:-)

As I said, I don't know whether making the standard more stringent will help or not. If it were clear that all cancers were caused by environmental exposures of some sort, and if there were no other use for the hypothetical $10M that would be spent at that site, then the choice would be clear: The DoD, NASA, and DoE should quit their bellyaching and spend whatever it takes to clean all of it up. Unfortunately, it's not at all clear that that's the case.

Too often in discussion of these issues, the risks and costs are taken in isolation. I don't think that makes much sense. Yes, "cost/benefit analysis" can be distorted by those with axes to grind, but it needs to be an important part of the process of deciding what we should do to improve health (and prosperity as well).

[link|http://www.meds.com/lung/seer.html#quest_19|This] link gives the probabilities of dying of various common cancers:

19. What are the probabilities of dying of the most common causes of cancer death in men and women? (based on 1989-1991 mortality rates)

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Women

Site . . .Probability (%) . . Site . . . . . Probability (%)

All races

All sites . .. . . 23.35 . . . . All sites . . . . 20.39
Lung and Bronchus . 7.09 . . .Lung and Bronchus . . 4.09
Prostate . . . . . .3.41 . . . . Breast . . . . . . 3.59
Colon and Rectum . .2.60 . . Colon and Rectum . . . 2.65
Pancreas . . . . . .1.08 . . . .Pancreas . . . . . .1.18
Stomach . . . . . . 0.86 . . . . Ovary . . . . . . .1.07

Just about everyone agrees that most lung cancers are caused by smoking, radon, or environmental exposures (dust). Surely DoD facilities have areas where people are exposed to lung hazards that could be better addressed by increased funding and attention.

[link|http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts19.html|TCE facts]:

Some studies with mice and rats have suggested that high levels of trichloroethylene may cause liver, kidney, or lung cancer. Some studies of people exposed over long periods to high levels of trichloroethylene in drinking water or in workplace air have found evidence of increased cancer. Although, there are some concerns about the studies of people who were exposed to trichloroethylene, some of the effects found in people were similar to effects in animals.

In its 9th Report on Carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) determined that trichloroethylene is \ufffdreasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.\ufffd The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that trichloroethylene is \ufffdprobably carcinogenic to humans.\ufffd

Emphasis added.

TCE is bad and needs to be cleaned up to reasonable levels. Reasonable is the operative word, IMO, and people of good faith can argue about what that reasonable level is. Despite the Guardian's take, it's not at all clear, IMO, that taking the MCL to 1 ppb or less will make a difference in people's health, while there's little doubt that decreasing people's workplace exposure to fine dust and radon will be beneficial.

I hope it's a little clearer where I'm coming from.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who is reminded of [link|http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alar_and_apples|Alar] - yes there's a risk. But how big is it?)