Tag Archives: contaminated water facts

Contaminated drinking water news. Kettleman City residents face a three-year wait to get healthy drinking water.

 (EPA) fined landfill operator Chemical Waste Management, a subsidiary of Waste Management, $300,000 for allowing cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to leach into the soil.  News Postings Drinking water contamination news. Save our water  Volume 3


Save the water,current post

News Posting
Vol.III
No.178
July 9
2012

 (EPA) fined landfill operator Chemical Waste Management, a subsidiary of Waste Management, $300,000 for allowing cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to leach into the soil.  Drinking water contamination news

 

Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation
 
Save the Water™ does not represent nor endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

For your surfing
pleasure here
are some links in our revamped web site

Educational All Levels
Current Sponsors
Resources
Join Our Link Exchange 

Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
Become A Sponsor

To Donate A Gift
Please Contact Us


The material posted is
courtesy of
Mark Grossi
Barbara Anderson
The Fresno Bee
Save the Water™
Water Research
Education Dept.
and is shared as
educational material only

Save the Water™

1st Annual
Internet
Sponsorship
Fundraiser
Campaign
June 1st
September 1st
2012

    (EPA) fined landfill operator Chemical Waste Management, a subsidiary of Waste Management, $300,000 for allowing cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to leach into the soil. Drinking water contamination news


Water
Research
Crisis
Response
Humanitarian
Projects
Education
Daily News


Contaminated drinking Water

A Homeowner's Guide to Septic Systems A Homeowner’s Guide to Septic Systems:
free brochure

[PDF Format]– This 15-page booklet describes how a septic system works and what a homeowner can do to help the system treat their wastewater efficiently.

Homeowner Septic System Checklist

Free
education material

Homeowner Septic System Checklist

[PDF Format] – This worksheet allows homeowners to keep track of septic system inspections and maintenance. This checklist is included in the booklet above or may also be used separately.



 
 

Rating for savethewater.org
Hazardous-waste landfill,

EPA fined waste management $300,000 on Tuesday, November 30, 2010

(EPA) fined landfill operator Chemical Waste Management, a subsidiary of Waste Management, $300,000 for allowing cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to leach into the soil. Residents had complained that birth defects have been caused by toxic chemicals from the landfill. State health officials recently released a report that concluded the birth defects did not come from exposure to chemicals from the landfill.

The EPA fine has not confirmed the health effects that residents claim caused the birth defects, but fined the company due to the contamination of the soil.


Kettleman City faces 3-year wait for clean water

baby crib

By Mark Grossi – The Fresno Bee/ Friday, Jul. 06, 2012 | 04:48 PM – Marks Blog

After years of worry about birth defects and the neighboring hazardous-waste landfill, Kettleman City residents face a three-year wait to get healthy drinking water.

The state has put up $8 million to replace the town’s water supply, which is laced with cancer-causing arsenic and benzene. But the project won’t be finished until at least 2015.

Meantime, the 1,400 residents in this Kings County farmworker town must provide their own bottled or filtered water.

The town’s contaminated water is not connected to the rash of birth defects that occurred a few years ago, according to state and federal investigations that showed no evidence of an environmental link.

But residents suspect a combination of factors, including the nearby Waste Management Inc. hazardous waste landfill, the water and farm pesticides.

Kettleman City is a small, unincorporated community in western Kings County that has been struggling for years to find a clean supply of drinking water.

Some residents are upset about having to wait three years for a water fix. The California Department of Public Health, which is helping the town get money for a water-treatment plant, does not provide bottled water in the interim.

No agency for the state, federal or county government has that responsibility. Like other small Valley towns with contaminated water, Kettleman City must fend for itself. Children are still bathing and brushing their teeth with the well water, said resident Maricela Mares-Alatorre, a long-time community activist. Most town residents buy filtered or bottled water, often driving to other cities for it.

“How would you feel about it?” she asked.

A leader for the advocacy group Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice in San Francisco said Kettleman City is a victim of foot-dragging bureaucrats.

“The state is letting nursing moms, pregnant women and babies drink poisoned water in a town already suffering from unusual health problems,” said Greenaction executive director Bradley Angel.

State health leaders say they’re doing everything possible to help Kettleman City. They say they will continue to follow the town’s issues carefully and work with the town to get healthy drinking water.

The project hinges on Kettleman City buying river water made available by Kings County, which is a customer of the State Water Project. The river water is delivered to Kings County through the California Aqueduct. But it must be treated before people drink it.

The timeline for building a treatment plant is three years — 18 months for study and design, followed by 18 months for construction, according to Hanford engineer Joe McGahan, who is handling the project.

Kettleman City also will have to prove that its residents can afford to pay for the plant’s operation and maintenance. But there is another hurdle. The State Water Project cuts back deliveries in dry times. Kettleman City might lose water during a drought.

Westlands Water District, the nation’s largest agricultural district, has offered to sell the town some water to sustain residents during those drought times, according to McGahan.

“We can solve the water problem in Kettleman City,” McGahan said. “We will move as fast as we can.”Read more here:

The reporter can be reached at (559) 441-6316, mgrossi@fresnobee.com or @markgrossi on Twitter.

Timeline article

State health officials say Kettleman birth-defect rate has dropped

By Barbara Anderson / And Mark Grossi – The Fresno Bee /Mark Grossi – Marks Blog Barbara Anderson – Barbara’s Blog Tuesday, Jun. 19, 2012 | 04:39 PM

KETTLEMAN CITY — An alarming increase of birth defects in the farmworker community of Kettleman City appears to be reversing, state health leaders said Tuesday.

But the latest birth defects report is not complete, and it is raising criticism from some residents. They say the state rushed the report and didn’t speak to anyone in town over the last 18 months.

About 60 residents and environmental activists pressed state leaders with a barrage of questions, saying their questions have not been answered.

“They don’t have all their data and they don’t bother to come to Kettleman City,” said Bradley Angel, a leader in Green Action, a San Francisco-based environmental group.

But officials from the California Department of Public Health said they would like residents to update them on any new cases of birth defects or other health problems that should be added to the data.

Officials said the birth-defect rate was 1.79 per 100 live births in 2010-11, which was fairly consistent with rates before 2008. That was the year when the rate soared to 8.51. It’s not unusual for small cities to have wide variations in birth-defect rates, health department leaders said.

Five babies were born with cleft lip or cleft palate over a 15-month period that ended in November 2008 in the community of about 1,400 people. Three of the babies died, according to Kettleman City activists. They blame pesticides or hazardous waste in a landfill about four miles west of town.

The state study, an update of a February 2010 report, found no pattern among birth-defect cases in Kettleman City, suggesting there was no underlying cause. The types and combinations of birth defects in Kettleman City also did not differ from those typically found in surveillance programs, Tuesday’s report said.

The state already has found no link to any environmental cause. Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ruled out a toxic chemical that had spilled at the neighboring hazardous waste landfill.

But Kettleman City has long been an activist poster child for Latino communities battling against large corporations. Waste Management Inc., which operates the West’s largest toxic waste landfill near Kettleman City, has been the target of activists and some townfolk.

Residents said Tuesday that birth defects continue in the community, as well as childhood cancers and miscarriages.

“I know the birth defect problem has not stopped,” said Maria Saucedo. A baby born in June 2011 had facial deformities, as well as missing fingers and limbs, she said.

Saucedo, a Kettleman City mother, tearfully told state officials gathered at the elementary school that she had a miscarriage last year.

“You’re not living in Kettleman City. You’re never going to find an answer that suits us,” she said. Saucedo gave birth in 2008 to a baby with a cleft palate who died 101/2 months later.

For the latest report, the state analyzed information collected on infants born with birth defects from 2009-11 in Kettleman City, Avenal, as well as the counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera and Tulare for comparison purposes.

State public health leaders said the birth defect rate in Kettleman City since 1987 is not significantly higher than any other area towns.

Nationally, about one in every 33 babies is born with a birth defect, the state officials said.

Officials said the state would continue to monitor birth defects in Kettleman City and Kings County.

MARK GROSSI/THE FRESNO BEE – Kettleman City residents protest state birth defects study on Tuesday.

Report on birth defects


Read the latest state report on Kettleman City birth defects at fblinks.com/defects. The reporters can be reached at(559) 441-6330, banderson@fresnobee.com ormgrossi@fresnobee.com.

Timeline article

Riverdale wary of water plan with Lanare

By Mark Grossi – The Fresno Bee Marks Blog/ Friday, Apr. 27, 2012 | 10:47

Riverdale was poised in 2008 to finally get state money to clean up the never-ending arsenic problem in the town drinking water, and then the economy tanked. The state froze the funding, and Riverdale was on hold.

Four years later, the southwest Fresno County town of 3,100 is again on the verge of getting state money for an arsenic water-treatment plant, but townfolk see another snag.

It’s a law proposed by Assembly Member Henry T. Perea, D-Fresno, who wants the state to study a marriage between the water systems of Riverdale and troubled Lanare, four miles west.

Riverdale leaders oppose the idea and the law, Assembly Bill 2208, which this week cleared the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety.

The bill goes to appropriations next month.

Will a consolidation study delay Riverdale again? Leaders don’t know, but they do not want to be forced into consolidating with Lanare, which has a mothballed arsenic treatment plant and a water system deep in debt.

Riverdale is afraid its own water rates will be hiked to help cover Lanare’s debt, leaders say.

“You don’t fix your problem in Lanare by throwing it onto the neighbor,” said farmer Buddy Mendes, who is board president of the Riverdale Public Utilities District.

But Perea said he has no interest in requiring one community to subsidize another and no intention of slowing down Riverdale’s quest for healthy water. He said he has talked with Riverdale leaders to reassure them.

“I think we should see this as an opportunity to study consolidation,” he said. “We are talking about taxpayer money. As good stewards, we should try to be as efficient as possible. Let’s see what can be done.”

Lanare needs help after racking up a $96,000 debt in the first six months of operating its new treatment plant in 2007.

The town’s community service district did not perform a financial study to determine if ratepayers could afford to maintain the treatment plant, which was built with $1.3 million in federal funds. The plant was quickly closed.

In 2008, a Fresno County Grand Jury found the Lanare Community Service District needed more competent management.

An interim manager took over for about a year, followed by the private firm that now runs the water system — a water system that remains more than $75,000 in debt. The 500 Lanare residents still are either drinking arsenic-laced water or buying bottled water.

Other problems came to light after the treatment plant closed. The interim manager in 2008 discovered nearly half the 149 customers were not paying their bills. Residents generally pay flat rates, but some were using a lot of water for livestock and crops.

The current private contractor, the California Water Service Co., began running the Lanare system in 2010 after the system went into receivership.

To figure out how much water is being used and to control costs, state grants are funding installation of water meters, the company has reported. The job is supposed to be finished in late summer.

The company reports it issues delinquency and shutoff notices to those who aren’t paying. Some high-use customers are already on water meters. The water system is generally in better shape now, the company said.

Even so, no one knows yet if Lanare residents could pay for maintaining the arsenic treatment plant.

The California Department of Public Health soon will provide $500,000 to study Lanare’s options, which could include a new well or rehabilitating and reopening the treatment plant.

Four miles east in Riverdale, folks already pay higher rates as a way to prepare for maintaining a future treatment plant, says Brenda Dias, office manager for the Riverdale Public Utility District. The idea of combining with Lanare’s water system was not in the plan.

“I was totally taken aback when I heard about the state legislation,” Dias said.

But Perea said he thinks there is plenty of time to study consolidation without getting in the way of Riverdale’s plans. He said the study would settle many consolidation issues for the two towns.

“We’ve had a lot of conversations about what would and wouldn’t work,” Perea said. “With a study, we will have good information to move the conversation forward.” Read more here:

The reporter can be reached at mgrossi@fresnobee.com, (559)441-6316 or on Twitter @markgrossi.

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  •  
     

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

    Rating for savethewater.org

    Fracking
  • Within 100 years: Our underground drinking water could be filled with toxic waste
  • Fracking mines spread quickly in U.S. / Fracking by country data included
  • Michigan, Ohio should strengthen laws on fracking, says new NWF report
  • Methane migration probed in Tioga County
  • What are the ten scariest chemicals used in fracking?
  • The Frick and Frac about hydraulic fracturing
  • Toxipedia: Hydraulic fracturing update
  • Drinking Water Contamination
  • Camp Lejeune news: Effects of drinking water contamination due to tetrachloroethylene.
  • Drinking water contamination: Tap water disinfectants linked to birth defects.
  • Camp Lejeune toxic water investigation. The families and protectors of the United States health in jeopardy .
  • High Arsenic in 1 in 5 New Hampshire Wells
  • Toxic garden hose water: Drinking from common water hoses potentially dangerous
  • India,West Mambalam: Overflowing sewage remains a perennial problem
  • Alberta Canada: 3,000 barrels of oil spilled from pipeline. Water OK after Canadian oil spill
  • Pesticides detected upstream of reservoir feeding Australia, Melbourne’s drinking water supply
  • Good News
  • Mayors make ‘Declaration on Water Sustainability’ to protect Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
  • Bio filters from tree fungi. Students research synthetic variant enzymes that can break down estrogen
  • Education Program
  • What are the facts about chloramines
  • Wastewater and antibiotic resistance
  • Sustainable denim manufacturing process creates ‘green’ jeans
  • India water crisis news: Delhi’s Lutyens’ zone reels under severe water crisis
  • Groundwater & aquifers, what they are and why they must be protected.
  • What are some bottle water facts? [Illustrated ]
  • Illustrated water cycle: Marine debris bulletin: Identifying high pressure “gas cylinders from Japan debris”
  • Archived Topics
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian B.C. Water Crisis Issues
  • Jamaica: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education

    Comments Off

    Contaminated drinking water. What contaminates it, and how do we learn more.

     Contaminated drinking water News Postings Drinking water contamination news. Save our water  Volume 3


    Save the water,current post

    News Posting
    Vol.III
    No.176
    July 7
    2012

     drinking water contamination

     

    Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation
     
    Save the Water™ does not represent nor endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange 

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor

    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us


    The material posted is
    courtesy of
    USGS
    EPA
    Clean Water
    Education Partnership
    State of CA.Gov
    and USPA
    Save the Water™
    Water Research
    Education Dept.
    and is shared as
    educational material only

    Save the Water™

    1st Annual
    Internet
    Sponsorship
    Fundraiser
    Campaign
    June 1st
    September 1st
    2012

      drinking water contamination, and effects of drinking bad water ,


    Water
    Research
    Crisis
    Response
    Humanitarian
    Projects
    Education
    Daily News


    Contaminated drinking Water

    A Homeowner's Guide to Septic Systems A Homeowner’s Guide to Septic Systems:
    free brochure

    [PDF Format]– This 15-page booklet describes how a septic system works and what a homeowner can do to help the system treat their wastewater efficiently.

    Homeowner Septic System Checklist

    Free
    education material

    Homeowner Septic System Checklist

    [PDF Format] – This worksheet allows homeowners to keep track of septic system inspections and maintenance. This checklist is included in the booklet above or may also be used separately.



     
     
     
     
     
    Rating for savethewater.org

    Drinking Water Contamination  Andrew Freeman Photo

    Contaminated drinking water

    What contaminates it, and how do we learn more.

    It may look okay but looks are deceiving. Drinking contaminated water is now becoming a norm that many just ignore. However protecting today’s water quality should be important to each and every one of us and can no longer be ignored. It should not become a concern only in times of drought when water is unquestionably in short supply. The essential need and purity of this resource which we take for granted comes to its true light; our planet’s water supply is finite and this is a fact that many cannot comprehend.

    Each drop of water wasted is a drop less in a wild and scenic river, a drop less in a needed salmon run.

    Drinking water contamination From industrial waste products

    Every drop of water that circles a drain unnecessarily wastes energy through the manufacturing of chemicals in the cycle of sewage treatment. The world water supply is dwindling. Today’s water that we use carelessly is only water supply we will ever have. It is the same water that was here since the beginning of time, but now it has become a toxic soup. Further research is needed regarding the chemicals that are entering our drinking water sources and facts from those findings must be taught to our children.

     Contaminated drinking water ,From petroleum waste products

    The water that flows from our kitchens tap does not indicate an endless supply of safe, clean water and the photos in this article will substantiate this fact. This water will be treated and eventually returned to us again in a chemically altered state from the previous time we used it.

    Spreading antibiotic resistance in wastewater treatment

    In this article, Save the Water™ has compiled comprehensive water education information for students, teachers and concerned individuals from the USGS, EPA, Clean Water Education Partnership, State of California Government, and USPA in order to help you educate our next generation about water conservation, pollution prevention and care of this precious resource.

    From games and activities to helping choose the appropriate environmental curriculum, there is something for everyone, just click on the headings. As with anything, learning is half the battle.

     Contaminated drinking water ,From the plastic, and toxic material

    Clean Water Education Partnership (CWEP)

    Welcome to our Kids’ Pages! Here are five activities designed to educate kids of all ages on stormwater pollution and everybody-needs-to-help solutions!

    Have fun and remember… Clean Water Begins with You and Me!

    Give Watersheds a Hand

    Activities that show what a watershed is and how it works. Learn more…

    Find out how much stormwater runoff your school creates! Learn more…

    See what’s inside your dog! Learn more…

    Nobody likes cleaning, but the cleaning products we usually use are worse for the environment than they are for us! Learn more…

    Find out how you can make safer cleaning products! Learn more…

    Rainbows of oil after rain storms aren’t so pretty after all! Learn more…

    The Clean Water Education Partnership aims to protect North Carolina’s
    waterways from stormwater pollution through public education and outreach.

    If you have a question or comment regarding the Clean Water Education Partnership or its program areas, please send email to: cwep@tjcog.org or telephone: Sarah Bruce (CWEP staff support) at (919) 558-9343.

     

     Contaminated drinking water ,From oil splills

    USGS what is the water cycle?

    The Water Cycle: Graphic showing the movement of water through the water cycle.

    What is the water cycle? I can easily answer that—it is “me” all over! The water cycle describes the existence and movement of water on, in, and above the Earth. Earth’s water is always in movement and is always changing states, from liquid to vapor to ice and back again. The water cycle has been working for billions of years and all life on Earth depends on it continuing to work; the Earth would be a pretty stale place without it.

    Where does all the Earth’s water come from? Primordial Earth was an incandescent globe made of magma, but all magmas contain water. Water set free by magma began to cool down the Earth’s atmosphere, and eventually the environment became cool enough so water could stay on the surface as a liquid. Volcanic activity kept and still keeps introducing water into the atmosphere, thus increasing the surface- and groundwater volume of the Earth.

    A quick summary of the water cycle

    Here is a quick summary of the water cycle. The links in this paragraph go to the detailed Web pages in our Web site for each topic. A shorter summary of each topic can be found further down in this page.

    The water cycle has no starting point, but we’ll begin in the oceans, since that is where most of Earth’s water exists. The sun, which drives the water cycle, heats water in the oceans. Some of it evaporates as vapor into the air; a relatively smaller amount of moisture is added as ice and snow sublimate directly from the solid state into vapor. Rising air currents take the vapor up into the atmosphere, along with water from evapotranspiration, which is water transpired from plants and evaporated from the soil. The vapor rises into the air where cooler temperatures cause it to condense into clouds.

    Air currents move clouds around the globe, and cloud particles collide, grow, and fall out of the sky as precipitation. Some precipitation falls as snow and can accumulate as ice caps and glaciers, which can store frozen water for thousands of years. Snowpacks in warmer climates often thaw and melt when spring arrives, and the melted water flows overland as snowmelt. Most precipitation falls back into the oceans or onto land, where, due to gravity, the precipitation flows over the ground as surface runoff. A portion of runoff enters rivers in valleys in the landscape, with streamflow moving water towards the oceans. Runoff, and groundwater seepage, accumulate and are stored as freshwater in lakes.

    Not all runoff flows into rivers, though. Much of it soaks into the ground as infiltration. Some of the water infiltrates into the ground and replenishes aquifers (saturated subsurface rock), which store huge amounts of freshwater for long periods of time. Some infiltration stays close to the land surface and can seep back into surface-water bodies (and the ocean) as groundwater discharge, and some groundwater finds openings in the land surface and emerges as freshwater springs. Yet more groundwater is absorbed by plant roots to end up as evapotranspiration from the leaves. Over time, though, all of this water keeps moving, some to reenter the ocean, where the water cycle “ends” … oops – I mean, where it “begins.”

    Main components of the water cycle

     

    close your eyes to these facts about fracking and ground water contamination

     

    Contaminated drinking water due to fracking and chemical contamination

     

    ...or help educate the next generation

    EPA water education sites

    Water Education Sites that contain lesson plans or projects.

    Information aimed at educators.

  • Acid Rain
    This book published by EPA is for students in grades 4-8 and their teachers. It covers the basic concepts and definitions involved with acid rain. Topics include the effects of acid rain on forests, water and humans, and explores the options of what can be done to diminish these negative effects of acid rain.
  • A Child’s Place in the Environment (ACPE)
    ACPE is a series of six environmental education curriculum guides for elementary school teachers that integrates science, English-language arts, and selected children’s literature, and culminate with student projects which enhance their environment and provide experiences in service learning.
  • All Along a River
    This site was developed by students in Singapore from the Chinese High School. The site discusses physical aspects of rivers including erosion, volume, and velocity. The site includes case studies about the Singapore River and the River Rhine.
  • Adopt Your Watershed Students and Teachers
    This site has links to material suitable for students and teachers.
  • Read interesting facts, do experiments, see the demo of the day, and there’s an area for teachers as well.
  • Enchanted Learning
    Diverse subjects available from sharks to butterflies.
  • EPA’s Environmental Education Center
  • Give Water A Hand
    A youth program for local environmental action.
  • Life on the Rocky Shore
    This site is about ocean tidepools. It has activities, quizes, and information about animals and the tidepool lifestyle.
  • Educating Young People About Water
    Includes a list of more than one hundred curricula for educating youth about water.
  • Natural Sciences for Educators
    Lesson plans, teaching resources, life sciences, physical and earth sciences, and ecosystems
  • Pollution Prevention (P2) Toolbox
    The toolbox contains a series of four page lesson plans on various pollution prevention concepts for schools.
  • Recycle City
    This site provides information about recycling for teachers and kids. There is an interactive game that requires a Shockwave plugin to operate but worth the effort.
  • USGS Water Science for Schools
    We offer information on many aspects of water, along with pictures, data, maps, and an interactive center where you can give opinions and test your water knowledge.
  • Water Sourcebook Series
    The Water Sourcebook Series consists of 4 volumes appropriate for Grades K – 2, 3 – 5, 6 – 8, & 9 – 12. The Series explains how the water management cycle affects every aspect of the environment. The curriculum provides strong science and math content, but also links these subject areas to social studies and language arts. Each Water Sourcebook contains hands-on activities and investigations, fact sheets, reference materials, and a glossary of terms.
  • What’s Up With Our Nation’s Waters? (HTML, PDF) [migrate_later]
    This booklet, designed primarily for middle-school-aged youth, presents key findings of the EPA’s National Water Quality Report in an easy-to-read fashion and includes projects for school or fun, a water quiz, and a glossary and resources for more information.
  • World in Our Backyard: A Wetlands Education and Stewardship Program
    Suggests ways to study wetland characteristics, why wetlands are important, and how students and teachers can help protect a local wetland.
  • Training Opportunities

    AQUATOX
    Learn about AQUATOX, a program that models how nutrients and pollutants affect freshwater ecosystems, by viewing slides from the last AQUATOX training session.

    BASINS
    BASINS is a multi-purpose environmental analysis system that integrates a geographical information system (GIS), national watershed data, and state-of-the-art environmental assessment and modeling tools into one convenient package.

    Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Training
    This four-day course provides an introduction to the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program and training in the application of the 404(b)(1) guidelines for review of proposed discharges of fill material into waters of the United States.

    Drinking Water Academy
    The Drinking Water Academy provides information and online training modules to ensure that water professionals, public officials, and involved citizens have the knowledge and skills necessary to protect our drinking water supply.

    Drinking Water Operator Certification
    Operator certification helps protect human health and the environment by establishing minimum professional standards for the operation and maintenance of public water systems. A compilation of training materials, tools and guidance to help operators become and remain certified is available.

    Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Training
    If you are implementing the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) you may use our on-line module or request a Webcast for training. New Webcasts and other training opportunities will be posted.

    NPDES Training Courses and Workshops
    The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program offers training courses, workshops, and webcasts to explain the regulatory framework and technical considerations of the NPDES permit program. These courses are designed for permit writers, dischargers, EPA officials, and other interested parties.

    Water Quality Standards Academy
    To support water quality standards development, we offer the Water Quality Standards Academy (WQSA), which presents classroom-based and online courses, along with occasional webcasts.

    Tribal Training
    This site contains a consolidated, centralized listing of training courses offered by EPA that will help Indian tribes develop and implement water quality programs consistent with the Clean Water Act. It will enable Indian tribes to obtain, in one central place, a list of relevant training courses consistent with the goals established for individual reservations.

    Watershed Academy
    The Watershed Academy is a focal point in EPA’s Office of Water for providing training and information on implementing watershed approaches.

    Wastewater Operator Training
    The Clean Water Act authorizes funding for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Assistance Training Program. The program addresses non-compliance at small publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants and ensures enough trained personnel are available to operate and maintain existing and future treatment works.

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  • Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

    Rating for savethewater.org

    Fracking
  • Within 100 years: Our underground drinking water could be filled with toxic waste
  • Fracking mines spread quickly in U.S. / Fracking by country data included
  • Michigan, Ohio should strengthen laws on fracking, says new NWF report
  • Methane migration probed in Tioga County
  • What are the ten scariest chemicals used in fracking?
  • The Frick and Frac about hydraulic fracturing
  • Toxipedia: Hydraulic fracturing update
  • Drinking Water Contamination
  • Camp Lejeune news: Effects of drinking water contamination due to tetrachloroethylene.
  • Drinking water contamination: Tap water disinfectants linked to birth defects.
  • Camp Lejeune toxic water investigation. The families and protectors of the United States health in jeopardy .
  • High Arsenic in 1 in 5 New Hampshire Wells
  • Toxic garden hose water: Drinking from common water hoses potentially dangerous
  • India,West Mambalam: Overflowing sewage remains a perennial problem
  • Alberta Canada: 3,000 barrels of oil spilled from pipeline. Water OK after Canadian oil spill
  • Pesticides detected upstream of reservoir feeding Australia, Melbourne’s drinking water supply
  • Good News
  • Mayors make ‘Declaration on Water Sustainability’ to protect Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
  • Bio filters from tree fungi. Students research synthetic variant enzymes that can break down estrogen
  • Education Program
  • What are the facts about chloramines
  • Wastewater and antibiotic resistance
  • Sustainable denim manufacturing process creates ‘green’ jeans
  • India water crisis news: Delhi’s Lutyens’ zone reels under severe water crisis
  • Groundwater & aquifers, what they are and why they must be protected.
  • What are some bottle water facts? [Illustrated ]
  • Illustrated water cycle: Marine debris bulletin: Identifying high pressure “gas cylinders from Japan debris”
  • Archived Topics
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian B.C. Water Crisis Issues
  • Jamaica: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education

    Comments Off

    Water crisis in USA: Military base Camp Lejeune toxic water investigation. The families and protectors of the United States health is in jeopardy . [Alyssa Litoff, Katie Hinman, courtesy of ABC News]

    Save the water News Postings Save our water  Volume 3


    News Posting
    Vol.III
    No.169

    June 30th 2012

    /> USA military,  Camp Lejeune toxic water investigation” width=”100″ height=”129″ /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><center>Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation</center><center><br />  <br />
Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.<br />
<br /><a href=

    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange 

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor

    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us


    The material posted is
    courtesy of:
    centralwisconsinhub.
    wausaudailyherald.com
    Written by
    Alyssa Litoff,
    Katie Hinman,
    courtesy of ABC News
    Save the Water™
    Water Research
    Education Dept.
    and is shared as
    educational material only

    Save the Water™

    1st Annual
    Internet
    Sponsorship
    Fundraiser
    Campaign
    June 1st
    September 1st
    2012

     USA military ,Camp Lejeune toxic water investigation


    Water
    Research
    Crisis
    Response
    Humanitarian
    Projects
    Education
    Daily News


    Contaminated Water Animation

    A Homeowner's Guide to Septic Systems A Homeowner’s Guide to Septic Systems:
    free brochure

    [PDF Format]– This 15-page booklet describes how a septic system works and what a homeowner can do to help the system treat their wastewater efficiently.


    The men and women who protect our families each day of their lives are going through this?

    Families of N.C. military base “Camp Lejeune” drinking water contamination finally get help, 30 years later. USA military toxic water investigation.

    The following articles are courtesy of (@AlyssaBL) and KATIE HINMAN, ABC news ..Save the Water™@SaveTheWater thank them for this coverage. Please support Alyssa and Katie by thanking them personally. June 28, 2012. These are our protectors. They deserve all that we can offer in support, from the staff of Save the Water™

    Camp Lejeune, a military base in North Carolina, is home to hundreds of thousands of Marines and their families. It’s also the site of what may be the largest water contamination in American history.

    Now, nearly three decades after poisons were discovered in their drinking water, Congress is set to vote on legislation that will provide health care to those who suffered.

    From the 1950s to the mid-1980s, the Marines who lived on the base with their families drank water laced with cancer-causing chemicals. Hundreds of thousands of Lejeune residents were exposed over the 30-year stretch. Many died and others are still getting sick today.

    Watch “Nightline” anchor Cynthia McFadden’s full investigative report TONIGHT on “Nightline” at 11:35 p.m. ET/PT

    The Marine Corps doesn’t often talk about the base’s water contamination history. But two men with ties to Camp Lejeune, Jerry Ensminger and Mike Partain, have worked tirelessly to get the word out to Lejeune alumni — maybe as many as a million people — who may have been exposed. For both men, the mission is personal.

    Ensminger is a career Marine who raised his family at Lejeune. His daughter Janey died of leukemia when she was just 9 years old. She died in 1985, just shy of her 10th birthday. “She said, ‘I love you.’ I said, ‘I know.’ I whispered in her ear, and I said, ‘It’s time to stop fighting,’” he said.

    “After I had time to sit and think about it, I did what any normal human being would do, I started wondering why,” Ensminger said. “That nagging question of ‘why’ stayed with me through [Janey's] illness, through her death.”

    Ensminger said his first clue came from a local TV station’s report in 1997, saying that contaminants discovered in the base’s drinking water had been possibly linked to childhood cancer and birth defects, primarily leukemia.

    “I dropped my plate of spaghetti right there on the living room floor,” Ensminger said. “That started this journey for the truth.”

    He was soon joined by Partain, who also had cancer — breast cancer, which is extremely rare among men. Partain’s father was stationed at the base when his mother became pregnant and gave birth to him there, but he’s lived most of his life in Florida, where he’s an insurance adjuster.

    His life’s work, though, has become a search for answers about what happened in the water and how it has affected his own health and those of thousands of others. Through his own research, Partain has documented 80 cases of male breast cancer among men who were born or served at Camp Lejeune.

    The Marine Corps dragged its feet in contacting and alerting those who had lived at Lejeune about the water contamination and the possible health consequences. So Ensminger and Partain decided to team up and help get the word out. Their efforts are the focus of a 2011 documentary, “Semper Fi: Always Faithful,” which was short-listed for an Oscar.

    “The Marine Corps needs to get people notified,” Partain says in the film. “They need to get on the TV, they need to get on the news, and they need to tell people what is wrong.”

    But it is already too late for some of the tiniest victims. During the years when the water was contaminated, stillborn babies were commonplace on the base, so many that the local cemetery has a section locals call Baby Heaven, lined with the graves of children who never made it to their first birthdays.

    Mary Freshwater was a young mother who lived on the base back in the 1970s. She said she and the other women at Camp Lejeune suspected something was terribly wrong.

    video platform video management video solutions video player


    Please donate no amount is too small

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  • Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

    Hot Topics
    Global Water Crisis
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario Chemical Spill/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian British Columbia Water Crisis Issues
  • Water Crisis Worsens in Hyderabad
  • Jamaican Water Issue: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Improved but Not Always Safe: Despite Global Efforts, More Than 1 Billion People Likely at Risk for Lack of Clean Water
  • Current: European Report on Development: The Case of Lake Naivasha
    Water Contamination
  • Issue: Navy: Contaminant Found in Drinking Water at Parts of Sigonella
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Drinking-water wells were not contaminated by the Kalamazoo River oil spill, state report says [past related articles included]
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • Making Endangered River Safe For Drinking. Potomac Tops List of Endangered Rivers in U.S.
  • EPA to Work with Drinking Water Systems to Monitor Unregulated Contaminants [Thomas Net News]
    Fracking
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • OKOTOKS: Canada Fluoride News: Town Coucillors Want Oral Health Program in Place
    Questions and Answers
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education

    Comments Off

    Water contamination and chemistry news: Wastewater and antibiotic resistance [Chemistry Views,Chemical & Engineering News]

    Save the water News Postings Save our water  Volume 3

    News Posting
    Vol.III
    No. 163

    June 24th 2012

    Water pollution news

     

    Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation

     
    Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.


    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange 

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor

    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us


    The material posted is
    courtesy of:
    ChemistryViews
    ©Wiley-VCH Verlag
    GmbH & Co. KGaA
    American
    Chemical Society
    Michael Torrice
    Chemical &
    Engineering News
    Brian Thomas
    carbon based ghg.com
    Photo By
    Kristian Bjornard
    Data by
    Wikipedia
    Save the Water™
    Water Research
    Education Dept.
    and is shared as
    educational material only

    Save the Water™

    1st Annual
    Internet
    Sponsorship
    Fundraiser
    Campaign
    June 1st
    September 1st
    2012

    Save the Water Fundraiser


    Water
    Research
    Crisis
    Response
    Humanitarian
    Projects
    Education
    Daily News


    Contaminated Water Animation


    Spreading antibiotic resistance in wastewater treatment

    Water pollution news: Wastewater and Antibiotic Resistance.

    Article 1 from: ChemistryViews

    • Author: ChemistryViews Published: 17 June 2012
    • Copyright: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA
    • Source / Publisher: Environmental Science & Technology/ACS
    • Associated Societies: American Chemical Society (ACS)

    In both animals and humans, up to 95 % of antibiotics can be excreted in an unaltered state. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) do not completely remove common antibiotics like tetracycline, erythromycin, sulfonamide and ciprofloxacin and may actually enhance the abundance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and antibiotic-resistance genes (ARG). Anthropogenically impacted natural aquatic and terrestrial environments can serve as reservoirs of ARG, which can be horizontally transferred to human-associated bacteria through water and food webs, and thus contribute to antibiotic resistance (AR) proliferation.

    Treated wastewater (TWW) irrigation is becoming increasingly prevalent in arid regions of the world, due to growing demand and decline in freshwater supplies. Eddie Cytryn, Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel, and colleagues wanted to find out if long-term irrigation with treated wastewater enhances antibiotic resistance in soil microbial communities, which could potentially be transferred through agricultural produce to clinically relevant bacteria.

    AR in soil was assessed using standard culture-based isolation methods and culture-independent molecular analysis using quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR).
    High levels of bacterial AR were detected in both freshwater- and TWW-irrigated soils. However, it was found that levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and genes for antibiotic resistance in fields and orchards irrigated with freshwater and TWW were essentially identical. The findings suggest that antibiotic-resistant bacteria that enter soil by irrigation are not able to survive or compete in that environment.

    Article 2: from Chemistry Views

    Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Killed In Wastewater

    • Author: ChemistryViews Published: 21 November 2010
    • Copyright: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA
    • Source / Publisher: Environmental Science & Technology/ACS
    David L. Diehl and Timothy M. LaPara, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MI, USA, have developed a method that could slow the spread of resistance genes in the environment by reducing their release through treated sewage.
    People taking antibiotics can excrete resistant bacteria. Farmers often apply treated wastewater solids, sewage sludge, to their fields as fertilizer. Bacteria in the sludge can share antibiotic resistance genes with other microbes in the environment.

    Most treatment plants incubate sludge in digester tanks at 37 °C. Here sewage bacteria decompose organic material and destroy pathogens, but also these are very good conditions for resistant bacteria to survive. Two types of digesters – aerobic with added oxygen, and anaerobic without – select for different populations of bacteria.

    The researchers studied five bacterial genes encoding tetracycline resistance and one gene encoding the integrase of class I integrons, which scientists have linked to multidrug resistance. They processed sludge from a nearby treatment facility in lab-scale aerobic and anaerobic digesters at 22, 37, 46, and 55 °C.
    Quantitative polymerase chain reaction revealed that in the anaerobic reactor the amounts of antibiotic resistance genes declined with increasing temperature. The effect was most dramatic for the integrase gene: At 55 °C the scientists could remove 99.99 % of it. In contrast, during aerobic digestion, higher temperatures did not substantially change the prevalence of antibiotic-resistance genes.

    Raising the temperature of anaerobic digestion at wastewater treatment plants should not be cost prohibitive, because the digesting bacteria produce methane gas that can heat the reactor.

    Article 3: from Chemistry Views

    Vancomycin is an antibiotic used only, after treatment with other antibiotics has failed. Vancomycin-resistant bacteria remodel their cell wall precursor peptidoglycan terminus from D-Ala-D-Ala to D-Ala-D-Lac. Chemically, they replace an amide with an ester, reducing the binding of vancomycin to its target 1000-fold and accounting for the loss in antimicrobial activity.

    Redesigned Antibiotic for Antibiotic-Resistent Bacteria

    • Author: Chemistry Views Published: 26 August 2011
    • Copyright: WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
    • Source / Publisher: Journal of the American Chemical Society/ACS

    Vancomycin is an antibiotic used only, after treatment with other antibiotics has failed. Vancomycin-resistant bacteria remodel their cell wall precursor peptidoglycan terminus from D-Ala-D-Ala to D-Ala-D-Lac. Chemically, they replace an amide with an ester, reducing the binding of vancomycin to its target 1000-fold and accounting for the loss in antimicrobial activity.

    A team of scientists around Dale L. Boger, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA, have successfully reengineered vancomycin to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria. A complementary single atom exchange in the vancomycin core structure (O→NH) to counter the single atom exchange in the cell wall precursors of resistant bacteria (NH→O), reinstates potent antimicrobial activity. Remarkably, the redesigned antibiotic binds to the mutant as well as to the wild type peptidoglycan.

    This charts a rational path forward for the development of antibiotics for the treatment of vancomycin-resistant bacterial infections. Reengineered organisms to produce the material or semi-synthetic approaches to the analogue are investigated.

     

    Bacterial Resistance in Wastewater: click

    Article4: Chemistry Views

    Bacterial Resistance in Wastewater      Author: ChemistryViews

    Bacterial Resistance in Wastewater

    • Author: Chemistry Views Published: 23 February 2011
    • Copyright: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA
    • Source / Publisher: PLoS One/Public Library of Science

    Related Articles

    Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a growing concern. Even low environmental levels of antibiotics can result in increased bacterial resistance at specific locations. Recently, there have been reports of high levels of several broad spectrum fluoroquinolone antibiotics in effluent and surface water from an Indian wastewater treatment plant.

    Joakim Larsson and colleagues, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, have used culture-independent shotgun metagenomics to investigate microbial communities in these river sediments. River sediment samples were collected up- and downstream from an Indian waste water treatment plant.

    High-throughput sequencing of DNA in the samples showed bacterial diversity downstream was slightly lower than upstream, and very high levels of resistance genes were identified. Elements for horizontal gene transfer, including integrons, transposons and plasmids were also detected. These help spread resistance between bacterial species including to human pathogens.

    Article 5 : Chemical & Engineering News

    Spreading antibiotic resistance in wastewater treatment

    Monday, March 28, 2011: Posted by Brian Thomas / Visit Brian Thomas www.carbon-based-ghg.com
    Michael Torrice in Chemical & Engineering News
    :

    When people pop antibiotics to treat infections, the drugs often end up excreted into sewage. As scientists continue to find these antibiotics in the wastewater coming from homes and hospitals, they worry that the drugs’ presence is fueling the spread of antibiotic resistance. At the American Chemical Society meeting in Anaheim, Calif., researchers reported that wastewater contains other chemicals that might also promote antibiotic resistance: heavy metals.

    Environmental scientists have previously observed a connection between metals and antibiotic resistance in metal-contaminated soils and freshwater sediments. The bacteria living in these environments had significantly higher levels of resistance than bacteria from noncontaminated soils.

    Edward F. Peltier of the University of Kansas, Lawrence; David Graham of Newcastle University, in England; and their colleagues wondered if the phenomenon also occurred in wastewater treatment plants. These plants are a unique environment where, along with antibiotics, metals such as zinc and copper are common. Bacteria also play a key role in the treatment process. After removing solids from wastewater, treatment plants mix it with a sludge containing an array of bacteria that chew up dissolved organic compounds.

    …They found that copper alone, in the absence of antibiotics, could promote resistance to the antibiotic ciprofloxacin, with resistance levels jumping from a baseline level of 7% of the reactor population after the first phase to 11% after the second phase. Zinc alone didn’t have an effect, but in the presence of certain antibiotics it did enhance resistance levels. In reactors receiving zinc and tetracycline, 63% of the bacteria were resistant to the antibiotic. Meanwhile, resistance levels in reactors that received tetracycline and no metal were only 44%.

    If metals do help spread antibiotic resistance in wastewater treatment plants, then they could be a more long-lasting source of resistance than are antibiotics themselves, Peltier says. “Antibiotics can degrade, metals can’t,” he says…

    A wastewater treatment plant at the top of this article was shot by Kristian Bjornard, Wikimedia Commons via Flickr, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license This article was Posted by Brian Thomas at 7:23 PM /Monday, March 28, 2011

    Comparison of anaerobic and aerobic digestion: click

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Anaerobic & aerobic system comparison

    Anaerobic digestion Composting
    Digestate Compost
    Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide
    Methane Heat
    Hydrogen sulfide (trace levels)

    The following article is a comparison of aerobic and anaerobic digestion. In both aerobic and anaerobic systems the growing and reproducing microorganisms within them require a source of elemental oxygen to survive.[1]

    In an anaerobic system there is an absence of gaseous oxygen. In an anaerobic digester, gaseous oxygen is prevented from entering the system through physical containment in sealed tanks. Anaerobes access oxygen from sources other than the surrounding air. The oxygen source for these microorganisms can be the organic material itself or alternatively may be supplied by inorganic oxides from within the input material. When the oxygen source in an anaerobic system is derived from the organic material itself, then the ‘intermediate’ end products are primarily alcohols, aldehydes, and organic acids plus carbon dioxide. In the presence of specialised methanogens, the intermediates are converted to the ‘final’ end products of methane, carbon dioxide with trace levels of hydrogen sulfide.[2] In an anaerobic system the majority of the chemical energy contained within the starting material is released by methanogenic bacteria as methane.[3]

    In an aerobic system, such as composting, the microorganisms access free, gaseous oxygen directly from the surrounding atmosphere. The end products of an aerobic process are primarily carbon dioxide and water which are the stable, oxidised forms of carbon and hydrogen. If the biodegradable starting material contains nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, then the end products may also include their oxidised forms- nitrate, phosphate and sulfate.[1] In an aerobic system the majority of the energy in the starting material is released as heat by their oxidisation into carbon dioxide and water.[3]

    Composting systems typically include organisms such as fungi that are able to break down lignin and celluloses to a greater extent than anaerobic bacteria.[4] Due to this fact it is possible, following anaerobic digestion, to compost the anaerobic digestate allowing further volume reduction and stabilisation.[5]

    References

    1. ^ a b Aerobic and anaerobic respiration, www.sp.uconn.edu, retrieved 24.10.07
    2. ^ Adapted from Beychok, M. (1967) Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petrochemical Plants, First edition, John Wiley & Sons, LCCN 67019834
    3. ^ a b Fergusen, T. & Mah, R. (2006) Methanogenic bacteria in Anaerobic digestion of biomass, p49
    4. ^ The effect of lignin on biodegradability, www.css.cornell.edu, retrieved 2.11.07
    5. ^ Anaerobic digestion briefing, www.foe.co.uk, retrieved 2.11.07

     
     

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  •  
     
     
     
     

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

    Hot Topics
    Global Water Crisis
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario Chemical Spill/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian British Columbia Water Crisis Issues
  • Water Crisis Worsens in Hyderabad
  • Jamaican Water Issue: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Improved but Not Always Safe: Despite Global Efforts, More Than 1 Billion People Likely at Risk for Lack of Clean Water
  • Current: European Report on Development: The Case of Lake Naivasha
    Water Contamination
  • Issue: Navy: Contaminant Found in Drinking Water at Parts of Sigonella
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Drinking-water wells were not contaminated by the Kalamazoo River oil spill, state report says [past related articles included]
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • Making Endangered River Safe For Drinking. Potomac Tops List of Endangered Rivers in U.S.
  • EPA to Work with Drinking Water Systems to Monitor Unregulated Contaminants [Thomas Net News]
    Fracking
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • OKOTOKS: Canada Fluoride News: Town Coucillors Want Oral Health Program in Place
    Questions and Answers
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education

    Comments Off

    Water treatment news: Recycling sewage to drinking water could save city of San Diego money: Study [North County Times]

    Save the water News Postings Save our water  Volume 3


    News Posting
    Vol.III
    No.138

    save the water

     

    Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation

    savethewater”,   “tap water”

    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange 

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor

    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us


    The material posted is
    courtesy of:
    BRADLEY J. FIKES
    nctimes.com
    Save the Water™
    Education Dept.
    and is shared as
    educational material only

    Water contamination news:

    Recycling sewage to drinking water could save city of San Diego money: Study[North County Times]

    Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

    Recycling sewage to drinking water could save city of San Diego money

    June 02, 2012 5:00 pm • By BRADLEY J. FIKES bfikes@nctimes.com

    The city of San Diego could save hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrade and expansion costs for its Point Loma sewage treatment plant, and get more drinking water in the bargain, according to a final draft study given to the city in late May.

    With the savings, recycling sewage to drinking water standards costs roughly the same as importing more water, according to the final draft of the San Diego Recycled Water Study. The precise numbers depend on what assumptions are made about which costs can be avoided.

    If the study’s recommendations are followed, new sewage treatment plants would be built in Point Loma, University City and the South Bay. The cost of upgrading the existing Point Loma sewage plant would drop from an estimated $1.2 billion to $710 million.

    Release of the final draft study comes as the county’s main water supplier is in the late stages of negotiating for another new water supply, desalinated sea water from a plant to be built off the coast of Carlsbad.

    Poseidon Resources Corp. is negotiating a water purchase agreement with the San Diego County Water Authority, which supplies most of the water used in the county. The authority says it expects to get a completed contract ready this summer for a 60-day public review before a final vote is held.

    Under the draft study, sewage treated to drinking water standards would yield 100 million gallons a day, about 20 percent of the region’s water use. Assuming the study’s numbers are accurate, the net cost to the city per unit of water amounts to about half that estimated for water from the proposed desalination plant.

    The study presented three scenarios for the cost of repurified sewage in dollars per acre foot. One acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons:

    • $1,200, counting avoided costs from reduced usage of the Point Loma sewage treatment plant,
    • $1,100, including a “salt credit” for removing salt from the treated sewage
    • $700, including those savings along with avoided costs of upgrading of the Point Loma plant, which discharges treated sewage into the ocean.

    “These costs compare well to the existing untreated water cost of $904 per acre foot, and are more economical than most other new water supply concepts being proposed,” the report stated.

    Peace with local environmentalists would be another potential benefit. Environmentalists have long complained that the treated sewage, expelled into the ocean 4.4 miles off the coast at a depth of 320 feet, harms marine life. The city disputes the claim.

    Livia Borak, an attorney from Coast Law Group, urged the city to forgo the Poseidon desalination proposal and choose sewage recycling instead. Borak spoke at a May meeting of the Water Authority, She pointed out that the city has great leverage with the agency because of its weighted vote.

    City clout

    The city of San Diego contains a little more than half the 3.1 million population of San Diego County, with proportionate clout on regional agencies such as the Water Authority. So what San Diego decides to do will greatly influence the water supply picture for the whole region.

    Moreover, the city faces water- and sewage-related financial considerations that don’t apply to North County.

    San Diego’s potential costs for upgrading the Point Loma plant exceed $1 billion. So far, the city has obtained waivers, the latest of which expires in 2015. There is no guarantee the city, already reeling from high water bills, will receive another waiver.

    Counting those avoided costs, the net cost to the city of San Diego for recycled sewage amounts to about half that of buying water from the proposed desalination plant.

    In water industry jargon, recycling sewage to drinking water standards is called indirect potable reuse, or IPR. The purified sewage is sent to reservoirs or underground storage, then drawn off with new supplies for treatment and distribution. This contrasts with direct potable reuse, in which reclaimed water is directly put back into treated drinking water pipelines.

    The study’s numbers for IPR seem reasonable, said water policy expert David Zetland, who has long researched Southern California’s water infrastructure. Zetland said he did not review the study, but was making a general observation about the cost of indirect potable reuse compared to seawater desalination.

    “IPR can easily be cheaper than desalination, as it takes partially-treated wastewater and further cleans it for consumption,” said Zetland, a senior water economist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. “That’s why the “marginal” cost will be quite low. A new IPR plant can also be cheaper than desal, since there are fewer salts to remove.”

    The desalinated ocean water from the Carlsbad plant would cost about $1,865 per acre-foot, according to an estimate made last year by Poseidon Resources, based in Stamford, Conn.

    While the city of San Diego would not directly buy the desalinated water, the plant’s 50 million gallons a day capacity would increase the region’s total supply by about 10 percent. Desalinated water from Carlsbad would also bring a new source of local water to the arid county, which has seen its traditional sources of imported water threatened by drought, environmental restrictions, over-optimistic assumptions, and legal challenges.

    Recycling sewage to drinking water would also provide a reliable local supply to the county. But the city’s leaders and the San Diego Union-Tribune, now U-T San Diego, have rejected it because of discomfort of what’s been dubbed “toilet to tap.”

    Regardless, the approach is being used in Orange County, and scientists have said evidence indicates indirect potable reuse can provide water as safe as that from untreated imported water. A new report from the respected National Research Council encouraged exploration of its use.

    “The report presents a brief summary of the nation’s recent history in water use and shows that, although reuse is not a panacea, the amount of wastewater discharged to the environment is of such quantity that it could play a significant role in the overall water resource picture and complement other strategies, such as water conservation,” the NRC study stated.

    With water costs skyrocketing and imported supplies increasingly more difficult to come by, the city of San Diego commissioned the study to get a fresh look at the pros and cons of repurified sewage.

    Water Directories

    Fracking

    Related Information on Fracking

    Related Information Regarding Fracking:

    Additional EPA information:

    Other federal government information:

    Tribal Water Resource Directory

    + opens topic menu
    - closes topic menu

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Rule Monitoring Placards

    Rule Monitoring Placards – check to make sure you download the correct placard for your public water system type PDF

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

  • Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Document (PDF) (26 pp, 198K)
    EPA 816-B-09-002
  • Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Each compliance report discusses the violations at public water systems on Indian reservations; EPA’s enforcement and compliance assistance activities with respect to Tribal PWSs; and the financial assistance EPA has provided to facilitate the provision of safe drinking water to Tribes.

    Links

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

     

    cactus
    reg10

    History of the Tribal PWSS and UIC Programs

    In 1974 the United States Congress passed legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), designed to maintain and improve the quality of the nation’s drinking waters. Two major regulatory programs were created in the SDWA: the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs.

    Congress authorized EPA to delegate responsibilities to states for implementing and enforcing national standards within their jurisdiction. States must apply to EPA if they want this “primacy” responsibility and must develop PWSS or UIC programs that meet national requirements. EPA is still responsible for developing national regulations, overseeing state primacy programs and implementing programs in states without primacy.

    Because of their unique status, Indian tribes were not eligible to assume primacy in the original Act. Instead EPA regions were responsible for primary enforcement authority of PWSS and UIC programs on Tribal lands. This changed in 1986 when the Amendments to the SDWA added provisions that allow federally recognized tribes to assume primacy for the PWSS and UIC programs. Section 1451 (“Indian Tribes”) of SDWA authorizes the EPA to treat Indian tribes in a manner similar to states and to assign primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to qualified tribes.

    The PWSS and UIC programs are very complex and costly to operate. For many tribes (especially those that do not have a large number of public water systems or underground injection wells), the costs and resources required to achieve and maintain a regulatory program may far exceed the benefits from achieving primacy. Due to such difficulties, currently the only tribe that has sought and obtained primacy for the PWSS program is the Navajo Nation. There are a few tribes that are pursuing primacy in the PWSS and UIC programs.

    Today´s Tribal Direct Implementation Program

    States and tribes that do not obtain PWSS and UIC program delegation continue to be directly implemented by the EPA region in which the State or reservation is located. All EPA regions, excluding Region III (which has no federally recognized tribes), operate tribal PWSS and UIC programs to manage public water systems or underground injection wells on Indian lands.

    EPA’s 1997 inventory shows that there are nearly 1000 public water systems (740 community water systems, 90 nontransient noncommunity water systems and 130 transient noncommunity water systems) that the EPA regional offices manage on Indian lands serving a population of nearly 500,000. There are also over 5,300 injection wells (one Class I well, 4,300 Class II wells, 0 Class III wells and 1,042 Class V wells) on tribal lands that are managed by regional UIC staff.

    As the primary enforcement authority for tribal public water systems, EPA regions are responsible for enforcing against those systems that do not comply with federal drinking water regulations. A formal enforcement action is taken as a last measure. EPA regions dedicate a great deal of resources to provide tribes with technical assistance to help their systems or wells comply with federal standards. Regional staff visit reservations as often as possible to provide compliance assistance on site. Many Regions also fund circuit rider programs which enable other qualified persons the opportunity to provide technical assistance and training directly to tribes.

    For more information on the Tribal PWSS and UIC programs, please contact your program representative.

    Source water assessment and protection programs

    Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 required states to develop and implement source water assessment programs (SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public drinking water throughout the state. Using these programs, most states have completed source water assessments for every public water system — from major metropolitan areas to the smallest towns. Even schools, restaurants, and other public facilities that have wells or surface water supplies have been assessed. A source water assessment is a study and report, unique to a water system, that provides basic information about the water used to provide drinking water. States are working with local communities and public water systems to identify protection measures to address potential threats to sources of drinking water.

    EPA publications and resources

    Wellhead protection program

    Wellhead Protection Program

    The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) is a pollution prevention and management program used to protect underground sources of drinking water. The national WHPP was established under section 1428 of the 1986 SDWA amendments. The law specified that certain program activities, such as delineation, contaminant source inventory, contingency planning and source management, be incorporated into state WHPPs, which are approved by EPA prior to implementation. All states have EPA-approved state WHPPs. Although section 1428 applies only to states, a number of tribes are implementing the program as well.

    WHPPs provided the foundation for many of the state source water assessment programs required under the 1996 SDWA amendments. Most states also use the wellhead protection program as a foundation for assessing and protecting ground water systems. State WHPPs vary greatly. For example, some states require community water systems to develop management plans, while others rely on education and technical assistance to encourage voluntary action. Other states have mandatory requirements for wellhead protection at the local level. Guidance, publications and other resources are available on state source water web sites.

    EPA publications and resources

    Non-EPA publications and resources

    State ground water protection program

    State Ground Water Protection Programs

    Many states have also developed programs that are focused specifically on ground water protection. Several states developed formal Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP), which were designed as a management tool for states to use to integrate all programs that affect ground water quality, thus allowing better decisions to be made. Although most states are no longer pursuing formal approval of a CSGW pp, virtually all states are pursuing at least some of the individual elements necessary for comprehensive ground water protection. Within EPA, the source water protection program is working with the underground storage tank program to address potential threats to ground water posed by leaking tanks.

    Publications and resources

    Sole source aquifer protection program

    Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

    A sole source aquifer supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water for a given aquifer service area for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources, should the aquifer become contaminated. Designation as a sole source aquifer protects an area’s ground water resources by requiring EPA to review any proposed projects within the designated area that are receiving federal financial assistance.

    Watershed-based protection program

    Watershed-Based Protection Program

    The goal of source water protection is to protect the drinking water resource by protecting and preserving the environmental quality of the watershed above the intake (or the aquifer around the well). The assessment is the first step in the process to protect the resource. Once a watershed has been assessed to determine its current condition and the extent of the threats to the system, a watershed plan can be developed and implemented.

    EPA’s Office of Water has numerous programs that focus on watershed protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act includes programs such as the Nonpoint Source Program, National Estuary Program, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Each of these programs encourage states to develop programs to promote watershed-based protection, and they have elements that support watershed-based planning and implementation. The federal programs are generally implemented at the state level.

    EPA,Federal /non-governmental programs

    EPA, Federal / Non-governmental Programs

    There is no single federal program for implementing source water protection plans and activities. However, many federal, tribal, regional, and local programs have tools and resources that can be used to focus on protecting drinking water. Source water protection can benefit, and benefit from, other EPA programs, other federal programs and non-governmental programs:

    • Other programs can use source water assessments and identified protection areas to set priorities for ongoing prevention efforts.
    • Identifying source water protection areas increases federal, state and local managers’ awareness of other programs where participation might increase the protection of human health.
    • Protecting sources of drinking water can help various federal programs, states, organizations and communities meet other environmental and social goals, such as green space conservation, stormwater planning, management of nonpoint source pollution and brownfields redevelopment.
    • The benefits that EPA and other federal programs can provide to state and local source water assessment and protection efforts are potentially very large. These include information, technical and financial resources, and communication networks and enforcement authorities.

    EPA program links

    Other Federal Programs and Non-Governmental Organizations

    Tribal programs

    Tribal Programs

    EPA is firmly committed to helping tribes to assess the rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers that serve as tribal public water supplies and to implement measures to protect against contamination of these water resources.

    You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  • Search Site

    Hot Topics
    Global Water Crisis
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario Chemical Spill/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian British Columbia Water Crisis Issues
  • Water Crisis Worsens in Hyderabad
  • Jamaican Water Issue: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Improved but Not Always Safe: Despite Global Efforts, More Than 1 Billion People Likely at Risk for Lack of Clean Water
  • Current: European Report on Development: The Case of Lake Naivasha
    Water Contamination
  • Issue: Navy: Contaminant Found in Drinking Water at Parts of Sigonella
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Drinking-water wells were not contaminated by the Kalamazoo River oil spill, state report says [past related articles included]
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • Making Endangered River Safe For Drinking. Potomac Tops List of Endangered Rivers in U.S.
  • EPA to Work with Drinking Water Systems to Monitor Unregulated Contaminants [Thomas Net News]
    Fracking
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • OKOTOKS: Canada Fluoride News: Town Coucillors Want Oral Health Program in Place
    Questions and Answers
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Chemical Spills And Ground Water: Do You Know About The Water Below Your Feet?
    Good News
  • Good News For Our Vets & Our Water: EPA and Department of Veterans Affairs to Connect Veterans with Jobs in Water Sectors
  • Research Opens Doors To UV Disinfection Using LED Technology
  • The Glass is Already Half-Full for Nano-Based Water Treatments
    Education
  • Day In The Life Of A Scientist
  • CEO Discusses The Water Crisis
  • Junior Education Resources
  • Intermediate Education Resources
  • Senior Education Resources
  • Water Resource Index
  • Water Facts
  • Chemical Facts
  • The Perils Of Plastic
  • Pink Water
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education Save the water Thanks You For Your Support

    Comments Off

    Contaminated water and your health: New Wisconsin study on viruses in drinking water could have national impact [Wisconsin State Journal]

    Save the water News Postings Save our water  Volume 3


    News Posting
    Vol.III
    No.134

     

    Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation

    savethewater”,   “save the water”, “what is contaminated water”, “dirty water”, “water research”, “water”, “clean water”, “safe water”, “drinking water”, “water treatment”, “water testing”, “water analysis”, “bacteria”, “fluoride”, “pesticides”, “herbicides”, “organic chemicals”, “arsenic”, “ inorganic chemicals”,  “tap water”

    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange  

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor

    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us


    The material posted is
    courtesy of:
    RON SEELY
    Wisconsin State Journal
    June 01, 2012
    and is shared as
    educational material only

    New Wisconsin study on viruses in drinking water could have national impact

    Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

    Save the water Wisconsin study that shows a connection between viruses in drinking water and human illness

    June 01, 2012 7:45 am • RON SEELY | Wisconsin State Journal | rseely@madison.com | 608-252-6131

    A Wisconsin study that shows a connection between viruses in drinking water and human illness is likely to have a national impact and could eventually lead to federal rules requiring treatment of all public water systems, according to experts.

    The research, published online Friday by the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, was conducted in 14 Wisconsin communities by Mark Borchardt and Susan K. Spencer, microbiologists with the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation. Both Borchardt and Spencer now work at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service in Marshfield.

    The two-year study was among the first to closely link the presence of viruses in tap water to sickness in people drinking that water. The evidence in the study was so powerful that it resulted, even before its formal publication, in a state law in Wisconsin that required treatment of all municipal drinking water systems in the state.

    That law was rescinded by the Republican-controlled state Legislature a year ago. State Rep. Erik Severson, R-Star Prairie, sponsored an amendment that removed the requirement, arguing that the rule was an unnecessary financial and bureaucratic burden on communities with already strong water standards.

    At least 60 communities in Wisconsin do not treat drinking water with chlorine or ultraviolet light, both of which kill the contaminants, according to the DNR. The study found the source of viruses contaminating drinking water was likely wastewater coming from leaking sanitary sewers.

    Jill Jonas, director of the state Department of Natural Resources’ Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater, said Thursday that Borchardt’s study has prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin a nationwide sampling program that could eventually result in a federal rule requiring treatment.

    “It’s a significant study that has national implications,” Jonas said.

    The EPA-funded study showed that:

    All 14 communities studied during the two-year project had human viruses in their tap water. Of 1,204 samples, 287, or 24 percent, were virus positive.
    The higher the virus concentration, the higher the rate of illness found in each community.
    The type of virus found in drinking water most strongly related to illness was norovirus, the same virus notorious for causing outbreaks on cruise ships.
    During one part of the study, when norovirus was very common in one community’s tap water, the proportion of illness in children younger than 5 years old attributable to their drinking water could have been as high as 63 percent.

    Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/article_e8e5eefe-ab87-11e1-95bf-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz1wvxJyCKp

    Related Stories

    Water Directories

    Fracking

    Related Information on Fracking

    Related Information Regarding Fracking:

    Additional EPA information:

    Other federal government information:

    Tribal Water Resource Directory

    + opens topic menu
    - closes topic menu

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Rule Monitoring Placards

    Rule Monitoring Placards – check to make sure you download the correct placard for your public water system type PDF

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

  • Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Document (PDF) (26 pp, 198K)
    EPA 816-B-09-002
  • Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Each compliance report discusses the violations at public water systems on Indian reservations; EPA’s enforcement and compliance assistance activities with respect to Tribal PWSs; and the financial assistance EPA has provided to facilitate the provision of safe drinking water to Tribes.

    Links

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

     

    cactus
    reg10

    History of the Tribal PWSS and UIC Programs

    In 1974 the United States Congress passed legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), designed to maintain and improve the quality of the nation’s drinking waters. Two major regulatory programs were created in the SDWA: the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs.

    Congress authorized EPA to delegate responsibilities to states for implementing and enforcing national standards within their jurisdiction. States must apply to EPA if they want this “primacy” responsibility and must develop PWSS or UIC programs that meet national requirements. EPA is still responsible for developing national regulations, overseeing state primacy programs and implementing programs in states without primacy.

    Because of their unique status, Indian tribes were not eligible to assume primacy in the original Act. Instead EPA regions were responsible for primary enforcement authority of PWSS and UIC programs on Tribal lands. This changed in 1986 when the Amendments to the SDWA added provisions that allow federally recognized tribes to assume primacy for the PWSS and UIC programs. Section 1451 (“Indian Tribes”) of SDWA authorizes the EPA to treat Indian tribes in a manner similar to states and to assign primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to qualified tribes.

    The PWSS and UIC programs are very complex and costly to operate. For many tribes (especially those that do not have a large number of public water systems or underground injection wells), the costs and resources required to achieve and maintain a regulatory program may far exceed the benefits from achieving primacy. Due to such difficulties, currently the only tribe that has sought and obtained primacy for the PWSS program is the Navajo Nation. There are a few tribes that are pursuing primacy in the PWSS and UIC programs.

    Today´s Tribal Direct Implementation Program

    States and tribes that do not obtain PWSS and UIC program delegation continue to be directly implemented by the EPA region in which the State or reservation is located. All EPA regions, excluding Region III (which has no federally recognized tribes), operate tribal PWSS and UIC programs to manage public water systems or underground injection wells on Indian lands.

    EPA’s 1997 inventory shows that there are nearly 1000 public water systems (740 community water systems, 90 nontransient noncommunity water systems and 130 transient noncommunity water systems) that the EPA regional offices manage on Indian lands serving a population of nearly 500,000. There are also over 5,300 injection wells (one Class I well, 4,300 Class II wells, 0 Class III wells and 1,042 Class V wells) on tribal lands that are managed by regional UIC staff.

    As the primary enforcement authority for tribal public water systems, EPA regions are responsible for enforcing against those systems that do not comply with federal drinking water regulations. A formal enforcement action is taken as a last measure. EPA regions dedicate a great deal of resources to provide tribes with technical assistance to help their systems or wells comply with federal standards. Regional staff visit reservations as often as possible to provide compliance assistance on site. Many Regions also fund circuit rider programs which enable other qualified persons the opportunity to provide technical assistance and training directly to tribes.

    For more information on the Tribal PWSS and UIC programs, please contact your program representative.

    Source water assessment and protection programs

    Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 required states to develop and implement source water assessment programs (SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public drinking water throughout the state. Using these programs, most states have completed source water assessments for every public water system — from major metropolitan areas to the smallest towns. Even schools, restaurants, and other public facilities that have wells or surface water supplies have been assessed. A source water assessment is a study and report, unique to a water system, that provides basic information about the water used to provide drinking water. States are working with local communities and public water systems to identify protection measures to address potential threats to sources of drinking water.

    EPA publications and resources

    Wellhead protection program

    Wellhead Protection Program

    The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) is a pollution prevention and management program used to protect underground sources of drinking water. The national WHPP was established under section 1428 of the 1986 SDWA amendments. The law specified that certain program activities, such as delineation, contaminant source inventory, contingency planning and source management, be incorporated into state WHPPs, which are approved by EPA prior to implementation. All states have EPA-approved state WHPPs. Although section 1428 applies only to states, a number of tribes are implementing the program as well.

    WHPPs provided the foundation for many of the state source water assessment programs required under the 1996 SDWA amendments. Most states also use the wellhead protection program as a foundation for assessing and protecting ground water systems. State WHPPs vary greatly. For example, some states require community water systems to develop management plans, while others rely on education and technical assistance to encourage voluntary action. Other states have mandatory requirements for wellhead protection at the local level. Guidance, publications and other resources are available on state source water web sites.

    EPA publications and resources

    Non-EPA publications and resources

    State ground water protection program

    State Ground Water Protection Programs

    Many states have also developed programs that are focused specifically on ground water protection. Several states developed formal Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP), which were designed as a management tool for states to use to integrate all programs that affect ground water quality, thus allowing better decisions to be made. Although most states are no longer pursuing formal approval of a CSGW pp, virtually all states are pursuing at least some of the individual elements necessary for comprehensive ground water protection. Within EPA, the source water protection program is working with the underground storage tank program to address potential threats to ground water posed by leaking tanks.

    Publications and resources

    Sole source aquifer protection program

    Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

    A sole source aquifer supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water for a given aquifer service area for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources, should the aquifer become contaminated. Designation as a sole source aquifer protects an area’s ground water resources by requiring EPA to review any proposed projects within the designated area that are receiving federal financial assistance.

    Watershed-based protection program

    Watershed-Based Protection Program

    The goal of source water protection is to protect the drinking water resource by protecting and preserving the environmental quality of the watershed above the intake (or the aquifer around the well). The assessment is the first step in the process to protect the resource. Once a watershed has been assessed to determine its current condition and the extent of the threats to the system, a watershed plan can be developed and implemented.

    EPA’s Office of Water has numerous programs that focus on watershed protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act includes programs such as the Nonpoint Source Program, National Estuary Program, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Each of these programs encourage states to develop programs to promote watershed-based protection, and they have elements that support watershed-based planning and implementation. The federal programs are generally implemented at the state level.

    EPA,Federal /non-governmental programs

    EPA, Federal / Non-governmental Programs

    There is no single federal program for implementing source water protection plans and activities. However, many federal, tribal, regional, and local programs have tools and resources that can be used to focus on protecting drinking water. Source water protection can benefit, and benefit from, other EPA programs, other federal programs and non-governmental programs:

    • Other programs can use source water assessments and identified protection areas to set priorities for ongoing prevention efforts.
    • Identifying source water protection areas increases federal, state and local managers’ awareness of other programs where participation might increase the protection of human health.
    • Protecting sources of drinking water can help various federal programs, states, organizations and communities meet other environmental and social goals, such as green space conservation, stormwater planning, management of nonpoint source pollution and brownfields redevelopment.
    • The benefits that EPA and other federal programs can provide to state and local source water assessment and protection efforts are potentially very large. These include information, technical and financial resources, and communication networks and enforcement authorities.

    EPA program links

    Other Federal Programs and Non-Governmental Organizations

    Tribal programs

    Tribal Programs

    EPA is firmly committed to helping tribes to assess the rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers that serve as tribal public water supplies and to implement measures to protect against contamination of these water resources.

    You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  • Search Site

    Hot Topics
    Global Water Crisis
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario Chemical Spill/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian British Columbia Water Crisis Issues
  • Water Crisis Worsens in Hyderabad
  • Jamaican Water Issue: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Improved but Not Always Safe: Despite Global Efforts, More Than 1 Billion People Likely at Risk for Lack of Clean Water
  • Current: European Report on Development: The Case of Lake Naivasha
    Water Contamination
  • Issue: Navy: Contaminant Found in Drinking Water at Parts of Sigonella
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Drinking-water wells were not contaminated by the Kalamazoo River oil spill, state report says [past related articles included]
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • Making Endangered River Safe For Drinking. Potomac Tops List of Endangered Rivers in U.S.
  • EPA to Work with Drinking Water Systems to Monitor Unregulated Contaminants [Thomas Net News]
    Fracking
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • OKOTOKS: Canada Fluoride News: Town Coucillors Want Oral Health Program in Place
    Questions and Answers
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
    Savethewater Water Research and Education Save the water Thanks You For Your Support

  • Comments Off

    Save the Water™ Questions and Answers: Arsenic what is the safe level in your water? ‘Safe’ Levels Of Arsenic In Drinking Water Bad for Pregnant, Lactating Mice And Offspring

    Savethewater Questions and Answers


    Questions and Answers
    Vol.III
    No.17

     

    Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation

    savethewater”,   “save the water”, “what is contaminated water”, “dirty water”, “water research”, “water”, “clean water”, “safe water”, “drinking water”, “water treatment”, “water testing”, “water analysis”, “bacteria”, “fluoride”, “pesticides”, “herbicides”, “organic chemicals”, “arsenic”, “ inorganic chemicals”,  “tap water”

    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange  

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor

    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us


    The material posted is compliments of
    The Marine Biological Laboratory
    Save the Water™
    Education Dept.
    and is shared as
    educational material only

    Questions and Answers: Arsenic what is the safe level in your water?
    Do you know what’s in your tap water?

    Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

    Save the water Arsenic in water

    Exposure to arsenic in drinking water at the level the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently deems as safe in the United States (10 parts per billion) induces adverse health outcomes in pregnant and lactating mice and their offspring, concludes a study led by Joshua Hamilton of the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) and Courtney Kozul-Horvath at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth. The team is part of the Dartmouth Superfund Research Program on Toxic Metals.

    Pregnant and breastfeeding mothers who consumed low levels (10 ppb) of arsenic in their drinking water, the scientists found, exhibited significant disruption in their lipid metabolism, leading to diminished nutrients in their blood and in their breast milk. As a result, their offspring showed significant growth and development deficits during the postnatal period before weaning. Birth outcomes such as litter size and length of gestation were unaffected.

    “The pups were essentially malnourished; they were small and underdeveloped,” Hamilton says. Once the pups were switched to milk from a mother who had not consumed arsenic, their growth deficits reversed, although only the males fully caught up with the pups that had had no arsenic exposure.

    The U.S. EPA recently lowered the Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic to 10 ppb in public water supplies — a regulated level that is considered “safe” for a lifetime of exposure — yet concentrations of 100 ppb and higher are commonly found in private, unregulated well water in regions where arsenic is geologically abundant, including upper New England (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine), Florida, and large parts of the Upper Midwest, the Southwest, and the Rocky Mountains.

    “This study raises a couple of issues. First, we have to think again about whether 10 ppb arsenic as a U.S. drinking water standard is safe and protective of human health,” says Hamilton, who is the MBL’s chief academic and scientific officer and a senior scientist in the MBL Bay Paul Center.

    “Second, this study reiterates an emerging idea in toxicology that pregnant women and their offspring are uniquely sensitive to chemicals in their environment,” Hamilton says. “There is a special window of vulnerability for both of them.” Third, says Hamilton, “If you are on a private water system, particularly in a region with high arsenic, have your water tested so that you know what you are drinking.”

    The levels of arsenic and other regulated chemicals in public drinking water are published by water systems and readily available to consumers. In most states, the Department of Environmental Protection or its equivalent will also test an individual’s sample of private well water for arsenic and other chemicals. If the concentration of arsenic is of concern, Hamilton says, the best options for private well owners are drinking bottled water or buying a remediation system, such as reverse osmosis, that will remove arsenic. Additional information and resources can be found on the Dartmouth Toxic Metals web site .

    Based on this and prior studies (Environ. Hlth. Perspect. 2009), Hamilton and colleagues posit that exposure to low levels of arsenic may act as a predisposing factor, in which a second stress is needed to induce adverse health affects. In this study, pregnancy and lactation acted as that secondary stress. In the prior study, Hamilton’s group demonstrated that arsenic suppressed immune function, leading to dramatically greater effects of a flu infection in mice.

    Offspring are also uniquely sensitive to environmental chemicals because “they are developing rapidly. It’s not hard for very low doses of a chemical to have big effects on a developing animal,” Hamilton says.

    In the current study, the mothers who were exposed to arsenic had significantly lower triglyceride concentrations in their serum and breast milk than normal, indicating the process of fat metabolism and storage in their bodies was compromised.

    “Normally, the body is very good at storing fat and glucose for later use,” Hamilton says. “Up to a certain point, if a mother is malnourished during and after pregnancy, the offspring will not be compromised, because her body uses nutrients it has stored to nourish the baby. Her body will basically ‘eat itself’ to provide for the baby.” However, because this protective mechanism was disrupted in the arsenic-exposed mothers, they could provide less nutrients to their pups via breast milk.

    The arsenic-exposed mothers also displayed a condition known as hepatic steatosis or “fatty liver,” in which fat accumulates abnormally in the liver.

    As early as day 10 after birth, the pups of arsenic-exposed mothers showed significant deficits in growth, as evidenced by body weight. At the typical time of weaning (21 days after birth), many of the arsenic-exposed offspring were so small that it was not feasible to separate them from their mothers.

    “The message here is, ‘Pay attention to your total arsenic exposure, both in drinking water and also in food.’” Hamilton says. “Pregnant women, especially, need to be very careful and protective of their health. Environmental chemicals such as arsenic, along with tobacco, alcohol, drugs — all of these chemicals are potential stressors to pregnant women and their offspring.”

    “The research conducted by Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Kozul-Horvath is an important component of our Superfund Research Program (SRP) at Dartmouth,” says Bruce Stanton, Dartmouth SRP Director. “These significant results add to the body of knowledge we are developing pertaining to the sources of arsenic, its effects at the cellular level, the ways in which it affects the health of mammals like mice and ultimately, how it causes disease and harmful health outcomes for humans.”

    Source: The Marine Biological Laboratory

    Water Directories To Add To Your Library

    Fracking

    Related Information on Fracking

    Related Information Regarding Fracking:

    Additional EPA information:

    Other federal government information:

    Tribal Water Resource Directory

    + opens topic menu
    - closes topic menu

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Rule Monitoring Placards

    Rule Monitoring Placards – check to make sure you download the correct placard for your public water system type PDF

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

  • Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Document (PDF) (26 pp, 198K)
    EPA 816-B-09-002
  • Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Each compliance report discusses the violations at public water systems on Indian reservations; EPA’s enforcement and compliance assistance activities with respect to Tribal PWSs; and the financial assistance EPA has provided to facilitate the provision of safe drinking water to Tribes.

    Links

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

     

    cactus
    reg10

    History of the Tribal PWSS and UIC Programs

    In 1974 the United States Congress passed legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), designed to maintain and improve the quality of the nation’s drinking waters. Two major regulatory programs were created in the SDWA: the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs.

    Congress authorized EPA to delegate responsibilities to states for implementing and enforcing national standards within their jurisdiction. States must apply to EPA if they want this “primacy” responsibility and must develop PWSS or UIC programs that meet national requirements. EPA is still responsible for developing national regulations, overseeing state primacy programs and implementing programs in states without primacy.

    Because of their unique status, Indian tribes were not eligible to assume primacy in the original Act. Instead EPA regions were responsible for primary enforcement authority of PWSS and UIC programs on Tribal lands. This changed in 1986 when the Amendments to the SDWA added provisions that allow federally recognized tribes to assume primacy for the PWSS and UIC programs. Section 1451 (“Indian Tribes”) of SDWA authorizes the EPA to treat Indian tribes in a manner similar to states and to assign primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to qualified tribes.

    The PWSS and UIC programs are very complex and costly to operate. For many tribes (especially those that do not have a large number of public water systems or underground injection wells), the costs and resources required to achieve and maintain a regulatory program may far exceed the benefits from achieving primacy. Due to such difficulties, currently the only tribe that has sought and obtained primacy for the PWSS program is the Navajo Nation. There are a few tribes that are pursuing primacy in the PWSS and UIC programs.

    Today´s Tribal Direct Implementation Program

    States and tribes that do not obtain PWSS and UIC program delegation continue to be directly implemented by the EPA region in which the State or reservation is located. All EPA regions, excluding Region III (which has no federally recognized tribes), operate tribal PWSS and UIC programs to manage public water systems or underground injection wells on Indian lands.

    EPA’s 1997 inventory shows that there are nearly 1000 public water systems (740 community water systems, 90 nontransient noncommunity water systems and 130 transient noncommunity water systems) that the EPA regional offices manage on Indian lands serving a population of nearly 500,000. There are also over 5,300 injection wells (one Class I well, 4,300 Class II wells, 0 Class III wells and 1,042 Class V wells) on tribal lands that are managed by regional UIC staff.

    As the primary enforcement authority for tribal public water systems, EPA regions are responsible for enforcing against those systems that do not comply with federal drinking water regulations. A formal enforcement action is taken as a last measure. EPA regions dedicate a great deal of resources to provide tribes with technical assistance to help their systems or wells comply with federal standards. Regional staff visit reservations as often as possible to provide compliance assistance on site. Many Regions also fund circuit rider programs which enable other qualified persons the opportunity to provide technical assistance and training directly to tribes.

    For more information on the Tribal PWSS and UIC programs, please contact your program representative.

    Source water assessment and protection programs

    Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 required states to develop and implement source water assessment programs (SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public drinking water throughout the state. Using these programs, most states have completed source water assessments for every public water system — from major metropolitan areas to the smallest towns. Even schools, restaurants, and other public facilities that have wells or surface water supplies have been assessed. A source water assessment is a study and report, unique to a water system, that provides basic information about the water used to provide drinking water. States are working with local communities and public water systems to identify protection measures to address potential threats to sources of drinking water.

    EPA publications and resources

    Wellhead protection program

    Wellhead Protection Program

    The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) is a pollution prevention and management program used to protect underground sources of drinking water. The national WHPP was established under section 1428 of the 1986 SDWA amendments. The law specified that certain program activities, such as delineation, contaminant source inventory, contingency planning and source management, be incorporated into state WHPPs, which are approved by EPA prior to implementation. All states have EPA-approved state WHPPs. Although section 1428 applies only to states, a number of tribes are implementing the program as well.

    WHPPs provided the foundation for many of the state source water assessment programs required under the 1996 SDWA amendments. Most states also use the wellhead protection program as a foundation for assessing and protecting ground water systems. State WHPPs vary greatly. For example, some states require community water systems to develop management plans, while others rely on education and technical assistance to encourage voluntary action. Other states have mandatory requirements for wellhead protection at the local level. Guidance, publications and other resources are available on state source water web sites.

    EPA publications and resources

    Non-EPA publications and resources

    State ground water protection program

    State Ground Water Protection Programs

    Many states have also developed programs that are focused specifically on ground water protection. Several states developed formal Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP), which were designed as a management tool for states to use to integrate all programs that affect ground water quality, thus allowing better decisions to be made. Although most states are no longer pursuing formal approval of a CSGW pp, virtually all states are pursuing at least some of the individual elements necessary for comprehensive ground water protection. Within EPA, the source water protection program is working with the underground storage tank program to address potential threats to ground water posed by leaking tanks.

    Publications and resources

    Sole source aquifer protection program

    Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

    A sole source aquifer supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water for a given aquifer service area for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources, should the aquifer become contaminated. Designation as a sole source aquifer protects an area’s ground water resources by requiring EPA to review any proposed projects within the designated area that are receiving federal financial assistance.

    Watershed-based protection program

    Watershed-Based Protection Program

    The goal of source water protection is to protect the drinking water resource by protecting and preserving the environmental quality of the watershed above the intake (or the aquifer around the well). The assessment is the first step in the process to protect the resource. Once a watershed has been assessed to determine its current condition and the extent of the threats to the system, a watershed plan can be developed and implemented.

    EPA’s Office of Water has numerous programs that focus on watershed protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act includes programs such as the Nonpoint Source Program, National Estuary Program, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Each of these programs encourage states to develop programs to promote watershed-based protection, and they have elements that support watershed-based planning and implementation. The federal programs are generally implemented at the state level.

    EPA,Federal /non-governmental programs

    EPA, Federal / Non-governmental Programs

    There is no single federal program for implementing source water protection plans and activities. However, many federal, tribal, regional, and local programs have tools and resources that can be used to focus on protecting drinking water. Source water protection can benefit, and benefit from, other EPA programs, other federal programs and non-governmental programs:

    • Other programs can use source water assessments and identified protection areas to set priorities for ongoing prevention efforts.
    • Identifying source water protection areas increases federal, state and local managers’ awareness of other programs where participation might increase the protection of human health.
    • Protecting sources of drinking water can help various federal programs, states, organizations and communities meet other environmental and social goals, such as green space conservation, stormwater planning, management of nonpoint source pollution and brownfields redevelopment.
    • The benefits that EPA and other federal programs can provide to state and local source water assessment and protection efforts are potentially very large. These include information, technical and financial resources, and communication networks and enforcement authorities.

    EPA program links

    Other Federal Programs and Non-Governmental Organizations

    Tribal programs

    Tribal Programs

    EPA is firmly committed to helping tribes to assess the rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers that serve as tribal public water supplies and to implement measures to protect against contamination of these water resources.

    You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  • Search Site

    Hot Topics
    Global Water Crisis
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario Chemical Spill/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian British Columbia Water Crisis Issues
  • Water Crisis Worsens in Hyderabad
  • Jamaican Water Issue: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Improved but Not Always Safe: Despite Global Efforts, More Than 1 Billion People Likely at Risk for Lack of Clean Water
  • Current: European Report on Development: The Case of Lake Naivasha
    Water Contamination
  • Issue: Navy: Contaminant Found in Drinking Water at Parts of Sigonella
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Drinking-water wells were not contaminated by the Kalamazoo River oil spill, state report says [past related articles included]
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • Making Endangered River Safe For Drinking. Potomac Tops List of Endangered Rivers in U.S.
  • EPA to Work with Drinking Water Systems to Monitor Unregulated Contaminants [Thomas Net News]
    Fracking
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • OKOTOKS: Canada Fluoride News: Town Coucillors Want Oral Health Program in Place
    Questions and Answers
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Chemical Spills And Ground Water: Do You Know About The Water Below Your Feet?
    Good News
  • Good News For Our Vets & Our Water: EPA and Department of Veterans Affairs to Connect Veterans with Jobs in Water Sectors
  • Research Opens Doors To UV Disinfection Using LED Technology
  • The Glass is Already Half-Full for Nano-Based Water Treatments
    Education
  • Day In The Life Of A Scientist
  • CEO Discusses The Water Crisis
  • Junior Education Resources
  • Intermediate Education Resources
  • Senior Education Resources
  • Water Resource Index
  • Water Facts
  • Chemical Facts
  • The Perils Of Plastic
  • Pink Water
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education Save the water Thanks You For Your Support

    Comments Off

    Water contamination research: New test to detect arsenic contamination in drinking water [Arsenic definition/Phys.Org™]

    Save the water News Postings Save our water  Volume 3

    News Posting
    Vol.III
    No.136

    Save the water, New test to detect arsenic contamination in drinking water ,Arsenic in drinking water,what is arsenic poisoning  

    Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation

    Save

    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange 

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor

    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us


    The material posted is
    courtesy of:
    Jim AjiokaAn
    June 1, 2012
    Phys.Org™
    and is shared as
    educational material only

    New test to detect arsenic contamination in drinking water

    Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

    Save the water New test to detect arsenic contamination in drinking water
     

    Bacterial pigments. Credit: Jim AjiokaAn economical and easy-to-use biosensor could reduce the chance of being poisoned by arsenic – a common contaminant of wells in parts of Asia.

    June 1, 2012

    Arsenic is one of the most common elements on Earth and is present as arsenic salts in all water. The World Health Organization sets the safe level for arsenic in drinking water at 10 parts per billion. From the Himalayas to Southeast Asia, arsenic levels in drinking water can be more than 10 times that amount, yet the wells are rarely tested. The problem has been termed “the largest mass poisoning of a population in history”, with calls for a reinvigoration of moribund well-testing campaigns.

    For instance, of the more than 400,000 shallow tube wells in Nepal, it is estimated that nearly 10% of them are contaminated with arsenic, which can cause a variety of health problems, including skin lesions, diseases of the blood vessels of the hands and feet, and cancer of the skin, bladder, kidney and lung.

