Marshall,
a fascinating story from an obviously passionate man. Food for thought...
BUT, if I may digress from your post slightly, it brings up a question that's always puzzled my unscientific mind...

He says: " Generally speaking, we live in a closed system, and nothing ever disappears. When something is burned, whether it is rocket fuel or coal or wood, part of it is converted to heat, and the rest becomes byproducts."

I do accept this as true and I have a very simple question here.....we're always hearing about not sending (eg) plastic bags to the landfill....Please tell me, which is worse for our environment; burning these in my wood stove and sending the chemical residue into the atmosphere, or sending them to the dump to decompose slowly and pollute the aquafers???

I really don't know.

Regards,

Shax

Ideally, one wouldn't acquire them at all. One probably could manage to not ever buy them; to not recieve items enveloped in them is more difficult.

Ditto for those dammed plastic pots that plants come in.

I like oversimplification as much as anyone, but this one is a little irksome. The dose makes the poison line is being disproved as it is becoming clear that low level exposure to industrial chemicals can have severe consequences. I feel like he's asking us to make a choice between full scale disaster via the war machine and attempting to understand the potential health problems associated with exposure to industrial chemicals. Why can't we be concerned with the effects of contamination of our environment and the dangers of modern weaponry?

The problem with this entire line of thinking is the proposed cause of the trace amount of perchlorate pollution appears to be anchored in an assumption that isn't even proven. I have yet to see anything that positively concludes the perchlorates detected in foods are actually produced by burned or unburned rocket fuel. The only common denominator I have seen is the material is commonly used in rocket fuel, but it does have other industrial uses, as well as being a naturally occurring material. I even use perchlorate based materials in some of the oilwell stimulation work that I do. I suspect the unproven link by environmentalists, to burned and unburned rocket fuel, has been introduced to conveniently lend support to or obtain support from other agendas like anti-military, anti-industry, and anti-space exploration.

What intrigues me is how a perchlorate ion can exist for any significant amount of time in the environment. Perchlorates are generally quite chemically reactive, especially with reducing agents and many organics. A solution of sodium perchlorate in water, for example, will spontaneously ignite as it dries out in contact with cotton or wood. After reaction with organics or reducing agents, the material is no longer a perchlorate, but becomes a chlorate.

The dose does make the poison. Many common life supporting materials can even be poisons in excessive amounts. Too much oxygen can kill. Too much water and too few electrolytes in our bodies (edema) can kill. Too little water and too much sodium chloride and other electrolytes in out bodies (dehydration) can kill. Too little blood sugar (hypoglycemia) and too much (hperglycemia) are both potentially lethal, but it is essential otherwise. The list can go on and on. It is all about balance. Evidence exists that without exposure to some poisons or vectors, out bodies immune systems and other processes wouldn't work or develope properly. There appears to be some truth to the phase, "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger." There is even a branch of medical science dedicated to this idea, but the name escapes me at the moment.

Monte, I suggest that you revise your "The dose does make the poison" to "Often the dose makes the poison". Your example of balance supports this revision. Also, in many cases it is dose times time that makes the poison. In others it is dose plus other chemicals that make the poison. In others it could be dose plus a temperature effect, dose plus the presence of virus, etc. Your balance statement and these examples reflect that Nature is very complex.

Henry,

Point well taken. The quote is very simplistic and I realize that. Fortunately, I am not the original author, just another plagerist. I would add that it has even more permutations.

For example, "Dose times time makes the poison." can also have the opposite effect. Low level heavy metal poisoning can be cumulative over time while continued exposure to small amounts of snake venom results in increased tolerance. Both can be lethal in high does but small doses over time have the opposite effect.

Another of your axions "Dose plus other chemicals makes the poison." has interesting possibilities. For example, two potentially helpful components together can be lethal. Many medications that are life saving or life extending can become life threatening when taken in conjunction with another potentially healthy agent, grapefruit. Grapefruit contains an agent that deactivates an enzyme in our bodies that breakdown the medication and help remove them from our bodies. Without this enzyme, the medication levels can reach dangerous levels. Both of the materials can be used to improve health separately, but together can be lethal.

Monte, copy & paste this url for info on the positive relationship between burned & unburned rocket fuel & percolate pollution. http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20041129/index.php
Note the sidebar on the site with a list of sites and the level of percolate at each site.

There should be another category regarding dose, a category of chemicals that in small amounts are beneficial. Alcohol is an example of one that has been shown to be beneficial for some people, in small amounts yet deadly in quantity. I don't know of any study showing mecury or percolate to use examples from the article, in any amount have any beneficial properties. Chemicals necessary for life such as oxygen and water shouldn't be used as examples.

Another addition to Henry's list of dose often makes the poison qualifications is the dose is the poison depending on who receives the dose.

the dose is the poison depending on who receives the dose.

True Althea. Developing babies, young children, old folk, and anyone nutrient challenged are at more risk for the most part.

Pat.......Hey, I love to reuse those 3 and 4 inch plastic pots for growing transplants in -- don't care for peat pots 'atall as they dry out about as fast as you can water them and I don't trust them to decay quickly. The larger plastic pots are super for covering sensitive transplants for 2 days.

Shax, I would opt to inter the plastic in a well-engineered landfill or to direct the plastic as part of co-generation waste stream, assuming in both situations that effluent and outgasses are processed appropriately. Many kinds of "plastics" actually don't decompose very readily but are broken down into finer and finer particles.

As for the rest of you, I am glad to see a bit of consensus that the issues of chems in the environment are more complex while often not so earthshaking as activists would have us believe. Of course I am plagued with doubts over whom to believe on the matter.

Marshallz10 said: "the issues of chems in the environment are more complex while often not so earthshaking as activists would have us believe. Of course I am plagued with doubts over whom to believe on the matter."

Here is an often applied rule that many apparently use to resolve questions of this type - if it affects stranger's lives, it is not earthshaking; if it affects my life or those that I care about, it is earthshaking."

sounded like justification for chemicals in our water and food to me.

The guy talks too silly for me. I lost patience with Charley.

I resented that Charley was suggesting that one would have to consume 11.3 quarts of perchlorate in the form of 1 billion quarts of milk ( which he presented in what seemsed a foolish task).

Any idiot would know that one would die consuming far less than 1 quart of perchlorate at a sitting. This type of wild stats turns my stomach (no pun intended). And defocuses on the real problem, it may be less than a spoonful that may cause permanet damage.

Sorry, I feel like this guy is not believable to me.

Althea, I went to that link and opened another link on the side lines regarding one of the California Schools that were paying 1000.oo per person to take a certain amount of perchlorate experimentaly to see toxic levels as a study. That should be illegal as a desparate person may agree or submit to such testing but not be in their right mind to understand what is happening. I was trying to follow that test and see how results came out but couldnt find much.

As in the last paragraph/conlusion of Charley's report, I was ambevilent to the ending remarks, even though I sense he seems to hold society, politicians, journalists, special intersts groups and trial lawyers as the culprits and stumbling blocks to resolving these issues...the real responsibility is for each individual to learn how to dodge through life and try to avoid toxic build up by being rational.

In regards to his suggestion, Being rational has nothing to do with making educated decisions about chemistry, however being educated and informed might help and not trusting or knowing how to trust.

The bottom line is, there is more toxins in our food and water than need be...it 2004 and I demand better!....almost 2005. Hopefully the focus of health becomes of more importance than what it is today.

I am all for personal responsibility and the taking resposibilities for life's choices. But few folks are have learned the science and acquired and analyzed scientific data required to make "learned" decisions about chems in diet and the environment. I agree that reducing toxins in the environment is desirable but not particularly achievable because each year many more chems come are introduced. What do we do? Become increasingly fearful and unable to handle the passing bandwagons playing our songs of doom and gloom while industry and business insist on standard item-by-item risk assessment? Politicians, special interest groups and the like are happy to keep us confused, ignorant, and ineffective.

Charlie Reese is an old time Southern newspaperman, once a Democrat staffer, and a current producer of opinion pieces heavily flavored with Conservative Southern Democratic populism. I appreciate his straight talking even though I might disagree with him from time to time.

No matter which side you are on, whether you take Monte's side or Althea's side or somewhere in between, the bottom line is that responsibility must be taken by whatever parties are polluting. If there is nothing wrong with perchlorates as some have suggested, why is the lead polluter (who else, the federal government) trying to shirk responsibility by trying to shield the military and its contractors from any cleanup. I don't know, but it poses an interesting question.

The article is from last year's Wall Street Journal. I made it available as an Adobe document.

Here is a link that might be useful: Article

Mr. Reese should be added to the list of those happy to keep us confused & ignorant. He says no one knows if percolate is harmful, yet it has been shown to harmful and is already regulated. I think he is taking advantage of general lack of knowledge of and ability to assess risk. If people are looking for a trustworthy source to guide them, beware of opinion pieces like Mr. Reese's who rely on on misinformation & absurd comparisons to make their point.

What to do? On the percolate issue, I would like to see the gvmt start to take the issue seriously and attempt to seal and clean up the existing sites.

Industry should adopt the Precautionary Principle as a guide assessing the risk of newly introduced chemicals.

While waiting for those two things to happen, I guess I'll just get a carbon monoxide detector and stock up on duct tape & plastic. ~)

Some plastics can be recycled. There is a plant here in Tennessee that makes pile or fleece clothing from recycled soda bottles--they're not sticky, either. Some grocery chains take back plastic bags and they are made into new plastic bags--Food Lion has containers at the entrance to their store for this purpose in this area.

My municipality takes plastic containers with the recycling codes 1 and 2 and 6; there is a plant nearby that buys the material and makes other stuff from it.

Personally, I try to avoid plastic but it is difficult. I do use canvas bags at the grocery and try to buy glass containers instead of plastic ones, but it is getting increasingly difficult as more and more products are shipped in plastic. I know that our culture is becoming degenerate as they are starting to sell Scotch in plastic bottles.

No matter which side you are on, whether you take Monte's side or Althea's side or somewhere in between, the bottom line is that responsibility must be taken by whatever parties are polluting.

Just out of curiousity, could anyone tell me what side I am on, or for that matter, what side Althea is on? I would like to see what I or Althea do or say that makes someone think we are on complete opposite sides of this or any other issue. What are those opposing sides? Does someone think that I am for doing anything that would contribute to destroying the environment and that Althea would sacrific everything human to save the world? Those are opposites in my mind. How about telling me where you think we stand?

I think all of us would be surprised if we had access to a complete catalog of each person's contribution to protecting and preserving our environment.

Monte makes my point better than I do (as often is the case). :) OTOH there is a divide between those of us prepared to rely on the Precautionary Principle and those, such as Monte, confident in standard risk assessment of individual chemicals in our diet and the environment.

Monte, I am not knocking your position. However, from the statement

I suspect the unproven link by environmentalists, to burned and unburned rocket fuel, has been introduced to conveniently lend support to or obtain support from other agendas like anti-military, anti-industry, and anti-space exploration.

lead me to draw my conclusion.

Yes there are perchlorates occuring naturally. Many groundwater supplies in the Northeast have been contaminated by perchlorates that were present in fertilizers (nitrates) that were imported from South America.

However, it is known that perchlorates are components of rocket fuel. The EPA has established limits on them (although they have been prohibited from discussing them publicly for some time). My point that if it known that they are components of rocket fuel, why is there a gag order on discussing them and why is there a liability shield being attempted for the military and defense contractors?

Whatever ever your thoughts on them, my point was if you make the mess, you clean it up. Nothing more.

However, it is known that perchlorates are components of rocket fuel. The EPA has established limits on them (although they have been prohibited from discussing them publicly for some time). My point that if it known that they are components of rocket fuel, why is there a gag order on discussing them and why is there a liability shield being attempted for the military and defense contractors?

My take on the "gag order" is that the government should not take a position on anything controversial until it is proven conclusively to be fact. While the fact that perchlorates can cause medical problems seems to be proven, it sure looks as if the level which is safe in the environment has not been proven.

If the government comes down on either side of the issue, rather than remaining neutral until the facts are in, the rabid hounds (lawyers)will be released, often filing potentially frivilous lawsuits with hopes of out-of-court settlements by citing the government's preliminary position. It can also have catastrophic financial effects on industry, i.e. stock collapse, price drops, boycotts, etc., which would be unfortunate if the preliminary results are later proven invalid. The victims often have little or no recourse to recover those losses.

A good recent example of the negative effect of the government taking an early position on a potentially sensitive subject is the release of the recent preliminary positive BSE test on a tested cow. The release of the information caused a huge drop for several days in the beef cattle selling price received by producers. If the results had simply not been released until the final more accurate BSE test had been performed, innocent producers would not have had to take the income losses for a preliminary positive BSE screening test result that ultimately turned out to be proven incorrect. The cow had been properly tested and the regulators already knew the cow had not been used for any food products so there was no need to make the announcement until they were certain.

The same can be said about the government commenting on any ongoing research about the still unproven safe limits of perchlorates in the environment. In regard to situations of obvious contamination and where the source of the contamination is known, those individuals or companies should be required to remediate their own mess. I think that existing laws already cover that sort of thing quite well.

In regard to my comment about the connection between burned and unburned rocket fuel and perchlorate contamination, Althea's link shows an obvious connection between the two. I stand corrected. However, that still does not resolve the issue of what is a safe level in the environment. I am confident that the larger values in the provided examples are likely dangerous, probably acutely dangerous, but on the other hand, I am not ready to decide that any detected level is dangerous. Is there any data that makes the causal connection between low level concentrations of perchlorates in the environment and the documented medical problems. It is my information that most exposure data has involved people who work in industries directly handling perchlorates, not exposure through secondary or even tertiary sources such as contaminated irrigation water or irrigated produce.

Althea says,......"While waiting for those two things to happen, I guess I'll just get a carbon monoxide detector and stock up on duct tape & plastic.

Wayne says, "I keep learning that there are natural nutrients [unpatentable which means little profits can be made by the big pharmicedicals] that can be of great help to ward off damage." 'Course, along comes the EU Codus and Pharms[joined up with our watchdog FDA] to try to control[eliminate?] self help [medication]. Many people are so uninformed to not care at all about what I am saying.

Monte, I believe one of the articles I read from the site previously posted cited birth defects in children where there was an elevated level of perchlorate in the water. The EPA limit was based primarily on the studies done by this group.

Wayne, you think they'll try to outlaw fresh food next?

Here is a link that might be useful: perchlorate study group

The Codus Alimentarus is not an EU regulartory effort but part of the World Health Organization (ie UN). Drawing up international standards for food, processing, etc. has been ongoing for more than a decade. This is part of the globalization process and is arm in arm with creation of GATT, WTO, NAFTA, etc.

I don't know if I did the math correctly or not, but based on the greater than 30 mg/kg/day NOAEL (No Observable Adverse Effect Level) from the results of the perchlorate study group, if I were a 175 lb rat (I am actually a much bigger rat.) who drank one gallon of perchlorate contaminated water per day, I would show no apparent perchlorate related reproductive effects in mysef or my pups up to a minimum concentration of 630 ppm of perchlorate in the water. The actually NOAEL apparently was higher than 30 mg/kg/day but that was the highest target level tested. There might be some increases in the size of the my spleen and thryroid but no other significant changes unless I read the conclusions incorrectly. To ingest the equivalent amount of perchlorate from other low level secondary sources like irrigated lettuce I would likely have to eat a bale of it every day. Based on the results of the perchlorate study, as I read them, the human birth defects and perchlorate contamination referenced in the other study are probably not related. For sure, it likely had no observable adverse effect on the 175 lb rats or their offspring.

Monte, can you post a link (or at least a reference) for the main paper that was used to determine the NOAEL? I can search the refereed scientific literature but often the NOAEL is based mainly on unpublished company sponsored ones.

Regarding birth defects, I doubt that a NOAEL study would be applicable. Nature is very complex and specific studies probably would be needed to determine effects at such a sensitive stage of growth. For example:

Title: Predicting neonatal perchlorate dose and inhibition of iodide uptake in the rat during lactation using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling.

Authors: Clewell, Rebecca A.; Merrill, Elaine A.; Yu, Kyung O.; Mahle, Deirdre A.; Sterner, Teresa R.; Fisher, Jeffrey W.; Gearhart, Jeffery M.

Authors affiliation: CIIT Centers for Health Research, Six Davis Drive, Research Triangle Pa, NC, 27709-2137, USA.

Published in: Toxicological Sciences, volumn 74, pages 416-436, (August 2003).

Abstract: "Perchlorate (ClO4-), a contaminant in drinking water, competitively inhibits active uptake of iodide (I-) into various tissues, including mammary tissue. During postnatal development, inhibition of I- uptake in the mammary gland and neonatal thyroid and the active concentration ClO4- in milk indicate a potentially increased susceptibility of neonates to endocrine disruption. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was developed to reproduce measured ClO4- distribution in the lactating and neonatal rat and predict resulting effects on I- kinetics from competitive inhibition at the sodium iodide symporter (NIS). Kinetic I- and ClO4- behavior in tissues with NIS (thyroid, stomach, mammary gland, and skin) was simulated with multiple subcompartments, Michaelis-Menten (M-M) kinetics and competitive inhibition. Physiological and kinetic parameters were obtained from literature and experiment. Systemic clearance and M-M parameters were estimated by fitting simulations to tissue and serum data. The model successfully describes maternal and neonatal thyroid, stomach, skin, and plasma, as well as maternal mammary gland and milk data after ClO4- exposure (from 0.01 to 10 mg/kg-day ClO4-) and acute radioiodide (2.1 to 33,000 ng/kg I-) dosing. The model also predicts I- uptake inhibition in the maternal thyroid, mammary gland, and milk. Model simulations predict a significant transfer of ClO4- through milk after maternal exposure; approximately 50% to 6% of the daily maternal dose at doses ranging from 0.01 to 10.0 mg ClO4-/kg-day, respectively. Comparison of predicted dosimetrics across life-stages in the rat indicates that neonatal thyroid I- uptake inhibition is similar to the adult and approximately tenfold less than the fetus."

The abstract may be misleading. Perhaps the following is a better way of seeing the significance: From Table 3 of the full paper. When the mother showed a model-predicted dose of chlorate concentration of 0.01 mg/kg-day the pup would have 0.07 mg/kg-day.

Title: A Rat Neurodevelopmental Evaluation of Offspring, Including Evaluation of Adult and Neonatal Thyroid, from Mothers Treated with Ammonium Perchlorate in Drinking Water.

Authors: York, Raymond G.; Barnett, John, Jr.; Brown, W. Ray; Garman, Robert H.; Mattie, David R.; Dodd, Darol.

Authors affiliation: Argus Division-DDS, Charles River Laboratories, Inc., Horsham, PA, USA.

Published in: International Journal of Toxicology, volumn 23, pages 191-214, (2004).

Abstract: "The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential neurodevelopmental toxicity of perchlorate exposure during gestation and the first 10 days of lactation. Mated Sprague-Dawley rats (25/exposure group) were given continual access to 0, 0.1, 1.0, 3.0, or 10.0 mg/kg-day ammonium perchlorate (AP) in drinking water, starting gestation day 0 (mating) through lactation day 10 (DL 10). One pup/sex/litter/exposure group was assigned to (1) juvenile brain wts., morphometry, and neuropathol.; (2) passive avoidance and watermaze testing; (3) motor activity and auditory startle habituation; and (4) adult regional brain wts., morphometry, and neuropathol. AP had no effect on body wts., feed consumption, clin. observations, or sexual maturation of pups at exposures as high as 10.0 mg/kg-day. There were no behavioral effects in the offspring exposed as high as 10.0 mg/kg-day as evaluated by passive avoidance, swimming watermaze, motor activity, and auditory startle. Increases in hypertrophy and hyperplasia of the thyroid follicular epithelium and a decrease in the thyroid follicle size were obsd. in culled male pups in the 10.0 mg/kg-day group on DL 5. The exposure level for effects on triiodothyroxine (T3), thyroxine (T4), and TSH (TSH) levels for pups were 0.1, 1.0, and 3.0 mg/kg-day, resp. There was an apparent increase in the thickness of the corpus callosum of the 10 mg/kg-day group pups on DL 12. The no-obsd.-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for maternal toxicity was greater than 10.0 mg/kg-day. Based on the thyroid morphometric and histopathol. findings, the NOAEL for pup toxicity was 0.1 mg/kg-day."

Title: In utero and lactational exposure of Long-Evans rats to ammonium perchlorate (AP) disrupts ovarian follicle maturation.

Authors: Baldridge, Monika G.; Stahl, Rebecca L.; Gerstenberger, Shawn L.; Tripoli, Vicki; Hutz, Reinhold J.

Authors affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Published in: Reproductive Toxicology, volumn 19, pages 155-161, (2004).

Abstract: "Ammonium perchlorate (AP) is a powerful oxidizer manufd. almost exclusively for the aerospace industry. AP salts are also used in airbags, flares, fertilizers, enamels and paints. As a result of widespread industrial use, AP has become a persistent environmental contaminant of drinking water in several U.S. states. AP ion disrupts the trapping of iodide as well as facilitates the discharge of unorganified iodide from the thyroid gland. Such disturbances in thyroid hormone concns. during crit. periods of development are then known to cause profound reproductive and developmental defects, since thyroid hormones modulate both follicular development and steroidogenesis and affect estrogen metab. and receptor. This study was designed (1) to det. whether exposure to a low or high concn. of AP (LAP, HAP) exerts detrimental effects on follicle maturation in the Long-Evans hooded rat and (2) to det. whether the modulatory effects of AP can be ameliorated by levo-thyroxine sodium (T4) supplementation. Animals were treated via deionized drinking water on GD 7-21 with LAP (0.4 mg/kg/day) or HAP (4.0 mg/kg/day). Half of each group was also given T4 supplements via drinking water on GD 7-21. Female pups were sacrificed on postnatal days 24/25, and the ovaries were excised, fixed for histol. and analyzed. The anal. included a count, measurement and classification of preantral and antral follicles in the greatest cross-sectional area of the ovary. The results indicated that treatment with the HAP significantly reduced the no. of preantral follicles 100,000 mm2 size classes. In ovaries treated with the LAP, we obsd. no significant decrease in preantral follicles of any size class and only a significant redn. in the largest antral follicles. T4 only circumvented the effect on the no. of small preantral and antral follicles; however, a significant diminution in the antral follicle no.
persisted in the mid-sized (HAP) and large (LAP, HAP)-sized classes. These data support the hypothesis that AP reduces the no. of preantral and antral follicles in certain size classes in rats exposed during a crit. period of development, and that T4 can attenuate the effects of AP on small preantral and antral follicles, but not on medium or large antral follicles."

Henry,

Go up a few posts to one of Althea's post and you will find the link she provided to the site that I referenced.

CCOF has sent out the following announcement; note that CCOF seems to accept that organic vegetables are testing higher in perchlorates. The main office also sent three useful Word Doc. attachments explaining the problem and how the organic farmer might respond to public inquiries. If anyone want the documents, I'll email them upon request.

