HAVE YOUR WATER TESTED!!!!

CHROMIUM 6

ERIN BROCKOVICH

NOW DRUGS TOO!!!!

THE MOVIE AND THE REALITY

by Dee Finney

Albert Finney, Julia Roberts and the movie itself
nominated for academy awards on 2-13-2001
THIS IS A GREAT FILM - DON'T MISS IT!!!!

MOVIE REVIEW

News: Casper | Wyoming | 10-30-03 Boulder ground zero in disturbing water pollution survey By CINDY BROVSKY Associated Press Writer BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - Traces of prescription drugs, household cleaners and chemicals from MRIs are showing up in the U.S. water supply, according to government researchers who have completed one of the most detailed surveys ever done on a single American watershed. Just how the pollution affects people or the environment is not clear, officials with the U.S. Geological Survey said Tuesday. But they said the results of their Boulder Creek study reflects the common medications and household products getting into the nation's rivers and streams. The study, done in 2000, was the first to use the most advanced equipment to detect small traces of chemicals. A nationwide study was done the same year, but did not have the same level of detail. Boulder Creek water meets federal safety standards, but chemicals including anti-depression, heart and hormone medication adds a new wrinkle to water quality control nationwide, USGS scientist Sheila Murphy said. ''There is little known what these chemicals do to humans or animals in small doses,'' said Murphy, co-author of the study. Chemicals detected in Boulder Creek include metals found in mayonnaise, shampoo, water softeners and vitamin supplements. The study also found a spike of ''gadolinium,'' a rare element that is injected into medical patients during magnetic resonance imaging exams or MRIs. Murphy said little is known about galolinium. She said the results do not mean Boulder residents receive more MRIs than their counterparts across the nation. ''You would find the same results in a river downstream from any city,'' Murphy said, urging residents not to dump old medication or household cleaners in toilets or sinks. Boulder Creek was chosen for the study because it allowed scientists to look at the water from protected mountain headwaters, through an urban region to an agricultural area. The area studied includes 447 square miles that starts at the Continental Divide and goes to the plains north of Denver. Snowfall is the source of most of the water, though some also came from pipelines on the Western Slope. Officials said they study can be used to draw up water quality policies. ''Good science is so important for policy makers to make good policy,'' Boulder Mayor Will Toor. Boulder is studying the use of pesticides on noxious weeds near the creek, Toor said. The city also is looking at traces of animal feces in the river and whether the waste is from wildlife or domestic dogs. Boulder households have responded to past water quality issues, said Chris Rudkin, Boulder water quality coordinator. The city found large levels of copper at its treatment plant a couple of years ago and traced it to a chemical used by homeowners to kill roots in water and sewer pipes. ''We got the word out and the stores that sold the product agreed to replace it with another product,'' Rudkin said. On the Net:  USGS: http://www.water.usgs.gov AP-WS-10-28-03 1848EST

CHROMIUM Source - Chromium is found in drinking water as a result of industrial waste contamination. The occurrence of excess chromium is relatively infrequent. Proper tests must be run on the water supply to determine the form of the chromium present. Trivalent chromium (Cr=3 ) is slightly soluble in water, and is considered essential in man and animals for efficient lipid, glucose, and protein metabolism. Hexavalent chromium (Cr=6 ) on the other hand is considered toxic. The US EPA classifies chromium as a human carcinogen. The current Drinking Water Standards MCL is .005 mg/l. Treatment - Trivalent chromium (Cr+3)can be removed with strong acid cation resin regenerated with hydrochloric acid. Hexavalent chromium (Cr+6)on the other hand requires the utilization of a strong base anion exchanger which must be regenerated with caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) NaOH. Reverse Osmosis can effectively reduce both forms of chromium by 90 to 97%. Distillation will also reduce chromium. From: http://www.clearwaterh2o.com/contaminants.htm

From: http://www.osha-slc.gov/FedReg_osha_data/FED19961129.html 2240. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM) Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 71 in Part II of this issue of the Federal Register. 71. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM) Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Legal Authority: Not yet determined CFR Citation: 29 CFR 655(b); 29 CFR 657 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium. The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (HRG) petitioned OSHA to promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for chromium (CrVI) compounds to 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m(3)) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average (TWA). This represents a significant reduction in the current PEL. The current PEL in general industries is found in 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z and is a ceiling value of 100 ug/m(3) for "Chromic acid and chromates (as CrO3)." These are measured as chromium (VI) and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). This equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m(3) of chromium (VI) measured and reported as chromium (VI). This ceiling limit applies to all forms of hexavalent chromium (VI) including chomic acid and chromates, lead chromate, and zinc chromate. The current PEL for chromium (VI) in the construction industry is 100 ug/m(3) as a TWA PEL. The major illnesses associated with occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium are lung cancer and dermatoses. OSHA estimates that more than 1 million workers are exposed to hexavalent chromium on a regular basis in all industries. The major uses of hexavalent chromium are: as a structural and anti-corrosive element in the production of stainless steel, ferrochromium, iron and steel, and in electroplating, welding, and painting. After reviewing the petition, OSHA denied the request for an ETS and initiated a section (6)(b) rulemaking. OSHA is currently pursuing a dialog with interested parties outside the Agency with regard to the development of the proposal. Statement of Need: In the past several years, a number of agencies have reviewed the epidemiological evidence and have classified chromium (VI) as a human carcinogen. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have reviewed the epidemiological evidence and have classified chromium (VI) as a human carcinogen. Estimates of the population exposed to hexavalent chromium; (chromium(VI) suggest that more than 1 million workers are exposed. The major industries in which excess cancer mortality has been observed are: Chromate production (US, UK, Germany, Japan, Italy); Chrome pigment production (US, Germany, France, Norway, UK); Chrome plating (US, UK, Japan, Italy); Ferrochromium (Sweden, Norway, USSR); and Welding (European countries, WHO) Occupational exposure to chromium (VI) occurs primarily via inhalation but can also occur to a lesser extent through dermal and oral routes. Exposure to chromium (VI) is known to cause lung cancer, bronchial asthma, nasal septum perforations, skin ulcers, and irritative dermatitis. Chromium (VI) causes ulcers of the skin and acute irritative dermatitis among workers exposed to chromium alloys and chromium-plated objects. Inhalation of chromium (VI) aerosols at levels of about 100 ug/m(3) may give rise to necrosis in the nasal septum, leading to perforation. Bronchial asthma may occur as a result of inhalation of low levels of chromium (VI) dust or fumes. Such asthma occurs among platers, welders, and ferrochromium workers. In adults, the lethal oral dose of chromates (chromium (VI)) is 50-70 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. The clinical features of acute poisoning are vomiting, diarrhea, hemorrhage and blood loss into the gastrointestinal tract, causing cardiovascular shock. Thirty-five epidemiological studies of lung cancer among workers exposed to chromium have been reviewed extensively by IARC and by other agencies. Thirty-three of these 35 studies showed elevated lung cancer death rates. In at least 20 studies, lung cancer death rates were statistically significantly elevated among workers in either the total cohort, or a subset of the cohort. The Mancuso study (1975) of lung cancer among workers at a U.S. chromate-production plant has been thoroughly reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-Health Assessment Document (HAD), 1984). EPA's evaluation of this study has formed part of EPA's basis for subsequent regulatory activities to reduce exposures to Chromium (VI) - (53 FR 10206, 3/29/88; 57 FR 31576, 7/16/92; 58 FR 65767, 12/16/93). Reviews of updates of another major cohort study (Hayes) are currently underway by the Agency. Alternatives: Before deciding to publish a proposal, OSHA has considered a number of options including whether or not to develop an ETS, publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, or enforce the existing PEL. Despite the fact that OSHA acknowledges that the risks of serious adverse health affects at the current PEL are significant, OSHA denied the petition for an ETS and initiated section (6)(b) rulemaking. A Section 6(b) rulemaking results in a lower PEL with additional protective provisions and allows scientific evaluation of the data as well as public input into the standard. The decision to deny the petition for an ETS was based on the following considerations. To promulgate an emergency temporary standard (ETS), section 6(c) of the OSH Act requires that the Secretary determine that "employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances...determined to be toxic...and...that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger." The Act further requires that an ETS take affect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register and can remain in effect for no longer than six months after such publication, by which time a permanent standard must be promulgated. Courts have interpreted these provisions to mean that both the "grave danger" from which employees must be protected and the "necessity" for issuing an ETS to protect them must be a danger of incurable, permanent or fatal consequences arising from six months of exposure to the substance. The ETS must be able to achieve the expected benefits in terms of disease avoided within the 6 months. Although it is unclear from court decisions whether the requisite "grave danger" implies a risk of harm quantitatively and/or qualitatively more serious than the significant risk required to justify 6(b) standards, it probably does. In light of the legislative history of the provision and the courts' general concern to narrowly limit exceptions to notice and comment procedures conventionally required in rulemakings, the courts have treated an ETS as an extraordinary power to be exercised only when drastic measures are needed. For example, if a risk of one in a thousand of death from cancer over a working lifetime is considered a significant risk, a risk of one in a thousand of death from cancer due to exposure for 6 months, which would be a greater risk, might well constitute a "grave danger." The petition for the ETS points to the evidence of chromium (VI)-induced lung cancer as the basis for the "grave danger." The risk assessment in the petition indicates that over 100 out of 1,000 workers would be expected to develop lung cancer with a working lifetime hexavalent chromium exposure (45 years) at the current PEL. In addition to cancer risk, there is evidence that other adverse health effects may occur at exposure levels at the current PEL, e.g., nasal septum perforation. OSHA evaluated the risk estimates of cancer and other advance health effects due to exposures to chromium (VI) to determine whether such risk constitutes a grave danger. Despite the fact that OSHA acknowledges that the risks of serious adverse health affects that the current PEL are significant, OSHA denied the petition and initiated section (6)(b) rulemaking. A Section 6(b) rulemaking results in a lower PEL with additional protective provisions and allows scientific evaluation of the data as well as public input into the standard. OSHA is preliminarily considering a new TWA PEL in the range of 0.5 - 5.0 ug/m(3), measured and reported as chromium (VI). OSHA has initiated a Section 6(b) rulemaking for all hexavalent chromium compounds in all industries. OSHA intends to develop a new rule in the general, agriculture, and maritime industries and to adapt the rule to reflect conditions in the construction industry. OSHA anticipates that these two proposed rules will be published in the Federal Register later in 1997. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: OSHA prepares an Economic Analysis (EA) to accompany each proposed and final OSHA standard. This report provides details on the industries expected to be affected by a standard; the number of affected workers; the economic and technological feasibility of the standard; and the health benefits, costs, and impacts associated with the standard. A preliminary economic analysis will be published in the Federal Register notice containing the proposed standard for chromium (VI), and the analysis will be subject to public comment during the public hearings. The principal industrial uses of chromium (VI) are as a structural element and as an anticorrosive. Large quantities are used to make stainless steel and to "chromeplate" regular steel. In both cases, the chromium (VI) protects the iron in steel from corrosion. The principal industrial consumers of chromium are the metallurgical, refractory, and chemical industries. Other important consumers of chromium (VI) are pigment production industries, pigment application industries, and industries using chromium alloys or plated (chromium (VI)) materials. Chromium (VI) is used in industries that produce the following products: ferrochromium, iron and steel, chromates, chromated pigments, plating mixtures, chromium catalysts, colored plastics, and wood preservatives. Chromium (VI) is also used in electroplating, welding, painting, and in printing. Welding on stainless steel will generate chromium (VI) fumes. We are currently reviewing information on chromium (VI) exposures across many industry processes to determine the technological feasibility of achieving compliance with a new PEL. A determination of technological feasibility means that OSHA can demonstrate that current or immediately forthcoming technologies and methods to comply are or will be available for implementation by affected industries. This may include technologies and methods that will reduce worker exposure during existing chromium (VI) processes or substitute technologies and methods that do not make use of chromium (VI). We are in the process of preparing cost estimates for achieving compliance with a new standard based on the use of those technologies and methods which we believe will be effective in reducing worker exposure. We are aware that several small business entities, e.g., electroplaters, will be covered by a new OSHA standard. We will conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis to determine whether a substantial number of small firms will be significantly affected by the forthcoming chromium (VI) standard. Information provided by employers in this industry sector would help improve the quality of the regulations. The strength of the epidemiological data leads OSHA to conclude that occupational exposures to chromium (VI) must be reduced. There are several issues that need to be addressed during the rulemaking. Estimates of the number of workers in various industries and the population exposed to various levels need to be refined as does information on current control technologies. Any new PEL for chromium (VI) must be greatly reduced. Assuming that the petitioners' risk estimate is approximately correct, technological and economic feasibility also need to be addressed during the rulemaking. Risks: OSHA has performed a preliminary quantitative risk assessment using all epidemiological studies for which dose-response information was available. OSHA preliminarily estimates that the risk of excess lung cancer deaths over a working lifetime at the current PEL ranges from 88 to 342 excess lung cancer deaths per thousand exposed workers. OSHA preliminarily estimates that the risk of excess lung cancer deaths over a working lifetime at a new PEL of 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air ranges from 0.9 to 4.4 excess lung cancer deaths per thousand exposed workers. This preliminary risk assessment is available in the docket of this rulemaking (Ex. 13-5; Docket H-054a). OSHA is of the opinion that the epidemiological data on cancer mortality associated with chromium (VI) exposures are sufficient for the Agency to proceed with reduction of chromium (VI) exposures through regulation. The evidence of material impairment from exposure to chromium (VI) is strong and of high quality. There appears to be no dispute that the current PEL is too high, and the sooner the PELs are reduced, the sooner the risk of death from lung cancer due to occupational chromium (VI) exposure will be reduced. In addition, the number of cases of asthma, dermatitis, nasal septum perforation, and skin ulceration due to chromium (VI) will also be reduced. The risk estimates for chromium (VI) are similar to risk estimates from exposures to other substances that have been regulated through the Section 6(b) rulemaking process.

MOVIE REVIEW May 2000 'Erin Brockovich' Dir. Steven Soderbergh Review by Penny Baron "She brought a small town to its feet and a huge corporation to its knees." Twice divorced with two children, very little education and a mounting pile of bills, Erin Brockovich takes on a corporate giant worth $30 billion (PG&E), and sets out to prove they contaminated the water of Hinkley, California, in the Mojave Desert, causing untold pain and suffering to its' residents. Erin Brockovich's story is a remarkable one, primarily because it is real. Told with a great deal of humor, energy and empathy, and staying as close to the facts as possible (only the portrayed victims were amalgams, culled from over 600 actual plaintiffs), director Steven Soderbergh's ('Out of Sight', 'Sex, Lies, and Videotape') film is one that allows the audience to stand up and cheer. After all, everyone loves an underdog. 'Erin Brockovich' is not as pointed or intense as this year's 'The Insider', a remarkable, riveting and much darker film based on a true story, in which a scientist accused his former employer (a large tobacco company) of misdeeds to the public, won, but at the expense of having his entire life destroyed. Erin's story is portrayed in a much lighter, "Hollywood" way, but thankfully avoids sappy melodrama, which is no easy feat, considering the horrifying scope of illnesses that were endured by the residents of Hinkley. As a single, struggling mother, Erin (Julia Roberts) was dealt a severe setback when she was involved in an auto accident in which she incurred almost $20,000 worth of medical expenses. Devoid of medical insurance, she sued the perpetrator of her accident, but lost when an unsympathetic jury believed she was just a desperate woman looking for a handout. Her provocative clothing and forthright manner didn't help either. Angry at her lawyer (Albert Finney as Ed Masry), who promised her an easy win, and desperate to find a job, Erin ambushes Ed in his office and demands a position in his law firm. She tells the crusty old curmudgeon that she is hardworking, will do just about anything, and will not take "no" for an answer. And so Erin begins her menial job in a small law office, working for a man who had been contemplating retirement. Little does she know their world is about to change. One afternoon, while filing some real estate documents from the Jensen family, Erin is perplexed to find they also contain medical records. Not understanding the implications, she convinces Ed to allow her to investigate. When she arrives at Donna Jensen's (Marg Helgenberger) home in Hinkley, a horrible story begins to unfold. Apparently, the local power company, PG&E, has made a generous offer to buy Donna's home, for reasons that weren't made clear. PG&E has also been educating the townspeople about chromium 3, a metallic element they claim is used in their processing plant, and which had been found in the town's groundwater. They have assured people that chromium 3 is not only safe, but is beneficial. But Donna has already suffered a hysterectomy, a double mastectomy, and will soon find out that mother nature has more bad news in store for her. She's grateful, though, that PG&E has paid for her medical diagnostic tests; the doctor assured her that her problem was unrelated to the drinking water. As Erin asks more questions, she discovers there are more people in Hinkley with catastrophic illnesses - brain cancers, stomach cancers, etc. Upon further investigation, she finds that the element used in PG&E's plant was not chromium 3, but hexavalent chromium (chromium 6), an extremely toxic element that could easily cause the diseases that are being manifested in the residents of Hinkley. The only reason PG&E educated the public about chromium "3", was to let the statute of limitations expire between the time they "informed" the public, and they could be sued (within one year). They figured it might get out at some point, but they would not be able to be held liable. All of a sudden it is a whole new ballgame for Ed, who only days before dreamed of spending the rest of his life on a golf course. And now he has to convince a judge to allow the law suit to commence, get over 600 plaintiffs to sign an agreement to sue, and be prepared for the biggest case of his life against a corporate behemoth that could theoretically bankrupt his firm. An interesting addition to the cast is Aaron Eckhart, who was first introduced to audiences as a flagrant womanizer in Neil LaBute's film, "The Company of Men". Able to slip in and out of characters without being easily recognized (he played a completely different character in LaBute's follow-up film, and was almost unrecognizable), Eckart takes on the role of George, a neighbor (and later, boyfriend) of Erin's that is instrumental in taking care of her children while she spends long hours investigating the case. Eckhart is easily able to imbue his character with a kind of biker-machismo, while being a soft, loving and caring family man. The real Erin Brockovich can also be seen in the film in a small cameo performance as a waitress serving Julia Robert's character. 'Erin Brockovich' is as much a story about a young woman struggling against the odds, persevering and showing the world she is not the person they initially perceive her to be, as it is about bringing a large corporation to it's knees and saving a little piece of the world. Erin and Ed went after PG&E in 1993. In 1996, PG&E settled with the plaintiffs for the largest settlement ever paid in a direct-action lawsuit in U.S. history. They currently have another case pending against PG&E, regarding a plant in Kettleman Hills, CA. And so there really are people in this world who can make a difference. Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich Albert Finney - Ed Masry Aaron Eckhart - George Marg Helgenberger - Donna Jensen Cherry Jones - Pamela Duncan Veanne Cox - Theresa Dallavale Peter Coyote - Kurt Potter Director - Steven Soderbergh Writer - Susannah Grant# Producers - Danny DeVito, Gail Lyon, Michael Shamberg, Stacey Sher Cinematographer - Edward Lachman Editor - Anne V. Coates From: http://www.6degrees.co.uk/en/2/200005frerin.html

October 11, 2000 Chromium 6 Water Tests to Be Expanded By JENIFER RAGLAND, Special to The Times Water officials said Tuesday they would speed up and expand planned testing for chromium 6 throughout Ventura County and elsewhere in hopes of clarifying tests by a local law firm that showed levels about 10 times higher than the state's suggested limit. Don Kendall, general manager at Calleguas Municipal Water District, which provides water to Thousand Oaks, said tests using more sensitive equipment are needed to determine the level--if any--of chromium 6 in Thousand Oaks water. Results from the law firm Masry & Vititoe show 2 parts per billion of chromium 6 in tap water at locations in Thousand Oaks and Agoura Hills. Those findings, Kendall said, are suspect because that is the lowest level that can be measured by the equipment of the lab that did the testing. "When you get a hit right at 2 parts per billion, industry practice is that measurement cannot be trusted," Kendall said. The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment recommends that drinking water have no more than 0.2 parts per billion of chromium 6. Tests conducted by the Metropolitan Water District, the regional water supplier, during the last two years indicated much smaller amounts of chromium 6--about 0.085 parts per billion--in Thousand Oaks water. In an attempt to explain the discrepancy between the MWD and the Masry results, officials plan more refined tests immediately, Kendall said. Adan Ortega, a spokesman for MWD--which supplies all of Thousand Oaks' water through Calleguas--said both districts are working cooperatively with the law firm and attorney Ed Masry, whose firm won a $333-million judgment in a water contamination case in Hinkley, Calif. Masry said he is satisfied with the agencies' efforts, after being surprised to find any trace of chromium 6 in local tap water. Chromium 6 is known to cause cancer when inhaled in fumes, but the extent of its danger to public health in drinking water is still unclear. Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times

Saturday, October 7, 2000 News from Burbank in the Times Community Newspapers Chromium levels high in Burbank City and county acting to address concerns. By PAUL CLINTON BURBANK -- In the face of mounting public concern about chromium 6 in the drinking water, city and county officials said they are moving to lower levels of the chemical in the San Fernando Valley Aquifer. Earlier this week, officials said that tests conducted on tap water at 110 county facilities revealed unexpectedly high levels of the carcinogen chromium 6, with the highest reading coming from the Burbank Health Center at 110 W. Magnolia Blvd. Water at the health center, the only site tested in Burbank, had a chromium 6 level of 7.84 parts per billion. Glendale facilities were not included in the testing. Though they promise the drinking water is safe, local agencies are acting to reduce chromium 6 because state regulators have questioned the approximately 30-year-old standards for the known carcinogen. The state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has proposed tightening the state's 50-parts-per-billion standard. The agency has recommended a 2.5 parts per billion standard for total chromium and 0.2 for chromium 6, agency spokesman Allan Hirsch said. On Tuesday, the City Council will consider a proposal by Burbank Water and Power to take the city well with the highest concentration of chromium 6 off line. The move would cut the 9,000 gallons of water the city pumps per minute by one-eighth. Burbank Water and Power Director Ron Davis said his department could bring one of four unused wells into the rotation to make up for the loss. However, Davis can't just pull the plug on the well since it is operated by Lockheed Martin Corp., which installed a ground-water treatment plant to remove volatile organic compounds left by decades of aircraft manufacturing. Lockheed is set to hand over operation of the plant to Burbank on Dec. 18. The aerospace firm, now based in Bethesda, Md., could be asked to help pay for removing chromium from the water supply. In the mid-1990s, Lockheed, and other firms signed a "consent decree," promising the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to continue paying to clean the ground water if necessary. Davis said he could petition the federal agency to remove Well 110 from production, a process that could cost the city about $250,000. County officials are also taking a crack at lowering levels of chromium in drinking water. On Thursday, L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich said he would push for testing at every county facility and the county's 180 wells. Davis called on state regulators to perform additional tests to determine the health hazards of chromium 6. The state Department of Health Services is responsible for determining whether to implement the 2.5 parts per billion recommendation. Legislation recently signed by Gov. Gray Davis gives the state agency until January 2002 to assess the proposal.

