What’s in Urine? 3,000 Chemicals and Counting

by Gahar Gholipouor

Looking for an encyclopedia of pee? Scientists have laid out the entire chemical composition of human urine, revealing that more than 3,000 compounds are found in the fluid, and have published it all in an online database.

In the study, which took seven years to complete, the researchers found that at least 3,079 compounds can be detected in urine. Seventy-two of these compounds are made by bacteria, while 1,453 come from the body itself. Another 2,282 come from diet, drugs, cosmetics or environmental exposure (some compounds belong to more than one group).

“Urine is an incredibly complex biofluid. We had no idea there could be so many different compounds going into our toilets,” said study researcher David Wishart, professor of biology and computing science at the University of Alberta.

The complete list of all metabolites that can be detected in human urine using current technologies has been placed into an online public database called the Urine Metabolome Database.The word metabolome refers to the complete collection of metabolites, which are the products of metabolism and include hormones, vitamins and other molecules.

A favorite among fluids

“Urine has long been a ‘favored’ biofluid among metabolomics researchers,” because it is sterile and can be obtained easily in large volumes, the scientists wrote in their study published September 4 in the journal PLOS ONE.

However, the chemical complexity of urine has made it a difficult substance to fully understand, the researchers said. As a biological waste material, urine typically contains metabolic breakdown products from a wide range of foods, drinks, drugs, environmental contaminants, waste metabolites of the body and bacterial by-products.

Compared to other body fluids such as saliva or cerebrospinal fluid, urine contains about five to 10 times more compounds, and shows a larger chemical diversity, the researchers found. The compounds found in human urine fall into 230 different chemical classes.

“Given that there are only 356 chemical classes in the entire human metabolome, this certainly demonstrates the enormous chemical diversity found in urine,” the researchers said.

The researchers also found that more than 480 compounds in urine were not previously reported to be in blood, contrary to the long-standing idea that the collection of chemicals in urine is a subset of compounds found in the blood.

Why so many chemicals?

“The fact that so many compounds seem to be unique to urine likely has to do with the fact that the kidneys do an extraordinary job of concentrating certain metabolites from the blood,” the researchers said.

To find the chemicals in urine, the researchers used a variety of techniques, including nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, gas chromatography, mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography. They analyzed urine samples from 22 healthy people, and scoured more than 100 years of scientific literature about human urine to supplement their findings.

The chemical composition of urine  may be of interest to physicians, nutritionists and environmental scientists because it reveals medical conditions, as well as information about what a person has consumed, and what chemicals he or she as been exposed to in the environment.

The database of urine chemical composition will continue to grow as new techniques and instruments are developed to identify additional compounds, the scientists said.

“This is certainly not the final word on the chemical composition of urine,” Wishart said.

Source: Live Science.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Drugs found in Lake Michigan, miles from sewage outfalls

By Brian Bienkowski

Environmental Health News

Prescription drugs are contaminating Lake Michigan two miles from Milwaukee’s sewage outfalls, suggesting that the lake is not diluting the compounds as most scientists expected, according to new research. This ability of the drugs to travel and remain at relatively high concentrations means that fish and other aquatic life are exposed, so there could be “some serious near-shore impacts,” said Rebecca Klaper, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. In addition, Milwaukee draws its drinking water from Lake Michigan, although no pharmaceuticals have been detected in the city’s water. The researchers reported that 14 of the chemicals “were found to be of medium or high ecological risk,” and that the concentrations “indicate a significant threat to the health of the Great Lakes.” Nevertheless, it is not clear what, if any, effects the drugs are having on fish and other creatures in Lake Michigan.

September 5, 2013

Prescription drugs are contaminating Lake Michigan two miles from Milwaukee’s sewage outfalls, suggesting that the lake is not diluting the compounds as most researchers expected, according to new research.

In a body of water like the Great Lakes, you’d expect dilution would kick in and decrease concentrations, and that was not the case here,” said Dana Kolpin, a U.S. Geological Survey research hydrologist based in Iowa.

It is not clear what, if any, effects the drugs are having on fish and other creatures in Lake Michigan. But this ability to travel and remain at relatively high concentrations means that aquatic life is exposed, so there could be “some serious near-shore impacts,” said Rebecca Klaper, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and senior author of the study published in the journal Chemosphere.

In addition, Milwaukee draws its drinking water from Lake Michigan, although no pharmaceuticals have been found in the city’s water, according to Milwaukee Water Works.

The scientists tested effluent from two sewage outfalls and water and sediment from Lake Michigan (up to two miles from the outfalls) for 54 chemicals used in pharmaceuticals and personal care products.

Twenty-seven chemicals were found in the lake, with four found most frequently: an antidiabetic drug called metformin, caffeine, the antibiotic sulfamethoxazole and triclosan, an antibacterial and antifungal compound found in some soaps, toothpastes and other consumer products.

Wastewater treatment plants are simply not designed to remove these chemicals,” Klaper said. “This tells us we shouldn’t assume that dilution solves the problem of putting these into the environment.”

Metformin was detected at the highest levels – up to 840 parts per trillion one mile from the outfalls, and up to 160 parts per trillion two miles away.

The researchers reported that 14 of the chemicals “were found to be of medium or high ecological risk,” and that the concentrations “indicate a significant threat to the health of the Great Lakes, particularly near shore organisms.”

Of those, triclosan has been the most researched; it has proven acutely toxic to algae and can act as hormone disruptor in fish.

You’re not going to see fish die-offs [from pharmaceuticals] but subtle changes in how the fish eat and socialize that can have a big impact down the road,” said Kolpin, who did not participate in the study. “With behavior changes and endocrine disruption, reproduction and survival problems may not rear their ugly head for generations.”

Previous research has linked other pharmaceutical drugs in fish to slower reaction times to predators, altered eating habits and anxiety.

There is a lot of research measuring pharmaceuticals in water, so “now we need to figure out what impact they may have,” Kolpin said.

The problem is the effluent and water don’t have one compound but a chemical mixture soup,” Kolpin said. “It’s going to be hard to tease out which of these compounds may do harm” to people or fish.

Pharmaceutical and personal care product compounds are found in wastewater around the world. Studies have consistently found prescription drugs in drinking water at parts-per-trillion levels. U.S. Geological Survey scientists sampled 74 waterways used for drinking water in 25 states in 2008 and found 53 had one or more of the three dozen pharmaceuticals they were testing for in their water. The compounds mostly get into sewage through people excreting them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers pharmaceuticals an “emerging concern,” and has concluded that the chemicals may pose risks to wildlife and humans. There are currently no federal regulations of the compounds in waste or drinking water. However, 12 pharmaceuticals are currently on the EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List, which are chemicals that may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

You cannot blame the wastewater plants, they’re not out of compliance and there’s no incentive to start changing their technologies,” Kolpin said.

Klaper said the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District does a much better job than other plants at removing many compounds. But they’re just not equipped to handle the volume.

For example, we found quite a bit of caffeine in the lake, and they’re removing about 90 percent of the caffeine that comes in for treatment,” she said. “They can’t remove everything.”

With pharmaceuticals increasingly flowing into plants, capturing the compounds is going to be a challenge for not only Milwaukee but for treatment plants across the country, said Kevin Shafer, executive director of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.

At the time wastewater treatment plants were developed, these compounds were just not an issue,” Shafer said.

Shafer and colleagues are researching ways to bolster their pharmaceutical capture, including testing carbon filter technology.

Shafer said the carbon filters have a “good response but are very expensive and geared toward lower flows at smaller treatment plants.” The department also has collected 21 tons of unused medicines since 2006 so people don’t flush them down toilets.

There won’t be a silver bullet to tackle pharmaceuticals in wastewater, said Olga Lyandres, a research manager with the Alliance for the Great Lakes organization. But, with about 40 million people relying on the Great Lakes for drinking water, there needs to be more urgency in keeping these compounds out of the lakes.

The development and use of new technologies needs to be a priority,” she said. “And we really need increased monitoring by the facilities and the EPA to keep tabs on what’s there.”

The new study hopefully will spur awareness of the water cycle in the region, Lyandres said.

People should reconsider the notion that the Great Lakes are so large that this stuff cannot hurt us,” she said. “The stuff you excrete and wash down the drain ends up in the same bodies of water that you drink out of.”

Article Source: Environmental Health News.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

 Pollutants from Plant Kill Thousands of Fish in Chinese River

 

HONG KONG — Thousands of dead fish floating along a 19-mile stretch of a river in Hubei Province in central China were killed by pollutants emitted by a local chemical plant, provincial environmental officials said Wednesday.

Environmental protection officials said tests on water taken from the Fu River upstream from the metropolis of Wuhan revealed that extremely high levels of ammonia in the water were caused by pollution from a plant owned by the Hubei Shuanghuan Science and Technology Company.

The tests, conducted by environmental officials from Xiaogan City, revealed ammonia concentrations downstream from the plant as high as 196 milligrams per liter. The World Health Organization notes that naturally occurring ammonia appears in surface water at concentrations of about 12 milligrams per liter, while the similar figure for drinking water is around 0.02 milligrams per liter.

Shares in Hubei Shuanghuan were suspended from trading on the Shenzhen stock market Wednesday pending the release of an announcement. Calls to the company’s headquarters were not answered on Wednesday. Provincial officials ordered the company’s plant to cease production while the cause of the leak was investigated.

The plant produces sodium carbonate, used in making glass, and ammonium chloride for fertilizer, according to local news media reports. It has been cited for environmental violations four times since 2008, said Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, a Chinese nongovernmental organization that tracks air and water pollution.

“Each time it was ordered to be corrected, but this demonstrates that enforcement is way too weak and the cost of violations way too low,” Mr. Ma said.

People living along the river said they first noticed fish dying on Monday morning, and a sickening stench began to fill the air, China National Radio reported. About 110 tons of dead fish have been cleared from the river, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported Wednesday.

Environmental officials said the river was not used as a source of drinking water, and they urged residents not to panic. Spills in China have often set off runs on bottled water because of fears of contaminated supplies.

China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection said water pollution was a serious concern, with industrial spills, farm runoff and untreated sewage all factors in degrading water quality. As of last year, nearly a third of the sections of major rivers it monitored were so degraded that the water was unfit for human contact, the ministry said in its annual State of Environmental Quality report, released in June.

The Fu River flows into the Yangtze, China’s longest river and the source of drinking water for millions. Spills into the Yangtze and its tributaries remain a continuing problem despite huge investments in reducing pollution, Mr. Ma said.

“Even though it has a large volume of water, with 40 percent of China’s wastewater dumped into this watershed we are concerned about the health of this river and the quality of its water,” he said.

 

Source: NY Times.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

One Tank Aeration Treatment for Iron and Hydrogen Sulfide

by Gene Franks

Closed-tank aeration is a well established method for preparing iron, hydrogen sulfide, and manganese in well water for removal by a filter.

Standard closed-tank aeration systems consist of a method for introducing air into the water and a closed aeration tank where the actual treatment (oxidation) of the contaminant takes place. The treatment tank is then followed by an appropriate filter to actually strain out the oxidized particles.

Dual Tank Venturi Systems

The earliest closed air systems relied on a small venturi installed in the water pipe to draw air into the water stream.

Venturi injects air into water stream.

The air-rich water was then sent to a small treatment tank where oxidation of the contaminant took place, turning “clear water” (ferrous) iron to “red water” (ferric) iron which is easily caught by a filter in a separate tank. The process works the same for manganese and hydrogen sulfide, which, like iron, are “oxidized” to more basic substances with a physical form that can be trapped by a filter.

Dual Tank Air Pump Systems

More aggressive compressor-driven aeration systems use a small air pump to pack compressed air into a closed treatment tank. The compressed then forms a pocket in the top third of the tank. As water enters the tank, it falls through the pocket of compressed air and oxidation of contaminants takes place. These systems are very effective and can be used to treat large amounts of both iron and hydrogen sulfide.

Both systems described above require a separate treatment tank where oxidation of the contaminant takes place followed by a filter tank where the contaminant is removed. Both can be very effective, but they have drawbacks. The venturi system restricts water flow considerably, so it is best used only on small residential systems. The air pump system is very effective but it is also fairly elaborate to set up. It requires electricity to power the pump, and in most systems, to control the venting system that provides air turnover in the treatment tank.

The small air pump is usually used to inject air directly into the aeration tank.

Single Tank Systems

A more recently developed treatment style performs both functions, aeration and filtration, in a single tank. Single tank systems use the filter tank itself to perform aeration and the filter’s control valve to draw in air for the process.

In the more passive, single tank system no air pump is used. Air is drawn into the treatment tank with a venturi system similar to the one used by water softeners to draw in brine. Air is taken in only during the nightly regeneration phase. During regeneration, air is pulled into the tank and all water is expelled. When the tank refills, the air is compressed into a tight pocket that sits above the filter media. As water to be treated enters the tank, it sprays down through the air pocket where the contaminant is oxidized and prepared for removal by the filter media in the bottom 2/3 of the tank. Actually, the entire tank becomes an oxygen rich atmosphere favorable to optimal performance by the filter media.

Versatility of Single-Tank Aerators

A great advantage of single-tank aeration systems is that they can be used with a wide range of treatment media and strategies. Almost all the standard iron/manganese/sulfide media work well when aerated. Birm, standard filter carbon, and catalytic carbon have long been used with aeration. When coupled with aeration, Filox, the premier iron remover, is a star performer. Filter Ag and other granular turbidity reducers like ChemSorb and Micro Z become excellent iron filtration media when housed in an oxygen-rich treatment tank. Calcite can play the double role of pH neutralizer and iron remover when used in a single-tank aerator.

Here are some examples of very effective single-tank applications.

Media

Application

Conditions and Comments

Granular Activated Carbon

Hydrogen Sulfide

The life of carbon treating sulfide is greatly increased with aeration.

Centaur Catalytic Carbon

Hydrogen Sulfide, Moderate Iron

Works well with high levels of hydrogen sulfide and moderate quantities of iron. Aeration greatly extends the life of catalytic carbon.

Birm

Moderate Iron

Not effective with hydrogen sulfide.Birm is a favorite in single-tank aerators because it works so well when the oxygen content of water is high. It is also relatively light and easy to backwash.

Filox

Moderate to High Iron, Hydrogen Sulfide

Filox filters should be sized smaller than Birm filters because of high backwash requirement. A 9”X 48” Filox filter, however, supports a higher service flow rate than a 10” X 54” Birm filter.

Filter Ag

Moderate Iron, Turbidity

Filter Ag can also be mixed with Birm. Light and easy to backwash.

Calcite

Low pH, Moderate Iron

As the pH of oxygen rich water goes up, granular calcite becomes an excellent iron filter. This filter can be used as a stand-alone, or with high levels of iron, it can be followed by an additional iron filter.

Although this is a bit of an oversimplification, manganese is removed by the same methods that are used to remove iron. Manganese is more difficult to remove, however, and the pH of the water must be higher than that required for iron removal. Most iron media work well when the pH is at or slightly below 7.0, but manganese removal may require a pH as high as 8.5.

The 10″ X 54″ single tank aerator from Pure Water Products can be used with a variety of media to treat iron, hydrogen sulfide, or manganese. The almond tank allows viewing of the air pocket when a flashlight is shined on the tank wall.

The easy-to-program electronic control allows the user to select duration of backwash, rinse, and air draw as well as regeneration frequency.  

Air is drawn into the unit through the dome-shaped screen and a check valve maintains the air pocket by preventing air from migrating backward through the inlet.

The unit comes with a stainless steel bypass valve for easy installation.  

See How Does Aeration Work?  and How Aeration Systems for Water Treatment Work.

Removing Fluoride from Drinking Water


Posted September 2nd, 2013

Removing Fluoride from Drinking Water 

by Gene Franks

 The best ways to remove fluoride from drinking water are with any good reverse osmosis unit or steam distiller. Both products remove a high percentage of fluoride by their nature and do not need specialty filters.

At Pure Water Products we say that the second best way to remove fluoride from drinking water is with our “Enhanced Performance Fluoride Filter.” (Sorry, the name isn’t sexy, but it’s the best we could manage.)

The Enhanced Performance Fluoride Filter uses the best fluoride resin we can find (Resin Tech’s SR-900) and puts it to work under the very best of conditions. For fluoride filters to be effective, it is necessary that water pass through the fluoride medium very slowly. Slowly, as in no more than 1/4 gallon per minute. That’s about a third the normal delivery speed for a standard countertop or undersink water filter.

The Enhanced Fluoride Filter slows the water down in the fluoride cartridge, then allows it to run full speed through the carbon filters that accompany it. The result is optimal fluoride performance and normal delivery speed at the faucet.

The Enhanced Performance Fluoride Filter uses a standard reverse osmosis tank to store fluoride-free water for fast delivery to the faucet. 

Third best fluoride removal strategy, and certainly not a bad choice, is with standard undersink or countertop filtration units with the same high quality cartridge as the fluoride filter. Fluoride treatment, to be done well, requires at least a double canister filter—one for fluoride and the second for chemical/taste/odor reduction. We have a single cartridge that contains half fluoride resin and half coconut shell carbon for our Model 77 countertop, but a double filter with full carbon and full fluoride cartridges is much preferred. With conventional fluoride filters,both countertop and undersink, the user can, of course, run water slowly and achieve “enhanced performance” as with the special filter described above.

A double countertop filter can be an effective fluoride remover when one housing contains a fluoride removal cartridge and the second contains a carbon block cartridge.

We use only two fluoride removal methods—reverse osmosis, the best, and standard fluoride resin (activated alumina). We do not use bone char carbon that is sold on some internet sites. We like to think we have too much class.

A study has found that drinking arsenic-laced water is like smoking for decades.  

Adapted from a article by Francie Diep.

 Bangladesh’s water situation is “the largest mass poisoning of a population in history.”

Groundwater in many countries, including the U.S., has naturally high levels of arsenic.

Drinking water contaminated with unsafe levels of arsenic harms the lungs as much as decades of smoking, a new study has found.

Arsenic is a notoriously poisonous element that occurs naturally in the Earth’s rocks, water and soil. Industrial activity can also concentrate arsenic in certain places. For their study of arsenic’s effects on lung health, researchers looked at arsenic levels that were at least twice as high as what the U.S Environmental Protection Agency considers permissible for drinking water. Those levels appeared in drinking water in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh isn’t the only country where the water supply contains unsafe levels of arsenic, however. Groundwater in parts of Argentina, Chile, China, India, Mexico and the U.S. is naturally high in arsenic.  Arsenic levels in groundwater vary greatly according to location because of variations in natural rock formations and the pH of water.

In 2000, one study found that tens of millions of Americans had unsafe levels of arsenic in their tap water. The Environmental Protection Agency has adjusted the maximum allowable for arsenic, but surveys have found continuing problems in private and public wells. Just last year, Consumer Reports found high levels of arsenic in many American foods,  especially in rice products. Arsenic can get into crops from the soil it grows in and the water used to grow it.

Doctors already know that people who drink water with dangerous levels of arsenic are at higher risk for a gamut of health problems: Damage to their nerves, gastrointestinal system, kidneys, livers and immune system. Increased risk of diabetes and heart disease. And arsenic is one of the few chemicals that appears in water that’s been definitively linked to cancers, including lung cancer.

In this new study, a team of public health researchers from the U.S. and Bangladesh sampled the drinking water of 20,000 study volunteers who live in a part of Bangladesh with varying levels of arsenic in the well water. They also took urine samples from the volunteers, to determine how much arsenic each volunteer had in his or her body. Then they tested subjects’ lung capacity by asking them to blow into a spirometer.

The researchers found that people drinking water with dangerous levels of arsenic had decreased lung capacities. The effect appeared even when the researchers controlled for people’s ages, genders, smoking habits and other traits that affect lung capacity. The more arsenic the researchers found in the volunteers’ bodies, the smaller the volunteers’ lung capacity.

The researchers first started seeing slight effects among people whose water had between roughly twice as much and 10 times as much arsenic as the Environmental Protection Agency says is okay. A third of the volunteers were exposed to more than 10 times as much arsenic as the U.S. drinking water standard, and they had significantly reduced lung capacities. The reduction was comparable to the effects of long-term smoking,

The problems with arsenic in Bangladeshi drinking water are both relatively new and sadly persistent. Humanitarian groups first dug deep wells in the country in the 1970s because, at the time, hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi children died each year from waterborne diseases such as cholera. Aid groups were looking for a source of “cleaner” water than the stuff nearer the surface. Researchers first realized that the wells had high levels of arsenic in the 1990s, but the wells are still in use.

The Environmental Protection Agency recognizes several effective ways of removing arsenic from drinking water, but they haven’t been applied to Bangladeshi wells. In a statement from the World Health Organization, U.S. epidemiologist Allan Smith has called the Bangladesh situation “the largest mass poisoning of a population in history.”

The lung-capacity research team published its work in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Much more about arsenic and how to remove it:  Pure Water Products.

Detailed information about arsenic reduction: The Pure Water Occasional.

Main Source:  Popsci.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Copper in Water


Posted August 24th, 2013

Copper is a reddish naturally occurring metal. In water it typically is dissolved as a divalent cation (Cu +2). In small amounts, copper is an essential element for living organisms.

Copper is obtained by mining copper ores. It is widely used to make copper pipe and tubing. Copper compounds are used as pesticides and herbicides. In water treatment it is widely used as an ingredient in a “redox” process in a product called KDF.  Copper is also used as a mild swimming pool disinfectant in the form of electronically generated copper ions.

Native copper. As you would expect, it’s copper colored. It’s good to make wire with, but bad for your liver if you ingest too much.

Copper does not break down in the environment, and it can be discharged from wastewater treatment facilities.

Corrosion from copper plumbing fixtures may cause high levels of copper in drinking water. The presence of copper corrosion is often indicated by blue-green staining of fixtures.

Regarding Health Effects, too much copper can cause nausea and vomiting, and long-term exposure can lead to liver damage and kidney problems.

Copper is a necessary nutrient, but USDA says adult intake should be no more than 10 milligrams per day.

Recommended adult intake is 1.0 to 1.6 mg/day.
US EPA Primary Drinking Water maximum contaminant level goal: 1.3 ppm. Secondary maximum (recommended to avoid metallic taste or blue-green staining): 1.0 ppm.

Water treatment:

Copper can be controlled in whole house (POE) applications and plumbing fixtures protected by cation exchange (water softener), pH control, and film-creating compounds such as polyphosphates.

Point of use treatment. Reverse osmosis removes copper handily–usually around 97%. Copper can also be removed by distillation and activated carbon adsorption.

 

Sources: Water Technology Volume 32, Issue 11 – November 2009. Enting Engineering Handbook. Pure Water Occasional.

The Great Water Article


Posted August 24th, 2013

 

The New York Times’ Great Water Article

by Hardly Waite

Back in 1992 when the paper Pure Water Gazette printed an entire issue called “The Gazette’s Great Water Article,”  magazine stories about the condition of US waters were common.  Unfortunately, though magazines and newspapers keep grinding out articles that point out the same old shortcomings of the way the US cares for its most precious resource, nothing of significance has been done to change things since the Clean Water Act of the 1970s.

I regret to say it isn’t  likely that things will change.

There is simply no political will to address the serious problems facing the nation’s water supplies, and there are rich and powerful vested interests who beat down every attempt at reform. 

Here are a few examples of the problems.

There are now, by the EPA’s estimate, some 60,000 chemicals being used in the United States. The EPA, the regulatory agency which was created under the Clean Water Act to look after our water supplies, has regulatory standards for only 91 of these. The remaining 59,900 or so are not being monitored by your water supplier.

Attempts to broaden regulation are met immediately with crushing opposition from wealthy opponents in industry or even our own government.  This is because our government is now populated by people who worked in the for-profit sector last year or will work there next year.  It’s called a revolving door.

States oppose regulations that would affect businesses, although the health of their citizens is at stake.

Every attempt to regulate use of the powerful water contaminant perchlorate, a rocket fuel ingredient, has been fought by the mighty propaganda machine of the US military.  Military propagandists, with public financing,  publicly question the patriotism of proponents of perchlorate regulation. If you love your country, you’ll drink your rocket fuel and keep your mouth shut.

The regulatory standards for the tiny number of contaminants the EPA has acted upon are pitifully inadequate, and enforcement is lax.   And the standards themselves are of very questionable accuracy.

The truth is that no one really knows how much vinyl chloride or benzene one can safely ingest over a period of years. Contrary to the mythology promoted by regulating agencies and water suppliers, the EPA’s magic numbers aren’t based on some concrete and absolute scientific standard that deserves our confidence.  EPA standards are politically negotiated numbers–backroom compromises that set the standard somewhere between an assumed safe level and what is convenient for the polluting industry or the water supplier.  Even the “science” used by regulators to determine safe levels is laughable; it is still based, now, in the 21st century, largely on “animal studies,” a branch of science that would have died in the Middle Ages if it were not so profitable and useful to manipulators.

Similarly, few Americans seem aware of the deplorable state of the aging infrastructure that handles our water and sanitation systems.  The original Clean Water Act provided at least limited funds for the rebuilding of the nation’s water and sanitation systems.  Since that time, although Congress has found ample funds for endless wars,  bank bailouts, and tax relief for the super rich, there is never any money for such unglamorous items as the expansion and repair of sewage systems that were designed for half the population that we now have.  In most urban areas today, even a 1/2″ rain shower overwhelms the drainage system and pours thousands of gallons of untreated sewage and chemical runoff into drinking water reservoirs.

These and many other aspects of the highly inadequate management of our water resources are discussed at length in an exceptional multi-article study that appeared over a period of months in the New York Times.   These well-documented pieces include information that cause one to think twice before trusting the water that comes straight from the tap.  From the Times’ studies one learns, for example, that 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.”  The Timesconfirms the finding of previous Associated Press studies that one in six Americans is ingesting pharmaceuticals in their drinking water.

Most discouraging of all is the finding that there have been more than half a million violations of the Clean Water Act committed by water suppliers since 2004 and only 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or in any way punished by state and federal officials.  And fines to wealthy polluters are usually just a slap on the wrist–the amount being a tiny part of what the polluter saved by ignoring the law.

A substantial portion of the Times reports can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/us/17water.html?_r=2&th&emc=th

• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08water.html?_r=1&sudsredirect=true

• http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters

I hope you’ll read them.  There’s a wealth of information, and especially several video reports worth watching. Watch the videos. You’ll like them.

Source:  Pure Water Occasional.

