Taylor Made Water Systems

• Check out my gadget drive to support The Taylor Family Foundation at http://ttff.gazelle.com #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

 

Hopefully this will put an end to the "ban softeners" bandwagon and lead to sensible restrictions on efficiencies of softeners instead of outright bans that ignore the benefits of soft water.

 

http://www.wqa.org/pdf/pressreleases/Longevity.pdf

May 21, 2009

Lisle, Illinois — Because they extend the life of major appliances, water softeners help reduce landfill overflow and cut back on the environmental cost connected with manufacturing new devices. They also save energy.

Those are theories that a new, independent study will examine, the Water Quality Research Foundation announced today.

“By making sure our appliances run better with soft water, ion exchange water softeners ultimately help to protect the environment,” said Peter J. Censky, executive director of the Water Quality Association, the body that oversees WQRF. “The goal of this study is to measure the extent of energy savings that are made possible by the use of these softeners.”

The research project will test the longevity of clothes washers, dishwashers, and low flow faucets using hard and softened water. It will be conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute, a non-profit international science and technology enterprise. Tests will be conducted using independently developed and impartial methods.

Battelle is also conducting tests to determine how much energy savings softeners can provide homeowners. The final research report for this aspect of the research is scheduled for September 2009.

WQRF was formed more than a half-century ago to serve as a universally recognized, independent research organization to conduct and fund scientific research on subjects relating to the water quality improvement industry.

The Water Quality Association is a not-for-profit international trade association representing the residential, commercial, and industrial water treatment industry. Its membership consists of both manufacturers as well as dealers/distributors of equipment. WQA is a resource and information source, a voice for the industry, an educator of professionals, a laboratory for product testing, and a communicator with the public. WQA has more than 2,500 members nationwide.

We hosting an online gadget drive through Gazelle to raise money for The Taylor Family Foundation, and would love your support.  You can visit my drive webpage at http://ttff.gazelle.com

      A gadget drive is a new way to fundraise that turns your used electronics (laptops, cell phones, MP3 players, digital cameras & more) into cash to support a cause. Contributing to my drive is simple. Just visit my drive webpage, find the value of the gadgets you would like to donate, and send them to Gazelle (shipping is free). The value will go to support The Taylor Family Foundation.

      If you would like to donate, please go to Coins For Campers (http://ttff.gazelle.com) to learn more about my drive and track my progress.  You will receive a confirmation of your donation by email, and I will be notified as soon as you make your donation.

      Thank you for your support,

     Taylor Made Water Systems

 

I know nobody is "pro-arsenic" in drinking water, but this would be a pretty interesting development if it turns out that high levels of arsenic in the drinking water is one of the reasons that Mexicans had more severe reactions to the swine flu (H1N1) than Americans and others.  A new report suggests that high levels of arsenic may slow the body’s response to the infection and give the virus more time to develop and cause damage.  I’ll keep an eye on this story to see where it goes.  In the meantime, purify your water!

http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=71946

Study: Arsenic in water vs. lowered H1N1 immunity

Thursday, May 21, 2009

 

WOODS HOLE, MA — Drinking water contaminated with arsenic may compromise the immune system’s ability to mount a response to influenza A (H1N1) infection, also known as swine flu, researchers say, according to a May 21 ScienceDaily report.

Researchers at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) and Dartmouth Medical School, whose study is reported on in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, said when a person is infected with the flu, they immediately develop an immune response. In a normal response, immune cells rush to the lungs and produce chemicals that help fight the infection.

Joshua Hamilton, MBL’s chief academic and scientific officer and a senior scientist in the MBL Bay Paul Center, and Dartmouth graduate student Courtney Kozul, found that mice which had ingested 100 parts per billion (ppb) of arsenic in their drinking water for five weeks had an initially feeble immune response to H1N1 infection. When a response finally did kick in days later, it was “too robust and too late,” according to Hamilton, who noted that this led to bleeding and damage in the lungs.

Morbidity over the course of the infection was significantly higher for the arsenic-exposed animals than the normal animals, the report said.

The researchers chose to study the link between arsenic-contaminated drinking water and the response to H1N1 because Mexico, where the current flu outbreak is believed to have started, has large areas of very high arsenic in its well water. Those areas include places where the flu first appeared. According to Hamilton, “We don’t know that the Mexicans who got the flu were drinking high levels of arsenic, but it’s an intriguing notion that this may have contributed.”

 

In the raging battle over wastewater, a hot topic in recent years has been the affect of water softener brine discharge on chloride levels.  In short, water softeners use salt to regenerate the resin that removes hardness (mostly calcium and magnesium) from the water.  As the softener regenerates some of this salt is sent down the drain and into wastewater treatment plants. 

So, the simple water softener has become a target for those trying to decrease the chloride levels at wastewater plants (and elsewhere).  Many communities have attempted to ban softeners altogether and a recent California Bill, rejected by governor Schwarzenegger, would have allowed communities to ban softeners without any research to prove that the ban would be effective.  The Water Quality Association (WQA) has long fought against bans on water softeners stating that they provide much more benefit (lower energy cost of soft water versus hard water) than harm to the environment.  The water treatment industry believes that requiring greater efficiencies with softeners is a much better solution than an outright ban.  Moreover, it is not clear that softeners are a significant source of the chlorides that the bans are supposed to be reducing. There is no doubt that some older softeners use way more salt than is necessary, but modern softeners are extremely efficient and through good research and development can get even better. 

Santa Clarita is probably the most famous softener ban in the U.S. largely because it was one of the first (and also because there is not much fame in banning softeners).  Now the California State Senator who helped get the ban approved says voters were duped and, surprise, the ban did not eliminate chlorides or even reduce them enough to forestall the rate increases that the ban was supposed to eliminate.  So, now they have banned softeners so residents are living with extremely hard water, which does increase energy cost and soap and chemical cleaning supplies usage.  And they still get the rate increase from the wastewater district.  It’s a lose-lose for the consumer, as usual.  Hopefully we all remember this when the next knee-jerk softener ban is proposed. 

 

http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=71929 

SANTA CLARITA, CA — A California state senator says he and the voters of this community were victims of a “bait and switch” by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, which is now saying that Santa Clarita’s new ban on water softeners won’t prevent the likely tripling of sewer rates in that community.

Sen. George Runner, a Republican representing the district that includes Santa Clarita, was instrumental several years ago in sponsoring and getting enacted a law that required homeowners to be compensated for softener removals. The law also set in motion a local referendum in which voters had to decide whether they wanted a softener ban.

That referendum was held in November 2008, with a majority of voters favoring the ban that took effect January 1. Prior to the election, a key argument advanced by the county sanitation district in favor of the ban was that it would prevent major tax increases required to build new wastewater treatment facilities to handle chlorides entering existing wastewater plants. Recently, however, sanitation district officials have said that, even with the softener ban, they’ll still need to install new wastewater treatment equipment to remove enough chlorides to satisfy requirements of the regional water quality control board, a move that will more than triple local sewer rates.

In an opinion piece published May 17 by Santa Clarita’s local newspaper, The Signal, Runner wrote: “One wonders if voters would have voted down [the referendum] had they been told the truth. If voters knew that rates would be increased whether the measure was approved or not, they may have chosen to keep their water softeners.”

Voters “got duped,” Runner stated.

Voters themselves were irate to learn recently about the proposed rate increase despite the softener ban, as The Signal reported. In a May 6 public meeting, sanitation district officials told residents that the district learned after the election that the regional water quality control board would not agree to raise its allowable chloride level during drought years, which has necessitated spending for new wastewater treatment systems.

To read the full May 17 opinion piece by Sen. Runner, click here.

• Taylor Made water system in the News. New blog page. http://tinyurl.com/p32c8u #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

 

In case you missed the uproar last year, trace amounts of various prescription drugs were found in multiple municipal drinking water supplies throughout the US.  Currently, these types of contaminants are not measured nor monitored by water agencies or municipalities in charge of your tap water.  A NY Senator is now proposing a study of the effects of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. 

Studies are good, but I think a cursory evaluation would show that it’s impractical to remove all contaminants from our entire supply of tap water (most of which goes to industry, firefighting, parks, toilets, etc.).  Once again, the logical solution is to purify your own drinking water to a higher standard with a simple reverse osmosis unit and not spend billions on studies and removing contaminants from our toilet and sprinkler water.  Municipalities cannot remove everything from all of the water they treat.  That is simple too much to ask and would be incredibly wasteful to incur such enormous expense when only 10 percent of "tap" water goes into our homes and we only drink or cook with 0.5% of total treated tap water.  It makes perfect sense to have three levels of water quality.  One for the approximately 90% used outside homes, a slightly better level for the 10% going into our homes (whole house filter), and "pure" water (reverse osmosis) for the 0.5% that we drink and cook with. Obviously, we need a threshold so that none of the water is "unsafe," but we already have such regulations in place.  I’m not saying we should have no regulations, but I do think it is highly impractical to think we can remove all contaminants from all tap water.

But, I am clearly biased here, so let the study commence!

http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=71899

 

US senator calls for EPA to study meds-in-water

 

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

WASHINGTON — US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, announced on May 12 a legislative proposal to study the presence of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water and their long-term health effects.

According to Gillibrand’s office, the senator announced the proposal in response to reports of trace levels of pharmaceuticals, such as estrogen and codeine, found in waterways in New York and around the nation.

In March 2008, an Associated Press investigation reported the presence of antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones, among other drugs in drinking water.

Gillibrand’s office said the senator will move her proposal ahead this week when the Senate considers comprehensive legislation to improve water infrastructure across the country. As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Gillibrand seeks to play a leading role in drafting the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, with the aim of revitalizing the country’s deteriorating sewage and water treatment systems.

“As we upgrade our failing water infrastructure, it is important that we also address the safety of our drinking water,” Gillibrand is quoted as saying. “Right now the federal government does not have adequate data on the long-term health effects of these trace chemicals. Parents count on the government to ensure clean, safe drinking water for all our families.”

According to Gillibrand, her provision will require the US Environmental Protection Agency to study the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in water, identify exactly what is found and at what level, identify the source, and how to control, limit, treat or prevent their dissemination in drinking water. The EPA would have two years to produce the study.

 

I do hate it when celebrities get sick. But, actually, this could be pretty scary.  Just another reminder to treat your river water before consumption. 

http://insidecostarica.com/dailynews/2009/may/07/nac06.htm

Reality Show Crew Down With Diarrhea After Drinking River Water

The NBC reality show, "I’m Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here" which will be filmed in Costa Rica, specifically in the area of Horquetas de Sarapiquí, is in danger as a number of set building crew came down ill.

In at least 20 cases, workers have come down with symptoms of diarrhea and vomit after drinking water from a nearby river.
The situation could be worse if the finca de Sueño Azul is declared under quarantine.

More than 60 workers, mainly foreigners, are busy constructing sets and getting everything ready for when the celebrities arrive next month.
Filming is expected to start the first week in June.

Some of the famous confirmed to attend are actor Stephen Baldwin and NBA former star, John Salley.

 

The Water Quality Association (WQA) has set up a website to help you diagnose your tap water during National Drinking Water Week!  This is actually a pretty cool tool.  Especially for all of you out there who wonder what is in your water, what’s causing the green/brown/yellow staining around your house.  Or if you just like cool diagnostic tools. 

http://www.wqa.org/consumer/newindex.cfm?do=Investigate

Lisle, Illinois — Set aside five minutes this week to diagnose your water.

That is the advice of the Water Quality Association as National Drinking Water Week begins.
For more than 20 years, the federal government has called on Americans to start the spring by learning how they can make sure they get the safest and cleanest possible water coming into their house. This year, National Drinking Water Week takes place May 3-9.

WQA offers free online diagnosis tools that let consumers figure out what might be affecting the quality of their water. They are available at wqa.org. In the “Find a Water Professional” program, local certified professionals can be found for consultation. There is also a “Diagnose Your Water” button that provides information on possible problems.

“There is nothing more basic to quality of life than safe, clear water,” said Peter Censky, executive director of WQA. “By consulting a certified professional, consumers can be assured they are getting the best advice available.”

In addition to helping with diagnosis, the Web site lists products that have been shown to be effective through independent testing at WQA’s laboratory for removing contaminants. Less than two percent of all water consumed is ingested by humans, making these “point-of-use” systems the most cost-effective and environmentally-friendly approach.

“While utilities are required to meet safety standards set by the US EPA, home filtering systems act as a final contaminant barrier and can further purify water for drinking,” Censky said. Even water that meets EPA standards is not necessarily as free of contaminants as possible. In setting standards, the EPA considers whether it is feasible for municipalities to thoroughly treat every element. As a result, the agency allows some contaminants to be present in municipal water. However, the EPA also offers ideal goals for water, with much lower danger levels.

“That is why home treatment can be so crucial,” Censky said. “These devices help people ensure that their water is as close to the ideal goals as possible.”

 

I know I’m biased, but I have a hard time with calling 65 million gallons a “surgical extraction” of Spring water, even if it is “only” 10 percent of the springs’ flow.  I can’t say I blame the community for being concerned or for wanting to avoid 25 trucks per day coming in and out of their area.  These kinds of water battles are happening all over the U.S. as bottled water companies seek new sources that will help decrease shipping costs and/or provide better bottled water. 

Seriously, we all need to get an R.O. system, some stainless or aluminum reusable bottles and move on!  It is us, after all, who are driving demand for bottled water.  We can’t really blame Nestle for their growth.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/salida-52835-chaffee-save.html

Water-permit application by Nestle taps wellspring of conflict in community

Comments 20 | Recommend 2

May 1, 2009 – 8:17 PM

R. SCOTT RAPPOLD

THE GAZETTE

SALIDA • The name Nestle conjures images of chocolate.

But many in Chaffee County say there is nothing sweet about a proposal by the world’s largest food and beverage company to draw spring water from along the Arkansas River, build a pipeline and truck the water to a plant in Denver for its Arrowhead brand of bottled water.

Tempers have flared and barbs have been traded at three marathon public hearings as county officials wrestle over whether to issue a land-use permit to Nestle Waters North America. The company owns the land and water rights near Nathrop and says it is investing $15 million in its effort to withdraw 65 million gallons a year. It has an agreement with Aurora for that city to release 200 acre-feet a year from an upper reservoir to compensate for the water Nestle would remove from the Arkansas basin.

At the heart of the debate is whether a community benefits when a company takes water from its springs to sell on grocery store shelves.

Some communities have fought such efforts – with mixed results – and the conflict in Salida could presage fights elsewhere in Colorado. Nestle has plans to tap springs in three or four more locations in the state.

"I think they could buy and dry our valley," said Vicki Klein, a board member of Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability, a group formed to fight the project. "Two hundred acre-feet might not be a huge amount initially, but where they can go from there is frightening.

"This thing is going to impact the county and the state more than I think people even think right now," Klein said.

Bruce Lauerman, natural resources manager for Nestle, said the company has been looking for springs to tap in Colorado since 2006 to save on the costs of shipping from California the water it sells here.

The water must be of a certain quality and not be fed by surface water,for the company to call it spring water.

"It’s such a small – what I’ll call a surgical – extraction of spring water from this aquifer," Lauerman said of the project.

Nestle says it will draw 10 percent of the springs’ flow, and the impact to the Arkansas River "will not be measurable, even in low-flow conditions."

The company touts the benefits to the county: temporary construction jobs for the pipeline and related facilities; increased tax revenue for the county; removal of a dilapidated trout hatchery along the Arkansas; and preservation of the area as open space.

Opponents point to other concerns: 25 trucks a day going up and down Trout Creek Pass on U.S. 285; Nestle Waters’ previous legal battles with small towns and citizen groups where it has wells and plants; and the effect the water loss could have on supplies during a drought.

At a hearing Wednesday, Terry Scanga, manager of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, said it could be "very injurious" to the Arkansas basin. Aurora doesn’t take all the water it owns from the mountains, and in a drought that city could draw more to make up for what it releases for Nestle, he said.

"I think it’s kind of ironic that an out-of-basin entity would be leasing water to another entity who will be taking it out of the basin," Scanga said.

The debate was heated Wednesday, leading county commissioners to limit comments to five minutes and threaten to remove anyone who cheered or booed.

It was many newcomers – retirees and others – who want to see the mountain splendor preserved, versus old-timers who say the county needs economic development.

"We have no need of them. They just don’t benefit the community at all," said E.J. Sherry, who has lived in the area for a year and a half and said his face reddens and his blood pressure rises when he sees Lauerman.

It was people who believe bottled water is a waste of resources versus those who like having one in their car for drives.

"Water has spirituality. When we take water that is God-given and we put it in a bottle and sell it for profit, it’s lost its spirituality," said Sharon Miller.

Countered lifelong resident Joe Cogan, 74, who lives adjacent to the project area: "I carry water bottles in my car so when I go to town I don’t have to drink that stinking chlorinated water."

The newcomers, he said, "come here and they’ve been here two or three years or 10 years, and they think they should run the whole county."

Nestle operates 27 plants and more than 50 springs around the country.

Some of its legal difficulties with host communities, usually small, rural towns, include: a four-year legal battle with Fryeburg, Maine, to build a pumping station; a lawsuit by citizens in McCloud, Calif., who oppose a plan by the company to tap springs and build a bottling plant; and a public outcry in Enumclaw, Wash, about proposed wells and a bottling plant that led Nestle to abandon the plan.

The Chaffee County site would be its first spring in Colorado.

Nestle’s Lauerman said the opposition "has very little to do with the specifics of the project itself, the viability of the project."

"It’s more people with a distrust for corporations, people who are anti-growth no matter what the project is. It’s people who have a philosophical bent against bottled water," he said.

Jeanine Zeman, spokeswoman for the opposition group, admits she doesn’t like bottled water. She also believes Nestle has a poor record of working with communities where it sinks wells.

With the arguments impassioned on both sides, county commissioners are in no rush to make a decision. The hearing resumes Tuesday.

DETAILS

Nestle Waters North America owns the land and water rights near Nathrop and says it is investing $15 million in its effort to withdraw 65 million gallons a year. It also has plans to tap springs in three or four more locations in the state.