trihalomethanes

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:29:29 -0400 (AST)
From: "David M. Wimberly" <ag487@chebucto.ns.ca>
To: Sustainable-Maritimes <sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <sust-mar-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects


I am posting this message about trihalomethanes and associated dangers in
the hopes that someone from the Dartmouth side of Halifax harbour will be
moved to start monitoring closely the clorination levels associated with
the new water treatment plant going on-line there now.  In the past,
Dartmouth has been heavily chlorinating their water instead of purifying
it.  I am suspicious that levels will still be unacceptably high.  This
poses a real and persistant health hazards that should be rebelled
against.  Personally, I don't want ANY chlorine.  UV would be better.

Also, when chlorinatated compounds enter seawater, they tend to form
brominated analog compounds that are even more persistant and are
suspected to be even more harmful.  What harms humans harms the
environment even more in this case.  We just shouldn't do this.  It isn't
right. We have the knowledge and the technology to do better, now.

Also I understand that Dartmouth was considering adding flourine to its
water, which is also a health hazard that should be avoided.  If you want
your teeth floridated, get in in your personal toothpaste or in a
treatment from your dentist.  But it shouldn't be added to the entire
environment in the form of the water supply itself.

Anywhere else that is considering water treatment options, I suggest the
best option for public water supplies is to use high degrees of filtration
followed by UV disinfection.

I am lucky in that my personal water is from an old dug well lined with
rocks; it is pure and tastes better than bottled water.  I may run low or
out in a dry mid-summer, but most of the time it is wonderful.

My wife with environmental illness cannot drink the water in Halifax and
brings water from home.  

I hope some of you take up this issue at every opportunity.

David Wimberly


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 11:22:52 -0700
From: Tony Tweedale <ttweed@wildrockies.org>

SDWA MCLG's are relatively meaningless, as EPA gets to decide what the
actual standard (the MCL) to be met will be (tho when EPA sets them at zero
or close to, it creates room for them to continue ratcheting them down).
The proposed rule for DBP (disinfection byproducts) hasn't been published
yet and the media coverage I saw was very eneralized, so I don't know what
enforceable MCL EPA is proposing for THM (trihalomethanes, incl.
chloroform).  EPA's been punting this hot potato for !YEARS!.  Its last
proposal, years ago, was for 80 ppb, down from the present100 ppb.  The
media coverage said there'd be a reduction of 25%, so maybe the new
proposal is 75 ppb.  80 to 75ppb --bfd, pathetic.  Meanwhile, the evidence
has been accumulating more than ever that THMs are causing bladder, rectal
and other cancers, as mutagens, in people exposed to chlorine disinfected
drinking water.  It's really strong evidence as its being verified by
studies from the Scandinavian countries that keep track of what water
supply people drink from--heavily Cl-ated or not--as they move throught
their lives.  Anyway, the DBPs area has been one of EPA's worst,
classic,100% politicized, totally-cowed-by-industry /
sh*tting-on-its-public-health-mission.   Clinton's announcement was fluff.
I bet he didn't mention that some microbes like giardia are not killed by
any chlorine disinfectant (but are by ozone).  The upgrade in standards for
fitration of surface water (that most needing disnifection) will lower the
need for disinfection, and the filtration+ozone option is already quite
popular.  So we'll see how useful the filtration requirements are.  Ozone
is a much stronger oxidant than any of the chlorine options, but the big
slam against it is that it provides no residual disinfection as water moves
through the system, as Cl does.  Thus, the additional filtration
requirements could really help O3's competetiveness (at a minimum, O3 can
vastly reduce the amnt of Cl needded to just the little "required" for
residual disinfection capability).

---
(I strongly disagree with the Chloring Chemistry Council!!!!   David)

>Statement of the Chlorine Chemistry Council (http://c3.org)
>EPA Ruling on Chloroform MCLG Defies Safe Drinking Water Act
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>December 03, 1998
>Contacts:
>Janet F. Flynn, (703) 741-5827
>Keith Christman, (703) 741-5935
>
>The Chlorine Chemistry Council (CCC) generally supports the
>Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts and Interim Enhanced Surface
>Water Treatment Rules released today by the Environmental Protection
>Agency. These new rules will prevent increases in waterborne diseases
>from high-risk bacteria and viruses while reducing disinfection
>byproduct (DBP) levels.
>
>However, CCC is deeply disturbed by the Agency's failure to follow the
>Safe Drinking Water Act's requirement to use the "best available
>peer-reviewed science" in setting Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
>(MCLG). In particular, by setting an MCLG of zero for chloroform, the
>Agency has ignored the scientific weight of evidence and the last twenty
>years of peer-reviewed research. Last March EPA proposed an MCLG of 300
>parts per billion based on peer-reviewed science. EPA's subsequent
>retreat from the requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act and sound
>science misdirects attention and resources away from emerging waterborne
>disease and other disinfection byproducts with higher risks.
>
>CCC strongly supports the use of the "best available peer-reviewed
>science" as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act and the use of this
>science in setting a chloroform MCLG.
>
>For more information on chlorine chemistry, visit the CCC web site
>(http://c3.org).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects