White pebbles in water supply??
Duncan
nearly once a day! Every day, several tiny white .. rocks .. are collecting
in the aerators, impeding, and sometimes halting the flow of water out of
the faucet.
I've asked my neighbor if he's having the problem, as if my city water
supply was having filter problems, but he said his aerators were fine.
Thinking it was my hot water heater, I've recently flushed the tank, hoping
that was the problem. It was not. I am still collecting the rocks.
I believe my city water is neither "hard" nor "soft". I do not have a water
conditioner.
Questions:
1. What are these white things? Are they .. my pipes decaying? Some
mineral or something?
2. Does such a thing as a "quick clean/self clean" aerator exist? Man, am I
tired of unscrewing these suckers and poking them with a pin every freaking
day. The two faucets that necessitate cleaning the most are in bathrooms,
where we don't drink much water, and therefore wouldn't mind a rock or two
shooting out the faucet.
Thanks.
Bob
expired recall of these things awhile back.
Bob
"Duncan" <dunca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Hmfv8.36772$0a.88...@twister.kc.rr.com...
Terry Neafie
the house or the water system nearby? Try to find out if
it's coming from the hot, cold, or both sides. If it's hot
only look into issues with the heater.
You nay be able to help this by taking the aerators off and
running hot and cold water full on for 5 - 10 minutes...
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Neafie
applianceguy
Collect some of the pebbles and put them into a clear glass (or small
bottle) of vinegar. If they do not dissolve in a few hours or a day, they
are plastic and you can be sure the dip-tube in your water heater has
failed. There was a huge recall on them but it expired almost a year ago.
The dip-tube takes the cold water from the top of your water heater to the
bottom, inside the tank. The defective ones crumbled with age and white
rocks in the water is a good indicator of the failure. It seems that there
was one manufacturer of these tubes that made almost every one used. For a
few years, they used a material that didn't last. The new ones do not
crumble.
You can have the dip-tube replaced (or do it yourself) and you will also
need to flush the heater and your hot water pipes. Some faucets might need
to be disassembled for cleaning, too.
If the pebbles dissolve, it means they are lime which has solidified from
the water. I do not think there is a good way to clean pipes with lime in
them except for replacement. If I were a betting person, I'd bet on the
dip-tube, from your description.
Paul
"Duncan" <dunca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Hmfv8.36772$0a.88...@twister.kc.rr.com...
David Thomas
> nearly once a day! Every day, several tiny white .. rocks .. are collecting
> in the aerators, impeding, and sometimes halting the flow of water out of
> the faucet.
Put 'em in vinegar. If they dissolve (with lots of fizzing) its lime.
If they float (or sink) but nothing else, its the dip tube from the
water heater.
David Thomas
Duncan
.. I will conduct the test asap. It won't be hard to collect the rocks, as
I just cleaned out an aerator, turned the faucet on (hot) and bang, I
collected a new bunch of rocks and cleaned them out again. Unbelievable.
I do remember a dip tube recall notice being mailed to me by a water heater
repair company, trying to drum up business. I checked my model number to
the recall notice, and it appeared my water heater was NOT covered under the
recall. Maybe I read it wrong.
Thanks, all. I'll post when I perform the vinegar test.
"applianceguy" <dv...@NOSPAM.appliance-world.com> wrote in message
news:ubr5kuc...@corp.supernews.com...
Gary Slusser
"David Thomas" <d_tho...@hotmail.com> wrote
HEY now loookie here!! it's my good buddy Davey. Yo bud, since you're
here, remember those years long debates we had about chlorine and its
by-products where you kept telling me there was nothing to be concerned
about? Your employer involved in that billion dollar plus lawsuit for
not reporting actual numbers and any cautions to those women and others
that (probably mistakenly IYO) think their miscarriages were a result of
THMs yet?
Yer wondering friend,
Gary
Quality Water Associates
> David Thomas
SteveR
wrote:
>I do remember a dip tube recall notice being mailed to me by a water heater
>repair company, trying to drum up business. I checked my model number to
>the recall notice, and it appeared my water heater was NOT covered under the
>recall. Maybe I read it wrong.
Maybe you did read it right. I recently did a bit of research
connected with replacing my old WH. There's still some information
out there regarding the dip tube matter, including some evidence that
the recall failed to include all the faulty products. You might have
gotten lucky.
SteveR
Duncan
Indeed, the white pieces did NOT disintegrate in the vinegar, which would
probably indicate the dip tube problem. Now that I think of it, my wife has
complained of lack of hot water occasionally, so I'm guessing this is the
problem.
As I emailled my water heater manufacturer, they said, so sorry, you didn't
place your claim on a timely basis. Indeed, in their canned email, it
identified my model as one that WAS covered under the recall. I am amazed
that a sunset date was allowed on this recall.
Question: Any ideas how much a professional would charge to replace the dip
tube? The WH is 8 years old. Maybe it'd be more cost effective to replace.
"SteveR" <sr...@spammenot.mochamail.com> wrote in message
news:migsbuouburlh4m68...@4ax.com...
Gary Slusser
"Duncan" <dunca...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Well, crap on a cracker!
>
> Indeed, the white pieces did NOT disintegrate in the vinegar, which
would
> probably indicate the dip tube problem. Now that I think of it, my
wife has
> complained of lack of hot water occasionally, so I'm guessing this is
the
> problem.
>
> As I emailled my water heater manufacturer, they said, so sorry, you
didn't
> place your claim on a timely basis. Indeed, in their canned email, it
> identified my model as one that WAS covered under the recall. I am
amazed
> that a sunset date was allowed on this recall.
>
> Question: Any ideas how much a professional would charge to replace
the dip
> tube? The WH is 8 years old. Maybe it'd be more cost effective to
replace.
That damned water heater repair company was just tryin' to drum up
business... maybe they'd be glad to get a call from you now about
replacing the dip tube or heater. They'll probably be able to swap
stories with you of others that didn't get free dip tubes and heaters
either.
Humor, don't leave home without it.
David Thomas
You want to give us some more info on this alleged lawsuit. Ya know,
like site a documentable source for once in your life.
Of course my employer does report actual numbers on TTHMs and has
complied with EPA's (many) regulations on informing the public on all
water quality issues.
I almost congratulated you for your discourse on chlorine to the
gentleman with the iron bacteria problem. You've come a long way over
the years. Still have a long way to go but progress is progress. (The
pH rise is hardly significant at the chlorine dose created by a pellet
dropper, IMO his only treatment choice. Of coures, he didn't mention
how far off the bottom his pump was mounted which could also be a
factor in is filter clogging problem.)
Sorry I can't really get tied up in another long debate on the pros
and cons of chlorine but my lab is short handed and our yearly
certification samples are in and I'm developing a new software package
to handle the data flow through the lab (Laboratory Information
Managment System or LIMS) so I have only enough spare time to glance
at this newsgroup every couple of days or so. Maybe by October things
will have settled enough for us to play tutor to each other again.
Yer (very busy) friend,
David Thomas
Senior Analyst - LIMS
SteveR
>a dip tube costs a buck or two and replacing one takes 15 minutes
My WH replacement project only took a couple of hours, but made me
appreciate the value and importance of clearance over the unit. In a
taller tank with a faily long dip tube, it seems to me that dip tube
replacement could be almost as complicated as replacing the whole
unit. But I've never replaced one. Do they bend?
SteveR
Bubba
Bubba
Gary Slusser
"David Thomas" <d_tho...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote
> > "David Thomas" <d_tho...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > HEY now loookie here!! it's my good buddy Davey. Yo bud, since
you're
> > here, remember those years long debates we had about chlorine and
its
> > by-products where you kept telling me there was nothing to be
concerned
> > about? Your employer involved in that billion dollar plus lawsuit
for
> > not reporting actual numbers and any cautions to those women and
others
> > that (probably mistakenly IYO) think their miscarriages were a
result of
> > THMs yet?
> >
> > Yer wondering friend,
> >
> > Gary
> > Quality Water Associates
> >
>
> You want to give us some more info on this alleged lawsuit. Ya know,
> like site a documentable source for once in your life.
I'm sure your boss knows all about it, ask him.
> Of course my employer does report actual numbers on TTHMs and has
> complied with EPA's (many) regulations on informing the public on all
> water quality issues.
I think the suit mentions something about cautions not be given but I
could be wrong. What would they mean by that? Any ideas?
> I almost congratulated you for your discourse on chlorine to the
> gentleman with the iron bacteria problem. You've come a long way over
> the years. Still have a long way to go but progress is progress. (The
> pH rise is hardly significant at the chlorine dose created by a pellet
> dropper, IMO his only treatment choice. Of coures, he didn't mention
> how far off the bottom his pump was mounted which could also be a
> factor in is filter clogging problem.)
This is good, thank you. But I think, although you sound as if you know
this pellet dropper well water treatement stuff, you should keep to your
water testing laboratory.
> Sorry I can't really get tied up in another long debate on the pros
> and cons of chlorine but my lab is short handed and our yearly
> certification samples are in and I'm developing a new software package
> to handle the data flow through the lab (Laboratory Information
> Managment System or LIMS) so I have only enough spare time to glance
> at this newsgroup every couple of days or so. Maybe by October things
> will have settled enough for us to play tutor to each other again.
>
> Yer (very busy) friend,
>
> David Thomas
> Senior Analyst - LIMS
AHHA you took some of the promotion bucks and bought a pellet dropper so
you don't have to throw a few of those swimming pool chlorine tablets
down your well every few months!
Just kidding, I know better.
Too bad you don't have any time now, if you did I'd introduce you to my
newest good buddy Rusty Bluerer. You two sound so much alike I thought
it might be you pretending to not be you. He measures stuff too, but
doesn't always come up with the right answers either.
David Thomas
> > You want to give us some more info on this alleged lawsuit. Ya know,
> > like site a documentable source for once in your life.
>
> I'm sure your boss knows all about it, ask him.
Sorry, he didn't know anything about a lawsuit either. Closest thing I
could find on the subject was this:
http://www.awwa.org/pressroom/pr/advisories/020109.htm
---
AWWA members should be aware of the release of a study on January 8,
2002 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group (US PIRG.) "Consider the Source," analyzed 50
areas of the country that may have increased health risks including
miscarriage, cancer and birth defects from women drinking chlorination
byproducts. The study was based on a 1998 report compiled by
researchers at the California Department of Health Services who
suggested an association between DBPs and miscarriage.
The EPA closely examined this study and concluded that there was no
evidence drawing an association between the two. In an earlier press
release the EPA stated that, "EPA does not endorse all the conclusions
in this report. The data that the EWG provides warrants additional
review, possibly peer review, but at this time the data is not
conclusive and may be misleading. EPA agrees with the EWG on the
importance of continued research on the potential adverse reproductive
and developmental health effects from exposure to DBPs. However the
studies cited in the EWG report do not support their argument that
there is a link between current levels of exposure to DBPs and an
increased risk of adverse reproductive and developmental health
effects."
The World Health Organization also noted, "The risks to health from
DBPs are extremely small in comparison with inadequate disinfection."
---
One study does not make a lawsuit.
> > Of course my employer does report actual numbers on TTHMs and has
> > complied with EPA's (many) regulations on informing the public on all
> > water quality issues.
>
> I think the suit mentions something about cautions not be given but I
> could be wrong. What would they mean by that? Any ideas?
You're the one with all the info on the 'lawsuit'. You tell me.
Perhaps its something like when McDonalds got tagged for not have the
word 'HOT' on their coffee cups. "Like, DUH!"
> > I almost congratulated you for your discourse on chlorine to the
> > gentleman with the iron bacteria problem. You've come a long way over
> > the years. Still have a long way to go but progress is progress. (The
> > pH rise is hardly significant at the chlorine dose created by a pellet
> > dropper, IMO his only treatment choice. Of coures, he didn't mention
> > how far off the bottom his pump was mounted which could also be a
> > factor in is filter clogging problem.)
>
> This is good, thank you. But I think, although you sound as if you know
> this pellet dropper well water treatement stuff, you should keep to your
> water testing laboratory.
Cute.
> > Sorry I can't really get tied up in another long debate on the pros
> > and cons of chlorine but my lab is short handed and our yearly
> > certification samples are in and I'm developing a new software package
> > to handle the data flow through the lab (Laboratory Information
> > Managment System or LIMS) so I have only enough spare time to glance
> > at this newsgroup every couple of days or so. Maybe by October things
> > will have settled enough for us to play tutor to each other again.
> >
> > Yer (very busy) friend,
>
> AHHA you took some of the promotion bucks and bought a pellet dropper so
> you don't have to throw a few of those swimming pool chlorine tablets
> down your well every few months!
>
> Just kidding, I know better.
You're half right for once, no pellet dropper, and wrong again. The
HTH tablets I used are not swimming pool tablets nor are they toilet
tank tablets. I use standard potable water treatment tablets, same as
you.
> Too bad you don't have any time now, if you did I'd introduce you to my
> newest good buddy Rusty Bluerer. You two sound so much alike I thought
> it might be you pretending to not be you. He measures stuff too, but
> doesn't always come up with the right answers either.
Meaning he disagrees with and corrects the mis-information you spout.
Sounds like my kinda guy. ;-)
David Thomas
> Sorry, he didn't know anything about a lawsuit either. Closest thing I
> could find on the subject was this:
>
> http://www.awwa.org/pressroom/pr/advisories/020109.htm
Did some more look'n going back another year or so and found it.
The City of Chesapeake, VA is being sued by a group of about 165 women
for more than $1 billion. The trail is set for Sept 18th of this year
(interesting it takes almost two years to get to trial). Of course,
the City is asking Judge Norman Olitsky to dismiss the suit but he
won't rule on that motion until Oct 9, almost three weeks after the
trial begins.
Most of the issue appears to stem from a one year period back in '98
when the city retired its air stripping towers but had a construction
delay before their RO unit came on-line which is alledged to have
caused 169 misscarriages. It appears the City made every effort to
inform the public (of course leading a horse to water and making him
drink are two different issues) using releases to the news media,
telephone hotlines, mailing stuffer, school notices, etc. throughout
the entire period in question and continues the practice today.
Here's their web page with a summary of the issue from their point of
view:
http://www.chesapeake.va.us/services/depart/pub-util/summary.html
Leave it to Gary and his ink to 'spin' this into some nation-wide
scare just to sell a few more carbon filters. [$cha-ching$] (I'd be
happy to eat these words Gary, if you just post the source of *your*
information so we can all check it for accuracy.)
Gary Slusser
"David Thomas" <d_tho...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote
> > "David Thomas" <d_tho...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > You want to give us some more info on this alleged lawsuit. Ya
know,
> > > like site a documentable source for once in your life.
> >
> > I'm sure your boss knows all about it, ask him.
>
> Sorry, he didn't know anything about a lawsuit either. Closest thing I
> could find on the subject was this:
>
> http://www.awwa.org/pressroom/pr/advisories/020109.htm
See now I depend on you guys to keep up on this type thing and you let
me and your customers down time after time....
> ---
>
> AWWA members should be aware of the release of a study on January 8,
> 2002 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the U.S. Public
> Interest Research Group (US PIRG.) "Consider the Source," analyzed 50
> areas of the country that may have increased health risks including
> miscarriage, cancer and birth defects from women drinking chlorination
> byproducts. The study was based on a 1998 report compiled by
> researchers at the California Department of Health Services who
> suggested an association between DBPs and miscarriage.
>
> The EPA closely examined this study and concluded that there was no
> evidence drawing an association between the two. In an earlier press
> release the EPA stated that, "EPA does not endorse all the conclusions
> in this report. The data that the EWG provides warrants additional
> review, possibly peer review, but at this time the data is not
> conclusive and may be misleading. EPA agrees with the EWG on the
> importance of continued research on the potential adverse reproductive
> and developmental health effects from exposure to DBPs. However the
> studies cited in the EWG report do not support their argument that
> there is a link between current levels of exposure to DBPs and an
> increased risk of adverse reproductive and developmental health
> effects."
But this is good. Although I see the same old "no problem" statements
being repeated.
> The World Health Organization also noted, "The risks to health from
> DBPs are extremely small in comparison with inadequate disinfection."
As if chlorine is the only disinfectant. I see quite a bit about water
companies changing over to chlormines all of a sudden. I think water
companies and the EPA are one day going to look like the tobacco
industry after 40 years of denials. Then the copper water line
manufacturers will be next.
> ---
>
> One study does not make a lawsuit.
>
> > > Of course my employer does report actual numbers on TTHMs and has
> > > complied with EPA's (many) regulations on informing the public on
all
> > > water quality issues.
> >
> > I think the suit mentions something about cautions not be given but
I
> > could be wrong. What would they mean by that? Any ideas?
>
> You're the one with all the info on the 'lawsuit'. You tell me.
> Perhaps its something like when McDonalds got tagged for not have the
> word 'HOT' on their coffee cups. "Like, DUH!"
I'm sure the suit mentions no cautions or warnings being given.
> > Too bad you don't have any time now, if you did I'd introduce you to
my
> > newest good buddy Rusty Bluerer. You two sound so much alike I
thought
> > it might be you pretending to not be you. He measures stuff too, but
> > doesn't always come up with the right answers either.
>
> Meaning he disagrees with and corrects the mis-information you spout.
> Sounds like my kinda guy. ;-)
Yep, you could be he. He says it's me. But he never heard of Legionella
in water heaters. Didn't know mg/l and ppm are basically interchangeable
and sees nothing wrong with drinking water from a water heater or that
there may be more metals in the hot water than the cold feeding the
heater.
Gary
Quality Water Associates
Gary Slusser
"David Thomas" <d_tho...@hotmail.com> wrote
> d_tho...@hotmail.com (David Thomas) wrote >
>
> > Sorry, he didn't know anything about a lawsuit either. Closest thing
I
> > could find on the subject was this:
> >
> > http://www.awwa.org/pressroom/pr/advisories/020109.htm
>
> Did some more look'n going back another year or so and found it.
>
> The City of Chesapeake, VA is being sued by a group of about 165 women
> for more than $1 billion. The trail is set for Sept 18th of this year
> (interesting it takes almost two years to get to trial). Of course,
> the City is asking Judge Norman Olitsky to dismiss the suit but he
> won't rule on that motion until Oct 9, almost three weeks after the
> trial begins.
>
> Most of the issue appears to stem from a one year period back in '98
> when the city retired its air stripping towers but had a construction
> delay before their RO unit came on-line which is alledged to have
> caused 169 misscarriages. It appears the City made every effort to
> inform the public (of course leading a horse to water and making him
> drink are two different issues) using releases to the news media,
> telephone hotlines, mailing stuffer, school notices, etc. throughout
> the entire period in question and continues the practice today.
I don't see anything mentioned about cautions or warnings to pregnant
women..... or anyone else.
> Here's their web page with a summary of the issue from their point of
> view:
>
> http://www.chesapeake.va.us/services/depart/pub-util/summary.html
>
> Leave it to Gary and his ink to 'spin' this into some nation-wide
> scare just to sell a few more carbon filters. [$cha-ching$] (I'd be
> happy to eat these words Gary, if you just post the source of *your*
> information so we can all check it for accuracy.)
You supply the water, we'll clean it up for you. Well that's until more
of you water companies jump into selling water treatment equipment.
It was all over the newspapers and TV news just a few weeks ago. Plus my
industry's e-mail lists and web site BBs. I'd think you folks would be
better informed than it seems you are.
I think one day we'll see there is a difference between "safe" and "in
compliance with current regulations". Especially as far as chlorine in
'potable' water is concerned.
Gary
Quality Water Associates
David Thomas
> > Meaning he disagrees with and corrects the mis-information you spout.
> > Sounds like my kinda guy. ;-)
>
> Yep, you could be he. He says it's me. But he never heard of Legionella
> in water heaters.
Neither had I, until you mentioned it. You never did post a viable
source for your facts as I recall.
> Didn't know mg/l and ppm are basically interchangeable
Only in aqueous solutions (water) at or near 4C (~40F). Close enough
for our purposes in water treatment, I agree, although technically
interchanging these units *is* a scientific faux pas since they aren't
interchangeable when dealing with other solvents such as hexanes.
Water is unique in that at 4C the density of water is 1 (1 ml = 1 g)
so that 1 mg/L (1 L = 1000 ml) *is* equal to 1mg/1000g or
1mg/1,000,000mg thus 1 part per million (ppm). Any deviation from 4C
introduces a slight error in the relationship between the two units
based on the change of water's density.
> and sees nothing wrong with drinking water from a water heater or that
> there may be more metals in the hot water than the cold feeding the
> heater.
See, everyone can stand to learn a thing or two from this newsgroup. I
consistently see higher levels of metals coming from the hot side. Of
course I consistently see higher levels of metals coming from softened
water too, though you fight me tooth and nail on that issue (guess
that makes you like the tobacoo companies too, don't it). Highest
metal levels I'd ever seen in my 20 year career came from a softened
and recirculating hot system.
David Thomas
> > Did some more look'n going back another year or so and found it.
> >
> > The City of Chesapeake, VA is being sued by a group of about 165 women
> > for more than $1 billion. The trail is set for Sept 18th of this year
> > (interesting it takes almost two years to get to trial). Of course,
> > the City is asking Judge Norman Olitsky to dismiss the suit but he
> > won't rule on that motion until Oct 9, almost three weeks after the
> > trial begins.
> >
> > Most of the issue appears to stem from a one year period back in '98
> > when the city retired its air stripping towers but had a construction
> > delay before their RO unit came on-line which is alledged to have
> > caused 169 misscarriages. It appears the City made every effort to
> > inform the public (of course leading a horse to water and making him
> > drink are two different issues) using releases to the news media,
> > telephone hotlines, mailing stuffer, school notices, etc. throughout
> > the entire period in question and continues the practice today.
>
> I don't see anything mentioned about cautions or warnings to pregnant
> women..... or anyone else.
You obviously didn't bother with the web site I mentioned below or you
would have seen this little blurp:
--
Chesapeake's Commitment to Safety
A study about THMs possibly being linked to miscarriages was conducted
in California and published in the March 1998 edition of the Journal
of Epidemiology. The Chesapeake Health Department and the City
responded with an extensive public notification program which included
the following actions:
February 1998
City’s Public Utilities Department received an advance copy of
the study and forwarded it to Chesapeake's Health Director, Dr. Nancy
Welch.
March 31, 1998
Dr. Welch issued a public notice about THMs and the potential health
risks to pregnant women. A front page article resulted in the
Virginian-Pilot the following day.
---
I did look at EPA's web page on regulation violation and found that
the Northwest River Treatment Plant had no violation on record (the
online database goes back to '93).
> > Here's their web page with a summary of the issue from their point of
> > view:
> >
> > http://www.chesapeake.va.us/services/depart/pub-util/summary.html
> >
> > Leave it to Gary and his ink to 'spin' this into some nation-wide
> > scare just to sell a few more carbon filters. [$cha-ching$] (I'd be
> > happy to eat these words Gary, if you just post the source of *your*
> > information so we can all check it for accuracy.)
>
> You supply the water, we'll clean it up for you. Well that's until more
> of you water companies jump into selling water treatment equipment.
Hold your breath... please. (Do you get the joke Gary?)
> It was all over the newspapers and TV news just a few weeks ago.
Maybe out there in PA (local stations?). Didn't hear anything on
national news out here.
Question: why just a few weeks ago when the first study came out Fall
of '98 and this latest paper (which basically plagerized the first '98
study when it wasn't contradicting it) came out Sept. 2001? Think the
news media had enough hard news back then to back burner this little
show until now?
> Plus my
> industry's e-mail lists and web site BBs. I'd think you folks would be
> better informed than it seems you are.
Sorry, don't read tabloids either. Of course I'm not constantly
looking for new scams to scare the public into buying treatment
devices either. [$cha-ching$]
> I think one day we'll see there is a difference between "safe" and "in
> compliance with current regulations". Especially as far as chlorine in
> 'potable' water is concerned.
But until you see the warnings printed on the labels (assuming you
read them even then, horse and water thing ya see) you'll still sell
them UV light too ('cause I know you still sell chlorine devices, even
now). Remember our discussion on suspected formaldyhde formation via
UV disinfection and your strong defense that until some hard evidence
was clearly found (and you wouldn't go looking for it) you would
continue to promote UV as "safe".
Actually you do have a good point and one that we are very aware of.
Nobody in the water industry I know will tell you that the drinking
water in this country is safe. What they will say, as you've
indicated, is that the water is in compliance with government safe
drinking water regulation. Two totally different statements I agree.
Is your treated water safe Gary? You may argue that it is as safe or
safer than it was, sure, but exactly how *SAFE* is it? Lots of plastic
parts in your equipment, right? What about plasticizers leaching out
into the water, hmmm? Plasticizers aren't safe anymore Gary. Any brass
fittings in your equipment Gary? Malleable brass has lead in it Gary.
Lead can leach out into the water. Is that *safe*? Are softeners
*safe* Gary? Sure, I'll even allow you (for the sake of this
discusion) that they don't make the water any more corrosive than it
naturally would be, but it does remove the protective coating (lime)
from the pipes and allows the water to leach metals directly out of
the pipes (since all waters are corrosive by nature) resulting in
higher metal levels. That's not safe Gary. Sure, just sell 'em a RO
for the kitchen to remove the added sodium and extra metals. (Its only
*their* money after all.)
Perhaps you'll agree that maybe "safe" is a relative term. (Its not
"safe" to step into your bath tub. A certain risk is involved. Its not
safe to fall asleep. There's a certain risk you won't wake up.)
Certainly the waters provided by drinking water treatment plants are
much safer than allowing the public to drink straight from the rivers.
I think even you would agree to that. Do you think your equipment
could do as good a job treating river water as mine for the money I
charge? A dollar will buy 4,200 20 oz glasses of my potable water
Gary, which is a heck of a lot safer than what they were drinking 100
years ago (and hopefully my g'grandson can say the same thing about
his drinking water plant and for a lot cheaper too). What will a
dollar buy from you?
Gary Slusser
"David Thomas" <d_tho...@hotmail.com> wrote
I scanned it and saw all that 'spin' stuff and had to look away....
> --
> Chesapeake's Commitment to Safety
>
> A study about THMs possibly being linked to miscarriages was conducted
> in California and published in the March 1998 edition of the Journal
> of Epidemiology. The Chesapeake Health Department and the City
> responded with an extensive public notification program which included
> the following actions:
>
> February 1998
> City’s Public Utilities Department received an advance copy of
> the study and forwarded it to Chesapeake's Health Director, Dr. Nancy
> Welch.
>
> March 31, 1998
> Dr. Welch issued a public notice about THMs and the potential health
> risks to pregnant women. A front page article resulted in the
> Virginian-Pilot the following day.
A..... I think I read where local newspaper subscriptions are down,
especailly in those of childbearing ages....
> I did look at EPA's web page on regulation violation and found that
> the Northwest River Treatment Plant had no violation on record (the
> online database goes back to '93).
>
> > > Here's their web page with a summary of the issue from their point
of
> > > view:
> > >
> > > http://www.chesapeake.va.us/services/depart/pub-util/summary.html
> > >
> > > Leave it to Gary and his ink to 'spin' this into some nation-wide
> > > scare just to sell a few more carbon filters. [$cha-ching$] (I'd
be
> > > happy to eat these words Gary, if you just post the source of
*your*
> > > information so we can all check it for accuracy.)
> >
> > You supply the water, we'll clean it up for you. Well that's until
more
> > of you water companies jump into selling water treatment equipment.
>
> Hold your breath... please. (Do you get the joke Gary?)
>
> > It was all over the newspapers and TV news just a few weeks ago.
>
> Maybe out there in PA (local stations?). Didn't hear anything on
> national news out here.
Oh but is was National, radio probably.
> Question: why just a few weeks ago when the first study came out Fall
> of '98 and this latest paper (which basically plagerized the first '98
> study when it wasn't contradicting it) came out Sept. 2001? Think the
> news media had enough hard news back then to back burner this little
> show until now?
>
> > Plus my
> > industry's e-mail lists and web site BBs. I'd think you folks would
be
> > better informed than it seems you are.
>
> Sorry, don't read tabloids either. Of course I'm not constantly
> looking for new scams to scare the public into buying treatment
> devices either. [$cha-ching$]
hehehee but I haven't sold a new carbon filter in over 4 years.
> > I think one day we'll see there is a difference between "safe" and
"in
> > compliance with current regulations". Especially as far as chlorine
in
> > 'potable' water is concerned.
>
> But until you see the warnings printed on the labels (assuming you
> read them even then, horse and water thing ya see) you'll still sell
> them UV light too ('cause I know you still sell chlorine devices, even
> now). Remember our discussion on suspected formaldyhde formation via
> UV disinfection and your strong defense that until some hard evidence
> was clearly found (and you wouldn't go looking for it) you would
> continue to promote UV as "safe".
YOUR diatribe, no discussion and I don't say "safe" except when
repeating water company spin.
> Actually you do have a good point and one that we are very aware of.
> Nobody in the water industry I know will tell you that the drinking
> water in this country is safe. What they will say, as you've
> indicated, is that the water is in compliance with government safe
> drinking water regulation. Two totally different statements I agree.
Maybe not anymore but web sites are full of 'our water is safe'
statements. I know. I think my latest CCR may have used the phrase.
> Is your treated water safe Gary? You may argue that it is as safe or
> safer than it was, sure, but exactly how *SAFE* is it? Lots of plastic
> parts in your equipment, right? What about plasticizers leaching out
> into the water, hmmm? Plasticizers aren't safe anymore Gary. Any brass
> fittings in your equipment Gary? Malleable brass has lead in it Gary.
> Lead can leach out into the water. Is that *safe*? Are softeners
> *safe* Gary? Sure, I'll even allow you (for the sake of this
> discusion) that they don't make the water any more corrosive than it
> naturally would be, but it does remove the protective coating (lime)
> from the pipes and allows the water to leach metals directly out of
> the pipes (since all waters are corrosive by nature) resulting in
> higher metal levels. That's not safe Gary. Sure, just sell 'em a RO
> for the kitchen to remove the added sodium and extra metals. (Its only
> *their* money after all.)
All inert and approved as of the latest research. As I said, it seems
that maybe the copper industry will be right behind you water company
guys. Behind as in law suits.
> Perhaps you'll agree that maybe "safe" is a relative term. (Its not
> "safe" to step into your bath tub. A certain risk is involved. Its not
> safe to fall asleep. There's a certain risk you won't wake up.)
> Certainly the waters provided by drinking water treatment plants are
> much safer than allowing the public to drink straight from the rivers.
> I think even you would agree to that. Do you think your equipment
> could do as good a job treating river water as mine for the money I
> charge? A dollar will buy 4,200 20 oz glasses of my potable water
> Gary, which is a heck of a lot safer than what they were drinking 100
> years ago (and hopefully my g'grandson can say the same thing about
> his drinking water plant and for a lot cheaper too). What will a
> dollar buy from you?
See, there ya go agin, same ol water company employee Dave. But I seem
to see water bills increasing substantially. And most water that is
consumed is being bought by the bottle. And that, as yet, is not
produced by 'water treatment' companies... Most of us use 'your' water
for flushing and if it didn't stain the toilets, stink and taste bad
too, my industry would be having a much harder time of things. lol
Gary
Quality Water Associates
David Thomas
> A..... I think I read where local newspaper subscriptions are down,
> especailly in those of childbearing ages....
I guess those of childbearing ages also don't watch local TV news...
or listen to radio... or ask their kids what they learned in school...
or look at those annoying bill stuffers that the #$^%&$# water
department wastes money on. (Anyone who buries their head *that* deep
in the sand shouldn't be too surprised when they get kicked in the
buttock.)
> Maybe not anymore but web sites are full of 'our water is safe'
> statements. I know. I think my latest CCR may have used the phrase.
I'll bet its says something like "safe as defined by EPA's safe
drinking water regulations".
> All inert and approved as of the latest research.
I think the Romans said exactly the same thing about their lead lined
aqueducts. Amazing how things change over time and with additional
research. (How many of those UV units have you sold now? Got lawsuit
insurance?)
Gary Slusser
"David Thomas" <d_tho...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote
>
> > A..... I think I read where local newspaper subscriptions are down,
> > especailly in those of childbearing ages....
>
> I guess those of childbearing ages also don't watch local TV news...
> or listen to radio... or ask their kids what they learned in school...
> or look at those annoying bill stuffers that the #$^%&$# water
> department wastes money on. (Anyone who buries their head *that* deep
> in the sand shouldn't be too surprised when they get kicked in the
> buttock.)
I hear they don't watch or listen to news. Bill stuffers? No one reads
them. But the kicker is that the kicker is guilty of kicking someone
when they're down, and not looking! Unfair!
.
> > Maybe not anymore but web sites are full of 'our water is safe'
> > statements. I know. I think my latest CCR may have used the phrase.
>
> I'll bet its says something like "safe as defined by EPA's safe
> drinking water regulations".
I'll bet you can find some of your old posts on this subject without the
additional wording that is showing up today....
> > All inert and approved as of the latest research.
>
> I think the Romans said exactly the same thing about their lead lined
> aqueducts. Amazing how things change over time and with additional
> research. (How many of those UV units have you sold now? Got lawsuit
> insurance?)
Yes and they also used copper pipe until it and lead killed them all off
and mankind forgot all about that stuff for a 1000 years and then
'rediscovered' them. And then 'they' sold us on copper and lead water
lines again and added lead based solder for the copper lines!!! You'd
think we'd get smarter over time rather than revisting stupid old ideas.
Copper water lines are about as bad as lead IMO. Or asbestos fiber
reinforced concrete for water distribution lines, now there was a great
idea!! And from that sprung your LSI way of skirting responsibility for
aggressive water by blaming a lack of water hardness induced scale
formation to "protect" the pipe! That begs the question "protect" it
from what if not 'your' acidic and aggressive waters. You don't need to
respond, I've read your other responses and committed them to memory,
and since there have been so many of them, I can't possibly forget them
all!
Yes UV is a good choice for control of bacteria and other life forms in
water, some of which chlorine can't touch. I see many of you guys are
changing to chloromines and chlorine dioxide. Ammonia and chlorine.....
great chemistry that. Wasn't that mix used as some chemical warfare
agent in the past? Probably not the Romans huh.
Gary
Quality Water Associates
montm...@googlemail.com
Gordon Shumway
wrote:
because of the water.
Farkin' google crap!
