TULSA'S WATER GOES DOWN THE DRAIN!

[Red Arrow]

As a review, we have to consider 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?  It can cost more, IF there is a  benefit to be gained.

This chloramine situation reminds me of almost every environmental cause that has come along.  Someone identifies a particular undesirable situation that can be blown up without regard to the type of evaluation you mention above.  The situation then becomes an issue that must be corrected at any cost.  If you dare to speak up, you become labeled as an anti-environmentalist.

I have no desire to return to the mid 20th century regarding pollution.  I will even agree in principal to government standards.  Physics by legislation has probably not been the most efficient way to get to an ultimate solution though.  Once again, the goal is noble and generally accepted.  The way to get there is where so many of us differ.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This chloramine situation reminds me of almost every environmental cause that has come along.  Someone identifies a particular undesirable situation that can be blown up without regard to the type of evaluation you mention above.  The situation then becomes an issue that must be corrected at any cost.  If you dare to speak up, you become labeled as an anti-environmentalist.

I have no desire to return to the mid 20th century regarding pollution.  I will even agree in principal to government standards.  Physics by legislation has probably not been the most efficient way to get to an ultimate solution though.  Once again, the goal is noble and generally accepted.  The way to get there is where so many of us differ.

There has been the occasional knee jerk reaction, but for the most part, it really hasn't been.  Probably the one that is most arguably "knee jerk" would be freon, I think.  And that one has been showing up to be not knee jerk at all.  Sometimes (most times?) the type of physics we are talking about is already very solid.  The question I had with the freon thing was whether reducing chlorinated compounds would make a noticeable effect within an observable time frame.  The industry seems to be agreeing "yes".

And what we are using now (R410a) has its own issues.  Still has chlorinated compounds - just fewer - and the oil (PAG) is very nasty stuff.  And if it 'burns' - RUN!!  Very nasty.


Getting lead out of gasoline was a motor catastrophe according to the wacko-anti-environmentalists of the time (all funded by Ethyl Corporation, of course).  Well, of course it was not.  It was a very, very good thing.  One could even make the case that taking lead out of gasoline has been the primary source of our reducing crime rate for the last few decades.  It was increasing for decades until lead was removed, then started down and continued for decades....

That lead thing is a stand alone statistic, I think... not sure it really applies, but makes a good sound bite story!

[Teatownclown]

Ozone seems to be good supplemental or spot treatment.  I remember from a previous life that there were municipalities doing that from time to time, but they depended on chlorine for the "heavy lifting".

Ultraviolet seems to be pretty good "spot" treater, too.  Don't know how it would scale up to municipal sizes.

RO can be eliminated due to massive amount of water it takes to do the process.  (RO -- reverse osmosis.)


TTC...
Still haven't heard any viable ideas....


As a review, we have to consider 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?  It can cost more, IF there is a  benefit to be gained.

Still centers around the question; "how do we beat plain old chlorine gas injection to the finished water?"

That's a lazy futuristic approach.

http://www.knowthelies.com/node/5201 "The long-term solution is to eventually replace all significant lead-bearing materials that are used in the water system, such as, recycled water made from sewage water that is blended with drinking water, in spite of the denial of its use by city officials.
We need a national movement at the headwaters for alternate enginnering technologies for ozenation and ultraviolet light and reverse osmosis and plasma laser technologies and replace the pipe infrastructure."  Is it worth the cost to improve our city using alternative technologies? Depends if you are already fed up ( http://www.vce.org/ErinBrockovichChloramination.html ) with contaminating your children and grandchildren.   

I don't pretend to be an engineer but you're statements are a good example of why our country no longer moves forward with new technologies.

http://www.hazenandsawyer.com/news/eliminating-water-contamination-by-inorganic-disinfection-byproducts/

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_15441729

http://www.flowcontrolnetwork.com/control/filtration/article/municipal-water-to-spend-45-bil-for-filtration-equipment-in-2012

[Red Arrow]

There has been the occasional knee jerk reaction, but for the most part, it really hasn't been. 

We disagree.  I won't necessarily disagree on the identification of a problem but do disagree perhaps with the evaluation of the severity and with the quick solutions.

Probably the one that is most arguably "knee jerk" would be freon, I think.  And that one has been showing up to be not knee jerk at all.  Sometimes (most times?) the type of physics we are talking about is already very solid.  The question I had with the freon thing was whether reducing chlorinated compounds would make a noticeable effect within an observable time frame.  The industry seems to be agreeing "yes".

Stopping using chloro-flouro carbons to do things like making styrofoam probably had a lot bigger effect than eliminating them as refrigerants.

And what we are using now (R410a) has its own issues.  Still has chlorinated compounds - just fewer - and the oil (PAG) is very nasty stuff.  And if it 'burns' - RUN!!  Very nasty.

Great trade-off. Now we have stuff that is even more dangerous to us immediately than before.   I believe one of the changes was to use compounds with more flourine atoms than chlorine atoms in the molecules.  20 years from now we may find out that had some other devastating effect.

Getting lead out of gasoline was a motor catastrophe according to the wacko-anti-environmentalists of the time (all funded by Ethyl Corporation, of course).  Well, of course it was not.  It was a very, very good thing.

Getting the lead out was required for catalytic converters to control selected pollutants.  Getting rid of Tetraethyl lead was a good idea but it was not without trade-offs. Further discussion would take us back to car care.

One could even make the case that taking lead out of gasoline has been the primary source of our reducing crime rate for the last few decades.  It was increasing for decades until lead was removed, then started down and continued for decades....

I think you are stretching correlation with cause and effect.

[Red Arrow]

I don't pretend to be an engineer

Actually, I think you are pretending to be an engineer to some extent.  The part you are missing is that cost is always an element of the analysis of cost vs. benefit.   Sometimes the benefit outweighs even a very high cost.  More often, it does not. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

That's a lazy futuristic approach.

"The long-term solution is to eventually replace all significant lead-bearing materials that are used in the water system, such as, recycled water made from sewage water that is blended with drinking water, in spite of the denial of its use by city officials.
We need a national movement at the headwaters for alternate enginnering technologies for ozenation and ultraviolet light and reverse osmosis and plasma laser technologies and replace the pipe infrastructure."  Is it worth the cost to improve our city using alternative technologies? Depends if you are already fed up ( http://www.vce.org/ErinBrockovichChloramination.html ) with contaminating your children and grandchildren.   

I don't pretend to be an engineer but you're statements are a good example of why our country no longer moves forward with new technologies.

Which is the lazy approach??   (Have you ever read anything I have ever written?  Lazy??)

So, they are trying to say that waste water is the major lead bearing compound in water??  It would make sense to try to get rid of lead in pipes in the house/business. 

Ok, so let's try to turn this around again...specifically, how ya gonna get the soluble lead out of pipes, fixtures, etc.?  And then, how you gonna get the lead out of waste water returning to the water intake of the next town downstream?

Got any examples of those headwaters for alternate engineering technologies?  (I could use some consulting work...)

And you repeat the question.  Which of those technologies is cost effective and able to perform at the scale necessary??


I have a truly great solution.  This would work PERFECTLY.  And yes, I do mean perfectly...for the job of disinfecting water - no exaggeration.  This has been proven for many decades.  It is irradiation.  Kills everything.  Get the particles out first, then kill whatever is left.  Cheap.  Easy.  Fast.  Works on small to big sizes of installations.  Always works - at least for the life of the source, could be thousands of years.  No residual chemicals or changes to the elemental composition.  (It stays water.)

We should be using it for sterilization of food, too.  I'm thinking in particular, the fecal soups that the chicken processors all run the birds through just before they package them - the chlorine baths that one can occasionally smell when a package of chicken is opened.  Yum.

What do you think the odds of that happening are?

[Teatownclown]

Nice Heir...I likey.

BTW, you can't irradiate hormone cultivation. Stay far away from mass manufactured meats of all kinds. Besides, most of it adds to global warming.

Meanwhile, drink purified waters and bathe quickly.

RA is right as well. We live in a plastic world...

[Townsend]

Oklahoma Needs $2 Million To Prevent An EPA Takeover Of Its Drinking Water

http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/01/10/oklahoma-needs-2-million-to-prevent-an-epa-takeover-of-its-drinking-water/

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is scrambling to come up with the money to comply with new federal clean drinking water regulations.

If it can't, the state could have its power to regulate the safety of drinking water revoked by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The DEQ says they need $2 million to cover the costs of complying with three EPA rules put in place in 2005 and 2006. The state environmental agency has asked the Oklahoma Legislature for the funding for three years.


LOSING LOCAL CONTROL

"Once those three new rules were in place, we knew we did not have the resources to implement those, and EPA determined they would continue implementing those until we got the funding in place," says Shellie Chard-McClary, director of DEQ's Water Quality Division.

The EPA sets the standards for clean drinking water and states enforce them. It's called the Public Water System Supervision program. Every state participates in PWSS, except Wyoming, which never has.

Oklahoma might soon become the second state with the federal government in charge of the safety of its drinking water.

In a letter to Oklahoma Secretary of the Environment Gary Sherrer, EPA Regional Administer Ron Curry said the state has until June 1, 2013 to fully implement the federal rules, and outlined what a federal takeover would mean for Oklahoma.

"Such a primacy shift would result not only in decreased technical assistance and increased federal enforcement of Oklahoma's public water systems, but would also result in a loss of many millions of dollars available annually for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund..."

Communities and rural water districts in Oklahoma depend on that fund for loans they need to upgrade water systems.

Without roughly $10 million from Washington, D.C., each year — which the state leverages into millions more in loans — Oklahoma would be on its own to modernize its aging water infrastructure. Coming up with money to enforce the EPA rules is the more affordable option.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

DEQ Executive Director Steve Thompson says he has little doubt the EPA will follow through with its threats.

"The upcoming Water Quality Management Advisory Council and Environmental Quality Board meetings and 2013 legislative session represent the last opportunity to avoid EPA's assumption of control of Oklahoma's PWS Program," Thompson wrote in a letter to water-challenged communities.

He says the latest proposal is for $1.5 million in new appropriations from the legislature and $500,000 in new fees charged to water systems across the state.

On Tuesday, the advisory council approved the new fees, which are expected to be passed along to consumers.

The board heard comments from the public before the vote, including from Rita LoPresto, city manager of Konawa, Okla., a small town with big water problems. She says the EPA doesn't have a local touch.

"The staff at DEQ — whenever I can call them and say, 'I'm out of water. This is what's going on. These are my ideas. What do y'all think? Help me,' and they're there, that means more than all these regulations and everything," LoPresto says. "I won't have that if we go with EPA."

When StateImpact visited Konawa last month, LoPresto worried federal control would mean $15,000 per day fines for missing deadlines to fix the town's water pressure problems. She says DEQ works with her on things like extending deadlines.

"I mean, even though I have a deadline to fix the water pressure in this town, they know that I've already replaced this and this and this with as many grants and as much lending — borrowed money — that the city could borrow," LoPresto says.

FINDING THE FUNDS

Most state agencies are still reeling from budget crisis cuts over the last few years.

This year's legislature won't be excited to spend, either. But Chard-McClary thinks lawmakers will like the idea of an EPA takeover even less.

"Although it has been attempted in the past, I think this has been the best cooperative effort in trying to get the funding in place," McClary says.

[Teatownclown]

In my opinion, Dewey Bartlett should not even be allowed to run again.


The city councilors who fail to voice objections to the use of chloramines deserve to be rejected as well....

Report Points to Cancer Risk From Chemicals Used to Treat Drinking Water -
"By failing to protect source water, Congress, EPA and polluters leave Americans with no choice but to treat it with chemical disinfectants and then consume the residual chemicals generated by the treatment process,"

This is of particular concern for pregnant women, said Sharp, since a fetus could be exposed to higher levels of the chemicals during crucial stages in development. "If you are thinking about pregnancy and the possibility for miscarriage or birth defects or stillbirth or any number of pregnancy or reproduction-related effects, then having short-term spikes can really make a difference."

GOPeers are such hypocrites....

http://www.fairwarning.org/2013/02/report-points-to-cancer-risks-from-disinfectants-used-to-treat-drinking-water/

[DTowner]

In my opinion, Dewey Bartlett should not even be allowed to run again.


The city councilors who fail to voice objections to the use of chloramines deserve to be rejected as well....
GOPeers are such hypocrites....

http://www.fairwarning.org/2013/02/report-points-to-cancer-risks-from-disinfectants-used-to-treat-drinking-water/

"By failing to protect source water, Congress, EPA and polluters leave Americans with no choice but to treat it with chemical disinfectants and then consume the residual chemicals generated by the treatment process,"

Your cited article says the EPA is at fault (i.e. the Obama Administration), but you want to blame a Republican mayor and city councilors?

[Conan71]

"By failing to protect source water, Congress, EPA and polluters leave Americans with no choice but to treat it with chemical disinfectants and then consume the residual chemicals generated by the treatment process,"

Your cited article says the EPA is at fault (i.e. the Obama Administration), but you want to blame a Republican mayor and city councilors?

I think he'd rather have cholera and dysentery

[Red Arrow]

I think he'd rather have cholera and dysentery

It's easy to forget that people frequently didn't live long enough to get cancer. 

[Teatownclown]

"By failing to protect source water, Congress, EPA and polluters leave Americans with no choice but to treat it with chemical disinfectants and then consume the residual chemicals generated by the treatment process,"

Your cited article says the EPA is at fault (i.e. the Obama Administration), but you want to blame a Republican mayor and city councilors?

Yes. Instead of proceeding to stop the sources of our dilemma we threw chemicals on it. Yes, the mayor gave the go ahead. The city councilors were their usual do nothing status qua....did they even look at alternatives? Did they think about going to get the sources and solving the problems rather than poisoning the citizens?

What do you suggest?

I've noticed my rubber sink stopper drying up.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yes. Instead of proceeding to stop the sources of our dilemma we threw chemicals on it. Yes, the mayor gave the go ahead. The city councilors were their usual do nothing status qua....did they even look at alternatives? Did they think about going to get the sources and solving the problems rather than poisoning the citizens?

What do you suggest?

I've noticed my rubber sink stopper drying up.

The engineering approach is to solve the biggest piece of the problem first.  Stop the massive epidemics that killed millions.  Then look at other approaches.  Well, they found ozonation, ultra-violet, reverse osmosis.  Each of which works, and has a place in different applications.  None adapts well to large volume treatment at a level of expense and infrastructure requirements that we would tolerate on our water bills.

Reverse osmosis in particular needs singling out - it is amazingly wasteful to make that way.  You get good water, but it is the most expensive of the resource of any of them.

Then start to address the smaller problems - in this case the adverse effects of the chemicals used.  You have to admit that it is many orders of magnitude smaller than the problems they solve.


I asked you before what YOUR solution would be?  And will add, what are you willing to pay?  (5% more....10% more, etc)


I still think there should be much more development of ionizing radiation treatment.  For a wider variety of treatments.    Normally, I am not a fan of some of the traditional uses we have made of radioactivity - this is an excellent one!

[Teatownclown]

For solid clean water...I'll pay whatever it takes....