<p> Chromium 6_Carcinogen tested in 5 humans in the US </p>        <p> Sat, 8 Nov 2003 </p>        <p> Chromium 6 is classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as           an "inhalation carcinogen." Chromium 6 is a by-product of industrial           processes and is linked to severe health problems, including lung cancer.           No only those who saw the movie, Erin Brockovich, know that Chromium           6 is at the center of controversy--industry vs. environmentalists. </p>        <p> "Chromium-6 can find its way into the environment if the industries           that use chromium mismanage their waste streams....Chromium can enter           the body when breathed in contaminated air, ingested through water or           food, or absorbed through skin when in soil, water, or air." See: <a href="http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SP03/Chromium.html">http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SP03/Chromium.html</a>         </p>        <p> Yet, contrary to universal codes of medical ethics, this carcinogen           was tested in an experiment conducted in the US on 5 human subjects--the           investigators and the subjects were employees of ChemRisk. The subjects           (but not the investigators) were given water laced with 5 incremental           doses of chromium 6. The purpose of this industry sponsored experiment           was to prevent regulatory requirements to lower the concentration standard           for this toxic environmental pollutant. </p>        <p> The published report (cited below) acknowledges: "A dose-related increase           in urinary chromium excretion was observed in all volunteers. Red blood           cell and plasma chromium concentrations became elevated in certain individuals           at the highest doses." (p.151) </p>        <p> According to the published article "A Human Use Committee composed           of three occupational physicians and one toxicologist (each a university           faculty member) with experience in chromium toxicology reviewed the           protocol prior to the study." We wonder how much university faculty           consultants are paid by industry to obtain approval for such morally           untenable human experiments? </p>        <p> The published report claims: "None of the five subjects experienced           any adverse health effects as a result of ingesting designated doses           of Cr(VI), and the three individuals ingesting the higher dosages showed           no clinically significant changes in urine, blood, or blood chemistry           parameters. The absence of clinical findings in our study is consistent           with studies cited by the USEPA in support of their current health advisories           and regulatory guidelines concerning Cr(VI))." (Citation below, p. 158)         </p>        <p> However, the reported results (p. 153) lead us to question what the           actual adverse effects might have been for at least 2 of the 5 human           subjects who discontinued: "Due to scheduling conflicts, subjects 2           and 3 did not continue the study after 500 and 1000 ug Cr(VI)/ day doses,           respectively. All other subjects completed all five doses of the study,           but some of the blood samples were lost, spilled, clotted or analyzed           incorrectly at the laboratory. These missing data may limit interpretation           to some degree,, but the overall trends for blood chromium content across           doses seem fairly consistent in general." </p>        <p> The Nuremberg Code limits human experiments to those that are expected           "to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by           other methods or means of study." (2) </p>        <p> According to the Nuremberg Code standards, a potentially carcinogenic           experiment could only be conducted in humans "if the experimental physicians           also serve as subjects." (5) </p>        <p> See: Human Ingestion of Chromium (VI) in Drinking Water: Pharmacokinetics           Following Repeated Exposure </p>        <p> BRENT L. FINLEY,* BRENT D. KERGER,? MELANIE W. KATONA,? MICHAEL L.           GARGAS,? GWEN C. CORBETT,? AND DENNIS J. PAUSTENBACH* </p>        <p> *McLaren/Hart-ChemRisk, 1135 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, California           94501; ?McLaren/Hart-ChemRisk, 16755 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, California           92714; and ?McLaren/Hart-ChemRisk, 29225 Chagrin Boulevard, Cleveland,           Ohio 44122 </p>        <p> Published in: TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY 142, 151-159 (1997)           ARTICLE NO. TO967993 </p>        <p> For good article on the controversy see: The Villain of Hinkley, California           Chromium-6 Takes Center Stage by Arjita Sharma National Drinking Water           Clearinghouse <a href="http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SP03/Chromium.html">http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SP03/Chromium.html</a>         </p>