Arsenic in water!!

Quote:
- WRONG!

A Boil water advisory is only for confirmed or suspected microbiological contamination, it is never used for high heavy metals (boiling water with heavy metals would only further increase the concentration of metals by boiling off pure water, (ie. less water, same amount of metals, metal concentration would increase). Chemical effects are long-term chronic concerns (kill you later), while microbiological effects are short-term acute concerns (kill you now).

Fluoride is beneficial in drinking water? Now the gloves come off...fluoride is great for teeth, but very bad for bones. For the costs of adding Fluoride to drinking water, you could provide toothbrushes, toothpaste, floss and dental care for those that need it for less money spent on adding fluoride to the drinking water, of which only 5-10% is actually consumed. Most of it goes down the drain and outdoor watering. Usually there is already a small amount of naturally occurring fluoride, along with some from green leafy vegetables and teas. Brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste is proven to do more than a shortcut of drinking fluoridated water. 150 million people in the US have fluoridated water and the rest do not. Those without fluoride in their water are not missing anything.

We all know that tap water is tested way more often than bottled water, foods, etc. Let's not ruin tap water by adding more chemicals to a relatively inexpensive product. Even medical science is ignorant in their Top 10 advances by including fluoridation. I can't recall the number of water customers that have called to say that their doctors told them that our City drinking water could be causing their disease, which is so entirely laughable! People just want to blame someone else rather than themselves these days. Untreated or incorrectly treated water can make people sick, but not properly treated water.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12003
Fluoridation of drinking water Fluoridation of drinking water began in 1945 and in 1999 reaches an estimated 144 million persons in the United States. Fluoridation safely and inexpensively benefits both children and adults by effectively preventing tooth decay, regardless of socioeconomic status or access to care. Fluoridation has played an important role in the reductions in tooth decay (40%- 70% in children) and of tooth loss in adults (40%-60%).

Believe the above statement if you want to, but I can't.

--Hugh
 
First of all, thank you to everyone for your help, especially Hugh, your advice is very much appreciated. To all the people who seem intent on picking a fight, I get it, I wasn't explicitly detailed in my first post. However, as evidenced in this thread, people with experience on the subject understood the situation and offered help. Those who didn't have experience left me patronizing messages. Rest assured, I will provide every detail possible in future posts to avoid offending the delicate senses of rude people, so you can stop reminding me to do so.
 
Quote:
- WRONG!

A Boil water advisory is only for confirmed or suspected microbiological contamination, it is never used for high heavy metals (boiling water with heavy metals would only further increase the concentration of metals by boiling off pure water, (ie. less water, same amount of metals, metal concentration would increase). Chemical effects are long-term chronic concerns (kill you later), while microbiological effects are short-term acute concerns (kill you now).

Fluoride is beneficial in drinking water? Now the gloves come off...fluoride is great for teeth, but very bad for bones. For the costs of adding Fluoride to drinking water, you could provide toothbrushes, toothpaste, floss and dental care for those that need it for less money spent on adding fluoride to the drinking water, of which only 5-10% is actually consumed. Most of it goes down the drain and outdoor watering. Usually there is already a small amount of naturally occurring fluoride, along with some from green leafy vegetables and teas. Brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste is proven to do more than a shortcut of drinking fluoridated water. 150 million people in the US have fluoridated water and the rest do not. Those without fluoride in their water are not missing anything.

We all know that tap water is tested way more often than bottled water, foods, etc. Let's not ruin tap water by adding more chemicals to a relatively inexpensive product. Even medical science is ignorant in their Top 10 advances by including fluoridation. I can't recall the number of water customers that have called to say that their doctors told them that our City drinking water could be causing their disease, which is so entirely laughable! People just want to blame someone else rather than themselves these days. Untreated or incorrectly treated water can make people sick, but not properly treated water.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12003
Fluoridation of drinking water Fluoridation of drinking water began in 1945 and in 1999 reaches an estimated 144 million persons in the United States. Fluoridation safely and inexpensively benefits both children and adults by effectively preventing tooth decay, regardless of socioeconomic status or access to care. Fluoridation has played an important role in the reductions in tooth decay (40%- 70% in children) and of tooth loss in adults (40%-60%).

Believe the above statement if you want to, but I can't.
€
--Hugh

Wrong !


Flouride at low levels is a beneficial additive to drinking water Flouride is added to many water supplies to improve the development of bones and teeth in young children
(So it is also good for bones as well)
flouride found in excessive amounts amounts have negitive effects,
2 mg/l can cause discoloration of teeth, 4 mg/l bones become brittle
There are many cost effective ways to add flouride to the water, remember 20 years ago when people had this vision of ky being full of toothless hillbillys,
thats going away thanks to flouride, so dont say it isnt worth doing. just cause it doent work in cali dont mean it wont fly in ky


I wont and will not claim to know the regs in the state in california (you must be real good if you know the state regs for all the states,)
however in the state of ky when the mcl (maximium cantaimint level ) has been comprimised
the public is to be notified . (my fault for saying boil water advisory) there are other ways to do so (consumer confidence reports, etc)



so to answer the main ? about arsenic in drinking water
which correct me if i am wrong
is 50 parts per billion
the nehttp://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=446715w
 
Quote:
- WRONG!

A Boil water advisory is only for confirmed or suspected microbiological contamination, it is never used for high heavy metals (boiling water with heavy metals would only further increase the concentration of metals by boiling off pure water, (ie. less water, same amount of metals, metal concentration would increase). Chemical effects are long-term chronic concerns (kill you later), while microbiological effects are short-term acute concerns (kill you now).

Fluoride is beneficial in drinking water? Now the gloves come off...fluoride is great for teeth, but very bad for bones. For the costs of adding Fluoride to drinking water, you could provide toothbrushes, toothpaste, floss and dental care for those that need it for less money spent on adding fluoride to the drinking water, of which only 5-10% is actually consumed. Most of it goes down the drain and outdoor watering. Usually there is already a small amount of naturally occurring fluoride, along with some from green leafy vegetables and teas. Brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste is proven to do more than a shortcut of drinking fluoridated water. 150 million people in the US have fluoridated water and the rest do not. Those without fluoride in their water are not missing anything.

We all know that tap water is tested way more often than bottled water, foods, etc. Let's not ruin tap water by adding more chemicals to a relatively inexpensive product. Even medical science is ignorant in their Top 10 advances by including fluoridation. I can't recall the number of water customers that have called to say that their doctors told them that our City drinking water could be causing their disease, which is so entirely laughable! People just want to blame someone else rather than themselves these days. Untreated or incorrectly treated water can make people sick, but not properly treated water.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12003
Fluoridation of drinking water Fluoridation of drinking water began in 1945 and in 1999 reaches an estimated 144 million persons in the United States. Fluoridation safely and inexpensively benefits both children and adults by effectively preventing tooth decay, regardless of socioeconomic status or access to care. Fluoridation has played an important role in the reductions in tooth decay (40%- 70% in children) and of tooth loss in adults (40%-60%).

Believe the above statement if you want to, but I can't.
€
--Hugh

Wrong !


Flouride at low levels is a beneficial additive to drinking water Flouride is added to many water supplies to improve the development of bones and teeth in young children
(So it is also good for bones as well)
flouride found in excessive amounts amounts have negitive effects,
2 mg/l can cause discoloration of teeth, 4 mg/l bones become brittle
There are many cost effective ways to add flouride to the water, remember 20 years ago when people had this vision of ky being full of toothless hillbillys,
thats going away thanks to flouride, so dont say it isnt worth doing. just cause it doent work in cali dont mean it wont fly in ky


I wont and will not claim to know the regs in the state in california (you must be real good if you know the state regs for all the states,)
however in the state of ky when the mcl (maximium cantaimint level ) has been comprimised
the public is to be notified . (my fault for saying boil water advisory) there are other ways to do so (consumer confidence reports, etc)



so to answer the main ? about arsenic in drinking water
which correct me if i am wrong
is 50 parts per billion
the nehttp://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=446715w

WRONG AGAIN...sorry. You really think you can win this one? My many years of experience in drinking water vs. your common sense understanding of science and drinking water standards?

