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

[APD] Re: Chemical (mis?)information

I still have chlorine in my water too. Last time I checked, the EPA only requires water companies with 500,000 or more customers to use chloramine. Smaller companies can still use plain old chlorine. --
Chuck Huffine
Knoxville, Tennessee

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but the original mandates did *start* with the largest systems, but considerable weighting was later given to other factors. In particular, the amount of organics that lead to trihalomethanes (carcinogens) was added to the mix after the first year or so. It is now impossible to predict the presense of chloramine, just by the size of the water district or by the bacterial threat.

Many systems smaller than 500,000 currently have chloramines added at the water plant. Others, like SF (serving millions) have been free of chloramine until this year, even though most smaller systems in the bay area had to switch some years ago.

Some mid-western agricultural areas have so much ammonium from fertilizer runoff that chloramines have been in their water since the '30s. ["Amquel" was developed long before the first EPA program to introduce chloramine to domestic water supplies (check the date on the patent, by J. F. Kuhns).]

One last caution, Chuck. Many, many water reports now show ammonium and chlorine on different lines, as if they were unrelated. [That's a logical, lazy-bureaucrat reaction to avoid the peasants with pitchforks and torches that used to go after fluoridation. :-)]


Wright Huntley - Rt. 001 Box K36, Bishop CA 93514 - whuntley at verizon_net
                    760 872-3995

"Outsourcing" is condemned for sending a few American jobs overseas.
What is the appeal, then, of "outsourcing" our entire national security?
[The exact same politicians are insisting that it be handled only by the
UN, and never our by own resources.]       -- WH

Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com