Does “Contaminated Water Cause Autism?

[Guest guest]

Does “Contaminated Water " Cause Autism?

For the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the evidence for the need for

government intervention is everywhere, for there dangers in the air we breathe,

and in the water we drink. That it is becoming increasingly clear that the

allegations of such dangers are often not accompanied with actual evidence is of

little importance — at least for EPA Administrator .

First, it was carbon dioxide. As reported previously, the EPA, under ’s

leadership, took the extraordinary step of issuing an “endangerment finding”

concerning a naturally occurring atmospheric gas—carbon dioxide—which just

happens to be the fourth most common gas in the atmosphere. The “endangerment

finding” was issued when the Senate failed to capitulate to White House demands

for adoption of a “cap and trade” system of carbon credits which would have

further crippled an economy which was on the verge of collapse. “Cap and trade”

would have transferred hundreds of billions of dollars from American businesses

and private citizens to benefit Third World nations as part of a UN-orchestrated

system of global wealth redistribution. The “endangerment finding” remains part

of series of EPA actions in recent years which permit further growth in the

regulatory power of the agency, and an ongoing diminution of the authority of

the legislative branch of government to enact legislation. Naturally, many

members of the new Congress are taking steps to curtail the EPA’s incursions

into their authority.

Now, has turned her attention to the nation’s water supply. Her

concern is that drinking water may be the cause of autism. The main problem with

her argument is that she cannot produce any evidence to support it.

With the alleged link between autism and childhood vaccinations now discredited,

the search is on once again for a sole environmental cause. Not too

surprisingly, an agency which has undoubtedly suffered a significant loss of

credibility in the wake of the implosion of the theory of manmade climate change

is now looking for a new way to save the world. Thus on February 2 Administrator

told the Senate Committee on Public Works that her agency could save

children from autism by protecting them from contaminated water:

defended her agency’s relative lack of accountability to the basic laws of

economics with the claim, “our science may be good, but I don’t know how you

price the ability to try to forestall a child who may not get autism if they’re

not exposed to contaminated water.”

CNSNews has repeatedly requested of and the EPA that the alleged link

between autism and “contaminated water” be substantiated with any scientific

research. As Penny Starr wrote for CNSNews on February 16:

After Environmental Protection Agency Administrator testified on

Feb. 2 that regulating drinking water might help prevent children from getting

autism, CNSNews.com asked by e-mail whether she could provide “any data,

studies, documents, reports or other sources” to confirm her claim. Her office

subsequently stated there were “emerging studies” but provided no evidence.

In an e-mail statement to CNSNews.com on Feb. 11, said there were

“emerging studies” that show a possible link between autism and environmental

factors. But repeated requests by e-mail and by telephone to the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) asking them to produce those studies or other

documentation to support her claim were not answered.The Feb. 11 statement said,

“We do not yet know enough about autism to identify any specific environmental

contaminants that are responsible. As EPA Administrator, it is my job to make

sure that the public's health is protected from environmental toxins in the air

we breathe, the water we drink and our land. Science is an always evolving

field, and will always guide EPA's actions.”

Vague allusions to “emerging studies” aside, it would appear that the agency has

no credible, peer-reviewed science to support ’s inflammatory claim.

Autism is a very painful crisis for many American families; it is unfair to this

nation’s citizens to leave them with the appearance of manipulating that pain

for the purpose of justifying President Obama’s recent Executive Order which

offers little relief toward undoing the irresponsible actions of ’s

agency, which has operated with very little accountability for the economic woe

which its regulations bring.

Actually, if the EPA wished to do something to help with regard to the quality

of this nation’s water supply, it could have taken action sooner to reduce, or

eliminate, the amount of fluoride being artificially introduced into our

drinking water. As Bob Confer reported for The New American:

This past December yet another study was released — the 24th of its sort —

indicating that the additive [fluoride] has an adverse effect on the

intelligence of children. In a report for the journal Environmental Health

Perspectives, Connett, Ph.D. looked at Chinese populations newly exposed to

fluoride and found that 28% of the children in the low-fluoride village of

Xinhuai (.36 mg/L) were possessed of bright, normal or high intelligence. There,

the mental retardation rate was only 6%. Conversely, in the high-fluoride

community of Wamaio (2.47 mg/L) only 8% fell into the bright, normal or high

intelligence category while mental retardation grew to a staggering 15%.

While offers the Senate her unsubstantiated speculations about a link

between “contaminated water” and autism, peer-reviewed scientific studies have

shown a link between mental retardation and fluoride. On February 11, the EPA

responded to CNSNews inquiries with a statement which read, in part:

“While the science is not evolved enough to explain that increase, some emerging

studies show a possible association between environmental exposures and autism,”

the statement continued. “Though we do not yet know enough about autism to

identify any specific environmental contaminants that are responsible, EPA's job

is to be on the forefront of protecting American's from such threats.”

Thus far, one of the most widespread government interventions in the water

supply for supposed health benefits has exposed the population to very dangerous

side effects for the sake of dental health. What new costs — and risks — will

the EPA bring on the American public for the sake of ’s unsubstantiated

claims?