia;
irritability; restlessness; stringfellow acid pits; asthma;
nausea; diarrhea; urination; tucson; az; heart defects;
trichloroethylene; dichloroethylene; tce; spontaneous abortion;
reproduction; mercury; arsenic; potassium; epidemiology; nrs; nas;