To clarify: US-EPA is the regulatory agency that sets the Federal Drinking Water Standards for ALL states. If an individual state decides to choose a lower limit, they can, but they can not relax a standard set by the US-EPA. With that said, look again at this chart: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/DWdocuments/EPAandCDPH-11-28-2008.pdf
US-EPA Federal Standards are listed in the center columns, State of CA on the right (ignore CA Standards). Kentucky or any state in the US must comply with the US-EPA MCL for Primary Standard drinking water contaminant limits or they can set a lower limit, but they must meet the US-EPA limit at a minimum. If you are reading your Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) for your drinking water and you do not see Arsenic listed under contaminants, then that means that all testing conducted was below the reporting limit of 5ppb and they are not required to notify you because all results are Not Detected or ND. 10 ppb is the new limit for all states. Primary and secondardy standards are set for drinking water agencies. Individual well owners and very small systems play under very relaxed standards, some do not do any testing and some do occasional testing.

My original point on fluoridated water, "The value of fluoride-containing toothpaste to dental health is clear; fluoride is a potent chemical that on contact kills microbes on the teeth, reducing the incidence of cavities. But a substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed science strongly suggests that ingesting fluoride in tap water does not provide the same dental benefits, and may present serious health risks". AND "Public water supplies should be safe for all consumers, young and old alike. It is deeply troubling that children in Southern California, including bottle-fed infants, will be drinking fluoridated water in spite of the many serious health concerns identified by recent science. We believe the evidence is clear that fluoride exposure should be limited to toothpaste, where it provides the greatest dental benefit and presents the lowest overall health risk".
Quoted from here: http://www.ewg.org/reports/cafluoride

There
are two sides of the fluoridation in drinking water issue: those in favor (you) and those not in favor (me).

I have never lived in a community that had fluoridated drinking water, I have always brushed with fluoride toothpaste and received routine dental care (45 years old) and I have all my teeth (including wisdom teeth).

Insert toothy smile here:
big_smile.png
 
Wow!
i have never been more happy to be on this side of the country,not in california where if someone doesnt share the same opinion there wrong'

2nd i understand 100% the difference in the regulations in the state level and federal level (if you would like copies i will be happy to e-mail them to you)
to act like i know all of them off the top of my head would make me seem like an over educated idiot (we dont have enough of them around)

The flouride debate should be left up to the community at a local level. , too sit here and say flouride is harmless would be just as foolish to sit here and say it can not be helpful, and disturbing to feed it to bottle babys

on the arsenic please forgive me (your right it is 10 ppb at the federal level)
at .01 ppm skin and nervous system toxicity, possible cancer


if this is gonna be a right or wrong debate about who could read what out of the text book or the epa compliance guide, lets debate about something that is really got people thinking like cryptosporidium, or the pharmaceuticals starting to show up

and of course lets try to be more professional,
 
Hi Hillsvale! You're probably 15 minutes from us, we're in Centre Rawdon.
Reverse Osmosis is the most reliable water purification there is...
Reverse Osmosis does not remove Aresenic Type III. https://ccbw.com/blog/arsenic-the-silent-contaminant/ Will reverse osmosis remove arsenic? Reverse osmosis units are very capable of removing arsenic V, while some forms, such as arsenic III are not able to be removed with reverse osmosis and require a pre-treatment to convert arsenic III to arsenic V which then allows the reverse osmosis to filter out the arsenic V.
 
Ok, Water Quality Chemist signing in here
frow.gif
(20 years experience)

As I see it, you stated 30 parts As in 1,000,000,000 that means 30 ppb (ug/L) = 0.030 ppm (mg/L) As. To put this into perspective, you or a chicken would have to drink an entire liter of this water to consume 30ug (micrograms) of Arsenic. Drink 2 liters of this water and you will consume 60ug.

If you install a reverse osmosis filter in your kitchen, it should remove about 90% of the arsenic and also all other minerals and metals. Safe for you and your chickens. No need to buy a whole house filter system. Kitchen sink is the best place to install the filter, then you can stop drinking bottled water too.

A typical system: check Consumer Reports for their latest Water Filter issue. Always investigate how expensive the replacement filters will be, Amazon also sells good deals on replacement filters and systems too. http://www.amazon.com/Watts-WP5-50-Five-Stage-Manifold-Treatment/dp/B000E77I04/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1257921454&sr=8-1
Let me know if you have other questions,

--Hugh
Reverse Osmosis systems do not remove Arsenic type III which is more toxic than type V.
https://ccbw.com/blog/arsenic-the-silent-contaminant/
Reverse osmosis units are very capable of removing arsenic V, while some forms, such as arsenic III are not able to be removed with reverse osmosis and require a pre-treatment to convert arsenic III to arsenic V which then allows the reverse osmosis to filter out the arsenic V.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom