(Note: There are no warranties or guarantees regarding the safety of the links listed in this write-up. Viewer assumes own responsibility for computer safety).  Are there really major problems with arsenic in foods or lead in materials or powders like talc?  Is Asbestos the ONLY cause for mesothelioma, or are there other causes not addressed by the Courts of Law?  Are all the scientific studies correctly done without any errors or possibility of incorrect results and conclusions?

The recent problems with toys, foods, and other items having arsenic and consumer items from China having lead metal on them reminds many of us of deeper problems with scientific research and Federal regulation in issues related to toxicity of arsenic, mercury, other heavy metals, ceramics, and non-metal elements on the Periodic Table. There have been problems found in research papers and reports from Dept of Energy (DOE), OSHA, EPA, NIH, FDA, and Agencies in regards to their research methods, design of experiment processes, laboratory quality controls, material purity, chemical equivalencies, correct diagnosis, and statistical analyses to filter out various causes from the observed effects. This is a review and response to the research done by scientists and regulators who do not consider all of the factors (“causes”) in the toxicity of heavy metals, ceramics, and other minerals and elements found in nature. For example, there is a report by Dartmouth College on arsenic toxicity (an area that does not have a high rate of cancers in the residents of Amargosa Valley, California, even with it high arsenic content in its drinking waters):
http://www.wateronline.com/doc/dartmouth-study-finds-that-arsenic-inhibits-d-0001

Over the years, many of us have talked to many researchers about their methods of designing their research and experiments on the toxicities of heavy metals.  There are some major problems with the basic methods and scientific "assumptions" that these people have made.  One thing that these scientists don’t consider is that natural processes have put heavy metals in most of the drinking water, even in the USA, long before there were ever any industrial activities (mining, etc.)  The next links might be entitled "Nature's own heavy metal contaminations of water":

For example, questions arise on experimental research done on arsenic.  Just what is the concentration of the arsenic used in the experiment? Was this equivalent to the concentration found in normal human blood after drinking water with groundwater arsenic?  Too often experimenters in the past have made the arsenic (As) ionic concentrations way too high for what is found in humans (blood and urine and other types of samples), after they drank groundwater with high arsenic content.  Was the chemistry of the experiment truly equivalent to the chemistry found in human blood after groundwater ingestion and the resulting biochemical interactions that take place in the digestive tract, blood, arteries, tissues, etc.?  Were the chemical solubility products (Ksp) at truly "equivalent" values as would be expected for in-vitro chemical species compositions and concentrations?

We have seen many other experimenters use arsenic tests that did not have the same blood chemistry and did not have concentrations found in human blood after ingesting.  They used "tissue samples".  But are these conditions truly equivalent to what humans have in terms of the tissues that receive their ions from blood and plasma through the arteries and other biochemical processes within the human bodies? See also the issues with biological models:
http://www.ramas.com/CM-ref.htm
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378475482906383

See also the problems with biological models:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/25184/title/The-Trouble-with-Animal-Models/

In addition, there has been controversy over the change in the US government’s arsenic (As) standards and in Mercury (Hg) standards.  If those who want tighter arsenic standards in drinking water had true geologic knowledge, they would know that both arsenic and mercury are some of the many elements that Nature put in the earth and that the groundwater has picked up over the thousands of years.  Often, arsenic (As) is associated with gold deposits, even low grade, and other sulfide ore deposits.  In many places in the USA, there are geological deposits of the mineral cinnabar (mercury sulfide) and pure mercury, such as the Big Bend area of Texas near the Rio Grande River.  Over geological time, the groundwater has picked up mercury and other heavy metals in many places over thousands of years.  There are also geological formations that contain trace amounts of mercury in their sediments that for eons have been washing into the rivers, groundwater, and soils.  There are several hundred naturally-occurring lead deposits (lead sulfide and lead carbonate) in the USA that were in existence long before any Europeans explorers came around in the 1500s and 1600s.  In many drinking water sources, there are a number of other elements in natural drinking water, such as uranium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, sulfur, etc. that originated from natural mineral deposits.

