Skip to comments.EPA Administrator Claims Regulating Drinking Water Supply Prevents Kids from Getting Autism
Posted on 02/03/2011 9:43:42 AM PST by jazusamo
(CNSNews.com) Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson told a Senate panel that preventing children from being exposed to contaminated water could spare them from autism.
Jackson made the remark on Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in response to questioning by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who asked if a recent executive order by President Barack Obama about regulations and the regulatory process means that the EPA can put any rules in place if the benefits outweigh the costs.
I think the presidents far-reaching executive order makes clear that there are some things that are hard to price, Jackson said at the hearing on U.S. drinking water and new regulations the EPA may put in place on contaminants.
VIDEO 4:53 minutes
Our science may be good, but I dont know how you price the ability to try to forestall a child who may not get autism if theyre not exposed to contaminated water, Jackson said.
And I think language in that order is about those things where we can be protective for a reasonable amount of money, Jackson said, to make sure our children and future generations are not guinea pigs.
According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, autism is a disease that causes abnormal biology and chemistry in the brain and that the exact causes of these abnormalities remain unknown.
Obamas Jan. 18 executive order said, in part, that each federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the committee, said at the hearing that aside from its mission to protect human health and the environment, the EPA also is charged with making the final decision on whether to develop safeguards for new threats to drinking water quality such as chromium 6 and perchlorate, two toxins that at high levels can could cause health problems.
But some Republicans on the committee were skeptical of the need for more regulations, including newcomer to the committee Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), who asked the second witness on the first panel, Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, about whether the animals studies done on chromium 6 reflect what is happening in the U.S. water supply.
The levels to which the animals were exposed in drinking water have been seen in human populations, not in this country, for example, but in China where levels of the same concentration have been used, Birnbaum said.
Have you found any drinking water, anywhere in the United States, that has hit those levels? Johanns asked
I have not seen that in drinking water, but Im not an expert in all the drinking waters that have been measured, and as Administration Jackson has been saying, they have been doing a major study now to try and understand the extent of contamination of drinking water by chromium 6, Birnbaum said.
Barrasso, who is an orthopedic surgeon, said reigning in EPAs regulatory power is important to the physical and fiscal health of the country.
There have been an onslaught of job-crushing regulations emerging from the Environmental Protection Agency over the last two years, Barrasso said in his opening remarks at the hearing. Unemployment in this country is 9.4 percent. Regulations coming out of the EPA are devastating to the American economy.
Jackson said at the hearing that Americans have a right to know and to be assured that their drinking water is safe.
Clean and safe water is the foundation of healthy communities, healthy families, and healthy economies, Jackson said.
Another piece on drinking water.
If this were true, then there would be higher than normal rates of autism within suspect water system districts. Did anyone even suggest this or offer data showing incidents of autism spiked in certain areas? Didn’t think so.
We have no clue as to what causes autism. First it was vaccines - now that has been proven to be a bogus hoax. Now it’s “something in the water”, but no one can show what that “something” is. Now that’s what I call science - NOT!
Lisa Jackson needs to be sent packing without pay.
Everyone wants good drinking water and as a bonus lies.
I saw a little blurb about this on the local news show last night and I could not believe how many times this dimwit EPA person said “may” and “could” and “might”. Sheesh. She had no clue about anything and sounded like she was making it up as she went along.
Abolish the EPA and let states and local municipalities monitor their own drinking water.
It sure doesn’t look like it and the level of chemicals given to animals could only be found is some water in China.
The sooner the better.
I looks like they’re applying Pelosi logic to this: “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”
What's wrong with that?
[...] they don't know that science will back up their proposals.
Of course. Chromium-VI, for example, is less toxic to some animals than Chromium-III, yet for us it's by far the opposite. They don't know--more study is needed and it might very likely not go their way.
Frankly, though, the real problem that needs to be addressed is multi-contaminant risks, with effects from levels that are individually below regulatory limits. My guess is that trace contamination in the general environment is a far greater hazard than Cr(VI) or ClO4- in the drinking water, but that's not a professional opinion.
Yes, the following is anecdotal...but interesting....
A friend of ours has grandchildren - twins - one boy, one girl.
The girl is fine, the boy has autism - the kind which means he will unlikely be able to ever have a job....
In days of old Monks made beer because the water was bad many people drank beer and didn’t get sick,I like how monks think.
lack of access to affordable tin foil hats...again, the fault of republicans.
Agreed. If we have a real problem it has to be addressed and the science has to be done.
They want to cram this down all the states throats without the science is what it looks like to me.
It isn't every day you see that many qualifiers and subjunctives in a single sentence.
It's liquid bread. And, if you believe Ben Franklin, it's also proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Unlike over reaching, overzealous Democrats.
Of course, epidemiology and risk assessment can be difficult. You can't just say "a certain area" because there can be multiple factors involved, and teasing them all out is an immense effort. It's easy to come up with hypothetical examples, such as...
...let's say a chemical causes problems in children who also are deficient in Vitamin D. The problem might show up in one town, but another town down south might show no spike. Perhaps they then think it's just the vitamin D...until they find that there's no spike in another northern town. Or there is, because of air pollution. Or...
What a concept! Asking good questions during a hearing.