Jump to content

Hinkley groundwater contamination: Difference between revisions

Coordinates: 34°54′11″N 117°09′36″W / 34.903°N 117.160°W / 34.903; -117.160
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ref details
inline edit inline citation
Line 7: Line 7:
| work = Water | publisher = California Environmental Protection Agency | location = [[Oakland, California|Oakland, CA]] | accessdate = April 23, 2012 | quote = The health-protective level is based on avoidance of potential carcinogenic effects}}</ref>
| work = Water | publisher = California Environmental Protection Agency | location = [[Oakland, California|Oakland, CA]] | accessdate = April 23, 2012 | quote = The health-protective level is based on avoidance of potential carcinogenic effects}}</ref>


In 1996 "after arbitrators awarded $130.5 million in the first 39 cases, PG&E decided to settle for [[United States dollar|$]]333 million,"—<ref name="digfortruth_2000" /> the largest settlement ever paid in a [[Direct-action_lawsuit|direct-action]] lawsuit in U.S. history.<ref name="sbcsentinel_2013">{{cite web | url=http://sbcsentinel.com/2013/09/pge-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-lingering-hinkley-contamination/ | title=PG&E Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Lingering Hinkley Contamination | publisher=San Bernardino County Sentinel | date=September 28, 2013 | accessdate=April 13, 2016 | author=Venturi |location=Hinkley}}</ref> In 2000, the law suit became an international cause célèbre, when [[Erin Brockovich (film)|Erin Brockovich]], the blockbuster movie was released.
In 1996 "after arbitrators awarded $130.5 million in the first 39 cases, PG&E decided to settle for [[United States dollar|$]]333 million,"—<ref name="digfortruth_2000" /> the largest settlement ever paid in a [[Direct-action_lawsuit|direct-action]] lawsuit in U.S. history.<ref name="sbcsentinel_2013">{{cite web | url=http://sbcsentinel.com/2013/09/pge-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-lingering-hinkley-contamination/ | title=PG&E Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Lingering Hinkley Contamination | publisher=San Bernardino County Sentinel | date=September 28, 2013 | accessdate=April 13, 2016 | author=Venturi |location=Hinkley}}</ref>

During negotiations about the lawsuit the presiding judges had told PG&E's lawyers that the 1987 study by Chinese scientist—Jian Dong Zhang reporting a strong link between chromium 6 pollution and cancer in humans,<ref name="zhang_1987" /><ref name="EWG_2006_June_2" /><ref name="WSJ_2006" /> "would be influential in their decision as to whether chromium-6 was harmful to human health."<ref name="ewg_letter_SOT">{{citation |url=http://www.ewg.org/news/testimony-official-correspondence/letter-society-toxicology |work=Environmental Working Group (EWG) |title=Letter to Society of Toxicology |date=July 18, 2006 |accessdate=April 14, 2016}}</ref> "[T]he Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) had cited it as evidence that hexavalent chromium might be an oral carcinogen; and (3) as a ChemRisk scientist has explained in a court deposition, the study is "really the only epidemiology treatment that's out there in the literature of a groundwater contamination plume and its potential cancer effects in a population."<ref name="ewg_letter_SOT" />

⚫
In 1997 an article was published in supposedly in which Zhang retracted his 1987 research.<ref name="Zhang_Li_1997">{{cite journal |author1=Jian Dong Zhang |author2=Shu Kun Li |journal=''Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine'' |date=April 1997 |title=Cancer mortality in a Chinese population exposed to hexavalent chromium in water |volume=39 |pages=315-31}}</ref> In reality ChemRisk had purchased Zhang's original data and hired [[Deborah Proctor]] from [[ToxStrategies]]<ref name="publicintegrity_2013" /> to distort the findings, rewrite the paper and publish it in April 1997 ''Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine'' (JOEM)—the official publication of the [[American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine]]—as a retraction of Zhang's 1987 paper. It was published under Zhang's name—who was then a retired Chinese government health officer, in spite of his written objection—and a second Chinese scientist, Shu Kun Li.<ref name="Zhang_Li_1997" /> According to Peter Waldman, Zhang’s son was "outraged" at "the idea that his father would willingly have invalidated his earlier award-winning work."<ref name="Egilman_2006" /><ref name="WSJ_2005" />


In 2000, the law suit became an international cause célèbre, when [[Erin Brockovich (film)|Erin Brockovich]], the blockbuster movie was released.


In March, 2001, [[California Environmental Protection Agency|CalEPA]] asked the [[University of California, Berkeley]] to name a panel of blue-ribbon experts to form the Chromate Toxicity Review Committee. The [[California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment|OEHHA]] which was established in 1991 with the creation of Cal/EPA OEHHA used to be located across from the University of California, Berkeley and has maintained academic ties with this institution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.calepa.ca.gov/About/History01/oehha.htm|title = Cal/EPA History|accessdate=2009-05-19}}</ref> A public meeting was held on July 25, 2001 "public input on the review of scientific questions regarding the potential of chromium 6+ to cause cancer when ingested."<ref name="public_meeting_2001">{{citation |url=http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/public/chr6meets.html |title=Public meeting requesting public input on the review of scientific questions regarding the potential of chromium 6+ to cause cancer when ingested |date=July 25, 2001 |accessdate=April 14, 2016 |work=California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment }}</ref> The panel was selected by [[Jerold A. Last]] with Dennis Paustenbach as Vice President and included [[Mark Schrenker]], [[Silvio De Flora]] and [[John Froines]] as panelists.<ref name=bruin1>{{cite news|last=Schallert|first=Amanda|title=UCLA professor resigns from air quality panel|url=http://dailybruin.com/2013/07/15/ucla-professor-resigns-from-air-quality-panel/|accessdate=20 October 2013|newspaper=University of California, Los Angeles Daily Bruin|date=15 July 2013|location=Los Angeles}}</ref> They completed their review of the scientific literature regarding chromium VI and submitted their report in August 2001.<ref name="chromate_review_2001">{{citation |date=August, 2001 |author=Chromate Toxicity Review Committee |title=Report on Chromium VI Toxicity |work=University of California}}</ref><ref name="California_senate_2003">{{citation |title=Possible Interference in the Scientific Review of Chromium VI Toxicity |series=Senate Hearing |location=Los Angeles, California |date=February 28, 2003 |accessdate=April 14, 2016 |work=Senate Health and Human Services Committee}}</ref>
In March, 2001, [[California Environmental Protection Agency|CalEPA]] asked the [[University of California, Berkeley]] to name a panel of blue-ribbon experts to form the Chromate Toxicity Review Committee. The [[California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment|OEHHA]] which was established in 1991 with the creation of Cal/EPA OEHHA used to be located across from the University of California, Berkeley and has maintained academic ties with this institution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.calepa.ca.gov/About/History01/oehha.htm|title = Cal/EPA History|accessdate=2009-05-19}}</ref> A public meeting was held on July 25, 2001 "public input on the review of scientific questions regarding the potential of chromium 6+ to cause cancer when ingested."<ref name="public_meeting_2001">{{citation |url=http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/public/chr6meets.html |title=Public meeting requesting public input on the review of scientific questions regarding the potential of chromium 6+ to cause cancer when ingested |date=July 25, 2001 |accessdate=April 14, 2016 |work=California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment }}</ref> The panel was selected by [[Jerold A. Last]] with Dennis Paustenbach as Vice President and included [[Mark Schrenker]], [[Silvio De Flora]] and [[John Froines]] as panelists.<ref name=bruin1>{{cite news|last=Schallert|first=Amanda|title=UCLA professor resigns from air quality panel|url=http://dailybruin.com/2013/07/15/ucla-professor-resigns-from-air-quality-panel/|accessdate=20 October 2013|newspaper=University of California, Los Angeles Daily Bruin|date=15 July 2013|location=Los Angeles}}</ref> They completed their review of the scientific literature regarding chromium VI and submitted their report in August 2001.<ref name="chromate_review_2001">{{citation |date=August, 2001 |author=Chromate Toxicity Review Committee |title=Report on Chromium VI Toxicity |work=University of California}}</ref><ref name="California_senate_2003">{{citation |title=Possible Interference in the Scientific Review of Chromium VI Toxicity |series=Senate Hearing |location=Los Angeles, California |date=February 28, 2003 |accessdate=April 14, 2016 |work=Senate Health and Human Services Committee}}</ref>


On August 31, 2001 Russell Flegal, Jerold Last, Ernest E. McConnell from ToxPath, Marc Schenker and Hanspeter Witschi submitted their report entitled "Scientific Review of Toxicological and Human Health Issues Related to the Development of a Public Health Goal for Chromium(VI)."<ref name="oehha_CTRC_2001">{{citation |url=http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/pdf/crpanelrptfinal901.pdf |format=PDF |title=Scientific Review of Toxicological and Human Health Issues Related to the Development of a Public Health Goal for Chromium(VI) |work=Chromate Toxicity Review Committee via OEHHA |date=August 31, 2001 |pages=32|accessdate=April 14, 2016 |first1=Russell |last1=Flegal |first2=Jerold |last2=Last |first3=Ernest E. |last3=McConnell ToxPath |first4=Marc |last4=Schenker |first5=Hanspeter |last5=Witschi}}</ref><ref name="Borneff_1968">{{cite journal |last1=Borneff |first1=J |last2=Engelhardt |first2=K |last3=Griem |first3=W |last4=Kunte |first4=H |last5=Reichert |first5=J. |series=Carcinogens in water and soil |number= XXII |title=Experiment with 3,4-benzopyrene and potassium chromate in mice drink|journal=Arch Hyg Bakteriol |date=1968 |volume=152 |pages=45-53}}</ref> Paustenbach's ChemRisk worked for PG&E; Silvio De Flora and Phil Cole were PG&E expert defense witness for PG&E.<ref name="Egilman_2006" />{{rp|173-4}}
On August 31, 2001 Russell Flegal, Jerold Last, Ernest E. McConnell from ToxPath, Marc Schenker and Hanspeter Witschi submitted their report entitled "Scientific Review of Toxicological and Human Health Issues Related to the Development of a Public Health Goal for Chromium(VI)."<ref name="oehha_CTRC_2001">{{citation |url=http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/pdf/crpanelrptfinal901.pdf |format=PDF |title=Scientific Review of Toxicological and Human Health Issues Related to the Development of a Public Health Goal for Chromium(VI) |work=Chromate Toxicity Review Committee via OEHHA |date=August 31, 2001 |pages=32|accessdate=April 14, 2016 |first1=Russell |last1=Flegal |first2=Jerold |last2=Last |first3=Ernest E. |last3=McConnell ToxPath |first4=Marc |last4=Schenker |first5=Hanspeter |last5=Witschi}}</ref><ref name="Borneff_1968">{{cite journal |last1=Borneff |first1=J |last2=Engelhardt |first2=K |last3=Griem |first3=W |last4=Kunte |first4=H |last5=Reichert |first5=J. |series=Carcinogens in water and soil |number= XXII |title=Experiment with 3,4-benzopyrene and potassium chromate in mice drink|journal=Arch Hyg Bakteriol |date=1968 |volume=152 |pages=45-53}}</ref> The blue-ribbon academic committee recommended that reports of chromium concentrations especially in Southern California were alarmist and "spuriously high" and that further evaluation should be handled by academics in laboratory settings not by regulators.<ref name="oehha_CTRC_2001" />{{rp|29}} Their report cited both the 1987 Zhang article and the retracted 1997 version.<ref name="Zhang_Li_1997" /><ref name="zhang_1987" /><ref name="EWG_2006_June_2" /><ref name="WSJ_2006" /><!--Paustenbach's ChemRisk worked for PG&E; Silvio De Flora and Phil Cole were PG&E expert defense witness for PG&E.<ref name="Egilman_2006" />{{rp|173-4}} --!>



Citing the 2001 Chromate Toxicity Review Committee review, in November 2001 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment withdrew their 1999 Public Health Goal for total chromium in drinking water at 2.5 parts per billion.<ref name="California_senate_2003" /><ref name="Egilman_2006">{{cite journal |title=Corporate Corruption of Science— The Case of Chromium(VI) |first=David |last=Egilman |journal=International Journal of Occupational Health|date=2006 |volume=12 |pages=169–176 |url=https://asopossos.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ijoeh_april06-cr62.pdf |format=PDF |series=Commentary}}</ref>
Citing the 2001 Chromate Toxicity Review Committee review, in November 2001 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment withdrew their 1999 Public Health Goal for total chromium in drinking water at 2.5 parts per billion.<ref name="California_senate_2003" /><ref name="Egilman_2006">{{cite journal |title=Corporate Corruption of Science— The Case of Chromium(VI) |first=David |last=Egilman |journal=International Journal of Occupational Health|date=2006 |volume=12 |pages=169–176 |url=https://asopossos.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ijoeh_april06-cr62.pdf |format=PDF |series=Commentary}}</ref>


In 2001 the firm of Engstron, Lipscomb and Lack had filed a follow-up lawsuit which is known as Aguayo vs. PG&E on behalf of 900 people stemming from contamination with chromium in both Hinkley and Kettleman, California.<ref name="California_senate_2003" /> In the Senate hearing on "Possible Interference in the Scientific Review of Chromium VI Toxicity" held in 2003 Gary Praglin, a lawyer at the Engstron, Lipscomb and Lack testified that,
In 2001 the firm of Engstron, Lipscomb and Lack had filed a follow-up lawsuit which is known as Aguayo vs. PG&E on behalf of 900 people stemming from contamination with chromium in both Hinkley and Kettleman, California.<ref name="California_senate_2003" /> In 2003 Senator Deborah Ortiz who represented the Sacramento area and chaired the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, along with Gary Praglin, a lawyer with firm of Engstron, Lipscomb and Lack in Los Angeles called a Senate hearing into the "Possible Interference in the Scientific Review of Chromium VI Toxicity."<ref name="California_senate_2003" /> At the hearing Praglin testified about the way in which the flawed 2001 report by the Chromate Toxicity Review Committee negatively impacted on their court case against PG&E.<ref name="oehha_CTRC_2001" />


⚫
{{quote|"After the blue-ribbon panel report came out, PG&E came into court, and they told the judge that everything had changed. They were waiving the blue-ribbon report—the blue-ribbon panel report—like a flag. They said to the judge, The State of California has spoken. It has said that chromium VI does not cause cancer by ingestion, and they wanted to amend their paperwork, their motions, their declarations, and move to dismiss our case. And they got that permission to do that. They amended all their paperwork, and we were given permission to take discovery—to take depositions, issue subpoenas—and we have obtained thousands of pages of documents in connection with the blue-ribbon panel process."|Gary Praglin February 23, 2003 California Senate Hearing "Possible Interference in the Scientific Review of Chromium VI Toxicity"}}


⚫
{{quote|"After the blue-ribbon panel report came out, PG&E came into court, and they told the judge that everything had changed. They were waiving the blue-ribbon report—the blue-ribbon panel report—like a flag. They said to the judge, The State of California has spoken. It has said that chromium VI does not cause cancer by ingestion, and they wanted to amend their paperwork, their motions, their declarations, and move to dismiss our case. And they got that permission to do that. They amended all their paperwork, and we were given permission to take discovery—to take depositions, issue subpoenas—and we have obtained thousands of pages of documents in connection with the blue-ribbon panel process."|Gary Praglin February 23, 2003 California Senate Hearing "Possible Interference in the Scientific Review of Chromium VI Toxicity"}}
In 2003 Senator Deborah Ortiz who represented the Sacramento area and chaired the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, along with Gary Praglin, a lawyer with firm of Engstron, Lipscomb and Lack in Los Angeles called a Senate hearing into the "Possible Interference in the Scientific Review
of Chromium VI Toxicity."<ref name="California_senate_2003" />
Since the Hinkley groundwater contamination law suit, a group of California-based scientists who are part of organizations such as the Desert Sierra Cancer Surveillance Program (DSCSP) and ChemRisk—including defense expert witnesses Steven R. Patierno—have aggressively argued against the claim that chromium-VI is genotoxic, to downplay the number of cancer cases and to challenge that there was a "cancer cluster in the Hinkley area."<ref name="motherjones_2013" /><ref name=cancer /><ref name="toxic_clout" /><ref name="Patierno_chromium_CPI_2013" /><ref name="NCBI_Patierno_2011">{{cite web | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942955/ | title=Chromium genotoxicity: a double-edged sword: Cell Death or Survival: The Double-Edged Sword of Environmental Toxicity | publisher=[[National Center for Biotechnology Information]] (NCBI) |journal=Chemico-Biological Interactions| date=November 5, 2011 | accessdate=14 April 2016 | author=Kristen P. Nickens, Steven R. Patierno, and Susan Ceryak |PMC=2942955 |volume=188 |number= 2 |pages=276–288}}</ref> According to the lawsuit, PG&E was also required to discontinue use of chromium-6 and to clean up the contaminated groundwater.<ref name="IVEY_engineering_2012">{{citation |url=http://www.iveyengineering.com/class-action-lawsuits-2/ |title=6 Class Action Lawsuits that Changed U.S. History |work=IVEY Engineering |date=November 20, 2012 |accessdate=April 14, 2016}}</ref>By 2008 however, the plume of chromium was spreading, capturing media attention by 2011.<ref name="IVEY_engineering_2012" /> In November 2010 PG&E began to offer to purchase threatened homes and property in Hinkley and to provide bottled water.<ref name="IVEY_engineering_2012" /> By 2013, the plume was "more than six miles long and two miles wide and gradually expanding."<ref name="sbcsentinel_2013" /> In early 2016, the ''New York Times'' described Hinkley as having been slowly turned into a [[ghost town]] due to the contamination of the area.<ref name="NYT_2016">{{cite news|last1=Lovett|first1=Ian|title=Gas Leak in Los Angeles Has Residents Looking Warily Toward Flint|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/us/gas-leak-in-los-angeles-has-residents-looking-warily-toward-flint.html?_r=0|accessdate=24 January 2016|publisher=New York Times|date=23 January 2016}}</ref>
Since the Hinkley groundwater contamination law suit, a group of California-based scientists who are part of organizations such as the Desert Sierra Cancer Surveillance Program (DSCSP) and ChemRisk—including defense expert witnesses Steven R. Patierno—have aggressively argued against the claim that chromium-VI is genotoxic, to downplay the number of cancer cases and to challenge that there was a "cancer cluster in the Hinkley area."<ref name="motherjones_2013" /><ref name=cancer /><ref name="toxic_clout" /><ref name="Patierno_chromium_CPI_2013" /><ref name="NCBI_Patierno_2011">{{cite web | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942955/ | title=Chromium genotoxicity: a double-edged sword: Cell Death or Survival: The Double-Edged Sword of Environmental Toxicity | publisher=[[National Center for Biotechnology Information]] (NCBI) |journal=Chemico-Biological Interactions| date=November 5, 2011 | accessdate=14 April 2016 | author=Kristen P. Nickens, Steven R. Patierno, and Susan Ceryak |PMC=2942955 |volume=188 |number= 2 |pages=276–288}}</ref>
According to the lawsuit, PG&E was also required to discontinue use of chromium-6 and to clean up the contaminated groundwater.<ref name="IVEY_engineering_2012">{{citation |url=http://www.iveyengineering.com/class-action-lawsuits-2/ |title=6 Class Action Lawsuits that Changed U.S. History |work=IVEY Engineering |date=November 20, 2012 |accessdate=April 14, 2016}}</ref>By 2008 however, the plume of chromium was spreading, capturing media attention by 2011.<ref name="IVEY_engineering_2012" /> In November 2010 PG&E began to offer to purchase threatened homes and property in Hinkley and to provide bottled water.<ref name="IVEY_engineering_2012" /> By 2013, the plume was "more than six miles long and two miles wide and gradually expanding."<ref name="sbcsentinel_2013" />


In 2006, PG&E agreed to pay $295 million to settle cases involving another 1,100 people statewide for hexavalent chromium-related claims.
In 2006, PG&E agreed to pay $295 million to settle cases involving another 1,100 people statewide for hexavalent chromium-related claims.
Line 30: Line 38:
In July 2014 California became the first state to acknowledge that ingested chromium-6 is linked to cancer and as a result has established a maximum Chromium-6 contaminant level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion (ppb).<ref name="HEX Chrome Letter">{{cite web|url=http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/chromium6/LettertoPWS-StateAdoptionofaHexavalentChromiumMCL-20140620.pdf | title=State Adoption of a Hexavalent Chromium MCL |accessdate=2014-10-08 |publisher=California Department of Public Health}}</ref>
In July 2014 California became the first state to acknowledge that ingested chromium-6 is linked to cancer and as a result has established a maximum Chromium-6 contaminant level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion (ppb).<ref name="HEX Chrome Letter">{{cite web|url=http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/chromium6/LettertoPWS-StateAdoptionofaHexavalentChromiumMCL-20140620.pdf | title=State Adoption of a Hexavalent Chromium MCL |accessdate=2014-10-08 |publisher=California Department of Public Health}}</ref>
<ref name="CalEPA_2015" /> Hexavalent chromium is measured in μg/L micrograms per liter. For drinking water the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) does not have a [[Maximum Contaminant Level]] (MCL) for hexavalent chromium. However, the EPA does have a MCL for all forms of [[Chromium#Compounds|chromium]] at 100 parts per billion.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chromium in Drinking Water|url=http://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/chromium-drinking-water#what-are-dw-regs|website=www.epa.gov|accessdate=30 December 2015}}</ref>
<ref name="CalEPA_2015" /> Hexavalent chromium is measured in μg/L micrograms per liter. For drinking water the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) does not have a [[Maximum Contaminant Level]] (MCL) for hexavalent chromium. However, the EPA does have a MCL for all forms of [[Chromium#Compounds|chromium]] at 100 parts per billion.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chromium in Drinking Water|url=http://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/chromium-drinking-water#what-are-dw-regs|website=www.epa.gov|accessdate=30 December 2015}}</ref>

In early 2016, the ''New York Times'' described Hinkley as having been slowly turned into a [[ghost town]] due to the contamination of the area.<ref name="NYT_2016">{{cite news|last1=Lovett|first1=Ian|title=Gas Leak in Los Angeles Has Residents Looking Warily Toward Flint|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/us/gas-leak-in-los-angeles-has-residents-looking-warily-toward-flint.html?_r=0|accessdate=24 January 2016|publisher=New York Times|date=23 January 2016}}</ref>


==Pollution of groundwater==
==Pollution of groundwater==
Line 92: Line 102:


It remained as "the only study of people ingesting chromium-6 in their drinking water."<ref name="EWG_2006_June_2" />{{rp|172}} Allan Hirsch said that CalEPA's 2008 review of Zhang's 1987 paper agreed with his results that the rates of stomach cancer in these 3 villages were significantly higher than the overall province.<ref name="scienceforsale_PBS_2013" /> PG&E hired [[ChemRisk]], a for-profit scientific consulting firm<ref name="huffingtonpost_2013_oct_14">{{cite web | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cherri-foytlin/chemrisk-bp-and-purple-st_b_4095131.html | title=ChemRisk, BP and Purple Strategies: A Tangled Web of Not-So-Independent Science | publisher=Huffington Post | date=14 October 2013 | accessdate=13 April 2016 |first=Cherri |last=Foytlin}}</ref><ref name="NYT_2015_unlikely_opponents">{{cite web | url=http://nyti.ms/1LeBuAc | title=Science Consultant Pushes Back Against Unlikely Opponents | publisher=The New York Times | date=11 October 2015 | accessdate=13 April 2016 }}</ref> whose founder and director—Dennis Paustenbach—has provided expert witness testimony for "scores of companies in the chemical, energy and medical products industries" facing lawsuits over products or environmental practices or product safety.<ref name="NYT_2015_unlikely_opponents" /><ref name="EWG_2006_June_2">{{cite web | url=http://www.ewg.org/news/news-releases/2006/06/02/joem-retracts-fradulent-chromium-article | title=JOEM Retracts Fradulent Chromium Article | publisher=EWG | date=2 June 2006 | accessdate=13 April 2016 | location=Washington, DC}}</ref>
It remained as "the only study of people ingesting chromium-6 in their drinking water."<ref name="EWG_2006_June_2" />{{rp|172}} Allan Hirsch said that CalEPA's 2008 review of Zhang's 1987 paper agreed with his results that the rates of stomach cancer in these 3 villages were significantly higher than the overall province.<ref name="scienceforsale_PBS_2013" /> PG&E hired [[ChemRisk]], a for-profit scientific consulting firm<ref name="huffingtonpost_2013_oct_14">{{cite web | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cherri-foytlin/chemrisk-bp-and-purple-st_b_4095131.html | title=ChemRisk, BP and Purple Strategies: A Tangled Web of Not-So-Independent Science | publisher=Huffington Post | date=14 October 2013 | accessdate=13 April 2016 |first=Cherri |last=Foytlin}}</ref><ref name="NYT_2015_unlikely_opponents">{{cite web | url=http://nyti.ms/1LeBuAc | title=Science Consultant Pushes Back Against Unlikely Opponents | publisher=The New York Times | date=11 October 2015 | accessdate=13 April 2016 }}</ref> whose founder and director—Dennis Paustenbach—has provided expert witness testimony for "scores of companies in the chemical, energy and medical products industries" facing lawsuits over products or environmental practices or product safety.<ref name="NYT_2015_unlikely_opponents" /><ref name="EWG_2006_June_2">{{cite web | url=http://www.ewg.org/news/news-releases/2006/06/02/joem-retracts-fradulent-chromium-article | title=JOEM Retracts Fradulent Chromium Article | publisher=EWG | date=2 June 2006 | accessdate=13 April 2016 | location=Washington, DC}}</ref>

⚫
ChemRisk purchased Zhang's original data and hired [[Deborah Proctor]] from [[ToxStrategies]]<ref name="publicintegrity_2013" /> to distort the findings, rewrite the paper and publish it in April 1997 ''Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine'' (JOEM)—the official publication of the [[American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine]]—as a retraction of Zhang's 1987 paper. It was published under Zhang's name—who was then a retired Chinese government health officer, in spite of his written objection—and a second Chinese scientist, Shu Kun Li.<ref name="Zhang_Li_1997">{{cite journal |author1=Jian Dong Zhang |author2=Shu Kun Li |journal=''Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine'' |date=April 1997 |title=Summary: retraction of 1987 article regarding chromium 6 as causing stomach cancer}}</ref> According to Peter Waldman Zhang’s son was "outraged" at "the idea that his father would willingly have invalidated his earlier award-winning work."<ref name="Egilman_2006" /><ref name="WSJ_2005" />


According to the Center for Public Integrity, "the revised study — which did not reveal the involvement of PG&E or its scientists — helped persuade California health officials to delay new drinking water standards for chromium."<ref name="publicintegrity_2013" /> The [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] cited the article when it allowed continued use of chromium in a wood preservative. The [[Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry]] discounted chromium-6 as an oral carcinogen because of this article.<ref name="EWG_2006_June_2" /><ref name="Zhang_Li_1997" />
According to the Center for Public Integrity, "the revised study — which did not reveal the involvement of PG&E or its scientists — helped persuade California health officials to delay new drinking water standards for chromium."<ref name="publicintegrity_2013" /> The [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] cited the article when it allowed continued use of chromium in a wood preservative. The [[Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry]] discounted chromium-6 as an oral carcinogen because of this article.<ref name="EWG_2006_June_2" /><ref name="Zhang_Li_1997" />

Revision as of 03:21, 15 April 2016

Hinkley groundwater contamination refers to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) dumping "roughly 370 million gallons" of chromium-tainted wastewater" into unlined wastewater spreading pond around the town of Hinkley, California, located in the Mojave Desert, (about 121 miles driving distance north-northeast of Los Angeles) from 1952 to 1966 and the ongoing process of restitution and clean-up.[1]: 228 [2] PG&E used chromium 6—"one of the cheapest and most efficient commercially available" in their compressor station for natural gas transmission pipelines.[1][3] Just north of California State Highway 58, the residents continue to face concerns over chromium-6 in their well water from the world’s largest plume of this cancer-causing chemical.[4]

History

Although the dumping took place from 1952 to 1966 when Hinkley was "a remote desert community united by a single school and a general store."[1] PG&E did not inform the local water board of the contamination until December 7, 1987.[5]

In 1993, Erin Brockovich, a legal clerk to lawyer Edward L. Masry, investigated the apparent elevated cluster of illnesses in the community linked to hexavalent chromium.[6]

In 1996 "after arbitrators awarded $130.5 million in the first 39 cases, PG&E decided to settle for $333 million,"—[3] the largest settlement ever paid in a direct-action lawsuit in U.S. history.[7]

During negotiations about the lawsuit the presiding judges had told PG&E's lawyers that the 1987 study by Chinese scientist—Jian Dong Zhang reporting a strong link between chromium 6 pollution and cancer in humans,[8][9][10] "would be influential in their decision as to whether chromium-6 was harmful to human health."[11] "[T]he Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) had cited it as evidence that hexavalent chromium might be an oral carcinogen; and (3) as a ChemRisk scientist has explained in a court deposition, the study is "really the only epidemiology treatment that's out there in the literature of a groundwater contamination plume and its potential cancer effects in a population."[11]

In 1997 an article was published in supposedly in which Zhang retracted his 1987 research.[12] In reality ChemRisk had purchased Zhang's original data and hired Deborah Proctor from ToxStrategies[5] to distort the findings, rewrite the paper and publish it in April 1997 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM)—the official publication of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine—as a retraction of Zhang's 1987 paper. It was published under Zhang's name—who was then a retired Chinese government health officer, in spite of his written objection—and a second Chinese scientist, Shu Kun Li.[12] According to Peter Waldman, Zhang’s son was "outraged" at "the idea that his father would willingly have invalidated his earlier award-winning work."[13][14]


In 2000, the law suit became an international cause célèbre, when Erin Brockovich, the blockbuster movie was released.

In March, 2001, CalEPA asked the University of California, Berkeley to name a panel of blue-ribbon experts to form the Chromate Toxicity Review Committee. The OEHHA which was established in 1991 with the creation of Cal/EPA OEHHA used to be located across from the University of California, Berkeley and has maintained academic ties with this institution.[15] A public meeting was held on July 25, 2001 "public input on the review of scientific questions regarding the potential of chromium 6+ to cause cancer when ingested."[16] The panel was selected by Jerold A. Last with Dennis Paustenbach as Vice President and included Mark Schrenker, Silvio De Flora and John Froines as panelists.[17] They completed their review of the scientific literature regarding chromium VI and submitted their report in August 2001.[18][19]

On August 31, 2001 Russell Flegal, Jerold Last, Ernest E. McConnell from ToxPath, Marc Schenker and Hanspeter Witschi submitted their report entitled "Scientific Review of Toxicological and Human Health Issues Related to the Development of a Public Health Goal for Chromium(VI)."[20][21] The blue-ribbon academic committee recommended that reports of chromium concentrations especially in Southern California were alarmist and "spuriously high" and that further evaluation should be handled by academics in laboratory settings not by regulators.[20]: 29  Their report cited both the 1987 Zhang article and the retracted 1997 version.[12][8][9][10]}}</ref>

Plume

Samples taken in August 2010 showed that the plume of contaminated water had started to migrate into the lower aquifer.[22][23] As of September 2013, the Cal/EPA reports that the plume has expanded to 6 miles long and 4 miles wide.[24] In 2015 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region served the PG&E with a new order i"to cleanup and abate the effects of the discharge of chromium waste or threatened pollution or nuisance." By the time of the report the plume was "8 miles in length and approximately 2 miles in width, throughout the Hinkley Valley and into Harper Dry Lake Valley."[25]: 2 

Cleanup

By 2013 PG&E had spent over $750 million on remediation. Sheryl Bilbery who is in charge of PG&E in charge of remediation efforts, explained that remediation was taking a long time. "It's a very complex project. We are highly regulated. There are a lot of interested parties. The other thing is it is very important that we get it right."[26]

For their 2013 series entitled "Science for Sale" PBS NewsHour journalist Miles O'Brien interviewed PG&E's Director of Chromium Remediation, Kevin Sullivan, who claimed they have cleaned up 54 acres but that it would take another 40 years before they were done. PG&E built a concrete wall barrier that is about a half-mile-long to contain the plume, pump ethanol into the ground to convert chromium-6 into chromium-3, and have planted acres of alfalfa.[26] O'Brien also interviewed Erin Brockovitch who was surprised that PG&E had not completed the clean-up as promised more than a decade ago.[26] In correspondence with Sullivan the Water Board noted that by 2014 "chromium from PG&E’s historical releases at the Hinkley Compressor Station has migrated from the upper aquifer to the lower aquifer causing hexavalent chromium concentrations in the lower aquifer to exceed drinking water standards."[27]

Ongoing cleanup documentation is maintained at the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) page regarding Hinkley.[24]

Debate on Hinkley cancer clusters and chromium (VI) genotoxicity

A 2007 Toxicity Report for the National Toxicology Program provided evidence that high doses of chromium 6 caused cancer in rats and mice.[28][29]

In 2013 PG&E's Sheryl Bilbery told PBS journalist that, "There’s a lot of scientists that are still debating that question [hexavalent chromium toxicity]. I think that’s why the process has taken so long, from what I have read, both at EPA and at the state level. So, I think they’re still trying to figure out exactly what is the right answer there."[26] In July 2014 CalEPA established a maximum Chromium-6 contaminant level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion (ppb) as a result of new research which linked ingestion of hexavalent chromium with cancer.[30] Since the Hinkley groundwater contamination law suit, a group of California-based scientists who are part of organizations such as Desert Sierra Cancer Surveillance Program (DSCSP) and ChemRisk have argued against the claim that chromium-VI is genotoxic, to downplay the number of cancer cases and to challenge that there was a "cancer cluster in the Hinkley area."[2][31]

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)

In July 2014 California became the first state to put into effect a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Hexavalent Chromium, or Chromium-6, in drinking water setting the rate at 10 parts per billion (ppb). In setting the regulations it was acknowledged that in "recent scientific studies in laboratory animals, Hexavalent Chromium has also been linked to cancer when ingested." Previously, when older Chromium MCLs were set, "at the time Total Chromium MCLs were established, ingested Hexavalent Chromium associated with consumption of drinking water was not considered to pose a cancer risk, as is now the case."[30]

According to a 2015 report by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) based on the EPA's 2010 review of the "human health effects of hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] in public drinking water," they re-examined related federal regulations.[32]: 9  Informed by California’s 2014 regulation setting the MCL for Cr(VI) at 10 µg/L, Illinois in collaboration with the USGS undertook research which was published in 2015.[32]: 9  The USEPA, taking under consideration of the most recent toxicity studies related to ingestion of Cr(VI), proposed in 2010 to "classify Cr(VI) as likely to cause cancer in humans when ingested over a lifetime."[32]: 2  Concentrations of Cr(VI) in water are given in micrograms per liter (µg/L) and milligrams per liter (mg/L) with 50 µg/L equal to 50 mg/L.[32]: 8 

John Morgan

Since January 1, 1988 all cancers in California are reported to one California Cancer Registry (CCR) regional registries. Hinkley, which is in San Bernardino County is covered by the Desert Sierra Cancer Surveillance Program (DSCSP) with the with the California Department of Public Health.[33] epidemiologist John Morgan began working with DSCSP in 1995 [34]

Morgan has published over a hundred abstracts, presentations or reports—some of which are peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts. Many of his PowerPoints and online posts attempt to debunk allegations that chromium pollution caused the cancer cluster in the Hinkley area and to downplay the number of cancer cases there.[2][31] . In his often-cited 2010 California Cancer Registry study he claimed that cancer rates in Hinkley "remained unremarkable from 1988 to 2008."[31][35] In his study co-authored with M.E.Reeves they claimed that "the 196 cases of cancer reported during the most recent survey of 1996 through 2008 were less than what he would expect based on demographics and the regional rate of cancer."[31]

In his 2012 PowerPoint presentation at the Proceedings of the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) Conference, Morgan using cartoon characters and simplified language, continued to argue that "Inhaled Cr[VI] powder is accepted as a carcinogen, while the role of aqueous Cr[VI] as a human carcinogen has been challenged."[36] Morgan wrote a letter to The Connection to further publicize his poster.[37]

In 2013 the Center for Public Integrity found glaring weaknesses in Morgan's 2010 analysis that challenge the validity of his findings. "In his first study, he dismisses what others see as a genuine cancer cluster in Hinkley. In his latest analysis, he excludes people who were exposed to the worst contamination."[2]

Environmental Working Group (EWG)

According to a 2010 report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Chromium(VI)-contaminated water supply is widespread in the United States with "at least 74 million Americans in 42 states" drink chromium-polluted tap water,chromium-polluted tap water.[38][39] and in at least 25 cities toxic levels of chromium 6 were above the 2010 proposed safe maximum. In the same year the a draft toxicological review by the EPA found that hexavalent chromium in tap water is "likely to be carcinogenic to humans."[38]

Dennis Paustenbach

Dennis Paustenbach, "has long been an expert witness and top consultant" to "scores of companies in the chemical, energy and medical products industries" facing lawsuits over products or environmental practices or product safety.[40] Paustenbach was the founder and director of ChemRisk. Brent Kerger was one of his senior scientists.[13] Their clients included San Francisco-based utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and BP.[9][41]

Paustenbach was at the center of a publishing scandal[10] involving the research of a Chinese scientist—Jian Dong Zhang who published a paper in 1987 reporting "significant association between chromium pollution of drinking water and higher rates of stomach cancer in residents of three villages in Liaoning Province in rural northeast China who "lived near a chromium ore smelter and drank tainted water for years."[9][8]

It remained as "the only study of people ingesting chromium-6 in their drinking water."[9]: 172  Allan Hirsch said that CalEPA's 2008 review of Zhang's 1987 paper agreed with his results that the rates of stomach cancer in these 3 villages were significantly higher than the overall province.[26] PG&E hired ChemRisk, a for-profit scientific consulting firm[42][40] whose founder and director—Dennis Paustenbach—has provided expert witness testimony for "scores of companies in the chemical, energy and medical products industries" facing lawsuits over products or environmental practices or product safety.[40][9]

According to the Center for Public Integrity, "the revised study — which did not reveal the involvement of PG&E or its scientists — helped persuade California health officials to delay new drinking water standards for chromium."[5] The United States Environmental Protection Agency cited the article when it allowed continued use of chromium in a wood preservative. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry discounted chromium-6 as an oral carcinogen because of this article.[9][12]

Prompted by an investigation by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), in 2006 JOEM undertook a six month internal review of the 1997 retraction.[9] By the time JOEM undertook their investigation, Zhang had already died but the second author agreed the paper should be retracted when JOEM.[14][9] According to an 2005 article by Peter Waldman in The Wall Street Journal, ChemRisk had authored the article as consultants for PG&E who were "being sued for alleged chromium pollution."[14]

""It has been brought to our attention that an article published in JOEM in the April 1997 issue by Zhang and Li failed to meet the journal's published editorial policy in effect at that time... Specifically, financial and intellectual input to the paper by outside parties was not disclosed."Paul Brandt-Rauf, Editor JOEM

Paustenbach worked with ChemRisk and later Exponent.[13]: 172 

Steven Patierno

In September 2010, scientists at the EPA came to the startling conclusion that "even a small amount of a chemical compound commonly found in tap water may cause cancer."[43] Steven Patierno, who had served as expert defense witness for seven chromium (VI) lawsuits was surprisingly named by the EPA to serve on the peer review panel to critique the EPA’s chromium (VI) findings which is a potential conflict of interest.[44] A team of investigative journalists from the Center for Public Integrity revealed this in their series entitled Toxic Clout.[43]

One of PG&E key expert witnesses was Steven R. Patierno, deputy director of the Duke Cancer Institute and a former professor of pharmacology at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences who had conducted numerous studies on chromium and who argues that "drinking low doses of chromium (VI) does not cause cancer."[43][44][45] Patierno has co-authored papers with ChemRisk's founder-director Dennis Paustenbach who also provided expert defense witnesses for PG&E. In 1996 Paustenbach and Steven Patierno were co-authors of an article arguing that chromium 6 is not genotoxic.[46] Paustenbach and ChemRisk have "drawn the scrutiny of investigative journalists."[40]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c "The 'Erin Brockvich effect': How media shapes toxics policy" (PDF). Environs. 26 (2): 219–32. 2003.
  2. ^ a b c d Heath, David (3 June 2013), "Erin Brockovich's Biggest Debunker, Debunked: A closer look finds serious flaws in the research of a scientist trying to disprove an infamous California cancer cluster", Center for Public Integrity via Mother Jones, retrieved 13 April 2013
  3. ^ a b Welkos, Robert W. (12 March 2000), Digging for the Truth: With tensions over accuracy in film running high, 'Erin Brockovich' pays attention to real-life detail, retrieved 13 April 2013
  4. ^ Steinberg, Jim (March 18, 2015). "Hinkley continues to shrink: Desert town set to lose only market, gas station, Post Office".
  5. ^ a b c David Heath (March 13, 2013). "How industry scientists stalled action on carcinogen". Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved 14 April 2016.
  6. ^ Baes, Michael (July 29, 2011). "Final Technical Support Document on Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water". Water. Oakland, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved April 23, 2012. The health-protective level is based on avoidance of potential carcinogenic effects
  7. ^ Venturi (September 28, 2013). "PG&E Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Lingering Hinkley Contamination". Hinkley: San Bernardino County Sentinel. Retrieved April 13, 2016.
  8. ^ a b c Zhang, Jian Dong; Li, XL (1987), Chromium pollution of soil and water in Jinzhou, vol. 21, pp. 262–4 Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi translated from Chinese
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i "JOEM Retracts Fradulent Chromium Article". Washington, DC: EWG. 2 June 2006. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
  10. ^ a b c Waldman, Peter (June 2, 2006), Publication to Retract An Influential Water Study, The Wall Street Journal, retrieved 13 April 2016article ID SB113530126572230084
  11. ^ a b "Letter to Society of Toxicology", Environmental Working Group (EWG), July 18, 2006, retrieved April 14, 2016
  12. ^ a b c d Jian Dong Zhang; Shu Kun Li (April 1997). "Cancer mortality in a Chinese population exposed to hexavalent chromium in water". Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 39: 315–31. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  13. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Egilman_2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b c Waldman, Peter (23 December 2005), Study Tied Pollutant to Cancer; Then Consultants Got Hold of It:'Clarification' of Chinese Study Absolved Chromium-6; Did Author Really Write It?, The Wall Street Journal, retrieved 13 April 2016article ID SB113530126572230084
  15. ^ "Cal/EPA History". Retrieved 2009-05-19.
  16. ^ "Public meeting requesting public input on the review of scientific questions regarding the potential of chromium 6+ to cause cancer when ingested", California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, July 25, 2001, retrieved April 14, 2016
  17. ^ Schallert, Amanda (15 July 2013). "UCLA professor resigns from air quality panel". University of California, Los Angeles Daily Bruin. Los Angeles. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
  18. ^ Chromate Toxicity Review Committee (August, 2001), "Report on Chromium VI Toxicity", University of California {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. ^ "Possible Interference in the Scientific Review of Chromium VI Toxicity", Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Senate Hearing, Los Angeles, California, February 28, 2003 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  20. ^ a b Flegal, Russell; Last, Jerold; McConnell ToxPath, Ernest E.; Schenker, Marc; Witschi, Hanspeter (August 31, 2001), "Scientific Review of Toxicological and Human Health Issues Related to the Development of a Public Health Goal for Chromium(VI)" (PDF), Chromate Toxicity Review Committee via OEHHA, p. 32, retrieved April 14, 2016
  21. ^ Borneff, J; Engelhardt, K; Griem, W; Kunte, H; Reichert, J. (1968). "Experiment with 3,4-benzopyrene and potassium chromate in mice drink". Arch Hyg Bakteriol. Carcinogens in water and soil. 152 (XXII): 45–53.
  22. ^ "A decade after "Erin Brockovich," contamination spreads in Hinkley", Victorville Daily Press, November 9, 2010, retrieved November 17, 2010 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  23. ^ Carrie Kahn (December 13, 2010). "Erin Brockovich II? Activist Returns To Aid Town". NPR.
  24. ^ a b "PG&E Hinkley Chromium Cleanup". California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved September 18, 2013.
  25. ^ "Clean-up and abatement order" (PDF), The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region (Water Board), no. R6V-2015-0068, San Bernardino County, 2015
  26. ^ a b c d e "Protecting Americans From Danger in the Drinking Water", PBS, Science for Sale, March 13, 2013
  27. ^ "Conditional acceptance of the plan to install a new extraction well to improve the effectiveness of chromium remediation in groundwater in the lower aquifer of Hinkley" (PDF), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region (Water Board), December 22, 2014
  28. ^ Bucher, JR (January 2007), "NTP toxicity studies of sodium dichromate dihydrate (CAS No. 7789-12-0) administered in drinking water to male and female F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice and male BALB/c and am3-C57BL/6 mice", National Toxicology Program, Toxicity Report Series, no. 72
  29. ^ Zhitkovich, Anatoly (2011). "Chromium in Drinking Water: Sources, Metabolism, and Cancer Risks". Chemical Research in Toxicology. 24 (10): 1617–1629. doi:10.1021/tx200251t. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
  30. ^ a b "Fact Sheet: Frequently Asked Questions about Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water" (PDF), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Sacremento, California, 2015, retrieved April 14, 2016
  31. ^ a b c d Morgan, John W.; Reeves, M. E., Cancer in Hinkley: What was the real problem?
  32. ^ a b c d Mills, Patrick C.; Cobb, Richard P. (April 28, 2015). "Hexavalent and Total Chromium at Low Reporting Concentrations in Source-Water Aquifers and Surface Waters Used for Public Supply in Illinois, 2013" (PDF). United States Geological Survey (USGS). p. 82. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
  33. ^ Morgan, John W.; Prendergast, Thomas (September 25, 2000). "Community Cancer Assessment in Hinkley California, 1988-1993: Hinkley cancer-cluster or not". The Desert Sierra Cancer Surveillance Program (DSCSP). Retrieved 14 April 2016.
  34. ^ "John Morgan", Loma Linda University Health, 2015 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  35. ^ Schwartz, Naoki (December 13, 2010), "Survey shows unremarkable cancer rate in CA town", Boston Globe
  36. ^ Morgan, John W.; Reeves, M. E. (June 2012). Cancer assessments in Hinkley: What’s the real problem?. Proceedings of the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) Conference. Portland, Oregon. {{cite conference}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  37. ^ "Letter to the Editor. Cancer Assessments in Hinkley, California" (PDF), National Cancer Registrars Association, The Connection, August 2012
  38. ^ a b Chromium-6 in US Tap Water (PDF) (Report). Environmental Working Group. 2010. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
  39. ^ Sutton, Rebecca (2010). "Map showing levels of chromium in tap water in the United States (2010)". Environmental Working Group. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
  40. ^ a b c d "Science Consultant Pushes Back Against Unlikely Opponents". The New York Times. 11 October 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
  41. ^ "Absorption and elimination of trivalent and hexavalent chromium in humans following ingestion of a bolus dose in drinking water", Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 141 (1): 145–158, November 1996, doi:10.1016/S0041-008X(96)80020-2 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  42. ^ Foytlin, Cherri (14 October 2013). "ChemRisk, BP and Purple Strategies: A Tangled Web of Not-So-Independent Science". Huffington Post. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
  43. ^ a b c Heath, David; Greene, Ronnie; Morris, Jim; Hamby, Chris, Morris, Jim; Greene, Ronnie (eds.), "Toxic clout project" (PDF), The Center for Public Integrity
  44. ^ a b Heath, David (February 13, 2013), "EPA was unaware of industry ties on cancer review panel", Center for Public Integrity, retrieved April 14, 2016
  45. ^ Cite error: The named reference NCBI_Patierno_2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  46. ^ Mirsalis, Jon C.; Hamilton, Carol M.; O'Loughlin, Kathleen G.; Paustenbach, Dennis J.; Kerger, Brent D.; Patierno, Steven (21 December 1996). "Chromium (VI) at plausible drinking water concentrations is not genotoxic in the in vivo bone marrow micronucleus or liver unscheduled DNA synthesis assays". Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 28 (1). Wiley-Liss, Inc: 60–63. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2280(1996)28:1<60::AID-EM9>3.0.CO;2-I. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

34°54′11″N 117°09′36″W / 34.903°N 117.160°W / 34.903; -117.160

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinkley_groundwater_contamination&oldid=715329058"