• John R. Diener

    Ron Seely should have pointed out in his article, “Judge Blames Toxic Kewaunee County Wells…”, that the Wisconsin Department Natural Resources (WDNR) does not have the power to prevent further pollution. Only the State Legislature can take action; and that decision to take action can reference a WDNR recommendation or report. The real questions are, “Where was the (Federal) DNR and WDNR up to this point?” Why does it always take a crisis to move a governmental department to action? Every public drinking water well has to be tested and certified, no matter if it is for a private homeowner or a county/municipality public water well. I would start investigating the water quality tests results for the entire area under scrutiny as well as the State of Wisconsin DNR and various counties’ inspection agencies records for well water quality. You will probably be shocked at the findings…then follow the money.

  • LJA

    I posted this Dec. 2nd, but didn’t see it here; I’m guessing the links included were a bad idea so I stripped out the beginning of them. Otherwise I wouldn’t understand why the post would not be approved; my objective to help my neighbors aligns with that of this site. I know that you’d agree, its so important to get accurate information to our community. Thanks Much, LJA

    I beg of you PLEASE, for the sake of my neighbors and community, do more, serious, homework on molybdenum. I’m hoping with all hope you will diligently look into this specifically and help spread the TRUTH about molybdenum, as I’m sure you’re intending to do. First, I am not an advocate for the coal plant and I agree they need to be watched carefully in regards to the environment. Second, I am a resident of the affected area and am doing what I can to get this information to others who are concerned.

    Molybdenum is NOT HARMFUL. You read that correctly.

    I was scared to death when I heard this ‘problem’ in the area, I was ready to buy the reverse osmosis system and make sure all my family and friends were also taking precautions. I have loved ones with liver issues, so the claim that this could affect them acutely sent me reeling. Then I actually read the source the EPA cited as their resource, which is noted at the bottom. The report is large and complicated. Why the information has been disseminated incorrectly is probably a whole other topic, but the important thing for our community to know is they are not going to get sick from molybdenum.

    Important points are these:
    1. The alleged harmful effects are pulled from a report, Koval’skiy 1961, that was DISCREDITED by the same expert source the EPA uses for their guidelines, the Food and Nutrition Board Institute of Medicine.
    2. Recommended levels have been misinterpreted and relayed to the public as Maximum levels.
    3. Pregnant women recommended to ingest MORE Molybdenum in their diet.

    Source:
    Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc (2001) A Report of the Panel on Micronutrients, Subcommittees on Upper Reference Levels of Nutrients and of Interpretation and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes, and the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes Food and Nutrition Board Institute of Medicine Written in 2001, NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS, The National Academies: Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering and Medicine, Washington, D.C.
    nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10026&page=430

    other sources:
    American Cancer Society: cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/molybdenum
    World Health Organization:
    who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/molibdenum/en/
    Oregon State University:
    lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/molybdenum/