-------------------------------------------------------

Dear CCOF Certified Clients:

Perchlorate is in the news again. (If you are not familiar with
perchlorate, you'll find the attachments informative.) The FDA has
posted findings of a study involving testing of lettuce, milk and
bottled water. You can view the data at
www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/clo4data.html
.

In addition, tomorrow the University of Arizona will be announcing the
results of a separate study conducted by researcher Charles Sanchez and
funded by Kerr-McGee, a global energy and chemical company. We expect
those results to be posted on the university's website very soon.

Notable points you should be aware of:

1) The highest levels of perchlorate appeared in organic, rather
than non-organic, lettuce and milk.

2) Perchlorate is showing up in foods produced in areas where no
known perchlorate contamination exists.

Previously, the assumption was that perchlorate was entering crops
through the irrigation water. Mr. Sanchez speculates that perchlorate
may also be entering the food system through Chilean nitrates, kelp and
fish emulsion contained in fertilizer. He also speculates that compost
may be a culprit if it contains manure from animals that have foraged on
crops irrigated with perchlorate contaminated water. He hopes to get
further funding to study these issues.

In the meantime, we at CCOF are monitoring news stories about
perchlorate. To date, organic has not been mentioned. However, we are
preparing for organic foods to make headlines after the University of
Arizona study is released. To help our certified clients, we have
prepared the attached documents - 1) What you should know about
perchlorate, 2) member guidance, and 3) talking points.

Please do not hesitate to refer callers to me at (831) 423-2263, ext.
12. And, feel free to call me if you have questions yourself.

Thank you.

------------------
Peggy Miars
Acting President
California Certified Organic Farmers
831-423-2263, ext. 12
www.ccof.org <:http:>

This is what the NYTimes article I read says about The Group:

"In 1993, the Pentagon teamed up with Kerr-McGee, Lockheed Martin and Aerojet, a GenCorp subsidiary, and others to form the Perchlorate Study Group to show that the environmental agency's science was wrong.

In December the group released a study that compared birth records from California from 1983 to 1997 in Redlands, where perchlorate has been detected, with communities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, where perchlorate has not been detected. The study found that there was no statistically valid difference in levels of thyroid hormone between the groups.

The environmental agency has recommended no more than one part per billion in drinking water, equivalent to a grain of salt in an Olympic-size pool. The Pentagon and the industry are arguing for a human standard of 200 parts per billion.

A standard of 200 parts per billion for people would probably exempt much of the contamination from cleanup, because most such contamination in the United States ranges from 4 to 100 parts per billion.

The environmental agency's recommendation is largely based on a study of rats published in 2001 and financed in part by the Perchlorate Study Group. The study found crude effects on rats' brains from exposure to perchlorate. Parts of the brains were enlarged.

Using a standard safety margin for people, the agency scientists arrived at the 1 part per billion.

In the same study, benign tumors were spotted on two 19-week-old baby rats out of a group of 30 whose mothers had been exposed to high levels of perchlorate. Scientists from the environmental agency say it is unusual to see tumors in baby rats that young, leading them to believe that something must have occurred in the womb."

http://www.mindfully.org/Water/2004/
Chemical-Water-Too-Much2mar04.htm

Monte, I apologize for writing "based primarily" instead of "funded in part" by The Group, although I swear I read the equivalent of "based primarily" somewhere too.

This reminds me of a quote I recently received by email from a scientist friend:

"If you torture data sufficiently, it [sic] will confess to almost anything." -Fred
Menger, chemistry professor (1937- )

Good one Marshall!

Monte, thank you. I did not read far enough into that link.

Marshall, I missed your post before mine when I skimmed to the bottom, because they were submitted at the same time. Thanks for the update on the organic test results.

Althea, You asked....way up there ahead of a lot of posting, Wayne, you think they'll try to outlaw fresh food next?

Good question. Perhaps,...if you are not certified! ha! Really, though, when you get many years on your body, it possibly just cannot get optium performance even out of good food....so that is my belief for supplementation...besides...who eats perfectly anyway??