Saturday, October 7, 2000 More Tests Reveal High Levels of Chromium 6 Health: Checks of Agoura Hills, Thousand Oaks water done by a law firm show the substance at 10 times the suggested limits. Officials say the public need not worry. By JENIFER RAGLAND, Special to The Times THOUSAND OAKS--Drinking water tests here conducted by the law firm of Westlake Village attorney Ed Masry revealed a level of chromium 6 about 10 times higher than the suggested limit and more than 20 times higher than test results released by the city's water supplier Friday. Masry, who is running for Thousand Oaks City Council, said tap water at test sites in Thousand Oaks and Agoura Hills showed readings of 2 parts per billion of chromium 6. The suggested state standard is 0.2 parts per billion. The tests, conducted in response to requests from residents, were taken from tap water last month and analyzed at Columbia Analytical Lab in Canoga Park, a state-certified lab, Masry said. Those results, however, contradict a report released Friday by the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District--which supplies all of Thousand Oaks' water through the Calleguas Municipal Water District. Adan Ortega, water district spokesman, said samples taken during the last two years from 25 locations show levels of less than 0.18 parts per billion. And the highest level from the district's Jensen Plant, where water is piped to Calleguas and sent to six cities and several unincorporated areas in Ventura County, were .085 parts per billion. Despite the discrepancy--which water officials said they could not explain without knowing the details of the testing methods--local water officials said residents have nothing to worry about. "That is such a minute level, you're more at risk from the hole in the ozone layer or breathing the air than getting sick from chromium 6," said Don Kendall, general manager of Calleguas. "I'm not concerned at all with that level." He also assured Thousand Oaks residents about the safety of their water. "If there was cause for alarm, believe me, we'd be screaming," Kendall said. Masry agreed there is no cause for alarm but said he is concerned that he didn't know about the presence of chromium 6 in Thousand Oaks water and would like to see the city and the county take a more active role on behalf of residents. "We're not telling anyone to be in a panic, but we think cities and the county should start monitoring the drinking water for the residents," Masry said. Metropolitan Water District officials issued their report following a study released by Los Angeles County on Thursday, which showed much higher levels of chromium 6--up to 8 parts per billion--at 110 county facilities. While there is no state standard for chromium 6, the level suggested by the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, based on health issues alone, is 0.2 parts per billion, said Lea Brooks, spokeswoman for the State Department of Health Services. Chromium 6, a byproduct of metal plating, is a suspected carcinogen in water. Brooks said health officials are gathering more information about the levels of chromium 6 in drinking water supplies throughout the state. While all water districts must test for chromium, few--the Metropolitan Water District among them--test specifically for chromium 6. Chromium 6 contamination in Hinkley, Calif., was at the center of Masry's $333-million judgment against Pacific Gas & Electric, which was dramatized in the movie "Erin Brockovich." Concentrations in that case were as high as 24 parts per million--more than 3,000 times higher than those found in Thousand Oaks. "We're a long way from Hinkley, but what the long-term effects of drinking 2 parts per billion of chromium 6 per day is, I can safely say nobody knows," Masry said. Copyright

Sunday October, 2000 Lockheed Offers To Settle Claims BURBANK, Calif. (AP) - The Lockheed Martin Corp. said it is offering $5 million to about 300 Burbank residents to settle claims that they got sick from toxic chemicals released during decades of defense manufacturing. The settlement proposal, an about-face for the aerospace giant, could end four years of litigation. Lockheed said the offer is a business decision, not an admission of guilt. The company has already paid $93 million to settle claims by thousands of other residents and former workers who also say they were made ill by the manufacturing byproducts that allegedly contaminated air, soil and ground water. Plaintiffs have until Oct. 16 to accept or reject the offer, and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J. West must approve the deal. If the offer is rejected, the case could go to trial next year. A separate lawsuit by other residents against Lockheed is pending in federal court and is unaffected by the settlement negotiations. The offer comes as government regulators are investigating elevated levels of chromium 6 in the San Fernando Valley's drinking water supplies. Lockheed has admitted using materials that contain chromium 6, a known carcinogen when inhaled. But Lockheed spokeswoman Gail E. Rymer said Friday there is ``absolutely nothing'' linking the settlement offer with recent stories reporting elevated chromium 6 levels in some of the county's drinking water. Lockheed, which built aircraft in this Los Angeles suburb from 1928 until the early 1990s, has spent $265 million since 1986 to clean up the soil and water underneath its old factories. The company said it could spend $100 million more over the next two decades as the cleanup continues.

Thursday October 5, 2000 Press Release Metropolitan Water District Releases Chromium 6 Test Data for Imported Water Sampling Over Two-Year Period Ranges From Nondetectable to Trace Levels LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 5, 2000--Tests on Metropolitan Water District's source and treated water supplies from Northern California and the Colorado River confirm that the trace levels of chromium 6 detected in the agency's water are below any identified state public health levels, MWD officials announced today. Water samples taken last July and in August 1998 from up to 25 locations throughout Metropolitan's network of aqueduct, pipelines, surface reservoirs and treatment plants show that levels of chromium 6, a suspected carcinogen, ranged from nondetectable amounts to 0.18 parts per billion. Although chromium 6 is not regulated, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment recently identified a health- protective level of 0.2 parts per billion. ``Our top priority is securing and delivering high-quality water to all of our 27 member public agencies and the 17 million Southern Californians they serve,'' said MWD General Manager Ronald R. Gastelum. Because of chromium 6's potential health impacts, the California Department of Health Services has indicated that it planned to require public water systems to begin monitoring for the chemical. Metropolitan began sampling its source waters from Northern California and the Colorado River for chromium 6 in 1998. Gastelum said the district plans to follow up its latest sampling results with additional tests in November. Based on those findings, Metropolitan will adjust its monitoring schedule for chromium 6 accordingly. ``We have been vigilant in ensuring that consumers who drink imported water can depend on Metropolitan,'' Gastelum said. ``To that end, we continue to make water quality a priority in our efforts with the CALFED Program in reaching a solution in the San Francisco Bay/ Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.'' The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is a consortium of 27 cities and water agencies serving 17 million people in six counties. The district imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California to supplement local supplies, and helps its members to develop increased water recycling, desalination, conservation, storage and other water-management programs. Contact: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Adan Ortega Jr., 213/217-5786

Saturday, October 7, 2000 Valley Edition -  Section: Metro More Tests Reveal High Levels of Chromium 6 Health: Checks of Agoura Hills, Thousand Oaks water done by a law firm show the substance at 10 times the suggested limits. Officials say the public need not worry. By: JENIFER RAGLAND SPECIAL TO THE TIMES THOUSAND OAKS -- Drinking water tests here conducted by the law firm of Westlake Village attorney Ed Masry revealed a level of chromium 6 about 10 times higher than the suggested limit and more than 20 times higher than test results released by the city's water supplier Friday. Masry, who is running for Thousand Oaks City Council, said tap water at test sites in Thousand Oaks and Agoura Hills showed readings of 2 parts per billion of chromium 6. The suggested state standard is 0.2 parts per billion. The tests, conducted in response to requests from residents, were taken from tap water last month and analyzed at Columbia Analytical Lab in Canoga Park, a state-certified lab, Masry said. Those results, however, contradict a report released Friday by the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District--which supplies all of Thousand Oaks' water through the Calleguas Municipal Water District. Adan Ortega, water district spokesman, said samples taken during the last two years from 25 locations show levels of less than 0.18 parts per billion. And the highest level from the district's Jensen Plant, where water is piped to Calleguas and sent to six cities and several unincorporated areas in Ventura County, were .085 parts per billion. Despite the discrepancy--which water officials said they could not explain without knowing the details of the testing methods--local water officials said residents have nothing to worry about. "That is such a minute level, you're more at risk from the hole in the ozone layer or breathing the air than getting sick from chromium 6," said Don Kendall, general manager of Calleguas. "I'm not concerned at all with that level." He also assured Thousand Oaks residents about the safety of their water. "If there was cause for alarm, believe me, we'd be screaming," Kendall said. Masry agreed there is no cause for alarm but said he is concerned that he didn't know about the presence of chromium 6 in Thousand Oaks water and would like to see the city and the county take a more active role on behalf of residents. "We're not telling anyone to be in a panic, but we think cities and the county should start monitoring the drinking water for the residents," Masry said. Metropolitan Water District officials issued their report following a study released by Los Angeles County on Thursday, which showed much higher levels of chromium 6--up to 8 parts per billion--at 110 county facilities. While there is no state standard for chromium 6, the level suggested by the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, based on health issues alone, is 0.2 parts per billion, said Lea Brooks, spokeswoman for the State Department of Health Services. Chromium 6, a byproduct of metal plating, is a suspected carcinogen in water. Brooks said health officials are gathering more information about the levels of chromium 6 in drinking water supplies throughout the state. While all water districts must test for chromium, few--the Metropolitan Water District among them--test specifically for chromium 6. Chromium 6 contamination in Hinkley, Calif., was at the center of Masry's $333-million judgment against Pacific Gas & Electric, which was dramatized in the movie "Erin Brockovich." Concentrations in that case were as high as 24 parts per million--more than 3,000 times higher than those found in Thousand Oaks. "We're a long way from Hinkley, but what the long-term effects of drinking 2 parts per billion of chromium 6 per day is, I can safely say nobody knows," Masry said.

Saturday September, 2000 Safety Of City Drinking Water Questioned Erin Brockovich Says Level Of Chemical Agent Could Pose Threat At the urging of well-known legal activist Erin Brockovich, the Los Angeles City Council gave unanimous backing Friday to a state bill in favor of more stringent testing of San Fernando Valley aquifers. The Council voted 10-0 for the measure, but retreated from a related proposal that called for the Department of Water and Power to intensify research on the amount of chromium 6 in ground water wells. The reportedly cancer-causing chemical is not considered dangerous by state standards if it does not exceed concentrations of 50 parts per billion. Federal law says drinking water is safe even at double that level. But Brockovich, who addressed the Council at an open session Friday, said even minute quantities of the carcinogen can be perilous to a person's health. "I question why you have hexavalent chromium at any level in the San Fernando drinking water," she said. "You use that very water to shower in. You use that very water to bathe in. You use that very water -- that is contaminated with chromium 6 -- in your swamp coolers, and that is generating an inhalation risk to the people. Just because you find chromium 6 based at a low level in your drinking water, don't dismiss it." Brockovich's partner, attorney Ed Masry, was even more blunt. "If it's a choice that I'm going to have to drink chromium-laced water to water my lawn - the lawn dies," he told CBS 2 News. Masry and Brockovich were profiled in the 1999 film "Erin Brockovich," starring Julia Roberts. Their case against Pacific Gas and Electric ended up costing the company $333 million. DWP officials assert that the city's drinking water is nowhere near unsafe. DWP General Manager David Freeman told the Council that most wells don't register more than 10 parts per billion of chromium 6. He said that does not justify shutting them down. "We do not recommend doing so when there is no evidence that chromium in these very tiny quantities in our water warrant drastic action," Freeman said. He added that a single PPB amounts to an eye-drop in two average swimming pools. But Councilwoman Laura Chick, a city controller candidate, and colleague Joel Wachs, a mayoral candidate, believe that the mere presence of the chemical is cause for concern -- and that it should be addressed at any financial cost. "You've got to err on the side of safety, not economics," Wachs concluded.

Friday, October 6, 2000 Home Edition -  Section: Metro Concern Mounts Over Chromium 6 in Wake of County Tests Health: Antonovich calls for state action, saying levels of the suspected carcinogen are too high in drinking water. By: ANDREW BLANKSTEIN and JEAN GUCCIONE TIMES STAFF WRITERS Monica Gainey won't let her three children drink from the water fountain at the Los Angeles County public health clinic in Burbank--not after learning that levels of chromium 6 in the water are up to 40 times the suggested limit. "The next time they ask me, I'll say no," the 30-year-old Burbank woman said. "I won't drink the water. But how many people have already been drinking it?" The Burbank clinic had the highest levels of chromium 6 of 110 county clinics, courthouses, fire stations and other facilities tested by county officials, according to a study released Thursday. The water at the clinic and other county locations is the same water supplied to residents and businesses in those areas by public and private water agencies. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich proposed the study as a quick means of assessing chromium 6 levels countywide, and said the survey points to the need for the state to impose a tougher standard for chromium 6. "The governor needs to have the state agencies develop the lowest standard for chromium 6 of 0.2 ppb [parts per billion], and he should help find funding to clean up Los Angeles water," Antonovich said at a news conference Thursday. Antonovich said he would ask the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to require testing for chromium 6 at 200 drinking water wells countywide, with a report due to the board in three months. His motion also calls for county officials to report back in six months on chromium 6 levels in tap water at all county facilities. Asked if people should stop drinking the water, however, Antonovich demurred, saying "That's an individual decision." Antonovich also called on officials in all of the county's 88 cities to publicly report chromium 6 concentrations in their municipal supplies. The state of California has no formal standard for chromium 6, a suspected carcinogen, but instead limits levels of total chromium to 50 ppb. All of the water tested by the county fell below that 50 ppb limit. In 1999, however, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment formally proposed lowering total chromium levels to 2.5 ppb. That proposal--now being studied by the state Department of Health Services--would effectively limit chromium 6 to 0.2 ppb, agency officials say. The county study said the water at all but two of the county facilities tested would have exceeded the proposed new standard of 2.5 ppb for total chromium. Drinking water at the Burbank clinic had total chromium levels of 11.4 ppb and chromium 6 concentrations of 7.84 ppb--or about 40 times the suggested level of 0.2 ppb, according to the study by the county's Weights and Measures Department and Environmental Toxicology Laboratory. Drinking water at 43 other public county facilities had chromium 6 levels ranging from 2.57 ppb to 7.69 ppb, the study said. County libraries in Rosemead, El Monte and Hacienda Heights and health centers in La Puente and Alhambra were among the facilities with chromium 6 levels exceeding 4.9 ppb. Although limited to county facilities, the survey showed that chromium 6 appears to be in water supplies countywide. "Results of this study confirmed the limited data made available by the state Department of Health Services that local chromium and chromium 6 contamination is prevalent in the drinking water supply," the report said. The county Board of Supervisors called for the study after The Times reported Aug. 20 that the state Health Department could take up to five years to act on the tougher standard for total chromium. Gov. Gray Davis signed legislation requiring the Health Department to report to him and the Legislature on the threat of chromium 6 by January 2002. (BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC) Chromium 6 at County Facilities County officials tested tap water at 110 Los Angeles County locations for chromium 6. These 10 locations had the highest levels of the chemical, shown in parts per billion. Total Chromium Facility Location Chromium 6 Burbank 1101 W. Magnolia St. 11.40 7.84 Health Center Burbank Hacienda Heights 16010 La Monde St. 14.20 7.69 Library Hacienda Heights Palmdale Primary 1529 E. Palmdale Blvd. 10.10 6.62 Care Center Palmdale Rosemead Library 8800 Valley Blvd. 14.20 6.60 Rosmead La Puente 15930 Central Ave. 10.40 6.08 Health Center La Puente Alhambra 612 W. Shorb St. 11.30 5.49 Health Center Alhambra Municipal Court 919 1st. St. 9.39 5.44 San Fernando Juvenile Court 201 Centre Plaza 10.50 5.19 Monterey Park North Valley 900 3rd St. 8.78 5.00 Court San Fernando El Monte 3224 N. Tyler Ave. 11.70 4.99 Library El Monte Source: Los Angeles County GRAPHIC: Chromium 6 at County Facilities, Los Angeles Times Descriptors: Los Angeles County - Health, Water - Los Angeles County, Health Hazards, Chromium, Carcinogens, Pu Blic Health, Water Pollution

Thursday, October 5, 2000 Valley Edition -  Section: Metro Water Tests Find High Chromium 6 Levels Environment: Samples at 110 government facilities showed up to 40 times the suggested limit, led by Burbank Health Center. But officials say there is no need for alarm. By: ANDREW BLANKSTEIN TIMES STAFF WRITER Tests of tap water at 110 Los Angeles County government facilities showed levels of chromium 6 at up to 8 parts per billion--more than 40 times the suggested limit, according to a study to be released today. The tests recorded the highest level at the Burbank Health Center, said a county official who saw the report. Other high readings were found at the county library in Hacienda Heights, a day-care center in Palmdale and another county library in Rosemead, the official said. Although there are no formal standards for chromium 6, drinking water should not exceed 0.2 parts per billion, according to the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which first proposed steps to cut chromium 6 levels two years ago. But substantial uncertainty exists over what the limit should be. And one high-ranking state health official said late Wednesday that people shouldn't be concerned about the findings of the county study. "The people who are drinking the water that was tested should not be alarmed with these results," said Kevin Rielly, acting deputy for prevention programs for the Department of Health Services. "I have not seen the report," he added. "We are conducting tests around the state to try to determine what the chromium 6 levels are in state drinking water supplies." Chromium 6 was the chemical at the center of a famous toxic case in Hinkley, Calif., that was the basis for the film "Erin Brockovich." Concentrations in that case were 24 parts per million, 3,000 times higher than the highest levels uncovered by Los Angeles County testing over the last few weeks. Chromium 6, a byproduct of metal-plating and other industrial activities, is classified as a carcinogen when inhaled as particles or fumes. Some scientists argue that chromium 6 should not be present in water at all, while water officials insist the water is safe because of insufficient scientific evidence linking chromium 6 in water to illnesses. County officials tested tap water at more than 20 sites in each of the five supervisorial districts, including readings from health clinics, courthouses and fire stations. On Wednesday, it was unknown how many of the 110 sites tested above the proposed 2.5-ppb standard for chromium 6 and how many tested below it. The tests found the chemical was present at levels of up to 7.84 parts per billion at Burbank Health Center, 1101 W. Magnolia St. In addition to Burbank, an official who saw the report said chromium 6 levels between 4.99 and 7.65 parts per billion were found at Hacienda Heights Library, 16010 La Monde St.; Palmdale Primary Care Center, 1529 E. Palmdale Blvd; Rosemead Library, 8800 Valley Blvd; La Puente Health Center, 15930 Central Ave; and Alhambra Health Center, 1612 W. Shorb St. County officials would not publicly comment on the report, citing a planned news conference on the issue. Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who proposed the county tests following stories on chromium 6 in The Times, also declined comment Wednesday. But one official who saw the report said it noted that the high levels could have been a result of chemical treatment of the water with chlorine, which can elevate levels of chromium 6 (also known as hexavalent chromium). The issue is complicated because the state doesn't have a current standard for chromium 6, but instead limits levels of total chromium as an indirect means of cutting chromium 6. The state's current standard for total chromium is 50 parts per billion, and the federal standard is 100 parts per billion. The proposed new "public health goal" of 2.5 parts per billion is being studied by the state Department of Health Services. While the county tap water that was tested falls within current allowable limits for chromium, critics say those standards are still too lax because some studies suggest that chromium 6 can cause cancer. * * * In the absence of a formal chromium 6 standard, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment identified a safe drinking water level of 0.2 parts per billion of chromium 6, said Alan Hirsch, an agency spokesman. At that level, Hirsch said, an estimated 1 million people could drink about two liters of water a day over 70 years--and only one of them would get cancer resulting from exposure to chromium 6. Chromium 6 concentrations above 0.2 parts per billion fall "into a gray area," Hirsch said, but he declined to flatly characterize that higher level as unsafe. Corine Li, regional office chief of drinking water for the Environmental Protection Agency, had no comment on the county report. But she said the agency was following the chromium testing being conducted in Los Angeles County. "We continue to support the total chromium standard of 100 parts per billion for safe water," Li said. "We believe additional collection of chromium 6 occurrence data would be useful to evaluate health effects from ingestion of the chemical," Li said. State health officials also would not comment on findings of the report, saying it was up to the Department of Health Services to examine or discuss any of the county findings, Hirsch said. The Times reported Aug. 20 that the state Department of Health Services was still reviewing the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's recommendation to toughen chromium standards, more than two years after it was proposed. In response, legislation was signed last week by Gov. Gray Davis. SB 2127 gives the state Department of Health Services until January 2002 to assess the threat of chromium 6 statewide and report to the governor and Legislature. It also directs the agency to study the amount of chromium 6 in the San Fernando Valley aquifer, a major source of well water for Los Angeles and other cities that has been polluted for decades by industrial contamination. Tests on Los Angeles Department of Water and Power water wells in the Valley found levels of chromium 6 as high as 4.65 parts per billion, said Pankaj Parekh, the DWP's manager of regulatory compliance. But Parekh and others say that water is blended among various sources, and chromium 6 levels in tap water are well below that found in the wells. Up to 7.84 parts per billion of chromium 6 was found at Burbank Health Center; 0.2 is the preferred limit.

Saturday, September 30, 2000 Valley Edition - Section: Metro Governor Signs Bill Speeding Water Testing Health: Law requires state agency to report on chromium 6 levels in Valley wells and assess statewide safety risk within two years. By: ANDREW BLANKSTEIN TIMES STAFF WRITER Gov. Gray Davis has signed legislation requiring state regulators to speed up testing for chromium 6 in local drinking water wells amid increasing worries the chemical is a public health threat. SB 2127, signed late Thursday, gives the state Department of Health Services until January 2002 to report to the governor and the state Legislature on the amount of chromium 6 in the San Fernando Valley aquifer, which supplies up to 15% of the drinking water for Los Angeles, as well as water for the cities of Burbank and San Fernando. The agency also faces the same deadline to assess the health threat of chromium 6 statewide. The chemical, a byproduct of metal-plating and other industrial processes, is classified as a carcinogen when inhaled as particles or fumes, but its status as a health risk when consumed in water is still debated by experts. "My administration is working proactively to evaluate the issues related to chromium 6 in the drinking water supply," Davis wrote in his signing letter. "This will allow for a statewide assessment of chromium 6 levels which is critical for the establishment of a maximum contaminant level." "Although the water testing requirements in this bill will also be addressed in the [state] regulations, the special concerns on the part of San Fernando Valley residents warrant a signature on this legislation," Davis added. Decades of defense work have made the Valley a hot zone for chemical contamination. Parts of Burbank, Glendale and North Hollywood were declared a federal Superfund cleanup site in 1986. "While the study will focus on the San Fernando Valley, its conclusions, particularly with regard to health impacts, will be relevant statewide," said the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank). But Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles) said the new law would not go far enough to protect public safety. "The Schiff bill is well intended and is a prod to DHS to get moving," Hayden said. "But it does not mandate a chromium 6 standard and won't protect public health. Nobody should be under the illusion that this will protect the drinking water." The legislation was introduced after The Times reported Aug. 20 that the state health department had yet to implement a tougher chromium standard--which would therefore limit levels of its toxic byproduct, chromium 6--two years after it was first recommended by an official in the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The health department's drinking water chief, David Spath, initially told The Times it could take another five years to act on the proposal. After the Legislature approved SB 2127, however, Spath said his agency intends to use its emergency powers to order local water agencies to start testing for chromium 6 in a matter of months. And in a Sept. 27 letter to Hayden, DHS director Diana Bonta said a new chromium or chromium 6 standard could be in place within two years after the agency adopts a requirement for water utilities to test for chromium 6. "The Department's proposed emergency regulations for monitoring chromium 6 will significantly reduce the time frame," Bonta said. "However, collection of sufficient chromium 6 occurrence data . . . will take at least one year." A cost-benefit analysis, she said, "will require a minimum of six months to complete." * * * Chromium 6 was at the center of a famous toxic case in Hinkley, Calif., that became the basis for the movie "Erin Brockovich." Brockovich, a legal investigator, appeared before the Los Angeles City Council this month to urge tougher standards for chromium 6. Hinkley residents won a $333-million settlement from Pacific Gas & Electric because the utility's underground tanks leaked chromium 6 into the water. But levels there were 24 parts per million--exponentially higher than levels measured in local ground water. Although a formal chromium 6 standard has not been established, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment believes drinking water should not contain more than 0.2 parts per billion of chromium 6, said Alan Hirsch, an agency spokesman. Some scientists believe chromium 6 should not be present in water at all. But water officials say concentrations in local water supplies are safe, and that a 2.5 parts per billion standard for total chromium would cause them to shutter many wells and hike customers' water rates. Because most utilities don't test for chromium 6, the state has presumed that chromium 6 comprises about 7.2% of total chromium in water. Over the past year, the state health department surveyed 30 water systems around California to determine more precisely how much of the chromium--which is not toxic--was composed of chromium 6. In samples taken from the San Gabriel Valley Water Co., for example, chromium 6 comprised up to 85% of the total chromium--much higher than the presumption. While the state did not report actual levels of chromium 6 in water in the San Gabriel Valley, amounts range from 3.6 parts per billion to 11 parts per billion, according to Carol Williams, executive officer for the San Gabriel Valley watermaster's office. In tests on Los Angeles Department of Water and Power wells, chromium 6 was as high as 4.65 parts per billion, said Pankaj Parekh, the DWP's manager of regulatory compliance. Last month, Parekh said the DWP closed two wells where total chromium levels registered about 20 parts per billion. He said officials did not test for chromium 6 levels in those wells. "We felt better to be safe than sorry," he said. * * * Also in response to The Times story, Los Angeles County officials launched tests of tap water at 100 facilities countywide, including fire stations, health centers and courthouses. According to preliminary results, chromium 6 levels ranged from trace amounts to as high as 7.5 parts per billion in several places, said Wasfy Shindy, director of the county's environmental toxicology lab. He said complete results are expected to be ready next week.

Tuesday July 25, 2000 Company Press Release SOURCE: AquaPrix, Inc. AquaPrix, Inc. Responds to: Will the Real Erin Brockovich Please Stand Up? HAYWARD, Calif., July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- In her latest movie, Julia Roberts plays a law clerk who stumbles on a dormant pro bono file involving illness and forced real-estate sales in a rural hamlet on California's high desert. Fired by curiosity and a sense of justice, Erin Brockovich -- for whom the movie was named -- investigates on her own, gathers evidence of a toxic-waste cover-up and leads the charge against a public utility that's been leaching a deadly form of chromium into the ground water, thereby poisoning nearby residents who drink it. According to the film's producers, Erin Brockovich took relatively few liberties with the facts -- the case ended with the utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, settling a 1993 lawsuit on behalf of 650 plaintiffs for $333 million. And according to 55-year-old Lynne Leahy, president of AquaPrix, Inc., that scary scenario could happen just about anywhere. As the exclusive San Francisco Bay Area distributor for the products, which are manufactured by innowave, incorporated, a Mutual of Omaha Subsidiary, she says her systems create the ``healthiest, safest drinking water available anywhere in the world.'' An entrepreneur/author/speaker, Leahy ran her own document imaging and management firm before founding AquaPrix in 1997. She says one of her first challenges was convincing others of the importance of good drinking water. ``People have a general apathy toward their own health,'' says Leahy, who got a big lesson of her own just 11 months after opening AquaPrix. ``I was diagnosed with a bacterial infection called MAC. Doctors found a golf-ball sized hole in my lung.'' Lucky to survive, Leahy says many such bacteria in today's water are resistant to disinfectants like chlorine and chloramines. The answer lies in the steamed distilled water produced by AquaPrix's systems. ``Anyone who understands water understands distillation or distilled water is the safest water you can drink,'' she adds. At AquaPrix, equipment is leased for a monthly cost of about $50 to $100, inclusive of the equipment, maintenance service and an annual sanitizing. The company employs 15 persons who work from an office and clean room, where machines are prepared and tested prior to being delivered. Company sales reached $1.6 million in 1999, and are expected to hit $3 million in 2000. Currently, Leahy's working to get the word out about safe drinking water in the workplace. Looking ahead, she says AquaPrix will tackle the home marketplace, and the Internet as a sales channel. ``We'll be offering a fresh, and locally-roasted coffee service to offices in the area within about three to six months,'' says Leahy, whose company has been featured in the Contra Costa Business Times and the San Francisco Business Times. ``AquaPrix is an extremely responsive company that uses a soft-sale approach to business,'' comments Peggy Williams, manager of site services for Compaq Computer in Fremont, CA. ``I circulated a survey after the system was installed last year, and all of our employees were very happy with it. It was a huge improvement over the bottles of water we used to deal with.'' Leahy, who recently won an award for Entrepreneurial Excellence by Working Woman magazine, will release a book later this year entitled ``Just-in-Time Miracles© - Six Simple Steps to Success.'' A second book is in the works, she says, and will include the experiences of working women in today's evolving business world. ``As a woman in business for over 30 years,'' Leahy adds, ``I'm passionate about encouraging women to take more powerful positions in the business arena.'' SOURCE: AquaPrix, Inc.

August 24, 2000 El Mirage water shows high levels of chromium 6 Environment: Carcinogen is same that was found in Hinkley. By LEIGH WOOSLEYand ELLIE MOON Staff Writers EL MIRAGE -- State officials here have found cancer-causing chromium 6 in the ground water at levels 15 times higher than what some experts believe is safe. Tests turned up chromium 6 in water samples from five private wells near Aerochem, Inc., an industrial firm on El Mirage Road, according the state Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Regional Water Control Board. Chromium 6 levels range from 10 to 30 parts per billion in the ground water, officials said. The Aerochem well showed 50 ppb, compared to 2.5 ppb recommended by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Health officials said the levels in El Mirage water do not exceed allowable levels for chromium in drinking water -- 50 parts ppb. However, California does not have specific regulations for levels of the carcinogen, which is believed to make up 7.2 percent or more of each chromium sample. The absence of such regulations spurred state Sen. Tom Hayden, D-Los Angeles, to rally for new proposals. Hayden on Monday sent a letter to the Department of Health Services calling for a speedy reduction of chromium 6 levels in public water supplies. Chromium 6 is the same substance that contaminated groundwater in Hinkley in a case was made famous in the film "Erin Brockovich." Two forms of chromium can contaminate water -- chromium 3 and chromium 6. But chromium 6, or hexavalent chromium, more easily enters living cells and is much more toxic than chromium 3. Chromium 6 has not tainted municipal wells, said Ron Baker, a spokesman for the Department of Toxic Substances Control in Sacramento. Researchers are not certain how chromium 6 reached El Mirage water, but they are focusing investigations on Aerochem -- an aerospace company that has been the subject of on-going health investigations. State officials have directed Aerochem to investigate and take corrective action -- a project that the company expects will cost $1 million, according to an Aerochem report. Health officials and company representatives met Wednesday in Long Beach to discuss the ordeal. However, Aerochem officials say they're not to blame. "There's been no evidence that (chromium 6) has come from our facility," Aerochem Vice President of Operations Art McFarlan said. "Our company does not use the chemical, so there's no reason for it to be in the water put there by us." But you don't have to start with chromium 6 to get chromium 6. The chemical can be a by-product of other industrial processes, Baker said. Aerochem builds aircraft and aerospace parts for customers, including NASA and Boeing. In doing so, it uses a technique called chemical milling, or smoothing metal components in an acid bath. "What do you do with the solution?" Peter Brierty, hazardous materials division chief of the San Bernardino County Fire Department, said. "The (chromium 6) potentially could have gotten into the ground there." On Friday, health officials forced Aerochem to give bottled water to the eight families living in a trailer park just north of the company, Baker said. About 30 to 40 people in the trailer park were using water that contained up to 30 ppb of chromium 6, according to Baker. Health specialists recommended the families drink and wash with bottled water rather than well water. "I would certainly be concerned about (chromium 6)," El Mirage resident Paul Davis said. "In the past, I have been concerned with heavy metals coming from Aerochem." Davis thinks the water from his private owned well is the "best in the High Desert," but now plans to take a sample in for testing. Researchers are also continuing their investigation. Officials from San Bernardino County's Safe Drinking Water program Wednesday took 10 samples of the El Mirage groundwater, according to Program Manager Dan Avera. "This is a situation that needs additional information," Avera said. "And it needs to be factual information." Because chromium 6 invades the human body over time, the county team of investigators, along with the State Department of Health Services, wants to find out how long the toxin has lingered in El Mirage, according to Avera. But he doesn't think they'll find that vital piece of information. Copyright © 2000 Desert Dispatch.

Real-life Erin Brockovich challenges ABC TV Erin Brockovich is fighting a new battle -- this time against ABC TV's news program "20/20." July 23, 2000 LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Erin Brockovich, a feisty legal assistant whose stirring legal victory against a major public utilities company was fodder for a top-rated film of the same name, is fighting a new battle -- this time against ABC TV's news program "20/20." In a July 14 segment titled "Give Me A Break; Realities Behind Erin Brockovich Story," "20/20" correspondent John Stossel tried to debunk claims made in the film, "Erin Brockovich," and by Brockovich herself, that groundwater in the desert town of Hinckley, Calif., contaminated with the chemical hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium 6, sickened local residents. "My comment to John Stossel is that before he reports on a story he needs to get his facts straight," the real-life Brockovich told Reuters in a telephone interview Friday. "There is nothing fraudulent in the movie. What he said was irresponsible. And if he's going to insist that chromium doesn't make people sick I want him to put the chromium where his mouth is. I'm not kidding around. He can get his children around him and drink chromium-laced water," she added. A spokeswoman for ABC-TV late Friday said the network stands by the story. The film, one of this year's most watched, starred Julia Roberts as Brockovich, a twice-divorced mother of three who took a job as a file clerk in a California law firm. After stumbling into some information that implicated a public utility giant, Brockovich became outraged and persuaded her boss to let her pursue the case. In real life, Brockovich interviewed hundreds of Hinckley residents, some of whom suffered with illnesses ranging from uterine cancer to Hodgkin's disease to spinal deterioration. She helped the Westlake, Calif. firm Masry & Vititoe battle PG&E Corp., which had disposed of chromium-laced waste water in unlined ponds since the 1950s. No court ever ruled on PG&E's guilt or innocence. After the first 39 plaintiffs won in arbitration, PG&E settled the case in 1996, giving plaintiffs some $333 million, which was the largest amount ever in a class-action suit. In a July 14 report, Stossel said there was no proof that drinking water with chromium in it causes cancer, that the exposure in Hinckley made people sick, or even that above average numbers of people were sick from drinking chromium. He also said that the California Cancer Registry found no excess cancer around the Hinckley area. And he cited a study commissioned by PG&E, that concluded that there was no excess cancer in its employees and that they were in fact healthier than average. Late Friday ABC-TV, which had previously declined to comment, released a statement saying, "Neither ABC News nor '20/20' nor John Stossel has ever suggested that drinking Chromium 6 is safe. To the contrary John Stossel very clearly stated that "drinking, breathing or touching large amounts of Chromium 6 can cause lots of diseases including lung and sinus cancer. "The issue is whether the dangers of Chromium 6 reach as far as the conclusions made in the movie 'Erin Brokovich,' allegations that have not been proven and instead remain in dispute. Like many of Mr. Stossel's segments, last week's segments concerned the importance of facts in dealing with questions about pollution and public health." Brockovich and her boss, attorney Ed Masry, who held a press conference Friday, demanded a retraction. "We're not going to sue anybody," Masry said. "We're hoping news media polices itself and reports on this brainless John Stossel report and let people know it's not safe to drink hexavalent chromium. He ought to be fired. A lot of children's chemistry sets are being sold with the chemical. This is not Coca-Cola." Brockovich, who received a $2 million bonus from her employers for her work on the PG&E case, also objected to Stossel's claim that "the lawyers get rich by frightening people." "It's not like I'm sitting on $2 million. I pay my taxes, bought a home and had some personal difficulties. The money dwindles fast and I will find myself once again just like before. I still have to work like everybody else," she said.

'Erin Brockovich,' Affirmed The Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2000 Letters to the Editor Copyright 2000 by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Given the enormous popularity of the movie Erin Brockovich, it was probably inevitable that someone like Michael Fumento would try to debunk it (Erin Brockovich, Exposed, editorial page, March 28). Mr. Fumento targeted the plaintiff's attorneys who sued Pacific Gas & Electric and the scientific evidence they marshaled to prove that the company's use of Chromium-6 contaminated groundwater and thereby damaged the health of countless people who lived in and around Hinkley, Calif., in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. Despite Mr. Fumento's claims to the contrary, Chromium-6 kills. It has been labeled as a human carcinogen by the EPA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the state of California. PG&E's own documents concede "the material is toxic." Indeed, it is so toxic that California no longer permits its use even in cooling towers. Mr. Fumento is also wrong when he claims Chromium-6 is a problem only when inhaled. The EPA, IARC and numerous medical researchers agree Chromium-6 can also cause injury as a result of ingestion and dermal exposure. And he is way off base when he says the amount of Chromium-6 in Hinkley's water never exceeded 0.58 parts per million. PG&E itself measured concentrations as high as 20 parts per million – some 40 times higher than Mr. Fumento's supposed maximum. Mr. Fumento also asserts that "no one agent could possibly have caused more than a handful of the symptoms described" by the Hinkley plaintiffs. This blithely ignores thousands of pages of medical records, the testimony of medical experts and scientists, and interviews with the workers who inhaled Chromium-6. How does Mr. Fumento support his position? By citing William Blot. Mr. Blot is a paid "expert" for PG&E, who has earned as much as $400 an hour testifying on behalf of the utility. Mr. Fumento also cites a study that supposedly showed that Chromium-6 did not harm PG&E workers. He neglects to mention that PG&E funded the study. Nor does he acknowledge that unlike the unfortunate residents of Hinkley, PG&E workers did not drink Chromium-6-laced water for decades or mix their baby formula with it every day for years on end, or that the study itself conceded that "high levels of exposure to hexavalent chromium have been associated with increased risks of lung and nasal cancer. . . ." He also mentions some rodent and dog studies that seem to exonerate Chromium-6 as a health hazard, but doesn't note that these are vastly outnumbered in scientific literature by animal studies that positively establish the compound's toxicity. If the case against Chromium-6 is as weak as Mr. Fumento claims it to be, how is it that PG&E "coughed up" (his words) $333 million in settlement payments? Mr. Fumento insists it's because the studies "came in after the settlement." Chromium-6 has been studied for more than a century. To suggest that the scientific consensus on the subject has suddenly been turned on its head is nonsense. Mr. Fumento cynically suggests Erin Brockovich "had to convince thousands of people that they've been poisoned for decades and will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives." Nobody had to "convince" the plaintiffs of their own palpable suffering. PG&E did wrong. As its own documents reveal, the company contaminated the groundwater and then tried to cover it up. In the words of Robert Glynn, the utility's chairman and CEO: "PG&E did not respond to the groundwater problem as openly, quickly, or thoroughly as it should have. . . . It is clear, in retrospect, that our company should have handled some things differently. . . ." It wasn't bad timing that scared PG&E into arbitration, nor was it "slick lawyers and sympathetic witnesses," as Mr. Fumento tries to imply. It was the facts of the case: PG&E poisoned people. These people are rightfully outraged. And the rest of us should be, too. Erin Brockovich Gary A. Praglin Los Angeles, Calif. (Ms. Brockovich was the lead investigator in the Hinkley case. Mr. Praglin, along with Edward L. Masry, Thomas V. Girardi and Walter J. Lack are the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs against PG&E.) Michael Fumento Responds The Wall Street Journal, April, 10, 2000 Letters to the Editor Copyright 2000 by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. To the editor: It's clear that Ms. Brockovich and attorney Gary Praglin in their letter of April 6 have spent too much time around lawyers, as the purpose of the letter had nothing to do with clarification and everything to do with obfuscation and the hope that readers have completely forgotten the contents of the original article. They cite zero studies, alludes to zero texts, and names zero experts. Instead, she takes every opportunity to confuse readers into thinking that if chromium-6 is toxic when inhaled, it must therefore be so when ingested. Never mind that numerous agents such as plutonium and forms of asbestos are highly carcinogenic when inhaled but simply pass through the body when ingested. Indeed Brockovich-Praglin state flatly, "Mr. Fumento is also wrong when he claims Chromium-6 is a problem only when inhaled. The EPA, IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] and numerous medical researchers agree Chromium-6 can also cause injury as a result of ingestion and dermal exposure." But the EPA's own exhaustive evaluation of chromium-6 at (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0144.htm states flatly, using the quote employed in my original Journal piece, "No data were located in the available literature that suggested that Cr(VI) is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure." No data. As to IARC, its evaluation (http://193.51.164.11/cgi/iHound/Chem/iH_Chem_Frames.html) doesn't even bother with oral ingestion. It states as I did that, "For cancers other than of the lung and sinonasal cavity, no consistent pattern of cancer risk has been shown among workers exposed to chromium compounds." Those are clearly inhalation-related cancers, and hardly explain the breast, prostate, and other tumors which the film and the lawsuit blamed on chromium-6. IARC also states, "There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of chromium[VI] compounds as encountered in the chromate production, chromate pigment production and chromium plating industries." Obviously these are all workplace exposures, having nothing to do with townspeople's drinking water. Brockovich-Praglin claim I am "way off base" saying "the amount of Chromium-6 in Hinkley's water never exceeded 0.58 parts per million. PG&E itself measured concentrations as high as 20 parts per million-some 40 times higher than Mr. Fumento's supposed maximum." But according to the California Regional Quality Control Board, the highest measurements in Hinkley's water were indeed 0.58. Moreover, in the film itself Julia Roberts claims exposures were "as high as" the 0.58 figure. The real Erin Brockovich has claimed elsewhere that "every word" in the film is true. Well, was it or wasn't it? Brockovich-Praglin say, "Mr. Fumento also asserts that 'no one agent could possibly have caused more than a handful of the symptoms described' by the Hinkley plaintiffs. This blithely ignores thousands of pages of medical records, the testimony of medical experts and scientists, and interviews with the workers who inhaled Chromium-6." Quite simply, there is no known agent that can cause all unrelated symptoms Brockovich claimed chromium-6 caused. EPA's IRIS page is quite specific as to the very ailments linked to any form of chromium-6 exposure, and almost none from the film are listed. The studies I cited, such as from Glasgow, found not dozens of symptoms from chromium-6 exposure in people who had such high exposures it was measurable in their urine but rather no symptoms. The testimony of which the writers speak was given by so-called "expert witnesses" paid for by her colleagues. Since it was a state action, they were not subject to the "junk science" restrictions of Daubert v. Merrill Dow which probably would have prevented many, if not all, from even testifying. Brockovich-Praglin say, "How does Mr. Fumento support his position? By citing William Blot. Mr. Blot is a paid 'expert' for PG&E, who has earned as much as $400 an hour testifying on behalf of the utility." Actually, I used only one quote and one study from Mr. Blot and Mr. Blot told me in a telephone interview that he has never been a paid witness for PG&E. In reference to the study showing that PG&E workers themselves were as healthy or healthier than Californians who didn't work for the company, Brockovich-Praglin say I do "not acknowledge that unlike the unfortunate residents of Hinkley, PG&E workers did not drink Chromium-6-laced water for decades . . . " Are we really to believe that PG&E workers never drank the local water, nor had additional exposures to chromium-6 that the townspeople could not have? Brockovich-Praglin also state, "He also mentions some rodent and dog studies that seem to exonerate Chromium-6 as a health hazard, but doesn't note that these are vastly outnumbered in scientific literature by animal studies that positively establish the compound's toxicity." Really? Consult the aforementioned EPA discussion of Chromium-6, noting especially the reference to "the lack of toxic effect at the highest dose tested." "If the case against Chromium-6 is as weak as Mr. Fumento claims it to be, how is it that PG&E "coughed up" (his words) $333 million in settlement payments?" ask the writers. "Mr. Fumento insists it's because the studies "came in after the settlement." I gave that as only part of the reason. The Hinkley case is hardly the first in which huge amounts of money have been handed to sick or allegedly sick plaintiffs and their lawyers without scientific proof or even strong evidence. Dow Corning handed trial lawyers and their clients billions even though the evidence that silicone implants are safe has become overwhelming. PG&E simply made the monetary decision that giving up a third of a billion which it could then (unlike Dow) simply pass on to utility rate payers, made more sense than leaving things up to the whims of an arbitrator trained not in science or medicine but in law. Brockovich and Praglin think they have a smoking gun in the words of PG&E's CEO, that the utility "did not respond to the groundwater problem as openly, quickly, or thoroughly as it should have. . . . It is clear, in retrospect, that our company should have handled some things differently. . . ." Sorry guys, that's called simple good PR language, without the least admission of any harm to health. The real story of Erin Brockovich is simply this. A woman with no medical background goes to a small town and convinces residents that virtually every illness they've ever had, from cancer to rashes, are all related and all caused by a nearby corporation worth almost $30 billion. Join our suit, she says, and I'll get you megabucks. They do, they get a settlement, and Brockovich's colleagues snatch away a cut of over $133 million. Brockovich gets more than $2 million. Only in Hollywood could such a person be made a heroine. Michael Fumento Senior Fellow Hudson Institute Washington, D.C. Read the original Wall Street Journal article, "Erin Brockovich, Exposed" and longer version of the article, "The Dark Side of Erin Brockovich" (The National Post, March 29, 2000). Read reactions to Fumento's article: The Truth about Erin Brockovich Contaminated Story - Questions Arise from Scientific Claims in Film Erin Brockovich

The Tort Law and the Courts - The Hinkley Story

.

From: www.ohb.org/cr6.htm Hexavalent Chromium (chromium six, chromium-VI, Cr-VI, Cr-6 - e.g., chromates, chromic acid) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chromium in the Workplace How Chromium Enters the Body How Chromium Affects the Body Tests For Exposure Or Medical Effects Sources of Chromium Exposure How To Control Chromium Exposure Special Control Measures For Spraying, Welding, And Plating Legal Exposure Limits Right To Know Injury And Illness Prevention Program Resources Hexavalent chromium causes lung cancer in humans. Evaluations by the California Department of Health Services, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry indicate that the risk of lung cancer to exposed workers is extremely high. The best estimate of the excess risk of lung cancer from exposure to hexavalent chromium compounds at California's current Permissible Exposure Limit, every working day for 40 years, is 8 cases of lung cancer in every 100 workers exposed. This Hazard Alert has been issued to warn employers, workers, worker representatives, and others about the serious risk of lung cancer and to provide these groups with information on how to control exposures. A less technical version of this Alert is also being issued. CHROMIUM IN THE WORKPLACE Chromium is a metal. It exists in several different forms: divalent, trivalent, and hexavalent. Only hexavalent chromium is recognized as a human carcinogen. Only hexavalent chromium is discussed in this Alert. Hexavalent chromium has many uses. It is used as a pigment in paints, inks, and plastics; as an anti-corrosion agent in protective coatings; and in chrome plating. See the table on page 2 for the names of some common hexavalent chromium compounds and their uses. Workers in many  different occupations are exposed to hexavalent chromium. Occupational exposures in California  occur mainly among workers who: a) handle dry chromate-containing pigments; b) spray  chromate-containing paints and coatings; c) operate chrome plating baths; and d) weld or cut  chromium-containing metals such as stainless steel. HOW CHROMIUM ENTERS THE BODY Hexavalent chromium enters the body in two ways: by being inhaled or by being swallowed. Chromium can be inhaled when chromium dust, mist, or fumes are in the air. Chromium dust can also get on cigarettes. If contaminated cigarettes are smoked, the smoker inhales additional chromium along with the tobacco smoke. Particles of chromium can be swallowed if the dust gets on hands, clothing, or beard, or in food or beverages. HOW CHROMIUM AFFECTS THE BODY Cancer: Hexavalent chromium causes lung cancer in humans. Workers exposed to hexavalent chromium in workplace air had much higher rates of lung cancer than workers who were not exposed. Studies of workers in the chromate production and pigment industries consistently show increased rates of lung cancer. Studies of chrome platers also generally show increased rates. Studies of stainless steel welders are inconclusive, but stainless steel welders have not been studied adequately. Evaluations by the California Department of Health Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate that the risk for workers is extremely high. The best estimate of the excess risk of lung cancer from exposure to hexavalent chromium compounds at California's current Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), every working day for 40 years, is 8 cases of cancer in every 100 workers exposed. An individual worker's actual risk depends on how much hexavalent chromium is in the workplace air and how long the exposure goes on. The lower and briefer the exposure, the less the risk of lung cancer. That's why it is important to take steps to reduce worker exposure immediately. Respiratory Tract: Hexavalent chromium can irritate the nose, throat, and lungs. Repeated or prolonged exposure can damage the mucous membranes of the nasal passages and cause ulcers to form. In some cases, the damage is so severe that the septum (the wall separating the nasal passages) develops a hole in it. Skin: Hexavalent chromium is very irritating to the skin. Prolonged contact can cause ulcers to form. Some workers develop an allergic sensitization to chromium. In sensitized workers, contact with even very tiny amounts can cause a serious skin rash. Eyes: Hexavalent chromium is an eye irritant. Direct eye contact with chromic acid or chromate dusts can cause permanent eye damage. TESTS FOR EXPOSURE OR MEDICAL EFFECTS There are no routine medical tests to measure the amount of hexavalent chromium that has been absorbed into the body. Excreted chromium can be measured in urine. However, this test is only useful for measuring recent exposure to stainless steel welding fumes. In most situations, air monitoring gives the best measure of worker exposure. Therefore, measuring hexavalent  chromium in blood or urine is not recommended or legally required. However, we recommend that workers who are frequently exposed to hexavalent chromium or other hazardous substances receive a complete physical examination, including an occupational and medical history, at the beginning of employment. Periodic follow-up examinations are also recommended. SOURCES OF CHROMIUM EXPOSURE Hexavalent chromium materials are used in many jobs, but three jobs in particular involve frequent and/or heavy chromium exposure. These jobs are spraying anti-corrosion coatings, welding and cutting stainless steel, and chrome plating. Spraying: In spraying anti-corrosion coatings, a liquid that contains zinc chromate or lead chromate is applied to metal surfaces through a high-pressure spray gun. The spray nozzle creates a mist that can be inhaled. Spraying coatings without adequate control measures can lead to exposure more than twenty times above the legal exposure limit. Plating: In chrome plating, metal parts are immersed in a liquid solution of chromic acid through which an electric current flows. The electroplating process creates gases that bubble to the tank surface and carry liquid particles of chromic acid solution into the air. This mist can be inhaled. Hard chrome plating, which uses a stronger electric current and a higher tank temperature than bright chrome plating, creates the most chromic acid mist. Hard chrome plating without adequate control measures can lead to exposure several times above the legal exposure limit. Welding: In welding or cutting, the intense heat of the arc or flame vaporizes the base metal and/or the electrode coating. This vaporized metal condenses into tiny particles called fumes. These fume particles can be inhaled. Chromium fume is created by welding or cutting on stainless steel or metals that are coated with a chromium material. Welding on stainless steel without adequate control measures can lead to exposure at least several times above the legal exposure limit.

Where is Hexavalent Chromium Found? USES TYPES OF HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM CHEMICALS pigments for paints, inks, and plastics lead chromate (chrome yellow, chrome green, molybdenum orange), zinc chromate, barium chromate, calcium chromate, potassium dichromate, sodium chromate anti-corrosion coatings (chrome plating, spray coatings) chromic trioxide (chromic acid), zinc chromate, barium chromate, calcium chromate, sodium chromate, strontium chromate stainless steel hexavalent chromium is given off when stainless steel is cast, welded, or torch cut textile dyes ammonium dichromate, potassium chromate, potassium dichromate, sodium chromate wood preservation chromium trioxide leather tanning ammonium dichromate HOW TO CONTROL CHROMIUM EXPOSURE The two best ways to prevent inhaling or ingesting chromium-containing particles are substituting chromium-free materials and using local exhaust ventilation. If a substitute cannot be found, a mechanically powered local exhaust hood should be placed at the point where chromium is released into the air, or the entire process should be contained within the hood. Properly designed and maintained local exhaust ventilation draws off most of the chromium before it can be inhaled. Using local exhaust is far better than relying on dilution of chromium-contaminated air by natural ventilation through open windows and doors, or general ventilation with fresh air brought in through a duct. With the dilution approach, overexposure can still occur at the point of chromium release into the air, or if the dilution air does not mix well with the room air. Wearing an air-purifying respirator such as a paper mask or rubber mask with screw-in filters is the least effective way to control exposure. In fact, the Cal/OSHA respirator standard (General Industry Safety Order [GISO] 5144 in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations) allows respirator use to prevent overexposure only as the last resort. This restriction exists because the use of respirators is complex and prone to error, often resulting in inadequate protection. First, the respirator must be approved for the type of particles in the air; for example, a paper dust mask designed for removing powder particles will not remove the fume particles created by welding. Next, the respirator must be fit-tested to ensure that it fits the wearer's face, and the respirator must be kept in good condition. The fit should be regularly checked. Workers should also be medically examined for their ability to wear a respirator. Even when these and other requirements are met, leakage of contaminated air into the respirator may still occur. SPECIAL CONTROL MEASURES FOR SPRAYING, WELDING, AND PLATING Cal/OSHA enforces standards to control workplace exposures to hazardous substances. Cal/OSHA has developed special standards for some workplace processes, including spraying, welding, and plating. These standards are designed to control worker exposure to toxic substances, including chromium. If the provisions of these standards are followed, workers' exposure to chromium will be greatly reduced. Spraying: Cal/OSHA standard GISO 5153 requires that spray coating operations be confined to properly designed and ventilated spray booths or spray rooms whenever possible, and sets minimum inward air velocities at the spray booth faces. If you must work in a large spray booth downstream from the part being sprayed, an approved respirator must also be worn. For large-scale spraying of chromium-containing coatings that involves a lot of back-spray, or that is done outside of a spray booth as in construction work, wearing an approved positive-pressure airline respirator with a full facepiece provides the best protection. This respirator delivers fresh air through a high-pressure hose to a tightly-fitting rubber facepiece that seals from the hairline to under the chin. Some airline respirators replace the facepiece with a loose-fitting hood that covers the entire head; however, these hooded respirators tend to allow some inward leakage of contaminated air. Plating: Cal/OSHA standard GISO 5154 sets minimum air control velocities for local exhaust ventilation systems for chrome plating tanks. Although any chrome plating tank should be equipped with local exhaust ventilation, chromium exposure can be further reduced by placing full or partial covers over the tank. Although covers must be removed to load and unload the parts being plated, covers improve the function of the local exhaust hood. For example, covers prevent strong drafts from windows or fans from carrying chromic acid mist off the tank surface away from the local exhaust hood. Using covers is an effective way to reduce chromium exposure in chrome plating. Welding: Cal/OSHA standards GISO 5150 and GISO 1536 require the use of local exhaust ventilation where possible for all "indoor" welding and cutting operations. Further, if stainless steel welding or cutting is done in an "enclosed space" where using local exhaust ventilation is impractical, approved airline respirators must be worn. For "outdoor" stainless steel welding or cutting, approved respirators must be worn; again, an airline respirator rather than an air-purifying fume respirator provides the best protection. Cal/OSHA construction standard GISO 1537 also regulates the welding and cutting of metals coated with toxic substances, including chromium. The chromium coating must be stripped for at least four inches from the area of heat application before welding or cutting. If the coating is not stripped, approved airline respirators must be worn. LEGAL EXPOSURE LIMITS Cal/OSHA's current Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for water-soluble and certain water-insoluble hexavalent chromium compounds is 0.05 milligrams of chromium per cubic meter of air (0.05 mg/m3). The PEL for zinc chromate is 0.01 mg/m3. The PEL for chromyl chloride is 0.15 mg/m3. Legally, exposure may be above the PEL at times, but only if it is below the PEL at other times, so that the average exposure for any 8-hour workshift is no greater than the PEL. Measuring the amount of hexavalent chromium in the air is the only reliable way to determine the exposure level. The current Permissible Exposure Limit does not adequately protect against lung cancer. We recommend that the amount of hexavalent chromium in the air a worker breathes be kept as low as possible. If a worker thinks that he may be overexposed, he should talk to his supervisor and/or union representative, or other people listed in the "Resources" section at the end of this Hazard Alert. If any worker might be exposed to a substance at more than the legal exposure limit, the employer must measure the amount of the chemical in the air in the work area (Cal/OSHA standard GISO 5155). Workers have the right to see the results of monitoring relevant to their exposure (Cal/OSHA standard GISO 3204). Workers also have the right to see and copy their own medical records and records of their exposure to toxic substances. These records are important in determining whether a worker's health has been affected by the job. Employers who have such records must keep them and make them available to employees for at least 30 years after the end of employment. RIGHT TO KNOW The Hazard Communication Standard (GISO 5194) requires employers to provide workers with information about the hazardous substances to which they may be exposed and to train them to use these substances safely. Employers are also required to have a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for any workplace product that contains a hazardous substance, and must make the MSDS available to workers or to a treating physician on request. An MSDS is a standard form that lists the chemical contents of a product, describes its health and safety hazards, and gives methods for using and storing it safely. This Hazard Alert is an aid for worker training programs. It does not take the place of a Material Safety Data Sheet or the required employer training. Failure to comply with GISO 5194 may also constitute failure to comply with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, popularly known as Proposition 65. Proposition 65 prohibits employers from exposing workers to certain chemicals (including hexavalent chromium) above specified levels without first warning them. These chemicals are on a list of substances "Known to the State of California to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity." Proposition 65 allows workers to sue an employer for large civil penalties for not providing appropriate warning about listed chemicals. INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM SB 198 requires that employers establish an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program, as described in Cal/OSHA standard GISO 3203. All employers are required to establish a written program for preventing workplace injuries and illnesses, and assign an identified person with real authority and responsibility to administer the program.

CHROMIUM AND CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS 1. Properties Chromium is a steel grey metal when in a clean, metallic state. It is mined as chromite ore. Globally over 10 million tons of ore consumed annually. Three quarters of this is used for metallurgical purposes; over one tenth goes to the refractory industry and over one tenth into chemical compounds. Chromium metal is a component of hardened steel, stainless steel, and alloys with nickel, titanium, niobium, cobalt, copper and other metals. Chromium content of steels goes from 3% in tool steel to 27% in stainless steel. Important deposits of chromium ore are found in the form of chromite (such as FeCr2O4). Serpentine and ultramafic/basic rocks have high chromium content. The compounds of chromium have very different roles in nature and effects on human health depending on their oxidation state1. Common compounds in the trivalent oxidation state are chromium(III)oxide and chromic sulphate. The hexavalent form of chromium can be produced from naturally-occurring trivalent chromium minerals. Chromium trioxide, dichromates and chromates are in the hexavalent oxidation state. Water-soluble hexavalent chromium compounds have the greatest industrial applications as a consequence of being strong oxidizers in acidic solutions. For example, chromium trioxide in solution is the principal constituent for chromium plating. In the hexavalent state chromium also forms coloured insoluble salts; for example, calcium chromate and zinc chromate are used as corrosion inhibitors. Chromium occurs ubiquitously in nature at low levels. Trivalent chromium is important to human and animal health as a micronutrient. It is also found in plants. Compounds of chromium in the higher oxidation states occurring in the environment originate almost completely from human activities, such as industrial oxidation of mined chromium and possibly combustion of fossil fuel, wood, etc. These compounds in the hexavalent oxidation state are relatively stable in air. In contact with living organic matter, soil and natural waters they will be reduced to the trivalent oxidation state. 1 Oxidation state and oxidation level describe the type of chemical compound and give limits to the possible type of chemical reactions Table 3. Appearance and solubility of some chromium compounds Substance Appearance Solubility Chromic sulphate peach-coloured solid practically insoluble in water and acids Chromic oxide green solid insoluble in water, acid, alkali and ethyl alcohol Chromic chloride greenish black soluble in water or violet crystals Chromium trioxide dark red crystals very soluble in water; soluble in sulphuric acid Calcium chromate yellow crystals practically insoluble in water, soluble in dilute acids Lead chromate orange yellow insoluble in water; soluble in or yellow crystals hydrochloric acid and nitric acid Potassium dichromate orange-red crystals soluble in water; insoluble in ethyl alcohol Sodium dichromate orange crystals very soluble in water; insoluble in ethyl alcohol Zinc chromate yellow powder insoluble in water Chromyl chloride dark red mobile liquid decomposes in contact with water (chromium oxychloride) or humid air 2. Health effects Although low levels of chromium compounds are both ubiquitous and essential, high concentrations of chromium are toxic to humans, animals and plants. Very high doses of chromium may be lethal or impair health severely. Metallic chromium is biologically inert, i.e. it does not cause sensitization. Chromium salts, particularly those in the hexavalent state, are irritant, corrosive, sensitizing and potential or proven carcinogens. In animal tests hexavalent chromium compounds have affected reproduction. Health and environmental effects of chromium compounds in trivalent and hexavalent oxidation states are very different. Inhalation is the primary route of occupational exposure. The effects depend on the solubility of inhaled compound and the particle size. Particles which have a small diameter (less than 20 micrometers) remain in the air for extended periods and can be transported considerable distances from the source. The size of particle determines also where in the respiratory system adverse effects take place. Large particles deposit in the upper parts of the respiratory tract while medium size particles (1-5 micrometers) penetrate and stay in the lungs. Skin exposure manifests itself through irritation, corrosion, ulcers and allergic reactions. Ulceration is caused at the sites of chronic exposure by hexavalent chromium compounds. The lesion begins with a painless papule. These `holes' are often on hands, around fingernails, finger joints or sometimes on forearms or feet and are easily ignored until the surface ulcerates. The ulcers are usually circular with a hard edge and firmly adherent crusting. Without treatment it may penetrate deeply into soft tissues. Healing is slow if the treatment is not started at an early stage. Ulceration may also occur in the nose (in the nasal septum) if dust containing chromium compounds is inhaled. Skin sensitization is common in cement production, concrete handling in the construction industry and leather tanning where chromium compounds come into contact with wet skin. Both solid and solutions of chromium compounds are irritating to the eyes and may cause burns. Chronic inhalation or skin contact to trivalent and hexavalent chromium compounds may lead to the development of allergic reactions, such as asthma, and other symptoms of respiratory distress. Lung cancer is a confirmed long-term effect of occupational exposure during the production of hexavalent chromium compounds. Acute exposure due to the ingestion of chromium compounds may lead to toxic effects in the gastrointestinal tract and may damage the kidneys. 3. Occupational use and exposure Welding of stainless steel releases hexavalent chromium compounds into the breathing zone of the welder. Welders are estimated to make up more than 1% of the workforce in industrialized countries. Hazardous air contaminants related to manual welding, including aerosols and dusts containing chromium, are a significant source of occupational exposure. Chromium compounds, chromates and dichromates, have various applications in the oxidation of organic and inorganic materials, for example, the oxidation of anthracene to produce anthraquinone. They are used in the purification processes of chemicals, preparation of catalysts and production of pigments. Important inorganic industrial pigments are, for example, molybdate orange, yellow powder of zinc chromate and chromium oxide green. Chromates are used to prevent rust and corrosion, for example, in diesel engines. Chromic acid is used in metal plating to produce a hard corrosion resistant surface. Chromium compound mixed with glass gives an emerald green colour. Chromium compounds are used in tanning chemicals, fungicides and wood preservatives. Production of light-sensitive dichromate celloids for lithography in the printing industry is also an outlet for chromium compounds. Chromite has a high melting point (2 040oC) and has good resistance to corrosion caused by acids and bases at elevated temperatures. Chromite and chrome-magnesite are used in bricks and mortars for furnaces in metal refining and glass production. Exposure to chromium and its compounds can occur in following workplace processes: mining of chromite production of stainless steels welding, thermal cutting, grinding of stainless steels electroplating (decorative plating; hard plating against corrosion) aluminum anodizing manufacture of cars, locomotives, ships, machines manufacture of electrotechnical equipment manufacture of instruments and fine mechanical equipment repair work of equipment made of stainless steel (e.g. in food production) production and use of paints containing chromium pigments (colour; anti-corrosion paints) leather tanning production and handling of cement (chromium as impurity; high temperature cements for aggressive environments) chemical manufacture glass, clay and stoneware production (pigments containing chromium) timber treatment with wood preservatives containing chromium water treatment drilling mud (chromium lignosulphonates decrease corrosion of drill strings) textile dyeing (e.g. sodium dichromate to improve colour fastness) photography and photoengraving laboratories 4. Safety measures and monitoring Due to their carcinogenicity, toxicity and corrosive properties, regulations and guidelines are needed to help to assess and limit exposure to hazardous chromium compounds and reduce adverse health effects. Control of aerosols (dusts and mists) containing chromium compounds has proved to be a very effective way of reducing health hazards. In the chromium plating industry one in four workers had nasal ulcers in the early 1950s. With the introduction of control measures the frequency of this condition dropped to 2 in 393 chromium-exposed workers in 1982. These control measures may include: closed processes, effective ventilation at the source, protective clothing and respirators. Spills should be cleaned immediately to prevent the dispersion as airborne dust. Wet cleaning methods should be used wherever possible. Vacuum cleaning is a successful method to remove dry deposits of dust. Choosing a less hazardous process reduces the exposure: the use of MIG (Metal Inert Gas) and TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) welding instead of manual metal arc welding. When a respirator is used the following aspects must be considered: the type of chromium compound (trivalent or hexavalent state), airborne concentration of chromium, the level of reducing factor (protection factor) required, and physical demands of the work. Protective clothing should be used to prevent skin contact with chromium compounds. Skin must be protected against splashes and where dry salts can be picked up by sweat (e.g. in the leather tanning). Chemically resistant gloves and eye protection are recommended when handling chromium compounds. Paraffin and lanolin creams should be used as an additional barrier protection. Gloves made of Viton (not of polyethylene or natural rubber) are recommended when chromium trioxide is handled. Fully impermeable, chemically resistant protective equipment should be used to prevent accidental exposure in electroplating. Occupational exposure limits have been established to assess the exposure to various chromium compounds. ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists) has adapted the following limits for chromium compounds (1993-1994). These threshold limit values (time-weighted average exposure concentrations: TWA) are set to correspond to an 8 hour working day and a 40-hour working week. Table 4. Threshold limit values related to chromium and chromium compounds Substance TWA Chromium metal (Cr) 0.5 mg/m3 Chromium (II) compounds, as chromium (Cr) 0.5 mg/m3 Chromium (III) compounds, as chromium (Cr) 0.5 mg/m3 Hexavalent oxidation state   Chromic acid and chromates, as chromium (Cr) 0.05 mg/m3 Chromates, alkaline, as chromium (Cr) 0.05 mg/m3 Chromium trioxide, as chromium (Cr) 0.05 mg/m3 Chromium (VI) compounds, as Cr, water soluble 0.05 mg/m3 Chromium (VI) compounds, as Cr, certain water insoluble 0.05 mg/m3, A1 (Human carcinogen) Chromite ore processing (chromate), as Cr 0.05 mg/m3, A1 (Human carcinogen) Chromyl chloride 0.16 mg/m3, (0.025 ppm) In some countries a limit has been established for the concentration of chromium in cement (2 mg chromium/kg) in order to reduce the risk of sensitization in construction work. Laboratory advice should be sought if chromium levels at work need to be monitored. There are several technical problems, depending on the type chromium compound to be sampled. Air monitoring provides a good indication of the level of exposure. Air monitoring of chromium dusts requires personal sampling. Quick assessment of the airborne concentration of chromium trioxide can be done using a Dräger tube (Chromic acid 0.1/a) or an equivalent device. Medical supervision may be advisable for persons handling chromium compounds regularly, such as electroplaters. Biological exposure indices (BEI) can be used to monitor exposure when taking biological samples, such as urine, blood, hair, and measuring the level of the substance or its metabolite. BEIs apply for an 8-hour working day and a 40-hour working week. They are not intended for diagnosis of an occupational illness, but indicate excessive exposure if several samples from a worker taken over a period of time or a majority of the samples from a group of workers (from the same workplace) exceed the BEI. Chromium is measured from urine samples taken at the end of the working week shift. ACGIH has adopted a BEI of 30 microgram/g creatinine for total chromium in urine. A number of chromium compounds have been assessed into `Classification of dangerous chemicals' list in European Union countries. United Nations Recommendations for Transport of Dangerous Goods contain specific classification for transport of some chromium compounds: Table 5. Classification of some chromium compounds for transport Substance Un Number Class Subsidiary risks Chromium trioxide, anhydrous 1463 5.1 8 Chromic acid solution 1755 8   Chromic fluoride, solid 1756 8   Chromic fluoride, solution 1757 8   Chromium oxychloride 1758 8   Chromosulphuric acid 2240 8   Chromium nitrate 2720 5.1   5.1 Oxidizing substances (which, while in themselves not necessary combustible, may, generally by yielding oxygen, cause, or contribute to, the combustion of other material). 8 Corrosive substances (which, by chemical action, will cause severe damage when in contact with living tissue,or, in case of leakage, will materially damage, or even destroy, other goods or means of transport). 5. Waste disposal Waste containing chromium cannot as yet be recycled. Such waste cannot be disposed in incinerators, as chromium is oxidized at high temperatures to its most hazardous, hexavalent state. Waste with dissolved or soluble chromium compounds where chromium may be in the hexavalent state, such as chromates and dichromates, must be treated chemically (to reduce chromium to the trivalent state), precipitated and dried. Waste containing chromium compounds from different sources, such as electroplating baths, eluates and other sources should be collected separately. Treated compacted sludges can be disposed of in an authorized single-purpose dump, special waste dump or refuse dump. Small spills may be covered with a reducing agent such as sodium thiosulphate and sulphuric acid at pH 2-3. The slurry should be neutralized by transferring it to a large water container adding soda ash. Dispose with large amounts of running cold water. Large spillage may be absorbed to sand before removing by authorized treatment and disposal. Do not handle spills without proper personal protective equipment. Waste containing chromium often have also other hazardous components such acids, nickel, solvents of paints, silica, etc. which, without treatment, are equally unsuitable for landfill. 6. Chromium in the environment Uncontaminated waters contain chromium up to a few micrograms per litre. Although chromium compounds are present in sediments, water and air, wastes from industrial activities containing chromium are more concentrated and harmful to the environment. Chromium bound to sediments, in rivers, lakes and sea, is biologically inactive. However, organisms living in sediments with elevated contents of chromium have higher concentrations of chromium than those living in the unpolluted sediment areas. In non-contaminated soil chromium is normally present as insoluble trivalent compounds. Some 30 different types of ores or minerals containing chromium are found in nature. Studies of the landfills have shown that under certain conditions chromium may leak to the groundwater as water-soluble hexavalent chromium compounds. This is the case if the waste also contains manganese(IV) compounds, which are capable of converting a part of the insoluble chromium(III) compounds to soluble chromium(VI) compounds. Urban air contains an average of 30 nanograms chromium in a cubic meter of air.

.

THE ARAL SEA IN RUSSIA IS DYING: THE WORLD BANK SAYS, "LET IT DIE". EXTREME WATER POLLUTION SEE:  http://www.antenna.nl/wecf/prowater.html THE HEALTH PROBLEM - maternal mortality rates are 3 to 4 times higher than the national average - 99% of women and 90% of children suffer from anaemia - 90% of women have complications during pregnancy and deliveries - 16% of pregnant women have miscarriages - 30% of pregnant women have kidney diseases - there is a high level of certain elements (Mn, Cr, Cd) in pregnant women's blood serum - there is a low levels of essential elements (Fe, Zn) in pregnant women's blood serum. - breast milk contains Lindane - frequency of birth defects is 5 times higher than in most of Europe A 1995 UNDP report (UNDP 1995) stated that the average infant mortality rate was 4.48%, the highest in Uzbekistan, which has an average infant mortality rate of 3%. In 1996, a JICA report found infant mortality rates to be 10% in some areas. This report also found that 6.49% of children below the age of 14 years suffer from skin diseases and that children are prone to water borne diseases such as diarrhoea and acute respiratory illness. HEALTH EFFECTS ON THE GENERAL POPULATION OF KARAKALPAKSTAN - Viral hepatitis has increased in Karakalpakstan from 62.4 per 1000 to 94.8 per 1000 in the past 19 years, - Incidence of tuberculosis is 1.5 times higher than before, - Liver cancer incidence has increased 5 times in the last 10 years; and - Skin disease is twice the national level affecting 9.83% of the population The effects of environmental pollution on people are being played down by government and international agencies. According to these agencies, the causes of health problems are lack of hygiene and poor diet, rather than environmental pollution. The population of the Aral Sea region and particularly women and children, generally suffers from poor health. Part of this is due to a breakdown in the health care infrastructure since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There are repeated outbreaks of infectious diseases and average life-spans are declining dramatically. This phenomenon is seen in most of the newly independent states; however, Karakalpakstan and other regions bordering the Aral Sea have been particularly hard hit. Poor drinking water quality is assumed to have contributed to documented increases of certain morbidities such as hepatitis, kidney failure, birth defects and spontaneous abortions (Ataniyazova 1994, Abdirov 1993). Anaemia is often disregarded since almost 50% of the world's population suffers from it, but policy makers must examine the severity of the problem, not just the occurrence. One out of seven women in Karakalpakstan suffers from severe haemorrhage (bleeding) during pregnancy which is the main cause of maternal death (they bleed to death, so to say). A World Bank report (Binnies 1996) relates haemorrhaging directly to severe anaemia. Severe anaemia is also found in 60% of newborn babies. The same 1996 World Bank report relates severe anaemia in newborns to increased fetal morbidity and mortality, impaired language and motor development and impaired coordination. Frequent pregnancy and poor diet were considered to be the causes anaemia among Central Asian women. Thus, programs designed to address anaemia have been directed at regulating the number of births, proper diet and iron supplementation. However, Dr. Oral Ataniyazova's research has shown that the high frequency of anaemia among women in Karakalpakstan is independent of pregnancy and age. The study reveals a high frequency of anaemia in women who were not pregnant (92%), teenage girls (87%) and among newborn babies (85%). This research has shown that environmental factors such as high mineralization and the occurrence of pollutants in drinking water are more important factors in the development of anaemia amongst women in the Aral Sea region. FORTY YEARS OF NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION IN CHELYABINSK, RUSSIA

DIETARY CHROMIUM - AN OVERVIEW

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC  WORKERS UNION and PUBLIC CITIZEN'S  HEALTH RESEARCH GROUP, Petitioners,
v.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, GREGORY WATCHMAN,