Toxins pose risks for many in U.S. - Toxins pose risks for many in U.S.]

[Guest guest]

More wonderful news we are killing ourselves. Check out the list of chemicals

they have listed. We've seen at least two ofthese here, benzene, mercury,

formaldehyde mentioned before.

Sharyn

> Subject: Toxins pose risks for many in U.S. - Toxins pose risks for many in

U.S.

>

> Toxins pose risks for many in U.S.

>

> Two-thirds of Americans face elevated cancer risk

>

>

> http://www.msnbc.com/news/760210.asp

>

> ASSOCIATED PRESS

>

> WASHINGTON, May 31 — At least two-thirds of Americans live in areas where

> toxic chemicals pose an elevated cancer risk, an Environmental Protection

> Agency analysis concluded Friday.

>

> THE FINDINGS are contained in a long-awaited EPA assessment of health risks

> from 32 toxic chemicals. The study is based on 1996 emissions data that has

> been the subject of several years of internal analysis.

>

> The assessment concludes that the accumulated exposure to the various toxic

> chemicals can be expected to cause 10 additional cancers over a lifetime of

> exposure for every 1 million people, or a 10 in 1 million cancer risk. These

> risks can be found across virtually the entire country, said the study,

> which was reviewed by outside scientists.

>

> 10 IN A MILLION RISK

>

> “More than 200 million people live in census tracts where the combined upper

> bound lifetime cancer risk from these (chemical) compounds exceeded 10 in 1

> million risk,” said the study. It added that 20 million people live in areas

> where the risks are even higher — a risk of 100 additional lifetime cancers

> for every 1 million people.

>

> “The risks are very much in line with what we expected all along,” said

> Holmstead, head of the EPA’s air office. He said in an interview the

> risks of cancer from toxic chemical exposure “are very, very small,”

> compared with overall cancer risks from all sources.

>

> The EPA considers a cancer risk of 1 in a million or greater as a matter of

> concern, although those levels do not always trigger regulatory actions.

>

> Holmstead said the report was “designed to be a baseline” for further

> studies on risks posed by air toxins. He also emphasized the findings are

> based on 1996 data. “Since that time, the risks already have been reduced

> significantly,” said Holmstead in an interview.

>

> But environmentalists said the study’s findings provide clear evidences that

> tougher measures are needed to reduce releases of toxic chemicals — such as

> benzene, mercury, formaldehyde and other carcinogens — from automobiles,

> power plants and industrial sources.

>

> They show “a lifetime cancer risk at least 10 times greater than the level

> considered acceptable by the EPA,” said Figdor of the U.S. Public

> Interest Research Group.

>

> ‘WAKE-UP CALL’

>

> “These findings are a wake-up call that EPA should take action to reduce

> this long overlooked public health threat” from toxic air releases, argued

> Figdor.

>

> Among the study’s conclusions is that automobiles and trucks contribute

> substantially to the public’s exposure to cancer-causing air toxins.

>

> It estimated that 100 million people live in areas where motor vehicles —

> both on and off-road — account for an additional lifetime cancer risk of at

> least 10 in a million.

>

> These risks are largely the result of exposure to such chemicals as benzene,

> formaldehyde and butadiene — all components of motor fuels.

>

> The study also concluded that toxic chemicals pose a significant health

> hazard other than cancer to much of the U.S. population, especially problems

> with respiratory systems.

>

> The report said the assessment was viewed as a “snapshot” that identifies

> the greatest health risks from toxic chemicals and the areas of most

> potential concern. It said the EPA will update the assessment with another

> report next year.

>

> The authors of the internal EPA analysis cautioned that the risk analysis

> was subject to limitations “due to gaps in data or in the state of the

> science for assessing risk.”

>

> In some cases the shortcomings may have understated the risks, the authors

> suggested. For example, the study did not attempt to assess various dioxin

> compounds “that may contribute substantially to (cancer) risks,” they wrote.

>

> In addition, the study noted, the EPA is reassessing the health effects of

> the 32 toxic chemicals that were studied and that reassessment could show an

> increase in the overall risks that the chemicals pose.

>

>

>