    Several arsenic testing kits are available on the market, but they require expensive machinery to read the outputs, and almost all of them use mercury bromide, which is extremely toxic.

    Dr. Jim Ajioka from the Department of Pathology, along with Dr. Jim Haseloff from the Department of Plant Sciences and colleagues from the University of Edinburgh, has designed a whole-cell arsenic biosensor that is cheap, non-toxic and easy to use.

    Some species of bacteria are natural arsenic biosensors: in the presence of less than 10 parts per billion of arsenic, they initiate the production of enzymes and an efflux pump for the detoxification and removal of arsenic. For the sensor, the team will take the genes that detect arsenic and combine them with bacterial genes that produce coloured pigments. The modified bacteria will turn green when arsenic levels are safe, and purple when arsenic levels are unsafe. The test uses a harmless strain of the soil-dwelling bacterium Bacillus subtilis, which poses no threat to human health or the environment.

    The extremely simple visual output combined with the low cost (estimated at around $0.50 per test) and the lack of need for any expensive monitoring equipment make the whole-cell arsenic biosensor ideal for use in rural areas where contamination of drinking water is widespread.

    With the assistance of Cambridge Enterprise, the University’s commercialisation arm, the team has received a translational grant from the Wellcome Trust. It is anticipated that a functioning device can be built within the next 18–24 months, with field testing to follow.

    Provided by University of Cambridge

    Drinking water

    Drinking water is water of sufficiently high quality that it can be consumed or used without risk of immediate or long term harm. Such water is commonly called potable water. In most developed countries, the water supplied to households, commerce and industry is all of drinking water standard, even though only a very small proportion (often 5% or less) is actually consumed or used in food preparation.[citation needed]

    Over large parts of the world, humans have inadequate access to potable water and use sources contaminated with disease vectors, pathogens or unacceptable levels of dissolved chemicals or suspended solids. Such water is not potable and drinking or using such water in food preparation leads to widespread acute and chronic illness and is a major cause of death in many countries.

    Typically, water supply networks deliver potable water, whether it is to be used for drinking, washing or landscape irrigation. One counterexample is urban China, where drinking water can optionally be delivered by a separate tap.

    For more information about Drinking water, read the full article at Wikipedia.
    This text uses material from Wikipedia and is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

    Arsenic

    Arsenic (pronounced /ˈɑrsnɪk/; also /ɑrˈsɛnɪk/ when attributive) is the chemical element that has the symbol As and atomic number 33. Arsenic was first documented by Albertus Magnus in 1250. Its atomic mass is 74.92. Arsenic is a notoriously poisonous metalloid with many allotropic forms, including a yellow (molecular non-metallic) and several black and grey forms (metalloids). Three metalloidal forms of arsenic, each with a different crystal structure, are found free in nature (the minerals arsenic sensu stricto and the much rarer arsenolamprite and pararsenolamprite). However, it is more commonly found as arsenide and in arsenate compounds, several hundred of which are known. Arsenic and its compounds are used as pesticides, herbicides, insecticides and in various alloys.

    For more information about Arsenic, read the full article at Wikipedia.
    This text uses material from Wikipedia and is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

    New test to detect arsenic contamination in drinking water

    An economical and easy-to-use biosensor could reduce the chance of being poisoned by arsenic – a common contaminant of wells in parts of Asia.

    Chemistry / Biochemistry

    created Jun 01, 2012 | popularity

    Tracing arsenic threat to groundwater

    In the driest inhabited continent on earth, underground water accounts for a large portion of Australia’s most precious resource – freshwater.

    Space & Earth / Environment


    Water Directories

    Fracking

    Related Information on Fracking

    Related Information Regarding Fracking:

    Additional EPA information:

    Other federal government information:

    Tribal Water Resource Directory

    + opens topic menu
    - closes topic menu

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Rule Monitoring Placards

    Rule Monitoring Placards – check to make sure you download the correct placard for your public water system type PDF

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

  • Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Document (PDF) (26 pp, 198K)
    EPA 816-B-09-002
  • Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Each compliance report discusses the violations at public water systems on Indian reservations; EPA’s enforcement and compliance assistance activities with respect to Tribal PWSs; and the financial assistance EPA has provided to facilitate the provision of safe drinking water to Tribes.

    Links

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

     

    cactus
    reg10

    History of the Tribal PWSS and UIC Programs

    In 1974 the United States Congress passed legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), designed to maintain and improve the quality of the nation’s drinking waters. Two major regulatory programs were created in the SDWA: the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs.

    Congress authorized EPA to delegate responsibilities to states for implementing and enforcing national standards within their jurisdiction. States must apply to EPA if they want this “primacy” responsibility and must develop PWSS or UIC programs that meet national requirements. EPA is still responsible for developing national regulations, overseeing state primacy programs and implementing programs in states without primacy.

    Because of their unique status, Indian tribes were not eligible to assume primacy in the original Act. Instead EPA regions were responsible for primary enforcement authority of PWSS and UIC programs on Tribal lands. This changed in 1986 when the Amendments to the SDWA added provisions that allow federally recognized tribes to assume primacy for the PWSS and UIC programs. Section 1451 (“Indian Tribes”) of SDWA authorizes the EPA to treat Indian tribes in a manner similar to states and to assign primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to qualified tribes.

    The PWSS and UIC programs are very complex and costly to operate. For many tribes (especially those that do not have a large number of public water systems or underground injection wells), the costs and resources required to achieve and maintain a regulatory program may far exceed the benefits from achieving primacy. Due to such difficulties, currently the only tribe that has sought and obtained primacy for the PWSS program is the Navajo Nation. There are a few tribes that are pursuing primacy in the PWSS and UIC programs.

    Today´s Tribal Direct Implementation Program

    States and tribes that do not obtain PWSS and UIC program delegation continue to be directly implemented by the EPA region in which the State or reservation is located. All EPA regions, excluding Region III (which has no federally recognized tribes), operate tribal PWSS and UIC programs to manage public water systems or underground injection wells on Indian lands.

    EPA’s 1997 inventory shows that there are nearly 1000 public water systems (740 community water systems, 90 nontransient noncommunity water systems and 130 transient noncommunity water systems) that the EPA regional offices manage on Indian lands serving a population of nearly 500,000. There are also over 5,300 injection wells (one Class I well, 4,300 Class II wells, 0 Class III wells and 1,042 Class V wells) on tribal lands that are managed by regional UIC staff.

    As the primary enforcement authority for tribal public water systems, EPA regions are responsible for enforcing against those systems that do not comply with federal drinking water regulations. A formal enforcement action is taken as a last measure. EPA regions dedicate a great deal of resources to provide tribes with technical assistance to help their systems or wells comply with federal standards. Regional staff visit reservations as often as possible to provide compliance assistance on site. Many Regions also fund circuit rider programs which enable other qualified persons the opportunity to provide technical assistance and training directly to tribes.

    For more information on the Tribal PWSS and UIC programs, please contact your program representative.

    Source water assessment and protection programs

    Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 required states to develop and implement source water assessment programs (SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public drinking water throughout the state. Using these programs, most states have completed source water assessments for every public water system — from major metropolitan areas to the smallest towns. Even schools, restaurants, and other public facilities that have wells or surface water supplies have been assessed. A source water assessment is a study and report, unique to a water system, that provides basic information about the water used to provide drinking water. States are working with local communities and public water systems to identify protection measures to address potential threats to sources of drinking water.

    EPA publications and resources

    Wellhead protection program

    Wellhead Protection Program

    The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) is a pollution prevention and management program used to protect underground sources of drinking water. The national WHPP was established under section 1428 of the 1986 SDWA amendments. The law specified that certain program activities, such as delineation, contaminant source inventory, contingency planning and source management, be incorporated into state WHPPs, which are approved by EPA prior to implementation. All states have EPA-approved state WHPPs. Although section 1428 applies only to states, a number of tribes are implementing the program as well.

    WHPPs provided the foundation for many of the state source water assessment programs required under the 1996 SDWA amendments. Most states also use the wellhead protection program as a foundation for assessing and protecting ground water systems. State WHPPs vary greatly. For example, some states require community water systems to develop management plans, while others rely on education and technical assistance to encourage voluntary action. Other states have mandatory requirements for wellhead protection at the local level. Guidance, publications and other resources are available on state source water web sites.

    EPA publications and resources

    Non-EPA publications and resources

    State ground water protection program

    State Ground Water Protection Programs

    Many states have also developed programs that are focused specifically on ground water protection. Several states developed formal Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP), which were designed as a management tool for states to use to integrate all programs that affect ground water quality, thus allowing better decisions to be made. Although most states are no longer pursuing formal approval of a CSGW pp, virtually all states are pursuing at least some of the individual elements necessary for comprehensive ground water protection. Within EPA, the source water protection program is working with the underground storage tank program to address potential threats to ground water posed by leaking tanks.

    Publications and resources

    Sole source aquifer protection program

    Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

    A sole source aquifer supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water for a given aquifer service area for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources, should the aquifer become contaminated. Designation as a sole source aquifer protects an area’s ground water resources by requiring EPA to review any proposed projects within the designated area that are receiving federal financial assistance.

    Watershed-based protection program

    Watershed-Based Protection Program

    The goal of source water protection is to protect the drinking water resource by protecting and preserving the environmental quality of the watershed above the intake (or the aquifer around the well). The assessment is the first step in the process to protect the resource. Once a watershed has been assessed to determine its current condition and the extent of the threats to the system, a watershed plan can be developed and implemented.

    EPA’s Office of Water has numerous programs that focus on watershed protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act includes programs such as the Nonpoint Source Program, National Estuary Program, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Each of these programs encourage states to develop programs to promote watershed-based protection, and they have elements that support watershed-based planning and implementation. The federal programs are generally implemented at the state level.

    EPA,Federal /non-governmental programs

    EPA, Federal / Non-governmental Programs

    There is no single federal program for implementing source water protection plans and activities. However, many federal, tribal, regional, and local programs have tools and resources that can be used to focus on protecting drinking water. Source water protection can benefit, and benefit from, other EPA programs, other federal programs and non-governmental programs:

    • Other programs can use source water assessments and identified protection areas to set priorities for ongoing prevention efforts.
    • Identifying source water protection areas increases federal, state and local managers’ awareness of other programs where participation might increase the protection of human health.
    • Protecting sources of drinking water can help various federal programs, states, organizations and communities meet other environmental and social goals, such as green space conservation, stormwater planning, management of nonpoint source pollution and brownfields redevelopment.
    • The benefits that EPA and other federal programs can provide to state and local source water assessment and protection efforts are potentially very large. These include information, technical and financial resources, and communication networks and enforcement authorities.

    EPA program links

    Other Federal Programs and Non-Governmental Organizations

    Tribal programs

    Tribal Programs

    EPA is firmly committed to helping tribes to assess the rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers that serve as tribal public water supplies and to implement measures to protect against contamination of these water resources.

    You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  • Search Site

    Hot Topics
    Global Water Crisis
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario Chemical Spill/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian British Columbia Water Crisis Issues
  • Water Crisis Worsens in Hyderabad
  • Jamaican Water Issue: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Improved but Not Always Safe: Despite Global Efforts, More Than 1 Billion People Likely at Risk for Lack of Clean Water
  • Current: European Report on Development: The Case of Lake Naivasha
    Water Contamination
  • Issue: Navy: Contaminant Found in Drinking Water at Parts of Sigonella
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Drinking-water wells were not contaminated by the Kalamazoo River oil spill, state report says [past related articles included]
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • Making Endangered River Safe For Drinking. Potomac Tops List of Endangered Rivers in U.S.
  • EPA to Work with Drinking Water Systems to Monitor Unregulated Contaminants [Thomas Net News]
    Fracking
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • OKOTOKS: Canada Fluoride News: Town Coucillors Want Oral Health Program in Place
    Questions and Answers
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Chemical Spills And Ground Water: Do You Know About The Water Below Your Feet?
    Good News
  • Good News For Our Vets & Our Water: EPA and Department of Veterans Affairs to Connect Veterans with Jobs in Water Sectors
  • Research Opens Doors To UV Disinfection Using LED Technology
  • The Glass is Already Half-Full for Nano-Based Water Treatments
    Education
  • Day In The Life Of A Scientist
  • CEO Discusses The Water Crisis
  • Junior Education Resources
  • Intermediate Education Resources
  • Senior Education Resources
  • Water Resource Index
  • Water Facts
  • Chemical Facts
  • The Perils Of Plastic
  • Pink Water
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education Save the water Thanks You For Your Support

    Comments Off

    What is Chronic Arsenic Poisoning? History, Study and Remediation

     What is Chronic Arsenic Poisoning?   History, Study and Remediation, Drinking water contamination news. Save the water  Volume 3

     What is Chronic Arsenic Poisoning,Save the water,current post

    Update
    Vol.III
    Archives
    Originally Posted
    Vol 1
    No. 3
    Updated
    July 14
    2012

     What is Chronic Arsenic Poisoning<br />
” width=”100″ height=”129″ /></a></p>
<p></center></p>
<p><center><br />
The material posted is<br />
courtesy  of<br />
NewsOK.com<br />
CHRIS CASTEEL<br />
 Save the Water™<br />
Water Research<br />
Education Dept.<br />
and is shared as<br />
educational material only<br />
</center><br />
  </p>
<p><a href= What is Chronic Arsenic Poisoning,Drinking water contamination news



    ,Contaminated drinking Water

     


     
     
     

    Rating for savethewater.org

    What is ARSENIC POISONING?

    THIS IS A MUST SEE WEB SITE REGARDING ARSENIC POISONING


    World Map

    Documented cases of arsenic problems in groundwater related to natural contamination (Smedley, Kinniburgh 2001).A map by Amini et al, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, showing the modelled global probability of geogenic arsenic contamination can be found here .

     

     

    by S. Sambu and R. Wilson
    “It is an uncanny thought that this lurking poison (arsenic) is everywhere about us,
    ready to gain unsuspected entrance to our bodies from the food we eat,
    the water we drink and the air we breathe” Karl Vogel, 1928.
    Acute Effects

    .

    Arsenic has been used since 3000 BC. In the United Kingdom, for example, it was used to extract iron from iron ore. It has long been known that arsenic is acutely toxic. Anyone who drinks arsenic in water at 60 parts per million (ppm) will soon die. There are several toxicological summary references for acute effects available on the web such as SCORECARD, ASTDR, USEPA and LSUMC.
    Beneficial Effects

    .

    Read more

    Arsenic has been used for many years for medicinal purposes. It used to be used as a cure for diseases such as syphilis and has been shown to assist in curing some leukemias. It was taken as a medicine in Fowler’s Solution for well over a century. That arsenic at low levels is safe seemed to be reinforced by animal studies that seemed to show that arsenic is beneficial (to animals) at low doses. Indeed, the fact that laboratory animals could not be persuaded to develop cancer misled toxicologists throughout the world and greatly contributed to the present catastrophe. Others have written about other possible beneficial effects at very low levels. It is important to note that the beneficial effects are for different medical outcomes (end points) than either the acute or chronic adverse effects and that both beneficial and adverse effects can be observed simultaneously (as is well known for alcohol ingestion). Another detailed article about beneficial uses of arsenic can be found here. Mineral hot springs in the USA still advertise arsenic pools and their users, including this webmaster, are convinced that the effects are beneficial! (But arsenic penetrates the skin only slowly)
    Chronic Adverse Effects
    .
    Chronic effects of prolonged low level exposure have recently showed up. Among various summaries we link to an information site run by ASTDR. Skin pigmentation,keratoses and skin cancers were found by Tseng in Taiwan in 1966 among people who drank from arsenic contaminated wells (but no effect was seen below about 150 parts per billion (ppb), which might therefore be a biological threshold) and a very high incidence of lung, bladder and other cancers was found in Taiwan by Dr Chien-Jen Chen in 1986 and by Dr Allan Smith and collaborators in Chile in 1993. These convinced WHO to recommend lowering the regulatory level from 50 ppb to 10 ppb for arsenic in water. It appears that there are no data on humans to contest the idea that prolonged exposure to low doses is dangerous. Although arsenic was used medicinally in “Fowler’s Solution” (1% arsenite), prolonged use had led to these chronic skin effects. This was observed as early as 1888 by Hutchinson. A follow up of a number of English patients treated with Fowler’s Solution has been reported by Dr Susan Evans in published literature, in a report at the February 1998 conference in Dhaka and in a presidential address by Susan Evans to the Liverpool Medical Institute, which is available for download in PDF format. This shows that the use of “Fowler’s solution” (which is primarily medicinal arsenic) in the UK is probably responsible for 5 bladder cancer cases among the patients among whom only 1.6 were expected from natural causes. The arsenic dose was equivalent to an average lifetime dose that would come from drinking water with about 25 ppb of arsenic therein.
    After several years of low level arsenic exposure, various skin lesions appear. These are manifested by hyperpigmentation (dark spots), hypopigmentation (white spots) and keratoses of the hands and feet. After a dozen or so years skin cancers are expected. Twenty or thirty years after exposure to 500 ppb of arsenic, internal cancers (lung, kidney, liver and bladder) appear among 10% of all exposed. Moreover, the dose-response relationship for these internal cancers is consistent with being linear with no threshold. Photographs of a number of victims of this poisoning are available both from Bangladesh and from Inner Mongolia.Although the most dramatic effect was the observation of internal cancers in Tawian, the most extensive epidemiological studies have come from the work in Chile, in which Dr Allan Smith of UC Berkeley has been heavily involved. They find the extraordinarily surprizing result that ingested arsenic in Chile has produced lung cancer at a rate greater than that of a heavy cigarette smoker! Recently, the group identified an effect of arsenic exposure to chldren – who have developing lungs -. Children exposed to arsenic have ten times the normal lung cancer incidence.
    . .
    The Effect of Diet
    An important issue for coping with arsenic exposure is the effect of diet. A general issue can be stated: there is frequently more than one cause of a cancer or a lesion. For example lung cancer can be caused by cigarette smoking or asbestos or both together, in a synergistic way such that the risks multiply (rather than add) when both are present. In the USA it has been found that people who have a good diet of fresh fruit and vegetables (5 servings per day) have half the risk of many cancers, including lung cancers caused by cigarettes, as those without a good diet. By analogy, one might expect that the lung cancer risk from arsenic will be less among those with a good diet. Anecdotal indications from Bangladesh suggests that a good diet reduces skin lesions, and the effect is seen in West Bengal, but the effect is small and the authors recommend that effort is better spent on obtaining pure water. Nonetheless epidemiological studies to confirm this are highly desirable. Khaliquzzaman and Khan have calculated the “Arsenic Exposure of Bangladesh Population through Food Chain” using known amounts in food, in an unpublished World Bank report. The amount is less than from drinking water but not much less.
    There are several specific chemicals that have been suggested that would either (i) help to prevent arsenic lesions by rapid removal of arsenic from the body or (ii) help to cure arsenic lesions. Encouragement of methylation of the arsenic probably accelerates methylation, but the methylation has been suggested as a cause of internal cancers. The specific chemical that has come to the mind of many health experts is selenium. It was noted in the 1930s that effects of excess selenium can be counteracted by adding arsenic to the diet because As and Se combine. Does the inverse take place? It is reported that areas with high incidence of arsenical lesions have low selenium in the water. Some victims have low selenium levels. Does adding selenium to the diet really help, either to prevent the lesions from forming (likely), or to treat them afterwards (less likely)? We have, with help from others, compiled a list of references and a recent paper on the subject. Professor Zuberi of Rajshashi University has suggested methionine to reduce the arsenic lesions. Dr. OGB Nambiar has suggested that ferrous sulphate, after conversion to sulfide by bacteria in the colon, absorbs arsenic and assists safe excretion. The evidence for these remains indirect, and there may be (as suggested above) competing adverse effects. Only good epidemiology can tell and this is under way in several places.
    Regulatory Limits for Continuous Exposure

    The regulatory limits on arsenic exposure were set primarily to be sure that these acute toxic effects were avoided. The first regulatory limit of which the webmasters are aware was set as a result of a public inquiry (subsequent to arsenic being found in beer) of six members chaired by the physicist William Thompson, first Lord Kelvin, in 1903. They recommended that sake of liquids with more than 100 grains of arsenious oxide per gallon (which works out at about 90 ppb of arsenic or 0.09 ug/l) This was reduced two fold over the next century and until recently the limit set by Bangladesh, the United Kingdom, and the United States was 50 parts per billion (ppb). But the discovery that there are adverse effects of continuous chronic exposure led WHO to lower their recommendation to 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The European Union (EU) plans to enforce a standard of 10 ppb by 2003. After a long travail , on October 31st 2001, the administrator of US EPA confirmed a new standard for drinking water of 10 ppb to be enforced by 2006. In Australia there does not seem to be a specific regulatory level but there are work rules for those working around mine tailings sites.

    The US EPA has recently come out with an extensive review of mechanisms of action of Dimethyl Arsenic (DMA) and its possible mechanisms of action. They cannot rule out a linear dose response at the lowest doses. It is effectively impossible to reduce the content of arsenic in drinking water to a risk level of one in a million lifetime risk calculated with a linear dose-response relationship, a risk level and a calculational procedure frequently used by the U.S. EPA. The present 10 ppb standard is perhaps the first in which the U.S EPA explicitly compared costs and benefits and used a value of $6.1 million per calculated life saved. References to the extensive US national discussion are available on the “countries” page and in particular the section on travail.

    The Worldwide Scope of the Catastrophe

    Arsenic contamination has become a problem in many parts of the world. At first as a result of leaching from mine tailings in Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the United States, but now also from the arsenic in natural acquifers now or recently used for water supply in Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Chile , China, Ghana, Hungary, Inner Mongolia, Mexico, Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines, Taiwan, the United States and Vietnam. Arsenic was also widely used as a pesticide. 20,000 tons a year was imported into the USA, and perhaps double that amount was used, to spray on crops in the USA alone. No attention was paid to the ultimate fate of the chemical,and in consequence arsenic now appears in foodstuffs . (Papers describing data in some of these countries are listed by country in the list of useful references. ) It is important to distinguish the problems in Bangladesh, West Bengal and, to a lesser extent, Inner Mongolia, Chile, Nepal and Vietnam, from the problems that have been found so far in the rest of the world. These situations have in common that they are an alluvial plain where arsenic has been brought down from the surrounding hills for millenia. It seems that no one has looked carefully at similar geological situations such as the Mekong delta or the Irrawaddy delta. In most of the world exposures above 50 parts per billion (50 ppb) are rare, and once observed, can easily be avoided. But the sheer scale of the problems in Bangladesh dwarfs the imagination. The catastrophe is much worse than the well known catastrophe of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, the Bhopal isothiocyanate leak or the Kuwait oil fires. For 90% of the Bangladeshi communities, pure water is still a long time away.

    The World Bank made a study for SE Asia in the beginning of the 21st century which is available on the web:

    Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater in South and East Asian Countries

    Volume I: Policy Report Full Report (1,038kb pdf)

    Volume II: Technical Report Full Report (2,879kb pdf)

    The situation in Bangladesh has received a lot of attention because it is the most important. The new Bangladeshi government has made the solution of the problem a priority as stated clearly by Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia as she opened the special WHO workshop in Dhaka on January 14th -16th 2002. Feroze Ahmed, presented an excellent review of the situation at that time. Particpants made recommendations to the government of Bangladesh (GoB). Another (2002) review from the NGO forum is copied here from the NAISU website in pdf. Professor Chakriborti of Kolkata (Calcutta), a tireless and enthusiastic worker in the field regularly issues his reports on the Bangladesh situation, has a year 2001 report on Bangladesh which we have also captured in a local file.

    Why Does Arsenic Get into the Water?

    This is the subject of a whole issue of the journal Applied Geochemistry:
    Bhattacharya, P., A. H. Welch, K. M. Ahmed, G. Jacks and R. Naidu (Eds.)


    Arsenic is plentiful in the ground. Yet it does not awlays appear in the water supply. Scholars at the Cambridge University Department of Geography have identified the following mechanisms for arsenic entering the water which vary between locations. Alkali-desorption, Geothermal, Reductive dissolution and Sulphide oxidation. lthough the worst arsenic catastrophe is in Bangladesh, where 35 million people are exposed to levels above the US EPA standard, the amount of arsenic in the soil is less than in many other areas, including areas such as Massachussets, USA, where it does not, nonetheless, appear in unsafe quantities in ground water. In most of these areas, such as the delta of the Ganges and Irrawaddy, and the bend of the Yellow river, arsenic has come down from the mountains over millenia, attached itself to iron, forming iron pyrites, and been deposited. Professor McArthur of UC London argues: “It becomes increasingly clear that severe arsenic pollution of ground water in most alluvial aquifers worldwide is driven by the microbially-mediated metabolism of organic matter, with FeOOH acting as the source of oxygen: the oxide is reduced during the process and its sorbed arsenic is released to ground water. Despite the widespread acceptance of this mechanism, much about it remains obscure.” One issue is whether the reduction takes place at the surface before the water filters down to the aquifer in the monsoon (as suggested by group (a) below) or whether it is reduced in the aquifer itself.

    Papers describing this mechanism include:
    (a) Two papers were presented by Charles Harvey et al.:
    “Arsenic. Its Biogeochemistry and Transport in Groundwater,” in “Biogeochemical Cycles of the Elements”
    “Subsurface geochemistry and arsenic mobility in Bangladesh”
    “Response to Technical Comment on “Arsenic Mobility and Groundwater Extraction in Bangladesh”
    and a brief report in Science. Most recently they suggest that reduction occurs in arsenic ponds before water enters the aquifer.
    (b) The group at Columbia University have also presented a papers on the same topic of which the most recent is:
    Redox control of arsenic mobilization in Bangladesh groundwater“, Zheng et al., Applied Geochemistry, 19(2), 163-260, Feb 2004, 201-214.
    (c) Professor McArthur and colleagues at UCL in London have several reports available on their webpage of which the following may be downloaded:
    Arsenic in groundwater: testing pollution mechanisms for sedimentary aquifers in Bangladesh”
    Their most recent paper disagrees with the hypothesis of group (a) that the reduction occurs in ponds.

    An older idea was that water was being drained from the aquifer, allowing oxidation. A recent paper describing arsenic contamination in Perth, Australia – shows that there is one location, in Perth where pyrite oxidation clearly WAS the source of the As (although there is evidence that anerobic release from Fe oxyhydroxides is also taking place deeper in the aquifer). But the ideas that pyrite oxidation is the problem in Bangladesh whether caused by recent rapid pumping that allowed for oxidation and release of arsenic, or by the man-made change in river flow, such as the barrage across the Ganges are now considered to be untenable.

    In the Americas, from Alaska in the north, through Crater Lake in Oregon, Mono Lake and Searles lake in California, volcanic lakes in Niceragua and Costa Rica, and on to the Andes, lie a chain of volanic activity that brings arsenic to the surface. This mecahnism of sulfate reduction in the arsenic-rich soda lakes (Mono Lake and Searles lake) of is being studied in detail by Dr Oremland and his group at the US Geological Survey in Menlo Park. They attrbute the mechanism to bacteria, but of course different bacteria from those responsible for the reduction of iron pyrites in SE Asia and Bangladesh. Presumably this is the same mechanism as is responsible for the arsenic pollution in the mountains of Argentine and Chile where so much epidemiological studies have been made.

    Social Issues

    Western experts from developed countries often regard the arsenic pollution problem as a technical problem to be solved by purely technical means. But that is naive. There are tremendous social issues which control the ability of anyone to help. One set of papers discussing ws prepared by the Arsenic Policy Support Unit in Bangladesh, (APSU) which is now defunct, but these papers are copied on this site.


    Possible Solutions to the Problems

    The first and most obvious necessity is to measure the arsenic levels in any ground water that is intended for human use. The next step is to purify the water or, better still, provide an alternate supply of pure water. The way in which this is done varies from country to country. In SE ASIA, and Bangladesh in particular, two facets of a solution seem to be agreed.
    (1) There is no one solution for all places and communities. It is vital to involve the local community in the decision and even more important in the follow up and maintenance.
    (2) The solution in any community and location must based upon the best possible scientific understanding. The webmaster has attempted to summarize the possibilities in the remediation page. Please add and correct. It is very important to share data and experiences as set out in declarations from seven arsenic conferences in Dhaka held by Dhaka Community Hospital.

    Contact Us

    Please tell us what is missing from this website, and send any useful material you know about to us at wilson5@fas.harvard.edu .
    If you wish to be informed of any updates, please send an e-mail and say: “Please keep me informed!”
    Webmaster: Richard Wilson
  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.

  • Help Save the Water™ – click here.

     
     
     

    Water will never catch the public eye until it stops running out of the faucet, Bill Segal stated during interview.

     

    Click here to see what Bill Segal and ostrich are talking about
    Get your head out of the ground the water crisis is not going away


    Water news archives. Table of contents – 150 articles – April~July 2012

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

    Comments Off
    Do you need quick support ?

    Welcome

    * required
    Send Message