I always like reading these things where they like getting residents all up in arms only to find it wasn't quite what they said. The first sentence of the article said the state knew for years that their water was contaminated. But if you read the entire article, you'll see that isn't true. Only one well had tested positive for TCE. They never got around to testing the other wells until recently. That was pure stupidity on their part, but the claim that the state had known these wells were contaminated for years is an out and out lie. But, coming from our mainstream media, why would I expect anything less?
.
And let's not forget there are environmentalists involved here. How do their facts stand up? Let's see. Gerald LeBlanc, the head of N.C. State University’s Department of Environmental and molecular toxicology, said TCE “has been known to cause cancer” specifically leukemia, breast cancer, lung cancer, and there are symptoms associated with TCE exposure that are like Parkinson’s disease. You can see where residents like Frances Cuda would be upset hearing such things. She has Parkinson's disease and one of her neighbors died of breast cancer. But there's a small problem here. According to the EPA, based on numerous studies, Link Removed. While they say it may cause other cancers, they don't list it as a carcinogen for them. Their listing of TCE as a carcinogen for kidney cancer also assumes early life exposures (under age 16) and lifetime dosages, none of which apply in this scenario. There is still risk, but it is extremely low, and none of it fits into the type of cancer that article is reporting.
.
Sorry guys, but every time I hear something 'environmental' in the news I start looking for the lies and exaggerations. 9 times out of 10 they're easy to find. I'm sure you're all familiar with the controversy over the made up science involving global warming and how so many have attempted to force political agenda on us in the guise of science. This article over TCE reminds me very much of the Alar scare back in the 80s. Alar was used to regulate growth in fruit and improve their color. An environmental group in New York released what they claimed were scientific studies indicating that Alar caused cancer and 60 Minutes aired the story, which produced a public outcry. Meryl Streep even testified in Congress about what we were doing to our children, because of course actresses are the world's best experts on cancer causing chemicals. The EPA was going to ban Alar when the manufacturer removed it from the market. Apple growers said it cost them over $100 million in lost crops. The kicker was, although there was a link to Alar and increased risk of cancerous tumors in lab animals, the 'studies' that caused the scare equated to a person drinking the equivalent of 5,000 gallons of apple juice per day in order get that increased risk of cancerous tumors. In other words, there was no real danger, a good chemical was taken off the market, and apple growers lost $100 million for no reason whatsoever.
.
You may have heard of Erin Brockovich, or you may have seen the movie starring Julia Roberts by the same name. Erin Brockovich was the legal assistant who supposedly singlehandedly brought down Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) after they contaminated the groundwater around Hinkley, CA with hexavalent chromium and caused a cancer cluster, a higher than normal incidence of cancers in a geographic area. Brockovich basically found all the facts and got PG&E to settle with the residents for $333 million. Actually it was only $200 million because her law firm got $133 million of it. What the movie didn't tell you, and what you probably never heard later, is that the claim was later greatly reduced. You probably also never heard that the California Cancer Registry released a study showing that cancer rates in Hinkley "remained unremarkable from 1988 to 2008.", meaning there never was a cancer cluster. An epidemiologist involved in the study said that "the 196 cases of cancer reported during the most recent survey of 1996 through 2008 were less than what he would expect based on demographics and the regional rate of cancer." In other words, the incidence of cancer in Hinkley was actually LOWER than normal.
.
You can see why I distrust such stories as these.
