Taylor Made Water Systems

New York city tap water has tiny shrimp in it?  According to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, yes it does, but it’s nothing to be concerned about.  In cities like New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Seattle where the source water for tap water is above federal standards, no filtration is required.  Therefore, tiny marine life is natural and common in their tap water.  The copepods pictured below are small crustaceans that New Yorkers and others are swallowing every day. 

New York’s experts agree that they pose no health risk to humans, but they add that if you are concerned, a simple filter will remove the 1-2 millimeter, invisible shrimp. 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/whats-water-tiny-invisible-shrimp/

What’s in Your Water? Probably Tiny Invisible Shrimp

By Jeremy A. Kaplan

Published September 02, 2010

 

Copepods like this one are in every glass of New York city tap water — and that’s nothing to worry about.

Invisible shrimp could very well be living in every drop of water you drink — but that’s OK, they’re nothing to worry about.

A photo posted to the online sharing site Reddit has the Internet abuzz. It shows a tiny animal — a shrimp-like crustacean called a copepod — and announces that the reader found it in his New York City tap water.

"You swallow these invisible shrimp with every gulp of NYC tap water," trumpeted online blog Gizmodo about the discovery. Time magazine’s website also announced the find breathlessly, exhorting New Yorkers to "drink up" — but noting that the critters may pose a problem for many of the city’s Jewish residents.

"Besides a serious ‘ick’ factor, the copepods are technically crustaceans, which means they aren’t kosher for the city’s large Orthodox, observant Jewish population," the site warned.

It’s all true. There are, indeed, copepods in New York’s drinking water — and the reason they’re there is that the city’s water is superb for drinking. In fact, people across the country with excellent natural water supplies swallow invisible bugs like these every day.

Most copepods are so small — barely 1 to 2 millimeters long — that they’re more or less transparent. And they can be found in most freshwater habitats, including the reservoirs that supply public drinking water to cities like New York.

"It’s one of those interesting facts you learn about local drinking water — but it’s in no way dangerous," Farrell Sklerov, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), told FoxNews.com.

He explained that many cities filter their water, but if the water quality exceeds federal standards — which New York City tap water does — it doesn’t require filtering, a process that would remove the copepods. Among other cities that don’t filter their water are Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Sklerov said.

He said the copepods "pose no risk to human health. It’s not something that’s regulated because there’s no harmful effects from them."

A representative of NOAA’s Fisheries Services explained that copepods are a form of plankton, the minuscule creatures that form the majority of the biomass in the ocean and feed many animals, notably whales.

"There are areas that have blooms of copepods at certain times of year, such as Cape Cod bay in the spring," said NOAA’s Teri Frady. "Right whales eat them, and that’s why you see right whales near Cape Cod at that time of year."

They’re also harmless for humans, though if you’re disturbed, simply pass your water through an ordinary, over-the-counter filter.

Many people do have allergies to crustaceans, the large group of shellfish that includes lobsters, shrimp and copepods, raising the specter of allergic reactions to tap water. That’s probably not a concern, said Clifford W. Bassett, medical director of Allergy and Asthma Care of NY and faculty, NYU School of Medicine and Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine Long Island College Hospital..

"Shellfish allergy has risen to be one of the most common food allergens in the US, in adults. Although not studied formally to my knowledge, in general, there needs to be exposure to an allergen, and be significant enough to cause an immune response in an allergic individual, for symptoms to occur," he told FoxNews.com.

In any event,  I suspect the "dilutional" effects of drinking water most likely would reduce the risk," Bassett said.  

"Any individual who suspects they may have a food allergy should be seen by an allergist for proper evaluation and management of this condition."

And don’t worry. The bugs are kosher.

In a 2004 article in The Jewish Press, Rabbi David Berger, a professor of history at the City University Graduate Center, said, "The notion that God would have forbidden something that no one could know about for thousands of years, thus causing wholesale, unavoidable violation of the Torah, offends our deepest instincts about the character of both the Law and its Author."

So drink up. The shrimp’s on the house.

Okay, so that’s not a huge shocker of a headline to most of us, but here’s a pretty easy tip to lose a few pounds based on new Virginia Tech research.  Drinking a half liter (16.9 fl ounces) of water before meals helped the trial participants lose more weight and keep it off.  The researchers haven’t figured out exactly why this works, and there are many possible explanations, but as they say, it works and it’s easy, so give it a shot. 

 

http://www.economist.com/node/16881791?story_id=16881791

Drink till you drop

A magic elixir is shown to promote weight loss

 

CONSUME more water and you will become much healthier, goes an old wives’ tale. Drink a glass of water before meals and you will eat less, goes another. Such prescriptions seem sensible, but they have little rigorous science to back them up.

Until now, that is. A team led by Brenda Davy of Virginia Tech has run the first randomised controlled trial studying the link between water consumption and weight loss. A report on the 12-week trial, published earlier this year, suggested that drinking water before meals does lead to weight loss. At a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Boston this week, Dr Davy unveiled the results of a year-long follow-up study that confirms and expands that finding.

The researchers divided 48 inactive Americans, aged 55 to 75, into two groups. Members of one were told to drink half a litre of water (a bit more than an American pint) shortly before each of three daily meals. The others were given no instructions on what to drink. Before the trial, all participants had been consuming between 1,800 and 2,200 calories a day. When it began, the women’s daily rations were slashed to 1,200 calories, while the men were allowed 1,500. After three months the group that drank water before meals had lost about 7kg (15½lb) each, while those in the thirsty group lost only 5kg.

Dr Davy confidently bats away some obvious doubts about the results. There is no selection bias, she observes, since this is a randomised trial. It is possible that the water displaced sugary drinks in the hydrated group, but this does not explain the weight loss because the calories associated with any fizzy drinks consumed by the other group had to fall within the daily limits. Moreover, the effect seems to be long-lasting. In the subsequent 12 months the participants have been allowed to eat and drink what they like. Those told to drink water during the trial have, however, stuck with the habit—apparently they like it. Strikingly, they have continued to lose weight (around 700g over the year), whereas the others have put it back on.

Why this works is obscure. But work it does. It’s cheap. It’s simple. And unlike so much dietary advice, it seems to be enjoyable too

Corporate Accountability International, a nonprofit group, reported the bottled water spending of 5 states – Maryland, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon.  Spending ranged from $78,000 to $475,000.  Citing the irony of the government itself choosing bottled water over tap water (regulated and declared “safe” by our government), the group called on the states to stop spending money on bottled water. 

 

State spends $200,000 on bottled water

According to a new report released today, the state of Maryland spent at least $200,000 on bottled water last year.

The report, called Getting States Off the Bottle, was released by Corporate Accountability International, a membership nonprofit that calls out corporations on their "irresponsible and dangerous" actions.

The group says water bottling companies scare the public into drinking only bottle water that fouls the environment and burdens the budget. But in about 44 percent of cases, bottle water is tap water. At the same time state and local governments are buying into the companies’ PR campaign that local tap water is unsafe, the governments are failing to invest in proper upkeep of water infrastructure, the report says.

The report authors have taken a look at state bottled water expenditures — though a real look is tough because a lot of the water purchases are hard to track. This is the second installment of the report and includes five states. Maryland is one. The others are Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico and Oregon. The range of spending was between $78,000 and $475,000 during fiscal ‘09.

“Plastic water bottles are a major contributor to waste in our stream, rivers, and bay.” said Mary Roby, executive director of Herring Run Watershed Association, in a statement. She participated in an event to draw attention to the bottled water today in Druid Hill Park. She and others called on Gov. O’Malley to cancel state spending on bottled water.

Supporters say more than 100 cities and three states (Illinois, Virginia and New York) already have cut spending on bottled water or upped their contribution to public water.

Corporate Accountability International says officials in Gov. O’Malley’s office have said they will  work on reducing spending on bottled water and continue to invest in public water. Already the state has funneled $119 million in stimulus money to water quality and drinking water projects in the state. The group says public water systems across the country need about $22 billion in investment.

The group also wants other public workers — and the public — to cut bottled water use in non-emergency situations. Officials there say surveys show a third of people who had switched to bottled water have recently switched back.

Are you one of them?

 

Mother Jones put out another article on Bottled Water, citing the distance traveled by many top bottled water brands and the associated carbon emissions created by the transportation of the bottle to San Francisco (results will vary if you live on the East Coast, but you probably know that).  For those who wonder why bottled water is picked on when we import spices, food, drinks, etc. from all over the world, the main point is that this is water.  And water is water.  Everywhere.  Two hydrogens and one oxygen.  There may be variations in the amount of minerals in the water and the makeup of those minerals, but water is water.  We have local spring water, local purified water, local artesian water, local sparkling water, and any water you can think of right here in the United States.  So, there’s no need to ship an 18 ounce glass bottle over 6,000 miles to quench our thirst.  It’s all right here – if you have to go bottled, at least go local bottled.

Or, you can purify your own at home (shameless plug). 

 

How Far Did Voss and San Pellegrino Travel to My Whole Foods?

We charted the miles per bottle for nine top water brands.

— By Jen Phillips

September/October 2009 Issue

NAME SOURCE MILES TO SF BOTTLE WEIGHT (IN OZ.) CO2 (TRAVEL ONLY; LBS./1 L. BOTTLE) SELLING POINT Evian(Danone) Evian-les-Bains, France 6,265 3.35 .61 "French Alps" Volvic(Danone) Volvic, Auvergne, France 6,255 2.34 .59 drawn from "deep inside the lush, green ancient volcanoes" San Pellegrino(Nestlé) San Pellegrino Terme, Italy 6,135 17.74 (glass) .80 "preferred by top restaurants" Perrier(Nestlé) Vergeze, France 5,900 17.61 (glass) .63 "50 million bubbles" Fiji Water Yaqara Valley, Viti Levu, Fiji 5,470 4.15 .49 "untouched by man" Voss Hordaland County, southern Norway 5,100 18.93 (glass) .57 "pure water unlike any other" 365 (Whole Foods) Shasta, California 223 1.5 .07 "replenish*refresh*rehydrate" Balance Baxter, California 149 2.14 .06 "Australian flower essences" Dasani(Coca-Cola) San Leandro, California 22 1.94 .01 "live positively"

The New York Times is taking a deep look at tap water through a series of articles examining various aspects of tap water, pollution, and related issues.  The following article looks at the 35 year old Safe Drinking Water Act, which regulates 91 contaminates in our tap water.  The basic premise of the article is that with over 60,000 chemicals in use in the U.S., the number of regulated contaminants is inadequate and leading to “legal” water that still presents serious health risks.

My two favorite lines from the article:

• Dr. Parekh has struggled to make his case. “People don’t understand that just because water is technically legal, it can still present health risks,” he said. (Yikes!)
• “They supposedly discovered these chemicals, and then they ruined the reservoir by putting black pimples all over it,” said Laurie Pepper, whose home overlooks the manmade lake (this line is funnier when read in the context of the article). 

So, what’s the solution?  Black balls on reservoirs to block sunlight, thereby preventing some contaminants from converting to “likely” cancer causing agents?  I cannot believe this was actually done.  Thrown around in a brainstorming session?  Sure.  Drawn up on a cocktail napkin?  Absolutely?  But, workers actually dumped a bunch of balls into a real live reservoir. Wow.   I am not saying that it cannot work.  It may even be the best solution.  I just can’t believe it was actually done.

As for the solution, you cannot regulate and test for 60,000 chemicals. Plus, many of those chemicals are likely not harmful.  But, as the article states there are many harmful chemicals that are not regulated.  And some of the maximum “legal” limits for certain chemicals still allow a harmful level of contaminants in our drinking water.  Eliminating all of these chemicals entirely would be cost prohibitive and unnecessary.  As I’ve mentioned many times, the great majority of tap water is not used for drinking water, but for irrigation, toilets, showers, laundry, etc.  To me, calling tap water “drinking water” is misleading as it presumes all tap water will be consumed when that is clearly not the case.  In my mind, the municipalities should deliver us good, safe “tap water” and those of us who want a higher standard for the relatively tiny percentage that is consumed as “drinking water” should treat it ourselves.  If a technology comes along to purify all tap water to drinking water standards that is not cost prohibitive, that would be great.  But, until then, a small investment in a quality reverse osmosis unit is a pretty good bet. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/us/17water.html?_r=1&sudsredirect=true

That Tap Water Is Legal but May Be Unhealthy

Irfan Khan/The Los Angeles Times, via Associated Press

This Los Angeles reservoir contained chemicals that sunlight converted to compounds associated with cancer. The city used plastic balls to block the sun, but nearby homeowners asked why, if the water didn’t violate the law.

By CHARLES DUHIGG

Published: December 16, 2009

The 35-year-old federal law regulating tap water is so out of date that the water Americans drink can pose what scientists say are serious health risks — and still be legal.

Toxic Waters

Outdated Laws

Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

What’s in Your Water

The data was collected by an advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group, who shared it with The Times.  Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Government and independent scientists have scrutinized thousands of those chemicals in recent decades, and identified hundreds associated with a risk of cancer and other diseases at small concentrations in drinking water, according to an analysis of government records by The New York Times.

But not one chemical has been added to the list of those regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000.

Other recent studies have found that even some chemicals regulated by that law pose risks at much smaller concentrations than previously known. However, many of the act’s standards for those chemicals have not been updated since the 1980s, and some remain essentially unchanged since the law was passed in 1974.

All told, more than 62 million Americans have been exposed since 2004 to drinking water that did not meet at least one commonly used government health guideline intended to help protect people from cancer or serious disease, according to an analysis by The Times of more than 19 million drinking-water test results from the District of Columbia and the 45 states that made data available.

In some cases, people have been exposed for years to water that did not meet those guidelines.

But because such guidelines were never incorporated into the Safe Drinking Water Act, the vast majority of that water never violated the law.

Some officials overseeing local water systems have tried to go above and beyond what is legally required. But they have encountered resistance, sometimes from the very residents they are trying to protect, who say that if their water is legal it must be safe.

Dr. Pankaj Parekh, director of the water quality division for the City of Los Angeles, has faced such criticism. The water in some city reservoirs has contained contaminants that become likely cancer-causing compounds when exposed to sunlight.

To stop the carcinogens from forming, the city covered the surface of reservoirs, including one in the upscale neighborhood of Silver Lake, with a blanket of black plastic balls that blocked the sun.

Then complaints started from owners of expensive houses around the reservoir. “They supposedly discovered these chemicals, and then they ruined the reservoir by putting black pimples all over it,” said Laurie Pepper, whose home overlooks the manmade lake. “If the water is so dangerous, why can’t they tell us what laws it’s violated?”

Dr. Parekh has struggled to make his case. “People don’t understand that just because water is technically legal, it can still present health risks,” he said. “And so we encounter opposition that can become very personal.”

Some federal regulators have tried to help officials like Dr. Parekh by pushing to tighten drinking water standards for chemicals like industrial solvents, as well as a rocket fuel additive that has polluted drinking water sources in Southern California and elsewhere. But those efforts have often been blocked by industry lobbying.

Drinking water that does not meet a federal health guideline will not necessarily make someone ill. Many contaminants are hazardous only if consumed for years. And some researchers argue that even toxic chemicals, when consumed at extremely low doses over long periods, pose few risks. Others argue that the cost of removing minute concentrations of chemicals from drinking water does not equal the benefits.

Moreover, many of the thousands of chemicals that have not been analyzed may be harmless. And researchers caution that such science is complicated, often based on extrapolations from animal studies, and sometimes hard to apply nationwide, particularly given that more than 57,400 water systems in this country each deliver, essentially, a different glass of water every day.

Government scientists now generally agree, however, that many chemicals commonly found in drinking water pose serious risks at low concentrations.

And independent studies in such journals as Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Environmental Health Perspectives; American Journal of Public Health; and Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, as well as reports published by the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that millions of Americans become sick each year from drinking contaminated water, with maladies from upset stomachs to cancer and birth defects.

More…

 

Okay, so that is pretty alarming.  Twenty percent is a significant figure.  According to the New York Times, this figure includes only significant violations, not paperwork or minor problems.  One in five of our water treatment systems have violated our own Drinking Water standards for “Safe” water.  Yikes!

Here are some highlights of what they found in water data since 2004:

• Over 3 million Americans were exposed to illegal levels of arsenic and radioactive contaminants through their tap water
• Arsenic Standards:  “A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.”  Double Yikes!
• In NY, over 200 water systems delivered illegal levels of bacteria in their tap water.
• Up to “19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water” 

The politicians will continue to point fingers to deflect blame and while they do, very little will change.  The US does need to address its water issues and a serious effort will be required to solve the many issues.  Providing safe drinking water to everyone in the US is no easy task and we realistically cannot expect perfection.  In the meantime, however, I would still suggest taking matters into your own hands and providing your own level of protection with a quality reverse osmosis system.  Yes, self promotion once again, but the New York Times brought it up, not me!

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34323634/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/page/2/

Millions in U.S. drink dirty water, records show

Only 6 percent of systems that broke law since ’04 were fined, punished

By Charles Duhigg

updated 4:48 a.m. PT, Tues., Dec . 8, 2009

More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

‘Top priority’
On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about the agency’s enforcement of drinking-water safety laws. The E.P.A. is expected to announce a new policy for how it polices the nation’s 54,700 water systems.

“This administration has made it clear that clean water is a top priority,” said an E.P.A. spokeswoman, Adora Andy, in response to questions regarding the agency’s drinking water enforcement. The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, this year announced a wide-ranging overhaul of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into waterways.

“The previous eight years provide a perfect example of what happens when political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment,” Ms. Andy added.

Water pollution has become a growing concern for some lawmakers as government oversight of polluters has waned. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, in 2007 asked the E.P.A. for data on Americans’ exposure to some contaminants in drinking water.

The New York Times has compiled and analyzed millions of records from water systems and regulators around the nation, as part of a series of articles about worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

Carcinogens
An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state. In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.

However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.

The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority.

“There is significant reluctance within the E.P.A. and Justice Department to bring actions against municipalities, because there’s a view that they are often cash-strapped, and fines would ultimately be paid by local taxpayers,” said David Uhlmann, who headed the environmental crimes division at the Justice Department until 2007.

“But some systems won’t come into compliance unless they are forced to,” added Mr. Uhlmann, who now teaches at the University of Michigan law school. “And sometimes a court order is the only way to get local governments to spend what is needed.”

A half-dozen current and former E.P.A. officials said in interviews that they tried to prod the agency to enforce the drinking-water law, but found little support.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”

The majority of drinking water violations since 2004 have occurred at water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, where resources and managerial expertise are often in short supply.

It is unclear precisely how many American illnesses are linked to contaminated drinking water. Many of the most dangerous contaminants regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act have been tied to diseases like cancer that can take years to develop.

But scientific research indicates that as many as 19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. Certain types of cancer — such as breast and prostate cancer — have risen over the past 30 years, and research indicates they are likely tied to pollutants like those found in drinking water.

Informal methods
The violations counted by the Times analysis include only situations where residents were exposed to dangerous contaminants, and exclude violations that involved paperwork or other minor problems.

In response to inquiries submitted by Senator Boxer, the E.P.A. has reported that more than three million Americans have been exposed since 2005 to drinking water with illegal concentrations of arsenic and radioactive elements, both of which have been linked to cancer at small doses.

In some areas, the amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit, according to E.P.A. data.

But federal regulators fined or punished fewer than 8 percent of water systems that violated the arsenic and radioactive standards. The E.P.A., in a statement, said that in a majority of situations, state regulators used informal methods — like providing technical assistance — to help systems that had violated the rules.

But many systems remained out of compliance, even after aid was offered, according to E.P.A. data. And for over a quarter of systems that violated the arsenic or radioactivity standards, there is no record that they were ever contacted by a regulator, even after they sent in paperwork revealing their violations.

Those figures are particularly worrisome, say researchers, because the Safe Drinking Water Act’s limits on arsenic are so weak to begin with. A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.

Despite the expected announcement of reforms, some mid-level E.P.A. regulators say they are skeptical that any change will occur.

“The same people who told us to ignore Safe Drinking Water Act violations are still running the divisions,” said one mid-level E.P.A. official. “There’s no accountability, and so nothing’s going to change.”

---

Taylor Made Water is having a warehouse sale this Friday from 10-4.  We’re offering “experienced” equipment at rock bottom prices to clean out our warehouse.

Get rid of the bottled water in your house and have your own pure water any time you want it.  We’ll have a full line of gear available from full 6 stage purification coolers with hot, cold, and room temp purified water to under counter filters.  Now is your chance to get a commercial grade water purification system and eliminate bottled water from your life.  We’ll also have water pumps, large water tanks, filters, and a host of other items.

Also check out our Keurig coffee brewers, Kcups, fresh roasted coffee, and more!!

10-4 Friday November 6!!

1915 Mark Court, Suite 110, Concord, CA.

 

 

According to a new report by the New York Times, 1 in 10 Americans have been exposed to dangerous chemicals in their tap water.  Even though I have seen some of this before, this is a pretty scary article (it’s worth reading the entire 7 pages).  In a community only 17 miles from a State Capitol, residents apply lotion after showering to relieve the burning sensation caused by tap water?  Really?  And teeth are capped because the tap water destroyed a child’s enamel.  Yikes!  The video is even worse.  The kids’ bath time is awful?  Bath time with my kids was a blast (albeit a messy one) and that is how it is supposed to be. 

And yes, this is happening right here in the United States in 2009.  Municipalities cannot control everything that goes into our drinking water supplies.  Nor can they test for every possible contaminant.  So, this kind of contamination will happen.  Not everywhere, of course.  And eventually, it will be discovered and remedied.  But, the problem is that by then it will be too late.  So, protect yourself – get a reverse osmosis unit.  No link this time – I’m starting to feel guilty about the blatant self promotion. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

TOXIC WATERS

Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Ryan Massey, 7, shows his caps. Dentists near Charleston, W.Va., say pollutants in drinking water have damaged residents’ teeth. Nationwide, polluters have violated the Clean Water Act more than 500,000 times.

Jennifer Hall-Massey knows not to drink the tap water in her home near Charleston, W.Va.

 

The New York Times surveyed violations of the Clean Water Act in every state, and the response by state regulators.

 

How Safe Is Your Water? (September 13, 2009)

Toxic Waters

Unchecked Pollution

Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Jennifer Hall-Massey relies on drinking water that is brought in by truck and stored in barrels on her porch near Charleston, W.Va.

 

In fact, her entire family tries to avoid any contact with the water. Her youngest son has scabs on his arms, legs and chest where the bathwater — polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals — caused painful rashes. Many of his brother’s teeth were capped to replace enamel that was eaten away.

Neighbors apply special lotions after showering because their skin burns. Tests show that their tap water contains arsenic, barium, lead, manganese and other chemicals at concentrations federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage the kidneys and nervous system.

“How can we get digital cable and Internet in our homes, but not clean water?” said Mrs. Hall-Massey, a senior accountant at one of the state’s largest banks.

She and her husband, Charles, do not live in some remote corner of Appalachia. Charleston, the state capital, is less than 17 miles from her home.

“How is this still happening today?” she asked.

When Mrs. Hall-Massey and 264 neighbors sued nine nearby coal companies, accusing them of putting dangerous waste into local water supplies, their lawyer did not have to look far for evidence. As required by state law, some of the companies had disclosed in reports to regulators that they were pumping into the ground illegal concentrations of chemicals — the same pollutants that flowed from residents’ taps.

But state regulators never fined or punished those companies for breaking those pollution laws.

This pattern is not limited to West Virginia. Almost four decades ago, Congress passed the Clean Water Act to force polluters to disclose the toxins they dump into waterways and to give regulators the power to fine or jail offenders. States have passed pollution statutes of their own. But in recent years, violations of the Clean Water Act have risen steadily across the nation, an extensive review of water pollution records by The New York Times found.

In the last five years alone, chemical factories, manufacturing plants and other workplaces have violated water pollution laws more than half a million times. The violations range from failing to report emissions to dumping toxins at concentrations regulators say might contribute to cancer, birth defects and other illnesses.

However, the vast majority of those polluters have escaped punishment. State officials have repeatedly ignored obvious illegal dumping, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which can prosecute polluters when states fail to act, has often declined to intervene.

Because it is difficult to determine what causes diseases like cancer, it is impossible to know how many illnesses are the result of water pollution, or contaminants’ role in the health problems of specific individuals.

But concerns over these toxins are great enough that Congress and the E.P.A. regulate more than 100 pollutants through the Clean Water Act and strictly limit 91 chemicals or contaminants in tap water through the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Regulators themselves acknowledge lapses. The new E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said in an interview that despite many successes since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, today the nation’s water does not meet public health goals, and enforcement of water pollution laws is unacceptably low. She added that strengthening water protections is among her top priorities. State regulators say they are doing their best with insufficient resources.

The Times obtained hundreds of thousands of water pollution records through Freedom of Information Act requests to every state and the E.P.A., and compiled a national database of water pollution violations that is more comprehensive than those maintained by states or the E.P.A. (For an interactive version, which can show violations in any community, visit www.nytimes.com/toxicwaters.)

In addition, The Times interviewed more than 250 state and federal regulators, water-system managers, environmental advocates and scientists.

That research shows that an estimated one in 10 Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains dangerous chemicals or fails to meet a federal health benchmark in other ways.

Those exposures include carcinogens in the tap water of major American cities and unsafe chemicals in drinking-water wells. Wells, which are not typically regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, are more likely to contain contaminants than municipal water systems.

Because most of today’s water pollution has no scent or taste, many people who consume dangerous chemicals do not realize it, even after they become sick, researchers say.

But an estimated 19.5 million Americans fall ill each year from drinking water contaminated with parasites, bacteria or viruses, according to a study published last year in the scientific journal Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. That figure does not include illnesses caused by other chemicals and toxins.

Enlarge This Image

Damon Winter/The New York Times

A water sample collected from a water heater by Patty Sebok, a neighbor of Jennifer Hall-Massey. Residents say such water is typical and has destroyed toilets, dishwashers and washing machines.

U.S.

Toxic Waters: Coal in the Water

Jennifer Hall-Massey of Prenter, W.Va., explains how water pollution, which she believes is caused by nearby coal companies, has impacted her family and community.

Clay Massey, 6, waits for his mother to put prescription ointment on painful scabs and rashes that she said were caused by polluted bath water.

In the nation’s largest dairy states, like Wisconsin and California, farmers have sprayed liquefied animal feces onto fields, where it has seeped into wells, causing severe infections. Tap water in parts of the Farm Belt, including cities in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Indiana, has contained pesticides at concentrations that some scientists have linked to birth defects and fertility problems.

In parts of New York, Rhode Island, Ohio, California and other states where sewer systems cannot accommodate heavy rains, untreated human waste has flowed into rivers and washed onto beaches. Drinking water in parts of New Jersey, New York, Arizona and Massachusetts shows some of the highest concentrations of tetrachloroethylene, a dry cleaning solvent that has been linked to kidney damage and cancer. (Specific types of water pollution across the United States will be examined in future Times articles.)

The Times’s research also shows that last year, 40 percent of the nation’s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once, according to an analysis of E.P.A. data. Those violations ranged from failing to maintain proper paperwork to allowing carcinogens into tap water. More than 23 million people received drinking water from municipal systems that violated a health-based standard.

In some cases, people got sick right away. In other situations, pollutants like chemicals, inorganic toxins and heavy metals can accumulate in the body for years or decades before they cause problems. Some of the most frequently detected contaminants have been linked to cancer, birth defects and neurological disorders.

Records analyzed by The Times indicate that the Clean Water Act has been violated more than 506,000 times since 2004, by more than 23,000 companies and other facilities, according to reports submitted by polluters themselves. Companies sometimes test what they are dumping only once a quarter, so the actual number of days when they broke the law is often far higher. And some companies illegally avoid reporting their emissions, say officials, so infractions go unrecorded.

Environmental groups say the number of Clean Water Act violations has increased significantly in the last decade. Comprehensive data go back only five years but show that the number of facilities violating the Clean Water Act grew more than 16 percent from 2004 to 2007, the most recent year with complete data.

Polluters include small companies, like gas stations, dry cleaners, shopping malls and the Friendly Acres Mobile Home Park in Laporte, Ind., which acknowledged to regulators that it had dumped human waste into a nearby river for three years.

They also include large operations, like chemical factories, power plants, sewage treatment centers and one of the biggest zinc smelters, the Horsehead Corporation of Pennsylvania, which has dumped illegal concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, chlorine and selenium into the Ohio River. Those chemicals can contribute to mental retardation and cancer.

Some violations are relatively minor. But about 60 percent of the polluters were deemed in “significant noncompliance” — meaning their violations were the most serious kind, like dumping cancer-causing chemicals or failing to measure or report when they pollute.

Finally, the Times’s research shows that fewer than 3 percent of Clean Water Act violations resulted in fines or other significant punishments by state officials. And the E.P.A. has often declined to prosecute polluters or force states to strengthen their enforcement by threatening to withhold federal money or take away powers the agency has delegated to state officials.

next page…

 

Recent findings by the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) show higher than acceptable levels of Atrazine, an “endocrine disrupter” in many US water supplies.  NRDC’s theory is that spikes in Atrazine occur after heavy rains and after spring when the herbicide is applied to crops.  The EPA, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, requires municipalities to test for such contaminants four times per year with a limit of 3 parts per billion as “safe.”  NRDC argues that this limit is too high and testing should be done more often, especially when spikes are likely.

Luckily, Atrazine is fairly easy to remove with a high quality carbon filter.  Even more luckily, we carry many of those…

 

(more…)

 

Is it the beginning of the end for bottled water?  Have we finally had enough and will come to our senses?  Certainly, there is a good deal of momentum for stopping the exponential growth of bottled water.  According to this Washington Post article, sales and profits for bottled water companies are dropping for the first time in six years.  The combination of a bad economy and a relentless barrage of environmental concerns about bottled water have contributed to the decline.  Specifically, the waste associated with plastic bottles, the fuel and transportation costs associated with shipping bottled water around the globe, and the environmental impact of bottled water in general are in the public eye continuously.  This, and the economy, are finally contributing to drops in bottled water sales for many major bottlers.

Is bottled water dead?  I don’t think so.  But, purified tap water and a re-usable bottle are making considerable progress against a formerly formidable foe. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203074.html

 

Bottled Water Boom Appears Tapped Out

Environmental Concerns, Recession Put Crimp in Sales

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 13, 2009

The recession has finally answered the question that centuries of philosophers could not: The glass is half-empty.

That’s because sales of bottled water have fallen for the first time in at least five years, assailed by wrathful environmentalists and budget-conscious consumers, who have discovered that tap water is practically free. Even Nestle, the country’s largest seller of bottled water, is beginning to feel a bit parched. On Wednesday, it reported that profits for the first half of the year dropped 2.7 percent, its first decline in six years.

The biggest loser? Water.

"It’s an obvious way to cut back," said Joan Holleran, director of research for market research firm Mintel. "People might still be buying bottled water, but you can bet that they’re refilling those bottles."

The news delighted environmentalists, who have long berated the industry for wasting natural resources and stuffing landfills with plastic bottles. "I thought we’d never be able to impact sales of bottled water, and all of a sudden it’s really gained momentum," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of advocacy group Food & Water Watch. "I think we’re making real progress."

Not so long ago, bottled water was bubbling. It climbed up the ranks of America’s favorite beverages in recent years, beating out juice to become the third most popular in 2008, according to Mintel. (Soda is the drink of choice by far, followed by milk.) Sales of bottled water swelled 59 percent to $5.1 billion between 2003 to 2008, making it one of the fastest growing beverages. About 70 percent of consumers say they drink bottled water.

But the economic downturn is stemming the tide. Nestle sells a variety of brands, such as Poland Spring, Deer Park, S. Pellegrino and Perrier. It was the only sector in Nestle’s food and beverage group to post a decline in global sales during the first half of the year, down 2.9 percent because of weakness in the United States and Western Europe. Coca-Cola has also blamed softening demand for weaker U.S. sales of its bottled waters.

According to consulting firm Beverage Marketing Corp., Americans drank 8.7 billion gallons of bottled water last year, compared with 8.8 billion in 2007 — the first decline this decade. Per capita consumption dropped from 29 gallons to 28.5. Jeff Cioletti, editor in chief of trade publication Beverage World, said he doesn’t believe bottled water will return to galloping growth for a long while.

"There were sort of a lot of headwinds," he said.

Those forces include not only the economic downturn, which is whacking at sales of everything from cars to clothes, but also the massive campaign by environmentalists to get consumers to turn on the tap.

Last spring, Takoma Park became one of the first cities in the Washington region to put a ban on buying bottled water for government offices and events, a green bandwagon that includes places such as San Francisco and Fayetteville, Ark. Local grocer My Organic Market decided last year to stop selling imported bottled water after considering the energy, oil and, well, water that go into selling it.

According to Food & Water Watch, more than 17 million barrels of oil — enough to fuel 1 million cars for a year– are needed to produce the plastic water bottles sold in the United States annually. And about 86 percent of the empty bottles get thrown into the trash rather than recycled. Beverage companies have responded through recycling initiatives and purchasing carbon offsets.

Hauter said she has worked on water issues for about a decade but that the movement took off about three years ago. The group fans out to festivals and other public events pouring water for attendees into corn-based, biodegradable cups or metal containers bearing the name of its campaign, "Take Back the Tap."

The containers are also available online for about $20 each. Sales, she reports, have been strong.

Staff writer Lori Aratani contributed to this report.