The new Earthjustice/EIP/Sierra Club report (PDF, 6MB) shows that at every one of the coal ash dump sites equipped with

Coal ash contamination

groundwater monitoring wells concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic or lead exceed federal health-based standards for drinking water, with concentrations at Hatfield’s Ferry site in Pennsylvania reaching as high as 341 times the federal standard for arsenic.

A February 2010 EIP/Earthjustice report documented 31 coal ash dump sites in 14 states. The 39 additional sites in today’s report along with the 67 already identified by the EPA bring the total number of known toxic contamination sites from coal ash pollution to 137 sites in 34 states.

Together, the independent reports and the EPA’s own findings make clear the growing number of waters known to be poisoned by poor management of the toxic ash left over after coal is burned for electricity.

“There is no greater reason for coal ash regulation than preventing the poisoning of our water. We now have 39 more good reasons for a national coal ash rule,” said Lisa Evans, Senior Legislative Counsel at Earthjustice. “The mounting number of contaminated sites demonstrates that the states are unable or unwilling to solve this problem.”

“The contamination of water supplies, threats to people, and damage to the environment documented in this report illustrate very real and dangerous harms that are prohibited by federal law but are going on in a largely unchecked fashion at today’s coal ash dump sites,” said Jeff Stant, director, Coal Combustion Waste Initiative, Environmental Integrity Project.

“The health risks from exposure to this toxic waste are real and we cannot afford to ignore them any longer,” said Lyndsay Moseley, Federal Policy Representative with Sierra Club. “It is clear from this report that the closer we look the worse this problem becomes. The only real solution is for the EPA to adopt federally enforceable protections as part of its push to improve public health.”

Report Highlights:

Coal ash pollution poses serious health risks. People living near unlined coal ash ponds can have an extremely high 1 in 50 risk of cancer. That’s more than 2,000 times higher than what the EPA considers acceptable by coal ash (including scrubber sludge) now is at least 137 in 34 states.

Coal ash is putting drinking water from private wells at risk. Contaminated groundwater underneath at least 15 of the 39 sites is moving toward private water wells within two miles of site boundaries, according to monitoring data and public information on private well locations.

Coal ash threatens public water wells and intakes. At least 18 of the 39 contaminated sites are located within five miles of a public groundwater well that could potentially be affected by pollutants from these sites. At nine of those sites, there are at least five public water wells within a five-mile radius.

Coal ash toxins are threatening surface waters. In several cases coal ash dump sites are leaking their toxic cargo into rivers just upstream from the intakes for public water systems. Often, metals like arsenic are discharged to rivers through adjacent groundwater.

Most damaged sites are still active and virtually all show recent evidence of contamination. The damaged sites identified cannot be dismissed as a legacy of past practices that are no longer allowed today. Almost all of the facilities described in the report are active disposal sites.

Nearly 40 years after coal ash disposal stopped at the Montville site (CT), average concentrations of arsenic in groundwater collected in 2007-2009 still exceed the MCL by 21 times and are higher than measurements taken ten years ago.

Very good reasons for stricter regulations!

Meanwhile you need to take care of your health!

Some creams promising to lighten skin, eliminate age spots and zap freckles contain high levels of mercury, a toxic metal that can cause severe health problems, a Tribune investigation has found.

The newspaper sent 50 skin-lightening creams to a certified lab for testing, most of them bought in Chicago stores and a few ordered online. Six were found to contain amounts of mercury banned by federal law.

Of those, five had more than 6,000 parts per million — enough to potentially cause kidney damage over time, according to a medical expert.

The market for skin lighteners is booming in the U.S. and abroad. Some people of Asian, Hispanic and African heritage use the creams because lighter skin is often considered a status symbol in their cultures. Many consumers, including Caucasians, use the creams to diminish age spots or to even out skin tone, while others want to lighten their entire face or bodies.

Sales of lightening products in the U.S. are expected to increase nearly 18 percent by 2015, reaching $76 million annually, according to market researcher Global Industry Analysts.

Consumers can’t know for sure which creams are tainted. Stores across the city sell dozens of brands, many of them made overseas. The six creams that tested high in the Tribune tests were manufactured in Lebanon, China, India, Pakistan and Taiwan.

The creams were bought at a variety of stores: a large beauty-supply store in the Uptown neighborhood, an herbal medicine shop in Chinatown, an East Indian beauty salon on Devon Avenue, a grocery store also on Devon, and a small African shop on 79th Street.

Researchers say people are affected differently by mercury, depending on the amount and duration of exposure, among other variables. Daniel Hryhorczuk of the University of Illinois School of Public Health said the amounts of mercury found by the Tribune were troubling and could lead to kidney damage at the least.

“Those are very high levels,” he said.

Do you have a choice? Yes! Do your own research. Know what you are buying. Here is one:

Every conventional white cream is in fact an emulsion of water with fatty materials.  Such an emulsion necessarily contains stabilizers and preserving ingredients.Scientists have found new evidence to show you why you should think carefully about using products that contain stabilizers and preserving ingredients.The products we suggest contain exclusively edible ingredients, of vegetal origin.  They contain no preserving ingredients, artificial fragrances or solvents. 

Filtered water

Reporter
msnbc.com
It is hard to argue the fact that waste management has become a large problem in the world, with landfills growing to enormous sizes and recycling rates remaining dismally low. The number of plastic bottles produced by the bottled water industry and subsequently discarded by consumers has only exacerbated this problem.

According to a 2001 report of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), roughly 1.5 million tons of plastic are expended in the bottling of 89 billion liters of water each year.

Besides the sheer number of plastic bottles produced each year, the energy required to manufacture and transport these bottles to market severely drains limited fossil fuels. Bottled water companies, due to their unregulated use of valuable resources and their production of billions of plastic bottles have presented a significant strain on the environment.

The authors of the WWF report suggested that water bottles be washed and reused in order to lessen their negative impact on the environment.
Unfortunately, reusing plastic bottles further compromises the quality of the water, due to the fact that more and more phthalate leaches its way into the water as the bottle gets older. In another suggestion, the authors recommended that bottled water companies use local bottling facilities in order to lessen fuel expenditures for transportation needs.
Regrettably, local bottling further compromises water quality due to the reduced health standards for in-state bottled water production and consumption. It seems there is no feasible solution to this problem. The bottled water industry causes a severe strain on the environment, but solutions to this environmental damage significantly lessen the quality of water in the bottles.
Bottled water, due to several factors, is clearly not a healthier or purer alternative to tap water. Also, bottled water is outrageously expensive when compared to the cost per gallon of tap water. If one is choosing only between tap water and bottled water, tap water is plainly the more economical, and, in many cases, the healthier choice. Despite this assertion, tap water does not remain without its problems.
The concerns over the quality and safety of tap water that sparked the growth of the bottled water industry are still entirely present.
Tap water is nowhere near free from dangerous contaminants.
The most recent and innovative solution to the problems of low water quality has come about in the age of water filters.
Water filters currently provide the best and healthiest solution to the problems of both bottled water and tap water. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), America’s main law governing chemical safety, requires the government prove chemicals are harmful instead of requiring manufacturers to prove they’re safe. As a result, virtually every American is exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals every day.

We recently had the opportunity to speak with two EDF scientists in this field: Richard Denison, EDF’s Senior Scientist specializing in policy, hazard and risk assessment and management for industrial chemicals and nanomaterials; and Caroline Baier-Anderson, EDF’s Health Scientist providing technical and scientific support on chemical regulatory policy, air toxics and nanotechnology.

Read more: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=52312

The best products to detoxify your body: http://www.marketamerica.com/annanathankagan/index.cfm?action=shopping.wpGoShopProducts&skuID=13145

Stabilizers

Include Propylene Glycol.  Propylene Glycol is used in antifreeze, hydraulic fluids and as a solvent. The material safety data sheet on this ingredient warns to avoid skin contact. Propylene Glycol is implicated in contact dermatitis, kidney damage and liver abnormalities; it can inhibit skin cell growth in human tests and can damage cell membranes causing rashes, dry skin and surface damage. Is this in your moisturizer? You can find it in cosmetics, toothpaste, shampoos and conditioner, lotions, deodorants, baby wipes, processed foods and many more personal care items. Studies have shown that it is retained in your system.  Find more about it and other risks of cosmetic ingredients in: www.ewg.org.

Preserving Ingredients

These appear in almost all cosmetic creams, and include triclosan, and methyl paraben (other forms are: propyl, ethyl, and butyl). Following is an excerpt from an article in the September 2002 issue of Happi (Household and Personal Products Industry) — a chemical industry trade journal “Cosmetic Product Preservation” by Jabbar Mufti:

“Typical preservatives used in the cosmetic industry include methyl paraben, ethyl paraben and propyl paraben and their derivatives. They disable activity in the bacterial wall to prevent fungal contamination. This action continues when the product is on the skin and may be absorbed into the skin tissue, taken up by the blood stream and ultimately reside in the major organs. The preservative action is so stable, it continues to work while inside the body, limiting the normal enzyme activity of the body. How do we know this? Autopsies performed on cancerous tumours have shown residues of methyl-, ethyl- and propyl parabens.”

What Alternative Do We Suggest?

Paraben free cosmetics-Motives offered by Market America.  http://www.marketamerica.com/annanathankagan/index.cfm?action=shopping.wpSearch

You are welcome to do your own research.

Two recent reports raise disturbing questions about the safety of commonly used cosmetic preservatives. They also make very clear why smart consumers are seeking safe and natural preservative systems. The first report—a recent study from the journal Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology—raises disturbing questions about the safety of a group of commonly used cosmetic preservatives known as parabens. Consumers who check labels will see parabens listed on a wide range of cosmetic and personal care products.

Leave-on products such as facial makeup and skin lotions are of greatest concern because of the long exposure time and opportunity for migration via the skin into the bloodstream. The recently discovered estrogenic effects of certain synthetic chemicals, such as the parabens, and their subsequent effects on the endocrine system of humans and wildlife, is of growing concern—especially in relation to women’s risk of breast cancer. Reproductive abnormalities in young boys exposed to such chemicals either prior to puberty or as fetuses also may increase risk for undescended testicles, testicular cancer, sperm abnormalities and prostate disorders.Article in Organic News: http://organicanews.com/news/article.cfm?story_id=5