Hi...

My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the new
standards.

She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the vendors
who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly that far.

Thanks
Mark

On Jun 5, 5:23 am, Mark Modrall wrote:
Hi...

....
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the new
standards.
....

Where's the water from and what is the source of the arsenic?

Attack the source/supplier???

--

On Jun 5, 8:46 am, dpb wrote:
On Jun 5, 5:23 am, Mark Modrall wrote: Hi...

...
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the new
standards.

...

Where's the water from and what is the source of the arsenic?

Attack the source/supplier???

--

Agreed, is it municipal source? Is it exceeding the MCL, or just the
MCGL? Or is this another set or standards?

Mark Modrall wrote:
Hi...

My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
new standards.

She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
that far.

The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion
years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind it
as did the ban on silicone breast implants.

If your water is below 50, save your money.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Mark Modrall wrote:
Hi...

My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
new standards.

She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
that far.

The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion
years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind
it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.

If your water is below 50, save your money.

I just read that low levels of arsenic can prevent certain forms of cancer.

On Jun 5, 3:49 pm, "EXT" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

...



Mark Modrall wrote:
Hi...

My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
new standards.

She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
that far.

The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion
years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind
it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.

If your water is below 50, save your money.

I just read that low levels of arsenic can prevent certain forms of cancer.

I seem to recall arsenic grows old lace...or makes lace grow old, or
something like that, anyway...

--

In article . com,
dpb wrote:

On Jun 5, 5:23 am, Mark Modrall wrote:
Hi...

...
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the new
standards.
...

Where's the water from and what is the source of the arsenic?

Attack the source/supplier???

--

We're on well water, so we have no other authority to take the complaint
to.

When we moved in 6 years ago, it tested just under the old standard by a
hair, so it's obviously over by the new standard.

Thanks
Mark

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Mark Modrall wrote:
Hi...

My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
new standards.

She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
that far.

The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion
years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind
it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.

If your water is below 50, save your money.


Exactly. Clinton changed it in the waning -days- of his presidency. There
was zero science behind the move, it was all political. If it was so
necessary, it would have been lowered long ago.

On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:51:56 -0600, "Bob M." wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Mark Modrall wrote:
Hi...

My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
new standards.

She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
that far.

The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion
years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind
it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.

If your water is below 50, save your money.


Exactly. Clinton changed it in the waning -days- of his presidency. There
was zero science behind the move, it was all political. If it was so
necessary, it would have been lowered long ago.

I don't konw about the rest of it, but this last sentence doesn't
compute. For example, maybe they tried for the lower value but
compromised on the earlier higher value. Maybe there were other
efforts to lower it but they failed.

The notion that things must have been done right the first time, so
any other way isn't right, is not valid.

My wife fills empty soda bottles with tap water,
and stores 'em in the fridge....tastes just like 'bottled".

But seriously folks;
Unless your water TASTES terrible, I wouldn't
spend the $$$ on filtering systems.


rj

In article ,
"RJ" wrote:

My wife fills empty soda bottles with tap water,
and stores 'em in the fridge....tastes just like 'bottled".

But seriously folks;
Unless your water TASTES terrible, I wouldn't
spend the $$$ on filtering systems.


rj

Saw a thing on TV a while back, one of those hidden camera things. Fancy
restaurant, with a "bottled water" list. Like a wine list. Bottles
ranging from maybe 6 to 15 dollars each. Very pretty bottles with fancy
labels. Server is telling customers about the various qualities of the
various waters.

This scene repeated with various couples: The guy buys one thing, his
date buys something else, the server pours delicately into crystal
glasses, the customers ooh and ahh as the waiter elicits comments and
points out nuances in the characteristics of each.

Now cut to the parking lot, where all of these bottles are being filled
from the same hose.

On Jun 6, 6:59 am, "RJ" wrote:
....
But seriously folks;
Unless your water TASTES terrible, I wouldn't spend the $$$ on filtering systems.

Well, that's overly simplistic, too.

There are many contaminants (mineral and/or biotic) that have no taste
or odor but are serious health risks, so relying solely on taste or
smell isn't sufficient guarantee.

If it's a public water system there's at least a reasonable chance
it's pretty good at least in the developed countries. If it's a
private well, testing should be done on a periodic basis -- how
frequently is often enough depends on well location, surroundings,
etc., ...

--

Smitty Two writes:

In article ,
"RJ" wrote:

My wife fills empty soda bottles with tap water,
and stores 'em in the fridge....tastes just like 'bottled".

But seriously folks;
Unless your water TASTES terrible, I wouldn't
spend the $$$ on filtering systems.

Saw a thing on TV a while back, one of those hidden camera things. Fancy
restaurant, with a "bottled water" list. Like a wine list. Bottles
ranging from maybe 6 to 15 dollars each. Very pretty bottles with fancy
labels. Server is telling customers about the various qualities of the
various waters.

This scene repeated with various couples: The guy buys one thing, his
date buys something else, the server pours delicately into crystal
glasses, the customers ooh and ahh as the waiter elicits comments and
points out nuances in the characteristics of each.

Now cut to the parking lot, where all of these bottles are being filled
from the same hose.

Last hose I bought had a warning label that said
not to drink from it.
It said the hose had carcinogens.

On Jun 6, 8:27 am, Dan Espen wrote:
....

Last hose I bought had a warning label that said not to drink from it.
It said the hose had carcinogens.

That's most likely owing to the CA law --

--

I agree that often science gets left out and political pressure takes over,
this usually creates standards that allow more toxins and/or pollutants than
science would like, not the other way round. This is usually because the
chemical companies or other vested interests have the lobbyists working on
their behalf.


"mm" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:51:56 -0600, "Bob M." wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Mark Modrall wrote:
Hi...

My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
new standards.

She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
that far.

The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a
zillion
years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science
behind
it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.

If your water is below 50, save your money.


Exactly. Clinton changed it in the waning -days- of his presidency. There
was zero science behind the move, it was all political. If it was so
necessary, it would have been lowered long ago.

I don't konw about the rest of it, but this last sentence doesn't
compute. For example, maybe they tried for the lower value but
compromised on the earlier higher value. Maybe there were other
efforts to lower it but they failed.

The notion that things must have been done right the first time, so
any other way isn't right, is not valid.