Eggers and more than 6 co-authors, reported in a 2015 paper that should be have been published in a journal on public health. It begins by fear pandering on the presence of uranium in groundwater. Human exposure to very high concentrations uranium "can" damage kidneys, increase long term risks of various cancers, and cause developmental and reproductive effects, but low values have been shown in Texas at least that low values are not harmful as far as is known today (see (more)]. Historically, home well water in Montana has not been tested for uranium [Fact Check: The 1970s and 80s NURE program produced substantial data on uranium in the groundwater of the subject areas discussed in this "paper", which is actually an anti-uranium article (like other groups in the U.S. that have various anti-uranium, anti-nuclear agenda (more)]. Data for the Crow Reservation from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) database showed that water from 34 of 189 wells tested had uranium over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 30 μg/L for drinking water. Therefore the Crow Water Quality Project included uranium in its tests of home well water.
Volunteers had their well water tested and completed a survey about their well water use. More than 2/3 of the 97 wells sampled had detectable uranium; 6.3% exceeded the MCL of 30 μg/L. Wells downgradient from the uranium-bearing formations in the mountains were at highest risk [Fact Check: This statement is a misrepresentation. Uranium in any high concentration can not travel very far "downgradient" in a reducing environment; because uranium is precipitated into solid form with any organics encountered such as lignite or organic underbeds]. About half of all Crow families rely on home wells; 80% of these families consume their well water.[So does everyone else in the rural communities, unless they form rural water systems that provide protection from poorly located individual water wells (more)].
The authors concluded that for families on the Crow Reservation who rely on home wells, exposure to uranium and potentially other waterborne contaminants may both contribute to and be exacerbated by existing health disparities [Note: More fear pandering .....]. Limited financial resources restrict families’ options for either treating well water or purchasing and hauling sufficient safe water for consumption. Conducting such research and education as a true partnership between community and academic researchers will help to ensure that the science is sound, the community is increasingly empowered to address environmental health disparities, and that the work is effective in reducing health risks.[ Question: If the central issue is a lack of funding to provide treatment of the groundwater to remove uranium that is occurring naturally in the local shallow groundwater, then what's the role of additional "academic" research? The NURE data have already identified the issues, but this was reported decades later by the academic community? Looks like they should have reported these issues decades ago when the NURE data first appeared ....?]
[What is the objective of this "paper" ... perhaps to get the attention of the uranium mining companies in the area for potential funding in return for local support of mining companies in the area? Another quid pro quo?]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
