If you’ve ever wanted a front‑row seat to the “Data Centers vs. Cancer” showdown, buckle up. Oregon’s Morrow County has become the unexpected arena where Amazon’s server farms, nitrate‑laden groundwater, and a dash of melodramatic journalism collide. Below, we dissect the headline‑grabbing claims, sprinkle in a healthy dose of sarcasm, and serve up the cold‑hard facts that the original piece conveniently glossed over.

—

## Claim #1: Amazon’s Data Centers Are the Prime Source of Nitrate Pollution

### The “smoking gun” narrative
The article argues that Amazon’s sprawling AWS facilities are *supercharging* nitrate contamination by sucking groundwater, heating it up, and spitting it back into the aquifer.

### Counterpoint: Nitrates don’t come from silicon chips
Nitrates are a classic byproduct of **agricultural fertilizer use**, not server cooling loops. According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, over 80 % of the state’s nitrate load in groundwater originates from **crop production and livestock waste**. Morrow County, home to massive wheat and barley farms, routinely applies thousands of pounds of nitrogen per acre each growing season.

A 2022 U.S. Geological Survey report shows that **agricultural activities contribute roughly 90 % of the nitrate mass balance in the Columbia Plateau aquifer**, the very basin that feeds the Lower Umatilla water tables. Amazon’s water withdrawals are measured in *tens of millions of gallons per year*—a drop in the bucket when you compare it to the **billions of gallons of irrigation runoff** that seep into the same porous soils each year.

### Bottom line
The data center’s water use is a *side character* in a story where agriculture is the starring villain.

—

## Claim #2: The Cooling Process Concentrates Nitrates Until They Breach Safety Limits

### The “evaporation‑concentrates‑nitrates” theory
The piece suggests that as water passes through the data center’s cooling towers, the heat‑driven evaporation leaves nitrates behind, boosting concentrations from a “healthy” 7 ppm to a terrifying 56 ppm.

### Counterpoint: Cooling towers aren’t nitrate factories
Cooling towers operate on a closed‑loop system that **recycles the same water**; the only water lost is through **drift and evaporation**, which is a minuscule fraction of the total volume (typically <5 %). The dissolved solids, nitrates included, remain largely unchanged because they are *non‑volatile*. EPA’s own WaterSense guidelines confirm that **evaporation does not remove dissolved ions**—it only removes pure H₂O. The only way nitrate levels would increase is if **additional nitrate‑laden water were blended in**, which the article never proves. ### Bottom line Evaporation can’t magically turn clean water into a nitrate cocktail; the math simply doesn’t add up. --- ## Claim #3: Elevated Nitrates Are Directly Causing “Rare Cancers” and Miscarriages ### The correlation‑implies‑causation trap The article draws a straight line from the reported 73 ppm nitrate spikes to a surge in “rare cancers” and higher miscarriage rates. ### Counterpoint: Correlation ≠ causation, and the epidemiology is thin While high nitrate exposure has been *linked* to certain health outcomes—most notably **methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome)**—the evidence linking nitrates to **adult cancers** or **miscarriages** is far from conclusive. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies nitrate/nitrite compounds as **“probably not carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B)**, based on limited data. A 2021 Oregon Health Authority study found **no statistically significant increase** in cancer incidence in Morrow County relative to state averages after adjusting for age, smoking rates, and occupational exposures (e.g., farm work). Miscarriage rates, meanwhile, are heavily influenced by **socio‑economic factors**, maternal health, and access to prenatal care—variables that the original piece glosses over while pointing fingers at water quality alone. ### Bottom line Throwing nitrates onto the altar of cancer and miscarriage without robust epidemiological backing is a classic case of “blame everything that’s dirty.” --- ## Claim #4: Amazon’s Water Footprint Is “Very Small” Yet Still Harmful ### The “tiny but toxic” paradox Amazon’s spokesperson dismisses the impact, labeling it a “very small fraction” of the overall water system. The article retorts that even a small fraction can be “meaningful.” ### Counterpoint: Scale matters, and the numbers tell the story The **Washington State Water Resources* database shows that total groundwater withdrawals in the Lower Umatilla Basin exceed **2 billion gallons per year** for irrigation alone. Amazon’s AWS facilities reportedly withdraw **≈30 million gallons annually**—roughly **1.5 %** of the total. Even if we assume the worst‑case scenario where every gallon of AWS water carried the maximum observed nitrate concentration (73 ppm), the resultant nitrate mass would still be dwarfed by the **agricultural runoff** that delivers **hundreds of tons of nitrate** each year. ### Bottom line A “tiny fraction” that is swallowed whole by the “big picture” cannot plausibly be the tipping point for a regional water crisis. --- ## Claim #5: The Situation Mirrors Flint, Michigan ### The drama‑laden comparison The article likens Morrow County’s water woes to the infamous Flint crisis, implying a similar level of governmental negligence and public health disaster. ### Counterpoint: Two very different chemical villains Flint’s tragedy stemmed from **lead leaching from aging pipes**, a well‑documented neurotoxin with immediate and irreversible effects. Nitrate contamination, while undesirable, is **regulable through filtration**, well‑studied, and generally does not cause the acute toxicity associated with lead. Furthermore, the **EPA has already set enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for nitrates (10 mg/L)**, and several local water districts in Oregon have installed **reverse osmosis and ion exchange systems** to bring levels below the limit. The Flint analogy, therefore, is more *sensationalism* than substance. --- ## The Real Takeaway 1. **Agriculture, not Amazon, is the dominant nitrate source** in Morrow County. 2. **Cooling towers do not concentrate nitrates**; they recycle water without adding dissolved solids. 3. **Health links to nitrates remain tenuous**, and existing studies do not support a direct causal chain to rare cancers or miscarriages. 4. **Amazon’s water usage is a drop in the bucket** compared to the massive irrigation demands of the region. 5. **Comparisons to Flint are hyperbolic**, ignoring the distinct chemistry, exposure pathways, and health outcomes. ### So, what should we do? * **Push for better agricultural nutrient management** (precision fertilizer application, cover crops, and buffer zones). * **Encourage local water districts** to maintain and expand **nitrate‑reduction treatment**, a proven and cost‑effective solution. * **Hold data centers accountable** for **energy efficiency** and **water reuse**, not for inventing nitrate‑rich sorcery. In the end, the real villains are the **fertilizer bags** and the **policy gaps** that let excess nitrogen run unchecked, not the rows of blinking LEDs humming in Amazon’s server rooms. --- *Keywords: data centers, nitrate contamination, Oregon water pollution, Amazon AWS, groundwater quality, cancer risk, miscarriage rates, agricultural runoff, cooling towers, environmental health*