Some researchers have been giving statements that are not based upon complete analysis, but come across as fear.  One researcher stated several years ago that "all the time people were dying of cancers now associated with drinking that arsenic-contaminated water".  But we would have to assume that all autopsies of ancient and modern humans has shown a 100% statistical correlation to arsenic and not to other factors, such as other chemicals, other metals, diet, sun exposure, prescription drug effects, genetics, other elements, etc.  In addition, a number of other studies did not show good statistical analysis / correlation on the level of arsenic (percent or parts per million) and health effects.  The residents of Amargosa Valley and Beatty in Nevada and the Death Valley areas in California have elevated levels of arsenic in their drinking waters, but cancers are not prevalent there.  A number of residents several of us know have lived to the age of 80s and 90s.  How do we explain that?

In talking to the environmental and biological scientists on the West Coast about this issue, a peculiar point was brought up.  Most of them have mathematically matched arsenic levels to human health affects through regression methods.  These are the same types of methods used on Lead and Mercury research, as seen in the scientific publications. These methods "assume" a straight statistical correlation (both linear and non-linear) between the input of arsenic and the output (health affects).  But how could they have known what other elements in the drinking water were doing in conjunction with arsenic?  None of these scientists have filtered out those inputs that are either not affecting the output, or are affecting in minor ways, or are affecting in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct.  The methods are the analyses of variances and other advanced techniques, which do not appear to be well known by these scientists.

Few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times researchers use statistical regression methods that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real.  Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, "Statistics for Experimenters," by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.

Native peoples have been drinking water here in America and many other places for centuries with arsenic and other "contaminants," (like arsenic and lead) long before there was ever a Federal government to protect us from the Earth's own contamination of groundwater and rivers.  Why don't the environmentalists understand basic Earth Sciences?

The issue of heavy metals, minerals, fluoride, talc, and other controversial compounds is similar to the fact that there are multiple causes for mesothelioma than just asbestos.  There is now the mesothelioma cancer risk associated with contaminated simian virus 40 polio vaccine in years past.  How many lawyers and scientists and FDA people have ever addressed this?  How is it that people were exposed to this source of mesothelioma and the courts of law did not address this??
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327

http://www.sv40foundation.org/CPV-link.html
 
Even the scientists cannot determine everything about ovarian cancer:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-finds-surprising-gaps-in-whats-known-about-ovarian-cancer/?linkId=21856417
 
Scientists are not always able to trace to the true causes of cancer every time:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45493/title/Can-Talc-Cause-Cancer-
 
See this link also:
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/earthmatters/2/n2/em_v2_n2.pdf

Natural arsenic and heavy metals in Alaskan waters from geological deposits:
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs-083-01/

See how Nature pollutes the environment!!!
http://www.sitnews.us/0905news/091405/091405_shns_salmon.html

And then sulfur also:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-083-01/

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir157
(shame on nature for doing that......)

P. S. How is it that mercury metal mines in National Parks, such as the Big Bend National Park, and copper mines in nearby Wilderness Areas were "reclaimed" and are now presented as "naturally wild" areas?
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/22611/texasamlprojects.pdf
  
http://www.asmr.us/Publications/Conference%20Proceedings/1997/20.PDF
  
NOTE: Other than the URL web link addresses, I Catherine as the author wrote all of these words on my own, most of which I wrote previously for other public reviews, letters to editors, and other public blogs in the past.  There are NO warranties expressed or implied for the links presented here.  User assumes responsibility for safety of their computers and other devices when clicking on the links.  There are NO copyrights by the author on the words in this post. FALSE accusers will be dealt with by my Lawyers and the appropriate law enforcement agencies as deemed necessary.

++++++++++++

Tags: #lead, #uranium, #arsenic, #nickel, #mercury, #sulfur, #toxic, #toxicity, #poison, #Flint, #OSHA, #NIH, #EPA, #FDA, #regulations, #scientific, #scientificinvestigation, #statistics, #statistical, #asbestos, #mesothelioma, #talcum, #talcumpowder,