IS KEEPING WATER SAFE TO DRINK REALLY A MATTER OF ROCKET SCIENCE? IS SECURING SAFE CONCENTRATION LIMITS ON A TOXIC PRESENCE JUST GIVING US ALL “TIME OFF FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR”?

A COMMENT

The appended article discloses some hair-raising new findings concerning the persistence of perchlorate compounds — like those found in rocket fuel — in the water supply of a major American city.

The only permissible levels for these synthetic toxins in the environment is 0, not 2 or 5 or 6 ppb (this is still 2000 or 5000 or 6000 pp-trillion...).

Once we are below the levels that cause immediate visible-tangible damage, the point to remember about concentration is the moral of the story of the frog that will stay in boiling water and die if it has been previously conditioned to accept warm and ever-increasingly warm water... If humans become conditioned to surviving low but increasing concentrations of toxic chemicals, we face the frog’s fate. What is getting conditioned by this process is our acceptance, not our ability to tolerate. At some point the level will kill, but by that point all our warning systems will long since have been turned off.

In this connection, it is worth noting that Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth readily cites the story of the frog and its moral when it comes to our tolerance of the Greenhouse Effect. However, he does not repeat this when it comes to toxic chemical concentrations. What is the difference? Nobody “owns” the CO-2 , making it hard to find someone to sue. Toxic synthetic chemicals, on the other hand, come from someone’s factory or process. They thus hardly enjoy the luxury of similar immunity from legal liability.

Something else about that frog story: applied to human beings, all theories of “learned behaviour” based on “conditioned stimulus, conditioned response” or “CS, CR” — like that of the frog in water being warmed steadily to boiling point — actually promote, if not endorse, overcoming conscience and “moral squeamishness” by means of “behaviour modification” techniques. The behaviourists’ claim is true. They have indeed developed a theory to account for, as well as practices that implement, certain measurable kinds of “learning” in which vague and largely unquantifiable notions that would link cognition and-or cognitive ability either to personal development or to the development of consciousness may be dispensed with. However, what is labelled “learning” here is utterly aphenomenal and thus false. What is actually taking place or being reinforced is not “learning” in the sense of knowledge. It is the control, initiation and-or extinction of behaviour by way of external stimuli applied without regard to the autonomy of the human person.

The entire approach of testing for the imaginary line that divides a tolerably safe from an intolerably unsafe level of toxic concentration seems to be a “learning” exercise of the behavioural type, rather than one in which meaningful knowledge of actual use to human beings is either gathered or applied.


~~~~

Executive Summary:
New study from CDC and Boston University shows babies getting unsafe dose of perchlorate, underscores need for federal action

http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20070329/analysis.php

An Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of recently published data from scientists at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Boston University (BU) shows that infants are being exposed to dangerous levels of the rocket fuel component perchlorate. The CDC/BU study, which examined breast milk from 49 Boston area women, found that the average infant in this study is being exposed to more than double the dose of perchlorate that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers safe; highly exposed babies are ingesting up to 10 times this amount. [1,2]

Boston area infants are exposed to unsafe levels of perchlorate in breast milk At the 95th percentile perchlorate dose level in women with lower iodide intake, CDC found a 20% drop in thyroid hormone levels

Calculations based on 4kg infant and average daily infant intake of 0.78 liters breast milk. Sources: 1, 3.

If this weren’t troubling enough, in September of 2006, the CDC published a study showing significant changes in thyroid hormone levels in women who were exposed to far less perchlorate than babies drinking breast milk in this study, and less than the EPA “safe” dose. [3] Since it is also well known that infants are at much greater risk for thyroid hormone disruption than adults, taken together, the findings of these two studies show that the perchlorate levels found in the breast milk of ordinary American women could be threatening the normal development of their exposed infants. [4]

Perchlorate, the explosive ingredient in solid rocket fuel, has leaked from military bases and defense and aerospace contractors’ plants in at least 22 states, contaminating drinking water for millions of Americans. The chemical has also been found to contaminate dairy milk, produce, and many other foods and plants. [5-12] In a related 2006 study, the CDC found perchlorate in the urine of every one of 2,820 people tested, suggesting that food is a key route of exposure in addition to drinking water. [13] Boston’s tap water is not known to be contaminated with perchlorate; the 49 women in this study were likely exposed through food. [14]

Infants are at greater risk for thyroid disruption by perchlorate than adults for several reasons. Perchlorate acts by inhibiting the thyroid gland’s ability to take up the nutrient iodide, a key building block for thyroid hormone. Unlike adults, infants have minimal stores of thyroid hormones and must rely instead on their own daily production (breast milk does not contain significant quantities of thyroid hormone). Therefore, while adults may be able to use hormone stores to make up for temporary shortages related to chemical insults, infants can only do this to a very small degree. [4]

While thyroid hormones regulate metabolism in adults and long-term deficiencies can lead to chronic health problems, the consequences for thyroid disruption in infants are much more serious. Normal thyroid hormone levels are critical for normal brain and organ development, and recent research has shown that infants can suffer permanent neurological deficits from even short-term thyroid hormone insufficiency. [15,16,17]

On average, babies drinking breast milk in the Boston study would be exposed to 19 times more perchlorate than the September, 2006 CDC study found would depress thyroid hormone levels by 20 percent in adult women with lower iodide intake (thirty-six percent of women in the U.S. have urinary iodide levels in this “lower” range). [3]

To make matters worse, the Boston study found that 47 percent of the babies tested were not getting adequate levels of iodine from breast milk. Since the effects of perchlorate are compounded by insufficient iodide consumption, these babies are at even greater risk for thyroid hormone disruption. [1]

Notably, the Boston study also found that even moms who ingested extra iodine by using iodized salt or taking multivitamins containing iodine didn’t always have sufficient iodine in their breast milk. [1] This finding is important because it underscores the need for the government to act to reduce perchlorate contamination of food and drinking water, rather than just simply pointing to iodized salt and multivitamins as quick fixes to the perchlorate problem.

Earlier research confirmedÑhealth protections still lacking

The CDC/BU study confirms earlier research that found high levels of perchlorate in breast milk. [18,19] One study, for example, found perchlorate in every one of 36 samples of breast milk from nursing mothers in 18 states at levels as high as 92 parts per billion (ppb). [18] The Boston study found even higher levels of perchlorate among its 49 women, with a maximum concentration of a startling 411 ppb. The median perchlorate level in CDC/BU study was 9 ppb. [1]

The Boston study also measured perchlorate concentrations in the mother’s urine, finding a median level of 3.0 ppb. More important than the actual values, however, is the fact that these concentrations are remarkably similar to the levels of perchlorate that the CDC found in its much larger study of perchlorate exposure that tested the urine of more than 2,800 individuals. [13] In that study, the median urinary perchlorate concentration was 3.6 ppb. Since the perchlorate exposures in the two studies are so closely aligned, one can assume that the high levels found in the Boston women’s breast milk are, unfortunately, probably typical of the general U.S. population.

CDC’s large study of urinary perchlorate levels also raises concerns about fetal exposures. CDC found that in the 36 percent of U.S. women with low iodine intake, almost any amount of perchlorate exposure was linked to a significant change in levels of thyroid hormones. [3] For about 1 in 10 of these women, exposure to perchlorate in drinking water at 5 ppb would result in subclinical hypothyroidism; this is a condition that requires treatment if these women become pregnant because it may negatively impact the brain development of their fetus if left untreated. [20] EWG estimates that there are more than 2.2 million women who fall into this latter category. [21]

Conclusion

Taken together, the weight of the evidence from these studies strongly support the conclusion that perchlorate is a major public health threat that needs to be addressed. Yet, there are still no federal safety standards for perchlorate in drinking water or food. Under pressure from the Pentagon and the defense industry, EPA has delayed setting a drinking water standard for perchlorate. California is in the final stages of adopting a perchlorate drinking water standard of 6 ppb, recommended by state scientists before release of the September, 2006 CDC study. The proposed standard in New Jersey is 5 ppb. Last July, Massachusetts adopted 2 ppb as the nation’s first legally enforceable drinking water standard.

