| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Chemical smell in well water
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 The water smells like some sort of chemical and there is some yellow staining. Carbon filtration does not work, and the local water conditioning companies do not know what to do about it. We already have a neutralizer and water softener installed and these levels are tested by a certified lab from water sample taken AFTER those devices. If those devices are bypassed the water is brown and horrible! We would like to find out if there is a way to get that chemical stuff out of our water. Can you please help us? |
Chemical smell in well water
"Rand Reed" wrote in message
oups.com... 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 The water smells like some sort of chemical and there is some yellow staining. Carbon filtration does not work, and the local water conditioning companies do not know what to do about it. We already have a neutralizer and water softener installed and these levels are tested by a certified lab from water sample taken AFTER those devices. If those devices are bypassed the water is brown and horrible! We would like to find out if there is a way to get that chemical stuff out of our water. Can you please help us? Please answer these questions clearly, and separately: 1) How long have you lived in this house? 2) Before you moved into the house, did you have the water tested? 3) What state do you live in? 4) Have you spoken to your local health department AND your state's environmental enforcement agency? |
Chemical smell in well water
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 The water smells like some sort of chemical and there is some yellow staining. Carbon filtration does not work, and the local water conditioning companies do not know what to do about it. We already have a neutralizer and water softener installed and these levels are tested by a certified lab from water sample taken AFTER those devices. If those devices are bypassed the water is brown and horrible! We would like to find out if there is a way to get that chemical stuff out of our water. Can you please help us? I think I'd go with a distillation unit at that point. Or a water catchment. the benzenes and toluenes mean the well water isn't potable, don't they? |
Chemical smell in well water
"Goedjn" wrote in message
... 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 The water smells like some sort of chemical and there is some yellow staining. Carbon filtration does not work, and the local water conditioning companies do not know what to do about it. We already have a neutralizer and water softener installed and these levels are tested by a certified lab from water sample taken AFTER those devices. If those devices are bypassed the water is brown and horrible! We would like to find out if there is a way to get that chemical stuff out of our water. Can you please help us? I think I'd go with a distillation unit at that point. Or a water catchment. the benzenes and toluenes mean the well water isn't potable, don't they? Whether it's potable depends to a great extent on what political party appointed the current EPA stooge, but according to scientists, those chemicals are a bad thing. |
Chemical smell in well water
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Goedjn" wrote in message .. . 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 [snip] Whether it's potable depends to a great extent on what political party appointed the current EPA stooge, but according to scientists, those chemicals are a bad thing. Well, they certainly aren't anything *good* -- but also keep in mind that micrograms per liter (ug/L) is equivalent to parts per *billion*. For fluorobenzene at least, the oral LD50 in rats is on the order of 4.4g/kg body mass. (http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/FL/fluorobenzene.html) A 70kg human being would need to drink 32 million liters of the OP's water to get a dose that high. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Chemical smell in well water
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Goedjn" wrote in message . .. 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 [snip] Whether it's potable depends to a great extent on what political party appointed the current EPA stooge, but according to scientists, those chemicals are a bad thing. Well, they certainly aren't anything *good* -- but also keep in mind that micrograms per liter (ug/L) is equivalent to parts per *billion*. For fluorobenzene at least, the oral LD50 in rats is on the order of 4.4g/kg body mass. (http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/FL/fluorobenzene.html) A 70kg human being would need to drink 32 million liters of the OP's water to get a dose that high. Yeah, but the chemical companies say tests on rats are no longer valid. Anyway...the guy still needs to look into his problem. |
Chemical smell in well water
In article , Goedjn wrote:
Good point, in that I'd ignore the units. On the other hand, LD-50 isn't really the standard I'd prefer to use for my drinking water. Well, no, but it does give a useful figure for comparing to other hazards, and for estimating relative danger. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Chemical smell in well water
It seems that most chemicals listed here....the first 3 anyways, are chemicals used in factories. Would you live close by a factory that may use these in production of their goods? If so, they may be responsible for a solution. |
Chemical smell in well water
|
Chemical smell in well water
avid_hiker wrote:
http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. |
Chemical smell in well water
"Pete C." wrote in message
... avid_hiker wrote: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text: p-Isopropyltoluene Status: Unregulated - EPA has not established a maximum legal limit in tapwater for this contaminant. p-Isopropyltoluene is a widely used industrial chemical, used in the manufacture of paint, furniture, and other consumer goods. No information on potential health impacts for p-Isopropyltoluene was identified in standard government and academic sources. Sources of p-Isopropyltoluene: Industry An Environmental Working Group analysis of p-Isopropyltoluene tests reported by 22,144 public water suppliers in 34 states shows that between 1998 and 2003, 4,641 people in 13 communities drank water contaminated with p-Isopropyltoluene. No health-based limit has been established by the federal government.p-Isopropyltoluene remains unregulated in tap water, without a maximum legal limit. |
Chemical smell in well water
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message ... avid_hiker wrote: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text: The source. If you want credible information try going to the EPA site. Just because a few paragraphs on an EWG site do not contain glaring mistakes, lies or errors does not in any way give them credibility. Search around their site with some objectivity and you will find massive bias, lies, mistakes, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc. Try reading the "report" from some of their claimed "testing" and you will find nothing but misrepresentation, lack of any scientific validity and general nonsense. |
Chemical smell in well water
"Pete C." wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... avid_hiker wrote: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text: The source. If you want credible information try going to the EPA site. Just because a few paragraphs on an EWG site do not contain glaring mistakes, lies or errors does not in any way give them credibility. Search around their site with some objectivity and you will find massive bias, lies, mistakes, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc. Try reading the "report" from some of their claimed "testing" and you will find nothing but misrepresentation, lack of any scientific validity and general nonsense. What about the water quality reports available on this page? Are they also suspect? http://www.mcwa.com/watqlsum.htm |
Chemical smell in well water
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... avid_hiker wrote: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text: The source. If you want credible information try going to the EPA site. Just because a few paragraphs on an EWG site do not contain glaring mistakes, lies or errors does not in any way give them credibility. Search around their site with some objectivity and you will find massive bias, lies, mistakes, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc. Try reading the "report" from some of their claimed "testing" and you will find nothing but misrepresentation, lack of any scientific validity and general nonsense. What about the water quality reports available on this page? Are they also suspect? http://www.mcwa.com/watqlsum.htm Less likely to be suspect, though there have been a few cases where water companies (municipal or not) have been less than honest. |
Chemical smell in well water
"Pete C." wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... avid_hiker wrote: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text: The source. If you want credible information try going to the EPA site. Just because a few paragraphs on an EWG site do not contain glaring mistakes, lies or errors does not in any way give them credibility. Search around their site with some objectivity and you will find massive bias, lies, mistakes, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc. Try reading the "report" from some of their claimed "testing" and you will find nothing but misrepresentation, lack of any scientific validity and general nonsense. What about the water quality reports available on this page? Are they also suspect? http://www.mcwa.com/watqlsum.htm Less likely to be suspect, though there have been a few cases where water companies (municipal or not) have been less than honest. OK. Back to that EWG site. Two questions: 1) On the specific page we're looking at, it appears they have compiled data from water authorities. Assuming the original data was accurate (from the authorities), and the web site gathered the data into larger statistics, where is the fault, assuming there were no typographical errors when entering the numbers for the charts & graphs? 2) Could you please point out at least one or two lies, mistakes, etc., on that page or others? |
Chemical smell in well water
One other question: Are there any environmental organizations other than the
EPA which you consider reputable and dependable? Which ones? |
Chemical smell in well water
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... avid_hiker wrote: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text: The source. If you want credible information try going to the EPA site. Just because a few paragraphs on an EWG site do not contain glaring mistakes, lies or errors does not in any way give them credibility. Search around their site with some objectivity and you will find massive bias, lies, mistakes, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc. Try reading the "report" from some of their claimed "testing" and you will find nothing but misrepresentation, lack of any scientific validity and general nonsense. What about the water quality reports available on this page? Are they also suspect? http://www.mcwa.com/watqlsum.htm Less likely to be suspect, though there have been a few cases where water companies (municipal or not) have been less than honest. OK. Back to that EWG site. Two questions: 1) On the specific page we're looking at, it appears they have compiled data from water authorities. Assuming the original data was accurate (from the authorities), and the web site gathered the data into larger statistics, where is the fault, assuming there were no typographical errors when entering the numbers for the charts & graphs? There may be none on that page. This does not however validate EWG in any way. 2) Could you please point out at least one or two lies, mistakes, etc., on that page or others? Find their page with the report on Teflon / PFOA / C8 for a good example of pseudo science, distortion and bias. |
Chemical smell in well water
"Pete C." wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... avid_hiker wrote: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text: The source. If you want credible information try going to the EPA site. Just because a few paragraphs on an EWG site do not contain glaring mistakes, lies or errors does not in any way give them credibility. Search around their site with some objectivity and you will find massive bias, lies, mistakes, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc. Try reading the "report" from some of their claimed "testing" and you will find nothing but misrepresentation, lack of any scientific validity and general nonsense. What about the water quality reports available on this page? Are they also suspect? http://www.mcwa.com/watqlsum.htm Less likely to be suspect, though there have been a few cases where water companies (municipal or not) have been less than honest. OK. Back to that EWG site. Two questions: 1) On the specific page we're looking at, it appears they have compiled data from water authorities. Assuming the original data was accurate (from the authorities), and the web site gathered the data into larger statistics, where is the fault, assuming there were no typographical errors when entering the numbers for the charts & graphs? There may be none on that page. This does not however validate EWG in any way. 2) Could you please point out at least one or two lies, mistakes, etc., on that page or others? Find their page with the report on Teflon / PFOA / C8 for a good example of pseudo science, distortion and bias. OK. Saw the report. What specific things do you take issue with? |
Chemical smell in well water
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... avid_hiker wrote: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text: The source. If you want credible information try going to the EPA site. Just because a few paragraphs on an EWG site do not contain glaring mistakes, lies or errors does not in any way give them credibility. Search around their site with some objectivity and you will find massive bias, lies, mistakes, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc. Try reading the "report" from some of their claimed "testing" and you will find nothing but misrepresentation, lack of any scientific validity and general nonsense. What about the water quality reports available on this page? Are they also suspect? http://www.mcwa.com/watqlsum.htm Less likely to be suspect, though there have been a few cases where water companies (municipal or not) have been less than honest. OK. Back to that EWG site. Two questions: 1) On the specific page we're looking at, it appears they have compiled data from water authorities. Assuming the original data was accurate (from the authorities), and the web site gathered the data into larger statistics, where is the fault, assuming there were no typographical errors when entering the numbers for the charts & graphs? There may be none on that page. This does not however validate EWG in any way. 2) Could you please point out at least one or two lies, mistakes, etc., on that page or others? Find their page with the report on Teflon / PFOA / C8 for a good example of pseudo science, distortion and bias. OK. Saw the report. What specific things do you take issue with? Um, the complete lack of scientific methods? The hyping of a "sophisticated infrared thermometer" to try to make this pseudo report sound technical and the complete lack of any detail on how they "determined" there was outgassing or what this alleged outgassing was composed of? That's a good start. The fact that this "report" materialized shortly after they decided to attack DuPont over alleged C8 pollution near a plant makes it even more pathetic. |
Chemical smell in well water
"Pete C." wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... avid_hiker wrote: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contamin...ontamcode=2030 EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source. Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text: The source. If you want credible information try going to the EPA site. Just because a few paragraphs on an EWG site do not contain glaring mistakes, lies or errors does not in any way give them credibility. Search around their site with some objectivity and you will find massive bias, lies, mistakes, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc. Try reading the "report" from some of their claimed "testing" and you will find nothing but misrepresentation, lack of any scientific validity and general nonsense. What about the water quality reports available on this page? Are they also suspect? http://www.mcwa.com/watqlsum.htm Less likely to be suspect, though there have been a few cases where water companies (municipal or not) have been less than honest. OK. Back to that EWG site. Two questions: 1) On the specific page we're looking at, it appears they have compiled data from water authorities. Assuming the original data was accurate (from the authorities), and the web site gathered the data into larger statistics, where is the fault, assuming there were no typographical errors when entering the numbers for the charts & graphs? There may be none on that page. This does not however validate EWG in any way. 2) Could you please point out at least one or two lies, mistakes, etc., on that page or others? Find their page with the report on Teflon / PFOA / C8 for a good example of pseudo science, distortion and bias. OK. Saw the report. What specific things do you take issue with? Um, the complete lack of scientific methods? The hyping of a "sophisticated infrared thermometer" to try to make this pseudo report sound technical and the complete lack of any detail on how they "determined" there was outgassing or what this alleged outgassing was composed of? That's a good start. The fact that this "report" materialized shortly after they decided to attack DuPont over alleged C8 pollution near a plant makes it even more pathetic. Interesting. |
Chemical smell in well water
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
One other question: Are there any environmental organizations other than the EPA which you consider reputable and dependable? Which ones? I'm not really sure these days. Unfortunately while some environmental organizations may have started out reputable, much like the US political parties, they have been gradually taken over by extremists and have lost whatever credibility they had. Presumably there are some reputable ones left, but they are probably also the ones that get little publicity since they don't engage in distortion and attacks. |
Chemical smell in well water
"Pete C." wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: One other question: Are there any environmental organizations other than the EPA which you consider reputable and dependable? Which ones? I'm not really sure these days. Unfortunately while some environmental organizations may have started out reputable, much like the US political parties, they have been gradually taken over by extremists and have lost whatever credibility they had. Presumably there are some reputable ones left, but they are probably also the ones that get little publicity since they don't engage in distortion and attacks. I guess the extremists provide some balance, which is something we need, since the EPA is sometimes handed over to administrators who are on the take from the industries they're supposed to regulate. |
Chemical smell in well water
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 I have been trying to research and help you out but having no luck in finding any filtration systems that would deal with these chemicals.......Fluorobenzene , 2-Bromo-1-Chloropropane , p-Isopropyltoluene . From what I have found, I believe the iron and Manganese are on the border line but below max tolerance. The Fluorobenzene , 2-Bromo-1-Chloropropane , p-Isopropyltoluene on the other hand...............I dont know what to tell you. Think you might be able to sell your home and move where the water is good? I see no other way out. This is extreme, but in your case it might be something to think about. Good luck. |
Chemical smell in well water
"avid_hiker" wrote in message
oups.com... 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 I have been trying to research and help you out but having no luck in finding any filtration systems that would deal with these chemicals.......Fluorobenzene , 2-Bromo-1-Chloropropane , p-Isopropyltoluene . From what I have found, I believe the iron and Manganese are on the border line but below max tolerance. The Fluorobenzene , 2-Bromo-1-Chloropropane , p-Isopropyltoluene on the other hand...............I dont know what to tell you. Think you might be able to sell your home and move where the water is good? I see no other way out. This is extreme, but in your case it might be something to think about. Good luck. In the future, you should post your responses to the person who asked the question, not to other participants further down in the hierarchy of messages. |
Chemical smell in well water
I shall try to remember that.....and the reason being? dunno, but am assuming that if receiving emails from this ng, that you get it as a reply to your post? Is this true? But thanks for telling me, as I would have never known. |
Chemical smell in well water
I shall try to remember that.....and the reason being? dunno, but am assuming that if receiving emails from this ng, that you get it as a reply to your post? Is this true? But thanks for telling me, as I would have never known. |
Chemical smell in well water
"avid_hiker" wrote in message
oups.com... I shall try to remember that.....and the reason being? dunno, but am assuming that if receiving emails from this ng, that you get it as a reply to your post? Is this true? But thanks for telling me, as I would have never known. I did not ask the question about the water problem, but you posted it as a response to ME. Take another look at the google screen. Or better yet, stop using google for newsgroups, and use news reader software. |
Chemical smell in well water
I did not ask the question about the water problem, but you posted it as a response to ME. Take another look at the google screen. Or better yet, stop using google for newsgroups, and use news reader software. Get a life Mr. Know-it-all, Ill use whatever I please, thankyou. Oh...and this was a reply to you, not the post. |
Chemical smell in well water
"avid_hiker" wrote in message
oups.com... I did not ask the question about the water problem, but you posted it as a response to ME. Take another look at the google screen. Or better yet, stop using google for newsgroups, and use news reader software. Get a life Mr. Know-it-all, Ill use whatever I please, thankyou. Oh...and this was a reply to you, not the post. Is this how you deal with *all* your mistakes? |
Chemical smell in well water
In article .com, "avid_hiker" wrote:
I shall try to remember that.....and the reason being? dunno, but am assuming that if receiving emails from this ng, that you get it as a reply to your post? Is this true? No, it's not. Neither you nor anybody else receives emails from a news group. Replies to your posts show up as, well, replies. On the news group. You may occasionally receive an email *copy* of a post to the group, but that does not come from the group -- it comes from the individual who made the post and decided to send you a copy by email. If you were using an actual news reader, rather than reading and posting through a web interface, the operation of newsgroups might be a little more clear to you. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Chemical smell in well water
avid_hiker wrote: It seems that most chemicals listed here....the first 3 anyways, are chemicals used in factories. Would you live close by a factory that may use these in production of their goods? If so, they may be responsible for a solution. Time to call Erin Brokovich... |
Chemical smell in well water
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 The water smells like some sort of chemical and there is some yellow staining. Carbon filtration does not work, and the local water conditioning companies do not know what to do about it. We already have a neutralizer and water softener installed and these levels are tested by a certified lab from water sample taken AFTER those devices. If those devices are bypassed the water is brown and horrible! We would like to find out if there is a way to get that chemical stuff out of our water. Can you please help us? If I had all that crap in my well, I'd drill a new well or find another water source. The Iron, and Manganese are normal well type minerals and are not really harmful, just irritating. But the first 3 are industrial chemcals. I am not a chemistry whiz, but I know they are similar to paint thinners and/or gasoline. How is all this crap getting into your well? Obviously there is some industry leaking this stuff into the groundwater. Maybe a gas station with a leaky tank. Have you contacted the EPA, your state DNR, and other govt. agencies? This needs to be investigated and the source located. Then file a court case and let the polluters pay for your new well. |
Chemical smell in well water
|
Chemical smell in well water
Thankyou Doug.......it is nice to get a non sarcastic reply to my
questions. There are some good people in this world still....tg. Thanks again, Dean |
Chemical smell in well water
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et... 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? The Iron, and Manganese are normal well type minerals and are not really harmful, just irritating. But the first 3 are industrial chemcals. They're also present at concentrations of less than ten parts per *billion*. I am not a chemistry whiz, but I know they are similar to paint thinners and/or gasoline. Indeed you're not a chemistry whiz. How is all this crap getting into your well? Obviously there is some industry leaking this stuff into the groundwater. Maybe a gas station with a leaky tank. Have you contacted the EPA, your state DNR, and other govt. agencies? This needs to be investigated and the source located. Then file a court case and let the polluters pay for your new well. The *first* thing to investigate is whether those chemicals are harmful at the levels at which they're present. A quick Google search on fluorobenzene toxicity suggests that that one, at least, may not be. ......yet. It would still be good to know if the source can be pinpointed, so he can know whether the contamination is still taking place, or likely to increase or decrease. |
Chemical smell in well water
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
......yet. It would still be good to know if the source can be pinpointed, so he can know whether the contamination is still taking place, or likely to increase or decrease. I repeat: the *first* thing to do is find out if the chemicals are harmful at the levels at which they are present.... for TWO reasons. First, if they're not harmful, or close to the threshold at which they might be, then the OP can set his mind at ease. Second, and more important, if they *are* harmful, he needs to know that RIGHT NOW so that he can take steps to obtain a safe water supply, and get whatever medical attention may be needed. Finding out where the contamination came from, and if it's still coming, are (or should be) strictly secondary concerns. The primary concern is finding out if it's a hazard at all, and if so, how much of a hazard it is. Everything else can wait. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Chemical smell in well water
In article .com, "avid_hiker" wrote:
Thankyou Doug.......it is nice to get a non sarcastic reply to my questions. There are some good people in this world still....tg. One more thing... when replying to posts, it's customary to quote at least enough of the post that you're replying to that folks won't wonder what you're talking about. :-) -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Chemical smell in well water
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: ......yet. It would still be good to know if the source can be pinpointed, so he can know whether the contamination is still taking place, or likely to increase or decrease. I repeat: the *first* thing to do is find out if the chemicals are harmful at the levels at which they are present.... for TWO reasons. First, if they're not harmful, or close to the threshold at which they might be, then the OP can set his mind at ease. Second, and more important, if they *are* harmful, he needs to know that RIGHT NOW so that he can take steps to obtain a safe water supply, and get whatever medical attention may be needed. Finding out where the contamination came from, and if it's still coming, are (or should be) strictly secondary concerns. The primary concern is finding out if it's a hazard at all, and if so, how much of a hazard it is. Everything else can wait. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) 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. |
Chemical smell in well water
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) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter