WolfeNotes.com

 NJ press ignores all that, while spinning history

Chemical Industry Continues Shameful 60 Year Legacy of Attacking Scientists, Science, Public Health & Environmental Protections

Soon after I first read Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking 1962 book Silent Spring, I changed my major.

It was 1975 and I was studying chemical engineering at Clarkson College of Technology. After learning of the devastating ecological and human health impacts, I wanted no role in manufacturing chemicals. Instead, I wanted to ban and regulate them, so I changed my major to environmental science.

So, to put it mildly, I was stunned – and disgusted – to read this huge revisionist whitewash in yesterday’s press clips:

Klipstein said his grandfather served as president of the chemical firm American Cyanamid in the early 1960s, and became increasingly concerned about the potential harm from chemical misuse.

“I think he was really struck by (environmentalist) Rachel Carson and her book ‘Silent Spring,’ ” he said. Prior to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the senior Klipstein founded the New Jersey Chemical Industry Council [NJCIC] to share thoughts and concerns about chemical product development and educate students and teachers about advancements in the field of chemistry.

Yeah, I bet the President of American Cyanamid and founder of the NJCIC was “struck” by Carson’s book – as in struck by lightning!

But the CIC as about educating teachers and children? The reporter apparently lifted that historical spin directly off the Chemistry Council’s website.

So, lets get the history right.

Rachel Carson was viciously attacked by the chemical industry for writing Silent Spring – much of it personally directed at her as a woman.

Some of that attack was launched right here in NJ, by agricultural chemical and pesticide manufacturers like American Cyanamid and their NJ State government flunkies.

Attacks on Carson by the chemical industry were widespread, and no doubt shared by major NJ corporations like Cyanamid (see: Fifty Years After Silent Spring, Assault on Science Continues):

 “In any large scale pest program, we are immediately confronted with the objection of a vociferous, misinformed group of nature-balancing, organic gardening, bird-loving, unreasonable citizenry that has not been convinced of the important place of agricultural chemicals in our economy.”  ~~~ Director, NJ Department of Agriculture

Since its 1955 founding, the NJ Chemical Industry Council – precursor to today’s NJ Chemistry Council – has attacked science and scientists, elevated industry profits above protection of public health, and – by blocking, delaying or weakening  the effective regulation of dangerous chemicals – the CIC has contributed to needless suffering and death of perhaps thousands of people and the permanent poisoning of wildlife and ecosystems.

That’s hardly about a project to “share thoughts and concerns about chemical product development and educate students and teachers about advancements in the field of chemistry” and certainly not a legacy to be proud of.

Today, as we speak, that shameful legacy continues.

As I recently noted, the Chemistry Council is engaged in a classic campaign to “manufacture doubt” to block long delayed drinking water standards (see:

• Winston Smith Pays A Visit To The Drinking Water Quality Institute
• NJ Chemical Industry Invokes Gov. Christie’s Executive Order to Block DEP Drinking Water Standards for Toxic Chemicals

In a May 7, 2015 letter to the Drinking Water Quality Institute, the Chemical industry renewed and expanded those attacks:

Based upon available science and data, we have significant concerns that DWQI’s draft recommendations related to PFNA are needlessly low and costly to New Jersey, which cannot be supported by an objective analysis of the available science and data. As such, DWQI’s current draft MCL for PFNA should be held until such time that scientific evidence can support its recommendation.

In addition to their campaign to attack the science, manufacture false scientific uncertainty, elevate industry profits over public health protections, and use Gov. Christie’s “federal consistency” and anti-regulatory policies to block regulation, the chemistry council manufactured another straw man argument to serve as a hurdle.

NJ CIC now claims that DEP failed to consider what is know as the “occurrence rate” – e.g. how widespread the problem is:

First, we urge DWQI members to keep in mind the fact that the latest federal Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3) reporting data for New Jersey does not support the need for a recommended maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 13 parts per trillion (ppt) or a practical quantitation limit (PQL) of 5 ppt. PFNA was detected in only 4 of 918 public water supply wells in New Jersey, an occurrence rate of less than .44%.  …  This low occurrence rate coupled with the fact that the existing scientific literature fails to establish any human health toxicity effects from PFNA at such low levels make it clear that DWQI lacks human health justification for its recommendation. 

First of all, in contrast to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, which requires EPA to consider occurrence data in setting drinking water standards, under NJ law, the DEP and the DWQI are not required to consider or authorized to set drinking water standards based on occurrence data.

But CIC fails to note here that the federal EPA UCMR3 monitoring was based on a much higher screening value that used by NJ DEP.

DEP noted this problem in using federal UCMR data and compared federal EPA UCMR data to NJ results:

Under the USEPA Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3; USEPA, 2012b), nationwide monitoring of finished water for 30 unregulated contaminants, including PFNA and 5 other PFCs, is being conducted in 2013−2015 by all U.S. public water supplies serving more than 10,000 people and 800 representative PWS serving less than 10,000 people. Comparison of the UCMR3 PFC occurrence data with other PFC occurrence studies is complicated by the fact that the Reporting Level for UCMR3 monitoring of PFNA (≥ 20 ng/L) is much higher than the Reporting Levels in the NJDEP studies and other monitoring data reported to NJDEP and in the drinking water occurrence studies reported in the literature (generally < 5 ng/L, reviewed by Post et al., 2013). In initial UCMR3 data from 3483 public water supplies outside of New Jersey reported to USEPA through January 2015, PFNA (20 ng/L or above) was found in only seven public water systems outside of New Jersey (USEPA, 2015; Table 1). As of January 22, 2015, PFNA was found in UCMR3 monitoring in three public water supplies sites in Gloucester County, NJ (Woodbury City Water Department, up to 56 ng/L; Monroe Township MUA, up to 28 ng/L; West Deptford Township Water Department, 30 ng/L) including one public water supply (Monroe Township MUA) which had not previously reported detections of PFNA to NJDEP. In all but two of the non-NJ public water supplies reporting PFNA in UCMR3, other PFCs were also present, while PFNA was the only PFC reported at the three Gloucester County, NJ, sites.

In private well testing results reported to NJDEP as of July 18, 2014, PFNA (at > 2.5 ng/L) was detected in wells at 26 of 94 (28%) of residences tested in the vicinity of the West Deptford industrial facility. Fifteen of the wells had PFNA levels above 20 ng/L, and the highest concentration found was 1,500 ng/L. Point of entry treatment systems (POETS) have been installed on those wells with PFNA levels of ≥ 20 ng/L that are currently used for potable purposes.

Most of the chemical industry’s attacks are similarly false and misleading.

Certainly no legacy to be proud of.