Posted on 12/20/2005 12:28:14 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
WASHINGTON - Drinking water may have a lot more in it than just H20 and fluoride, according to an environmental group's analysis of records in 42 states, including Wisconsin.
A survey by the Environmental Working Group released today found 141 unregulated chemicals and an additional 119 for which the Environmental Protection Agency has set health-based limits. Most common among the chemicals found were disinfection byproducts, nitrates, chloroform, barium, arsenic and copper.
The research and advocacy organization compiled findings from the states that agreed to provide data they collected from 1998 to 2003. That data comes from nearly 40,000 water utilities, serving 231 million people. The utilities were required by federal law to report that data to consumers.
For the unregulated chemicals, the EPA is still identifying and considering the potential risks for possible future regulations. Nineteen of those chemicals exceeded the EPA's unenforced safety guidelines for tap water systems serving at least 10,000 people, according to the advocacy group.
The EPA gathers its own water monitoring data, reviews the latest research and looks at treatment methods and technology, an agency spokeswoman said. States also are free to set their own safety standards for contaminants that may not be detected in other states.
Benjamin Grumbles, who heads the EPA's Office of Water, said that "for the chemicals the agency regulates, nearly 100 percent of the community water systems that provide drinking water to the majority of Americans are meeting clean drinking water standards. We also have a process to continuously identify new contaminants for which regulation could reduce risks."
Jane Houlihan, the EWG's vice president for research, said the group's findings show that the United States allows millions of people to be exposed to some chemicals for which the EPA either has never considered the risks or if it has, has no enforceable limits.
"So in many communities the water that comes out of the tap could be contaminated with scores of chemicals. People shouldn't be alarmed, but they should be concerned. Our system of public health protections isn't working in this case," Houlihan said.
The top 10 states, listed in order of the most contaminants in their drinking water, were: California, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, New York, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Illinois, according to the EWG, which listed the biggest sources as agriculture, industry and urban and sprawl developments.
Tom Curtis, a deputy director of the Denver-based American Water Works Association, echoed Grumbles' comments. "That's good news, and it's a reflection of water professionals' ongoing commitment to protecting public health," he said.
Curtis said the EPA has "a systematic approach to determining which substances should be regulated. Those regulations take into account occurrence data and health effects research, and should reflect the best available science."
"The poison is in the dosage."
Of course. That's why they're not telling us.
DHMO is effectively rendered potable with a Dewer's flask.
Environmental Working Group
Also known as a "project" of the Tides Center
"EWG’s game plan is simple. It releases “scientific” analyses designed to make the public (especially parents) worry tremendously about tiny amounts of pesticide exposure from fruits and vegetables. Throwing around phrases like “cancer risk” and “nervous system toxicity” attracts press coverage and lends EWG the veneer of scientific respectability. The “Environmental Worrying Group,” as some commentators have dubbed the organization, then goes on to recommend that Americans “buy as much organic food as possible” in order to avoid the supposed health risks associated with these pesky chemicals."
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/113
The most common substance was an oxide of hydrogen.
it's easy to attack the messenger--and i have no idea what this group is about--but i think it's quite naive to think our water supply is being looked after by agricultural or industrial forces. we should be wary of what groups like this spew out, but we can also agree that we produce and use many different types of chemicals, a majority that we have no idea how they affect us. and like it or not, everything we make ultimately ends up in our water.
AP - Madison, Wisconsin 12/20/05 - CH4, a greenhouse gas, found to be caused by beer and cheese factories.
No, its being looked after by government bureacracy. That makes me feel a whole lot better.
/s
Just so. Unless of course the test is insensitive.
Saddam hid his WMD's in MADISON!!!
Figures
and who do you suggest is better able to handle it?
The last time I had water from Wisconsin it had all kinds of things in it. Barley, Hops,....
Private water companies. Big gov't sucks.
i guess being a biologist and a civil engineer i'm more passionate about clean water than most people, judging by the majority of joke posts on this thread. the problem with water is it doesn't understand boundaries--property lines, state lines, etc. that's why, like it or not, the federal government is best suited to deal with water quality. the solution is not to turn your back on big government, but to work to make it more responsive and more balanced.
"I'm one of the 100's of thousands that was infected by cryptosporidiosis..."
My aunt was sick, too. We used to live in Milwaukee in the 70's, but escaped! :)
I have a well, too. 300' deep and crystal clear. ;)
Thanks for that link. I had been looking for it. Bookmarked for further investigations. ;)
Its because of sickos like you abusing this stuff that WalMart is going to have to start selling it from behind the counter and I heard congress is working on a bill to ban home production.
Our kids will never believe that this stuff used to be readily available everywhere...
DEC 21, 2005 - 12:44 AM
Officials dispute negative report on drinking water
RON SEELY rseely@madison.com
Wisconsin fared poorly in a national environmental group's analysis of drinking water quality, ranking second to California in the number of contaminants detected in tap water.
Wisconsin water regulators, however, said they think the analysis is flawed.
A research and advocacy or ganization called the Environ mental Working Group on Tuesday released the results of an analysis of water tests conducted between 1998 and 2003 by nearly 40,000 water utilities across the nation.
In Wisconsin, the group looked at water tests during the six-year period for 1,089 communities. Those tests, accord ing to the analysis, turned up 119 pollutants, including 45 agricultural pollutants and 67 industrial contaminants (some are included in both catego ries). Only California, with 145, reported more. Arizona, Florida and North Carolina tied for third with 107 pollutants each. Illinois reported 92 contaminants and ranked 10th for total pollutants.
Experts here disputed the ranking because:
It is misleading to equate the quality of water in a state with the number of times a pollutant is detected, said Todd Ambs, director of the state Department of Natural Resources' water division. The way the re port is set up, all 119 pollutants listed for Wisconsin could have been detected in one well in one test - and the state would still be second to California in the number of contaminants reported, Ambs said.
In many instances, a pollu tant was detected only once in as many as 40 tests, Ambs said, yet that pollutant is given as much significance as one that was detected many times, Ambs said.
Wisconsin's high ranking probably has less to do with the quality of its water than its high number of treatment plants and the diligence the state brings to testing.
"Wisconsin has 11,400 public water systems," said Lee Bou shon, who directs drinking water programs for the DNR. "That's the second-highest number of systems in the country. Just by sheer numbers, the likelihood of detections goes up."
None of the contaminants detected exceeded legal limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency. But levels did, at times, exceed recommended minimum health limits set by the federal agency.
For example, the Madison Water Utility reported finding 38 contaminants in tests con ducted between 1998 and 2003. Those of the greatest health concern, according to the re port, were manganese and arsenic - pollutants that may occur naturally but are worsened by urban sprawl and in dustrial development - and carbon tetrachloroethylene, an industrial pollutant.
Al Larsen, principal engineer for the Madison Water Utility, questioned the report's accuracy. For example, in tests for manganese, the Environmental Working Group analysis shows one test in which the pollutant was measured at 27,000 parts per billion in Madison, well above health standards set by the EPA. But Larsen said his check of the utility's test reports revealed no results at that level.
Larsen added - and the Environmental Working Group report also indicated - that tests of manganese between 1998 and 2003 showed no violations of enforced manganese stan dards. A number of residents in Madison's Nakoma neighborhood have high levels of the contaminant in their water and are concerned about potential health effects.
"We find the report to be very misleading and seriously flawed," Ambs said. "People should be very confident that the water they are drinking here is very safe. We have more than 11,000 public water sys tems in this state, and 99 percent of them meet federal safe water drinking standards."
Even the Environmental Working Group indicated that it found almost 100 percent compliance with enforceable health standards on the part of the nation's water utilities. The problem, according to the re port, is that the EPA has not set enforceable health standards and monitoring requirements for scores of tap water contaminants.
Of the 260 contaminants detected in tap water from 42 states, 141 are not subject to any regulation by the EPA. In Wisconsin, the analysis of water test results showed the presence of 32 pollutants for which the EPA has set no maximum legal limit.
Jane Houlihan, vice president for research for Environmental Working Group, said the lack of enforceable standards for many pollutants is a problem. "People shouldn't be alarmed, but they should be concerned," Houlihan said.
Well dammit! I'm paying for THOUSANDS!
I'm being cheated!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.