Lawmakers ask Centers for Disease Control about Camp Lejeune's toxic water
RALEIGH — A bipartisan group of lawmakers is urging the Centers for Disease Control to complete a new, comprehensive report on the health effects of toxic tap water at the Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune.
The lawmakers want the agency to investigate whether people were exposed to airborne toxins inside buildings once contaminated wells at the North Carolina base were closed in 1985.
And they asked the agency to look into the feasibility of a “cancer incidence study” for Camp Lejeune.
The four senators and two representatives were reacting to news that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the CDC, intends to issue a less comprehensive report than the one it released in 1997. The original public health assessment was withdrawn four years ago because of incomplete data.
The lawmakers said they are concerned the agency will ignore “the potential for harmful exposures via inhalation” in the decade and a half since contaminated wells at the coastal North Carolina base were taken offline.
“Public Health Assessments are essential and critical to ensuring full and complete information about exposures to hazardous substances is available to the public,” the six legislators — Sens. Richard Burr and Kay Hagan, both of North Carolina; Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson, both of Florida; and Reps. Dennis Ross of Florida and John Dingell of Michigan — wrote to CDC Director Thomas R. Frieden on Aug. 9.
The lawmakers included the request for a cancer study in a follow-up letter on Friday.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.