Pesticides and Herbicides in Aquifers

So, are you telling us that fracking and smoking are good for us??? Give me a break!

I understand that you make money on petroleum, but, really.................

Next you'll be telling us that it's our imagination and that all the surface ice around the world isn't rapidly melting.

Use your head. No crap in the water till oil companies started fracking???? That's just a fabrication?????

What do pesticides have to do with fracking????

I tend to disagree with the no chemical BS.

We have had oil and other stuff in PA for years, ever here of Oil Creek.

Of course, with all of your sun, I guess solar is your choice.

Oh, O guess you do not get power off of the grid and drive a petroleum powered vehicle.

I was simply asking a question and never once stated these things were good.

I used to work in Nukes and I see them as the worst form of energy ever invented, but don't ridicule posters like you have who work in the industry.

You begin your post by ridiculing scientists and their data.

I am on the grid, etc. etc.

I believe that fracking is bad. I believe that smoking is bad. I reached these conclusions by myself, but don't think the data needed to be "cooked" for this to be true.

I'm sure that pesticides and herbicides, as well as many types of medicine are in most of our water supply and that ignoring them will only lead to problems. Just as ignoring damage done by fracking will lead to problems.

Let's be sure where the path leads before barreling down it at full speed.

Did you reach the conclusion by using sound scientific evidence or just decide for yourself?

Where is the empirical evidence and provenance for your conclusions?

If I stated anything that has not been a matter of public record in the past, I stand chastised!

Bad science has no place in discussions!

Green Groups' Attack on Fracking Based on Bad Science

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=594555&p=1

There seems to be much hysteria on both sides of the argument.

Having been personally involved in groundwater pollution lawsuits I can state with absolute certainty that the guilty party will profess innocence right up until the bitter end. Then the appeals will begin. Injured parites be damned.

I know that you will agree that "being a matter of public record" does not indicate truth or correctness nor even scientific fact.

One man's sound scientific evidence is another man's fodder for propaganda.

Cheers.

Lyn, Your sound judgement is accepted, acknowleged, and agreed with.

I guess maybe we both got up on the wrong side of the bed this AM lol

You should'a voted me OT too! I didn't even address your real question.

My answer should have been no, probably not.

Cheers.

No problem Lynn

"So, can pesticides and herbicides accumulate to a degree large enough to be ignited at the tap?"

Ignited at the tap? Yikes! Can this be used to cook more data?

This happened to me, I used to fit kitchens for a living, this one particular kitchen the owner wanted to save on the installation cost so had someone else fit all the services, on completion of the installation the plumber came to connect the water & gas, when he finished we had gas coming out the hot tap & hot water from the cold tap, guess where the hot water came out? Unfortunately all the pipes were buried in the concrete floor, not what I would call a saving on the costs.

Bazzer

I'm going to ignore the political/ethical discussion on this one and just answer the question.

"Can pesticides and herbicides accumulate to a degree large enough to be ignited at the tap?"

You'd have to say yes to this one. But it depends.

For something to ignite, it has to have combustible fuel (ie needs to be volatile), and the concentration needs to be high enough to allow ongoing combustion.

But I did a qick google search and found alot of pesticides with very large molecular formula, which will be very difficult to ignite (simply because they will be sparingly volatile).

But I do know that Methyl Bromide (very simple small gaseous molecule), would be very volatile. And it is very similar to Methane, so see no reason why Methyl Bromide would be any different and accumulate the same. So the answer is yes.

Thank you, I never meant for this to be political, but I felt the need to defend myself.

I have long been dismayed at the disregard for the environment, but fossil fuels brought us into the Industrial Revolution and without them, the world would be dark and the populace starving and freezing. My mantra is safety, quality, and integrity, and I fight my group when I feel it is necessary that they do not overlook a problem area for the sake of profit. Reason usually comes out and I have not been relieved yet.

So, thanks again, I have just seen too much lately here in Ohio with some darn lax laws concerning the oil and agricultural industries. The wells around here are so bad and some water comes out of the taps black. It really amazes me that the locals drink it even though the smell and taste are horrible. (yep, I did taste it)

I am in Indiana and have had a volatile water issue in the past. At the time, we lived on a county road next to farm land and next to a gas and diesel storage facility (six large tanks). The water was tested for the "*-icides" used in the surrounding farm land. When the facility dumped the water used to separate the fuels, our well water would stink and at times caught on fire. We were renting the house so had no say in the issue. We drank bottled water and showered at the gym whenever the water had a smell. After we moved out, I reported the facility. Mostly because my grandma lives across the street from the house we rented. Don't know if the problem ever got fixed because she had/has a very expensive water filtration/purification system.

