Let’s Bring Back Bottle Messaging

by Tiger Tom

Gazette Social Critic Tiger Tom Speaks Out on the Lost Art of Message-in-a-Bottle Communication

One of the great forms of human communication, putting a written message into a bottle and tossing it into a body of water,  has been on the decline in recent years and I, for one, would like to see it come back.  That message-in-a-bottle communication has been eclipsed by smoke signals, pony express, telephones, email, text-messaging and other such fads is understandable to a degree, since these methods have a few advantages.  But I feel bottle tossing has redeeming qualities that we should reconsider.

The origins of bottle messaging are obscure, the only thing certain being that the practice did not develop before the invention of bottles that were light enough to float.  Messaging with stone bottles never got popular.  The first glass bottles were produced around 1500 B.C., and it’s hard to understand how someone didn’t immediately launch a bottle message;  but it is generally believed that the first known messages in bottles were released around 310 BC by the Ancient Greek philosopher Theophrastus as part of an experiment to show that the Mediterranean Sea was formed by the inflowing  Atlantic Ocean.

Bottle messaging was widely used by the time of Columbus,  who tossed a bottled message addressed to Queen Isabel into the ocean when he feared his ship might not make it through a storm.  The message has not surfaced to this day.  Finding it would be a big event and the message would certainly fetch big bucks on Ebay.

In the 16th century, bottle messages were used by the English navy and others to send strategic information to government officials; these were viewed as so important that Queen Elizabeth decreed the death penalty for unauthorized un-corking of bottled messages.  Hacking of personal messages was taken seriously then as now.

One thing that held bottle messaging back in earlier times was the high cost of bottles. It wasn’t until 1903 that the first automatic glass blowing machine was invented and glass bottles became ubiquitous and cheap. Before that, bottles were expensive and only the well-off could afford bottle messaging, even when shipwrecked or otherwise in dire straits.

Who, I’m sure you’re asking, holds the record for the oldest tossed-bottle message in existence? Since Theophrastus’ and Columbus’ offerings are still out there, the record goes to Richard Platz, who on a nature trail along the German Baltic Coast wrote a message on a postcard, put it in a beer bottle, corked it, and pitched it into the Baltic. That was in 1913.  The message was found by fishermen 97 years later.   The message, which wasn’t profound or in any way important in itself, leading to no buried treasure and revealing no long-forgotten secret,  somehow survived world wars, innumerable storms, and rocks thrown by boys for a century.

Richard Platz’ message.  Posted in a beer bottle on May 17, 1913 and found by German fishermen in 2012–97 years after it was sent via the Baltic Sea.

Not all messages are without consequence.  In May 2005 eighty-eight shipwrecked migrants were rescued off the coast of Costa Rica. They had placed an SOS message in a bottle and tied it to one of the long lines of a passing fishing boat. Good thing for them that the age-old art of communication via message in a bottle is still alive.

Bottled-message Technology Is Not Dead

In case you think message-in-a-bottle technology is obsolete, consider the familiar pneumatic tube that we use every day in banks and many other venues.  The pneumatic tube is clearly nothing more than a modern-day adaptation of the old message-in-a-bottle technology.  I, Tiger Tom, declare that without the pioneering bottle tossers from Theophrastus on, the modern pneumatic tube would not have been invented and bank tellers would be delivering cash to drive-through customers on roller skates.

Advantages of Bottle Messaging

 

It’s clear that communication via bottle-encapsulated letters has some limitations. It’s usually pretty slow, it’s hard to target accurately, and it doesn’t work well at all in rivers unless the addressee is downstream.  Also, it is excruciatingly slow during winter in cold climates.

But it also has advantages.  The cost is low, with no transit fees and product cost if recycled paper and bottles are used. No taxes. Bottle-messaging is also very low-tech and easy to learn, with no passwords, encrypting, or software upgrades to contend with. No batteries required.  Although you can write anything you want in a bottle message, the format does not encourage stupidities like LOL  and OMG.  That’s because when you write for the bottled delivery system you are aware that your message might be read 97 years hence, so the gravity of the situation demands that the writer show a bit more class than would be expected in a texted message telling a friend that you’re waiting in line at the supermarket. The message that Richard Platz sent, for example, was eventually delivered to his granddaughter. Imagine how you’d feel if your great-grandson, not even born yet, were to get from his great grandma a silly epistle peppered with OMGs and NBDs.

Also, consider the health advantages of the message-in-a-bottle system.  Not only does it get you off your rump and away from the computer, it requires you to walk to the lake or river to post the message, then make a daily return, probably for the rest of your life, to walk the shore looking for your answer. Sending one message could turn into a life-long exercise program.

And consider environmental  advantages which include no greenhouse gas emissions and a carbon footprint of zero. The revival of bottled messaging could provide a valid reuse for the countless used catsup bottles that go to the dumps daily. Remember that reuse is better than recycling.

Finally,  just think how much saner our world would be if mad politicians gave up Twitter and posted their random ravings via bottles in the sea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common drugs affecting plant growth,  study shows

The commonly prescribed drugs such as diclofenac and ibuprofen that we release into the environment are likely to have a significant impact on plant growth, a new study has warned.

By assessing the impacts of a range of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the research has shown that the growth of edible crops can be affected by these chemicals – even at the very low concentrations found in the environment.

The research led by the University of Exeter Medical School and Plymouth University focused its analysis on lettuce and radish plants and tested the effects of several commonly prescribed drugs, including diclofenac and ibuprofen.

These drugs are among the most common and widely used group of pharmaceuticals, with more than 30 million prescribed across the world every day, researchers said.

The potential for these chemicals to influence plants is becoming increasingly relevant, particularly as waste management systems are unable to remove many compounds from our sewage.

Drugs for human use make their way into soil through a number of routes, including the use of sewage sludge as fertiliser and waste water for irrigation.

The study looked for a number of changes in edible plants, assessing factors such as water content, root and shoot length, overall size and how effectively the plants photosynthesised.

Each drug was shown to affect the plants in very specific ways, with marked differences between drugs that are closely related.

For example, drugs from the fenamic acid class affected the growth of radish roots, whilst ibuprofen had a significant influence on the early root development of lettuce plants.

“The huge amounts of pharmaceuticals we use ultimately end up in the environment, yet we know very little about their effects on flora and fauna,” Dr Clare Redshaw, one of the scientists leading the project at the Medical School’s European Centre for Environment & Human Health, said.

“As populations age and generic medicines become readily available, pharmaceutical use will rise dramatically and it’s essential we take steps towards limiting environmental contamination.

“We haven’t considered the impact on human health in this study, but we need to improve our understanding quickly so that appropriate testing and controls can be put in place,” said Redshaw.

There have been growing concerns about the presence of pharmaceuticals in the environment, particularly as evidence emerges of the effects they can have on the development of animals and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Yet their ability to affect plant growth is poorly understood.

The study was published initially in the Journal of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety.

Water Woes Among Topics for 8 Governors in Vegas

 

by Ken Ritter

 

Facing dwindling water supplies, Western states are struggling to capture every drop with dam and diversion projects that some think could erode regional cooperation crucial to managing the scarce resource.

Against that backdrop, eight Western governors meeting in Las Vegas this weekend will address regional water issues, and water managers from seven states arrive next week to work on ways to ensure 40 million people in the parched Colorado River basin don’t go thirsty.

Gary Wockner, a conservationist with the Denver-based advocacy group Save the Colorado, said there’s already jostling amid the fear of empty buckets. “Everyone is trying to get the last legal drop of water,” he said.

Colorado River Water Users Association representatives deny there’s discord at their table.

“Fifteen years of drought has tightened everything. But I don’t see this as people are getting ready to fight,” said Jeff Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. That agency is dealing with a double-whammy ? drought on the Colorado River and in the Sierra Nevada and Northern California.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval will host Western Governors’ Association counterparts from Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming this weekend to consider several issues, including water. Two days of drought workshops follow.

“The motto is: We save the system as a whole,” said Pat Mulroy, longtime general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority in Las Vegas and now a senior policy fellow with the Brookings Institution.

“If we get into, ‘I’m going to win,’ and, ‘You’re going to lose,’ there won’t be a winner,” Mulroy said.

But Wockner said Colorado, Wyoming and Utah are considering dams and diversions in the mountains to capture water they’re entitled to before it reaches the Colorado and flows to the deserts.

New Mexico has plans to divert and store water from the Gila River for cities and farms before it flows into Arizona and empties into the Colorado River near the Mexico border.

“Diversions extract water from the system,” said Jack Schmidt, professor of watershed sciences at Utah State University. He just completed three years studying the Grand Canyon for the U.S. Geological Survey. “More water use and more water retention in the upper basin means less water flowing through the Grand Canyon to the lower basin.”

Schmidt referred to the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and agreements with Mexico that promise about 16.5 million acre-feet of water annually from a river system that has historically taken in about 15 million acre-feet from rainfall and snowmelt. But that amount has diminished during almost 15 years of drought. One acre-foot of water is about enough to serve two average Las Vegas homes for a year.

“You could say that we decided how to divide the pie, but the pie is smaller than anybody thought,” Schmidt said. “With climate change, it is even smaller than that.”

In Las Vegas, which virtually relies on water from Lake Mead, officials are making plans to add a $650 million pumping facility to draw from the reservoir even if levels drop below 1,000 feet above sea level. That’s the line at which Hoover Dam’s hydroelectric turbines would be idled.

The Southern Nevada Water Authority already is drilling an $800 million tunnel to tap water from the bottom of the lake, at 860 feet above sea level.

At 900 feet ? so-called “dead pool” ? the river would end at Hoover Dam. Nothing would flow downstream.

The lake reached its high water mark in 1983 at 1,225 feet.

The Metropolitan Water District’s Kightlinger said the seven basin states ? Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico upstream and California, Arizona and Nevada downstream ? have a history of cooperating, and they have forged several landmark agreements.

A 2012 amendment to a 70-year-old treaty between the U.S. and Mexico has the river flowing south of the border again.

Last summer, water agencies in Denver, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix began an $11 million pilot program with the federal government to pay farmers, cities and industries to cut use of Colorado River water.

The goal is to prop up Lake Mead, which stood Friday at 1,084 feet above sea level ? just 9 feet above the crucial 1,075 level that would trigger cuts to Arizona, Nevada and California.

The federal Bureau of Reclamation this week projected a better than 50 percent chance that it will declare such a shortage in January 2017.

The Central Arizona Project would face the first cutbacks, and farmers would be hit hardest, agency chief David Modeer said.

“Hoping for snowpack is not sufficient to solve this,” Modeer said. “It’s going to take cooperation and sacrifice among all of us to stave off disaster in the river.”

Source: ABC News.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Avoid Amazon’s “Cyber Monday,” and buy local

 

by Jim Hightower

 

It’s “Cyber Monday” – get out there and buy stuff!

But you don’t actually have to go anywhere, for this gimmicky shop-shop-shop day lures us to consume without leaving home, or even getting out of bed. Concocted by Amazon, the online marketing monopolist, Cyber Monday is a knock-off of Black Friday – just another ploy by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to siphon sales from real stores.

Seems innocent enough, but behind Amazon’s online convenience and discounted prices is a predatory business model based on exploitation of workers, bullying of suppliers, dodging of taxes, and use of crude anti-competitive force against America’s Main Street businesses. A clue into Amazon’s ethics came when Bezos instructed his staff to get ever-cheaper prices from small-business suppliers by stalking them “the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle.”

Jeff Crandall, who owns Old Town Bike Shop in Colorado Springs, is one who’s under attack. He offers fair prices, provides good jobs, pays rent and taxes, lives in and supports the community. But he has noticed that more and more shoppers come in to try out bikes and get advice, yet not buy anything. Instead, their smartphones scan the barcode of the bike they want, then they go online to purchase it from Amazon – cheaper than Crandall’s wholesale price. You see, the Cheetah is a mulitibillion-dollar a year beast that can sell that bike at a loss, then make up the loss on sales of the thousands of other products it peddles.

This amounts to corporate murder of small business – and, yes, it’s illegal, but Amazon is doing it every day in practically every community. So, on this Cyber Monday, let’s pledge to buy from local businesses that support our communities. For information, go to American Independent Business Alliance: www.amiba.net.

 

Source: “Amazon’s ruthless practices are crushing Main Street–and threatening the vitality of our communities,” www.hightowerlowdwon.org, September 2014.

Radon In Water:  How it gets there and How to Get Rid of It

 

 Radon is one of the more perplexing and misunderstood issues in home water treatment.  The material below is excerpted from several sources, especially from an excellent Penn State University Extension services publication.

 

Radon is a colorless, tasteless, odorless, radioactive gas. It is formed from the decay of radium in soil, rock, and water and can be found worldwide.

The radon in the air in your home generally comes from two sources: the soil or the water supply.  It escapes from the earth’s crust through cracks and crevices in bedrock, and either seeps through foundation cracks or through poorly sealed areas into basements and homes, or it dissolves in the groundwater. Radon can be trapped in buildings where it can increase to dangerous levels. Radon entering your home’s air supply through the soil is typically a much larger risk than the amount of radon   In general, radon is of much greater danger when it enters through the soil than when it enters via the water supply.

Radon can be inhaled from the air or ingested from water. Inhalation of radon increases the chances of lung cancer and this risk is much larger than the risk of stomach cancer from swallowing water with a high radon concentration. Generally, ingested waterborne radon is not a major cause for concern. The extent of the effects and the risk estimates involved are difficult to determine. According to the EPA’s 2003 Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes, radon is estimated to cause about 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year. The National Research Council’s report, Risk Assessment of Radon in Drinking Water, estimates that radon in drinking water causes about 160 cancer deaths per year due to inhalation and 20 stomach cancer deaths per year due to ingestion.

Radon in water usually originates in water wells that are drilled into bedrock containing radon gas. Radon usually does not occur in significant concentrations in surface waters.

Dissolved radon in groundwater will escape into indoor air during showering, laundering, and dish washing. Estimates are that indoor air concentrations increase by approximately 1 pCi/L for every 10,000 pCi/L in water. For example, a water well containing 2,000 pCi/L of radon would be expected to contribute 0.2 pCi/L to the indoor air radon concentration. Based on the potential for cancer, the EPA suggests that indoor air should not exceed 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L).

EPA and various states have recommended drinking water standards for radon in water ranging from 300 to 10,000 pCi/L but no standard currently exists. One study of radon present in over 900 Pennsylvania water wells found that 78% exceeded 300 pCi/L, 52% exceeded 1,000 pCi/L and 10% exceeded 5,000 pCi/L.

Since most exposure to radon is from air, testing of indoor air is the simplest method to determine the overall risk of radon in your home. Test kits for indoor air radon are inexpensive and readily available at most home supply stores.

Testing for radon in water is also inexpensive but requires special sampling and laboratory analysis techniques that measure its presence before it escapes from the sample. Test kits are available from various private testing labs

The presence of waterborne radon indicates that radon is probably also entering the house through the soil into the basement which is generally the predominant source. Therefore, treating the water without reducing other sources of incoming airborne radon probably will not eliminate the radon threat. Therefore, you should also test the air in your home for radon.

Treating Radon in Water

The main objective of water treatment is removing radon from water before the radon can become airborne. Most water treatment, therefore, focuses on “point of entry” rather than “point of use.”

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

One method for removing radon from water is with a granular activated carbon (GAC) unit. Although these systems come in a variety of models, types and sizes, they all follow the same principle for removal . The standard radon GAC filter is a tank-style unit that can have either a backwashing control or a simple non-backwashing head. Non-backwashing GAC units must be protected from sediment with a prefilter.  Radon filter sizing depends on the amount of radon present, service flow rates, amount of water treated, the size of the treatment bed and other factors, so each application must be considered separately and radon testing for effectiveness of the filter should be carried out regularly.

radontreatmentwithcarbon

Typical setup for a GAC filter treating radon.

Various estimates suggest that GAC should only be used on water supplies with a maximum radon concentration of less than 30,000 pCi/L.  If you do decide to purchase a unit, select a filter size that matches your water use and conditions.  According to EPA, a three-cubic-foot unit can handle as much as 250 gallons of water per day and effectively reduce radon levels. Typical water use in the home ranges from 50 to 100 gallons per person per day.

A major drawback to the use of GAC filters for radon removal is the eventual buildup of radioactivity within the filter. For this reason, the GAC unit should be placed outside the home or  in an isolated part of the basement to minimize exposure. The carbon may also need to be replaced annually to reduce the hazard of accumulated radioactivity. Spent GAC filters used for radon removal may need special disposal.  Disposal of spent carbon should be in compliance with local waste disposal regulations.

GAC treatment units are frequently also installed to remove chlorine, pesticides, petroleum products, and various odors in water. In these cases, the GAC filter may unknowingly be accumulating radioactivity as it removes radon from the water. Radon should always be tested for and considered as a potential hazard with the use of GAC filters.

Aeration

EPA has listed aeration as the best available technology for removing radon from water. Home aeration units physically agitate the water to allow the dissolved radon gas to be collected and vented to the outside. With new technological advancements in home aeration, these units can have radon removal efficiencies of up to 99.9%. Standard aeration treatment units typically cost $3,000 to $5,000 including installation.  Be aware that aeration specifically for radon reduction is not the same as aeration for iron or hydrogen sulfide reduction.  While “closed tank” systems designed for iron and sulfide reduction might help with radon, they are not designed to provide the large ventilation capacity needed to assure release of radon to the atmosphere.

When considering installation of aeration units, other water quality issues must be taken into account, such as levels of iron, manganese and other contaminants. Water with high levels of these types of contaminants may need to be pre-treated in order to prevent clogging the aeration unit. Disinfection equipment may also be recommended since some aeration units can allow bacterial contamination into the water system.

radontreatmenthomespray

Typical Spray Aeration System Designed  for Radon Reduction in a Private Home

There are several styles of aeration treatment units but all work on the same principle of aerating or agitating the water to allow the radon gas to escape so it can be captured and vented. Each type of unit has advantages and disadvantages. One of the more common styles is a spray aeration unit shown above. In this case, water containing radon is sprayed into a tank using a nozzle. The increased surface area of the sprayed water droplets causes the radon to come out of the water as a gas while the air blower carries the radon gas to a vent outside the home. About 50% of the radon will be removed in the initial spraying so the water must be sprayed several times to increase removal efficiencies. To keep a supply of treated water, a 100-gallon or larger holding tank must be used.

Another common aeration unit is the packed column where water moves through a thin film of inert packing material in a column. The air blower forces radon contaminated air back through the column to an outdoor vent. If the column is high enough, removal efficiencies can reach 95%.

Another type of aeration system uses a shallow tray to contact air and water. Water is sprayed into the tray, and then flows over the tray as air is sprayed up through tiny holes in the tray bottom. The system removes more than 99.9% of the radon and vents it outside the home.  Go here for illustrations of other aeration systems.

See also:  the EPA publication and a list of resources from RadonResources.com.

Main Source:  Penn State University.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Pollution total dumped in lake hits 3.7 billion gallons

by Chad Selwesky

The rain showers of Sunday and Monday created sewage overflows that dumped 79 million gallons into Lake St. Clair, bringing the total pollution this year from sewer systems discharged into the lake to 3.7 billion gallons.

 

The GWK Drain in Oakland County released 72 million gallons, and the Chapaton sewage basin in St. Clair Shores spilled another 7 million gallons. Both facilities partially treat their discharges by adding chlorine and removing solid waste before releasing them into the waterways.

 

Brent Avery, operations manager at Chapaton, said the situation could have been worse, as the nearby Martin retention basin and the windy weather also presented concerns.

“We filled to the brim at Martin (basin), but did not discharge” Avery said. “We did not experience a power outage, but it was sure fluctuating.”

 

The 2014 totals reflect the massive sewage dumping on Aug. 11-12 during the unprecedented flooding experienced across southern Oakland and Macomb counties.

 

During that time period, the GWK Drain, traditionally known as the Twelve Towns Drain, flushed 2.1 billion gallons of partially treated sewage and rainwater into Macomb County’s Red Run Drain at Dequindre, south of 13 Mile Road. From there, the contaminants flow through residential neighborhoods to the Clinton River and then out to Lake St. Clair.

 

The Chapaton system, located at 9 Mile Road and Jefferson and operated by the Macomb County Public Works Commissioner’s Office, spewed 166 million gallons when the floodwaters hit.

 

In addition, the amount of untreated raw sewage dumped into the waters by Macomb County communities during the flood was raised dramatically in the final numbers, from nearly 6 million gallons to 140 million gallons.

 

At one point earlier this fall, officials estimated that the county’s pollution total would hit 4 billion gallons by the end of the year. Sewage system officials say that the overflows are diluted by rain water and present no danger to the public. At the same time, environmental activists say the E. coli bacteria in the discharges is the main cause of the hundreds of beach closings on Lake St. Clair over the past several years.

 

Water tainted with E. coli can cause skin rashes, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea and it can lead to exposure to viruses.

 

The total number of gallons dumped into the lake this year equals the volume of 5,300 Olympic-size swimming pools.

Source: Macomb Daily.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

No Black Friday


Posted November 28th, 2014

No Black Friday

 

Pure Water Products is following its Black Friday closing policy occasioned by a shopping accident sustained during the 2012 shopping season.  Please read details. The company’s retail store in Denton, TX will reopen for business as usual on Saturday December 29.

Excess Lead in New Jersey Town’s Water


Posted November 23rd, 2014

 

Brick residents sound off on lead in their water

by Kevin Pentón

Gazette Introductory Note:  The lead issue at Brick, New Jersey illustrates a common problem for which “authorities” draw some unrealistic conclusions. The advice to run water for 30 seconds before drinking isn’t really a sustainable alternative to proper treatment for lead.  This is clearly a case where “point of use” treatment is the sensible solution.  The Clean Water Action official’s advice that “most filters on the market won’t properly exclude lead” is essentially true, but what should be added is that many filters, even some very inexpensive ones, do effectively reduce lead.  Reverse osmosis removes lead by its nature, and inexpensive carbon filters can be engineered to remove lead effectively.  It certainly makes a lot more sense to use a “final barrier” drinking water treatment than to continually test your water for lead and scores of other possible contaminants or to trust your fate to running the water for 30 seconds before every glass of water.–Hardly Waite.

BRICK – Township residents are concerned over a recent report that elevated lead levels were found in the water of nearly half the homes tested this summer.

After reading the initial Asbury Park Press story on the issue, resident Michele Richards said she went out and spent over $10 on a lead test. Afterwards, she said she learned she would need to spend at least $30 so a laboratory can analyze the results.

“I pay enough taxes as it is,” Richards said. “I don’t feel like I should have to pay to test my drinking water.”

Water in 16 of the 34 homes tested this summer by the Brick Municipal Utilities Authority was found to have more lead than the maximum amount allowed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

At least one home was found to have a lead level of 184.5 parts per billion, more than 12 times the FDA’s cap of 15 ppb.

State and local officials believe the source of the contamination is the pipes and solder inside residents’ homes, not the drinking water supplied by the authority to approximately 38,000 connections.

If the water was coming into homes dirty, then perhaps the authority or the township might have more of a responsibility to pay for individual lead tests, Mayor John Ducey said.

“Unfortunately, the problem is coming from inside residents’ homes,” Ducey said. “It doesn’t make any sense for the town to pay.”

Three years ago, the last time the authority tested for lead, it found three homes with levels above 15 ppb, according to its report.

One theory floated by the authority is that with superstorm Sandy forcing many people out of their homes and not subsequently running their household pipes, the underutilized water supply’s acidity levels may have increased near the ends of the system. The more acidic water would have then been more prone to eat away at the pipes and solder, releasing the lead.

But according to the authority’s website, their testing last month of the system’s water found a pH level of 7.5, which is not considered acidic.

On the Asbury Park Press’ Facebook page, Brick residents lamented the news and wondered aloud whether to buy filters or bottled water to be safe.

Most filters available on the market will not properly exclude lead from the water, said Amy Goldsmith, New Jersey director of Clean Water Action.

“Filters give people a false sense of security,” Goldsmith said. “Most filters don’t really work for lead.”

Boiling the water could actually make the problem worse, Goldsmith said. Heat will not cause lead, a metal, to vaporize or otherwise leave the water inside a kettle or pot, she said.

Boiling will cause some of the water to evaporate, leaving an even more lead-laden liquid, Goldsmith said.

“The best, easiest method is what Brick is advising residents to do, which is to run their pipes in the morning or after any other period when the water in the house has not been used,” Goldsmith said.

Last week, the authority sent a notice of the test results to every resident in Brick. It advised them to run their pipes for at least 30 seconds before usage, and to only consume cold water.

The authority, which had already begun to add a corrosion inhibitor to its water supply, is now expected to test every six months until the problem is remedied, according to the DEP.

Authority officials could not be reached for comment on whether they will consider paying for residents to test their water for lead.

“I don’t think the residents are getting the help that they need here from the town,” Richards said. “They’re just doing the minimum that they have to do.”

Source:  app.com.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Do you know how many toxic chemicals are in your shampoo, your lipstick, your toothpaste?

 by Joy McCarthy

 

 

We’ve been using cosmetics and personal-care products for thousands of years, from body paint to eye makeup, in nearly every single culture in the world. Egyptians first started using scented oils and ointments to clean and soften skin. They were also the first to use toxic chemicals in their beauty products, with lead and arsenic being common ingredients.

Fast-forward to today and you’d assume things have gotten better, right?

Not exactly. In 2007, researchers at the California-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found what they thought to be “hazardous levels” of lead in one-third of the red lipsticks they tested. And lead isn’t the only issue. There are over 84,000 chemicals registered for use with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Being registered does not imply safety, only that they are used and tracked in some capacity.) Only 200 of these chemicals have been reviewed by Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan. (Again, these chemicals are not necessarily safe.) We’re still using chemicals we know are toxic, as well as a host of others whose effects are unknown.

While words like “lead” or “arsenic” would certainly raise your eyebrows, it’s not always so easy to discern the harmless from the potentially harmful. Here’s a list of the chemical “usual suspects” to watch out for, according to the David Suzuki Foundation:

• BHA and BHT. These are used as preservatives in moisturizers and makeup. Both are thought to be endocrine disruptors (chemicals that can interfere with hormones) and BHA has been linked to cancer.

• Coal-tar dyes. These are dyes that will have “Cl” followed by a five-digit number on the label (or in the United States, “FD&C” followed by the colour). These dyes are potentially carcinogenic and may be contaminated with toxic heavy metals.

• Siloxanes. Anything that ends in “-siloxane” or “-methicone” falls into this category. These chemicals are used as moisturizers in makeup and hair-care products, but they may also interfere with hormone function and damage your liver.

• DEA, MEA and TEA. These chemicals give moisturizers and shampoos a creamy, foamy texture, but they can also react with other chemicals to form cancer-causing nitrosamines.

• Phthalates. These plasticizer chemicals make personal-care products easier to handle and apply. They’re also suspected endocrine disruptors and reproductive toxins, and definitely not something that should be in cosmetics targeted at women (or anyone, for that matter).

• Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives. Remember that toxic, carcinogenic liquid used to preserve your high-school biology dissection project? It may be lurking in your nail-care products, hair dyes and shampoos under the names formic aldehyde, formalin, DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea or others.

• Parabens. These preservatives are found in a wide range of beauty products and have been linked to hormone disruption and breast cancer.

• Fragrance (a.k.a. parfum). Even products marked “unscented” may contain fragrance, so check your labels thoroughly. Because fragrances are often considered “trade secrets,” manufacturers aren’t usually required to disclose what chemicals they comprise, but some fragrance chemicals have been linked to cancer and neurotoxicity, while many can trigger asthma and allergies. The best course of action here is to call the manufacturer and see if they will disclose their ingredients.

• PEG. These compounds are used in many cosmetic cream bases, as well as in conditioners and deodorants, and can be contaminated with carcinogenic 1,4-dioxane.

• Petrolatum. Doesn’t that word look an awful lot like “petroleum?” That’s because this is a petroleum product – meaning its very production isn’t great for our environment – usually used for shine and as a moisture barrier in cosmetics and skin-care products. But these petroleum products can also be contaminated with cancer-causing impurities.

• Sodium laureth (or lauryl) sulfate. Also known as SLES and SLS, these two chemicals were initially used as industrial cleaners in car-wash soaps and engine degreasers and now produce the foam associated with a wide variety of personal-care products, including shampoos and bubble baths. SLES and SLS can be irritating to sensitive skin and can be contaminated with carcinogenic 1,4-dioxane.

• Triclosan. This antibacterial compound found in toothpastes, soaps and hand sanitizers may do more harm than good, since it may interfere with hormone function and lead to liver fibrosis, as a new study shows. Plus, it contributes to the creation of superbugs, as bacteria become resistant to its antibiotic properties.

This list may feel a little overwhelming at first and you may be thinking that cosmetics companies wouldn’t put anything unsafe in their products, right? That’s a reasonable conclusion, but unfortunately we must be responsible for what we put on our bodies because many companies are not, in fact, looking out for our health.

Some companies defend their products with the claim that each potential toxin is in such tiny doses that it couldn’t possibly cause harm. However, most people use a variety of products, from body wash to body lotion to perfume to lip gloss, and that’s just first thing in the morning. According to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, the average person is exposed to 126 toxic chemicals from personal care alone, per day. What about all these toxic chemicals in combination? The problem is, we just don’t know.

When I personally made the switch to clean beauty products more than 10 years ago along with healthy lifestyle changes, my health transformed for the better, including clearer skin. Not only do I feel good using products with coconut oil as a base but I know that these products are safe for the environment as well. No fish will be bothered by the fact that the main ingredient in my face wash is coconut milk.

Ditching toxic ingredients and replacing them with clean ones in your personal-care products will go a long way to helping your skin glow from the inside out and lessen the burden on your liver, the body’s main organ of detoxification which has to neutralize every itty-bitty chemical that comes into contact with your skin.

Source: The Globe and Mail. 

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement.

 

Desalination


Posted November 22nd, 2014

Getting Drinking Water from the Sea

by B. Sharper

Pure Water Gazette numerical wizard Bee Sharper rolls out some numbers on production of fresh water by sea water desalination.

 

Approximate number of desalination plants in the world as of 2013 — 17,200.

 

Daily production capacity of these plants in gallons — 23 billion.

 

Percentage of these plants that make potable water from sea water — 59%.

 

Percentage that make potable water from brackish water — 22%.

 

Percentage that make potable water from river water and wastewater — 9%.

 

Total dissolved solids (TDS) count of the saltiest of sea waters (e. g,.the Arabian Gulf) — 50,000 mg/L.

 

Total dissolved solids (TDS) count of most ocean water — 35,000 mg/L.

 

Typical chloride content of sea water — 19,000 mg/L.

 

Typical calcium content of sea water — 400 mg/L.

 

Typical sodium content of sea water — 10,500 mg/L.

 

Typical number of viruses present in one drop of sea water — 1,000,000.

 

Nominal pore size of a reverse osmosis membrane used for desalination — 0.0001 to 0.001 microns.

 

Nominal pore size of a nanofiltration membrane — 0.001 microns.

 

Psi equivalent of one bar of pressure — 14.5.

 

Pressure required to treat sea water by reverse osmosis desalination — 55 to 70 bars (800 psi to 1000 psi).

 

Pressure required to treat brackish water by reverse osmosis desalination — 15 to 35 bars (220 psi to 500 psi).

 

Percentage of salts, organics, and microbes that are removed from sea water by high pressure reverse osmosis — 99%+.

 

Estimated per gallon cost of producing fresh water by desalination with reverse osmosis –1/2 cent.

 

 

Desalination plant at Al Khaluf in Oman