Wonder substance can treat contaminated water

by Tim Sandle

Contaminated water is a major problem in many parts of the world. To help people to get access to clean water, scientists have invented a porous gel embedded with silver nanoparticles that works like a bacteria-killing sponge.
The developed substance is a gel. When ‘dirty’ bacteria-laden water is passed through the gel, the gel can sanitize the water and produce water that is fit to be drunk. Technically the gel is a poly(sodium acrylate) (PSA) cryogel, which has been decorated with silver nanoparticles. Sodium polyacrylate is also known as ‘waterlock’. The material has the ability to absorb as much as 200 to 300 times its mass in water.
The new substance, when paired with a specially designed tube device, is relatively easy to use. It works by the gel absorbing water, then binding and killing any bacteria that are present in a few seconds, and then releasing drinkable water when the gel is squeezed. To eliminate around 1000 cells of harmful bacteria, the water containing the contaminants only required fifteen seconds contact with the gel.
The reason that the bacteria are killed is due to the silver ions contained within the gel. Initially there was a concern that the silver could render the water toxic; however, the scientists were able to engineer a solution whereby the silver was mixed with the clean water produced after the gel is squeezed. The researchers tested the gel by using it to soak up water laced with two bacterial pathogens: Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. These pathogens, in low numbers were eliminated. When the researchers used a very high challenge (close to a million bacteria) they were also able to eliminate the microbes, although a longer, 15 minute contact time between the gel and the water was required.
A key advantage with the new invention is for parts of the world where contaminated water occurs and where resources are tight. This is because the gel is less expensive than most other water treatment processes, and can be used where there is no power and thus heating is not an option. A further advantage stems from the gel being recyclable for it can be used several times over without any loss to its bacteria killing properties. The process is also much faster than water filtration. The gel is also very light and it is contained within a tube. The idea behind this is so that the gel could be dropped into disaster zones to allow people to access clean water quickly. The new gel was designed by a group of scientists from Singapore and the U.S. The gel has been written up in a paper for the journal Environmental Science and Technology, in a paper titled “Superabsorbent Cryogels Decorated with Silver Nanoparticles as a Novel Water Technology for Point-of-Use Disinfection.”

Do Oregon’s clear-cut and pesticide buffers protect drinking water from creeks, rivers?

by Scott Learn

ROCKAWAY BEACH — From her front porch, Nancy Webster has a clear view of the hills just east of the coast highway, a western hemlock forest that’s home to Rockaway Beach‘s water supply.

The retired social worker, who grew up in a Northwest logging family, worried when she saw patchwork clear-cuts expanding in 2011.

Last summer, she and a friend hiked into the watershed during a storm and saw the creek that feeds Rockaway Beach’s water treatment plant “running chocolate brown.” In September, she spotted helicopters spraying herbicides, catching distinct whiffs at her house a half-mile away.

Just like that, the latest highly motivated critic of Oregon’s Forest Practices Act,which governs private timberlands, was born.

“You can just see the mud washing off the slopes, and then a 20-foot buffer on logging along the creek,” Webster says. “It just seems like there is very little protection for the watershed.”

Timberlands are easier on water quality than cities and farms. The timeline between harvests runs for decades, and herbicides typically get sprayed only in the first years after a cut, until new trees are established.

But when it comes to stream buffers and herbicide applications, Oregon’s rules for private forests are less stringent than in neighboring Washington and far less stringent than in national forests.

After years of complaints, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is studying whether Oregon’s regulation of nonindustrial sources of water pollution, including timberlands, is good enough.

 

 Jetty Creek

Oregon’s Forest Practices Act was the first in the nation to regulate private lands when the state adopted it in 1971. But disputes over it have bubbled up around the state.

In southwest Oregon, much of the congressional delegation favors applying the more lenient rules on 1.5 million acres of federal forests, raising concerns about the effects on rivers and drinking water.

Residents of Triangle Lake, west of Eugene, complain of drift from spraying on private timberland — and point to herbicides found in their urine. And the EPA and others question the effects on streams and salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Along the coast, drinking water is a top concern.

Tom Merrell, manager of the Arch Cape Service District, says Oregon’s no-cut zone of 20 feet along significant streams doesn’t protect drinking water from herbicides and mud runoff, or “turbidity.” Washington’s no-cut zone is 50 feet. Turbidity adds to filtering costs and can boost harmful byproducts that arise when chlorine, a disinfectant added to kill bacteria, hits organic matter bunched in the water.

On Oregon’s north coast, 11 of the 18 public water systems fed by rivers or creeks have received alerts over the years for high levels of disinfection byproducts — trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids.

“These rules are archaic, and they’re weighted against anybody but the landowner,” says Merrell, who adds that the district has some of the costliest water rates in the state. “I’ve pleaded with (Oregon Department of Forestry) and landowners for years and years and years to strengthen these buffers, and I’ve just run up against the wall.”

Clear-cuts in watershed 

The watershed that feeds Rockaway Beach runs 1,200 acres, with Jetty Creek the main conduit. On a steep hike along forest roads with Webster and other members of Rockaway Citizens for Watershed Protection, the part of the creek closest to U.S. 101 and the water plant is heavily forested and shaded.

Within a mile, clear-cuts emerge, scrabbly ground bumping into strips of trees along the creek. The citizen group’s analysis of Google satellite photos and harvest notices show that about fourth-fifths of the watershed was clear-cut since 2004, the majority since 2010.

As a drinking water stream, Jetty Creek gets some protection. But Oregon’s smaller, non-fish-bearing streams — which can be 80 percent of a watershed — get no buffer from cuts or spraying under the law. Washington, by contrast, extends its 50-foot, no-touch buffer to at least half of its small-stream network.

Stream buffers for aerial herbicide spraying are also smaller in Oregon than in Washington. And Oregon’s notification system is solely on paper and costly, with windows for potential sprays as long as six months.

The hikers pass tributary creeks still trickling in late July, with trees cut to the edge. Judy Coleman, Webster’s friend, compares it with the Portland-owned Bull Run watershed near Mount Hood, where logging has been prohibited since 1996.

“If this happened in the Bull Run, there would be an uproar,” says Coleman, a former water quality analyst for Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality.

Ideally, she and Webster say, Rockaway Beach would buy this land, or at least an easement along streams. Another potential solution: Swap land with federal agencies, which use relatively little herbicide and have buffers of 150 feet on small streams, with only thinning allowed.

Since January 2011, Rockaway Beach officials have warned residents eight times about excess disinfection byproducts after quarterly testing. The byproducts can diminish liver, kidney and nervous system function, and increase the risk of bladder cancer, health officials say.

The district, which supplies 2,300 water hookups, spent $600,000 on a membrane filter two years ago for its new treatment plant, but that didn’t solve the problem. Now it’s spending $120,000 for an upstream sand filter to try to capture more silt.

A 2002 evaluation identified clear-cuts as a potential source of contamination. But Luke Shepard, Rockaway Beach’s public works director, says it’s not certain that logging is to blame. Treatments have changed, he says, and supplementing with well water has stopped, expanding reliance on Jetty Creek.

He shuts down the plant for 24 hours when turbidity runs high or after timber companies tell him an herbicide spray is coming.

“We’re kind of feeling the pressure from both sides,” he says. “Logging’s a pretty important industry around here, and there are a lot of conflicting interests with the watersheds.”

At this point, it’s unclear if logging contributes to the byproducts, says Kari Salis, a manager for the Oregon Health Authority’s drinking water program.

Organic material can flow in naturally. Treated water can hang out in coastal systems longer — demand drops when tourists depart — increasing chlorine contact with organics. And the state has no data on how much logging contributes organic matter to the water. Since protection of source waters is voluntary, Salis says, there’s “no regulatory hook.”

DEQ studies of coastal drinking water watersheds have pinpointed turbidity as a concern, but haven’t determined what causes it.

This fall, the agency will monitor Jetty Creek to try to catch potential impacts from herbicide spraying. Statewide, tests of treated drinking water rarely find herbicides.

Washington’s streamside protection rules are “considerably stronger,” DEQ officials say. Generally, studies show that clear-cuts increase water flow, powering streams to erode bank sediment or stir up streambeds, says Joshua Seeds, a DEQ drinking water program specialist.

But the connection isn’t specific enough to ask forestry officials to tighten rules.

“If we had direct analysis that said these practices equal this water quality impact, we would take (it) to ODF (Oregon Department of Forestry) and they would take it to their board,” Seeds says. “It is something we need to do more work on.”

Stewardship defended 

The two timberland owners in the Rockaway Beach watershed — Stimson Lumberand Olympic Resource Management — say they often exceed state requirements.

Scott Gray, Stimson’s western resources manager, said company officials put more than minimum buffers along drinking water streams and work with local water managers to address concerns.

“We take our land stewardship responsibilities very seriously,” Gray said in an email.

Tim Raschko, Olympic’s director of timberland management, said the company cut 500 acres from 2010 to 2012, and spent $357,000 on logging road maintenance in 2011, four times the industry average per acre.

Runoff from roads is considered a prime source of sediment in streams long term, particularly during log hauling. Raschko said workers set up silt fences and sediment traps and monitored the creek for sediment.

The company notifies neighbors within 1,000 feet of spraying of herbicides, Raschko says, and tries to post more precise spraying dates, neither required under Oregon law. It also skipped herbicides in the clear-cut closest to the water plant, he says.

Raschko says he can’t answer whether Oregon’s forest rules — set by compromise as much as science — are adequate.

“But there’s science going on and we need to get answers on that quickly, so if things are inadequate, we can adjust,” he says.

The state Forestry Department is working with timber companies, university experts and other agencies on three studies to better gauge the effects of logging on streams.

The first report, on Hinkle Creek near Roseburg, found significantly more sediment from logging. A Coast Range study along the Trask River should show whether greater protection of headwaters would benefit water quality.

Lena Tucker, deputy chief of the department’s private forests division, says the state has adjusted rules often over the years, and will again if science supports it. After studies indicated runoff problems from log hauling during storms, for example, the state restricted it. The state also plans online notification of pesticide spraying by late 2014, replacing cumbersome paperwork.

The Oregon agency also bears in mind that forests generate better water quality than subdivisions or other uses, she says.

“Overall,” Tucker says, “our mission is to keep those working forestlands working.”

Source:  Oregon Live.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement