Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you and Mr. Lepeu fail to grasp is that the existence of the plume alone does not create a de facto link to a single ailment of a single person anywhere on Long Island. Caution is indeed required but this is a matter of science and science does not deal with hysteria and anecdotes, it deals with facts. As of now the facts indicate that allegations of imminent harm are unfounded.
I often agree with you but you're way off on this. Your 1st argument was that it was never in the drinking water. That is false. 2nd is no correlation to increased cancer #'s. That is also false. While almost nowhere (including Chernobyl, Fukashima and Ground Zero) are they able to pinpoint the exact #'s of illness directly attributable to toxins, intelligent minds can make the connection. Science always starts anecdotally. Hypothesis are anecdotal. They start as a premise that must be proven. It's been proven up the wazoo what these chemicals do to mutate cells in humans and animals. Not too much of a stretch to believe years of ingestion might contribute negatively to cancers (mutated cells).
A growing suburb hell bent on achieving the American dream sets up weapons and aerospace facilities with carte blanche to do whatever, pre-EPA or basic standards and we're arguing about whether they poisoned the water?!? Really?! Based on the radium you can find with a Fisher Price test kit, I'd say it's not much of a stretch.
What you and Mr. Lepeu fail to grasp is that the existence of the plume alone does not create a de facto link to a single ailment of a single person anywhere on Long Island. Caution is indeed required but this is a matter of science and science does not deal with hysteria and anecdotes, it deals with facts. As of now the facts indicate that allegations of imminent harm are unfounded.
Science has told us that TCE, PCE are cancer causing agents. The Federal Government has established a Superfund site at Grumman because of the dumping of these, and other hazardous materials, at the Grumman site.
No one is hysterical.
Having witnessed friends, neighbors, family grow ill (and some die)who live in proximity to Grumman in unusually higher numbers than elsewhere makes any reasonable person question what is happening here. Half, if not more, of the school district I attended has been breached by the plume according to a map published a few years ago. What is anecdotal to you has been a part of my life. I respect that you and I aren't seeing this from the same place, but please do not insinuate that I am suggesting the plume is getting everyone sick. My point is that the plume and the mix of toxins it carries with it have increased cancers and other illnesses in the impacted area. A NYS link I posted further back shows that there is a higher incidence of certain cancers in the plume area.
For years the government was fairly quiet while residents complained. This agency points fingers at that agency, funds are released for yet another study. We're counting on bureaucrats to move in an expedient fashion.
...But without a doubt, many of these old dumpsites are time bombs with burning fuses -- their contents slowly leaching out. And the next victim cold be a water supply, or a sensitive wetland.
Allegations by the CCE do not create a standard by which anything in our environment is judged; they create an arbitrary standard that particular group supports. I stand behind science and my statement; what you and your family choose to do is certainly within reason for you but should not be viewed as a standard for anyone else.
Of course, a consumer group's allegations are to be met with skepticism. I merely used that website because it shows an aggregation of information.
The numbers they report are numbers provided by the water districts to the EPA (in addition to their own tests). Those numbers are "fact" - not allegation.
The EPA risk levels are EPA numbers. I'm not a big fan of everything the EPA does, but they are hardly a "particular group" with an "arbitrary standard." By definition, the EPA does "create the standard" by which our environment is judged.
We could split hairs about how dangerous 1,4 dioxane is. The "science" shows it is not naturally occurring. The "science" shows it as a cancer risk.
Suffolk County (another "arbitrary group?") is concerned enough that they have tested a method to remove Dioxane from the water supply. Other water districts along with State and National politicians (more groups with arbitrary standards?) have also shown concern about the presence of the chemical. It appears the only thing holding back a full push for removal is cost.
There is no science to indicate 1,4 Dioxane is safe. There is science to show it as harmful. The only question is how much you need to ingest before it becomes a serious cancer risk. The EPA numbers for "risk" are well below the levels our water districts have reported on their own.
I will agree that each person makes their own choice. Maybe people are completely wrong about things like the plume and dioxane posing any kind of risk. Maybe high levels of Dioxane are good for you! (Although the "science" you keep referring to all points to the opposite being true.) If I was getting a waterfront home with acreage and low taxes and a bargain price, I may be inclined to turn a blind eye to the _potential_ risk as you seem to want to do. But to live in Bethpage? (Edited to add: after some thought, no - I still wouldn't risk my family's health). With so many other options, why take the chance? I don't see how you can claim any "science" shows these things as safe.
I often agree with you but you're way off on this. Your 1st argument was that it was never in the drinking water. That is false.2nd is no correlation to increased cancer #'s. That is also false. While almost nowhere (including Chernobyl, Fukashima and Ground Zero) are they able to pinpoint the exact #'s of illness directly attributable to toxins, intelligent minds can make the connection. Science always starts anecdotally. Hypothesis are anecdotal. They start as a premise that must be proven. It's been proven up the wazoo what these chemicals do to mutate cells in humans and animals. Not too much of a stretch to believe years of ingestion might contribute negatively to cancers (mutated cells).
A growing suburb hell bent on achieving the American dream sets up weapons and aerospace facilities with carte blanche to do whatever, pre-EPA or basic standards and we're arguing about whether they poisoned the water?!? Really?! Based on the radium you can find with a Fisher Price test kit, I'd say it's not much of a stretch.
When was there anything from the plume distributed in the drinking water and where is the scientific link of causation between the plume and specific cancers? Creating a hypothesis and stretching it (your term) proves nothing.
We need real science to deal with potential problems not alarmist stretches of one's imagination.
Science has told us that TCE, PCE are cancer causing agents. The Federal Government has established a Superfund site at Grumman because of the dumping of these, and other hazardous materials, at the Grumman site.
No one is hysterical.
Having witnessed friends, neighbors, family grow ill (and some die)who live in proximity to Grumman in unusually higher numbers than elsewhere makes any reasonable person question what is happening here. Half, if not more, of the school district I attended has been breached by the plume according to a map published a few years ago. What is anecdotal to you has been a part of my life. I respect that you and I aren't seeing this from the same place, but please do not insinuate that I am suggesting the plume is getting everyone sick. My point is that the plume and the mix of toxins it carries with it have increased cancers and other illnesses in the impacted area. A NYS link I posted further back shows that there is a higher incidence of certain cancers in the plume area.
For years the government was fairly quiet while residents complained. This agency points fingers at that agency, funds are released for yet another study. We're counting on bureaucrats to move in an expedient fashion.
And my point is that there has been no scientific fact basis on which to make the bolded statement. "Cancer clusters" have been identified on Long Island long before this plume was identified and there is strong evidence that ethnic susceptibility is the reason. These clusters are not exclusive to the Bethpage/Levittown area.
When was there anything from the plume distributed in the drinking water and where is the scientific link of causation between the plume and specific cancers? Creating a hypothesis and stretching it (your term) proves nothing.
We need real science to deal with potential problems not alarmist stretches of one's imagination.
The whole thing started with elevated levels found in active wells. That's drinking water. Then corroborated that the elevated levels were not local to that well but at the aquifer. Also drinking water. Solution has been shutter and isolate the worst wells, then build treatment stations for the remaining wells. Now the water tastes peachy. More anecdotal proof that it was bad before. Also, no one but you arguing at this point that the water tested at dangerous levels. That's not speculation.
As for the second point, maybe you're right. It's all hocum. But then, smoking was safe once too. And Xrays, and asbestos. No one could tell those coal miners it wasn't safe. All anecdotal they'd say....
Too bad science doesn't have good lobbyists...and they are gutting the EPA. Sounds like a winning mix. I'll err on the side of caution and wait for the science to catch up. I've seen this film before!
And my point is that there has been no scientific fact basis on which to make the bolded statement. "Cancer clusters" have been identified on Long Island long before this plume was identified and there is strong evidence that ethnic susceptibility is the reason. These clusters are not exclusive to the Bethpage/Levittown area.
The NYS DOH has mapped cancer diagnoses and there is a very clear increase in certain cancers which can be attributed to the type of toxins which were dumped at Grumman, the Naval Plant and Hooker properties. Scientists have had no issue linking cancers and birth defects with Hooker's Love Canal, yet we're getting studied to death, literally and figuratively, here on Long Island -- specifically Bethpage and immediate areas impacted by the plume.
Would you willingly move to an area which was a cancer cluster or one which sits above a moving, toxic plume -- which multiple government agencies have confirmed carries toxins and have stated threatens several water districts? Perhaps there isn't that 100% certain link which you seem to need. I've seen enough sick and/or dying people to tell me that something isn't right and I am not the only one. There are scores of us. Sometimes, you have to take it on faith.
The whole thing started with elevated levels found in active wells. That's drinking water. Then corroborated that the elevated levels were not local to that well but at the aquifer. Also drinking water. Solution has been shutter and isolate the worst wells, then build treatment stations for the remaining wells. Now the water tastes peachy. More anecdotal proof that it was bad before. Also, no one but you arguing at this point that the water tested at dangerous levels. That's not speculation.
As for the second point, maybe you're right. It's all hocum. But then, smoking was safe once too. And Xrays, and asbestos. No one could tell those coal miners it wasn't safe. All anecdotal they'd say....
Too bad science doesn't have good lobbyists...and they are gutting the EPA. Sounds like a winning mix. I'll err on the side of caution and wait for the science to catch up. I've seen this film before!
Where is the data that any water in the distribution system was ever found to exceed standards for contamination? Where is the information that any of the contaminants were found in the aquifer?
The NYS DOH has mapped cancer diagnoses and there is a very clear increase in certain cancers which can be attributed to the type of toxins which were dumped at Grumman, the Naval Plant and Hooker properties. Scientists have had no issue linking cancers and birth defects with Hooker's Love Canal, yet we're getting studied to death, literally and figuratively, here on Long Island -- specifically Bethpage and immediate areas impacted by the plume.
Would you willingly move to an area which was a cancer cluster or one which sits above a moving, toxic plume -- which multiple government agencies have confirmed carries toxins and have stated threatens several water districts? Perhaps there isn't that 100% certain link which you seem to need. I've seen enough sick and/or dying people to tell me that something isn't right and I am not the only one. There are scores of us. Sometimes, you have to take it on faith.
You are correct that I am looking for a documented link. I also would have no problem living above the plume with the information we have today; no one is pumping water from the plume into anyone's kitchen sink. No one is even watering their lawn with it. How is it that you are convinced those chemicals are coming into contact, internally or externally, with anyone in the area? We have all seen people die from all manners of sickness and disease which proves absolutely nothing pertinent to this discussion. It seems as if you are not "taking it on faith" but on fear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