Senators Boxer, Feinstein, and Lautenberg and Representative Solis from California have introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate and House of Representative that seeks to improve perchlorate monitoring and regulation to better protect public health.

Recommendations

Breast milk is by far the healthiest food for infants. However, the perchlorate levels found in breast milk in this CDC/BU study are alarming. The doses of pechlorate that infants are getting from ingesting this food are far higher than doses that have been shown to cause significant disruptions of thyroid hormone levels in many adult women. We also know that infants are more vulnerable than adults to the health effects of perchlorate exposure.

The level of perchlorate found in breast milk in this study suggests a serious threat to the normal development and health of potentially all American infants.

To protect public health:

EPA must adopt a maximum contaminant level for perchlorate in drinking water based on the most recent science, including the 2006 CDC study and the Boston study described above. The 2006 CDC study showed convincingly, with statistically valid data from a large human population, that perchlorate levels well below the EPA’s “safe” dose cause significant thyroid hormone depression in adult women of childbearing age.

With the CDC study showing that even less than 1 ppb perchlorate in water may pose health risks to women, fully protective drinking water standards must be set as low as possibleÑat no more than 1 ppbÑand revised downward as detection and cleanup technology improves. The Food and Drug Administration must also adopt an action level for perchlorate in food that is designed to protect the fetus, infants and children from the adverse effects of these exposures.

References:

[1] Pearce EN, Leung AM, Blount BC, Bazrafshan HR, He X, Pino S, Valentin-Blasini L, Braverman LE. 2007. Breast milk iodine and perchlorate concentrations in lactating Boston area women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism epub Feb 2007.

[2] Ginsberg G, Rice D. The NAS perchlorate review: questions remain about the perchlorate RfD. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Sep;113(9):1117-9. Erratum in: Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Nov;113(11):A732.

[3] Blount BC, Pirkle JL, Osterloh JD, Valentin-Blasini L, Caldwell LK. 2006a. Urinary perchlorate and thyroid hormone levels in adolescent and adult men and women living in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:1865-1871.

[4] Ginsberg GL, Hattis DB, Zoeller RT, Rice DC. 2007. Evaluation of the U.S. EPA/OSWER preliminary remediation goal for perchlorate in groundwater: focus on exposure to nursing infants. Environmental Health Perspectives 115: 361-69.

[5] California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2004. Data cited in: Sharp, R. 2004. Rocket fuel contamination in California milk. Environmental Working Group. Available at

[6] Danelski D., Beeman D. 2003. Special Report: Growing concerns: While scientists debate the risks, a study finds the rocket-fuel chemical in inland lettuce. The Press-Enterprise. April 27, 2003

[7] Environmental Working Group. 2003. Suspect Salads: Toxic rocket fuel found in samples of winter lettuce. Available at

[8] Environmental Working Group. 2004. Rocket fuel contamination in California milk. Available at

[9] Food and Drug Administration. 2004. Exploratory Data on Perchlorate in Food. Available at

[10] Kirk AB, Smith EE, Tian K, Anderson TA, Dasgupta PK. 2003. Perchlorate in milk. Environ Sci Technol. 37(21):4979-81.

[11] Kirk AB, Martinelango PK, Tian K, Dutta A, Smith EE, Dasgupta PK. 2005. Perchlorate and Iodide in Dairy and Breast Milk. Environ Sci Technol. 39(7):2011.

[12] Sanchez CA, Crump KS, Krieger RI, Khandaker NR, Gibbs JP. 2005. Perchlorate and nitrate in leafy vegetables of North America. Environ Sci Technol. 39(24):9391-7.

[13] Blount BC, Valentin-Blasini L, Osterlow JD, Mauldin JP, Pirkle JL. 2006. Perchlorate exposure of the U.S. population, 2001-2002. J Exp Sci Environ Epidem, Online 18 October 2006.

[14] Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule data. Updated January 2005. Available at

[15] Zoeller, T. 2006. Collision of Basic and Applied Approaches to Risk Assessment of Thyroid Toxicants in forthcoming volume. Living in a chemical world: framing the future in light of the past. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2006: 168-190.

[16] Haddow JE, Palomake GE, Allan, WC, Williams JR, Knight GJ, and Gagnon J, et al. Maternal thyroid deficiency during pregnancy and subsequent neuropsychological development of the child. New England Journal of Medicine 1999: 341: 549-555

[17] Pop VJ, Kuijpens J., van Baar, AL, Verkert, G. et al. 1999. Low maternal free thyroxine concentrations during early pregnancy are associated with impaired psychomotor development in infancy. Clinical Endocrinology 50: 149.

[18] Kirk AB, Martinelango PK, Tian K, Dutta A, Smith EE, Dasgupta PK. 2005. Perchlorate and iodide in dairy and breast milk. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 2011-2017.

[19] Kirk AB, Dyke JV, Martin CF, Dasgupta K. 2007. Temporal patterns in perchlorate, thiocyanate, and iodide excretion in human milk. Environmental Health Perspectives 115: 182-186.

[20] Cooper, D. 2004. Sub-clinical thyroid disease: consensus or conundrum. Clinical Endocrinology 60: 410-412.

[21] Environmental Working Group. 2006. Thyroid Threat: Under Proposed Rocket Fuel Standards, Many Women Would Need Treatment To Protect Baby. Available at www.ewg.org.

What is conscience?

Science of Conscience: that one may be very difficult to render comprehensible by anyone who is focused on tangible. Anyone focused on tangible repeatedly follows the line of looking first for an acceptable, approved existing definition, having nothing to do with his own life-experience, of what he "ought" to be seeing/perceiving BEFORE he will commit to "learning" anything. A simple example of ‘focused on tangible’ is this: Say, there is a course on how to bake bread in a bakery. Because the person registered for this course aspires to work in a certain bakery that uses, say white bread ingredients, with chemical additives (e.g. sugar, hydrogenated oil, and others, for taste and preservation), baked in an electrical oven, he has vested interest in finding out how this bakery operates and how his ‘knowledge’ will fit into job prospect with the bakery. However, if he is focused on tangible, his eyes will roll during any discussion of what makes a good bread, why whole wheat bread is better than white bread, the dangers of adding chemical additives, not to mention the long-term impact of electrical heating. In fact, such a person may not even last first few days, thinking this course is driving him crazy. He came here to ‘learn’ how to make bread in a bakery and he is being ‘lectured’ on nutritional values. He would be saying, “I need my job with the bakery, the heaven can wait. Just give me the ingredient of white bread, which setting the knob of the oven should be at and where is the timer button, …I didn’t pay all this money to ‘increase my virtue so I throw up next time I even eat white bread. This not a course on human health, man! If I needed such a course, I would go to medical doctor, not a Master Chef!” This down to earth example serves as a basis for first condition to increasing knowledge, you cannot be focused on tangibles and you cannot rush to find a number so you can just get back to your lazy lifestyle of robotic thinking. Other examples of this can be derived from: 1) Dessert making course; 2) Water engineering; 3) Food processing; 4) Pop-drink manufacturing; 5) Tobacco engineering; 6) Pharmaceutical Sciences; 7) Genetic engineering; 8) Fluid flow; 9) Materials and Manufacturing; 10) Building design and architecture. With a focus on tangible, every decision a person will make will be exactly opposite to what the decision should have been made based on true knowledge. Conscience is the driver of true knowledge.

Conscience is what an individual discovers by going with his own natural, unmediated reaction to events and surroundings, not assisted by or dependent upon any definition in some book somewhere. Even prophet Muhammad, the man believed to be the only person who acted on conscience all the time, did not get order from divine revelations on his daily decisions. He constantly took decisions based on conscience and some of them were later discovered to be incorrect. One such example is cited in Chapter 80 of the Qur’an. This chapter begins with

عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰٓ (١) أَن جَآءَهُ ٱلۡأَعۡمَىٰ (٢) وَمَا يُدۡرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُ يَزَّكَّىٰٓ (٣)
أَوۡ يَذَّكَّرُ فَتَنفَعَهُ ٱلذِّكۡرَىٰٓ (٤)
(1) He frowned and turned away (2) Because the blind man came unto him. (3) What could inform thee but that he might grow (in grace) (4) Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him?

Obviously, the prophet himself is being chastised for ignoring a blind man whom he ignored in favor of elites with whom he was busy discussing none other than ‘conscience’. This one shows, there is no escaping making decisions yourself. You cannot rely on other’s diktat and more importantly you cannot avoid responsibility of making decisions. You can never say, “This and that expert said, therefore I did it…My boss ordered me to do so…I wasn’t quite thinking at that time…” Not acting on conscience has no excuse. There is no such thing as pathological psychopath. Not even the Pharaohs would fall under this category.

Humans are born into society, into collectivities — family, followed by larger, different collectives — and this is where the sense of what's right and wrong becomes modulated. This cannot be taught. In fact, teaching anything, let alone ‘conscience’ is an absurd idea. You cannot teach anything to anyone. Thinking about one's actions and their consequences further strengthens and defines conscience. It is a fact of living in this world that many things emerge to challenge the individual who would let their conscience be their guide. For anyone familiar with Islam and the Qu’ran, one could say: this is where jihad (literal meaning being sustained struggle, as in continuously climbing uphill or swimming against the current) must enter the picture. Conscience is the origin of jihad. In fact, if there is no jihad, there is no act of conscience. In general, it is the same for everyone: anyone who has been normally socialized knows exactly when they have acted in violation of conscience. How the individual acts upon that realization — aye, there's the rub, as Hamlet says.

Again: the issue becomes an individual choice. We do not mean by this the individuality of the choice, which is a thoroughly American idea, but rather the pathway by which the individual's actions become linked to their thought-process, and whether the long-term is in command or something else. Such choices cannot possibly be guided by, say, some 'objective', allegedly true-for-all-circumstances-cases type of checklist of 'Good' versus 'Bad'. That’s why people focused on tangible are constantly looking for a list of ‘dos and don’ts’. They have no hope of acting on conscience. The individual, on the other hand, can have their own checklist, and, if it is based on long-term, and not short-term self-interest, such a checklist may even be valid at least in principle for other individuals who do not operate according to short-term self-interest. What there cannot be is any absolute checklist that works equally for those whose interest is based on short-term serving of self and those whose interest is actually long-term. THAT's a defining feature of the "science" of conscience. Thus, for example, Khan and Islam (2007)’s recent book on sustainability is part of science of conscience because its starting premise is that inherent sustainability, obviously based on the long term, is the only sustainability that matters. Same goes for Economics of Intangibles (Zatzman and Islam, 2007). None of this forecloses usingany or all the mathematics and other findings of science to date. Rather, it imposes the requirement that the first-assumption of one's chosen line or area of research is checked carefully before proceeding further with selecting the relevant or applicable mathematics and other modeling tools and deciding how far these are applied, etc.

So, what is the single most important criterion for judging if an action has been based on conscience? Have you considered long-term implications of the action. Long-term here means infinity. In fact, one can argue, it is the only one that an individual has absolute control over. He cannot have any control over his short term or anyone else’s short-term and long-term, without violating natural laws. Violation of natural laws is aphenomenal.

Anti-Conscience/Ignorance
Conscience/knowledge
Percentage of actions based on long-term
This figure shows true knowledge requires actions, including thinking, based on long-term. Without considering one’s long-term (which is the only one, one has the power to control), all judgments will be implosive, because they contradict nature. You cannot win a fight against Nature. (FIGURE NOT SHOWN)

Aknowledgements

Substantial contributions by Gary Zatzman in organizing the thought and writing the first draft is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Khan, M.I. and Islam, M.R., 2007, Handbook of Sustainable Petroleum Engineering Operations, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, USA, 458 pp.

Zatzman, G.M. and Islam, M.R., 2007, Economics of Intangibles, Nova Science Publishers, New York, USA, 393 pp.

Why real and artificial products behave differently?

أَفَمَن يَخۡلُقُ كَمَن لَّا يَخۡلُقُ‌ۗ أَفَلَا تَذَڪَّرُونَ (١٧)
Is the One who creates the same as the one who creates not (16.17, Al-Qur’an)

هَـٰذَا خَلۡقُ ٱللَّهِ فَأَرُونِى مَاذَا خَلَقَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن دُونِهِۦ‌ۚ بَلِ ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ فِى ضَلَـٰلٍ۬ مُّبِينٍ۬ (١١)

This the creation of Allah. Now, show me that which those beside him have created. Nay, the wrongdoers are in manifest error. (31.11, Al-Qur’an)

The above two verses lays out the fundamental tenet of creation. Man cannot be a creator and if he attempts to create something, the following will be the fate.

Every action has two components to it: (1) origin; (2) pathway. The origin of any action is the intention. So, if a human being considers making something, it is automatically a false intention, as he cannot create anything. He has no power over his own short-term, let alone on others. The immediate fate of this false intention is that the entire process is based on a false or aphenomenal foundation or stems from aphenomenal root. As a consequence, one doesn’t even have to consider Point (2), i.e., the pathway of the action, the entire process is aphenomenal. Say, we want to make sugar so we can replace honey with sugar. Honey is the only complete food (including water) known to mankind. The moment we want to replace honey with sugar, we know that the process is inherently corrupt and you are set to fight against nature, a fight you cannot win. So, what happens to sugar when it actually comes to existence? It serves the opposite purpose of the one perpetrated by the false intention. So, what is the intention of the Creator behind creating sugar. After all, man cannot create anything, so why did the Creator allow the creation of such a product. If you can answer this, you can also answer why the Creator allowed Pharaohs to rule for many years, why He also allowed G W Bush to be ‘elected’ ‘leader of the free world’, twice. Sugar may have been allowed to be in existence but don’t blame the Creator for allowing human beings to make such a mess (closed word to ‘fassad’ as in Chapter 89.12 of the Qur’an:
فَأَكۡثَرُواْ فِيہَا ٱلۡفَسَادَ (١٢ ).

Human beings were created as vicegerent to the Creator. Would you say, the Creator failed in His original intention? The ones who follow the aphenomenal model are no vicegerent of the Truth. Our logic of true and false does not apply to the Creator as He is also the Creator of our logic and He is like none of the creation, as stated in Chapter 112, verse 4 of the Qur’an (see below):
وَلَمۡ يَكُن لَّهُ ۥ ڪُفُوًا أَحَدُۢ (٤) (there is none comparable unto Him)

At the end, all creations, including human beings, behave according to the intention of the Creator. The Qur’an states what was the intention behind creating human beings with conscience (vicegerent of the Creator) and what was the intention behind other objects than humans (it is to benefit men). It is not explicitly stated the intention behind creating humans who fail to act upon conscience and at the same time the products and processes that these humans attempt to create based on the aphenomenal model. Our logic states, they do not follow the false intention of humans. The Creator’s intention is never false, so this logic wouldn’t apply to Him (in Arabic, ‘Him’, ‘He’ also applies to neutral gender – another reason true logic cannot be done in English).