Same as the liquified raw sewage and agri-sludge I have seen being sprayed on crop land around here this fall. I wonder what pathogens and chemicals are present in this mix.

Not sure what a red herring is, but I remember the fuss about Radon years ago and I have seen firsthand the poor quality of some PA water supplies.

It still amazes me when I think about some of the tap water offered to locals through the years from the small plants.

Red Herring: I think its a Commie fish.

It makes me wonder what the regulators (EPA) are doing. North America is supposed to have some very rigid standards governing the operators, testing, and allowable tolerances of chemicals and bacteria. It is mandated practice to report any water that exceeds quality standards. I know of cases where I live where the plant was ordered shut down and warnings were issued to all users. Sometimes hauled water would be used temporarily while an alternate safe supply is procured. However, private individuals not connected to a public supply are really on their own. Most do not know what is in their water let alone knowing how and what to sample. Private water is an area that I have ranted over as inadequately tested or treated. Most of the people in the private water industry are poorly versed in water sampling, techniques and parameters, and interpretation. I live in Ontario Canada and see many problems in many jurisdictions dealing with the private residence. Public water in USA is defined as 25 or more users (people). In Ontario it is defined as 5 or more residences. Many areas such as rural restaurants (unless they have more than 25 employees in USA) are still off the hook but must pass some health standards.

These tap water quality deficiencies mentioned here are hypothetical fantasies right?

It's surely not as bad as this. Isn't there a precursory observation of something not being quite right before it gets this bad?

The only imaginable scenario was the plumbing disaster in the kitchen. As for the rest, either I've been really lucky or it's all fiction. Never experienced tap water to be that bad.

The tap water is not a fantasy, I have seen it here in lovely Holmes County, OH.

In my youth, I lived in an area of W. PA that was famous for it's salt wells in the past, and then the oil that came after. The water coming out of the municipal authority water treatment plant had an oil sheen constantly. Remember, this is the area where raw sewage ran into the streets until a couple of years ago. The old timers just ran all sewage into the old mine shafts here for hundreds of years. A sewage treatment plant is being constructed now. I often wondered what the condition of the mine shafts were like and what may have happened because most of them were pretty shallow. We still get awesome amounts of mine subsidence around here.

You asked could pesticides and herbicides get to ignitable concentrations in tap water? I absolutely hope not! Most, if properly mixed would not ignite and it would be hoped that dilution rather than concentration would happen with whatever leached to groundwater.

But what about the toxicity levels before they get to that concentration? Many of the types of chemicals used for those purposes are lethal in accumulated doses and many below the usual human taste thresholds.

This is the age of corporate supremacy. Clean water and clean air is not going to get in the way of ROI. There is not a damX thing me or any of you can do about it but get yourself a water maker and get over it.

The public authorities test for what the lobby suggests they test for. If you really want to know what kind of contamination is occurring then get your check book out and try to find a company that can or will comprehensibly test for various forms of contamination.

What can we do - form a lobby that can beat the corporations at that game? Fat chance.

We silently accepted a lobby form of legislative process. Now it is so entrenched that there is no realistic means of changing it.

The current legislative process that controls environmental and all other policy reminds be of a very sophisticated prostitution ring. I will let you more clearly define the analogies related to the Johns, the Pimps, and the Working Girls. The real kicker here is that nobody sees anything wrong with it.

Those people shame themselves, you, me, and my country.

Gavilan

The Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act and the USA Safe Drinking Water Act are two pieces of similar legislation.I have worked extensively with the Ontario act and I know it corresponds well with the US act. The acts are very specific in the parameters tested, who can test and sample, accreditation of the labs, the frequency of testing, and the uses of additives into any water system. Any operator will tell you how onerous these acts are on a municipality or operating authority. I know of no operators willing to take short cuts to compromise quality. These operators are licensed and a failure to carry out their duty can result in serious action against not only the company but the operator. The operators must receive upgraded training every year as part of the license structure. I owned a company that managed many small water treatment plants and do remember the reporting required. The upgraded training for operators was viewed as a cost to do business. Everyone of my competitors was on the same page. I have since retired and sold my company but the rules, if anything, get stricter with time. If a problem has been detected and could possibly present a danger, it was obligatory to report the problem to 24/7 government workers. It was also mandatory that the adverse result was reported to the local health authority and appropriate measures taken to resolve the issue. The reported of the adverse condition could not leave until all the steps were taken to resolve it. So even a small positive coliform test would result in returning to the site resolving the issue and resampling, all within a small time frame. the operator would have to drop his BBQ plans and hustle to the site ASAP. Weekends be damned. I am also certain similar legislation exists in Europe and Australia with similar enforcement.

The testing is frequent and based on population served. At least once per year a complete set of parameters based on the act were required. This is in addition to the daily, weekly, or monthly parameter requirements. For example chlorine had to be monitored daily and most of the sites we operated were put on auto systems and tied into SCADA backed service. The Automatic chlorination monitoring systems saved money because without it, a licensed operator would be required to visit the site daily even if it only served a minimal of 5 units. With travel, those costs could be very high. Other parameters could be required as a result of the testing or a step up of the frequency of testing specific parameters. The plant itself was given a license to operate and the license would control who or how the plant was operated. I have always felt safe with public water supply and much less so with private supply. In fact I do not drink water that is not scrutinized as well as the public supply.

I would ask who the lobbyists are that can actually influence the legislation? As I said, I know of no operator willing to shorten the process at the risk of releasing "bad" water from a public water supply. Most of the operators and so called lobbyists are also consumers of the product produced. That said accidents do happen but usually steps are taken to abate the issue and assure it does not happen again. The bad experiences of a couple of drunken operators in Ontario a decade or so ago is on the mind of every legislator in North America and the steps taken to avoid that type of recurrence have been made. The threat of a lawsuit is powerful. If you live in an area where the aesthetic quality is so bad, I would be discussing the issue with the operators and the municipality. There are even rules for aesthetic quality. You really should not have to adjust the water received into your house to make it safe or pleasing. Hardness may be an exception.

Kevinm:

Thank you for taking the time to compose this very informative reply.

I guess I would have to give it some careful thought as to what type of corporate interests would lobby to influence environmental regulations. It is encouraging to hear an expert state that corporate interests would not override health interest given the fact that it impacts all people.

I have no doubt you are very good at detecting what you are required to test for.

I am sure the required guidelines are very specific as to what is to be tested for; but could it be possible that one or more significant health impacting substances are not included?

Are you required to test for radio-nuclides? How about Barium and the other components used in drilling and fracking.

I will assume you are confident that the testing encompasses detective measures for most harmful substances that can be found in ground and surface water.

Can you get me a link showing what substances are tested for?

Thanks again for your comprehensive reply.

Gavilan

All water supplies have radionulides sampled at set frequency. If there are no problems with the water and the population served is small, it can be once every 5 years. The frequency will be stepped up as part of the approval process if there is a problem. You can check out the EPA links.The same goes for all heavy metals including barium. Some barium does occur naturally and of course is used in the oil industry. In Ontario the Standard has been set at 1.0 mg/L. This on Barium from the Ontario Drinking Water Standard:

" The maximum acceptable concentration for barium in drinking water is 1.0 mg/L. Barium is a common constituent in sedimentary rocks such as limestone and dolomite where it is accompanied by strontium and much larger amounts of calcium. As a result, hard water contains small amounts of barium but seldom at concentrations greater than 1 mg/L. Most treatment methods used for water softening are effective for barium removal."

A professional hydrogeologist (P.Geo) is required to review and oversee all the testing required to obtain a certificate of approval. You can be assured his name will not hang on a suspect water supply. It is still the small private individual who is at risk. Sometimes the treatment applied can be more dangerous than the untreated water. Each private well presents it own series of complexity and often more complex than a public water supply. Most of the private water treatment companies have no credentials and should be limited to softeners. IMO.

Kevin,

I also thank you, as I do the others for their thoughtful comments. (well almost all)

As part of my duties, I added S&E to the mix and argued the point with my Project's Facility Manager. I made headway by being obstinate and I can at least proudly say our site is on of the only ones that has really taken this to heart and have yet had no accidents or contaminations occuring. It cost this Super Major some unplanned time and money, but it was done. I continue to monitor what I can and I am impressed with the safety plan and procedures that have been created for all of out Vendors and Contractors.

I hope it continues as we grow our teams in PA and at the Vendors and we leave a legacy for others to follow.

I love what I do, I am one of the orginal mother earthers, grew up a farm boy, and do respect and value the environment, and believe we can be good stewards of resources whilst using them.

Thanks to all of you again,

qaqcppeman

It is always a pleasure to deal with people who love what they do. That is a good measure of success. Good luck and Merry Christmas happy holidays.

Kevin

Good stewardship is indeed the key to sustainability.