home
RSS
Report: Harmful chemical found in tap water of 31 U.S. cities
December 20th, 2010
12:00 AM ET

Report: Harmful chemical found in tap water of 31 U.S. cities

Millions of Americans in at least 31 U.S. cities could be drinking tap water contaminated with the harmful chemical hexavalent chromium, according to a report released Monday by the non-profit Environmental Working Group.

While the dangerous carcinogen, otherwise known as chromium-6, may sound foreign to most people, perhaps the name Erin Brockovich will ring a bell.

After chromium-6 was discovered in the water supply of Hinkley, California, Brockovich helped bring about a lawsuit that ultimately ended in 1996 with the utility company, Pacific Gas & Electric, paying more than $330 million in damages.  Norman, Oklahoma; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, California, top the non-profit organization's list of cities with water supplies contaminated by chromium-6.

The Environmental Protection Agency has classified the toxin as a carcinogen to humans if it is inhaled.  The EPA is proposing to classify it as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans" if ingested as part of a risk assessment the agency is currently conducting. The agency says water utilities are required to test for total chromium levels in the water but not explicitly for chromium-6. Chromium-6 is a natural byproduct of total chromium.

"In order to protect people's health, EPA has had drinking water standards for total chromium, which includes chromium-6," the agency said in a statement to CNN. "When this scientific assessment is finalized in 2011, EPA will carefully review the conclusions and consider all relevant information, including the Environmental Working Group's study, to determine if a new standard needs to be set."

"I was expecting to find hexavalent chromium in some of the cities we checked, but I didn't expect it to be so widespread," said Rebecca Sutton, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group and the lead author of the study.

Sutton said there is a well-documented corollary between exposure to chromium-6 and a greater risk of stomach cancer in humans. Additionally, there is ample animal evidence showing a broad risk of gastrointestinal tumors in rats and mice exposed to the toxin, she said.

Worse, skipping tap water in favor of bottled water does not guarantee you'll be protected.

"Bottled water is not necessarily any safer than tap water," said Sutton. "We just don't have any guarantee that hexavalent chromium isn't in that water."

So how can you protect yourself? Sutton says your best bet is buying an effective water filter.

"Getting the water filter is a great way to protect yourself and your family," says Sutton. "It's a step you can take yourself; you don't have to wait for government action."

Samples from the test provided a "one-time snapshot" of water systems that serve 26 million people, the Environmental Working Group said. But the organization said the results show that more federal regulation of the cancer-causing chemical is needed.

The National Toxicology Program has said that chromium-6 in drinking water shows "clear evidence of carcinogenic activity."

California's state environmental agency has proposed capping levels of the chemical in drinking water at 0.06 parts per billion. The Environmental Working Group said 25 of the cities it tested showed exceeded that level.

To conduct its test, the organization said it recruited volunteers in 35 cities to collect tap water samples "from unfiltered taps in homes or in public buildings such as hospitals, libraries and malls," the report said.

Here are the cities

1. Norman, Oklahoma
2. Honolulu, Hawaii
3. Riverside, California
4. Madison, Wisconsin
5. San Jose, California
6. Tallahassee, Florida
7. Omaha, Nebraska
8. Albuquerque, New Mexico
9. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
10. Bend, Oregon
11. Salt Lake City, Utah
12. Ann Arbor, Michigan
13. Atlanta, Georgia
14. Los Angeles, California
15. Bethesda, Maryland
16. Phoenix, Arizona
17. Washington, D.C.
18. Chicago, Illinois
19. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
20. Villanova, Pennsylvania
21. Sacramento, California
22. Louisville, Kentucky
23. Syracuse, New York
24. New Haven, Connecticut
25. Buffalo, New York
26. Las Vegas, Nevada
27. New York, New York
28. Scottsdale, Arizona
29. Miami, Florida
30. Boston, Massachusetts
31. Cincinnati, Ohio

Not detectable: Indianapolis, Indiana; Plano, Texas; Reno, Nevada; San Antonio, Texas
For the levels in these cities, check this graph.


soundoff (536 Responses)
  1. Buddy

    What cities?

    December 20, 2010 at 04:08 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Wesmoor

      Well, it is safe to say that if they tested 35 and 31 were carcinogenic (spelling), then it is safe to assume most are contamintated. Get a Reverse Osmosis system for your home. Usually under $500 installed and be safe. We did years ago. Waiting for our government will not help.

      December 20, 2010 at 05:09 | Report abuse |
    • guest

      the one your in!!!

      December 20, 2010 at 07:18 | Report abuse |
    • Mel

      Robin you said to go the weg site to see if our city is on the list, but there is no list 😦 Can you please tell me if Omaha, Nebraska is on the list, Please

      December 20, 2010 at 07:42 | Report abuse |
    • jos

      Maybe they're trying to suggest that 4 out of every 35 cities doesn't have such contamination? Yikes.

      December 20, 2010 at 08:20 | Report abuse |
    • jos

      "don't," not "doesn't"..... double yikes for my grammar!!!

      December 20, 2010 at 08:21 | Report abuse |
    • dj kirk state

      where is the friggin list..... hellooooo MCFLYYYY

      December 20, 2010 at 08:46 | Report abuse |
    • daunting

      Dont't ask don't tell.....and be happy.

      December 20, 2010 at 09:01 | Report abuse |
    • Karen

      Click on the blue lettering in the third paragraph "..the EWG's list..."

      December 20, 2010 at 09:06 | Report abuse |
    • SFBOXRZ
      December 20, 2010 at 09:09 | Report abuse |
    • Luke

      Seriously, is this everyone's first day on the internets?

      December 20, 2010 at 09:31 | Report abuse |
    • mike

      There's a link in the article, people. Geez.

      December 20, 2010 at 10:03 | Report abuse |
    • Captain Jones

      This is what happens when you privatize water with companies that also make bottled water, they dump the was into the tap water to hike up sales of bottled water....

      December 20, 2010 at 10:04 | Report abuse |
    • publius enigma

      What was that you said about tap water being safer than bottled water?

      December 20, 2010 at 10:20 | Report abuse |
    • Colin in Florida

      Wesmoor-RO systems, while effective, are expensive to purchase, expensive to operate, and waste a lot of water. In most cases, a good filter system is just as effective and much, much less expensive.

      December 20, 2010 at 10:56 | Report abuse |
    • Milton

      For some perspective, please read: http://stats.org/stories/2009/Are%20Chemicals%20PRESS%20RELEASE.pdf

      December 20, 2010 at 10:56 | Report abuse |
    • foxj

      Ralphs Market owned by Kroegar I believe has Osmosis filtered water approximately $1.69 for 2.5 gallons also many filters are available for your tap. Elizabeth I can't beleive how negative all your reports are on Health matters, You give us a report and most of the time you say the fix does not work! So why do you give us these reports? Erins research was invaluble and thanks to her many cancer patients at least know why they became ill with this horible disease, which my Mother,
      Sister, Grandmothers are all Cancer survivors The positve in life certainly helps us all to at least have Hope!!!!!!!

      December 20, 2010 at 11:02 | Report abuse |
    • DenverGrl

      The link is in the story – third paragraph, top line.

      December 20, 2010 at 11:04 | Report abuse |
    • Linda

      One of the worse things in almost all water that is cancer causing is FLORIDE.
      The government makes you put that in the water. However, they are making a health decision for you. Notice, a town with one or two dentists, then put floride in the water-thyroid problems, cancer and lots of new dentist move to town.
      Sorry, I dont' think they keep you from having cavities. The research may not be right. I have terrible reactions to floride.

      December 20, 2010 at 11:34 | Report abuse |
    • Jenna

      Oh this is lovely seeing as though I live in Norman, OK. Have been puttting off replacing my water filter but after reading this I will be out to buy a new filter today!!

      December 20, 2010 at 11:41 | Report abuse |
    • Tre

      Im with you. Most of the articles on the web leave a lot to be desired. Who wrote this article? This is TERRIBLE! Don't you think somebody would want to know what cities are involved? WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE AND WHY. The rest is crap. You tell us more about Erin Brockovich than you do about the important stuff. What kind of filters get rid of this stuff.

      You article leaves us with too many questions. This gets a "D-"

      December 20, 2010 at 11:44 | Report abuse |
    • Mel

      The link is in the first sentence of the article: http://www.ewg.org/chromium6-in-tap-water/findings

      December 20, 2010 at 11:55 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      The link says "top the EWG's list of cities with water supplies" and is in blue. takes you to a map showing cities.

      December 20, 2010 at 12:04 | Report abuse |
    • paul s

      Yes,,,what kind of writing is this??31 cities and not even 5 of them listed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,its nothing but a PR story for water flter makers.
      probalby brita..

      December 20, 2010 at 12:13 | Report abuse |
    • DetPhx

      List of cities in the report – http://www.ewg.org/chromium6-in-tap-water/findings

      You can also go here – type in your zip code (top right) and get a report of the water in your area – by provider.

      http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/home

      December 20, 2010 at 12:19 | Report abuse |
    • Diana

      Read the article, paragraph 3, the red or blue line however you are seeing it that says .. Norman, Oklahoma; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, California, top the non-profit organization's list of cities with water supplies contaminated by chromium-6. If you click on the bold part that starts as "non-profit organization's list of cities ...etc" it will direct you to the list and map and levels.... Interesting reading. But the list is definitely there and easy to get to.

      December 20, 2010 at 12:49 | Report abuse |
    • Mariah

      If you CLICK ON THE LINK, you can see the cities. Duh. People, get over yourselves.

      December 20, 2010 at 12:53 | Report abuse |
    • Rod C. Venger

      In reply to "What Cities?" I say two things:

      Far too frequently CNN speaks in sound bites. We hear part of the story, usually the bad part, but not enough to inform the readers. This articler reminds me of the disclaimers on some movies that say it's been edited for time...in this case, the writer was likely told to keep it under 500 words or whatever. WHAT CITIES INDEED ??? Even a link to a list would have been nice. Oh wait...mustn't take readers from CNN's site and lose ad dollars, must they?

      Yes, in the end the article is nothing more than a pitch for filter systems. It's a wonder the writer didn't recommend Pur!

      December 20, 2010 at 13:22 | Report abuse |
    • Wzrd1

      I remember back when we could turn on the tap and get life giving water, purified and clean. Free of toxic chemicals.
      Then, it began to become radioactive, secondary to fallout from nuclear weapons testing. Filtering at the plant became more intensive, quietly implemented, to mitigate that effect.
      Then, where was a woman who raised merry hell over carcinogens in our water supply, our government moved to limit industrial pollution.
      Over time, the enforcement was considered to be excessive. Expensive and "aggravating" to businesses. Hence, the low level of enforcement we have today.
      Where we have flammable water in Pennsylvania and carcinogen laden water over most of our once great nation.

      December 20, 2010 at 13:36 | Report abuse |
    • jim gibb

      Frank Zappa is right, glad I stay in palm springs where the water comes from natural springs.

      December 20, 2010 at 13:36 | Report abuse |
    • JJ

      The link won't go through when you click on it of course. Also, nice for them to tell us exactly what "effective" water filters mean.

      December 20, 2010 at 13:42 | Report abuse |
    • kyle

      the government is not at liberty to specify what cities are contaminated at this time, but we're missing the point, the point's to be afraid.

      December 20, 2010 at 13:50 | Report abuse |
    • FatSean

      The last few decades of weakening the EPA has come home to roost.

      If you won't properly fund agencies that check and protect your water, you'll have to try your luck in court. And the big companies who pollute have way more money and time than you do.

      December 20, 2010 at 13:52 | Report abuse |
    • runswithbeer

      ANY CITY Downstream from a Refinery, Chemical Plant or Power Plant will have Chromium in it's water. I've worked in dozens of such plants and they almost all use Chromium to protect their heat exchangers from corrosion. One of the Worst is Dow Chemical (Union Carbide) I put in Cooling water treatment and management systems for Carbide to cut Chromium discharge by 99%, only to see them disconnected two years later in a budget cut.. One of the reason I do not work in any of these plants anymore.

      December 20, 2010 at 14:00 | Report abuse |
    • Dr G

      This article is not NEWS ...especially without a list of cities. What are you trying to telling us without really telling us?

      December 20, 2010 at 14:02 | Report abuse |
    • Benys

      For the cities click on where it says non-profit organization list of cities contaminated.

      December 20, 2010 at 14:03 | Report abuse |
    • Eric Talbott

      http://www.ewg.org must run on a Commodore 64. Slowest website I've been to in a llllloooooonnnnnnnngggg time.

      December 20, 2010 at 14:05 | Report abuse |
    • Majestic

      Norman, Okla. – 12.9 ppb
      Honolulu, Hi. – 2.00 ppb
      Riverside, Calif. – 1.69 ppb
      Madison, Wis. – 1.58 ppb
      San Jose, Calif. – 1.34 ppb
      Tallahassee, Fla. – 1.25 ppb
      Omaha, Neb. – 1.07 ppb
      Albuquerque, N.M. – 1.04 ppb
      Pittsburgh, Pa. – 0.88 ppb
      Bend, Ore. – 0.78 ppb
      Salt Lake City, Utah – 0.30 ppb
      Ann Arbor, Mich. – 0.21 ppb
      Atlanta, Ga. – 0.20 ppb
      Los Angeles, Calif. – 0.20 ppb
      Bethesda, Md. – 0.19 ppb
      Phoenix, Ariz. – 0.19 ppb
      Washington, D.C – 0.19 ppb
      Chicago, Ill. – 0.18 ppb
      Milwaukee, Wis. – 0.18 ppb
      Villanova, Pa. – 0.18 ppb
      Sacramento, Calif. – 0.16 ppb
      Louisville, Ky. – 0.14 ppb
      Syracuse, N.Y. – 0.12 ppb
      New Haven, Conn. – 0.08 ppb
      Buffalo, N.Y. – 0.07 ppb
      Las Vegas, Nev. – 0.06 ppb
      New York, N.Y. – 0.06 ppb
      Scottsdale, Ariz. – 0.05 ppb
      Miami, Fla. – 0.04 ppb
      Boston, Mass. – 0.03 ppb
      Cincinnati, Ohio – 0.03 ppb

      December 20, 2010 at 14:07 | Report abuse |
    • dirtysouth

      where is Erin Brockovich when you need her?

      December 20, 2010 at 14:19 | Report abuse |
    • dirtysouth

      We need Erin Brockovich on the case!

      December 20, 2010 at 14:20 | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      After doing a little research on some of these "hot spots" that the article proclaims, the cancer rate for those areas is the same for the rest of the country. Another misleading, typical CNN, sky is falling article that is based on basically someone's parinoia. You would think that the report report woud have checked their data first. Or that that the editor would have insisted on the reporter proving the article. Fat chance. WAY TO GO CNN, AGAIN!!!

      December 20, 2010 at 14:21 | Report abuse |
    • Jennifer Lowe

      http://www.ewg.org/chromium6-in-tap-water/findings

      December 20, 2010 at 14:34 | Report abuse |
    • Evan

      This article makes me a little upset. I don't like that this chemical is present in our drinking water (it certainly doesn't belong there). And I hope that it makes the government react and do something to prevent, in particular large Steel Companies, from dumping chemicals into drinking sources.

      What the article fails to report, is how much of this chemical is dangerous. There is a California study that wants to limit the amount to .06, but no data as to why that is a safe/dangerous level. I mean we are talking Parts Per Billion Here....that's a really small amount.

      I am not condoning that there are dangerous chemicals in our water, but I dont think everyone needs to go buy a water purification system because of something that is less than 1 PPB. there is probably more dangerous stuff at a higher level, but because someone made a movie, everyone freaks out. God Forbid anyone actually read the sources for anything.

      December 20, 2010 at 15:14 | Report abuse |
    • HotDogInBuns

      HAHA "wE DON;T WANT BIG GOVERNMENT RUNNING OUR BUSINESS" HAHAHAHHAH! eNJOY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CUT BIG GOVERNMENT OUT OF YOUR STATE. BIG COMAPNY GETS TO DUMP THEIR TOXIC WASTE IN YOUR FACE. HAHAH MORONS!

      December 20, 2010 at 15:23 | Report abuse |
    • x.mar

      I don't understand the point of this article. Chromium contamination is nothing new. Utility companies regularly test it. It contamination level can be easily obtained. for example Omaha, Nebraska:

      Chromium
      highest level detected: 8.71 ppb
      Range of level detected: 2.1-8.71 ppb
      Limit: 100 (MCLG) 100 (MCL)
      Violation: No
      Source: Discharge from
      steel and pulp mills;
      erosion of natural
      deposits

      December 20, 2010 at 15:34 | Report abuse |
    • mjm

      Dear Runswithbeer: Instead of anger or bitterness, become a hero and help all of us. Rat out these companies and promote your chromium water solution system. Who knows how the story will end?

