Is Tap Water Safe Enough for You?

Public water supply is regulated to insure that the water will not be any sort of health problem for users. I have no problem whatsoever drinking tap water in the city I am near. It tastes good, looks good, and is highly regarded in the water treatment world. As a rule I also drink water when I travel directly from the tap unless it is a stand alone system. So if the hotel I stay is within an area serviced by municipal water, I have no issue. If it is self served by its own well and a system maintained by the hotel staff, I get a little more concerned and may buy my water. If I travel outside of Canada or USA, I become much more concerned and likely will drink beer or bottled water.

I just happen to have owned a company that serviced water systems under regulation and had staff that had to be certified to undertake that work. I am aware of the responsibility that entailed and the level of accountability was very high. Any of these regulated systems was much better than most. I do add some caveats, I will not drink water from campgrounds not on municipal water nor will I even buy coffee at a rural restaurant. I usually opt for bottled or canned soda drinks.

The fact that the water has some level of "contamination" by itself does not mean it exceeds the maximum acceptable level (MCL). To exceed an MCL would put that water into an unsafe and people would have to be warned not to drink that water. So if it is available, it is safe. If has some level of contamination and I lived in that municipality as a permanent basis then I may consider what I could do to further minimize my exposure with point of use treatment. But generally I drink water without added treatment.

Bottled water is much less monitored and regulated that tap water. One should be very careful using bottled water as an alternative on a regular basis. Not all government work is bad and this is one case where the government usually does a pretty good job. There are of course always exceptions to every rule and outbreaks will occur (Milwaukee, Walkerton, etc). As these types of occurrences creep in so do the rules and monitoring pressures increase. Overall the rules do work and will get better as better monitoring science becomes available.

I am not so sure about that.

Real case - TCE tainted ground near one well of a towns 3 well system. I know about this, because a company which I am responsible for the enviro affairs of was smack in the middle of the flow of the TCE plume to the well. Our ground looks like a pin cushion with all the monitoring wells (27) drilled to help locate the source of the TCE plume. (company next door was ultimately determined as responsible) The well in question is now off line, but for several years it wasn't, and the annual notice the public receives on the monitoring of the city water quality made no mention of tests for level of TCE.

So, did they ignore the issue or just not report what was found to allay public fear, as unless you were involved as I was, you probably were not aware of the TCE situation? If yes to either above, what was the exposure to TCE for the water systems users? There had to be some, even if below EPA regulated limits, as our ground is adjacent to the well and it was rather saturated with TCE. Shouldn't chemicals like this be reported to the public?

The EPA criteria for TCE in drinking water is 0.005 mg/L. It is a rule that if a contaminant exceeds the MCL the water supply be issued a no drinking or sometimes a boil water drinking order. The health agency is then supposed (by regulation) to issue such order and advertise that is unsafe. Public sources are supposed to be posted to advise wary travellers. Most municipalities really hate that type of advertising as it may thwart any business coming to set up in that town. If the contaminant is less than the MCL, it is often ordered that the municipality step up the frequency of sampling and that measures be taken to eliminate the source problem Also the municipality may be ordered to modify the treatment to address the TCE. We have even added temporary treatment to large systems with TCE problems. One other thing about TCE is that if it enters a ground water system, it will cause a biological regime to establish in that aquifer. TCE will release chlorine in the decomposition process and that is often toxic to some ground water microbes. Sometimes the insitu bacteria are suitable and sometimes others are introduced or often iron is added to assist. If TCE is allowed to decompose and anaerobic conditions exist the byproduct of vinyl chloride is released. Vinyl chloide is a much more serious problem than the original TCE. A contaminant like TCE or benzene garners more notice than some natural contaminant because it is from an industrial source. The media loves that sort of action and seem to post all sorts of innuendo. Erin Brokinvich seems top have a long reach.

I added benzene to the discussion because most people panic at any level of benzene in drinking water, as should be expected. The other issue I have with benzene is that every time you use a self serve gas station and get wiffs of the gasoline you are filling your gas tank with you breath air born benzene and this air source of benzene is far more adverse to your health than water born entered into the digestive tract.

The goal for both contaminants is zero in drinking water supplies. And this is generally the objective for all operators of water treatment plants. They are the first persons to advocate for better treatment or removal of source problem.

I also drink tap water with little or no concern.

Two points:

* I can taste (or smell, I guess) chlorine and I don't like it (I guess maybe what I smell is actually something that is the result of chlorine interacting with something else in the water--I forget the name of the chemical I actually smell), but, I put my drinking water in (glass) bottles and leave it in the refrigerator for 6 or more hours and that smell/taste disappears

* lead can become a problem downstream of the water treatment facility--in other words, much lead can come from fixtures within your home, especially if you have lead pipes. Note also that brass and even chrome plated brass contain and can leach lead. Likewise tin-lead soldered copper pipes. I don't worry too much about tin-lead soldered pipes because in a properly (I know) soldered joint there is very little surface area of solder exposed to the water (the area between the concentric pipes, which are fairly tight fitting anyway).

I do take the precaution of not cooking with or drinking hot water, as because it is hot, and also because it sits longer in the pipes (you don't run hot water as often as cold), it may contain more leached lead per unit volume.

IIUC, your (government supervised) water treatment facility has some obligation to deal with lead even if it enters the water downstream of the treatment facility (especially if it is in their lead or lead/tin soldered pipes, but I think even if it is in your pipes). I'm not sure they'll test for lead at your home for free or a subsidized cost, but if lead is a problem, they can add a chemical (can't recall the name) to the water that tends to coat the inside of pipes and minimize lead leaching.

Of course, if you're in an older house with hard water, the inside of your pipes may already have a coating (that you may someday have to deal with).

Also, not too long ago, lead based solder was "outlawed". To me, that makes sense for domestic water piping. It doesn't make sense (in my mind) for electronic circuits.

What? Tin-Lead solder has been illegal in residential homes for decades, and City systems don't use soldered metal pipes. It must be a really old house, pre-1980s.

That got me curious to find out (at least a first approximation) when it became banned--quoting from a quick google search on ["tin lead solder" outlawed]:

'

Sources of Lead

In 1986, Congress banned the use of lead solder containing greater than 0.2% lead, and restricted the lead content of faucets, pipes and other plumbing ...

www.health.state.ny.us › Lead - Cached

'

My house was built in 1980. It's younger than I am ;-)

Lead is one of the parameters that the utility must treat to reduce the level to 0.015 mg/L or less. The treatment technology must address the problem with corrosive/scale characteristic of the water. Usually the utility will adjust the pH, alkalinity or add calcium content. The normal way to determine the scale index of the water is to measure the Langlier Index based on the hardness, alkalinity, TDS, pH, and temperature. Google Langlier's Index and you will find copious calculators and descriptions. As a rule when the water is heated it becomes more scale forming and less corrosive. The opposite is true in cold water.

Although, not common in wells servicing municipal water, we have found many private wells exceeding lead from raw water. Lead is usually not very soluble so finding it above the criteria was a cause for concern. In one survey,we had sampled more than 300 wells and about 35% were adverse for lead. We even had the lab redo the results in two different techniques to confirm these results.

This was a puzzle because we sampled raw well water before it entered the house. Submersible pumps in wells had been recalled back in the 70s for lead content in brass. As all the wells sampled were drilled in the late 80s and early 90s, we ruled out lead content in the pumps and pump fittings. However, in each of the wells with elevated lead we were able to detect a significant level of biofouling indicators (TKN, NH3, NO2, NO3, TOC, P, and HPC bacteria). It was interesting to find out that once we shocked each of the wells with a large dose of Hydrogen Peroxide and flushed the wells to remove the biofouling problem, that the lead also disappeared. It is surmised that the geological formations (variable formations) drilled in each of these wells contained lead ores. As the well became biofouled with a consortium of bacteria (not all bacteria are of a health concern) the underlying layer of slime formed was adjacent to the open rock formation. Sulfate reducers looking for a source of sulfate would harvest ore with such sulphate attached (lead sulphate). The well would then produce a slight odour of hydrogen sulfide and of course then mobilized the lead in ion form. Other heavy metals a similarily released into a water supply.

I report this problem as most home owners are unaware of this type of reducing potential and the relationship with lead. It is as important for private owners of water supplies to test their water in a thorough manner and have it interpreted by a trained professional familiar with ground water chemistry and microbiology.

Another issue may crop up is that although lead solder is banned in water supply plumbing, lead solder is still available and often used in heating systems. As a lot of companies operate plumbing and heating installation and lead free solder and lead solder look alike, it is easy to mix the solder in even new house plumbing. Most companies a reputable and make sure there a re no crossovers but still be wary.

FYI

Hmm, that actually seems a bit odd, sounds a bit backwards. I think there was something more involved there, as Lead in the presence of a Sulfide ion is extremely insoluble (something like a pKsp of 30) and will precipitate out readily, unlike lead sulphate which is fairly soluble (a pKsp of about 4.4). Lead sulfates in the form of anglesite (lead sulfate ore) actually derive from oxidation of the surfaces over time of galena (lead sufide ore). Anglesite is almost always associated with larger core deposits of galena.

Sulfides would be an extremely effective way to actually remove Lead. Oxidizing bacteria such as theobacillus, can make lead soluble and decrease the pH, the decreased pH and increased ionic strength then can dissolve some of the galena increasing the sulfide ion (and associated lead) by a little bit. (Theobacillus are also far more rapid produces at converting sulfide to sulfate than desulfovibrio at the reverse process.) I suspect you may have seen a higher sulfate concentration and lower pH.

These are unique environments to say the least. (That is the layer underlying the biofilm). The water sample would not reflect the true nature of the local environment but would provide hints. Not all of the wells with lead had sulfide present but significant numbers did. The water in the main stream of the well would sometimes even represent a more oxidized well. Nitrates were sometimes detected for example. Francis Chappelle had reported a similar finding with Barium as the released ion into the water supply. It is interesting also to note that a small community named Galena exists within the study area (Northern Ontario granitic formation). However some wells were quite remote from the shield country in clay overlying limestone. we can only surmise that the clay was from erosion of the shield material and deposited in the last ice age retreat. It also seems that the biofilm may have a mechanism to kick out the lead as it would also be toxic to the bacteria contained. These biofilms are very complex with many different types of microbes and they usually all work as a community to protect the health of the biofilm.

I agree Lead is extremely insoluble and that added to the mystery. It may have been we actually sampled some reacted form of the lead but our sample bottles are acidified to preserve the sample and would put the lead back in solution. Either way the lead was found in the water.

We were promised a substantial amount of money to investigate this characteristic of biofouled wells and had even hired grad students and connected with Queens University Civil department to try to produce a report and give precautions. We had both a microbiologist and a chemist on staff and they checked out the samples taken. The lead did disappear after cleaning the wells 9they were in the 12 to 15 year old use). We had reached the point of having control wells drilled and had arranged to sample many water supplies over a longer period of time. Unfortunately, the government agency had pulled the funding and we never got very far. I am retired now but the project intrigued me to no end. I still maintain an interest in the biofouling of wells and the relationship of parameters found in drinking water.

A major concern for private water supplies is the real lack of essential sampling parameters and a good knowledge base to explain them. Ground water microbiology has only been a recent (past 30 years or so) development in North America. When I first started to explore the subject I had to resort to the many Russian scientific literature. They seemed to be miles ahead at one time. Of course today there are many people involved in the field. I am not aware of anyone concerned about lead in private water supplies. But it still would make a worthwhile study.

Not exactly what i was saying. As a former chemist, i was trying to indicate lead cations in the presence of sulfide anions will precipitate and is forms and extremely insoluble compound. In even a slightly oxidized environment lead sulfide is relatively rapidly transformed to lead sulfate. I would suspect what you would see is some form of organo sulfide that is degraded. Most proteins contain thiol components from cysteine and methionine. Organo-sulfides can be many orders of magnitude more soluble.

Also nitrates do not necessarily require the presence of a oxidizing environment, they are highly soluble and could have former above the aquifer, which is typical, from nitrosomonas/nitrobacter activities. Nitrates are typically used as a strong indicator of biological activities, such as organic materials degradation, such that the leachate transitions between a highly reduced oxygen poor state to one of slightly greater oxygen (it is a highly pH dependent biological chain reaction). Nitrates are a good indicator of organic materials and/or waste, such as fecal waste.

Wouldn't sulfate ores already release those compounds anyways, even without the biofilms, since they are already fairly soluble and only formed by precipitation due to evaporation of the ancient waters in which they were dissolved (gypsum is a sign of an extremely dry environment). Sulfide ores on the other hand when exposed to thiobacillus routinely go through a oxidation that transforms them it to a nearly insoluble ore to a water soluble sulfate compound and at the same time acidify the water. This is actually the reaction that occurs in acid mine waste, the sulfide ores get transformed when exposed to oxygen, by the thiobacillus into a heavy metal containing sulfuric acid drainage waste.

Under anaerobic conditions that exist on the underside of the biofilm, I doubt if thiobacillus is a factor. In surface water where mining waste is an issue, these microbes are a more important factor.

The anaerobic conditions that exist under the biofilms would mean that sulfate reducing bacteria and perhaps even some methanogens are entrained in the biofilm environment. The production of H2S by the sulphate reducing bacteria is limited in the water supply by a source of sulphate. Sulphate in gypsum or anhydrite formations is expected to be high in the water column. However, under the biofilm, often in wells high in sulphate, the amount of sulphate for respiration is limited. Bacteria have been around a long time and adapt to shortages by using the sulphate ore as the source of sulphate. As the sulphate component of the ore is reduced, the metal associated with the mineral is ionized and moves to the biofilm. Many bacteria thrive on metals and some are adsorbed in the biofilm better than others. The research is relatively new in the whole field of ground water microbiology. Francis chappelle (recommended in my first post) has published a good book (many typos and poor references but still a good technical book). We are certain of increased barium in water from microbial respiration of sulphate ores. Radium and lead are also possibilities. There exist microbes that induce arsenic and the capabilities of ground water microbiology should not be underestimated. The subject of groundwater microbiology and geochemistry is very interesting. Many good articles can be found in Russian scientific circles but the west has finally caught on in the last couple of decades. Here is a least one article.

Testing of ground water wells is important for public water but should be no less important for private individuals depending on groundwater. Biofouled wells point to inadequate maintenance. sometimes the corrections are simple.

sulfate ore? h2s?

Gypsum is the primary form of a sulfate ore, most every sulfate ore behaves very similar to gypsum, with gypsum being the primary dissolved form of sulfate mineral in water (just because it is so common compared to other forms of sulfate ores). Something seems very backwards here, like you are confusing sulfate ores with sulfide ores, and confusing h2s gas with sulfide anions dissolved in water. You can actually have a substantial amount of hydrogen sulfide gas entrained in water without much sulfide ion being present. It is only soluble at 4 g per liter, and the pKa for bisulfide and sulfide ions is only about 6.9, and 12.0. Lead is a very rapid and strong precipitation reaction with Sulfide. Sulfate minerals are primaraily derived from surface oxidation of sulfide ores (such as galena and pyrite) in oxygen rich environments (some small amount comes from the atmosphere and percolation), and solvation of those surface sulfates into percolating waters followed by precitipitation in very dry environments downstream.

No confusion with the ore, although, some Galena ore (PbS) certainly exists in the environment. However, that ore is not an available form of sulphur for sulphate reducers (SRB). It remains an important investigation for some intrigued hydrogeologist. The underside of the biofilm can be very acidic and perhaps not so unlike a mine waste. During investigations, we had often been told that wells were contaminated with heavy oils only to discover the black slime are some form of metal sulphide found under the biofilm. That black slime deposits corresponds well with your surmising above. Barium can be be released by the microbial (SRB) action on barite (BaSO4). Lead as PbSO4 also exists and it is believed that the SRB action on this ore can release Pb. It is not a well understood nor a well researched problem in dealing with ground water. The Barium issue has been researched as well as radium and the mechanism is with sulphate ores. The natural sulphate concentration is often very low in Canadian shield areas. If anhydrite is present the SO4 concentration can be high indeed. The geology is metamorphic and gypsum is not common.

Ground water can be retained in a geological formation for many millennia. Groundwater is usually very limited in nutrients and in movement. Bacteria need both a food source and a space which to thrive. A well drilled into a geological formation provides the surface area for biological colonization and the pumping of the well assures a continued deliver of trace nutrients with the water movement. My feeling that when lead is found it is a complex form with the organic material within the biofilm. The transfer is microbial and not direct ionization into the water. The movement could occur during periods of heavy drawdown and the sloughing of biofilm material into the water. Whatever the form, it is not a desirable element in a water supply. We got rid of lead when we got rid of the biofilm. Regular well maintenance is an easy and inexpensive cure for many metal or sulphide problems driven by microbes. Sulphate reducing bacteria are very common and the sulphide presented by well water is a positive indication of biofouling.

You do have a fertile mind and I like that characteristic. I was not fully aware of the formation of H2S in the absence of SRB, but it can make sense in the extreme environments of a biofouled well. It is too bad it is so difficult to test for full identification of reducing bacteria unless it comes for some sort of funded study. These biofilms are indeed complex with a huge consortium of different bacteria. And these consortia vary considerably from region to region and within the same well. The whole area of groundwater microbiology and geochemistry as a paired study is only in its infancy and I am sure there will be a better understanding of these disciplines in the not to distant future. Great contribution and it makes the participation in CR4 enjoyable.

I live in NYC and use a triple filter osmosis system, What is this some NYC neurotic nut. I don't think so as the topic took me into a little research. Hmmmmm, To me the big question is "do I trust government and big business to put the people first" If I remember correctly when Georgie boy's crew took over the White House the concept was "less government" at which point he brought in chemical-Christie Whitman (ex-govenor chemical ally NJ) to run the EPA. Why, you may ask, it was part of the less government plan. let the chemical and petroleum companies police themselves, we can trust them, just like we did in the gulf of Mexico. In the late 40's yep, 1940's dupont at deepwater NJ and a couple of other companies (http://www.fluoridealert.org/salem-peaches.htm) were sued for burning chemicals that polluted farm land, government stepped in put a stop to the suite. Human exposure to fluoride has mushroomed since World War II, due not only to fluoridated water and toothpaste, but to environmental pollution by major industries from aluminum to pesticides: fluoride is a critical industrial chemical. http://www.fluoridealert.org/WN-414.htm http://www.fluoridealert.org/mullenix-interview.htm Three years ago, when DuPont and the Army reached an agreement to ship the VX nerve agent from Indiana across several states to New Jersey for treatment, our Sierra Club Chapter joined with Delaware Riverkeeper, Green Delaware and Concerned Indiana Residents, and other groups, to defeat the project. Congressman Rob Andrews, D- NJ 1st Congressional District, was the first elected official to jump in to help the opposition and defend NJ's environment and the health of the Delaware River eco-system. Congressmen Saxton and LoBiondo soon joined forces along with then-Senator Corzine. http://www.sjenvironmentaljustice.org/initiatives/vx-deepwater.htm http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000GWQX.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1986%20Thru%201990&Docs=&Query=700887008%20or%20nj%20or%20epa%20or%20deepwater&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=pubnumber%5E%22700887008%22&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=pubnumber&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C86THRU90%5CTXT%5C00000007%5C2000GWQX.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1 One of my enjoyments is flyfishing, PA and NY restock the rivers with trout, why you might ask, is it due to over fishing or is it because the rivers are somewhat polluted? My understanding is due to pollution. It's part of the old saying what goes up must come down, if one takes into consideration all the stacks that are burning whatever crap they burn it has to land somewhere and will eventually end up in our drinking water. How does government protect us? with Chlorene and fluoride's. This does not work for me and so it's up to me to protect myself and filter as best I can. Shoot, I can go on for days by researching more and more on this topic, but then I will, turn into some "nutty professor" type of neurotic nut! I'm going to stay with my filtration system. all the best

What are you on about? and what does this have to do with aqueous sulfide ions and lead ions in groundwater samples?

WHO should force UN member states to supply clean water and air ,failing which aid to those countries be suspended.

? The member States that can afford to require clean air & water quality controls that violate them, such as some places in the US, or China, do not receive WHO funds. Cutting aid to those 2nd and 3rd world countries that can not afford those controls would just make them worse. The WHO doesn't supply enough money to clean up all the water and air, and doesn't even approach a significant portion of what would be required to do such. So placing stringent requirements that States that receive any Loans clean up everything would just make the States either not accept loans (the honest States), or fraudulently decieve the WHO and control the information stream about their conditions. If i was going to loan you $1 for 40 years at 1% interest to clean up one project, but require you to immediately untake $1,000,000 worth of clean up projects, would you accept that loan?

In addition the concept of what clean air and water is very ambiguous, just in the US alone there is a difference in water quality and air quality standards from State to State. If you tell someone they can reduce their chance of getting cancer over the course of the next 70 years of their life by 1 in 1 million people, but they will lose their job, which do you think the voting public would prefer? implementing mandatory Clean Air and Clean Water standards against sovereign nations violates the sovereignty of their people to choose.

I'm happy with the water supplied by authorities. However I am worried about the reticulation system. We had a burst main. After 2 weeks and several emails, the (cast iron) main was fixed using a length of PVC pipe. The water had an awful taste afterwards for several months.

Also I wonder just how good the quality was after recent floods in the hinterland, bringing down soil, farm waste, fertiliser, sewage, vehicles, animals, and chemical containers stored in sheds.

It's funny (very sad really) to me that here in the U.S., municipal water supplies are about the safest you can get and yet people continue to get into their cars every day and put themselves at much, much higher risk without a second thought.

The public in general has no clue and no perspective on risk management.

I drink my tap water every day. I even read the annual water report from the county with the test results over the past year. What me worry?

I have no problem with drinking our tap water, in fact most tap water is safe to drink, there are rules and laws that make sure our drinking water is safe to drink!

Xanasax

Egads! Do you mean to say that 'Government' (in the form of standards) might actually serve the people?? Shall we call it Obamawater?

Well, I would not go that far. There are regulations that set standards for water quality. However, this is based on routine samplings, sometimes 1 time per year, testing protocols and compliance standards differ based on the water source, groundwater versus surface water versus tertiary treated wastewater. Excessive noncompliance will trigger a fine. So as is the case in some small municipalities (particularly those dependent on groundwater in agricultural areas) the cost of compliance is balanced against the cost of mitigating the water quality issues. No one goes to jail (or is held personally accountable) because your water does not comply to regulatory standards. Additionally, many regulatory agencies give municipalities a pass on compliance if they claim to lack the resources to upgrade systems to meet regulation or address changing conditions. Frequently, you may find wells moved to a reserve status for supply augmentation during peak summertime demands even when municipalities can afford new supplies (and of course the water quality testing is frequently limited during these periods when that well is active, after all who needs a fine if you can wait a week and do the sampling when that well is offline again). Many constituents mobilize differently as changing system demands change the subsurface hydrology. Plus water quality can deteriorate as agriculture contributes pesticide/herbicides, salts, and nutrients; and urban land users contribute PCE, fuels, lubricants, and different pesticide/herbicides (e.g. roundup); as groundwater levels fluctuate moving polluted waters sometimes in and out of pumping zones; etc.. Surface water can be worse in some cases, because transient spikes in water quality occur more rapidly and at larger levels, and response times can be much slower than the transients occur. Really what you have is a improved statistical probability that the water quality is better on average, with hopefully a reduced deviation.

Even for the very smallest regulated system there are requirements for operation, testing, and frequency. For example, rural day cares must test for bacteria quality weekly and have a licensed operator visit the site at least weekly. Depending on the type of treatment and water source (groundwater, surface water, or ground water under the influence of surface water) the frequency of sampling can vary. There is a prescribed level of sampling dictated by regulation. Certain parameters are weekly, monthly, bi annual, annual, and again others suite of parameters may be every five years. if a certain parameter was of concern the operation certificate would ask for better surveillance and possibly treatment. In order to avoid daily sampling for turbidity and chlorine residuals we would often install automatic systems and put them on SCADA systems. It proved to be much cheaper than sending operators out every day. The demands for reporting adverse samples are very stringent and unforgiving, at least in the province I live. Operators become very proud and would not let an incident happen to cause human injury. After watching the water works industry evolve over more than 40 years, I have no problem with any regulated water supply. I do with the unregulated or the quasi regulated like rural restaurants and camp grounds. It is my understanding that the AWWA (OWWA in Ontario) and the governments have agreed to these levels of operation. They are supposed to be applied across the board.

The operator must meet standards of qualification and submit to testing and apprenticeship. These standards of testing exist through out Canada and USA and are transportable from one jurisdiction to the other. Once qualified, the operator must take a minimum of upgraded training by attending formal class, seminars, and other training as available. He must undertake at least 60 hours every 3 years but varies according to the level. So the operator must keep up to date on water treatment at all times.

I am not aware of any small community that tries to fudge the system but anything is possible. Our company was private and not politically connected. It was our responsibility to take representative samples and even to prepare annual reports. I know of many other companies doing the same thing and am confident that they did not commit hanky-panky. Even wells that were on standby are subject to regular sampling for the very reason you stated. The wells had to be ready to be put in service at any time. I really have no qualms at all with regulated water. Yes all sampling is a statistical average but really there is no room for messing the test results. An agent who operated that way would be caught fairly quick.

And thus the difference between a engineer who walks onsite to observe how practices occur, and a purveyor of a privatized business line who offers service. There is always room to "fudge". Sampling by personnel is a precarious activity. The time when samples are collected is an issue just during the day. Off-line wells do not get sampled as routinely in any municipality i have reviewed records for (or at least official records). Almost no municipality in California employs turbidity testing on wells, and on only a few municipalities that use large centralize well pump stations have i seen automated chlorine/pH testing. Most municipalities used decentralized well networks comprised of 1 wellhead at differing locations in the water distribution network. Surface water is more stringent, but then variations in water quality also happen more frequently and for shorter durations at higher concentrations. Sampling anything 1 every 5 years that changes as rapidly as surface water quality isn't really representative of the average quality of the water, even dioxin. It really just means the quality during the 2 minutes it took to collect the sample out of the 2,628,000 minutes in 5 years.

60 hours every 3 years, that is equivalent to 2.5 working days per year. It only takes a GED and a exam to get a T-1 license, and a GED and (1) 3 unit course for a T-2. Heck, if you have a bachelors degree in engineering you can take th exam and recieve a T-4 license right off, or just work 6 years as a operator with a GED (4 of which can be as a wastewater operator). Not, in colloquial terminology, "Rocket Science". Thus you should not expect any more than any one else with a GED who has 6 years working, I am quite positive that a chemist would find horrible flaws in sampling procedures if they conducted a site review and audit.

You display a lot of cynicism and I suspect you do not drink municipal tap water. I have worked on both sides of the fences. Both as a government inspector and a private purveyor of water. Even back in the 60s there were operators that would lean on every bit of information you could provide. There was always a pride present even if these people were not qualified. And to whose benefit does fudging results or test procedures advantage? It was never a consideration in the company I operated. It was not even a remote possibility for the staff at water treatment systems. All the operators I know could never afford the penalty nor the loss of job and fine that a fraud would present.

Most small plants, nursing homes, retirement villages, schools, etc had applied some form of automatic monitoring with auto chlorine residuals and turbidity. We supplied the equipment and software as well as the storage of data. The automation was not as expensive as the cost of an operator working on site. I am not sure why California would behave different. You scoff at the present qualifications but you were not around when municipalities took welfare roll clients and put them in the water plant. Yes an engineer can obtain a class 4 license with little knowledge of the water treatment plant. That same engineer takes on a lot of responsibility to get up to speed very quickly.

Actually the time to upgrade is 1 week per year based on class time. Usually, that is a very expensive proposition for a small business as it was responsible for payday, expenses, and tuition. If your company has 10 employees that can add up very fast.

Don't underestimate the pride and the willingness of these operators to learn and provide better service. Today's water treatment operator has much more credibility than you have suggested. I will drink regulated water anytime before bottled water and suggest that in most areas similar conditions exist.

I have to add one more comment on this issue. Most people in the US and Canada don't know how good they have it. There are areas in the US and possibly Canada where the water is not so safe. I am living in the middle of one of the oldest oilfields in the world. There was no concern for safe surface casing when these wells were drilled in. Wood was acceptable, and we all know what happens to wood after 120 years. The municipalities have monitored water that seems to be fine, most from reservoirs, but when you go rural, which most of the area is, and must drill your own well, you are guarenteed to be tapping an oil tainted aquifer. The well in the house I lived in from 1982 to 1999 would run a few drops of oil out when the faucet was first turned on. This can not be very good for ones health. Yes - water filters are a very good selling item around here.

So drink your city tap water. It has to be far safer than the well water around here.

Phys:

I think you have hit on one of the cruxes of rural water. Old wells and faulty construction, particularly with casing, is problematic not only in oil fields but most anywhere. I have seen stove pipe stuck in the ground and called casing. There are rules and regulations guiding well construction today but they were not always in place. Sealing of annular spaces (the space between the borehole and the casing) was seldom done or seldom done properly. I can remember assembling well drillers and experienced well cementers and holding seminars to pass the techniques of grouting back to the drillers in the field. Those were eye opening days (early 70s) and the drilling and regulatory staff came away much better. Of course some drillers reverted back but could now face the wrath of regulations if something went awry. We made drillers install wells with supervision so that we could verify casing sealed properly. A few court cases put delinquent well drillers with hefty fines and a long term responsibility for their careless construction. Today, most drillers are willing to comply and pass any extra costs on to their customers. These were wells drilled in small rural villages on wells and septic systems.

Abandoning old wells remains a problem in most areas today. There are many wells that still allow surface water to enter them and contaminate aquifers. Programs have been attempted to locate and seal these wells but it is an ongoing slow battle. Many homes, once on well water, have reverted to municipal water and the old well remains buried but not sealed in the back yard.

If you experience obtaining water from a tainted aquifer, a prescribed treatment needs to be applied. It is problematic for rural people and most people moving do not realize they must become their own utility operator. I am an advocate for testing wells, thoroughly every time a house changes hands in a rural environment. It is a critical part of home inspection that is often overlooked by the regular house inspector whose forte is carpentry. It is a case of what you don't see can hurt you. There are many aspects to the testing and it sometimes can get very expensive. We have always had a base set of samples we would recommend and upon review of those results we could recommend further testing.

I am glad that you are still around after drinking that oil tainted water all those years. City tap water is generally well tested, monitored, and in the hands of professionals. |I love my rural property and my well water. But then I can tell you what it is like both chemically and microbially most of the time. I know my casing was installed properly and made sure it was pumped and tested to a high degree. I also put a large dose of peroxide, about 900 mg/L, in the well and flush the water out of it every six months.

Abandoning old wells remains a problem in most areas today. There are many wells that still allow surface water to enter them and contaminate aquifers. Programs have been attempted to locate and seal these wells but it is an ongoing slow battle. Many homes, once on well water, have reverted to municipal water and the old well remains buried but not sealed in the back yard.

Other problems arise from the old wells too. In South Eastern Ohio there is a good size storage field for natural gas that uses the old depleted oil field sands. When they first pressured that field up, they found they had missed a large number of abandoned wells because recording of wells was not required in the early 1900's. I spent a good portion of 1 year roaming the area with an instrument that measured deflections in the earth's magnetic field trying to find wells they had missed. All this after one was located by accident beside the foudation of an elementary school when the natural gas suddenly opened a rather large pit as it blew out to atmosphere. The recording of wells is the biggest issue with locating abandoned ones as the records never existed.

I drink tap water and it tastes OK - don't know if it IS OK or not, but I am not aware of any problems with it to date.

I'm concerned about very small particles of radioactive dust in the tap water due to the Japan reactor problems. Also, I'm concerned about what will be in the water in the event of a "dirty bomb" attack or a similar reactor problem here in the USA.

Could radioactive particles in the water be a problem, or do they filter it sufficiently that it isn't a problem? To what level do I need to filter the water to eliminate such problems? Filters down to about 0.5 micron are available; and reverse osmosis filters are much finer, but the RO filters waste 1/3 gallon for each gallon of clean water supplied. I also wonder if RO water is really safe to drink - isn't it agressive? Would it leach minerals out of your body?

I am assuming you are on a regulated system. If you are then you can generally rest assured that it is sampled and meets the regulatory requirements. Further treatment at your tap is not required. Almost all water and in particular ground water does contain some level of radionuclides. The testing for specific isotopes is generally expensive, so if you are on a private sytem, I would suggest you talk to some of the local government agencies involved to see if you live in a particular vulnerable area. The operational cost of your public utility should reflect these costs and its not too bad when spread over several thousand homes.

i have attached a link to more treatment information. Generally 1 micron filtration or particle count is applied. Surface water must be equipped with chemically assisted filtration. Bear in mind that the consumption of water over a very long period of years is required to cause problems. I would not lose any sleep over a terrorist attack, if something is close enough to effect your water supply you likely will not know about it.