[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Water reports

Allen N Sandra wrote:
> 
> http://www.ci.tampa.fl.us/dept_Water/wdx.htm

Boat, 

You just did this to force me to open one of those disgusting, awful,
unreadable Adobe Acrobat files, didn't you? GRRR! :^)

Trying to find something and scroll through one is particularly bad when
their site is slow as molasses, too. Do they *have* to use blue letters on a
blue background? Looks like they are not anxious to have us see any details,
huh?

Use the binocular symbol in the menu at the top of Acrobat 4 pages to look
for key words, like calcium or hardness, assuming it ever gets fully loaded
onto your machine.

 
> This is the report form Tampa, FL.  There is no mention, that I have found
> (I am bad at finding stuff), of what the water hardness and such are.  The
> only interesting info was nitrates and nitraites.  Also, no definitive
> statement on what they use, whether it is  Chloramines (which I believe it
> is) or Chlorine.

Go to the Additional Chemical Parameters on p 4.  Total hardness is up to
293 ppm (HARD), alkalinity is high, but ammonia is sky high. You don't care
if they are using chlorine or chloramine, you had *better* be using Amquel
o/e or you will have a lot of stunted or dying fish at 0.1 to 2 ppm ammonia!
In fact, if they just added chlorine, it would *be* chloramine by the time
you see it.

> 
> Anyone have any pointers?

"Chlorine" and "chloramine" are carefully never used, even once, in the
document. They only appear as "Disinfectant residual," and are sky high
compared to most city waters. The average levels are over 3 times our peak
level. The word "chloramination" can be found in the far right column, BTW,
but who would ever search for that?

As sometimes happens when bureaucrats despise the public, they are trying to
bury and hide stuff they don't want to deal with. Fortunately, it is rare
that we have a metropolitan water district quite that arrogant. [LA Dept. of
Water and Power comes to mind, out here.] You have my sympathy.

> 
> BTW, I do know that we have rock solid hard water.  One time I measured
> it(water from the tap) with a pinpoint conductivity meter at 1000 micro/s,
> but the other day it was around 450 micro/s?!?!?

Note that total hardness also ranges from 90-293, which says your meter is
working nicely. It will depend on rain and a lot of other factors in flat
country, like yours. The average of 190 ppm is just moderately hard, and not
too bad to work with, for most fishy purposes.

Hardness, and uS or tds are only indirectly related, BTW. Salinity and
hardness are indistinguishable on the meters.

> 
> I'm with you Wright, it is frustrating, and as soon as I get a house, in
> goes the RO system.

It's not a cure-all. Measuring your water frequently would seem to be
required, to know how much RO to blend, and *always* treating it for
chloramine/ammonia certainly is called for.

Wright

-- 
Wright Huntley, Fremont CA, USA, 510 494-8679  huntleyone at home dot com

              Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. 
                 They should both be changed regularly 
                       and for the same reason.

                     http://free-market.net/news/
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Follow-Ups: References: