48 replies to this topic

[asbestoshills]

I HATE the policies that allow corporations to pollute the valley's vegetables and milk supply with perchlorate.....98% of produce and cow's milk produced in California have traces of rocket fuel...THANKS AEROJET and all of the other gov't contracted co's for causing high rates of cancer in California! Lettuce and other green leafy veggies, the ones we are suppose to eat so many of to stay healthy, have 100 to 1000 times the legal limit of 5ppb of rocket fuel.......HMMM breast cancer and rocket fuel milk, correlation? I think so........What is so laughable is that there isn't one AGENCY in our stupid CA gov't that BANS these posionous foods.....THe scientific studies are out, but no one is doing anything....
EATING organic? DOESN"T protect you from rocket fueld water that feeds the crops.....ALL produce has this chemical in it...Disgusting isn't it? You can get rid of the pesticides by eating organic, but not the rocket fuel that is from the water...It should be a crime.....Would you dip your lettuce in fuel and then wash it off and eat it? Will you kinda do everytime you eat romaine lettuce, broccoli and any other CA veggie...SINCE companies do this kind of polluting what should we do as citizens???? REVERSE OSMOSIS filters are the best you can hope for to remove these petro based pollutants from your food supply.....I don't think any are in place except in a few homes is central CA where the local gov't put them in when they found out some residents were drinking 1000-2000ppb of rocket fuel daily...THEY gave them personal filters in their homes instead of changing the entire City's water system....Quick fix....If they eat veggies, they are still affected.

[ChipShot]

Plenty of things (and people) come to mind, but that would require me to speak in negative tones.

Then people here would get mad.

So I'll pass on this thread because being negative does not add value to the forum.

[brown]

I HATE the policies that allow corporations to pollute the valley's vegetables and milk supply with perchlorate.....98% of produce and cow's milk produced in California have traces of rocket fuel...THANKS AEROJET and all of the other gov't contracted co's for causing high rates of cancer in California! Lettuce and other green leafy veggies, the ones we are suppose to eat so many of to stay healthy, have 100 to 1000 times the legal limit of 5ppb of rocket fuel.......HMMM breast cancer and rocket fuel milk, correlation? I think so........What is so laughable is that there isn't one AGENCY in our stupid CA gov't that BANS these posionous foods.....THe scientific studies are out, but no one is doing anything....
EATING organic? DOESN"T protect you from rocket fueld water that feeds the crops.....ALL produce has this chemical in it...Disgusting isn't it? You can get rid of the pesticides by eating organic, but not the rocket fuel that is from the water...It should be a crime.....Would you dip your lettuce in fuel and then wash it off and eat it? Will you kinda do everytime you eat romaine lettuce, broccoli and any other CA veggie...SINCE companies do this kind of polluting what should we do as citizens???? REVERSE OSMOSIS filters are the best you can hope for to remove these petro based pollutants from your food supply.....I don't think any are in place except in a few homes is central CA where the local gov't put them in when they found out some residents were drinking 1000-2000ppb of rocket fuel daily...THEY gave them personal filters in their homes instead of changing the entire City's water system....Quick fix....If they eat veggies, they are still affected.

Please tell us exactly what policy it is that allows corporations to pollute the groundwater supply. And it's laughable that you state there is 100 to 1000 times the legal limit of perchlorate in lettue...simply because you pulled some study off the internet doesn't make it true. Are all veggies in CA grown on top of a perchlorate plume?

I'd like to see a study that links perchlorate to cancer in humans...simply because there is not one. By the way, perchlorate is not a petro based pollutant.

[asbestoshills]

Please tell us exactly what policy it is that allows corporations to pollute the groundwater supply. And it's laughable that you state there is 100 to 1000 times the legal limit of perchlorate in lettue...simply because you pulled some study off the internet doesn't make it true. Are all veggies in CA grown on top of a perchlorate plume?

I'd like to see a study that links perchlorate to cancer in humans...simply because there is not one. By the way, perchlorate is not a petro based pollutant.

First, Percholarte is naturally occuring and there is a man-made version...EPA has already shut-down some wells that have exceeded the State standard...If you don't think it causes cancer GOOGLE the research as there are many studies by the EPA and other agencies...OR you can ask all of the Rancho Cordova residents affected by thyroid and other cancers that lived or worked in the area....AEROJET is the second largest Superfund site in the USA....
Here is an article you might enjoy.....You don't have to live on a plume to get posioned...You just have to use the water in growing veggies etc.......There isn't a POLICY that allows corps to actually pollute the groundwater, but THERE ISN"T ONE against it or there wouldn't be AN ISSUE....Obviously...Below is the article..There are many more......You just love to think your gov't makes sure they are taking care of you....Also, there are more than 45 different prescription drugs in trace amounts in your drinking water that AREN"T even tested by the City...Of course there is no PPB limit, if the gov't doesn't test for it...NEXT time you flush meds down the drain, think twice!

Warning that babies are especially vulnerable, a federal panel of scientists has lambasted the Environmental Protection Agency’s health goal for a toxic chemical that has widely contaminated drinking water and foods, particularly in Southern California.

The EPA’s new goal for perchlorate, an ingredient of solid rocket fuel, “is not supported by the underlying science and can result in exposures that pose neurodevelopmental risks in early life,” wrote Melanie Marty of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, who chairs the EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee.

The letter from the committee of 26 scientists, sent to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson on March 8, warned the agency that it is putting babies at unnecessary risk of neurological damage. The EPA’s interim goal for perchlorate, announced in January, “does not protect infants and should be lowered,” the scientists said in their letter.

It is the second time in less than two months that an EPA scientific advisory panel has criticized the Bush administration for proposing a standard or guideline for a pollutant that would not adequately protect public health.

Most perchlorate contamination comes from military bases and aerospace plants. In California, at least 350 water wells have been contaminated by perchlorate, largely in the Los Angeles Basin, according to the Department of Health Services, and it has also tainted supplies in about 40 other states.

There is no current enforceable national standard for perchlorate in drinking water. But six weeks ago, the EPA set an interim goal of 24.5 parts per billion. The idea was to guide cleanup of industrial and Pentagon waste sites and contaminated drinking water until the federal agency decides on a standard that drinking water must meet.

California recently proposed a much tighter goal of 6 ppb, and on Monday, Massachusetts proposed a standard of 2 ppb. California’s goal, set by Marty’s agency, is not enforceable because the state Department of Health Services has not yet set a drinking water standard.

In animal studies, perchlorate has been shown to disrupt thyroid hormones. Low thyroid hormone levels can obstruct the brain development of fetuses and young children, causing subtle reductions in their intelligence and other mental abilities.

EPA officials were unavailable Wednesday for comment on the letter.

The EPA has said its decision was based on a 2005 recommendation of a “safe” dose from a committee from the National Academy of Sciences.

Some scientists have questioned the findings of that committee, saying that the dose was set too high, and also suggested that the EPA is misconstruing some of its advice.

The scientists on the children’s health panel said they were troubled that the EPA’s goal assumes that exposure comes only from drinking water, not from food. Perchlorate has been widely found in milk, cheese, lettuce and other crops, which are tainted by irrigation water, as well as in human breast milk and baby formula.

Out of 33 samples of milk purchased in Los Angeles and Orange counties in 2004, perchlorate was found in all but one, according to tests by the Environmental Working Group, an environmental health advocacy group.

The scientists on the committee wrote that food tainted by perchlorate-contaminated irrigation water “is an obvious concern given the widespread detection of perchlorate in lettuce and milk.”

They advised the EPA to set an enforceable standard for drinking water, and to pay special attention to protecting fetuses from perchlorate exposure in the womb and babies from contamination from breast milk or formula.

“Perchlorate is an important

“It’s time for the EPA to wake up and listen to what the states and its own advisors are saying: Perchlorate is a threat to children at very small doses,” said Renee Sharp, an Environmental Working Group scientist who obtained the scientists’ letter Tuesday. “The Bush administration has given no sign that it’s going to set a national drinking water standard, and the EPA’s recommendations leave children at risk.”

The Environmental Working Group, which has advocated a perchlorate standard of 1 ppb or 2 ppb, , said that an average 1-year-old, weighing about 25 pounds, would exceed the EPA’s safe dose for perchlorate after drinking just one cup of milk per day.

Perchlorate is widely used by the U.S. military and defense contractors as the explosive component of rocket propellants, and also is used in fireworks and other explosives. It has been found at 45 of the nation’s 1,500 Superfund sites, which are the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites, and the EPA’s goal would affect the extent of cleanup there and at other sites.

Sources of the contaminant include the now-closed Kerr-McGee chemical plant near Las Vegas, which contaminated the Colorado River, which provides drinking and irrigation water in Southern California.

That contamination has been reduced by a company-sponsored cleanup.

In February, the EPA’s clean-air scientific review committee challenged the agency’s proposed health standards governing particulates, tiny pieces of soot that are considered the nation’s deadliest air pollutant.

The scientists said the agency ignored most of their recommendations to curb particulates, which could lead to additional heart attacks and deaths from asthma and other respiratory ailments.

[brown]

There are plenty of laws that prevent corporations from polluting the groundwater. The fact that wells are taken out of service is evidence of that, which is totally contrary to what you are saying.

And there are simply no studies showing perchlorate causes cancer in humans.

[Andrea V]

Why don't we have basements?

[mylo]

Why don't we have basements?

Earthquakes

[yahbut]

Why don't we have basements?

Cultural - I was told that the only houses here that have basements are the ones built by people moving from the east, who wouldnt think of building without one!

I can say that I dug more than my share of holes in the midwest and 1 in California (we had a fence post blow over last January). Based on that experience, I can see a reason for thinking twice about it! When we built our second house, they started digging the basement in the morning, had the forms set before the end of the day and were pouring concrete the next morning. Something tells me digging a 1,800 sf hole 12' deep would take a little more effort here!

[Thor2074]

Why don't we have basements?

In the midwest and the east, the reason they have basements is because they have to build at least two or three feet below the ground because the ground freezes in the winter. And since they are building a few feet down, they go ahead and build further down to make the basement. California doesn't freeze like the rest of the country, so it's not required by this design principal. Which is a good thing because not only is the ground here in California more rocky and harder to dig in than the midwest and east - houses here in California are very expensive to build, and the land is expensive to build on. If they had to dig down deep enough in the hard dirt for a basement, it would add even more on to the price tag of a home.

[Warren G]

I don't think the digging below the frost line matters much, as the reason for a basement. Digging a trench for the foundation footing is a trivial expense, whether it's 1-1.5 feet deep as it is here or 3-4 feet deep as it is in colder climates. Digging the hole for a basement and then forming the walls is a significant expense

I lived in CT and my family still does. The basement is a "living space" that ranges from gloomy and damp and used mainly for storage, to okay and mostly dry, as a not-perfect living space that's often used as a rec room and similar.

With the foundation so deep below grade they often have moisture issues and the need for sump pump drainage from below the foundation. The basement makes that task much easier to accomplish.

A basement is also real good if you use a wood stove for some heat because the stove can be in the basement, along with its associated mess, not on the main floors. In places like New England, air conditioning in homes is a mostly recent idea, and the cool basement provides relief on hot days and nights.

[Thor2074]

Well, this is per a civil engineer in Chicago in an engineering periodical, so maybe not the case in CT in particular, but elsewhere were freezes are a problem. And, it's not what I think, it's what the engineers think.

[Warren G]

Well, this is per a civil engineer in Chicago in an engineering periodical, so maybe not the case in CT in particular, but elsewhere were freezes are a problem. And, it's not what I think, it's what the engineers think.

An engineer doesn't say you need a basement. They say you need to have a foundation (footing) that rests below the frost line.

My brother and dad are/were both civil/structural engineers.

[Thor2074]

An engineer doesn't say you need a basement. They say you need to have a foundation (footing) that rests below the frost line.

My brother and dad are/were both civil/structural engineers.

That's what I mean. Then, if you are digging that deep anyways, and labor is cheaper in other parts of the country, they go ahead and digg down for the basement. I don't know why I'm fighting so hard on this. I guess I'm just irritated that I can't have a basement, because that would solve all our storage problems. But then the self storage industry here in California would crumble and probably cause the stock market to crash.

[Thor2074]

My brother and dad are/were both civil/structural engineers.

That's awesome. I work in the civil engineering industry myself and work with lots of engineers. All the civils are drunks. Or at least in college they were.

What company do they work for?

[Warren G]

That's awesome. I work in the civil engineering industry myself and work with lots of engineers. All the civils are drunks. Or at least in college they were.

What company do they work for?

My brother works for a very large company in the east as a Chief Inspector on bridge construction and my dad is long retired. Definitely not drinkers.

Having recently built our house I would say the cost of a basement is significant, with concrete at over $100/yd and thousands more to dig the opening beyond simple footings, plus forming costs... My brother made a nice solution for his basement with insulated forms that remain in place and provide an unusually well-insulated and dry basement.

Digging in our hard dirt is trivial for a decent backhoe, but back east they sometimes encounter very large rocks (expensive issues), and that's not common around here until you get near the foothills.

Around here we tend to have larger garages and attics, and there is good storage potential there without concern for things getting too cold. But, however much space you have, you'll eventually fill it. Your local storage facility thanks you.