Category Archives: environment

No Nukes ~ Back from the Brink ~ Take Action Madison Wisconsin

The Madison Back from the Brink Resolution (Resolution #79719) will be voted on by the  Madison City Council on Tuesday night, 10/3/23 at 6:30 pm

Back from Brink Resolutions call on our federal government to:

• Actively pursue a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their
nuclear arsenals. (Download more information)

• Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first. (Download more information)

• End the president’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack. (Download more information)

• Take U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger (launch ready) alert. (Download more information)

• Cancel the plan to replace the entire U.S. arsenal with enhanced weapons. (Download more information)

Contact Alders by 10/3/2023 

• Email or call your Common Council member. Ask them to vote in support of Resolution #79719

If you are not sure who your alderperson is, you can do one of the following:
o Find Alder by Address
o Find Alder by Map

• Email the entire Common Council using the online contact form.

• Call the Common Council Office at (608) 266-4071 to leave a message for the entire
Common Council.

Letter template for Alder contact 

Background

Register Your Support on 10/2/23-10/3/23
1. Go to www.cityofmadison.com/MeetingRegistration.
2. Select under Meeting: City Council 10/3/23 6:30 pm. Agenda Item is Resolution
#79719.
3. Register your support. You do not need to speak. List your contact info and register.

Read the Mayor of Madison’s recent post about
divesting from nuclear weapons.

This information from Physicians for Social Responsibility

source document 2023-9-27 Action alert 3b____ (1)

How the Madison Water Utility “disappeared” the PFAS in our drinking water

https://mejo.us/how-the-madison-water-utility-disappeared-the-pfas-in-our-drinking-water/

“In 2019 and early 2020, the PFAS levels detected in many of Madison’s municipal drinking water wells were big news–they raised public concerns, and legitimately so (see Wisconsin State Journal articles here and here).

In March 2019, the well with the highest combined PFOS and PFOA levels, Well 15 on Madison’s north side, was shut down–though the Water Utility continued to insist that the water was safe. [1][2]

In her January 2020 Isthmus cover story about Madison’s PFAS problem, Kori Feener cited highly-credentialed national scientists who argued that all PFAS should be considered together in assessing health effects, not just PFOS and PFOA, and that existing standards were not low enough to protect public health. At the time, the Wisconsin DHS had proposed a 20 part-per-trillion (ppt) groundwater standard for PFOA and PFOS combined. (This is still the proposed standard).

Feener quoted Dr. Laura Orlando, an environmental health professor at Boston University. “What we’re going to find out, it’s going to be like lead. The desired level is zero,” Orlando said. Dr. Elise Sunderland, professor of environmental science and engineering at Harvard University, pointed Feener to the work of her colleague, Dr. Philippe Grandjean, who found that a safe level of PFAS in drinking water would be 1 ppt to protect infants from effects of PFAS on their immune systems.

MEJO cited some of this science in its February 2019 comments to the Water Utility Board, asking that it direct the Utility to test more PFAS compounds than they had been testing to date–and at all wells, rather than just a handful.

Last week, the U.S. EPA issued “interim lifetime health advisory levels” of 0.004 ppt for PFOA and 0.02 ppt for PFOS.

The EPA fact sheet said “The interim updated health advisories for PFOA and PFOS are based on human studies in populations exposed to these chemicals. Human studies have found associations between PFOA and/or PFOS exposure and effects on the immune system, the cardiovascular system, human development (e.g., decreased birth weight), and cancer.” 

But not to worry…

During the pandemic, Madison’s drinking water PFAS problems were apparently magically cured!!

A table in the October 2019 Water Utility report showed these levels of PFAS in Madison’s wells. Feener’s story a few months later included the below graphic showing total PFAS levels in all of the wells:

 

 

 

In August 2020, the State Journal reported that PFAS was detected in every well.

But by late 2021, according to the Water Utility, the problem had somehow gone away. In part, this is because it was focusing on only PFOS and PFOA and comparing them to state standards. Also, though it didn’t admit this, it was also using different methods and different labs than it used in previous years.

In his December 10, 2021 Wisconsin State Journal story about the proposed DNR drinking water standard of 20 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, Chris Hubbuch wrote that Marcus Pearson, the MWU’s new public relations official, said “the proposed state standard — which is 10 times higher than PFOA and PFOS levels in any active city well — should reassure the more than 260,000 Madison-area residents ‘that our water is undeniably safe to drink.’”

