Comment by SecretDreams
9 hours ago
> Lithium and vanadium at concentrations Lazarte’s letter described as abnormally high relative to rainwater or normal groundwater.
> Hexavalent chromium at 0.0104 milligrams per liter, just above the lab’s reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L. Hexavalent chromium is classified as a known human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program. It is the substance the Erin Brockovich case was built around.
> Strontium at 1.17 mg/L. Mazloum’s technical report on the findings noted that long-term exposure can affect bone density and kidney function in humans and wildlife.
Some of the elements of note that were detected. These are all well above background levels. The point about not measuring at the outfall is valid, but probably not relevant. Unless we think there are other lithium and hex sources nearby.
The real crime is that a permit was issued at all and that it was not so comprehensive. But that's the beauty of Texas - their citizens love this kind of thing.
A counterpoint is this
The lab tested for chromium in two ways: one test (ICP) measures all chromium of any kind, and the other measures hexavalent chromium specifically. The ICP test returned a concentration that was an order of magnitude smaller than the hexavalent test. That is to say, the tests contradict each other (because the whole is smaller than the part), and are both at the bottom of range for the tests performed.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28055380-j2673-1-uds...
If an ICP assay says the total chromium is an order of magnitude less then we can safely ignore the specific hexavalent test, which is a more difficult and less precise measure. I didn’t even look at that.
Everything about this says bad science and motivated reasoning intended to fool people unsophisticated about this type of thing.
Fair comment re hex. Elevated levels of some other elements need to be similarly reviewed.
These types of permits should really need to be discussed in town forums, regardless of the outcome here.
Per ggreer's comment [0], there are other potential sources nearby.
It's pretty annoying all told. It invalidates the results; it takes them from "this is clear evidence of a breach" into "maybe it's in breach. Or maybe someone else is. Or maybe both are within their respective limits"
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48199824
Agreed.
Per the article, sounds like everyone would have benefited from more discussion and transparency either way. I find it surprising that these types of permits are issued without formal review at a town council style setting.
Ultimately, the people living in these areas should have an outsized say on what is piped into their way supplies. Same forum could also be used to show it is safe. Or discuss the safety of the ask.