Published time: February 06, 2014 12:13
...Some 300,000 people in nine counties (click here) were told not to drink the water for up to 10 days, while Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials advised pregnant women to consider a different water source beyond that point.
Federal officials on Wednesday, however, gave the water a clean bill of health.
"You can drink it. You can bathe in it," AP cites Dr. Tanja Popovic, acting director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, as saying. "You can use it how you like."
Popovic further affirmed that the water was safe, even for pregnant women, suggesting the CDC’s original message was only intended to help pregnant women make better informed health decisions for themselves.
"They may not want to eat certain food," Popovic said. "They may not want to fly. It doesn't mean that flying isn't safe."
Many restaurants, however, have refused to cook with the water, while local doctors have not taken the official assurances at face value, telling children under three and those with compromised immune systems not to drink it, said Dr. Rahul Gupta, health officer for Kanawha and Putnam counties.
On Wednesday, two schools closed early after the licorice odor associated with the chemicals wafted through the building. Students reported symptoms of light-headedness, itchy eyes and noses. One teacher fainted and another student was sent to hospital....
On January 25th the authorities stated MCHM and PPH should not be in the water at any level. That's all changed now. I don't think so. There has been a thorough study conducted in the past two weeks, right? Where are the findings. There is an LD50 study? Where is it?
There needs to be three investigations, the LD50s on MCHM and PPH and the MIXTURE of the two.
January 25, 2014
CHARLESTON — Crude MCHM and its companion chemical PPH (click here) should not be in drinking water at any level, the chair of the Chemical Safety Board said Friday morning.
Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso said those chemicals are created to be reactive with other chemicals and have the potential to affect human beings.
“We should be worried about it,” Moure-Eraso said.
The company that manufactures the chemicals — Eastman Chemicals produced the MCHM, Dow made the PPH — is responsible for testing the chemicals and providing answers about chemical safety guidelines, Moure-Eraso said. The company has “provided very little information,” he continued, but has conducted two or three small toxicological studies. Those studies are not “adequate to determine chronic effects over a long period of time,” the director said....
Here we go:
By Jeff Jenkins in News
January 21, 2014 at 11:53PM
Toxicologic information on PPH is limited. (click here) Based on the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) provided by the manufacturer, the reported toxicity of this material appears to be lower than the toxicity of MCHM (LD50 > 2000 mg/kg for the primary component of PPH vs. 825 mg/kg for MCHM). Given the small percentage of PPH in the tank and information suggesting similar water solubility as MCHM, it is likely that any amount of PPH currently in the water system would be extremely low. However, the water system has not been tested for this material.
I am not saying the PPH in West Virginia came from Dow Chemical. However, Dow is a very reputable company that would have information about their chemicals. I would think any authority involved in this would seek opinion from private industry most familiar with the chemical.
DOWANOL™ PPh is a slow evaporating, very hydrophobic glycol ether.
it doesn't dilute in water. It is non-polar. That means it won't necessary flush out of the pipes easily with water. There are traces still there throughout the system. There is still a problem.
Okay, no one is going to like this but I am going to state it anyway.
PPH as a hydrophobic gylcol ether forms 'micelles' in water. They have similar structure to liposomes. I don't like it. The body can misinterpret the interaction as biological.
Sorry, I just don't like it.
...Some 300,000 people in nine counties (click here) were told not to drink the water for up to 10 days, while Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials advised pregnant women to consider a different water source beyond that point.
Federal officials on Wednesday, however, gave the water a clean bill of health.
"You can drink it. You can bathe in it," AP cites Dr. Tanja Popovic, acting director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, as saying. "You can use it how you like."
Popovic further affirmed that the water was safe, even for pregnant women, suggesting the CDC’s original message was only intended to help pregnant women make better informed health decisions for themselves.
"They may not want to eat certain food," Popovic said. "They may not want to fly. It doesn't mean that flying isn't safe."
Many restaurants, however, have refused to cook with the water, while local doctors have not taken the official assurances at face value, telling children under three and those with compromised immune systems not to drink it, said Dr. Rahul Gupta, health officer for Kanawha and Putnam counties.
On Wednesday, two schools closed early after the licorice odor associated with the chemicals wafted through the building. Students reported symptoms of light-headedness, itchy eyes and noses. One teacher fainted and another student was sent to hospital....
On January 25th the authorities stated MCHM and PPH should not be in the water at any level. That's all changed now. I don't think so. There has been a thorough study conducted in the past two weeks, right? Where are the findings. There is an LD50 study? Where is it?
There needs to be three investigations, the LD50s on MCHM and PPH and the MIXTURE of the two.
January 25, 2014
CHARLESTON — Crude MCHM and its companion chemical PPH (click here) should not be in drinking water at any level, the chair of the Chemical Safety Board said Friday morning.
Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso said those chemicals are created to be reactive with other chemicals and have the potential to affect human beings.
“We should be worried about it,” Moure-Eraso said.
The company that manufactures the chemicals — Eastman Chemicals produced the MCHM, Dow made the PPH — is responsible for testing the chemicals and providing answers about chemical safety guidelines, Moure-Eraso said. The company has “provided very little information,” he continued, but has conducted two or three small toxicological studies. Those studies are not “adequate to determine chronic effects over a long period of time,” the director said....
Here we go:
By Jeff Jenkins in News
January 21, 2014 at 11:53PM
Toxicologic information on PPH is limited. (click here) Based on the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) provided by the manufacturer, the reported toxicity of this material appears to be lower than the toxicity of MCHM (LD50 > 2000 mg/kg for the primary component of PPH vs. 825 mg/kg for MCHM). Given the small percentage of PPH in the tank and information suggesting similar water solubility as MCHM, it is likely that any amount of PPH currently in the water system would be extremely low. However, the water system has not been tested for this material.
I am not saying the PPH in West Virginia came from Dow Chemical. However, Dow is a very reputable company that would have information about their chemicals. I would think any authority involved in this would seek opinion from private industry most familiar with the chemical.
DOWANOL™ PPh Glycol Ether (click here)
Where is the information for the mixture of the two. Simply because they are diluted in water doesn't make them safe.DOWANOL™ PPh is a slow evaporating, very hydrophobic glycol ether.
it doesn't dilute in water. It is non-polar. That means it won't necessary flush out of the pipes easily with water. There are traces still there throughout the system. There is still a problem.
Okay, no one is going to like this but I am going to state it anyway.PPH as a hydrophobic gylcol ether forms 'micelles' in water. They have similar structure to liposomes. I don't like it. The body can misinterpret the interaction as biological.
Sorry, I just don't like it.
