TULSA'S WATER GOES DOWN THE DRAIN!

[RecycleMichael]

If tea is left out in the sun, it goes rancid.

[Teatownclown]

If tea is left out in the sun, it goes rancid.

What's that mean Mista America Environmentalist?

[heironymouspasparagus]

What's that mean Mista America Environmentalist?

Stay indoors??

Not sure...just a guess.

[Teatownclown]

Dr. Michael J. Plewa is University Scholar and Professor of Genetics in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois. He is also an investigator with the NSF Center WaterCAMPWS Program in the College of Engineering. He has an international reputation for research and teaching in environmental and molecular mutagenesis and he has published 185 scientific papers and reports. This is what he found in researching the effects of chloramine:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BYPRODUCT OF WATER-DISINFECTION FOUND TO BE HIGHLY TOXIC:

Michael Plewa and Elizabeth Wagner, principal research specialist, both in the department of crop sciences, collaborated with three EPA researchers on research into a disinfection byproduct found in drinking water treated with chloramines.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — A recently discovered disinfection byproduct (DBP) found in U.S. drinking water treated with chloramines is the most toxic ever found, says a scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who tested samples on mammalian cells.

The discovery raises health-related questions regarding an Environmental Protection Agency plan to encourage all U.S. water-treatment facilities to adopt chlorine alternatives, said Michael J. Plewa [PLEV-uh], a genetic toxicologist in the department of crop sciences.

"This research says that when you go to alternatives, you may be opening a Pandora's box of new DBPs, and these unregulated DBPs may be much more toxic, by orders of magnitude, than the regulated ones we are trying to avoid."

Plewa and colleagues, three of them with the EPA, report on the structure and toxicity of five iodoacids found in chloramines-treated water in Corpus Christi, Texas, in this month's issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology. The findings, which appeared online in advance, already have prompted a call from the National Rural Water Association for a delay of EPA's Stage 2 rule aimed at reducing the amount of previously identified toxic DBPs occurring in chlorine-treated water.

"The iodoacids may be the most toxic family of DBPs to date," Plewa said in an interview. One of the five detailed in the study, iodoacetic acid, is the most toxic and DNA-damaging to mammalian cells in tests of known DBPs, he said.

"These iodoacetic acids raise new levels of concerns," he said. "Not only do they represent a potential danger because of all the water consumed on a daily basis, water is recycled back into the environment. What are the consequences? The goal of Stage 2 is to reduce DBPs, particularly the ones that fall under EPA regulations, and especially the ones that have been structurally identified and found to be toxic."

The use of chloramines, a combination of chlorine and ammonia, is one of three alternatives to chlorine disinfectant, which has been used for more than 100 years. Other alternatives are chlorine-dioxide and ozone. All treatments react to compounds present in a drinking water source, resulting in a variety of chemical disinfectant byproducts.

Some 600 DBPs have been identified since 1974, Plewa said. Scientists believe they've identified maybe 50 percent of all DBPs that occur in chlorine-treated water, but only 17 percent of those occurring in chloramines-treated water, 28 percent in water treated with chlorine-dioxide, and just 8 percent in ozone-treated water. Of the structurally identified DBPs, he said, the quantitative toxicity is known for maybe 30 percent.

Some DBPs in chlorine-treated water have been found to raise the risks of various cancers, as well as birth and developmental defects.
Corpus Christi's water supply has high levels of bromide and iodide because of the chemical makeup of the ancient seabed under the water source. Local water sources lead to different DBPs. Whether the types of iodoacids found in Corpus Christi's treated water might be simply a reflection of local conditions, and thus a rare occurrence, is not known.

The DBPs in Corpus Christi's water were found as part of an EPA national occurrence survey of selected public water-treatment plants done in 2002. The survey reported on the presence of 50 high-priority DBPs based on their carcinogenic potential. The report, published in April, also identified 28 new DBPs.

Because so many new DBPs are being found in drinking water, Plewa said, two basic questions should be asked: How many are out there? And how many new ones will be formed as chlorine treatments are replaced with alternative methods?

Co-authors with Plewa on the EPA-funded study were Elizabeth D. Wagner, a scientist in the department of crop sciences at Illinois; Susan D. Richardson and Alfred D. Thruston Jr. of the EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory; Yin-Tak Woo of the EPA's Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; and A. Bruce McKague of the CanSyn Chemical Corp. of Toronto.

[nathanm]

Cancer or dysentery? Hmmm.

[Teatownclown]

get the lead out...it's too simple to just add chemicals. The pipes are worse than the streets....have past Mayors just let the issue go? Quick fixes seem to be the easy way out....

[Teatownclown]

Yes, fluoride makes you stupid
Monday, August 20, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The next time somebody tries to tell you that there is no scientific evidence proving that fluoride chemicals are harmful to human health, simply point them to a new study review recently published in the Institute of Environmental Health Sciences journal Environmental Health Perspectives that shows, for something like the 25th time now, that fluoride damages brain development and leads to significantly lower IQ levels in humans.

Researchers from both Harvard University's School of Public health and China Medical University in Shenyang jointly studied the effects of fluoride on children by evaluating 27 different fluoride studies. Upon review, the team found "strong indications" that fluoride exposure, particularly among developing children, is highly problematic for proper cognitive development and brain formation.

Children living in areas where public water supplies are artificially fluoridated had far lower IQ levels overall, based on the figures, compared to children living in non-fluoridated areas. And after accounting for other outside factors that may have influenced cognitive health and development, the team essentially determined that there is no denying a link between fluoride exposure and damaged IQ.

"

• ur results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment," wrote Anna Choi, a research scientist at Harvard, and her colleagues in their report. "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."
  
  Another study published in the same journal back in 2010 found a similar correlation between fluoride exposure and cognitive development. A comparison of children between the ages of eight and 13 living in two Chinese villages, one fluoridated and one not fluoridated, revealed a 350 percent higher IQ level overall in the non-fluoridated village compared to the fluoridated village. (http://www.naturalnews.com/030819_fluoride_brain_damage.html)
  
  And again in India, researchers observed that fluoride chemicals cross the blood-brain barrier in children and "alter the structure and function of neural tissue." Published in the Journal of Medical and Allied Sciences, that particular study laid bare how pervasive fluoride actually is, in that the chemical deposits itself throughout the body and builds up over time, including in the brain. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
  
  "It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special interest groups," says Paul Beeber, an attorney and president of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere."
  
  
  
  
  http://www.naturalnews.com/036873_fluoride_lower_IQ_brain_damage.html#ixzz245RDCoLL

This may explain why so many people in Oklahoma are obese, unhealthy, and why they vote for imbeciles.

Thanks swake!

[heironymouspasparagus]

get the lead out...it's too simple to just add chemicals. The pipes are worse than the streets....have past Mayors just let the issue go? Quick fixes seem to be the easy way out....

John Thomas was a water commissioner who let the infrastructure rot in the ground, but kept getting re-elected based on his preventing any water rate hikes.  At one time in the late 70's, Tulsa was leaking more water from the system than they billed for.  Yeah, John, way to go there...

Patty Eaton was elected and made major improvements, but the rates went up.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  Well, unless you happen to be one of the good ole boy good buddies and get your taxes cut repeatedly...

[Teatownclown]

Monochloramine is what is being added to our water supply. Trichloramine is a toxic byproduct of monochloramine. Here are a few facts...

*Tri-chloramine is a known respiratory irritant - there is no dispute in the scientific or health community as to that fact.

*Tri-chloramine is created as mono-chloramine speciates in the distribution system which occurs with change in pH and temperature increase. There is no dispute in the water industry about that.

*Tri-chloramine formed in indoor swimming pools has been found to be the cause of 'swimmers asthma'. Studies prove
the vapor form of mono-chloramine is tri-chloramine, therefore, when one is showering they are exposed to tri-chloramine in a contained area.

*People with asthma and copd are more susceptible than others to respiratory effects of tri-chloramine but we have heard from people all over the country suffering respiratory effects.

[AquaMan]

Are all OK communities using this cocktail? I know we supply a lot of them.

[Teatownclown]

OK Sh!tty seems to be out in front of us once again!

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-to-consider-updates-to-capital-improvement-plan/article/3706703



Oklahoma City to consider updates to capital improvement plan
A required update to Oklahoma City's capital improvement plan will be considered in the next several weeks by the city council. The council must eventually find a way to pay for about seven percent of the plan that is unfunded as of now.

By Michael Kimball | Published: September 4, 2012      1
Oklahoma City expects to spend nearly $2.5 billion on capital projects in the next five years.
As the city council spends the next several weeks examining the plans, council members must find funding for almost seven percent of it.
The roughly $162 million worth of the projects without a current funding source sounds less daunting when compared to the unfunded projects in recent plans. The state requires Oklahoma City to update its spending plan every two years, and the unfunded portion has dropped from 12 percent two years ago and 15 percent four years ago.
The council will work on the capital plan into October before adopting it. The in-depth meetings and longer time frame give the council time to work out new funding sources, as it has in previous plans, city Budget Director Doug Dowler said.
Funding options
Most of the projects included in the $2.5 billion, five-year capital improvement plan already have a dedicated funding source. But new needs always crop up. One of the pricier items currently in the unfunded category of the plan is a new radio system for the city's public safety services.
"The manufacturer of that radio system is not going to continue supporting that after 2015, so we're going to have to have a new radio system or take on the responsibility for supporting that ourselves," Dowler said.
"Unfortunately, that's about a $15 million expense, which is such a significant amount of money that we don't have a source for it right now."
The council has room to maneuver when choosing funding options.
An example of how a recent hole was plugged in a capital improvement plan is MAPS 3 use tax funds paying for police and fire equipment.
Filling the gaps
Because of the length of the plans and the regular two-year intervals for updating them, along with the weeks of council meetings with capital improvement plan workshops, finding ways to fill the gaps shouldn't be difficult.
Having specific projects tied to what's funded and what isn't bring attention to not only what an appropriate funding source is, but the need or public desire for it, Dowler said.
"We put that type of project (the radio) in there just to kind of raise the visibility of those projects and put it on everyone's radar that we're going to have to address these needs," Dowler said.

SHAME ON TW FOR ABBREVIATING THIS STORY ON LINE! and omitting OKC's $653 million future allocations to capital improvements of which $488 million segregated for WATER SUPPLY improvements.

I think our leadership today in Tulsa is the worst I have ever seen.

[Conan71]

Was OKC going to use chloramine in their water treatment improvements or something different for disinfection?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Are all OK communities using this cocktail? I know we supply a lot of them.

So, YOU are the ones killing us with these poisons....  I thought there was something strange going on in the background.  I could see it in your eyes!!

[heironymouspasparagus]

So, we have beat the topic to death that chloramines are bad... how about a small course correction?

In particular, you, TTC...

What alternatives would 'you' use??  What is "better" to use?  

Keeping in mind all aspects from effectiveness over time, versus health risks, versus cost (chemicals and equipment), versus ease of deployment, versus impact on finished water product cost.  In other words, what gives us the 'best' bang for the bucks?

Probably will be centered around the question; "how do we beat plain old chlorine gas injection to the finished water?"

[Red Arrow]

Keeping in mind all aspects from effectiveness over time, versus health risks, versus cost (chemicals and equipment), versus ease of deployment, versus impact on finished water product cost.  In other words, what gives us the 'best' bang for the bucks?

You better be careful letting money enter your evaluation of anything involving the environment or health.  Someone will think you are a RWE.  (I intentionally left off the 2nd "R")  You might even be labeled a Murcochian.