Brain-Eating Amoeba Found in Texas City's Water Spurs Disaster Declaration
28 September
Health + Wellness
Brain-eating amoeba, naegleria fowleri, was detected in the water storage tank for the Lake Jackson Civic Center Splash Pad, according to Lake Jackson city officials. Lake Jackson Civic Center
Environmental officials have warned residents of Lake Jackson, Texas to boil their water before using it for cooking or drinking after a six-year-old boy died from a brain-eating amoeba in the water. Tests for naegleria fowleri showed its presence in three of 11 samples in the Lake Jackson area, including one from a hose at the boy's home, according to the AP.
<p>Lake Jackson is a suburb of Houston, just over 50 miles south of the city.</p><p>Texas Governor Greg Abbot referred to the water sample tests when he issued a <a href="https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/DISASTER_Brazoria_County_water_disaster_IMAGE_09-27-2020.pdf" target="_blank">disaster declaration</a> Sunday. He said, "the presence of naegleria fowleri, which can cause a rare and devastating infection of the brain called primary amebic meningoencephalitis, was identified in three of 11 tests of the water supply, posing an imminent threat to public health and safety, including loss of life," as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-governor-issues-disaster-declaration-over-brain-eating-amoeba-found-in-lake-jackson-water-supply/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported.</p>
<p>Health officials let Lake Jackson know that a boy had become infected with the brain-eating amoeba in early September. Exposure to the microbe usually happens through the nose and the boy's family believes he was exposed through the family's hose or from the nearby Lake Jackson Civic Center Splash Pad where water sprays up from the ground, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/us/water-supply-brain-eating-amoeba.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>The splash pad was tested and the brain-eating amoeba was detected in both the splash pad's storage tank and a nearby fire hydrant, said Lake Jackson city officials, as NBC News reported.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/naegleria/general.html" target="_blank">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a> (CDC), the dangerous species is found in freshwater lakes, warm rivers, hot springs and soil. It can also thrive in poorly maintained pools or unchlorinated ones, as well as warm water waste from factories, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/26/us/brain-eating-amoeba-found-in-texas-water-supply-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>"You cannot get infected from swallowing water contaminated with Naegleria," said the CDC in guidance on parasites posted on its website, as <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/houston-area-water-may-be-tainted-brain-eating-microbe-n1241185" target="_blank">NBC News</a> reported.</p><p>Initially, eight communities were warned not to use tap water for anything except flushing the toilet. However, further testing localized the problem and the warning was lifted on Saturday for all cities in Brazoria County except for Lake Jackson, according to CBS News.</p><p>Then late in the day, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality relaxed its decree for Lake Jackson, changing it from an order not to use the water to a notice to boil the water before consumption. It also warned residents not to let water up their nose during various activities such as bathing, swimming and washing their face, according to the AP.</p>
<p>Lake Jackson, a city of 27,000, will see its water flushed and then tested before the "do not drink" order is lifted, according to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54313110" target="_blank">BBC</a>.</p><p>"During this period of disinfection and flushing, boiling the tap water makes it safe for drinking and cooking," said the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in a statement, as the AP reported. "Naegleria fowleri is a type of amoeba that can be managed using standard treatment and disinfection processes."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Flesh-Eating Bacteria Infects Three as Experts Warn Warming ... ›
- Deadly Brain-Eating Amoeba Confirmed in Florida - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Trump looks on as EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks during an event to unveil changes to the National Environmental Policy Act on Jan. 9, 2020 in Washington, DC. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
The Trump administration announced that it would roll back a rule from 2015 that was put in place to limit the amount of toxic chemicals that are in the wastewater of coal plants, according to The Washington Post.
<p>The rule insisted that coal plants invest in newer technologies to treat their wastewater so toxic heavy metals like <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead">lead</a>, selenium and arsenic are not leached into nearby <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers">rivers</a> and streams where they can damage fragile ecosystems and also seep into <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a>, as The Washington Post reported.</p><p>The new <a href="https://www.epa.gov/eg/2020-steam-electric-reconsideration-rule" target="_blank">regulations</a> put forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), which is run by Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the coal industry, allows coal plants to dial back their investment in new technologies; the regulations delay the date that plants needed to be in compliance, and they exempt some coal-fired plants from taking any corrective or pollution-limiting action, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/climate/trump-coal-plants.html" target="_blank">The New York Times.</a></p>
<p>The compliance date is pushed back to 2025 for some plants. The ones exempted from the rule are done so with the expectation that they will be retired by 2028.</p><p>The "effluent limitations" regulations that the EPA rolled out Monday will save the coal industry $140 million, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-coal/u-s-epa-rolls-back-limits-on-waste-water-from-coal-plants-idUSKBN25R2QK" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>"Newer, more affordable pollution control technologies and flexibility on the regulation's phase-in will reduce pollution and save jobs at the same time," said Wheeler, as Reuters reports.</p><p>The Obama administration had said that the 2015 rule would limit 1.4 billion pounds of toxic pollutants from entering U.S. waterways each year. Coal plants use scrubbers to capture mercury, sulfur dioxide and heavy metals that would be emitted through smoke stacks. That rule has been in place since the 1980s, but what to do with those trapped pollutants is a thorny issue. Coal plants had been allowed to dump them into nearby waterways until the 2015 rule took effect, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>And yet, without evidence, the current EPA said it expects the same or even greater pollution reductions because coal plants will supposedly adopt the newer technologies voluntarily. The EPA's math is based on the assumption that 30 percent of coal plants will implement technologies that are beyond the regulations required by the EPA, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/31/trump-toxic-water-pollution-wastewater" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>"It's clear from this rule that a relatively inexpensive treatment technology is available – the one that they made voluntary – that would eliminate the toxic contamination of drinking water supplies and is very affordable. And yet they did not require it," said Betsy Southerland, an Obama EPA water official, to The Guardian. "People should be very concerned."</p>
<p>Environmental activists quickly criticized the rule as a gift to the coal industry and a shortsighted measure that ignored the health of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> and people that live near coal plants, according to The Washington Post.</p><p>Thomas Cmar, an attorney with Earthjustice, told The New York Times that the EPA's actions will allow older, dirtier coal plants to stay alive longer since they do not have to invest in upgrades.</p><p>"There are dozens of water bodies around the country where the local water is significantly impacted by this type of direct dumping of toxic metals from power plants," said Cmar to The Times.</p><p>Cmar said Earthjustice will attempt to stop the rollback in court.</p><p>"Giving coal companies a free pass to dump more toxic heavy metals like mercury and arsenic into our waters is a travesty," Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an email, to The Washington Post. "This shameless handout will allow greater amounts of these dangerous pollutants to be spewed directly into our waterways, threatening public health and pushing hundreds of aquatic endangered species, including salmon, sturgeon and hellbender salamanders, closer to extinction."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Toxic Wake: 10 Ways the EPA Has Made Life More ... ›
- EPA Moves to Overhaul Obama-Era Coal Ash Disposal Rule ... ›
- EPA Delays Toxic Waste Rule for Coal-Fired Power Plants - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation, Fewer Environmental Protections - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Nine schools in Ohio and Pennsylvania have found legionella bacteria in their drinking water. FREDERIC J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images
In addition to taking precautions against the novel coronavirus, schools across the country find themselves needing to worry about a new scourge: legionella bacteria in their drinking water, according to The New York Times.
<p>Recently, nine schools in Ohio and Pennsylvania found the harmful bacteria in their water. In Fox Chapel, PA, a suburb of Pittsburgh, four out of the town's six schools tested positive for the bacteria. Because the schools were unused for so long, nearly six months, the water just sat in the pipes and did not have a chance to move. That created a condition for the bacteria to thrive, according to <a href="https://www.wpxi.com/news/back-to-school/legionella-found-water-4-6-fox-chapel-schools-days-before-opening/AEKK5BL2ZRBVTJFRLLGGDM6Y4U/" target="_blank">WPXI News</a> in Pittsburgh.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/about/causes-transmission.html" target="_blank">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a>, people get sick when they inhale mist that has the bacteria or they ingest water with the bacteria in it. It can cause severe pneumonia or lung infection, which is worrying when the nation is already grappling with COVID-19, an infectious disease that leads to severe pneumonia.</p>
<p>Similarly, schools outside of Dayton, Ohio found the bacteria in their water last week. In all of those cases, the outbreak was noticed in locations that were far from classrooms or drinking fountains, such as one faucet in a seldom used bathroom, according to <a href="https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/breaking-news-legionella-found-in-oakwood-school/4WXX7O7WZBFRNIQCZJASGPLLQY/" target="_blank">Dayton Daily News</a>.</p><p>"We would have capability to wash hands, we would provide drinking water, we have toilets that are working, and we have the ability to serve lunch," said superintendent Rob O'Leary, defending the district's decision to proceed with in-person instruction and to keep the schools open, as <a href="https://dayton247now.com/news/local/disease-expert-says-legionella-tests-in-schools-should-be-warning-for-all-industries" target="_blank">Dayton 24/7</a> reported.</p><p>O'Leary added that the school district ran disinfectant through all the school's water lines and cleaned the aerators on all of its faucets.</p>
<p>The Milton-Union school district, also in Ohio, received a federal grant to test its water over the summer. It found the bacteria in a drinking fountain and in two faucets on only the cold-water side, according to <a href="https://www.whio.com/news/local/legionella-bacteria-found-milton-union-schools-water-samples/JKGNIEL7GBERJP5OV6UZDBLSG4/" target="_blank">WHIO News</a> in Ohio.</p><p>"Ice machines we tested it all," said Tim Swartztrauber, West Milton Water Supervisor and Chief Inspector to WHIO. "Luckily we did because we did find legionella. We tested every drinking fountain and we got it in a drinking fountain. Without that this probably would have been missed."</p><p>Swartztrauber added that they ran chlorine through the system to disinfect it and then flushed out the chlorine to make the water safe again.</p>
<p>Andrew Whelton, an associate professor of civil, environmental and ecological engineering at Purdue University in Indiana, was involved in the study at the Milton-Union schools and said it would not have been possible without the federal grant. That leaves a question of how many schools across the country are not testing their water because they don't have the funds to do it, according to The New York Times.</p><p>"If somebody contracts legionella and legionnaires disease the exposure can be fatal," Whelton said to WHIO. "So it is serious."</p><p>It's highly unusual for schools to go for such an extended time without use. Even during the summer months, there's often summer school, sports practice, and custodial work being done.</p>
<p>"Schools generally do not have a water management plan," Whelton said to the New York Times. "There's a myth that most do. They don't in my experience."</p><p>Whelton told The New York Times that the bacteria would likely show up with greater prevalence if schools actually conducted tests.</p><p>"If parents haven't heard from their schools about whether or not testing is being conducted, then they should start asking questions," he said.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 'This Will Be the Biggest Loss of Clean Water Protection the Country ... ›
- Flint: 5 Years Later, and Our Water Is More Threatened Than Ever ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
Waste is found dumped at a marsh near the mouth of Neshaminy Creek to the Delaware river in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on Feb. 6, 2019. Bastiaan Slabbers / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Melanie Benesh, Legislative Attorney
From the beginning, the Trump administration has aggressively slashed environmental regulations. A New York Times analysis identified 100 environmental protections that have been reversed or are in the process of getting rolled back. The administration's record on chemical safety has been especially hazardous for the health of Americans, especially children.
<p><a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2018/01/trump-s-toxic-wake-8-ways-president-made-chemicals-less-safe-2017" target="_blank">One year into President Trump's term,</a> EWG detailed how the Trump administration has stacked the Environmental Protection Agency with industry lawyers and lobbyists, undermined worker safety and cooked the books on chemical safety assessments. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/13-ways-pruitt-s-epa-has-made-your-life-more-toxic" target="_blank">Midway through his second year,</a> we reported how the EPA reversed a ban on a brain-damaging pesticide, delayed chemical bans and killed a rule to protect kids from toxic PCBs in schools. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/08/10-ways-trump-has-undermined-chemical-safety" target="_blank">Last year,</a> we reported that the EPA had rescinded safety rules at chemical plants, rubber-stamped untested new chemicals and silenced researchers.</p><p>As Trump's first term nears its end, things are even worse. Here are 10 more ways the Trump administration has continued to make life more toxic for Americans.</p>
1. Failed to Aggressively Regulate Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’
<p>The toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS contaminate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/" target="_blank">more than 2,200 sites</a> across the nation. Because they never break down in the environment, PFAS are often called "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-toxic-chemicals-are-everywhere-and-they-wont-ever-go-away/2018/01/02/82e7e48a-e4ee-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html" target="_blank">forever chemicals</a>." They build up in our bodies and are linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harms and reduced effectiveness of vaccines. Even though the EPA has known about the risks from PFAS chemicals <a href="https://www.ewg.org/epa-pfas-timeline/" target="_blank">since at least 1998</a>, they remain virtually unregulated.</p><p>In February 2019, the EPA released a toothless PFAS "action plan" that lacked deadlines for action and failed to address the use of PFAS in everyday products, contamination from PFAS air emissions or disposal of PFAS waste, among other concerns. A year and a half later, key goals from the plan, including regulating PFAS under the Superfund law and setting drinking water standards, remain unfulfilled.</p><p>When Congress stepped in and sought to designate PFOA and PFOS – the two most notorious and well-studied PFAS – as "hazardous substances" and to set deadlines for agency action, Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SAP_HR-535.pdf" target="_blank">threatened a veto</a>. Trump's EPA also <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/27/2020-13738/long-chain-perfluoroalkyl-carboxylate-and-perfluoroalkyl-sulfonate-chemical-substances-significant" target="_blank">weakened a rule</a> designed to regulate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2020/06/final-decision-epa-fails-protect-public-toxic-forever-chemicals-consumer" target="_blank">PFAS in consumer products</a>.</p>2. Allowed a Rocket Fuel Chemical to Stay in Drinking Water
<p>Perchlorate is a component of rocket fuel that also frequently contaminates drinking water sources. Perchlorate can interfere with thyroid function, which can also harm <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/11/kids-still-risk-rocket-fuel-chemical-food-and-water" target="_blank">childhood brain development</a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-11/html/2011-2603.htm" target="_blank">Almost a decade ago,</a> the EPA determined that these harms warranted regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency then dragged its feet for years. In 2016, the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2016/160218" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council sued</a> to force the EPA to finally set a legal limit for perchlorate in drinking water. In a <a href="https://www.freshlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/12/Doc-38-Consent-Decree.pdf" target="_blank">court-approved consent decree</a>, the EPA agreed to propose a standard by October 2018 and finalize it by 2019. However, the EPA sought extensions and failed to meet these deadlines.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/26/2019-12773/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-perchlorate" target="_blank">EPA finally proposed a drinking water standard</a> in June 2019 but also suggested that it might not regulate perchlorate after all. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/21/2020-13462/drinking-water-final-action-on-perchlorate" target="_blank">A year later, </a>the EPA withdrew its decision to regulate perchlorate in drinking water.</p>3. Allowed Scores of New Chemicals, Including New Toxic PFAS, Onto the Market Without Adequate Oversight
<p>In 2016, Congress substantially changed the way new chemicals are approved under the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/new-tsca-bill-falls-short-protecting-americans-toxic-chemicals#.WwLUddMvwWo" target="_blank">Toxic Substances Control Act</a>, or TSCA.</p><p>Under the old law, chemicals were frequently approved by default, often <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/off-the-books-ii-more-secret-chemicals/new-chemicals" target="_blank">without any health and safety information</a>. As a result, unsafe chemicals were allowed to be used for years or decades before the health and environmental hazards came to light. Inadequate oversight of new chemicals can also lead to <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/harmful-chemicals-removed-from-products-often-replaced-with-something-as-bad-or-worse/" target="_blank">regrettable substitution</a> – when chemicals are finally found to be unsafe, they are often replaced by unstudied chemicals that may be just as or even more toxic.</p><p>The 2016 update was supposed to fix the new chemicals program by requiring the EPA to make an affirmative safety finding on new chemicals and restrict use if industry failed to provide sufficient safety data. Nonetheless, the Trump EPA has approved scores of new chemicals in a process that <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/12/09/when-will-epa-fully-explain-and-legally-justify-its-reviews-of-new-chemicals-under-tsca/" target="_blank">lacks transparency</a> and <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/20200317_comms_pc_tsca_english_final.pdf" target="_blank">contravenes the 2016 law</a>. The EPA has also <a href="https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/09/05/trumps-epa-flouting-law-when-approving-new-chemicals-here-are-3-examples" target="_blank">ignored known health concerns</a>, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/02/21/the-trump-epa-is-throwing-workers-facing-risks-from-new-tsca-chemicals-under-the-bus/" target="_blank">limited its consideration of worker risks</a> and <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/the-trump-epa-is-illegally-denying-requests-for-public-files-on-new-chemicals/" target="_blank">denied requests for public files</a> in the new chemicals program.</p><p>The EPA has also exploited loopholes in the new law to quickly approve new chemicals, including toxic PFAS. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/07/28/greasing-the-skids-the-trump-epa-is-green-lighting-dozens-of-new-pfas-under-tsca/" target="_blank">A recent investigation</a> found that the EPA has been quietly approving new PFAS chemicals, through a provision known as the low volume exemption in the new chemicals program. As a result, the EPA is greenlighting new PFAS chemicals on an expedited basis, without public scrutiny. One PFAS, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/01/27/what-connects-cross-country-skiing-and-chemical-safety/" target="_blank">used in ski wax</a>, was approved despite a finding that the chemical could "waterproof the lungs," resulting in severe health impacts.</p><p>Since the law was updated in 2016, the EPA has reviewed more than <a href="https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/statistics-new-chemicals-review" target="_blank">3,000 new chemicals</a> submissions. More than 1,000 of these chemicals have been approved through the low volume exemption, and since 2016, manufacturers have begun producing at least 900 new chemicals, many without adequate safety data. Environmental groups have <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/final_filed_complaint.pdf" target="_blank">sued the EPA</a> over its failures to protect the public and the environment from risks from new chemicals. </p>4. Failed to Protect Workers From a Deadly Paint-Stripping Chemical
<p>Methylene chloride is a highly toxic chemical used in paint strippers that is responsible for <a href="https://saferchemicals.org/us-deaths-from-methylene-chloride/" target="_blank">more than 60 deaths</a> since 1980. In the final days of the Obama administration, the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231-0001" target="_blank">EPA proposed a ban</a> on "methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal."</p><p>After significant pressure from <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-reconsiders-ban-on-potentially-lethal-paint-stripper-chemical-methylene-chloride/" target="_blank">families who lost loved ones</a> due to methylene chloride exposure, the Trump EPA eventually issued a final rule in 2019. However, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-bans-consumer-sales-methylene-chloride-paint-removers-protecting-public" target="_blank">EPA narrowed the rule</a> so that it would apply only to consumer<em> uses</em> of methylene chloride, not commercial uses. That means workers are not protected, even though a <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/workers-rights/epa-restricts-sales-of-deadly-paint-strippers-after-years-of-delays/" target="_blank">Center for Public Integrity investigation</a> found that most deaths from methylene chloride take place at work.</p><p>A <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/final-risk-evaluation-methylene-chloride" target="_blank">separate EPA evaluation</a> of methylene chloride found that manufacturing, disposal and several other uses of methylene chloride pose no "unreasonable risk." Environmental groups have filed lawsuits challenging <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/trump-s-epa-sued-for-leaving-workers-exposed-to-deadly-chemical-in-paint-strippers" target="_blank">the rule</a> and the <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/trumps-epa-sued-over-understating-risks-of-deadly-chemical" target="_blank">recent evaluation</a>.</p>5. Cooked the Books on the “Civil Action” Chemical
<p>Trichloroethylene is a chemical solvent made infamous by the book and movie "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3PHjIly2N0" target="_blank">A Civil Action</a>." The EPA considers it to be a known carcinogen, and it is one of the primary contaminants that sickened scores of veterans who served at <a href="https://psmag.com/environment/what-happened-at-camp-lejeune" target="_blank">Camp Lejeune</a>, in North Carolina.</p><p>As with methylene chloride, in the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed banning three uses of TCE: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0163-0001" target="_blank">spot cleaning, aerosol degreasing</a> and <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0387-0001" target="_blank">vapor degreasing</a>. In December 2017, the Trump EPA <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-epa-indefinitely-delays-bans-deadly-chemicals" target="_blank">shelved these proposed bans</a>, claiming that it would study those uses in a separate ongoing risk evaluation of TCE.</p><p>However, the EPA dramatically rewrote the accepted science on TCE in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-trichloroethylene" target="_blank">draft risk evaluation</a> released in February. As <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/06/industry-s-behest-epa-caves-banning-civil-action-carcinogen-lays-ground" target="_blank">EWG warned</a> in 2018, the solvents industry aggressively lobbied the EPA to ignore a key <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241384/" target="_blank">2003 study</a> finding that TCE causes heart deformities in developing fetuses. TCE's connection with fetal heart defects was an important basis for the Obama EPA's decision to ban three uses of TCE. An <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623816303240#bib0190" target="_blank">independent review</a> of the EPA's science found that "prenatal exposure to TCE can cause human cardiac defects" and that the study "remains a valid choice" for assessing risk.</p><p>The lobbyists succeeded. The EPA's draft risk evaluation questioned the study's design and minimized its significance. An <a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/epa-scientists-found-a-toxic-chemical-damages-fetal-hearts-the-trump-white-house-rewrote-their-assessment/" target="_blank">investigation by Reveal News</a> compared the draft risk evaluation with a leaked earlier draft. It found that the earlier draft had relied extensively on the 2003 study and used it as a benchmark for the risk calculations. Reveal also reported that then-EPA chemicals safety chief Nancy Beck – "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/05/scariest-trump-appointee-you-ve-never-heard" target="_blank">the scariest Trump appointee you've never heard of</a>" – ordered that the risk evaluation be rewritten to downplay the risks of TCE. With the EPA giving significantly less weight to risks from fetal heart deformities, it's unlikely the agency will finalize the proposed bans.</p>6. Pressured EPA Scientists to Drop Evaluations of Toxic Chemicals – Including Formaldehyde
<p>The Trump EPA is undermining the work of independent scientists within the Integrated Risk Information System program, known as IRIS. The program's work is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Its scientific assessments are intended to support the work of other EPA program offices and regional offices. IRIS is a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/02/03/epa-iris-toxic-chemicals/" target="_blank">frequent target of chemical industry attacks</a> because its independent safety assessments often don't align with industry objectives.</p><p>In 2018, the Trump EPA tried to <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3534381/Combined.pdf" target="_blank">defund</a> the IRIS program. EPA leadership also pressured IRIS to drop critical health assessments. In March 2019, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697212.pdf" target="_blank">a Government Accountability Office report</a> disclosed that EPA leadership directed agency offices to limit the number of chemicals they wanted IRIS to review, and cut in half the number of IRIS's ongoing or upcoming assessments.</p><p>One of the halted assessments was IRIS's decades-long review of formaldehyde, a widely used chemical and <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/formaldehyde.pdf" target="_blank">known human carcinogen</a>. This is surprising because former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt indicated to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2018 that the report was complete and <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pruitt%20Letter%20formaldehyde%20assessment.pdf" target="_blank">ready for release</a>. However, answering <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2019/01/29/document_pm_02.pdf" target="_blank">questions for the record</a> following a 2019 Senate hearing, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said formaldehyde was "not a top priority."</p><p>Instead of releasing the IRIS study on formaldehyde to the public, the EPA has instead decided that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention – under the leadership of Nancy Beck – should <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-list-next-20-chemicals-undergo-risk-evaluation-under-tsca" target="_blank">conduct its own assessment</a> of formaldehyde. As with TCE, this action will give the agency an opportunity to distort the science and minimize risks. Because these reviews take years, it will also significantly delay any EPA regulatory action on formaldehyde.</p>7. Rolled Back Clean Water Protections
<p>Industrial chemical pollutants are often discharged into drinking water supplies. But the Trump administration has made it a priority to roll back the<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="_blank"> Clean Water Rule,</a> which more clearly defined which kinds of bodies of water are subject to the Clean Water Act. EWG's analysis found that the Clean Water Rule, if implemented as proposed by the Obama administration, would have protected drinking water sources for more than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/trump-plan-gut-stream-protections-imperils-tap-water-117-million-americans" target="_blank">117 million Americans</a>.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/epa-science-board/index.html" target="_blank">EPA's own science advisors</a> have opposed the rollback of the Clean Water Rule, but the Trump administration <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-completes-repeal-clean-water-rule-imperiling-drinking-water-sources-117m-people" target="_blank">repealed</a> it in 2019, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-administration-finalizes-repeal-pollution-rule-threatening-drinking-water-sources-117" target="_blank">proposed its own rule</a> in January and <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/21/2020-02500/the-navigable-waters-protection-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="_blank">finalized it</a> in April. The new rule covers far fewer bodies of water and would leave 234,000 miles of small streams unprotected. EWG estimates that at least 72 million Americans draw at least half their drinking water from small streams.</p><p>Because of the repeal, those bodies of water will no longer be subject to pollution limits. Protection for small and seasonal streams and wetlands is important because they often flow into larger bodies of water, including sources of drinking water. Polluted drinking water sources <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2017/03/17/judge-dismisses-water-works-nitrates-lawsuit/99327928/" target="_blank">strain municipal water utilities</a> tasked with filtering out contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and risk exposing the public to more <a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/state-of-american-drinking-water.php" target="_blank">contaminants that aren't regulated</a> under the act.</p>8. Cooked the Books on Asbestos
<p>Asbestos is a highly toxic, naturally occurring chemical linked to a particularly deadly form of cancer called <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mesothelioma/symptoms-causes/syc-20375022" target="_blank">mesothelioma</a>. An estimated <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Jukka%20Takala&orcid=0000-0001-5722-7052" target="_blank">40,000 Americans</a> die every year from asbestos-related diseases. Although the toxicity of asbestos is well understood, the EPA has never actually banned most uses. The EPA attempted a ban in 1989, but most of the rule was overturned by <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6165892895625819539&q=corrosion+proof+fittings+v+epa&hl=en&as_sdt=20006" target="_blank">the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991.</a></p><p>After Congress reformed TSCA in 2016, the EPA announced that asbestos would be one of the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/under-new-safety-law-epa-picks-first-10-chemicals-review" target="_blank">first 10 chemicals</a> reviewed under the new law. Many hoped that this time, the EPA would finally ban asbestos.</p><p>Instead, when the EPA released its <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-asbestos" target="_blank">draft risk evaluation</a> in May, it found that several uses of asbestos, including import of asbestos and asbestos-containing products and distribution of asbestos-containing products, did not pose an unreasonable risk. The EPA made its risk determinations by ignoring exposure from "legacy" uses of asbestos, such as old insulation and building tiles. Although in November the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/court-trump-epa-acted-unlawfully-refusing-consider-legacy-use-asbestos-lead" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals</a> ordered the EPA to fix this error, it has yet to do so.</p><p>Instead of banning asbestos, in April 2019 the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/25/2019-08154/restrictions-on-discontinued-uses-of-asbestos-significant-new-use-rule" target="_blank">published a rule</a> requiring notice and approval before manufacturers could resume using it in some applications the agency considered abandoned. However, <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/815-e-p-a-memos-on-asbestos/12c87a96be998db10048/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="_blank">leaked documents</a> show that more than a dozen EPA staffers urged an outright ban on asbestos instead.</p>9. Proposed a Loophole for Toxic Air Pollution
<p>In July 2019, the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/26/2019-14252/reclassification-of-major-sources-as-area-sources-under-section-112-of-the-clean-air-act" target="_blank">Trump EPA proposed to reverse</a> a longstanding policy requiring large power plants, refineries and other industrial polluters to always meet certain strict controls, even after reducing emissions. The new rule creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act regulations that would allow large industrial facilities to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/reclassification_of_major_sources_as_area_sources_under_section_112_of_the_clean_air_act.pdf" target="_blank">reclassify themselves</a>, from "major sources" of air pollution to "area sources."</p><p>That change would allow them to opt out of strict pollution control standards, called "maximum achievable control technology," and substantially increase their emissions of dangerous air pollutants. EPA's own data shows that more than <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-26/pdf/2019-14252.pdf" target="_blank">3,900 large facilities</a> that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications" target="_blank">emit pollutants like mercury and benzene</a> could take advantage of this loophole. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2020/02/19/epa-data-emphasizes-danger-of-trump-administrations-air-toxics-loophole/?conversion_pg=www.momscleanairforce.org%2Fthe-racism-of-the-epa-agenda%2F" target="_blank">The Environmental Defense Fund</a> estimates the loophole could increase toxic air emissions by as much as 480 percent, or almost 50 million pounds per year. </p><p>This rollback is especially alarming in the midst of the global coronavirus pandemic. Studies have found that people who live in areas with <a href="https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/07/17/why-air-pollution-is-linked-to-severe-cases-of-covid-19/" target="_blank">high levels of air pollution</a> are at greater risk for severe cases of COVID-19.</p>10. Continuing Its Quest to Censor Science
<p>In 2018, the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science" target="_blank">proposed a disastrous rule</a> significantly limiting the kinds of science the agency can rely on to justify environmental regulations. The rule would have prohibited the agency from using studies that don't make their underlying data publicly available or whose results can't be replicated. That change would prevent the EPA from including in its future risk assessments most <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/scientific-medical-academic-groups-urge-epa-drop-transparency-rule" target="_blank">human health studies</a>, because personal medical data must remain confidential. The rule would undermine studies that are foundational to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html" target="_blank">clean air regulations</a>.</p><p>The proposal sparked enormous opposition from scientists, academics and environmental health advocates. More than 600,000 public comments were submitted to the agency, the vast majority in opposition. In September 2019, the EPA dropped the proposal from its regulatory agenda. </p><p>But the Trump EPA is at it again. In March, the agency issued a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">supplemental proposal</a> that is actually <a href="https://www.ewg.org/testimony-official-correspondence/ewg-comments-epa-strengthening-transparency-regulatory-science" target="_blank">worse than</a> the original proposal. The 2018 proposal applied to all "dose response" studies, but the new proposal applies to all studies. The new proposal also applies retroactively, which means the EPA could use it to gut existing regulations.</p><p>As these actions – and dozens of others – show, the Trump EPA has aggressively worked to erode and eliminate vital environmental and public health protections. The public needs an EPA that will prioritize people and planet over polluters and profit.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump EPA OK's Rocket Fuel Chemical for Water Supplies - EcoWatch ›
- Trump EPA OKs 'Emergency' Use of Bee-Killing Pesticide on 13.9 ... ›
- Trump Admin Weakens Obama-Era Rule to Limit Toxic Waste From Coal Plants - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A warning sign near the Dakota Access Pipeline endpoint in Patoka, Illinois on Nov. 11, 2016. Cyrene Krey / Flickr
The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline won a reprieve Wednesday when an appeals court canceled a lower court order mandating the pipeline be shut down and emptied of oil while a full environmental impact statement is completed.
<p>The shutdown order, which would have gone into effect Wednesday, marked the first time a major oil pipeline was court ordered to cease operations for environmental reasons. But while its reversal is disappointing for pipeline opponents, Wednesday's decision was not wholly favorable for the pipeline, either. The court refused to halt the initial order for a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-review-2645577384.html" target="_self">new environmental review</a> of the pipeline's crossing under the Missouri River, where the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe fears it will pollute its <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">drinking water</a> and sacred lands if it leaks.</p><p>"We've been in this legal battle for four years, and we aren't giving up this fight," Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Mike Faith said in an <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/dc-circuit-mixed-decision-dakota-access-shutdown-order?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social" target="_blank">Earthjustice press release</a>. "As the environmental review process gets underway in the months ahead, we look forward to showing why the Dakota Access Pipeline is too dangerous to operate."</p>
<div id="e3dbb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f1c6bf3b1b2ec9c26be8e6fd6776c2be"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1291118408277397505" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">But the fight isn't over! DAPL's permit to cross underneath Lake Oahe is vacated, so it's effectively operating ill… https://t.co/EOPn59siC7</div> — Earthjustice (@Earthjustice)<a href="https://twitter.com/Earthjustice/statuses/1291118408277397505">1596661591.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>In its ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put the question of whether the pipeline could continue to operate without a permit back to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" target="_self">Trump administration</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/dakota-access-pipeline-staves-off-shutdown-order-once-again" target="_blank">Bloomberg News reported</a>. It said it expected the Army Corps of Engineers to clarify the issue.</p><p>"It's interesting what the court did here," Earthjustice lawyer Jan Hasselman, who represents the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told Bloomberg. "While the focus has been on this judicially imposed shutdown order, the bigger picture is the environmental impact statement and whether a permit will be reissued under the next administration."</p><p>Hasselman argued that the pipeline is now operating illegally, and, if the Army Corps of Engineers decides to let it keep running while a review is completed, the issue will return to court.</p><p>"[W]e are confident that it will be shut down eventually," he said in the press release.</p>
<p>The pipeline's owner Energy Transfer had immediately appealed the shutdown order, and the company's lawyer said it would continue with the legal process.</p><p>"We believe our legal positions are strong, and we are confident that the pipeline will continue to operate," General Counsel Tom Mason told Bloomberg.</p><p>The oil and gas industry more generally had a mixed response to Wednesday's ruling.</p><p>"The Court rightly stayed the decision to shut down and empty the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been operating for over three years and provides millions of tax dollars to states, affordable energy to the entire region, and thousands of jobs along its route," American Petroleum Institute senior vice president and chief legal officer Paul Afonso said in a statement reported by <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/510748-court-cancels-shutdown-of-dakota-access-pipeline" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. "However, the failure to uphold the easement granted years ago by the federal government exemplifies the problems with our outdated permitting system, which allows protracted challenges to advance within the courts and ultimately take away jobs, tax dollars, and investments that pipelines bring to communities that sorely need them."</p>
<p>The Dakota Access Pipeline currently carries 570,000 barrels of oil a day 1,172-miles from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to a shipping point in Illinois. The fight against the pipeline garnered international attention through major <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/indigenous" target="_self">Indigenous</a>-led <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/what-standing-rock-gave-world-2549906333.html" target="_self">protests</a> in 2016 and 2017. The Obama administration <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/army-corps-permit-dakota-access-pipeline-2128363393.html" target="_self">denied</a> the river crossing permit in late 2016, but President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-dakota-access-pipeline-2211697835.html" target="_self">pushed the project through</a> via executive order early after taking office. It has now been operating a little more than three years.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Judge Orders Dakota Access Pipeline to Shut Down Pending Full ... ›
- 3 States Pass Anti-Pipeline Protest Bills in Two Weeks - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's Connection to Dakota Access Pipeline - EcoWatch ›
- Standing Rock Veterans Lead Fight to Shut Down Enbridge Line 5 ... ›
- Stopping a Dakota Access Pipeline Leak in Under 10 Minutes? A ... ›
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
By Joe Leech
The human body comprises around 60% water.
It's commonly recommended that you drink eight 8-ounce (237-mL) glasses of water per day (the 8×8 rule).
<p>Although there's little science behind this specific rule, staying hydrated is important.</p><p>Here are 7 evidence-based health benefits of drinking plenty of water.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/" target="_blank"><em>Healthline</em></a><em>. For detailed source information, please view the original article on </em><em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-health-benefits-of-water" target="_blank">Healthline</a></em><em>.</em></p>
1. Helps Maximize Physical Performance
<p>If you don't stay hydrated, your physical performance can suffer.</p><p>This is particularly important during intense exercise or high heat.</p><p>Dehydration can have <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/how-to-tell-if-youre-dehydrated" target="_blank">a noticeable effect</a> if you lose as little as 2% of your body's water content. However, it isn't uncommon for athletes to lose as much as 6–10% of their water weight via sweat.</p><p>This can lead to altered body temperature control, reduced motivation, and increased fatigue. It can also make exercise feel much more difficult, both physically and mentally.</p><p>Optimal hydration has been shown to prevent this from happening, and it may even reduce the <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/oxidative-stress" target="_blank">oxidative stress</a> that occurs during high intensity exercise. This isn't surprising when you consider that muscle is about 80% water.<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19344695" target="_blank"><span></span></a></p><p>If you exercise intensely and tend to sweat, staying hydrated can help you perform at your absolute best.</p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Losing as little as 2% of your body's water content can significantly impair your physical performance.</p>2. Significantly Affects Energy Levels and Brain Function
<p>Your brain is strongly influenced by your hydration status.</p><p>Studies show that even mild dehydration, such as the loss of 1–3% of body weight, can impair many aspects of brain function.</p><p>In a study in young women, researchers found that fluid loss of 1.4% after exercise impaired both mood and concentration. It also increased the frequency of headaches.</p><p>Many members of this same research team conducted a similar study in young men. They found that fluid loss of 1.6% was detrimental to working memory and increased feelings of anxiety and fatigue.<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/mild-dehydration-impairs-cognitive-performance-and-mood-of-men/3388AB36B8DF73E844C9AD19271A75BF/core-reader" target="_blank"></a></p><p>A fluid loss of 1–3% equals about 1.5–4.5 pounds (0.5–2 kg) of body weight loss for a person weighing 150 pounds (68 kg). This can easily occur through normal daily activities, let alone during exercise or high heat.</p><p>Many other studies, with subjects ranging from <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/signs-of-dehydration-in-toddlers" target="_blank">children</a> to <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/symptoms-of-dehydration-in-elderly" target="_blank">older adults</a>, have shown that mild dehydration can impair mood, memory, and brain performance.</p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Mild dehydration (fluid loss of 1–3%) can impair energy levels, impair mood, and lead to major reductions in memory and brain performance.</p>3. May Help Prevent and Treat Headaches
<p>Dehydration can trigger <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/dehydration-headache" target="_blank">headaches</a> and migraine in some individuals.<span></span></p><p>Research has shown that a headache is one of the most common symptoms of dehydration. For example, a study in 393 people found that 40% of the participants experienced a headache as a result of dehydration.</p><p>What's more, some studies have shown that drinking water can help relieve headaches in those who experience frequent headaches.</p><p>A study in 102 men found that drinking an additional 50.7 ounces (1.5 liters) of water per day resulted in significant improvements on the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life scale, a scoring system for <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/migraine-symptoms" target="_blank">migraine symptoms</a>.<a href="https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/29/4/370/492787" target="_blank"></a></p><p>Plus, 47% of the men who drank more water reported headache improvement, while only 25% of the men in the control group reported this effect.<a href="https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/29/4/370/492787" target="_blank"></a></p><p>However, not all studies agree, and researchers have concluded that because of the lack of high quality studies, more research is needed to confirm how increasing hydration may help improve headache symptoms and decrease headache frequency.<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26200171" target="_blank"></a></p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Drinking water may help reduce headaches and headache symptoms. However, more high quality research is needed to confirm this potential benefit.</p>4. May Help Relieve Constipation
<p><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/constipation" target="_blank">Constipation</a> is a common problem that's characterized by infrequent bowel movements and difficulty passing stool.</p><p>Increasing fluid intake is often recommended as a part of the treatment protocol, and there's some evidence to back this up.</p><p>Low water consumption appears to be a risk factor for constipation in both younger and older individuals.</p><p>Increasing hydration may help decrease constipation.</p><p><a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/mineral-water-benefits" target="_blank">Mineral water</a> may be a particularly beneficial beverage for those with constipation.</p><p>Studies have shown that mineral water that's rich in magnesium and sodium improves bowel movement frequency and consistency in people with constipation.<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5334415" target="_blank"></a></p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Drinking plenty of water may help prevent and relieve constipation, especially in people who generally don't drink enough water.</p>5. May Help Treat Kidney Stones
<p>Urinary stones are painful clumps of mineral crystal that form in the urinary system.</p><p>The most common form is <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/kidney-stones" target="_blank">kidney stones</a>, which form in the kidneys.</p><p>There's limited evidence that water intake can help prevent recurrence in people who have previously gotten kidney stones.<a href="https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004292.pub3/full" target="_blank"></a></p><p>Higher fluid intake increases the volume of urine passing through the kidneys. This dilutes the concentration of minerals, so they're less likely to crystallize and form clumps.</p><p>Water may also help prevent the initial formation of stones, but studies are required to confirm this.</p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Increased water intake appears to decrease the risk of kidney stone formation.</p>6. Helps Prevent Hangovers
<p>A hangover refers to the unpleasant symptoms experienced after drinking <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/alcohol-good-or-bad" target="_blank">alcohol</a>.</p><p>Alcohol is a diuretic, so it makes you lose more water than you take in. This can lead to dehydration.</p><p>Although dehydration isn't the main cause of hangovers, it can cause symptoms like thirst, fatigue, headache, and dry mouth.</p><p>Good ways <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-ways-to-prevent-a-hangover" target="_blank">to reduce hangovers</a> are to drink a glass of water between drinks and have at least one big glass of water before going to bed.</p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Hangovers are partly caused by dehydration, and drinking water can help reduce some of the main symptoms of hangovers.</p>7. Can Aid Weight Loss
<p>Drinking plenty of water can help you <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-to-lose-weight-as-fast-as-possible/" target="_blank">lose weight</a>.</p><p>This is because water can increase satiety and boost your metabolic rate.</p><p>Some evidence suggests that increasing water intake can promote weight loss by slightly increasing your metabolism, which can increase the number of calories you burn on a daily basis.</p><p>A 2013 study in 50 young women with overweight demonstrated that drinking an additional 16.9 ounces (500 mL) of water 3 times per day before meals for 8 weeks led to significant reductions in body weight and body fat compared with their pre-study measurements.</p><p>The timing is important too. Drinking water half an hour before meals is the most effective. It can make you feel more full so that you <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/35-ways-to-cut-calories" target="_blank">eat fewer calories</a>.</p><p>In one study, dieters who drank 16.9 ounces (0.5 liters) of water before meals lost 44% more weight over a period of 12 weeks than dieters who didn't drink water before meals.</p>The Bottom Line
<p>Even mild dehydration can affect you mentally and physically.</p><p>Make sure that you <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-much-water-should-you-drink-per-day" target="_blank">get enough water each day</a>, whether your personal goal is 64 ounces (1.9 liters) or a different amount. It's one of the best things you can do for your overall health.</p>From Your Site Articles
- 9 Evidence-Based Health Benefits of Avocado Oil ›
- 7 Nutrient Deficiencies That Are Incredibly Common ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
More than 200 Indigenous Nations demonstrated against the Dakota Access Pipeline in Canon Ball, ND on Sept. 2, 2016. Joe Brusky / Flickr
A federal judge ruled Monday that the controversial Dakota Access pipeline must be shut down and drained of oil until a full environmental review of the project is completed.
<p>The decision is a major victory for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, <a href="https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/historic-day-for-standing-rock-as-pipeline-company-told-to-shut-down-remove-oil-KkDdhNzafUONvPvkmBc66A" target="_blank">Indian Country Today reported</a>. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe fears the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines" target="_self">pipeline</a> will pollute their <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">drinking water</a> and sacred lands if it leaks from where it flows beneath the Missouri River, and the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation sits adjacent to the Standing Rock Sioux and the river.</p><p>"Today is a historic day for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the many people who have supported us in the fight against the pipeline," Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Mike Faith said in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/judge-orders-dakota-access-pipeline-to-shut-down" target="_blank">press release from Earthjustice</a>, the group that litigated the case. "This pipeline should have never been built here. We told them that from the beginning."</p>
<div id="348d2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="744af6e4e53916e3c963b0271aa1c6b3"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1280155991833706497" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Breaking: Judge Orders Dakota Access Pipeline to be SHUT DOWN! #NoDAPL #ProtectTheSacred https://t.co/UxhUgdfA2Q</div> — Indigenous Environmental Network (@Indigenous Environmental Network)<a href="https://twitter.com/IENearth/statuses/1280155991833706497">1594047947.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The ruling is also a major blow to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-and-gas" target="_self">oil and gas</a> industry and the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" target="_self">Trump administration</a>, which has pushed to keep major pipeline projects like the Dakota Access and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/keystone-xl" target="_self">Keystone XL</a> afloat. It comes less than 24 hours after Dominion and Duke Energy <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/atlantic-coast-pipeline-canceled-2646347475.html" target="_self">announced</a> they were cancelling their planned <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/atlantic-coast-pipeline" target="_self">Atlantic Coast Pipeline</a> because extensive legal challenges had led to delays and uncertainty. Together, the pipelines' fates bode ill for the future prospects of large-scale <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/energy" target="_self">energy</a> pipeline projects, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-06/demise-of-gas-project-shows-u-s-pipelines-becoming-unbuildable" target="_blank">Bloomberg pointed out</a>.</p><p>"I would expect this to be a turning point for new investment," Katie Bays, co-founder of Washington-based Sandhill Strategy LLC, told Bloomberg. "There is real investor fatigue around this parade of legal and regulatory headwinds to energy projects."</p>
<p>The decision by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to shut down the pipeline marks the first time that a judge has closed an operating pipeline for environmental reasons, Southern Methodist University energy law professor James W. Coleman told Bloomberg.</p><p>"The Court does not reach its decision with blithe disregard for the lives it will affect," Boasberg wrote Monday, as <a href="https://apnews.com/be393de49dae81a2198ef30976212290" target="_blank">The Associated Press reported</a>. "Yet, given the seriousness of the Corps' NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) error, the impossibility of a simple fix, the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly, and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates, the Court is forced to conclude that the flow of oil must cease."</p>
<p>In its press release, Earthjustice pointed out that a full environmental review could take several years, and then additional permits would have to be issued, meaning the ultimate permitting decision might be made by another administration.</p><p>But the pipeline's owner Energy Transfer vowed to challenge Boasberg's decision.</p><p>"We believe that the ruling issued this morning from Judge Boasberg is not supported by the law or the facts of the case. Furthermore, we believe that Judge Boasberg has exceeded his authority in ordering the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been safely operating for more than three years," Energy Transfer spokesperson Lisa Coleman said in a statement to <a href="https://pgjonline.com/news/2020/07-july/energy-transfer-vows-to-keep-dakota-access-oil-flowing" target="_blank"><em>Pipeline & Gas Journal</em></a>. "We will be immediately pursuing all available legal and administrative processes and are confident that once the law and full record are fully considered Dakota Access Pipeline will not be shut down and that oil will continue to flow."</p><p>Earthjustice staff attorney Jan Hasselman, who represented the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, noted on Twitter that Energy Transfer had already filed an appeal.</p>
<div id="e2278" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="355c2287182da682e80cc16f070c3738"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1280275895228305409" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Well, that didn't take long: DAPL just filed its appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal seeking to overturn th… https://t.co/lav9hmwlIU</div> — Jan Hasselman (@Jan Hasselman)<a href="https://twitter.com/JanHasselman/statuses/1280275895228305409">1594076534.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile pipeline currently carries 570,000 barrels of oil a day from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to a shipping point in Illinois, according to The Associated Press. It was the subject of high-profile <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/indigenous" target="_self">Indigenous</a>-led <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/what-standing-rock-gave-world-2549906333.html" target="_self">protests</a> in 2016 and 2017.</p><p>In <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/army-corps-permit-dakota-access-pipeline-2128363393.html" target="_self">December 2016</a>, the Obama administration and the Army Corps of Engineers denied a key permit for the pipeline, and the Army Corps was set to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement to seek alternative routes. But when he came into office in January, President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-dakota-access-pipeline-2211697835.html" target="_self">sped up</a> the pipeline approval process via executive order and the review was never completed. The pipeline began operating in June 2017, according to The Associated Press, but the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe continued to fight it in court.</p><p>Judge Boasberg <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-review-2645577384.html" target="_self">ordered a full review</a> in late March of this year and asked both the Army Corps and the Standing Rock Sioux to submit briefs explaining why the pipeline should or should not continue to operate while the review was taking place. On Monday, he sided with the tribe.</p><p>"I applaud the actions of the US District Court in finding what we knew all along, that this pipeline, like many other actions taken by the US government, is in fact illegally operating," Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Chairman Harold Frazier said in a statement reported by Indian Country Today. "The fact that this operation had been operating illegally for three years before this conclusion was finally made shows you the power that money holds on the American government."</p>
<div id="ed115" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5ddb18e2f74bd9e197943aee19fd1cbd"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1280288707585720321" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">I have been getting "congratulations" today. Today was about our planet and everything for which she provides life.… https://t.co/m3lwwbikhj</div> — CRSTChairman (@CRSTChairman)<a href="https://twitter.com/CRSTChairman/statuses/1280288707585720321">1594079589.0</a></blockquote></div>
From Your Site Articles
- Standing Rock Veterans Lead Fight to Shut Down Enbridge Line 5 ... ›
- 2 Women Charged With Conspiracy, Arson Over 2017 Dakota ... ›
- What's Next for the Water Protectors at Standing Rock? - EcoWatch ›
- Protesters Lock Their Bodies to Machines to Stop Dakota Access ... ›
- Stopping a Dakota Access Pipeline Leak in Under 10 Minutes? A ... ›
- Appeals Court Halts Dakota Access Shutdown Order - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A customer walks into a Whole Foods in Longmont, Colorado on Dec. 15, 2016. RJ Sangosti / The Denver Post via Getty Images
A brand of bottled water manufactured and sold by grocery-store giant and Amazon subsidiary Whole Foods contains potentially harmful levels of arsenic, according to research conducted by Consumer Reports.
<p>Consumer Reports, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, said that tests of Starkey Spring Water label showed arsenic levels ranging from 9.49 to 9.56 parts per billion, which was three times higher than any other brand in their testing. Out of the 45 brands that Consumer Reports tested, only Starkey water registered an arsenic level above three parts per billion.</p><p>While the legal limit for arsenic in bottled water is 10 parts per billion, Consumer Reports wrote that its experts believe that the level present in Starkey Spring Water does not adequately protect public health.</p>
<p>Drinking a single bottle of Starkey probably will not harm you, said Dr. James Dickerson, CR's chief scientific officer. "But regular consumption of even small amounts of the heavy metal over extended periods increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, and lower IQ scores in children, and poses other health issues as well," he said, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/24/whole-foods-bottled-water-arsenic-found" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>In an emailed statement, Whole Foods said the company's "highest priority is to provide customers with safe, high-quality and refreshing spring water," according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/24/whole-foods-bottled-water-arsenic/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>.</p>
<p>"Beyond the required annual testing by [a U.S. Food and Drug Administration] certified lab, we have an accredited third-party lab test every production run of water before it is sold," the statement said. "These products meet all FDA requirements and are fully compliant with FDA standards for heavy metals."</p><p>The new findings come as part of a joint investigation between Consumer Reports and The Guardian that covers how clean, fresh water is both inaccessible and unaffordable for many Americans as bills pile up during the coronavirus pandemic. The report also covers how the bottled water that Americans are consuming is often not safer or healthier than tap water, according to <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/whole-foods-starkey-spring-water-sold-on-amazon-contains-high-levels-of-arsenic/" target="_blank">Consumer Reports</a>.</p>
<p>"I think the average consumer would be stunned to learn that they're paying a lot of extra money for bottled water, thinking that it's significantly safer than tap, and unknowingly getting potentially dangerous levels of arsenic," said Erik Olson, senior strategic director of health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy organization that has <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/resources/bottled-water-pure-drink-or-pure-hype" target="_blank">researched bottled water quality</a>, according to <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/whole-foods-starkey-spring-water-sold-on-amazon-contains-high-levels-of-arsenic/" target="_blank">Consumer Reports</a>.</p><p>Since Whole Foods introduced Starkey Spring Water in 2015, the brand has faced several problems. Whole Foods had to recall more than 2,000 cases of water after tests showed arsenic levels that approached or exceeded the federal limit of 10 parts per billion in late 2016 and early 2017, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/24/whole-foods-bottled-water-arsenic/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>.</p>
<p>The Food and Drug Administration, which enforces federal bottled water regulations, issued a statement after the report that said arsenic is a "naturally occurring element" that cannot be removed entirely from the environment or food supply, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/24/whole-foods-bottled-water-arsenic/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported.</p><p>"Based on the CR test results for arsenic, the three Starkey Spring Water products are in compliance with FDA's allowable level for arsenic under the quality standard regulations for bottled water," the statement said. "The FDA is committed to limiting consumer exposure to arsenic to the greatest extent feasible and we will announce updates to our guidances when available."</p>
<p>It's important to note that the FDA's guidance is only for bottled water adherence to federal guidelines. Some states, like New Jersey and New Hampshire, have seen the threat arsenic poses to child development and have lowered their legal limit to 5 parts per billion. However, that regulation only applies to tap water.</p><p>In other words, Starkey Spring Water is legal in a store, but illegal if it came out of the tap in certain states, according to <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/whole-foods-starkey-spring-water-sold-on-amazon-contains-high-levels-of-arsenic/" target="_blank">Consumer Reports</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Washington State to Ban Bottled Water Operations - EcoWatch ›
- 12 Simple Ways to Drink More Water - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The Kobuk River in Alaska on Aug. 30, 2011. 16Terezka / CC BY-SA 3.0
Around 15,000 gallons of fuel oil spilled in a Native Alaskan village Saturday, threatening a nearby river and the local drinking water supply.
<p>The spill occurred during a routine fuel delivery to the Northwest Arctic village of Shungnak. The fuel spilled around 12:30 p.m. June 20, but was not discovered by the villagers until 1:06 p.m. They reported it to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) immediately thereafter, <a href="http://www.thearcticsounder.com/article/2026thousands_of_gallons_of_heating_oil_spill_in" target="_blank">The Arctic Sounder reported</a>.</p><p>"A response crew from Shungnak responded to the spill immediately, removing the spilled heating oil using sorbent material and also by pumping it into containers," ADEC said in a situation report.</p>
<p>There have been no injuries reported and the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-spill" target="_self">oil spill</a> has not harmed any wildlife so far. However, there are concerns that it could spread to sensitive areas.</p><p>"The extent of contamination has been reported by the incident commander to be approximately 160 feet from the Kobuk River and approximately 295 feet from the Shungnak drinking water source," ADEC said.</p><p>The spill occurred when fuel intended for the Shungnak Native Store was delivered to the school instead, <a href="https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/15000-gallon-oil-spill-reported-near-Kobuk-River-571436521.html" target="_blank">KTUU reported</a>. This caused fuel tank #1 to overflow. The fuel was being transferred from a barge on the Kobuk River. All transfers have now been stopped.</p>
<p>The cleanup efforts have been impacted by the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic, <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/06/23/15000-gallon-heating-oil-spill-reported-in-kobuk-river-village-of-shungnak/" target="_blank">Alaska Public Radio reported</a>. Because of travel restrictions, officials from ADEC and the Environmental Protection Agency cannot travel to the spill site. Instead, both agencies are in contact with local responders.</p><p>"ADEC will continue to monitor the response actions and review plans being developed to clean up contaminated soils from the area and prevent heating oil migration to nearby resources," ADEC said, according to The Arctic Sounder.</p><p>The Kobuk River flows for 380 miles from the Endicott Mountains to Kotzebue Sound, according to the <a href="https://www.nps.gov/gaar/kobukriver.htm" target="_blank">National Park Service</a>. It is one of the only two spawning grounds for the Kobuk/Selawik population of sheefish and also an important habitat for grayling, arctic char, whitefish, chum salmon and lake trout. It is also a subsistence fishing site for Native Alaskan communities and the wintering grounds for the Western Arctic caribou herd.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Disastrous Russian Oil Spill Reaches Pristine Arctic Lake - EcoWatch ›
- Arctic Oil Drilling Project Approved by Trump Administration ... ›
- Philippine Oil Spill Threatens Recovering Mangrove Forests - EcoWatch ›
- Oil Spill Disasters: How to Limit Environmental Damage - EcoWatch ›
- Mauritius Rushes to Contain Oil Spill Before Ship Breaks Apart ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A small boy drinks from a public drinking fountain in the historic Plaza in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Robert Alexander / Getty Images
By Eoin Higgins
President Donald Trump's EPA on Thursday finalized a rule to roll back regulations of a chemical found in rocket fuel that can cause brain damage in infants.
<p>"Today's decision is illegal, unscientific, and unconscionable," Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior strategic director for Health Erik D. Olson <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200618-0" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement. </p>
<p>The decision to deregulate perchlorate in public drinking water was a long time coming and the source of heavy pushback from environmental groups and Democrats. Regulation of the chemical was a carryover from former President Barack Obama's administration.</p>
<div id="f59f4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1b9b2e96a5ac76ace862531819898cf8"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1273692432237019136" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Trump administration finalizes a decision not to impose any limits on perchlorate, a toxic chemical found in rocket… https://t.co/cOgYbpyrW1</div> — Hiroko Tabuchi (@Hiroko Tabuchi)<a href="https://twitter.com/HirokoTabuchi/statuses/1273692432237019136">1592506914.0</a></blockquote></div><p>EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler made the announcement Thursday, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-wont-regulate-rocket-fuel-additive-perchlorate-11592470801" target="_blank">saying</a> the move "fulfills President Trump's promise to pare back burdensome 'one-size-fits-all' overregulation for the American people."</p><p>But, as the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/66438a1121f70d85f324a0e3770a0078" target="_blank" style="">noted</a>, the chemical's danger should not be underestimated to the 16 million Americans under threat of having the contaminant in their drinking water.</p><p>According to AP:</p><blockquote>Perchlorate can damage the development of fetuses and children and cause measurable drops in IQ in newborns, the American Academy of Pediatrics said last August in urging the "strongest possible" federal limits. Studies cited by the doctors' group included one showing that 9 out of 13 breastfeeding infants were ingesting significant levels of the chemical.<br></blockquote><p>The decision came one day before the deadline for the EPA to issue a regulation on the chemical as <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/no-nationwide-drinking-water-standards-for-perchlorate-epa-says" target="_blank">instructed</a> in a 2016 consent decree with the NRDC. Olson expressed frustration with Wheeler's move to deregulate rather than increase controls on perchlorate.</p>
<p>"The Environmental Protection Agency is threatening the health of pregnant moms and young children with toxic chemicals in their drinking water at levels that literally can cause loss of IQ points," said Olson. "Is this what the Environmental Protection Agency has come to?"</p><p>The NRDC plans to challenge the order in court, claiming the consent decree did not allow for deregulating the chemical. </p>
<div id="f95b6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="00ec82f80518f1a4824585b655ce8b51"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1273702483416604672" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">@EPA's decision to not set drinking water standards for perchlorate will land the agency in court, @NRDC warns the… https://t.co/B1vbHnF6np</div> — Amena H. Saiyid آمنہ سیّد (@Amena H. Saiyid آمنہ سیّد)<a href="https://twitter.com/amenasaiyid/statuses/1273702483416604672">1592509310.0</a></blockquote></div><p>In a statement Thursday, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, <a href="https://www.carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?id=B5CA8F16-15D1-4724-AF89-D73D10CA3181" target="_blank">said</a> he agreed with the NRDC. </p><p>"EPA has abdicated its responsibility to set federal drinking water standards for a chemical long known to be unsafe, instead leaving it up to states to decide whether or not to protect people from it," said Carper. </p><p>"Even though EPA previously determined that this dangerous chemical needed to be regulated, the agency has now decided to ignore science that it finds inconvenient and reverse its earlier finding," Carper continued. "This is an all too common and disturbing pattern of action for this EPA."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/18/illegal-unscientific-and-unconscionable-despite-risk-brain-damage-infants-trump-epa" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump EPA Won't Regulate Toxic Drinking Water Chemical That ... ›
- EPA's Proposal for Limiting Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water Is ... ›
- Trump’s Toxic Wake: 10 Ways the EPA Has Made Life More Hazardous - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The Sumas Pump Station on June 13, 2020, prior to clean-up. Transmountain
Canada's Trans Mountain pipeline spilled as many as 190,000 liters (approximately 50,193 gallons) of crude oil in Abbotsford, British Columbia (BC) Saturday, reinforcing concerns about the safety of the pipeline's planned expansion.
<p>Chief Dalton Silver of the Sumas First Nation told <a href="https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/trans-mountain-oil-spill-released-roughly-150-000-litres-of-oil-company-says-1.4983835" target="_blank">CTV News</a> that the spill occurred on his reserve on fields over an aquifer that supplies his nation with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">drinking water</a>. It marks the fourth time in 15 years that the pipeline has spilled on his community's land.</p><p>"We cannot continue to have our land desecrated by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-spill" target="_self">oil spills</a>," he said in a <a href="https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/stop_tmx_devastating_trans_mountain_pipeline_spill_reinforces_urgency_to_halt_further_expansion" target="_blank">statement</a> issued by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) Sunday.</p>
<div id="82ac1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ac200d03077ca023966ba862e3cfdef5"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1272235491601989632" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Stop TMX: Devastating Trans Mountain Pipeline Spill Reinforces Urgency to Halt Further Expansion: “Trans Mountain p… https://t.co/ONHM3G30Ub</div> — UBCIC (@UBCIC)<a href="https://twitter.com/UBCIC/statuses/1272235491601989632">1592159552.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The spill occurred early Saturday morning at the pipeline's Sumas Pump Station, Trans Mountain told <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-pipeline-spill-abbotsford-150000-190000-litres-1.5611973" target="_blank">CBC News</a>. The company said no construction work related to the pipeline's expansion was being done at the time of the spill.</p><p>Instead, the spill appeared to have been connected to a fitting on a smaller piece of pipe attached to the main line, the company said in a <a href="https://www.transmountain.com/news/2020/statement-from-trans-mountain" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>"The cause of the incident is under investigation and that will continue," company spokesperson Ali Hounsell told CTV News. "At this time, it's believed to be a failure of a small-diametre, one-inch piece of pipe."</p><p>The company estimated that between 940 to 1,195 barrels (or 150,000 to 190,000 liters) of oil was released and fully contained.</p>
<div id="3cd98" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="120d2d202c4507d1e916ba246dac3556"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1272267142516191234" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Update from Trans Mountain: Company estimates btwn 940 and 1195 barrels of oil was lost in spill at Sumas Pumping S… https://t.co/MU30LHnAEd</div> — Ben Miljure (@Ben Miljure)<a href="https://twitter.com/CTVNewsBen/statuses/1272267142516191234">1592167099.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>"Clean-up is well underway with trucks and crews working around the clock," the company said in a Sunday afternoon statement. "The free-standing oil has been recovered and is being transported to an approved facility for disposal. The site has permanent groundwater monitoring in place and air monitoring continues. Monitoring has not identified any risk to the public or community."</p><p>The pipeline was initially shut off in response to the spill, but restarted around 2 p.m. local time Sunday.</p><p>The company said it was working with local authorities and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/indigenous" target="_self">Indigenous</a> communities on the clean-up, but Silver told <a href="https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/06/14/trans-mountain-restart-surprises-sumas-chief/" target="_blank">CityNews 1130</a> he had not received timely, accurate updates about the amount spilled or the company's restarting plans.</p><p>"That they're up and running Sunday afternoon, my sister just read that to me off her phone. That was the first I heard of it, so there you go with the openness and transparency," Silver said. "I would really rather hear it from those at the incident command post."</p>
<p>Many Indigenous communities, environmental groups and the BC government oppose the expansion of the pipeline, which would <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion-2645043384.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">triple</a> the oil it carries from Alberta's tar sands to the Pacific coast. They are <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trans-mountain-pipeline-kinder-morgan-2570751996.html" target="_self">concerned</a> about its impact on the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>, Indigenous sovereignty, local water supplies and endangered orcas that would be harmed by increased tanker traffic.</p><p>Oil spills have also remained a persistent worry for pipeline opponents.</p><p>"We conducted our own assessment of Trans Mountain using leading science and Tsleil-Waututh's Indigenous law that concluded that oil spills are inevitable, can't be fully cleaned up, and have devastating effects," Chief Leah George-Wilson of Tsleil-Waututh Nation said in the UBCIC statement. "This most recent spill is another reminder that the risk is too great to accept. The Trans Mountain pipeline has already spilled more than 80 times since it began operating. This is why we continue to fight the Trans Mountain Expansion in the courts."</p>
<p>The BC Ministry of Environment told CBC News that Saturday's spill was "deeply concerning."</p><p>"Our government maintains that the TMX project poses unacceptable risks to our environment, our coast and our economy," the ministry in a statement.</p><p>Meanwhile, BC Indigenous communities pledged continuing opposition.</p><p>"The price of oil has plummeted due to decreased demand caused by COVID-19, and yet another pipeline spill is like a nail in the coffin for investors," UBCIC Vice President Chief Don Tom said in a statement. "The ongoing demonstrations across Turtle Island right now show that people are ready to stand up and defend their beliefs including upholding Indigenous Title and Rights. I have no doubt this will extend to the widespread opposition that already exists to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Canadian Court Rules in Favor of Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion ›
- Kinder Morgan Pipeline Leak Two Days Before Trudeau Buyout ... ›
- Canada Pipeline Feud Becomes Trade War as Alberta Boycotts B.C. ... ›
- Mysterious Oil Spill Spreads Along 11 Miles of Delaware Beach - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Since 2017, car manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. switched to a different coolant for air conditioning called HFO-1234yf, which breaks down into forever chemicals. hiphotos35 / iStock / Getty Images Plus
The Montreal Protocol of 1987 committed nations around the world to stop using the chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) that created a hole in the ozone layer. While it stands as one of the most effective environmental commitments the globe has seen, new research shows the side effects have been costly as chemicals dangerous to human health build up in the environment, as the BBC reported.
<p>New research published in the journal <em><a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL087535" target="_blank">Geographical Research Letters</a></em> analyzed Arctic ice and found an unintended consequence of the Montreal Protocol. The compounds that replaced CFCs have been transported and transformed in the atmosphere, depositing far from their sources. The new generation of chemicals that replaced Freon, but are used in refrigerators, air conditioners and new cars have been accumulating since 1990.</p><p>"Our results suggest that global regulation and replacement of other environmentally harmful chemicals contributed to the increase of these compounds in the Arctic, illustrating that regulations can have important unanticipated consequences," said Cora Young, a professor at York University in Canada, and an author of the paper, in a York University <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/yu-oca051120.php" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p>
<p>Scientists first discovered ozone depletion in the 1970s when they detailed the deterioration of the stratospheric ozone layer around the earth's poles. As the hole over Antarctica opened and expanded, scientists found that the depletion of ozone was responsible for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection" target="_blank">a greater intensity of ultraviolet</a> radiation from the sun, causing an increase in the prevalence of skin cancer, eye cataract disease and other harmful effects on humans, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/ozone-friendly-chemical-alternatives-polluting-arctic/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>Scientists were soon able to pinpoint manufactured chemicals used in air conditioners and refrigerators, as well as solvents, propellants and chemical agents found in foam as the cause of the depleted ozone layer.</p><p>Now pollution from the chemicals that were created to replace the CFCs, known as short chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (scPFCAs), has proliferated around the world. The replacement chemicals are a class of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas">PFAS</a>, or forever chemicals, that have polluted waterways and made groundwater in certain areas toxic to drink.</p>
<p>"Our measurements provide the first long-term record of these chemicals, which have all increased dramatically over the past few decades," said Young in a <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/yu-oca051120.php" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Our work also showed how these industrial sources contribute to the levels in the ice caps."</p><p>The York University statement added that the chemicals are able to "travel long distances in the atmosphere and often end up in lakes, rivers and wetlands causing irreversible contamination and affecting the health of freshwater invertebrates, including insects, crustaceans and worms."</p>
<p>"We're seeing much, much larger levels, on the order of 10 times higher now than we saw before the Montreal Protocol," said Young, as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52663694" target="_blank">BBC</a> reported. "We don't know a lot about them and their potential toxicity, but we do know that we are committing the environment to a great deal of contamination."</p><p>As the globe heats up, our desire for air conditioning increases. That has spelled trouble for new cars. When car manufacturers stopped using CFCs in a car's air-conditioner, they switched to a chemical called HFC-134a. While it did not destroy the ozone layer, it turned out to be a powerful greenhouse gas, around 1,400 times more warming than CO2, according to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52663694" target="_blank">BBC</a>.</p>
<p>Since 2017, car manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. switched to a different coolant for air conditioning called HFO-1234yf, which breaks down into forever chemicals.</p><p>"It has a very low global warming potential, but has a much higher propensity to form these persistent products," said Young to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52663694" target="_blank">BBC</a>. "It will be again another shift, where we see an even more dramatic increase."</p><p>"They've been found in the bodies of people in China, so it is likely to be found in the bodies of people around the world," added Young. "We have done a good job in trying to save the ozone layer but the unintended consequences are the release of these other chemicals, which have some concerns. They're toxic, and then they don't get filtered out in various ways."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Healing Ozone Layer Shows Why Environmental Treaties Matter ›
- Saving the Ozone Layer 30 Years Ago Slowed Global Warming ... ›
- Record Ozone Hole Over the Arctic Has Closed - EcoWatch ›
- Household Products Cause as Much Air Pollution as Cars ... ›
- Ozone Hole Over Antarctica Is One of the Biggest in 15 Years - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump EPA Won’t Regulate Toxic Drinking Water Chemical That Harms Children’s Development
15 May
Politics
In defiance of a court order, the Trump administration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not regulate perchlorate, a toxic chemical used in rocket fuel that contaminates drinking water and harms the development of fetuses and small children.
<p>The move is in keeping with other Trump administration decisions not to impose recommended limits on toxic chemicals, such as its decision <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-pesticide-brain-damage-2639273468.html" target="_self">not to ban</a> child-harming pesticide <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos" target="_self">chlorpyrifos</a> or <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-asbestos-ban-2636681458.html?rebelltitem=1" target="_self">known-carcinogen asbestos</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/climate/trump-drinking-water-perchlorate.html" target="_blank">The New York Times pointed out</a>.</p><p>"This is all of a piece," University of Maryland law professor Rena Steinzor told The New York Times. "You can draw a line between denial of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/science/" target="_self">science</a> on climate change, denial of science on coronavirus, and denial of science in the drinking water context. It's all the same issue. They're saying 'We don't care what the research says.'"</p>
<p>High concentrations of perchlorate have been found in at least 26 states, usually near military sites because of its use in rocket fuel. It has been shown to hamper the development of fetuses and young children by blocking the thyroid gland's uptake of iodine and therefore interfering with hormone production. The EPA had been ordered by the courts to finalize regulations on the chemical by the end of June. Instead, administrator <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> will reverse a 2011 EPA finding that the chemical posed a health risk to between five and 16 million Americans and argue that it is "not in the public interest" to regulate it, two staff members familiar with the issue told The New York Times Thursday.</p><p>"The agency has determined that perchlorate does not occur with a frequency and at levels of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a> concern, and that regulation of perchlorate does not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems," the draft policy reads, staff members told The New York Times.</p>
<p>Environmental and public health advocates condemned the decision.</p><p>"EPA's cynical decision to defy a court order and the law, and to ignore the science that, as the American Academy of Pediatrics has said, dictates a strong perchlorate standard to protect vulnerable kids, is a deeply disturbing violation of the agency's mission," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> (NRDC) senior strategic director for health and food Erik Olson <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/erik-d-olson/epa-refuses-protect-children-perchlorate-contaminated-tap-water?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=DrinkWaterPolicy&fbclid=IwAR3NYh52apJk63OrN_zNrvSrrhBs7LSRnzI5eRqAkeCFK4VX-U8dBUzaQio" target="_blank">wrote</a>. "It must be reversed."</p><p>NRDC was behind the lawsuit that led to the court order the EPA is now violating.</p>
<div id="2c7ae" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f8af07123fc507733e36db1ce03cbc03"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1260977337878937602" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: @EPAAWheeler & Trump’s @EPA are choosing NOT to regulate #perchlorate, a dangerous chemical linked to fet… https://t.co/giSKPNIgpJ</div> — NRDC 🌎🏡 (@NRDC 🌎🏡)<a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/statuses/1260977337878937602">1589475399.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>In response, EPA spokeswoman Andrea Woods told The New York Times that a final decision had not been made and that the EPA would "shortly" send the final rule to the Office of Management and Budget.</p><p>"Any information that is shared or reported now would be premature, inappropriate and would be prejudging the formal rulemaking process," she said.</p><p>In a separate statement released after The New York Times story broke, Wheeler said that perchlorate levels had already been successfully reduced because of joint state and EPA efforts.</p><p>"Because of steps that EPA, states and public water systems have taken to identify, monitor and mitigate perchlorate, the levels have decreased in drinking water," Wheeler said, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/497794-epa-wont-regulate-rocket-fuel-chemical-tied-to-developmental-damage" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>. "This success demonstrates that EPA and states are working together to lead the world in providing safe drinking water to all Americans."</p>
<p>Attempts to regulate perchlorate have been long delayed by opposition from the Department of Defense and the companies that supply it, and the NRDC suit was initially brought against Obama's EPA for dragging its heels on a regulation after determining in 2011 that perchlorate posed a health risk, according to The New York Times.</p><p>But the Trump EPA is going even further by reversing that 2011 decision. NRDC's Olson explained how it is justifying the reversal and why it is such a threat to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/childrens-health" target="_self">children's health</a>:</p><blockquote>To explain why it's revoking its previous finding, EPA now contends its 2008 <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P1004X7Q.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru10%5CTxt%5C00000010%5CP1004X7Q.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL" target="_blank">health advisory</a> for perchlorate in drinking water—set at 15 parts per billion or ppb—is far more protective of health than needed. That 15 ppb health advisory was based on a 2005 <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11202/health-implications-of-perchlorate-ingestion" target="_blank">National Academy of Sciences study</a>. Instead, Wheeler now finds a level of 56 ppb would be safe, and perhaps even 90 ppb would be fine. EPA admits that a standard of 56 ppb would allow those kids exposed to perchlorate in drinking water at above this level to have an <em>average</em> IQ loss of two points. People at the lower end of the IQ spectrum could lose far more IQ points. In concluding 56 ppb is safe, the agency would allow an unprecedented level of adverse impact on children's brain development.</blockquote>
<p>Other environmental groups have also spoken out against a 56 ppb standard.</p><p>"The science on perchlorate is very clear: It harms infants and the developing fetus," Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser for children's environmental health at the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a>, said when such a standard was first floated in May of 2019, as The Hill reported. "Perchlorate can cause irreparable damage to both cognitive and physical development. Instead of taking action to lower the levels of this rocket fuel chemical in drinking water, the administration's plan will endanger the health of future generations of kids."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Rocket Fuel Chemical Doesn't Belong in Food Packaging - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Won't Ban Brain-Damaging Pesticide - EcoWatch ›
- EPA's Proposal for Limiting Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water Is ... ›
- Trump’s EPA Dismisses Agency’s Own Findings That Chlorpyrifos Harms Children’s Brains - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less