"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Agreed, except for the bit about "are they harmful". We've all seen ads
asking for people to participate in drug studies. We don't see ads asking
for people who are willing to be dosed with industrial chemicals. Since
*all* parties in the chemical debate now agree that studies on animals are
not conclusive, it's important to err on the side of safety. Otherwise, we
are unwitting guinea pigs.

Yes, but.

Where do you draw the line? Above some threshold level, almost *anything*
is
harmful. It's impossible to eliminate risk from life. And while I freely
admit
that I'm not a toxicologist, and don't actually know how dangerous those
chemicals might be, I imagine that the OP probably places himself in much
greater danger by driving to work in the morning than by drinking the
water
from his well.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


I'd chase down the cause just because it might result in some company's CEO
having incurable headaches, if his/her company was illegally dumping. But,
that's just me. People like that should be hauled off in handcuffs, just as
if they'd taken a swing at a cop.

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I'd chase down the cause just because it might result in some company's CEO
having incurable headaches, if his/her company was illegally dumping. But,
that's just me. People like that should be hauled off in handcuffs, just as
if they'd taken a swing at a cop.

I agree completely -- I just don't agree with your timing. Find out if it's
actually dangerous first. THEN decide what to do about it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I'd chase down the cause just because it might result in some company's
CEO
having incurable headaches, if his/her company was illegally dumping. But,
that's just me. People like that should be hauled off in handcuffs, just
as
if they'd taken a swing at a cop.

I agree completely -- I just don't agree with your timing. Find out if
it's
actually dangerous first. THEN decide what to do about it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


We keep agreeing. Something's wrong here. Isn't this a newsgroup? :-)

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:59:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:
On 3 Jan 2007 10:20:01 -0800, "Rand Reed" wrote:

We have a well that is contaminated with:

9.30 ug/L Fluorobenzene
9.20 ug/L 2-Bromo-1-Chloropropane
3.90 ug/L p-Isopropyltoluene
0.19 mg/L Iron, Total
0.04 mg/L Manganese, Total


If I had all that crap in my well, I'd drill a new well or find
another water source.

You'd go to that trouble and expense before finding out if the levels are
harmful?

If they're present in quantities large enough to affect the
smell and taste, then whether those levels are medically dangerous
wouldn't matter to me.

In article , Goedjn wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:59:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On 3 Jan 2007 10:20:01 -0800, "Rand Reed" wrote:

We have a well that is contaminated with:

9.30 ug/L Fluorobenzene
9.20 ug/L 2-Bromo-1-Chloropropane
3.90 ug/L p-Isopropyltoluene
0.19 mg/L Iron, Total
0.04 mg/L Manganese, Total


If I had all that crap in my well, I'd drill a new well or find
another water source.

You'd go to that trouble and expense before finding out if the levels are
harmful?

If they're present in quantities large enough to affect the
smell and taste, then whether those levels are medically dangerous
wouldn't matter to me.

Smell and taste problems can often be solved with filters.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.