Portsmouth Herald (N.H.), May 29, 2016
In 1962, Rachel Carson published the book “Silent Spring,” which convincingly argued that chemicals used to kill insects, funguses and pests were also killing birds and harming the environment.
The book caused Americans to consider that using chemicals to solve one problem, such as plant and animal diseases, might create new, more harmful problems. Carson’s book was one of the driving forces behind the creation of the nation’s environmental movement and the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Unfortunately, understanding the ill effects of toxic chemicals has not stopped consumer demand for products containing those chemicals nor industry production and often improper control and disposal of them.
As toxic mistakes come home to roost, officials and regulators at the federal, state and local level realize people need greater protections and they have begun to take action.
On Tuesday, the normally partisan and deadlocked U.S. House of Representatives voted 403-12 in favor of a bill to regulate thousands of toxic chemicals. The bill updates the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, which has not been revised since 1976. The Senate is expected to approve and the president to sign the legislation.
The bill had wide support not only from environmental organizations but also the chemical industry itself, which has lost some of the public’s confidence in the face of lawsuits and health concerns raised about its products.
“Today marks a milestone – for this Congress and for the American people as we make great strides to update our nation’s chemical safety laws,” said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “This bill is good for jobs. It’s good for consumers and it’s good for the environment.”
Also at the federal level, the EPA recently reduced the acceptable levels of certain perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in drinking water from 400 parts per trillion to 70 parts per trillion. This means that as more wells are tested more will need to be closed until filtration systems can be put in place to remove the chemicals increasingly linked to a number of serious diseases.
At the state level, faced with mounting evidence of PFC contamination in public drinking water at several sites around the state, Gov. Maggie Hassan also took action. This week she authorized the state Department of Health and Human Services to extend blood testing to every person exposed to PFCs from Pease International Tradeport’s Haven well, which was closed in 2014 after tests revealed levels of certain PFCs far in excess of EPA safety standards. This is good news. While roughly 10,000 people work or participate in other activities on the tradeport, including children attending day care, only about 1,500 have received blood tests. Those who had not been tested had been told they would now have to pay for it themselves, at a cost of about $1,000.
Anyone who has not been tested and who wishes to be should email [email protected].
The two remaining wells at Pease, Smith and Harrison, are both continuing to test well below the EPA health advisory. Once a new charcoal filtration system is put in place this summer, the city expects that no PFCs will be present in drinking water from those wells.
While we are pleased to see governmental efforts to remediate damage already done, it is well past time for our nation to re-engage in a conversation about toxic substances and public health. After all, as we learn about the ill-health effects of chemicals that have been on the market for decades, industries are using new, untested chemicals in products each and every day. We need to stop treating ourselves like medical science guinea pigs. It would be far better to improve the rigor of testing and regulation of chemicals before they are brought to market then to learn about the damage they have done after the fact.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less