Arsenic is a semi-metal element in the periodic table which is odorless and tasteless (EPA 1). It occurs naturally in rocks and soil, water, air, and plants and animals. It can be further released into the environment through natural activities such as volcanic action, erosion of rocks, and forest fires, or through human actions. Due to its poisonous nature, Arsenic is considered a serious environmental hazard.
There is also evidence for the bioaccumulation of arsenic along the food chain like mercury (Rubin et al 268). Arsenic is also found in synthetic products. Approximately 90 percent of industrial arsenic in the U.S. is currently used as a wood preservative, but arsenic is also used in paints, dyes, metals, drugs, soaps, and semi-conductors (EPA 1). Agricultural applications, mining, and smelting also contribute to arsenic releases in the environment.
Arsenic becomes dangerous when it enters drinking water supplies from natural deposits in the earth or from agricultural and industrial practices, transported along the food chain and when it pollutes the air as a by-product of coal burning. In order to protect the country from such arsenic poisoning, there are regulations set by the EPA. Thesis: Arsenic is an hazardous material found both naturally and in man made products and it must be regulated in order to make the earth a safe place to live in.
Arsenic has acquired notoriety as a deadly poison. Lung cancer from inhaling arsenic and skin cancer from swallowing it are the two most dangerous effects of arsenic exposure for the general population (Harte et al 218). Poisoning as a result of the accidental contamination of food products and other disorders from chronic, low-level exposures are significant. Lung cancer from breathing arsenic is an occupational disease for workers in the smelting industry and the arsenic pesticide manufacturing industry (Harte et al 218). Elevated rates of lung cancer have been observed for people living in the vicinity of such factories.
Other disorders resulting from chronic arsenic exposure are noncancerous skin lesions, peripheral nerve effects and cardiovascular changes. Acute arsenic poisoning is characterized by severe gastrointestinal damage resulting in vomiting and diarrhea and general vascular collapse leading to shock, coma and even death. Non-cancer effects can include thickening and discoloration of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness in hands and feet; partial paralysis; and blindness (EPA 1). Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate (EPA 1).
Arsenic comes in two forms: organic and inorganic of which the latter form is more toxic. Inorganic Arsenic is found mixed with other ingredients for use as wood preservatives (68%), pesticides and drying agents for cotton (23%), glass decolorizers (4%), and other uses (5%) (Harte et al 219). When pesticides are used, plants that naturally absorb arsenic fairly easily begin to have high concentrations of arsenic that is passed on to plant eating freshwater organisms and pollute the surface waters.
This in turn pollutes the genetic materials of fish that enhance the chances of alteration of genetic materials of fish. When birds eat the fish the arsenic poison climbs the food chain and is transported to higher living things that will ultimately die as a result of arsenic poisoning. A study by Carol Potera (2007) shows that rise from south central United States where farmers once controlled boll weevils with arsenic based pesticides still has residual arsenic in the soil.
A large market basket survey published in the 1 April 2007 issue of Environmental Science & Technology now shows that rice grown in this area contains, on average, 1.76 times more arsenic than rice grown in California (Potera 96). Though arsenic can be found naturally in small amounts, human activity is responsible for much more: 80.000 tonnes of arsenic per year are released by the burning of fossil fuels. Arsenic is increasing in the environment mainly from pollution and by seepage from hazardous waste dumps. Arsenic exposure may be higher for people that work with arsenic, for people that drink significant amounts of whine, for people that live in houses that contain conserved wood of any kind and for those who live on farmlands where arsenic-containing pesticides have been applied in the past.
Cigarette smokers receive an added dose of inorganic arsenic directly to the lung, because arsenic is present in tobacco leaves and is released into the smoke when tobacco is burned. Children have greater exposure from drinking water because they drink more in proportion to their body weights than do adults. The world’s worst arsenic problem is in Bangladesh (Sambu and Wilson 1). Using the results from patient screening in a health camp in Damurhuda Upazila, Chuadanga District, Dhaka Community Hospital found that overall prevalence of arsenic symptoms was 0.458/1000 (Dhaka Community Hospital 2002:4).
Julian Josephson (2000) has shown that Chile is also a region with arsenic toxicity. Smith’s study focused on the village in Chiu Chiu in northern Chile, where the native Atacameno people, who have inhabited this extremely and region for more than 9,000 years, drink water from rivers originating in the Andes Mountains. Many of these rivers contain high concentrations of inorganic arsenic as high as 800 [micro]g/L. It has been found that they suffer from arsenic-induced skin effects despite good nutrition and thousands of years of potential exposure (Josephson 1).
The US EPA has recently come out with an extensive review of mechanisms of action of Dimethyl Arsenic (DMA) and its possible mechanisms of action (Sambu and Wilson 1). They cannot rule out a linear dose response at the lowest doses. It is effectively impossible to reduce the content of arsenic in drinking water to a risk level of one in a million lifetime risk calculated with a linear dose-response relationship, a risk level and a calculation procedure frequently used by the U.S. EPA. The present 10 ppb standard is perhaps the first in which the U.S EPA explicitly compared costs and benefits and used a value of $6.1 million per calculated life saved (Sambu and Wilson 1).
The governing laws for controlling Arsenic are The Safe Drinking Water Act for water we drink, the Clean Water Act for water in rivers and other locations, the superfund law for arsenic in various waste sites. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the major agency trying to cope with these laws and their problems (Sambu and Wilson 1). It is ironical to note that though it was known as early as 1986 that long term medium level arsenic exposure leads to chronic health problems in 1986, it was basically ignored by EPA till 2000.
On a pessimistic calculation using a linear dose response curve the Office of Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California EPA calculated that a level for a one-in-a-million risk is 1.5 parts per trillion – 3000 times less than the proposed level. But it would be impossible to set a regulatory limit this low since no water supply could meet it. Moreover arsenic in take into people would be dominated by arsenic in foodstuffs.
After much travail, the US Environmental Protection Agency in January 2001 finally issued a regulation with a new standard for drinking water of 10 ppb to take effect in 2006. This was confirmed on October 31st 2001 by the new EPA administrator, Christine Whitman (Sambu and Wilson 1). The regulation is said to protect over 13 million Americans. The new standard will apply to all 54,000 community water systems. The new standard will also apply to 20,000 water systems that serve at least 25 of the same people more than six months of the year, such as schools, churches, nursing homes, and factories (USEPA 1).
There can be two types of effective arsenic-related programme interventions: emergency diagnostic, treatment, and social support activities in ‘hot spots’ where large numbers of cases have been identified and prevention-oriented activities in arsenic-contaminated areas, where no patients have been identified (APSU 10). The most important remedial action is prevention of further exposure through provision of safe drinking water (NEHA 36).
Where low-arsenic water is not available, it is necessary to remove arsenic from drinking water. The technology for arsenic removal from piped water is moderately costly and requires technical expertise. It is inapplicable in some urban areas of developing countries and in most rural areas worldwide. Ensuring that regulations are in place helps safeguard safe areas from future arsenic pollution.
Arsenic contamination of drinking water has profound social implications and consequences. The poor are at greatest risk from arsenic (APSU 3). Due to poor nutrition they are often more susceptible to arsenicosis and often have limited access to water supplies, particularly where arsenic contamination means they have to negotiate access to new water supplies. Arsenicosis has serious social and economic consequences for patients, as their ability to work is affected and social exclusion is common. Access to health care services for arsenicosis remains difficult for many poor people and they face many problems in gaining appropriate treatment.
As a consequence of these factors, arsenic can be a shock from which poor people are unable to recover (APSU 3). Ensuring participation by the poorest is critical and there remains much to be done to ensure equitable access is secured for the poor. Chronic low level exposures are greatest around smelters and arsenic factories. Hence one must move away from these places and keep children far away from these zones. Handwashing before eating can be helpful. Unused pesticides or preservatives should be given to a friend to use or disposed off properly. They should not be flushed down or placed in the trash. Apart from that, the public must be alert to the dangers of arsenic and express their concern to their politically elected representatives (Harte et al 221).
Personally, I do feel that Arsenic pollution is an environmental issue that needs special focus in today’s modern world. Water sources are now more in demand due to increasing population and it is important to ensure that it is safe and arsenic free. Moreover, due to industrial growth, there is industrial waste that consists of arsenic. It makes a person aware of the dangers of smelting. As the effects of Arsenic poisoning are still unspecific, the dangers are more and it is important that the existing federal laws are used in a stringent manner.
Works Cited
APSU (Arsenic Policy Support Unit) (2006). Selected papers on the social aspects of arsenic and arsenic mitigation in Bangladesh. Web.
Dhaka Community Hospital (2002). Report on Arsenicosis Patient Identification and Management in Seven Upazilas through Health Camps. Dhaka. Bangladesh.
Sambu, Sambu and Wilson, Richard (2008). Chronic Arsenic Poisoning: History, Study and Remediation. Web.
Harte, John; Holdren, Cheryl; Schneider, Richard and Shirley, Christine (1991). Toxics A to Z. University of California Press.
Josephson, Julian (2000). Arsenic Again. Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume: 108. Issue: 7.
NEHA (National Environmental Health Association) (2001). Arsenic in Drinking Water. Journal of Environmental Health. Volume: 64. Issue: 2. Page Number: 36.
Potera, Carol (2007). U.S. Rice Serves up Arsenic. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 115. Issue: 6.
Rubin, Raphael; Strayer, S. David; Rubin, Emanuel and McDonald, M. Jay (2007). Rubin’s Pathology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2001). Fact Sheet: Drinking Water Standard for Arsenic. Web.