TULSA'S WATER GOES DOWN THE DRAIN!

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

Right Wing Extremist?  Yeah, that works.


Money as in terms of cost effective is actually a good way to look at things.  (Standard engineering methodology.)  We need a lot more of that in public policy.  Like the decision to use assfault rather than brick pavers for side neighborhood streets in town.  Brick roads are still in excellent shape 80 years (!!) after installation, in many cases with extremely limited maintenance.  Plus they are great for traffic calming - keeping speeds down - much better than those other large assfault structures we use instead of doing roads right - the speed bump.
 
 

[Red Arrow]

Money as in terms of cost effective is actually a good way to look at things. 

I know that.  Too often any economic analysis is deemed to be pro-pollution, anti-safety, corporate profit....

[heironymouspasparagus]

I know that.  Too often any economic analysis is deemed to be pro-pollution, anti-safety, corporate profit....

Too often it is that.  But spending more can be very anti-pollution, etc., etc.  And well worth the money.  Spend a dollar to get rid of mercury, and save 10 in long term health effects.

[Red Arrow]

Too often it is that.  But spending more can be very anti-pollution, etc., etc.  And well worth the money. 

I will agree with "can".

[heironymouspasparagus]

I will agree with "can".

Don't have to go any further than your driveway.  The electronics, sensors, and other miscellaneous items (fuel injection) added to the cars sold today cost hundreds of dollars to add, but save MANY thousands - probably into the tens of thousands - on maintenance costs, downtime, general aggravation of having to do a full scale tune up every 10,000 miles.  Shorter oil change intervals.  Elimination of lead in gas - helps engines burn much cleaner, all other things being equal.

All because of clean air rules.

Now, if we could just get the 5 mph bumper back.  And the CAFE standards we should have.... ah, to dream...

[Red Arrow]

Don't have to go any further than your driveway.  The electronics, sensors, and other miscellaneous items (fuel injection) added to the cars sold today cost hundreds of dollars to add, but save MANY thousands - probably into the tens of thousands - on maintenance costs, downtime, general aggravation of having to do a full scale tune up every 10,000 miles.  Shorter oil change intervals.  Elimination of lead in gas - helps engines burn much cleaner, all other things being equal.
All because of clean air rules.
Now, if we could just get the 5 mph bumper back.  And the CAFE standards we should have.... ah, to dream...

Acid rain.  12 MPG. Pathetic performance and handling.  Ah, the cars of the 70's...the interim results of clean air rules.  Anyone reasonably mechanically adept used to be able to work on their own car.  Now almost no one can.  Cars are better in almost every way since the 70s but I believe the market would have driven many or even most of those changes.

[Conan71]

Ozonation as a pre-treatment reduces the amount of chlorine or chloramine needed to safely disinfect water but it doesn't appear to be a stand-alone process for municipal drinking water.  It's also become a common disinfectant for swimming pools and commercial HVAC cooling towers.  There really are no drawbacks or safety concerns with ozone that I'm aware of.

According to this article on the L.A. Calif. water system, they say using chloramine rather than chlorine reduces the amount of THM's in the water when it's got a high content of organics which means it's less carcinogenic using chloramines.  The EPA backs this up as well.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/chloramines_index.cfm#four

With any sort of man-made intervention into disease prevention there is always some drawback to go along with the benefits.

Either you don't treat the water and you have diseases which will kill you in a short amount of time or you treat it with agents which may elevate cancer risk for some people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterborne_diseases

I suspect secondary smoke ingestion is far worse than showering in chloramine-treated water.

[Teatownclown]

I posted an alternative system for filtering the city could install....will look for that link later. Thanks.

Tulsa can do better, but it's not a priority.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Acid rain.  12 MPG. Pathetic performance and handling.  Ah, the cars of the 70's...the interim results of clean air rules.  Anyone reasonably mechanically adept used to be able to work on their own car.  Now almost no one can.  Cars are better in almost every way since the 70s but I believe the market would have driven many or even most of those changes.

But   it   did    not   !!

The seat belt was invented back in the mid 30's.  It took government intervention - against the howls of the entrenched interests - and a delay until the late 60s for that to show up as a requirement here.

It took clean air requirements and CAFE standards before ANY changes were even thought about, let alone made.  Luckily, the Japanese were poised and ready to help us out with that one.  A tradition that continues today...like the fact that Ford licensed the Toyota hybrid technology for there cars a decade ago.  They had sat on their thumbs enjoying the thrill until the Prius caught everyone by surprise.  Yeah, the market would have driven it....NOT!

We did have a little "self preservation" moment in WWII when Boeing realized they should get fuel injection into their B-17 engines - like the Germans showed them how to do... but then fuel injection remained a novelty until the regulations requiring better fuel economy.  Many other benefits flowed from that one little piece of supposedly "unwarranted government intrusion".

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ozonation as a pre-treatment reduces the amount of chlorine or chloramine needed to safely disinfect water but it doesn't appear to be a stand-alone process for municipal drinking water.  It's also become a common disinfectant for swimming pools and commercial HVAC cooling towers.  There really are no drawbacks or safety concerns with ozone that I'm aware of.

According to this article on the L.A. Calif. water system, they say using chloramine rather than chlorine reduces the amount of THM's in the water when it's got a high content of organics which means it's less carcinogenic using chloramines.  The EPA backs this up as well.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/chloramines_index.cfm#four

With any sort of man-made intervention into disease prevention there is always some drawback to go along with the benefits.

Either you don't treat the water and you have diseases which will kill you in a short amount of time or you treat it with agents which may elevate cancer risk for some people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterborne_diseases

I suspect secondary smoke ingestion is far worse than showering in chloramine-treated water.

Kind of boils down to the fact that if we don't use the 'bad' chemicals, we get a litany of water borne disease that kills 10 to 20% of the population every year, versus a chorine situation that may kill 10 or 20 individuals per year.  That last number was just pulled out of my donkey...don't know how many are affected by chloramines.  I DO know it is not even 10% of the population...we would be losing 35 million per year that way.  Ain't happening.

[Red Arrow]

But   it   did    not   !!

Wrong, Mr. Forgetful

The seat belt was invented back in the mid 30's.  It took government intervention - against the howls of the entrenched interests - and a delay until the late 60s for that to show up as a requirement here.

And some people still refuse to wear them.

It took clean air requirements and CAFE standards before ANY changes were even thought about, let alone made.

You are old enough to remember road draft tubes for ventilating engine crankcases.  PVC valves were on some cars in the early 60's.  Our family 63 LeSabre had a PVC valve.  The 63 Falcon my dad bought for my sister when she went to college did not have a PCV valve.  The Falcon vented directly to the atmosphere.  If my dad were still alive, he could tell you of other changes to improve pollution emission control that were made before they were mandated.   Unfortunately he passed away 11 years ago and I don't remember everything he told me.

 

Luckily, the Japanese were poised and ready to help us out with that one.  A tradition that continues today...like the fact that Ford licensed the Toyota hybrid technology for there cars a decade ago.  They had sat on their thumbs enjoying the thrill until the Prius caught everyone by surprise.  Yeah, the market would have driven it....NOT!

Try telling Ford, GM, and Chrysler that Toyota and Honda are not part of the response to the market.

We did have a little "self preservation" moment in WWII when Boeing realized they should get fuel injection into their B-17 engines - like the Germans showed them how to do...

I vote for injection being better for high altitude than carburetors.

but then fuel injection remained a novelty until the regulations requiring better fuel economy. 

I don't remember mechanical fuel injection being that much better for economy.  I believe that at least some mechanical fuel injection systems had reliability or increased preventative maintenance requirements compared to carburetors.  Electronic controlled fuel injection was the ticket to better fuel economy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wrong, Mr. Forgetful

None of those enhancements came along until government regulation mandated them - not the market.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You are old enough to remember road draft tubes for ventilating engine crankcases.  PVC valves were on some cars in the early 60's.  Our family 63 LeSabre had a PVC valve.  The 63 Falcon my dad bought for my sister when she went to college did not have a PCV valve.  The Falcon vented directly to the atmosphere.  If my dad were still alive, he could tell you of other changes to improve pollution emission control that were made before they were mandated.   Unfortunately he passed away 11 years ago and I don't remember everything he told me.

Try telling Ford, GM, and Chrysler that Toyota and Honda are not part of the response to the market.

I vote for injection being better for high altitude than carburetors.
I don't remember mechanical fuel injection being that much better for economy.  I believe that at least some mechanical fuel injection systems had reliability or increased preventative maintenance requirements compared to carburetors.  Electronic controlled fuel injection was the ticket to better fuel economy.

My truck engine still has the draft tube.  No pcv valve.  Just puts the crankcase vapors out to the air....

They started the pcv in early 60's (1963 GM were the first).  61 Chevy did not.  65 Buick did.  It was in response to beginning regulations - the first pcv valve was required by law in California in 1961.  New York was next, and the ONLY reason they "voluntarily" put it in all 50 state cars was so they didn't have two different sets of engines to build, one with, one without.  NO altruism at all - just a financial response to regulatory action.


Honda and Toy probably saw how the Beetle did and thought that looked like a good little niche market to get into.  Small, but likely to grow.


Mechanical injection is better for fuel economy, but since it was virtually always put on the old cars for horsepower only (performance reasons), it is tough to sort out.  Yeah, if you got 12 mpg with a carb, and 12 with injection, it might seem like there is no difference.  But the carb gave 165 hp and injection gave 300, meaning the fuel usage would be deeply affected due to "performance" driving.

[Red Arrow]

Mechanical injection is better for fuel economy, but since it was virtually always put on the old cars for horsepower only (performance reasons), it is tough to sort out.  Yeah, if you got 12 mpg with a carb, and 12 with injection, it might seem like there is no difference.  But the carb gave 165 hp and injection gave 300, meaning the fuel usage would be deeply affected due to "performance" driving.

You are not going to convince me that the only difference between the 165 Carb engine and the 300 Injected engine  was carb vs. injection.  I'm expecting compression ratio, cam, better breathing.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You are not going to convince me that the only difference between the 165 Carb engine and the 300 Injected engine  was carb vs. injection.  I'm expecting compression ratio, cam, better breathing.

Probably so.  In real world, I probably wouldn't expect more than maybe 25hp.  And if it is just throttle body, maybe not that - does nothing to evne out fuel/air mix.  If direct inject, it gives much better control of fuel/air mix to individual cylinders, which can help depending on how bad things are to start.

Yeah, the other mods are gonna be the big thing...and anyone doing injection would definitely be doing that.  Else why bother?