Comment box Scope: information, summary, my own remarks Tone: neutral Opinion: yes, stated Sarcasm/humor: none Hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) is a carcinogenic heavy metal that causes lung...
Comment box
Scope: information, summary, my own remarks
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes, stated
Sarcasm/humor: none
Hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) is a carcinogenic heavy metal that causes lung cancer and other serious ailments. It only exists in very small quantities naturally. Extra exposure is unhealthy.
Long-term exposure to chromium-6, which is odorless and tasteless, in drinking water has been linked to gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive harm and damage to the liver and kidneys.
Currently, this chemical is found in drinking water in many places, including California. This is because chromium-6 is a byproduct of many industrial and chemical activities. Most governments have not enacted adequate regulations to stop companies from further polluting the water supply with this chemical.
California's recent regulation requires water suppliers to filter chromium-6 levels down to 10 parts per billion. The regulation will improve public health when it goes into effect in October. The additional filtration will probably slightly raise slightly for water suppliers, costs which will be passed onto constituents (apparently on the order of $20-40/mo), but the economic savings from healthier lifestyles are significantly greater. Reduced medical costs = better societal spending efficiency = good.
If you are interested in maintaining safe drinking water, I suggest voting for elected officials who care about public health more than short-term industrial margins. Governors and other elected officials are the ones who appoint people to influential health and environmental agencies. If you vote for elected officials who generally support scientific data, you will generally end up with agency leads who are scientists and do not have a financial incentive to pollute the environment. That ultimately leads to safer and greener regulations.
Long-term, electing public officials who want to prevent contaminants from leaking into the environment in the first place will prevent future issues of having to spend lots of money on expensive filtration systems just to make our water drinkable again. It is better to not pollute than to pollute and then have to clean it up.
Seems like the price difference should be made up with taxes on chromium-6 producers. The costs will inevitably get passed on to consumers, but that kind of payment structure would encourage less...
Seems like the price difference should be made up with taxes on chromium-6 producers. The costs will inevitably get passed on to consumers, but that kind of payment structure would encourage less production of the chemical in the first place.
The statement this article makes about the previous legislation being overturned because the government didn't make a good enough study about how expensive mitigation means would be terrifies me....
The statement this article makes about the previous legislation being overturned because the government didn't make a good enough study about how expensive mitigation means would be terrifies me. I wish that the article they linked to on that passage actually talked about it because I can't see why anyone should be able to block public health laws because it's too expensive to stop poisoning everyone!
Comment box
Hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) is a carcinogenic heavy metal that causes lung cancer and other serious ailments. It only exists in very small quantities naturally. Extra exposure is unhealthy.
Currently, this chemical is found in drinking water in many places, including California. This is because chromium-6 is a byproduct of many industrial and chemical activities. Most governments have not enacted adequate regulations to stop companies from further polluting the water supply with this chemical.
California's recent regulation requires water suppliers to filter chromium-6 levels down to 10 parts per billion. The regulation will improve public health when it goes into effect in October. The additional filtration will probably slightly raise slightly for water suppliers, costs which will be passed onto constituents (apparently on the order of $20-40/mo), but the economic savings from healthier lifestyles are significantly greater. Reduced medical costs = better societal spending efficiency = good.
Interactive map of chromium-6 contamination levels in the US. This chemical is found in the highest density in California than pretty much anywhere else in the US, especially in the Central Valley, but it exists elsewhere too.
If you are interested in maintaining safe drinking water, I suggest voting for elected officials who care about public health more than short-term industrial margins. Governors and other elected officials are the ones who appoint people to influential health and environmental agencies. If you vote for elected officials who generally support scientific data, you will generally end up with agency leads who are scientists and do not have a financial incentive to pollute the environment. That ultimately leads to safer and greener regulations.
Long-term, electing public officials who want to prevent contaminants from leaking into the environment in the first place will prevent future issues of having to spend lots of money on expensive filtration systems just to make our water drinkable again. It is better to not pollute than to pollute and then have to clean it up.
Seems like the price difference should be made up with taxes on chromium-6 producers. The costs will inevitably get passed on to consumers, but that kind of payment structure would encourage less production of the chemical in the first place.
The statement this article makes about the previous legislation being overturned because the government didn't make a good enough study about how expensive mitigation means would be terrifies me. I wish that the article they linked to on that passage actually talked about it because I can't see why anyone should be able to block public health laws because it's too expensive to stop poisoning everyone!
The Kurt Vonnegut quote comes to mind.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/hN5Bx