And now again in summer 2022, the very confusing statements on the Madison Water Utility’s website (as of June 22) seem purposely designed to send the unsuspecting public the take away message that the many PFAS compounds detected in the past in most and/or all Madison wells have somehow disappeared. As for PFOS and PFOA, the website says they were “not detected” at any of the tested wells except Well 16, where some PFOS was detected.  So all we have to worry about now is Well 16 (on the west side).

Whew, what a huge relief!

Hmmm. Wait a minute. Is this true? How would these “forever chemicals”–so dubbed because of their extreme persistence and resistance to breaking down–disappear in most of our wells? No remediation has been done on any of the PFAS hotspots–the Dane County airport and military base, the many landfills sprinkled around the city, and more.

Well, they didn’t disappear. The 2022 water samples, from from a subset of Madison wells (not all of them), were analyzed (as part of a DNR voluntary testing program) using a method called Method 537.1 that the Water Utility knows very well underestimates and under-reports the levels that are actually there.

MWU water quality manager: Method 537.1 “may underreport the “true” amount of PFAS present in a water sample” and is “inadequate for quantifying the full range of PFAS present in Madison wells“

In October 2019, the Water Utility’s water quality manager Joe Grande, presented a report to the Water Utility Board showing the PFAS levels found in previous years using “Method 537.1” as compared to a method called “modified” Method 537.1. (This is more of a lab approach than a standard method; different labs have developed varying kinds of “modifications.” The MWU tested these methods from two different private labs.)

Based on these comparisons, Mr. Grande wrote (all highlighting is mine):

“Testing to date shows that EPA Method 537.1, when compared to the modified methods, consistently results in lower total PFAS concentrations due primarily to the fact that the method tests for a smaller number of PFAS – see Figure 2. Furthermore, our limited analysis also suggests that EPA Method 537.1 may produce results lower than what is obtained by the modified methods when only the same 18 PFAS are considered. In other words, EPA Method 537.1 may underreport the “true” amount of PFAS present in a water sample.” 

 

 

Grande concluded: “Although EPA Method 537.1 is the only standard method for the analysis of PFAS in drinking water, it may not be the best analytical method for quantifying PFAS in water.”

He continued: “The Water Utility has gained important experience with PFAS analytical methods and, in particular, challenges associated with accurately measuring low levels of ultra-trace contaminants such as PFAS in drinking water. While EPA Method 537.1 is the standard method for measuring PFAS in drinking water, the method proved inadequate for quantifying the full range of PFAS present in Madison wells.”

His recommendations to the Board were that the Water Utility: “Consistently use the same modified EPA Method 537 for all PFAS analysis to facilitate detection of a wider range of PFAS than EPA Method 537.1” and “Use EPA Method 537.1 if directed by US EPA or Wisconsin DNR unless the modified method has been designated an “equivalent or better” method for PFAS analysis in drinking water.”

What happened?

In 2020, the Utility used three different methods, and results again showed that Method 537.1, with higher detection limits (meaning that it can’t detect lower amounts), revealed fewer detections than the modified Method 537.1. In 2021, only the “ISO” method was used. [2]

Why did the Water Utility not follow Grande’s 2019 recommendations? Was the Water Utility directed to use Method 537.1 or the ISO method by EPA and/or DNR–or Water Utility leadership–beginning in 2021? Have the modified 537.1 methods not been designated as “equivalent or better”? Can the Water Utility still use the most sensitive “modified” method it used in the past to test PFAS in our wells, or is that no longer legitimate?

Maybe these debates about methods wouldn’t matter if these very low levels didn’t have health impacts. But given the EPA’s recently announced “interim lifetime health advisory levels” of 0.004 ppt for PFOA and 0.02 ppt for PFOS, we should be using available and approved methods that can detect the lowest possible levels in order to understand what people are drinking as accurately as we can.

I contacted the Water Utility to find out if the “modified” 537.1 methods are still legitimate and allowable per DNR regulations. The answer–YES. The modified 537.1 approach, Grande said, “is included as an approved alternative in NR 809 revisions.”

So the Water Utility could analyze all water samples using this more sensitive method, if it had the political will to do so.

Instead, the Water Utility is misleading the public

Last week, the Water Utility shared the DNR-project’s 2022 PFAS results, based on Method 537.1, on its PFAS webpage. Here’s what that looks like (as of today, June 22, 2022):

Summary of Test Results

  • None of the 18 PFAS tested were found at ten of the eighteen wells tested
  • PFOS (RL: <1 ppt) was detected at a single well (#16) and PFOA (RL: <2 ppt) was not detected at any of the 18 wells tested

Sorting through this confusing wording, the desired take home message seems to be that only one well (Well 16) has a low level of PFOS and all the other wells have no PFAS.  Yes, it mentions reporting levels for PFOS and PFOA, but most people reading this–having no clue what detection and reporting levels mean (or even that they exist)–will likely take this at face value

If anyone paid attention to PFAS news in the past, and remember it, a few might be perplexed about how this happened, but most people, with other more visible and pressing problems in their lives to worry about, will likely be pleasantly surprised and relieved that somehow the PFAS in the water they are drinking every day went away.

What about the other Madison wells, and the many other PFAS compounds found in previous years? They weren’t included in the 2022 testing. Method 537.1 only analyzes 18 PFAS compounds.

The Water Utility knows very well–as its water quality manager wrote explicitly in a report to the Water Utility Board in 2019–that “EPA Method 537.1 may underreport the “true” amount of PFAS present in a water sample” and “Although EPA Method 537.1 is the only standard method for the analysis of PFAS in drinking water, it may not be the best analytical method for quantifying PFAS in water” and “While EPA Method 537.1 is the standard method for measuring PFAS in drinking water, the method proved inadequate for quantifying the full range of PFAS present in Madison wells.”

The Utility’s webpage with the 2022 results says that they are based on Method 537.1. But it says nothing about its inadequacies, and how they explain the disappearance of PFAS detections compared to previous years.

Few (or no one) will know that the water quality manager recommended to the Water Utility Board in 2019 that the Utility “[c]onsistently use the same modified EPA Method 537 for all PFAS analysis to facilitate detection of a wider range of PFAS than EPA Method 537.1.”

And, of course, nobody paid any attention to MEJO’s 2019 comments to the Board, agreeing with the water quality manager’s recommendation to use the more sensitive modified EPA method 537.1, rather than the “inadequate” standard EPA Method 537.1, in the future. 

Then the pandemic happened, everyone was locked down, few participated in the Zoom Water Utility and TAC meetings (which hardly anyone knows about) and/or tracked what the Water Utility was up to.

Madison can do better: Will it? Unlikely

Given the EPA’s interim lifetime health advisory levels and the fact that the Water Utility can (per state regulations) use other methods besides standard Method 537.1 (including modified 537.1 methods) we think, as we recommended in 2019, the Water Utility should use the analytical methods with the lowest possible detection limits, whether that be modified Method 537.1 or another method.

But based on our experiences here, and how the Water Utility has disingenuously “disappeared” the PFAS in recent years, we expect it won’t. Madison officials certainly won’t demand it. In fact, the City of Madison would rather pretend that the PFAS in our drinking water went away. This approach is much better for the city’s “best of X Y Z” image and for attracting more residents to the rampantly growing city. Who wants to move to a city with poison in its water?

The rampant growth, as I’ve said repeatedly in recent posts, will mean our municipal wells will pump even harder and draw even more PFAS into them. But as long as we can pretend the PFAS isn’t there, who cares?

What’s the old saying? “Denial ain’t just a River in Egypt.”  (Mark Twain)

********

[1] Currently the Water Utility is planning to put a filter on the well before it is put back into service. How low can the available filters reduce PFAS levels to? Which one will the MWU use? What methods will be used to test the PFAS levels?  Attend the public meeting on June 30th and find out.

[2] At the April 2022 Water Utility Technical Advisory Committee meeting, Grande stated clearly that the standard Method 537.1 being used by DNR would result in results below the detection limits for all but one Madison well, Well 16. None of the TAC members expressed any concerns about that. That is indeed what results showed when testing was done in June under the DNR’s program.

The Fight for Peace & Planet: Come Together In Support of Our Youth

Youth Climate Action Team, local youth joined by local community members, Safe Skies Clean Water Wisconsin Coalition and Veterans for Peace and Antiwar Activists

#YCAT #NoF35s

Photos by Tim Greisch

#Sustainability #HonorTheEarth

“YCAT Inc. relies on the passion and energy of youth as prior generations have failed to act. We aim to provide low-commitment opportunities to members and volunteers to increase accessibility and operate as a top-heavy organization, where our Board of Directors does most of the work.”

 

Created by local YCAT team

#ClimateDisaster #911

#GiveAHoot

 

 

 

 

Facts on the Jets  

Community Support Statements

Gather all around the young ones
They will make us strong

 

#ProtectWater

#WarIsARacket

F-35 Info

More F-35 Information 

More from Safe Skies [No F-35’s] on noise and toxic chemicals

We  stand in solidarity against wasteful war profiteering, JSF F-35’s, against the war machine and the rest of the polluters that do more harm than good.

 

WashPo Magazine: Lake Superior’s Forever Chemicals

Story and photographs by Shantal Riley
JANUARY 12, 2022

“A mass of gray clouds loomed over a panorama of humid wetlands in late summer on the Bad River Reservation in northern Wisconsin. Carpets of bright-green grass blanketed the glassy surface of the water, accented here and there by clusters of purple loosestrife, a spiky invasive plant, as an aluminum skiff glided silently over the water. Edith Leoso, tribal historic preservation officer for the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, leaned over the edge of the boat, running her hand across the bushy grass tips and loosening showers of wild rice. “If it sinks to the bottom, that means it’s ripe,” she said.

The wild rice is sacred to the Ojibwe, also called Chippewa. “We were from the East Coast, originally,” she told me. “There was a prophecy that said there would be a light-skinned race that would come across the great salt water. In their coming, they would bring destruction upon us. In order to maintain our way of life, to maintain who we were as a people, we would have to move to the West.” There would be signs along the way: “We would know when we arrived at our final stopping place when we saw food that grew on top of the water,” Leoso said. “That was our manoomin. … ‘Mino’ in our language is good, and ‘min’ is seed. So, ‘good seed.’ ”

The rice grows on the Kakagon-Bad River Sloughs, which sit atop 16,000 acres of wetlands on the southern rim of Lake Superior. The area serves as a spawning ground for lake sturgeon, walleye, yellow perch and northern pike. Both fish and wild rice are staple foods of the Anishinaabe, as the Ojibwe call themselves.

 

Early last year, the state of Wisconsin issued a fish consumption advisory that recommended eating no more than one meal a month of Lake Superior rainbow smelt, caught by tribes and local anglers during smelt runs in the spring. It was the first advisory for any of the Great Lakes warning of fish with elevated levels of PFAS — perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of man-made chemicals linked to cancer that have shown up in drinking water systems around the country.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment. After years of industrial use, the federal government recently took steps to regulate them. But will it be enough to assure the safety of the Indigenous people who have fished on the lake for thousands of years — and depend on the fish for survival?

A few days earlier, I was in a small plane flying over the deep green forests of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The plane shook violently from turbulence as it approached Keweenaw Bay, a V-shaped inlet on the southern shore of the lake. A thin layer of smoke had settled on the water, blown in from wildfires burning hundreds of miles away in Canada.

 

The lake tribes live in close-knit communities that I knew I’d need help to access. So, I retained a local, Charlie Rasmussen, to advise me on various aspects of the trip: He warned me about spotty cellphone coverage, which roads were under construction and where deer liked to dart out in front of traffic; he also gave me leads on locals I could speak to about fishing. (He is a writer, photographer and communications officer for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, a nonprofit that supports member tribes through natural resources management, conservation and public information. But his work with me was in a freelance capacity.)

A rental car secured, I drove an hour south along Highway 41, to the L’Anse Reservation, where a pocket of woods was quiet but for water spilling over a mossy rock ledge. Jerry Jondreau was trying to catch brook trout on Silver River, which twists its way through the reservation. The reservation is home to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), one of about a dozen bands, including the Bad River Band, who live around the lake.

 

 

The lake itself is often hailed for being the cleanest of the Great Lakes. But Jondreau said its pristine reputation is a misconception. “I can’t bring fish back to the family from the lake,” he explained. “We don’t eat as much fish as we used to.”

Lake Superior is the largest freshwater lake on Earth by surface area, spanning a vast 31,700 square miles. Surrounded by dense forests and relatively sparse populations, more than 80 species of fish live in its cold, remote waters. While the fish are abundant, they’re rife with contaminants: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, the pesticide toxaphene — all linked to cancer — and mercury, left behind as a legacy of mining in a rugged region known as Copper Country. There are enough pollutants now circulating in the great lake that Michigan lists more than a dozen consumption advisories for its fish, and the pollution runs headlong into areas where tribes practice subsistence fishing.

On a windy August afternoon, the choppy waters around Lake Superior’s Madeline Island glittered with flecks of sunshine. Boats headed north, fishing poles straining toward wakes churning behind them. In 2019, Wisconsin scientists took samples from fish swimming near the island, considered the spiritual homeland of the Ojibwe. Six fish species had detectable levels of PFAS — and rainbow smelt had an average of seven times the amount of PFAS that were found in the other fish, according to data from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. It was enough to trigger the January 2021 consumption advisory for Wisconsin waters. Two months later, Minnesota and Michigan followed suit with their own advisories.

PFAS were introduced to Americans in the 1940s. Prized for their resistance to heat, oil and water, they were key ingredients in products like Scotchgard and Teflon. Today, they’re found in food packaging, carpets, furniture, clothing, makeup and everyday household items like dental floss. They’re used on an industrial scale in nonstick and waterproof coatings, electronics, degreasers and fire foams. The chemicals have been linked to a host of serious health problems: high cholesterol, liver damage, suppression of the immune system, thyroid disease, kidney and testicular cancer, among others, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some take years to be eliminated from the human body.

“They dissolve easily in water,” says environmental engineer Christy Remucal, who studies PFAS in her lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Remucal was not involved in the testing of the Lake Superior fish.) So, the chemicals move around the environment fairly easily, she told me — and there are thousands of them. One of these, called PFOS, or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid — found at airports and military sites with histories of fire foam use — tends to build up in fish.

But Michigan scientists were puzzled when the little smelt showed higher levels of PFOS than larger, predator fish such as lake trout. “Typically, the higher up on a food chain that you go, you’re going to have higher levels of contamination,” explains Brandon Armstrong, an aquatic biologist with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), referring to a process called biomagnification. “It was surprising to see such a high level of PFOS in smelt because they feed low on the food chain,” he says. “They’re eating small fish and zooplankton out in the glades. They’re not a top-predator species.”

 

Smelt is just one among many fish that tribal communities in the lake basin depend on. Indeed, food sovereignty was a cornerstone of 19th-century treaties in which the Ojibwe ceded millions of acres and retained their rights to fish, hunt and gather. These rights were challenged a century later, when William Jondreau, an Ojibwe man — and grandfather of Jerry Jondreau — was arrested for catching lake trout when it was out of season. He claimed, under treaty rights, that he was free to fish on Keweenaw Bay, where his people had fished for centuries. His case went before the Michigan Supreme Court and, in the 1971 landmark Jondreau decision, the court ruled that the 1854 treaty with the Chippewa superseded state fish and game laws.

The decision reaffirmed his people’s right to hunt and fish on ceded territories. But there has been a steady “devaluation” of treaty rights since, Jerry Jondreau argues. “In those agreements, we retained our rights to hunt, fish and gather,” he says. “In exchange, the U.S. got all the land. It’s accruing wealth. But the fish, the water … those things are becoming sick.”

 

On the Bad River Reservation, a flash of lightning lit up a dark cloud over the Kakagon River. Seconds later, a low rumble of thunder rolled through the wetlands. Edith Leoso watched from the back of the boat as it sped inland. The rice harvest would be plentiful this season, she said. But the smelt population is in decline — and has been for years. Even so, she said, “people are still smelting when they shouldn’t be. We should leave that fish alone.” They’re fishing out of necessity,she explained, regardless of consumption advisories: “We don’t recognize them if we have to feed our families. That’s the bottom line.”

Michiganalso lists consumption guidelines for fish in hundreds of smaller lakes and rivers. “Fishing is a primary source of subsistence for Ojibwe tribes throughout the basin,” says Valoree Gagnon, director of university-Indigenous community partnerships at the Great Lakes Research Center of Michigan Technological University. “So, when you’re asked to lower fish consumption, you’re not just losing meals, you’re losing all those practices associated with fishing: sharing knowledge and passing that to future generations. It changes all kinds of social dynamics.”

The lake tribes have been proactive in response to environmental threats to their water. In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency gave the Bad River Band the authority — known as “treatment as a state” — to set its own water-quality standards. A decade later, KBIC received the same authority.

 

Researchers are doing additional testing to identify possible sources of PFAS in Lake Superior. But contaminated sites already identified may hold clues. The chemicals have been found at the Duluth Air National Guard Base, adjacent to a PFAS-polluted creek that leads to Saint Louis Bay, at the southwestern corner of the lake in Minnesota; they were first detected at the Duluth air base in 2010, said Bioenvironmental Manager Maj. Ryan Blazevic of the 148th Fighter Wing in an email. The wing “no longer conducts fire protection training in a manner that discharges firefighting foam,” he said. (Firefighter training is a common source of PFAS at military bases.)”

find more at this link  much more to the story

There is not enough accountability.  Bribery rules, along with conflicts and those who harm hide behind the corporate charters [that mean anything the money says they do.]  – Brad