7/08/05 The ATSDR and MDCH released their ATSDR & MDCH Health
Consultation: Exposure Investigation Report: A Pilot Exposure Investigation:
Dioxin Exposure in Adults Living in the Tittabawassee River Flood Plain, Saginaw
County, Michigan EPA FACILITY ID: MID980994354
The report was made public on July 13, 2005, the SAME day the
Michigan Supreme Court
denied floodplain residents the ability to make Dow pay for a trust fund to
assist in monitoring their health due to the increased risks of living in
Our suspicions are confirmed. The official report states:
Tittabawassee floodplain residents on average have higher blood,
home, and property dioxin levels than background levels found in the
rest of the country.
New data in report includes actual blood levels for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
This is the most toxic of the Dioxin Like Compounds (DLC).
Participant blood levels of this compound are almost double of those
found in non-contaminated areas.
Three homes have dioxin levels in their indoor dust that are higher than
the states 90 ppt Residential Direct Contact Criteria for soil found OUTSIDE the
Soil samples collected from 15 properties located at least partially
within the flood plain of the Tittabawassee River showed total dioxin
TEQ levels greater than the MDEQ residential criterion of 90 ppt for
DLCs. These findings further confirm earlier results indicating that
elevated DLC levels within the 100-year flood plain downstream of
Midland are widespread.
This report has undergone countless reviews during the 8 months prior to
it's release. Rumor has it Michigan Lt. Governor Cherry had to give
final approval to the language of the report before it was released.
Evidently Cherry is now one our top scientist. Seriously, what did the
scientist say that was edited out by politicians?
Click here to visit our PEI page for the
results of the study.
EPA indicates there is much more in the Tittabawassee River than
contaminated fish and dioxin,
10/17/04 The Midland Daily News reported the
results of dioxin blood levels from some of the participants of the ATSDR/MDCH Pilot
Exposure Investigation. The majority reported seem to be in the 75th
percentile with an alarming number in the 90th or even the 95 percentile.
In addition, some of those with high levels are suffering from diseases associated with dioxin exposure.
Click here for the PEI result page. We
have included details of the PEI protocols and the CDC blood reference ranges for humans
living in areas uncontaminated by dioxin in the enviornment. Based on what we are seeing,
some pretty obvious conclusions can be drawn. Until the ATSDR or MDEQ releases a
final summary for all the results, these will have to do.
How much is enough?
The above is an excerpt from the EPA's Dr. Linda Birnbaum
presentation: Dioxin are we at Risk?
Click here to listen to more of the
Dr. Linda Birnbaum (EPA) presentation: "Dioxin, are we at risk?".
You are hearing a clip from the video when this page is opened.
"At higher risk
of exposure to dioxin are children, nursing infants, some workers and farmers, people who
eat fish as a main staple of their diet such as some indigenous peoples and fishermen, and
people who live near dioxin release sites. These groups of people are likely exposed to at
least 10 times as much dioxin as the general population. "
Note: The Dow Wild Game study did not include any facts or data
pertaining to the impact on human health. It did include a lot of PR, biased
statistical maniupulation, half truths, and omissions to give the impression that
consuming game is not a human health hazard. Review all the other species on this
site and form your own opinion.
1. Unacceptable, elevated (cancer risks as high as one in a 1,000) to
public health exist to the frequent consumer (½ pound meal per week or greater) of
Tittabawassee River fish. Although U.S. EPA was heavily involved in addressing dioxin
problems from the Dow Chemical facility in the 1980s, it is clear that significant risks
to public health still remain. More extensive outreach is needed to warn consumers of
risks associated with the consumption of fish from the Tittabawassee River, Saginaw River,
and Saginaw Bay.
2. Potential health risks, which need quantification, exist to
persons consuming game in the Midland area. Dioxin contamination of game (turkey and
deer), indicate contamination of the terrestrial food chain.
3. Unacceptable, serious aquatic ecological risks, associated with
dioxin exposure, exist to fish, fish eating birds, and mammals.
4. Given substantial risks to public health and wildlife, strong
consideration should be given to remediation (e.g., removal) of dioxin contaminated
sediments and flood plain soils most proximal to the rivers. Such actions would be
consistent with those underway or planned for the Fox and Kalamazoo rivers.
5. Multi-media risk evaluation of all exposure pathways (residential
soils, flood plain soils, fish, and wild game) are needed before final conclusions are
drawn regarding risks to human health and ecology. Such approaches are consistent with
approaches historically undertaken for the site, recent complex sites such as the Fox
River and Hudson River, as well as U.S. EPA guidance for Superfund and RCRA sites.
Comparison of sediment or certain flood plain data to either EPA or state dioxin criteria,
which are based only on direct contact (e.g., ingestion) with residential soils, cannot be
directly applied (as determined by U.S. EPA and CDC) to assess risks and determine cleanup
options for aquatic and terrestrial food chain exposures.
6. Based upon current data and estimated risks, priorities for
additional data collection, risk evaluation, and remediation should be established. For
instance, it appears that risks to fish consumers are substantially higher than persons
exposed to dioxin via direct ingestion of soils. Of those exposed to dioxin contamination
in soils, those immediately adjacent to the flood plain appear to be a higher risk as
compared to other areas in Midland.
7. Data collection, risk assessment, and modeling, as done for the
Fox River and underway for the Kalamazoo, should be employed to determine risks and
develop appropriate remedial actions, particularly for sediments and flood plain soils.
8. U.S. EPA, working closely with Michigan Departments of
Environmental Quality and Community Health, needs to becomes engaged in the dioxin
contamination problem and to re-enforce existing risks to public health and wildlife.
There is particular concern regarding distortions of risk information (including findings
by U.S. EPA) which are causing inaccurate risk messages to the public.