Safety, Trust at Stake

A joint legislative hearing Tuesday in Burbank will be the public’s first chance to ask the experts about chromium 6 in drinking water. What is said--or not said--by state health officials, local water agency representatives and university cancer researchers at the hearing will help set the tone for the months of investigation and debate ahead.

At stake is public safety. But also at stake is the public’s trust.

State Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) called for Tuesday’s hearing to provide a swift but thoughtful examination with “an eye toward informing the people on the chromium 6 issue, not alarming them.” Calm is not possible without candor. Tuesday’s examination will not be the last but, as the first, it will signal whether the community can hope for either.

Chromium 6, a byproduct of metal-plating and other industrial processes, is classified as a carcinogen when inhaled as particles or fumes. The chemical has turned up in tests of San Fernando Valley wells and of tap water in Los Angeles County buildings. Its status as a health risk when consumed in water is still debated.

It was once commonly assumed that if a chemical caused cancer by one route of exposure--say, inhalation--then it posed a risk by any route. But a greater understanding of how carcinogens work led the federal Environmental Protection Agency to revise that assumption in guidelines published four years ago. This does not mean researchers have all the answers by any means. And that in itself is part of the problem in gaining the public’s trust.

We nonscientists prefer our science in black and white. Disagreements among scientists make us uneasy, never mind that such debates predate Galileo. Does chromium 6 in water cause cancer, yes or no? Does it cause other health problems? If so, at what concentrations?

Given a “maybe,” most of us would probably fall into the better safe than sorry school. But here is where trust gets even more complicated: There is no single guideline on what level of chromium 6 in drinking water can be considered safe. There are no specific standards for chromium 6, period.

Federal and state guidelines are based on tests that measure chromium, which is not dangerous but at heightened levels can indicate the presence of chromium 6. The EPA recommends limiting chromium concentrations to no more than 100 parts per billion. State standards limit chromium to 50 ppb. And the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has set a public health goal of 2.5 ppb.

In preliminary tests, tap water in county buildings met the standards for chromium in place now but not the more stringent goal. But tests that specifically measured chromium 6 found higher levels than expected, leading some experts to question whether chromium 6 makes up a greater percentage of chromium than had been assumed when the standards were set.

The lack of clear answers and guidelines is unsettling enough. The state’s slowness in reviewing the stricter goal--until spurred by stories in The Times--combined with the speed with which some water agency officials have tried to dismiss concerns only compound the problem of trust.

Few things strike fear in quite the same way as the threat of cancer. But dismissing fears is not the way to address them. Information is. If speakers on Tuesday disagree with each other--and it is likely that they will--let them be upfront about it. Better to acknowledge disagreements than to try to downplay concerns, sugarcoat fears or, worst, withhold information. A lack of candor will poison trust as surely as any chemical.

To Take Action: Tuesday’s hearing will take place from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Burbank City Hall, 275 E. Olive Ave.