      December 20, 2010 at 15:44 | Report abuse |
    • Lionheartwolf

      thats just plain stupid on the government/water companies part. if our best bet is to use a standard carbon filter to protect ourselves then it most likely wouldnt be in our tap water to being with. unless they are just so lazy or sloppy to begin with carbon filtering is already done.

      December 20, 2010 at 15:48 | Report abuse |
    • Ben

      Ever seen the movie the Crazies? stab stab, eeek! Darn water...

      December 20, 2010 at 15:54 | Report abuse |
    • ChrisC

      Really?

      December 20, 2010 at 16:14 | Report abuse |
    • Zenkmann

      If Ageek thinks that contaminated water systems serving 26 million people is not onerous, I would like to know how many people would he need for it to become so.

      December 20, 2010 at 16:14 | Report abuse |
    • Bh1024

      The cities were listed at the end of the article.
      1. Norman, Oklahoma
      2. Honolulu, Hawaii
      3. Riverside, California
      4. Madison, Wisconsin
      5. San Jose, California
      6. Tallahassee, Florida
      7. Omaha, Nebraska
      8. Albuquerque, New Mexico
      9. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
      10. Bend, Oregon
      11. Salt Lake City, Utah
      12. Ann Arbor, Michigan
      13. Atlanta, Georgia
      14. Los Angeles, California
      15. Bethesda, Maryland
      16. Phoenix, Arizona
      17. Washington, D.C.
      18. Chicago, Illinois
      19. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
      20. Villanova, Pennsylvania
      21. Sacramento, California
      22. Louisville, Kentucky
      23. Syracuse, New York
      24. New Haven, Connecticut
      25. Buffalo, New York
      26. Las Vegas, Nevada
      27. New York, New York
      28. Scottsdale, Arizona
      29. Miami, Florida
      30. Boston, Massachusetts
      31. Cincinnati, Ohio

      Not detectable: Indianapolis, Indiana; Plano, Texas; Reno, Nevada; San Antonio, Texas

      December 20, 2010 at 16:17 | Report abuse |
    • Daniel

      To get more in depth on this issue click on this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCZxdSJ_cxI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

      December 20, 2010 at 16:51 | Report abuse |
    • Casi Cook

      WHY IS THE BAD WATER ALL IN BIG US CITIES I IS NOT IN THE SMALL CITIES! HMMMM STRANGE!

      December 20, 2010 at 16:53 | Report abuse |
    • Sing

      Wow...A nice article and to the point it was frightening to see my city so high...especially after nagging the wife on getting a water filter and her reply was always "but the water is safe..then government says so". No the special intrests groups MONEY says so. OH and if you cannot find the cities listed in the "Link" you are computer challenged...take a class already and shut UP!

      December 20, 2010 at 17:23 | Report abuse |
    • SkatrSnaab

      HAHA all you haters! NJ didnt make the list.

      December 20, 2010 at 17:53 | Report abuse |
    • Matt

      The article is incredibly misleading. Chromium-6 found in 31 of 35 cities tested. What they are not forthcoming about is that the highest concentration found was 12.9 parts per billion (PPB). EPA maximum allowable concentration for Chromium-6 is 100 PPB. AND, 12.9 was the highest concentration BY FAR...the other 30 cities had concentrations in the range of 1-2 PPB. In conclusion...you're children are safe, despite the article writer's best efforts to convince you otherwise. Use a water filter and you will be just fine. If you don't believe me, look at the chart linked at the end of the article, it contains all the concentrations found.

      December 20, 2010 at 19:52 | Report abuse |
    • caprica

      Ageek- dude, it's 31 out of 35 cities! Not 31 out of all the cities! Yeah, 31 out of 35 is a BIG DEAL!

      December 20, 2010 at 20:21 | Report abuse |
    • chuck wagon

      Now that it has been determined there are contaminations in the water they should investigate to determine who is causing it. Purchasing a water filter may help immediately however it will not get to the source of the problem.

      December 20, 2010 at 21:54 | Report abuse |
    • chuck wagon

      I'll say it once more just in case. Now that it has been determined there are contaminations in the water they should investigate to determine who is causing it. Purchasing a water filter may help immediately however it will not get to the source of the problem.

      December 20, 2010 at 22:03 | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      It's all Bush's fault!! Just ask Obamama

      December 20, 2010 at 22:10 | Report abuse |
    • James

      Before you worry about what cities are involved, why not do a little science? CrVI in water is NOT, repeat NOT shown to be carcinogenic in ANY published study. Only AIRBORNE CrVI has been shown to be carcinogenic, and even then in HUGE concentrations, relatively.. We've ALL been drinking CrVI all our lives and peeing it right out again a couple hours later. Sheesh, people, do some science before you get all hyped up over it. And check your facts re: PG&E and Hinkley and Erin Brockovich. The movie is not closer to truth than Star Wars. EB got over $2 million in the settlement – which was about 10 times more than any resident. Her lawyer buddies got 40% right off the top. And PG&E passed the "judgement" on to it's rate payers. So who really made out?

      December 20, 2010 at 23:45 | Report abuse |
    • Fun-N-Sun

      Hey, Julia, have the time to do 31 or more movie sequels?

      December 21, 2010 at 00:54 | Report abuse |
    • lrees

      how is new orleans not in this?

      December 21, 2010 at 02:31 | Report abuse |
    • Roelof

      My nice just got married with a US soldier because of Afghanistan. I hope they have some clean water in California. Stupid mistake of them to go there. The state is bankrupt (we're not), 30% unemployment (here 4%), we are the supermodel when it comes to clean drinkingwater, USA is not. Oil, gas.. we got it, California? Beaches maybe, we also got those (planet widest).

      December 27, 2010 at 20:11 | Report abuse |
    • Roelof

      Holland don't go there, clean drinking water.

      December 27, 2010 at 20:21 | Report abuse |
    • Abdul Alla Akbar

      Alquada you infidels

      January 4, 2011 at 14:41 | Report abuse |
    • Ryan Flores

      floride lol see , im form the 3rd world son where the water is poisen lol ppl plz stop taking meds unlees RELLY want them i told ppl about this porblem befor but its seems like no one listens any mor im a yung man and see every thing but no way to do anything about it ..it harts me deep inside even my fam dont listen i guess im a precher but with no attention read ppl read
      im making a web page for those who wish to lreand from there mistakes it not finish nor will it ever be
      https://sites.google.com/site/observerscinos

      January 12, 2011 at 18:21 | Report abuse |
  2. Alarmed

    I was enjoying a cup of tap water as I read this. Now, I have a bitter taste in my mouth.

    December 20, 2010 at 04:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Frank

      The bad taste is the chromium-6 tumors in your stomach belching up carcinogenic slime into your throat.

      December 20, 2010 at 07:16 | Report abuse |
    • Jesus

      When I polish the chrome on my car, just spitting on the chrome seems to work better than any polish.

      December 20, 2010 at 09:31 | Report abuse |
    • Pete

      Frank, I'm pretty sure that was a pun.

      December 20, 2010 at 13:23 | Report abuse |
    • Dude

      your liver filters chromium out of your system. unless your liver is stressed out from alcohol and fried fatty junk

      December 20, 2010 at 13:54 | Report abuse |
    • Gretchen

      That's why I drink wine.

      December 20, 2010 at 21:09 | Report abuse |
  3. Wild Eye Mary

    Like Buddy asked... What cities?
    What are you half-assed "journalists"
    doing over there at CNN?
    Don't tease... You're losing respectability.

    December 20, 2010 at 04:42 | Report abuse | Reply
    • emma

      Exactly! half-ass journalism!
      The first thought that comes to anyone with an iq of 10+ is what cities! I wonder the iq of the journalist who wrote this newspiece

      December 20, 2010 at 05:12 | Report abuse |
    • Jamie

      There is an obvious link within the article with additional information.

      December 20, 2010 at 09:00 | Report abuse |
    • cindy

      if you used your wild eye you may have seen there is one on the article itself.

      December 20, 2010 at 10:19 | Report abuse |
    • Closed Eye Mary

      Why don't you use that "wild eye, Mary" to see the link in the article to the list of cities before rushing to bash CNN. And if you're that opposed to CNN, you know there are plenty of other websites to get your news from, right?

      December 20, 2010 at 10:50 | Report abuse |
    • Milton

      I trust very little of what I read in the press, and treat it as a starting point. News organizations are not in the business (remember, it is a business and they must be profitable to stay in business) of reporting the news, they are in the business of SELLING their version of the news. For some perspective, please read: http://stats.org/stories/2009/Are%20Chemicals%20PRESS%20RELEASE.pdf

      December 20, 2010 at 10:59 | Report abuse |
    • FatSean

      If you think CNN is bad, you should check out FoxNews! They out-right LIE in their headlines and the reading level of their articles makes USA Today look scholarly.

      December 20, 2010 at 13:53 | Report abuse |
    • Majestic

      Here are this cities (Hey, CNN – send me a check for doing YOUR job!)
      Norman, Okla. – 12.9 ppb
      Honolulu, Hi. – 2.00 ppb
      Riverside, Calif. – 1.69 ppb
      Madison, Wis. – 1.58 ppb
      San Jose, Calif. – 1.34 ppb
      Tallahassee, Fla. – 1.25 ppb
      Omaha, Neb. – 1.07 ppb
      Albuquerque, N.M. – 1.04 ppb
      Pittsburgh, Pa. – 0.88 ppb
      Bend, Ore. – 0.78 ppb
      Salt Lake City, Utah – 0.30 ppb
      Ann Arbor, Mich. – 0.21 ppb
      Atlanta, Ga. – 0.20 ppb
      Los Angeles, Calif. – 0.20 ppb
      Bethesda, Md. – 0.19 ppb
      Phoenix, Ariz. – 0.19 ppb
      Washington, D.C – 0.19 ppb
      Chicago, Ill. – 0.18 ppb
      Milwaukee, Wis. – 0.18 ppb
      Villanova, Pa. – 0.18 ppb
      Sacramento, Calif. – 0.16 ppb
      Louisville, Ky. – 0.14 ppb
      Syracuse, N.Y. – 0.12 ppb
      New Haven, Conn. – 0.08 ppb
      Buffalo, N.Y. – 0.07 ppb
      Las Vegas, Nev. – 0.06 ppb
      New York, N.Y. – 0.06 ppb
      Scottsdale, Ariz. – 0.05 ppb
      Miami, Fla. – 0.04 ppb
      Boston, Mass. – 0.03 ppb
      Cincinnati, Ohio – 0.03 ppb

      December 20, 2010 at 14:09 | Report abuse |
    • bob

      Actually, you are the half assed reader. Click the link to the article that lists it.

      December 20, 2010 at 16:31 | Report abuse |
  4. Allen

    Really, you write an article and didnt list the cities. Then you include a link to an EPA website that will not allow the public access to it with out donating? I can write a blog also – Hey everyone, water in 51 out of 50 states is wet. Yeah, I'm a journalist!

    December 20, 2010 at 04:43 | Report abuse | Reply
    • barbara

      applause, you read my mind. cnn is going down the drain with the cancerous water.

      December 20, 2010 at 04:46 | Report abuse |
    • Carol

      Yea, I am reading this article thinking I will get to review the list of cities. No, just wasteful info with no backup!

      December 20, 2010 at 05:40 | Report abuse |
    • Roadhunter

      Click the link in the article!!! Have you never used the internet before?

      December 20, 2010 at 13:23 | Report abuse |
  5. Dan

    An article about carcinogens in the tap water of 31 cities that doesn't list the cities. Let's see...the article was posted by Caitlin Hagan, CNN Medical Producer. Medical Producer? What the hell is that? It sure isn't a journalist.

    December 20, 2010 at 04:49 | Report abuse | Reply
    • AGeek

      She's apparently a shill, paid by the water filter manufacturers. Seems the most likely thing to me, since she managed to link a list of filters, but not the list of cities.

      December 20, 2010 at 07:20 | Report abuse |
  6. Tom

    Here's a map of the cities: http://www.ewg.org/chromium6-in-tap-water

    December 20, 2010 at 05:05 | Report abuse | Reply
    • HHB

      Thank you Tom! Really, what a ridiculous non-article, to blare the headline, then not list the cities.

      December 20, 2010 at 05:51 | Report abuse |
    • Roadhunter

      HHB, the link came from the article!! You just didn't bother to look for it before complaining, so someone else had to put it right in front of your face!

      December 20, 2010 at 13:24 | Report abuse |
  7. Jane

    THANKS TOM. THANKS FOR NOTHING BOGUS CNN ARTICLE.

    December 20, 2010 at 06:13 | Report abuse | Reply
    • DumbJaneDumb

      You know the link to that same map was highlighted in blue letters in the article, right? It's called a hyperlink; and when you click on it, it takes you to another website with additional information.

      December 20, 2010 at 10:53 | Report abuse |
  8. LA

    Not only did she not list the cities–which you can get to by using the filter link at the bottom of the article and singing in as a guest–but she listed Honolulu, HI, as being on the bad list when it is one of the top ten cities for having good water.

    December 20, 2010 at 06:18 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bert

      You've misread the chart.... Honolulu is second WORST for chromium-6.

      December 20, 2010 at 08:27 | Report abuse |
  9. Jane

    INTERESTING TO NOTE THE "BUY NOW" BUTTONS ON THE EWG'S ARTICLE LISTING WATER FILTERS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO REMOVE CHROMIUM.

    December 20, 2010 at 06:24 | Report abuse | Reply
    • AGeek

      One compound word: "kickbacks"

      December 20, 2010 at 07:21 | Report abuse |
  10. rachbell

    How about an easy to click on LIST? Is that asking for too much?

    December 20, 2010 at 06:36 | Report abuse | Reply
  11. omg

    What the fail????

    CNN did you outsource your editorial division to a bunch of kids in remote china?

    December 20, 2010 at 06:38 | Report abuse | Reply
  12. Indy

    Okay, is this site really a facade for FoxNews? Where is the list of cities? Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

    December 20, 2010 at 06:40 | Report abuse | Reply
  13. Freda

    Ummmmm, did I miss that list somewhere? I clicked every link....lol. Guess it's not here anywhere....lmao

    December 20, 2010 at 06:41 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Nancy

      http://www.ewg.org/chromium6-in-tap-water/findings here you will see the Citys and then there is a chart on next page after

      December 20, 2010 at 09:53 | Report abuse |
  14. redhatowl

    Thanks CNN, you're such a big help, not listing the cities!

    December 20, 2010 at 06:42 | Report abuse | Reply
  15. rachbell

    Ok, someone here posted the link to the list. How come Boston is on there? The main water source for Boston is the Quabbin Reservoir in the western part of the state and is the best and safest water around! Or does the EPA know where it comes from? Or is it a cause of the pipes they use?

    And, to top that, the website has a contact link for the Washington, DC that doesn't work! What else doesn't work there?

    December 20, 2010 at 06:42 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Evan

      if you read the article, you would see that the reason this is all coming out now is because no one was testing for this chemical in drinking water. that is what everyone should be freaking out about...not less than 1 PPB levels of Chrome 6.

      Your water is fine, this is just another weak attempt at scaring people on a slow news day.

      December 20, 2010 at 15:48 | Report abuse |
  16. Cath

    If you bother to "google" the topic, the report itself is being released today – this incredibly alarmist blurb was released without the list of cities – would have been helpful if it was more clearly highlighted that the list will be out on 12/20 – and then make sure to publish that list. This was picked up almost verbatim by dozens of news agencie.

    December 20, 2010 at 06:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  17. Kim

    you said you had a list of cities and robin said my county was one of them i was unable to find a list..was this all to have me download the program that was on robins page ??

    December 20, 2010 at 06:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. Jeri Massi

    What an incredibly stupid article. It makes the claim and then fails to list the cities that scored high for the toxin. Here is a URL to a map of the toxin levels:

    And by the way, prematurely releasing an article before all the facts are in is still stupid, and bad journalism.

    December 20, 2010 at 06:46 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. Indy

    Okay, found the site and the map with cities on it, thanks to Tom. When I tried to access it strictly with the link given though, it says you need to be a member and login. So, Robin is another one of these pretty faces with shallow minds. Not all her fault, though; that's what happens when you surf the net and get bits and pieces of news all the time. No depth for clarity and shallow story.

    December 20, 2010 at 06:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  20. Kathryn

    This isn't the first article online that has been written like a high school journal entry. WAKE UP CNN GET SOME BETTER WRITERS AND MAKE SURE THE CONTENT IS THERE ITS NOT THAT HARD....good lord! This is NOT journalism!!!

    December 20, 2010 at 06:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  21. TT

    Seriously, You actually released the article without the list of cities. Probably one of the worst articles ever written. Any High
    School English teacher would give it F. Where's the Editor?

    December 20, 2010 at 07:02 | Report abuse | Reply
  22. AJ

    http://www.ewg.org/chromium6-in-tap-water/findings

    Here is a helpful link.

    December 20, 2010 at 07:08 | Report abuse | Reply
  23. Deano

    If this study is supposed to be enlightening then why didn't they test NJ or DE. These states are a large part of the Chesapeake watershed. Surely they need to know what the levels are in these 2 states....

    December 20, 2010 at 07:09 | Report abuse | Reply
  24. AGeek

    If you *really* want to read about Chromium-6, read the EPA report, not the ewg.org one.
    http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0144.htm ..the section marked __I.A.2. Principal and Supporting Studies (Oral RfD) is sufficient (as it relates directly to drinking water concentrations).

    ..based on this, the only real city of concern here is Norman, OK.

    December 20, 2010 at 07:29 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bear

      OH MY GOD! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! Please... I guess we have to allow organizations of this ilk to publish their propaganda, but that doesn't mean top media organizations such as CNN have to perpetuate this stuff by publishing it. I think CNN's editorial staff needs a tune up.

      December 20, 2010 at 12:04 | Report abuse |
    • Se777en

      Wonderful. I live and grew up in Norman. I wonder if this had anything to do with my brain tumor.

      December 20, 2010 at 12:38 | Report abuse |
  25. Michael

    And BTW, back in Hinkley the Chromium-6 level was 24 ppm.... Which is extremely high for ANY molecule in ANY drinking water.... You will never find such a high reading in finished water of any other product, microbe, etc....

    December 20, 2010 at 07:34 | Report abuse | Reply
    • stan turecki

      gotta love articles like this. "there is poison in the water!" -but they never give you any background to make an informed decision about that fact. the highest level of contamination on the EWG map linked was 10 parts per billion. thats fully 2 THOUSAND times LOWER than the level of contamination in hinkley. my highly unscientific quick glance at the map shows that the majority of the map where chrome 6 was detected, it had concentrations on the lower end of the spectrum, at about 1 part per billion. thats TWENTY THOUSAND times lower than hinkley. is this a dangerous level? could this concentration cause so much as one single illness ever? well i dont know. and nor do the readers know unless additional information is included.

      December 20, 2010 at 08:35 | Report abuse |
  26. Nathan Granum

    Is Conyers,GA on the list?

    December 20, 2010 at 07:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  27. Adam

    Yep, another bait and switch, after following multiple links, I was sent to the Washington Poast webpage, still no information on the actual cities cited in the "report". CNN just jerking us around again, if it bleeds it leads, even if they don't have the full story, they say they do, and I waste time trying to find out if my family is safe, when, like I say, the cities have not even been posted. Thanks Robin.

    December 20, 2010 at 07:48 | Report abuse | Reply
  28. mercy

    Maybe the author, Caitlin Hagan, should read more carefully – or at least have someone check the facts. Honolulu, Hawaii was rated #6 in the TOP RATED WATER UTILITIES. Come on – get your facts straight before you sound off.

    December 20, 2010 at 07:48 | Report abuse | Reply
  29. virtuallyme

    link to full list reads:The following large utilities had insufficient data available and could not be included in the rankings:
    San Francisco County, CA (San Francisco Regional Water)
    Detroit, MI (City of Detroit Water Department)
    Kansas City, MO (Kansas City Water Department)
    Salt Lake City, UT (Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy)
    Virginia Beach, VA (City of Virginia Beach Water Department)
    Washington, DC (D.C. Water and Sewer Authority)
    Fairfax County, VA (Fairfax Water- Lorton Water Treatment Plant )

    then WHY is Fairfax County number 8?

    December 20, 2010 at 07:58 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. michael bahr

    How is this good journalism when they dont even list the cities? my 2nd grader could do a more informative report.

    December 20, 2010 at 08:01 | Report abuse | Reply
  31. camper

    Reeks of "Your kids will be dead by 930pm tonight, if you don't watch our news program at 10pm" journalism. Someone else mentioned it's an ad for water filtration systems, and I would tend to agree.

    December 20, 2010 at 08:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  32. JJ Baker

    It's lazy and irresponsible journalism to throw this article out there without any information on the actual water systems that both tested for Chromium-6 and that did not.

    It's even worse than CNN's recent article on contamination of butter by flame-retardant chemicals without an effort to name the manufacturer.

    December 20, 2010 at 08:27 | Report abuse | Reply
  33. Brooke

    Where is the list that substantiates this story? You list a few cities but, 3 does not make 31. Come on CNN , this looks like Fox News work here. Big holes in the story.

    December 20, 2010 at 08:33 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. Elle

    It's 5th rate reporting not to include the list of cities which did and did not have the pollutant.
    You can search the web and they all just repeat the same lousy story.

    December 20, 2010 at 08:34 | Report abuse | Reply
  35. D'Rello

    What Are Those Cities That Are Infected?

    December 20, 2010 at 08:34 | Report abuse | Reply
  36. Todd

    So you tell us there is 31 cities, but you dont tell us which ones they are. Are we suposed to guess??

    December 20, 2010 at 08:36 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Luke

      Guessing is an option Todd, but a better option would be to click on the link they the author provided you right in the article. Remember that most of the time when words are highlighted in blue, that means they are a link. Just use your mouse to hover the cursor over those words and click once with your left mouse button.

      December 20, 2010 at 09:23 | Report abuse |
    • AGeek

      Hey .. Luke. That link is a *new addition* or edit after the OP. The link *wasn't there* originally.

      December 20, 2010 at 11:35 | Report abuse |
  37. Mary Johnson

    I couldn't find a list of the cities either,how disappointing .I really thought there would be one.Robin probably thought a list would be there too.

    December 20, 2010 at 08:38 | Report abuse | Reply
  38. deborah lehan

    I read this article 3 times looking for the other cities also-
    please don't waste my time with "sound bite" news to read.

    December 20, 2010 at 08:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. Darren

    It seems people aren't readily finding if their city tested positive... click here for the report. http://www.ewg.org/chromium6-in-tap-water

    December 20, 2010 at 08:41 | Report abuse | Reply
  40. JAN

    YES, this happens a lot! WHERE is the list??!! Host says to go here, but then nothing. Are we expected to check daily??

    December 20, 2010 at 08:46 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. Lisa

    Hey is anyone at CNN reading these comments?

    December 20, 2010 at 08:59 | Report abuse | Reply
  42. the list of cities

    is in the article people! See the bold blue words? > top the EWG's list of cities with water supplies <
    click on them in the article

    December 20, 2010 at 09:05 | Report abuse | Reply
  43. Ashley

    Are you all idiots? Click the link and you can see all the cities.

    December 20, 2010 at 09:05 | Report abuse | Reply
    • AGeek

      No, we're not idiots. The link was an edit made after many of us pointed it out. This isn't a print magazine. The content can be edited. ..speaking of idiots..

      December 20, 2010 at 11:36 | Report abuse |
  44. Asmaria

    ...the agency has classified the toxic as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans."
    ...showing a broad risk of gastrointestinal tumors in rats and mice exposed to the toxic.

    The toxin.
    The TOXIN.

    Is it that hard to remember what nouns and adjectives are?

    December 20, 2010 at 09:06 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Grim

      Thank you! I was hoping that someone would point this out.

      December 20, 2010 at 10:28 | Report abuse |
  45. Mariela

    I would like to obtain access to the list...thanks!

    December 20, 2010 at 09:13 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Luke

      Then click on the link to the list.

      December 20, 2010 at 09:20 | Report abuse |
  46. al_beck

    Hey scare tactics media, list the cities or you are just as bad a Faux News! The sky is falling the sky is falling!

    December 20, 2010 at 09:18 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. Luke

    People who say the government is slow to act and they can't wait for the government to help probably never see that side of these issues. I work in engineering where my coworkers and I design municipal water treatment plants. We can design a plant to treat pretty much anything. How do municipalities pay for it though? People use use and use water. So very much is sprayed on lawns, poured in pools, dumped down the drain untouched. Uses are up and continue to go up every year even when populations remain unchanged. Even when governments want to act, they simply can't afford it. The public is demanding pristine water, but also low rates. They want jobs, but they they don't want the factory that pollutes. The public has to realize that as citizens they need to make sacrifices. Clean water costs money, so if you want it, you have to pay for it either in water rates or $1 at a time when you buy your Dasini. The choice is yours as a citizen.

    December 20, 2010 at 09:19 | Report abuse | Reply
    • spar10

      I agree that there is a lot of wasted water resource out there, but it is not all from residential sources. Industry, agriculture and municipalities waste tons of water too. I do not agree that we have to accept crud in our drinking water in exchange for job opportunities, that seems like a big step backwards.

      I have a private well, monitored by the county so I know what the water quality is like–no chlorine, no flouride, no hexavalent chromium. I do not pay for water use, but I do have to buy salt for the softener and the pump is electric, so the water use shows up in my electric bill. I have built-in incentives to conserving water.

      December 20, 2010 at 09:54 | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      I understand your position. Someone has to pay for the clean up. But no one is saying how that chromium=0-6 got there in the first placed. You can becha if big biz is behind the chromium-6 leakage, they will not pay to cllean it up.

      December 20, 2010 at 16:19 | Report abuse |
    • kswrkr

      The problem with bottled water (not any brand in particular) is that a lot of them use tap water, and unless they can guarantee the reverse osmosis process, there have been reports that water from a city water system is bottled and sold which may contain chemicals.

      December 20, 2010 at 16:46 | Report abuse |
  48. Lori G

    Do you people know how to read or use a computer? The link to the list is in the first sentence of the third paragraph, right after the three cities they named. I'm not a big fan of CNN, but don't call other people/companies names when you are less intelligent. Get serious.

    December 20, 2010 at 09:23 | Report abuse | Reply
    • AGeek

      Yes, please get serious. The link *wasn't there* when most of us made the comments. The article was edited and the link added. Welcome to the primary difference between a print magazine and an online article, you pompous cretin.

      December 20, 2010 at 11:38 | Report abuse |
  49. Phil, Ohio

    Yes, the link to the study is broken, so a lot of good this did.
    One article I found at the site is from 2006, so unless there is an update, its too late to worry about it.

    December 20, 2010 at 09:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  50. big_jean

    Wow I swear some of you people do not belong on the internet or using a computer. I was actually thinking the same thing? wheres the list of cities, but oh wait look a link...click....oh theres the list. this is the interwebs, learn to use your mouse.

    December 20, 2010 at 09:29 | Report abuse | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply to Tim THE water Guy


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.