Cancer Causing Carcinogens in our Drinking Water

Transcript

00:00 --> 00:03Funding for Yale Cancer Answers is
00:03 --> 00:06provided by Smilow Cancer Hospital.
00:06 --> 00:08Welcome to Yale Cancer Answers
00:08 --> 00:10with doctor Anees Chagpar.
00:10 --> 00:12Yale Cancer Answers features the latest
00:12 --> 00:14information on cancer care by welcoming
00:14 --> 00:17oncologists and specialists who are on the
00:17 --> 00:19forefront of the battle to fight cancer.
00:19 --> 00:21This week, it's a conversation about
00:21 --> 00:23research into carcinogens in our drinking
00:23 --> 00:25water with Doctor Vasilis Vasiliou.
00:25 --> 00:27Doctor Vasiliou is department chair
00:27 --> 00:29and Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of
00:29 --> 00:31Epidemiology and Environmental Health
00:31 --> 00:33Sciences at the Yale School of Medicine,
00:34 --> 00:35where Doctor Chagpar is a
00:35 --> 00:37professor of surgical oncology.
00:38 --> 00:40So maybe we can start off by you
00:40 --> 00:42telling us a little bit more about
00:42 --> 00:44yourself and what it is you do.
00:44 --> 00:48Thank you very much. I'm by training
00:48 --> 00:52an environmental toxicologist and we're
00:52 --> 00:55looking for environmentally induced disease,
00:55 --> 00:58which are conditions essentially caused
00:58 --> 01:00or triggered by external factors.
01:00 --> 01:03And this factor could
01:03 --> 01:05include chemical or natural,
01:05 --> 01:07as you said, water, biological,
01:07 --> 01:10physical and psychological
01:10 --> 01:12events that individuals are exposed
01:12 --> 01:14to in their surroundings.
01:16 --> 01:18One of the things that we have,
01:18 --> 01:19launched is
01:19 --> 01:21we have been awarded by the National
01:21 --> 01:23Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
01:23 --> 01:26to have the Yale Superfund Center,
01:26 --> 01:28which is focused on what
01:28 --> 01:31we call emerging contaminants
01:32 --> 01:35and those are chemicals of concern
01:35 --> 01:38that are not regulated by the
01:38 --> 01:41federal or the state government and
01:41 --> 01:43it could be present in our water.
01:43 --> 01:46Now there are implications,
01:46 --> 01:49there are health implications of the
01:49 --> 01:51presence of these chemicals in our water.
01:51 --> 01:52And this is what we're studying.
01:52 --> 01:57We're trying to find if they are
01:57 --> 01:59indeed causing issues in human health
01:59 --> 02:02and how we can really mitigate those
02:02 --> 02:04chemicals from our drinking water.
02:06 --> 02:09That is really concerning.
02:09 --> 02:11I'm sure
02:11 --> 02:14everybody who is listening is very
02:14 --> 02:16concerned about our drinking water.
02:16 --> 02:19We tend to take it for granted
02:19 --> 02:21that living in a first world nation,
02:21 --> 02:24we have clean drinking water that
02:24 --> 02:26certainly would not cause us harm.
02:26 --> 02:29So the concept that there may be
02:29 --> 02:32chemicals that may induce cancer in our
02:32 --> 02:35drinking water is certainly concerning.
02:35 --> 02:38So can you talk a little bit more
02:38 --> 02:40about how you stumbled into this
02:40 --> 02:43research and what you found so far?
02:43 --> 02:47Does the public have a need to be concerned,
02:47 --> 02:49particularly when you say that
02:49 --> 02:51these are not regulated by our
02:51 --> 02:53state or federal governments?
02:53 --> 02:56Well the one that we are studying
02:56 --> 02:59is a chemical called 1-4 dioxane,
02:59 --> 03:02which is used as a stabilizer
03:02 --> 03:04of other solvents.
03:04 --> 03:06The problem with this chemical
03:06 --> 03:08is it cannot be filtered and
03:08 --> 03:11it's also can be found in our
03:11 --> 03:14household items such as detergents, shampoos and so on,
03:15 --> 03:18so eventually it'll end up into
03:18 --> 03:20the water table and eventually
03:20 --> 03:23can end up in our drinking water.
03:23 --> 03:26That's the bad news.
03:26 --> 03:28And the bad news also about
03:28 --> 03:31this compound is what we call
03:31 --> 03:33a possible human carcinogen,
03:33 --> 03:35which means that there are studies
03:35 --> 03:36in animals that confirm
03:36 --> 03:38that this is carcinogens.
03:38 --> 03:38However,
03:38 --> 03:41there are not epidemiological
03:41 --> 03:45studies to confirm that this
03:45 --> 03:47chemical causes cancer in humans.
03:47 --> 03:49So this is what we're trying
03:49 --> 03:51to get an answer about.
03:51 --> 03:54And so we're conducting studies in
03:54 --> 03:58animal models to find the mechanism by
03:58 --> 04:00which can cause cancer in the animals.
04:00 --> 04:03So we can find ways to develop
04:03 --> 04:06biomarkers for human exposures.
04:06 --> 04:09And at the same time,
04:09 --> 04:11especially with our center,
04:11 --> 04:13we're trying to figure out if
04:13 --> 04:15people are exposed to this.
04:15 --> 04:18And for the
04:18 --> 04:19area of Connecticut,
04:19 --> 04:20actually we're very good today.
04:20 --> 04:23We don't have that much of 1-4
04:23 --> 04:24dioxide in the drinking water.
04:24 --> 04:27I would say almost nothing.
04:27 --> 04:27However,
04:27 --> 04:30there are areas in United States
04:30 --> 04:33that there are considerable levels
04:33 --> 04:37of 1-4 dioxin in the drinking water.
04:37 --> 04:40Now remember that this can
04:40 --> 04:42be filtered only with expensive
04:42 --> 04:45settings of what we called reverse
04:45 --> 04:48osmosis which is really
04:48 --> 04:50not affordable especially when
04:50 --> 04:54people have wells and this systems
04:54 --> 04:57cost between 6 and $10,000.
04:57 --> 05:01So Long Island, for example, in
05:01 --> 05:03New York and this an area
05:03 --> 05:06that they had really high levels
05:06 --> 05:081-4 dioxin in their waters.
05:08 --> 05:08However,
05:08 --> 05:10with all the efforts and this
05:10 --> 05:12is why people should
05:12 --> 05:15be feeling much better with the
05:15 --> 05:17efforts of the state of New York,
05:17 --> 05:20they have put big reverse
05:20 --> 05:22osmosis on municipal wells where
05:22 --> 05:25the public water comes from.
05:25 --> 05:28So we have seen that in the last
05:28 --> 05:30couple of years the water quality
05:30 --> 05:32in the areas that used to be
05:32 --> 05:35high levels of 1-4 dioxin is
05:35 --> 05:37getting clean.
05:37 --> 05:40But we still have other areas.
05:40 --> 05:41For example,
05:41 --> 05:43we have been contacted by Michigan,
05:43 --> 05:46Ann Arbor,
05:46 --> 05:48Florida, that they have areas that they still
05:48 --> 05:50have really high levels of this chemical.
05:50 --> 05:53Now the other thing I want
05:53 --> 05:56to tell you is in addition to 1-4 dioxane,
05:56 --> 05:58there are some other chemicals
05:58 --> 05:59that everybody knows.
05:59 --> 06:01You probably have heard
06:01 --> 06:03of what we call the PFAS,
06:03 --> 06:06the perfluorinated organic
06:06 --> 06:09molecules that are present.
06:09 --> 06:12These are man made chemicals
06:12 --> 06:14that are
06:14 --> 06:17present in your Teflon cookware
06:17 --> 06:21and also on your clothing.
06:21 --> 06:25And this has existed for many,
06:25 --> 06:25many years.
06:25 --> 06:28And the problem with these chemicals
06:28 --> 06:31is they are very persistent in our body.
06:31 --> 06:33So once they get to our body,
06:33 --> 06:36it can be
06:36 --> 06:40very difficult to be removed from our body.
06:40 --> 06:42Actually the monumental thing
06:42 --> 06:47is that about one week ago the EPA,
06:47 --> 06:50the Environmental Protection Agency
06:50 --> 06:54really put the regulatory issues for
06:54 --> 06:56six of these compounds.
06:56 --> 06:58However, the problem is there about 9000 of
06:58 --> 07:01these compounds and this is a major issue.
07:01 --> 07:03So in addition to 1-4 dioxin,
07:03 --> 07:05you have the PFAS where they are
07:05 --> 07:07just starting to be regulated.
07:07 --> 07:10However, the PFAS they're everywhere.
07:11 --> 07:14They are in Connecticut,
07:14 --> 07:16throughout the United States,
07:16 --> 07:18throughout the world.
07:18 --> 07:22And this was because it was
07:22 --> 07:25produced to generate fire resistant
07:25 --> 07:27clothes,
07:29 --> 07:31cookwares, and stuff like that.
07:32 --> 07:37So just a few questions to kind of go
07:37 --> 07:40over some of the things that you've told us.
07:40 --> 07:45So if these PFAS, we know that
07:45 --> 07:47they are carcinogenic, is that right?
07:47 --> 07:49Yes, we do.
07:50 --> 07:53And so if they're everywhere and they're
07:53 --> 07:57very difficult to get out of your body,
07:57 --> 08:00do you really think that in the short
08:00 --> 08:03term there will be any impact in terms
08:03 --> 08:05of regulation actually causing a
08:05 --> 08:08reduction in cancer rates that are
08:08 --> 08:10secondary to these PFAS molecules?
08:10 --> 08:14Because, if I was exposed
08:14 --> 08:17to PFAS using Teflon cookware
08:17 --> 08:21in my younger years,
08:21 --> 08:22and it's very difficult to get out of
08:22 --> 08:24the body, is the damage already done?
08:24 --> 08:26I mean, is there any hope?
08:26 --> 08:29Well, there is plenty of hope actually.
08:29 --> 08:33Remember that our body
08:33 --> 08:35has a lot of mechanisms to bypass all
08:35 --> 08:38these insults, the environmental insults,
08:38 --> 08:40even at the genetic level, you can
08:40 --> 08:43have the repair of your DNA and so on.
08:43 --> 08:45So what we're trying to do, I mean,
08:45 --> 08:46of course, and it's not only cancer,
08:46 --> 08:48especially with the PFAS,
08:48 --> 08:50there are a number of other
08:50 --> 08:51issues that it could cause.
08:51 --> 08:55And it's not only your Teflon cookware.
08:55 --> 08:57It is also in the carpet.
08:57 --> 08:59It is in the plastic that you put
08:59 --> 09:04in the water and everything.
09:04 --> 09:06We know that it causes disease.
09:06 --> 09:09There's a lot of research going on right now.
09:09 --> 09:11However, the good news about the PFAS,
09:11 --> 09:14they can be filtered much
09:14 --> 09:16easier than the 1-4 dioxane.
09:16 --> 09:19So there are now a lot of
09:19 --> 09:21filtering that is going on.
09:21 --> 09:24But we still have a lot of PFAS
09:24 --> 09:27in the area and
09:27 --> 09:29it is the one thing that I
09:29 --> 09:31would advise is
09:31 --> 09:32filtering the water especially in
09:32 --> 09:34the areas that you know have
09:34 --> 09:36higher levels than
09:36 --> 09:38what the maximum level
09:38 --> 09:40recommended to be there.
09:42 --> 09:45And with regards to the 1.4 dioxane,
09:45 --> 09:49I mean, although the reverse osmosis
09:49 --> 09:52equipment technology may be expensive,
09:52 --> 09:54you mentioned 6 to $10,000,
09:54 --> 09:56it seems to be a small price to
09:56 --> 10:00pay if we know that it can
10:00 --> 10:02eliminate a potential carcinogen.
10:02 --> 10:05The question really is,
10:05 --> 10:07do we know that it's a carcinogen?
10:07 --> 10:08When you talk about,
10:08 --> 10:10you know, animal studies,
10:10 --> 10:12have there been epidemiologic
10:12 --> 10:15studies that look at areas that
10:15 --> 10:18have high levels of 1.4 dioxane
10:18 --> 10:20versus low levels to see whether
10:20 --> 10:23there's a difference in cancer
10:23 --> 10:25rates according to that to
10:25 --> 10:28give you at least a signal as to
10:28 --> 10:30whether this is causing cancers?
10:31 --> 10:31Excellent question.
10:31 --> 10:34So to answer the first question, no,
10:34 --> 10:36there are not epidemiological studies.
10:36 --> 10:39This is why the EPA and the International
10:39 --> 10:42Agency for Research on Cancer,
10:42 --> 10:45they call it a probable human carcinogen.
10:45 --> 10:49So our center is funded
10:49 --> 10:52in order to identify the molecular
10:52 --> 10:54mechanisms of causing cancer.
10:54 --> 10:56The 2nd is exactly what you're
10:56 --> 10:58saying and the basis of
10:58 --> 11:00an epidemiological study is that we
11:00 --> 11:02can find people that have
11:02 --> 11:04been exposed to 1.4 dioxine.
11:04 --> 11:06Then we can look at the history,
11:06 --> 11:07we can look at the cancers.
11:07 --> 11:10Then we can see if there is any
11:10 --> 11:13association for what we're looking for.
11:13 --> 11:16If there is any causation relationship
11:16 --> 11:19between the exposures and the cancer.
11:19 --> 11:22So the other thing that our center is
11:22 --> 11:27funded for and as you said $10,000
11:27 --> 11:28is a small price.
11:28 --> 11:30But remember there are
11:30 --> 11:31individual houses.
11:31 --> 11:34Now for an individual house to
11:34 --> 11:36just get a reverse osmosis for
11:36 --> 11:39$10,000 might not be that easy.
11:39 --> 11:40So what we're trying to do,
11:40 --> 11:42and this is our engineers here
11:42 --> 11:45from the school of engineering,
11:45 --> 11:47is they were
11:47 --> 11:50trying to develop small
11:50 --> 11:53devices utilizing what we call
11:53 --> 11:55advanced oxidation processes.
11:55 --> 12:00And those could be very cheap devices
12:00 --> 12:03that can purify individual tap water.
12:03 --> 12:06And the other program that we
12:06 --> 12:08have also with the our engineers
12:08 --> 12:12is to develop sensors that we can
12:12 --> 12:14detect the 1.4 dioxin in the water.
12:16 --> 12:19It seems like the other idea,
12:19 --> 12:23which you mentioned as well, is not to put the
12:23 --> 12:26burden of the cost on individual households,
12:26 --> 12:31but rather to manage it at municipal or
12:31 --> 12:35state levels where
12:35 --> 12:39before that water
12:39 --> 12:43gets from the well or the dam or whatever
12:43 --> 12:46to your tap that it goes through some
12:46 --> 12:49reverse osmosis or filtering mechanism.
12:49 --> 12:53So that the water that you get from the tap,
12:53 --> 12:56you can be sure it is safe.
12:56 --> 12:58And so it really is wonderful
12:58 --> 13:01to hear that New York did that.
13:01 --> 13:02And I suppose the other
13:02 --> 13:03study you can do,
13:03 --> 13:06although I suspect it would take more time,
13:06 --> 13:10is to look at those cancer rates before and
13:10 --> 13:13after they implemented that technology.
13:13 --> 13:16Is that something that is being looked at?
13:16 --> 13:17And are other states thinking
13:17 --> 13:19about doing the same?
13:19 --> 13:22Quite a few, not only for 1.4 dioxin,
13:22 --> 13:24but also with the PFAS,
13:24 --> 13:27which is a much, much bigger and
13:27 --> 13:29broader event throughout the country.
13:29 --> 13:32And they use a lot of filtration.
13:32 --> 13:34Now, I have to assure you
13:34 --> 13:35most of the public water,
13:35 --> 13:36the dams and everything,
13:36 --> 13:39they're very well controlled,
13:39 --> 13:41they're watching them very well.
13:41 --> 13:43The problem is when there is a
13:43 --> 13:45big well, like in Long Island,
13:45 --> 13:48the public water comes from these big wells.
13:48 --> 13:49And as I said,
13:49 --> 13:53the state of New York not only installed the
13:53 --> 13:55reverse osmosis in all these
13:55 --> 13:58sources of municipal water,
13:58 --> 14:00but they did something which is very good.
14:00 --> 14:02And I think more states now are
14:02 --> 14:05going to follow in this legislation.
14:05 --> 14:08So what New York did is
14:08 --> 14:09as I told you before,
14:09 --> 14:131-4 dioxin is either a component,
14:13 --> 14:15or it could be byproduct
14:15 --> 14:18in a lot of our household items.
14:19 --> 14:24So the state of New York banned all those
14:24 --> 14:27household items that do have 1-4 dioxin.
14:27 --> 14:30So manufacturers now are
14:30 --> 14:34obliged to have 1-4 dioxane free or
14:34 --> 14:37generating 1-4 dioxane free products.
14:37 --> 14:42So by that way you decrease the number of
14:42 --> 14:461-4 dioxane that ends up in in your water.
14:46 --> 14:48And as I told you before,
14:48 --> 14:501-4 dioxane could be a discharge
14:50 --> 14:53of a manufacturing into
14:53 --> 14:56the river or a lake,
14:56 --> 14:58but also it can come from
14:58 --> 15:00our household items.
15:01 --> 15:03Well, we are going to take a short
15:03 --> 15:05break right now for a medical minute,
15:05 --> 15:08but please stay tuned to learn more
15:08 --> 15:10about cancer causing carcinogens in
15:10 --> 15:12our drinking water with my guest,
15:12 --> 15:13doctor Vasilis Vasiliou.
15:14 --> 15:16Support for Yale Cancer Answers comes
15:16 --> 15:18from Smilow Cancer Hospital where
15:18 --> 15:20their Prostate and Urologic Cancers
15:20 --> 15:23Program provides a multispecialty team
15:23 --> 15:25dedicated to managing the diagnosis,
15:25 --> 15:28evaluation, and treatment of bladder cancer.
15:32 --> 15:34The American Cancer Society
15:34 --> 15:37estimates that nearly 150,000 people
15:37 --> 15:39in the US will be diagnosed with
15:39 --> 15:41colorectal cancer this year alone.
15:41 --> 15:42When detected early,
15:42 --> 15:44colorectal cancer is easily
15:44 --> 15:46treated and highly curable,
15:46 --> 15:48and men and women over the age of 45
15:48 --> 15:50should have regular colonoscopies
15:50 --> 15:52to screen for the disease.
15:52 --> 15:54Patients with colorectal cancer have
15:54 --> 15:56more hope than ever before thanks
15:56 --> 15:58to increased access to advanced
15:58 --> 16:00therapies and specialized care.
16:00 --> 16:02Clinical trials are currently
16:02 --> 16:04underway at federally designated
16:04 --> 16:06comprehensive cancer centers such
16:06 --> 16:08as Yale Cancer Center and Smilow
16:08 --> 16:10Cancer Hospital to test innovative
16:10 --> 16:13new treatments for colorectal cancer.
16:13 --> 16:15Tumor gene analysis has helped improve
16:15 --> 16:17management of colorectal cancer
16:17 --> 16:20by identifying the patient's most
16:20 --> 16:22likely to benefit from chemotherapy
16:22 --> 16:24and newer targeted agents,
16:24 --> 16:26resulting in more patient specific treatment.
16:26 --> 16:29More information is available
16:29 --> 16:30at yalecancercenter.org.
16:30 --> 16:32You're listening to Connecticut Public Radio.
16:33 --> 16:35Welcome back to Yale Cancer Answers.
16:35 --> 16:37This is Doctor Anees Chagpar and
16:37 --> 16:39I'm joined tonight by my guest,
16:39 --> 16:40Doctor Vasilis Vasiliou.
16:40 --> 16:43We're talking about cancer causing
16:43 --> 16:45carcinogens in our drinking water and
16:45 --> 16:47right before the break,
16:47 --> 16:49you had mentioned that New York
16:49 --> 16:51State is actually doing a few
16:51 --> 16:53things that are quite innovative to
16:53 --> 16:55try to reduce the burden of these
16:55 --> 16:57carcinogens in our drinking water.
16:57 --> 17:01One was to establish reverse osmosis
17:01 --> 17:05kind of at the source so that
17:05 --> 17:07individual households don't need
17:07 --> 17:10to worry about installing reverse
17:10 --> 17:12osmosis machinery because the water
17:12 --> 17:16has already gone through that process.
17:16 --> 17:19But the second that you mentioned
17:19 --> 17:22was banning some of the chemicals
17:22 --> 17:24that actually caused these.
17:24 --> 17:26So you had mentioned earlier that
17:26 --> 17:29these may be found in household items,
17:29 --> 17:31detergents, shampoos, etcetera.
17:31 --> 17:35So if we reduce the burden of these
17:35 --> 17:37chemicals in these household items,
17:37 --> 17:40then less of it gets into the wastewater,
17:40 --> 17:42less of it gets into the rivers,
17:42 --> 17:45less of it actually ends up getting back
17:45 --> 17:48to us in the form of our tap water.
17:48 --> 17:52The question that I have for you,
17:52 --> 17:54it's great New York is doing this,
17:54 --> 17:57but we have a global economy,
17:57 --> 18:00certainly a national economy where you know,
18:00 --> 18:02you can buy things in Connecticut
18:02 --> 18:05and live in New York or vice versa.
18:05 --> 18:08So how effective is that going to be?
18:08 --> 18:10And is this really something
18:10 --> 18:14that should be a federal mandate,
18:14 --> 18:16perhaps even a global mandate if we're
18:16 --> 18:18going to get particular about it in
18:18 --> 18:20terms of really having an effect on
18:20 --> 18:23reducing these chemicals in the environment?
18:24 --> 18:26That is a very good question, but
18:26 --> 18:28I would say it's very difficult
18:28 --> 18:30to address that because when
18:30 --> 18:33you start talking for economical impacts
18:33 --> 18:36and stuff like that is very difficult to
18:36 --> 18:39regulate for different countries and so on.
18:39 --> 18:43But I think many states are trying to
18:43 --> 18:45mimic what New York State did,
18:45 --> 18:48especially in the case of 1.4 dioxin.
18:48 --> 18:50Also many of the states,
18:50 --> 18:52at least in United States and
18:52 --> 18:54actually maybeall over the world,
18:54 --> 18:57they're very concerned about the PFAS.
18:57 --> 18:59But there are some other chemicals
18:59 --> 19:01that might be present in our water
19:01 --> 19:03that could be of concern.
19:03 --> 19:06And those are what we call
19:06 --> 19:07the trichloromethanes
19:07 --> 19:09which are formed as a byproduct of
19:09 --> 19:11chlorine we use for disinfection
19:11 --> 19:13to disinfect the water.
19:13 --> 19:16And when chlorine reacts
19:16 --> 19:17with organic matter,
19:17 --> 19:21it creates a strike and trichloromethanes
19:21 --> 19:24have been associated with
19:24 --> 19:26increase risk of bladder cancer
19:26 --> 19:28and possibly with colon cancer.
19:29 --> 19:30In addition to that,
19:30 --> 19:32remember that we also have arsenic
19:32 --> 19:34contamination of the water.
19:34 --> 19:36Now arsenic
19:38 --> 19:40could be an environmental pollutant,
19:40 --> 19:43but also it occurs naturally in some areas
19:43 --> 19:47and it may contaminate the groundwater.
19:47 --> 19:51So it is very important to monitor our water.
20:00 --> 20:01Municipals are doing that.
20:01 --> 20:02They're checking the quality
20:02 --> 20:04of the drinking water.
20:04 --> 20:07So they are protecting the people there.
20:07 --> 20:11Now for the PFAS it starts to become federal
20:11 --> 20:13law that there have to be limits on that.
20:13 --> 20:15So they're going to follow on
20:15 --> 20:17that particular limit as well.
20:17 --> 20:20So reducing the exposure is 1,
20:20 --> 20:22detecting the exposure is a second,
20:22 --> 20:25and also mitigating the contaminants
20:25 --> 20:28from our drinking water is the third.
20:28 --> 20:31That's what everybody is trying to do.
20:31 --> 20:33And I think we're going to have
20:33 --> 20:35success and this is how we're going
20:35 --> 20:37to promote a better well-being.
20:38 --> 20:41The question that
20:41 --> 20:44I have is for each of those three
20:44 --> 20:46things is the responsibility,
20:46 --> 20:50does that rest primarily with
20:50 --> 20:52the individual household or with
20:52 --> 20:54the state or federal government?
20:54 --> 20:58In other words, should I be in my home,
20:58 --> 21:01you know, testing my water and
21:01 --> 21:04should I be installing filters
21:04 --> 21:07and or drinking filtered water?
21:07 --> 21:09I mean, there's a whole issue
21:09 --> 21:11about bottled water and the plastic
21:11 --> 21:13contaminants that that causes.
21:13 --> 21:15Or is this really something that should
21:15 --> 21:18be at the state or federal level,
21:18 --> 21:22or municipality level even where the
21:22 --> 21:25government will assure the quality
21:25 --> 21:29of the water, they'll do the testing,
21:29 --> 21:31they'll do the filtering, etcetera.
21:31 --> 21:33So that
21:33 --> 21:35I can know that the water that's
21:35 --> 21:37coming out of my tap is safe to drink.
21:37 --> 21:39And shouldn't that be part of
21:39 --> 21:41what we all pay taxes for?
21:41 --> 21:44It is, and you're
21:44 --> 21:46talking about the public water.
21:46 --> 21:49So yes, municipal, state and everything.
21:49 --> 21:51They're responsible for checking the water,
21:51 --> 21:52for cleaning the water and
21:52 --> 21:54they're doing a very good job to
21:54 --> 21:56the extent that they can.
21:56 --> 21:59Now the problem is with private wells.
21:59 --> 22:00In private wells, as you know,
22:00 --> 22:05they're not under federal regulations,
22:05 --> 22:07they're not under state regulations.
22:07 --> 22:10So it's up to the people that they have their
22:10 --> 22:13private wells to check their water level.
22:13 --> 22:13And for example,
22:13 --> 22:16I can tell you some of the houses
22:16 --> 22:18that we have in Madison
22:18 --> 22:20that might have radon also
22:20 --> 22:23in their drinking water, or uranium,
22:23 --> 22:24it's naturally occurring things.
22:24 --> 22:27So it is up to the individuals that
22:27 --> 22:30they have the households
22:30 --> 22:32that they have the private wells checked.
22:38 --> 22:40So that at least makes me feel
22:40 --> 22:44better in the sense that those who do get
22:44 --> 22:46their drinking water from public sources,
22:46 --> 22:49what you're telling me is essentially that
22:49 --> 22:52if you get your water from a public source,
22:52 --> 22:54you should be safe from these carcinogens.
22:54 --> 22:57And that really the word to the wise
22:57 --> 22:59is for people who get their water
22:59 --> 23:02from private well water that they
23:02 --> 23:04need to take those extra steps to
23:04 --> 23:07make sure that they're drinking clean
23:07 --> 23:09and safe and healthy water.
23:09 --> 23:10Is that right?
23:10 --> 23:12Yes, it is. Yes. You said
23:12 --> 23:13it right very correctly.
23:13 --> 23:15The other question that I have,
23:15 --> 23:16you mentioned that the
23:16 --> 23:17states are all doing
23:17 --> 23:20a very good job in terms of detecting
23:20 --> 23:23these carcinogens and purifying.
23:23 --> 23:26Yet you mentioned that not all
23:26 --> 23:29states have invested in things like
23:29 --> 23:31reverse osmosis like New York has.
23:32 --> 23:34And I would think,
23:34 --> 23:36and this is just a guess,
23:36 --> 23:38that the efforts that individual states
23:38 --> 23:41may take in terms of the investment
23:41 --> 23:44that they're going to make in terms
23:44 --> 23:47of clean water may also be different,
23:47 --> 23:49perhaps along political lines.
23:49 --> 23:51So, you know,
23:51 --> 23:56is drinking water in a red state like Texas,
23:56 --> 23:58for example,
23:58 --> 24:01can we be assured that that water
24:01 --> 24:03is just as safe as drinking water
24:03 --> 24:06from a blue state like New York?
24:06 --> 24:08I think what it comes
24:08 --> 24:10down to it's not opinion,
24:10 --> 24:12it's not blue or red state
24:12 --> 24:14if there is a contamination.
24:14 --> 24:16For example, in Florida,
24:16 --> 24:18there was a factory which was the
24:18 --> 24:20contaminating source,
24:20 --> 24:23in the water in the lake and everything.
24:23 --> 24:26So the federal
24:26 --> 24:29regulation is if you contaminate,
24:29 --> 24:32you're responsible to clean the area.
24:32 --> 24:34So the federal agency makes the
24:34 --> 24:38company pay for getting all the
24:38 --> 24:41chemicals secured out of the
24:41 --> 24:42environment and
24:42 --> 24:43protecting the people.
24:43 --> 24:47So I think what the states are trying to do,
24:47 --> 24:51especially the EPA,
24:51 --> 24:54is trying to force all these rules
24:54 --> 24:56and is doing a very good job
24:56 --> 24:57in terms of that.
24:57 --> 24:58Now you're going to have cases
24:58 --> 25:00that you have a little bit more
25:00 --> 25:02contamination there that it's up to the
25:02 --> 25:04municipalities and
25:04 --> 25:05everything to follow up.
25:05 --> 25:08And I can assure you with my experience,
25:08 --> 25:11especially with Florida and Ann Arbor,
25:11 --> 25:14there are people working both from the
25:14 --> 25:17communities also with the EPA,
25:17 --> 25:19the Environmental Protection Agency,
25:19 --> 25:23and also the state regulators
25:23 --> 25:26to have safe drinking water.
25:27 --> 25:28Yeah. It would seem to me,
25:28 --> 25:30however, that
25:30 --> 25:32particularly with the ubiquity
25:32 --> 25:33of these chemicals, right.
25:33 --> 25:36They're in shampoo, they're in Teflon,
25:36 --> 25:37they're in detergents,
25:37 --> 25:39they're in carpet, they're in clothing.
25:39 --> 25:41It's going to be very difficult
25:41 --> 25:43to identify particular companies
25:43 --> 25:46that you can say you're responsible
25:46 --> 25:48for contaminating this water,
25:48 --> 25:50therefore you need to pay
25:50 --> 25:52to clean this up.
25:52 --> 25:55It seems like it's kind
25:55 --> 25:57of a ubiquitous fed accompli.
25:59 --> 26:02Yes and no.
26:05 --> 26:08If you look at all the literature
26:08 --> 26:11lately or the news,
26:11 --> 26:153M and DuPont are paying big dollars
26:15 --> 26:18to purify the waters from the PFAS all
26:18 --> 26:21over the country and also in Florida,
26:21 --> 26:23for example,
26:23 --> 26:25once you find the company
26:25 --> 26:27that has caused the contamination,
26:27 --> 26:28then they're responsible to clean it up.
26:29 --> 26:31So yes, it does occur.
26:32 --> 26:35Yeah, you would hope
26:35 --> 26:39that that would be enough of a
26:39 --> 26:41deterrent for companies to do
26:41 --> 26:43their own self regulation
26:43 --> 26:46and reduce the quantity of these
26:46 --> 26:48chemicals that they're producing.
26:48 --> 26:51Although it seems like New York felt that
26:51 --> 26:54a ban was actually needed as well.
26:54 --> 26:57Yes, yes, indeed.
26:57 --> 27:00Now you had mentioned during the break
27:00 --> 27:03that some of these ideas were
27:03 --> 27:05particularly relevant for firefighters.
27:05 --> 27:06Can you tell us a
27:06 --> 27:07little bit more about that?
27:07 --> 27:09Yes, firefighters are exposed
27:11 --> 27:13to several chemicals including
27:13 --> 27:15polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
27:15 --> 27:18benzene, formaldehyde, asbestos,
27:18 --> 27:21chloroform, vinyl chloride.
27:21 --> 27:25But most importantly also they're
27:25 --> 27:27using this what we call AFFF
27:27 --> 27:30which is known
27:30 --> 27:32as the IQUS in firefighting foams.
27:32 --> 27:35This is the one that they use to try to put
27:35 --> 27:39the fire down. And this is all PFAS.
27:39 --> 27:41And the studies have shown
27:41 --> 27:44so far that the firefighters have
27:44 --> 27:46significantly elevated PFAS in their
27:46 --> 27:48blood compared to
27:48 --> 27:49the other populations.
27:49 --> 27:52Now we all have PFAS in our blood
27:52 --> 27:54because we're all exposed to the PFAS.
27:54 --> 27:55That doesn't mean that we're
27:55 --> 27:56going to get sick,
27:56 --> 27:59but the firefighters have a little bit
27:59 --> 28:02higher levels and this is a concern.
28:02 --> 28:03However,
28:03 --> 28:06there is no epidemiological study yet,
28:06 --> 28:08although we say it may increase the
28:08 --> 28:10risk of cancer for these people,
28:10 --> 28:12but there are not epidemiological
28:12 --> 28:13studies to confirm that.
28:13 --> 28:17So everything is on the risk idea.
28:17 --> 28:19And for the firefighters,
28:19 --> 28:22it's very important to have
28:22 --> 28:24this protective gear that they will
28:25 --> 28:27breathe clean air and
28:27 --> 28:29be protected from the exposure
28:29 --> 28:30to these chemicals.
28:31 --> 28:33Dr. Vasilis Vasiliou is department chair
28:33 --> 28:35and Susan Dwight Bliss professor of
28:35 --> 28:37epidemiology and environmental Health
28:37 --> 28:40Sciences at the Yale School of Medicine.
28:40 --> 28:42If you have questions,
28:42 --> 28:44the address is canceranswers@yale.edu
28:44 --> 28:47and past editions of the program
28:47 --> 28:49are available in audio and written
28:49 --> 28:50form at yalecancercenter.org.
28:50 --> 28:53We hope you'll join us next time to learn
28:53 --> 28:55more about the fight against cancer.
28:55 --> 28:57Funding for Yale Cancer Answers is
28:57 --> 29:00provided by Smilow Cancer Hospital.

Download Audio Download Transcript

Information

Cancer Causing Carcinogens in our Drinking Water with guest Vasilis Vasiliou May 26, 2024