USA Water Filter Blog

In “New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer” (column, May 6), Nicholas D. Kristof drew attention to a document being released by the President’s Cancer Panel that warns that, in Mr. Kristof’s words, “our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.”

Mr. Kristof argues that “protecting ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties can get behind — if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public interest ahead of corporate interests,” and I could not agree more.

While our government and industries may have little control over enormous pollution disasters like the recent oil spill and the health and environmental repercussions they will create, closer regulation of potentially carcinogenic chemicals is within our reach and should be looked at much more seriously.

Eden Stiffman
Ann Arbor, Mich., May 6, 2010

•

To the Editor:

If Nicholas D. Kristof’s intention was to frighten his readers, he succeeded with this one. As a physician, I am aware of the multiple risks in our environment. I pause when wrapping a cut lemon in plastic wrap before putting it in the refrigerator. But to see a comprehensive and formal alert by the presidential panel makes one feel doomed.

Jose Sotolongo
Kingston, N.Y., May 6, 2010

•

To the Editor:

As a survivor of Stage IV non-Hodgkins lymphoma, I found that Nicholas D. Kristof’s column resonated with me, and had several healthful tips.

I better understand now why our daughter, with two preschool children, rejected the plastic microwave cover we brought one day, and let the sod in the backyard go untreated with weedkiller.

A useful gadget for children and parents is a water pen, which gives a digital readout when dipped in water at school, in parks, when traveling and so on. The variations in water quality are significant, especially between filtered and nonfiltered tap water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/opinion/l08kristof.html

NSA Water Filters

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lead in public water cannot exceed .015 mg/liter in more than 10% of tap water samples.  The EPA also claims lead in tap water can cause mental deficits in learning and attention span in children. (1)

The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) states 10 micrograms (ug) per deciliter (dl) is an elevated lead level within blood. (2) In a  1998 sample of 19 states, the CDC found that 7.6 percent of children tested had elevated blood lead levels (BLL). In Ohio, some counties had BLLs in 27.3 percent of tested children.(2)

The affects of lead poisoning can be gradual as lead builds up and is stored in the body’s kidneys. A wide range of lead related symptoms, temporary or longer term brain damage is reported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health(NIH).(3) These potential affects of lead are lowered IQ, difficulty concentrating, learning dysfunction, seizures and coma.

Mary Beth St. Clair and Sandra A. Zaslow of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service have claimed in a study of water quality and waste management that lead free water is an unenforceable goal. This is in part due to the lack of maximum lead level allowed in tap water by the EPA.(4)

In a 2004 Washington Post investigation, it was discovered multiple cities throughout the United States had tampered with municipal water lead level results. This was later confirmed by a congressional report on the CDC’s use of bad data to assess D.C. water contamination levels according to Jessica Gresko of the Associated Press.(8) Among the highest polluted water supplies was that of Washington D.C., and it is believed that both the EPA and city water suppliers may have been avoiding enforcement and costly repairs to the water systems.(5)

http://www.helium.com/items/1845776-what-does-lead-in-tap-water-do-to-the-brain

NSA Water Filters

San Diego, CA: Just when you thought it was safer to bypass the tap and reach for the bottled water, comes word that some brands of bottled water have been found to contain up to 100 times more bacteria than the stuff that flows out of your tap.

As reported this morning by CanWest News Service, researchers in Canada purchased and tested a variety of brands of bottled water. What they found surprised them: many of the popular brands contained “surprisingly high” levels of heterotrophic bacteria.

“Heterotrophic bacteria counts in some of the bottles were found to be in revolting figures of (100) times more than the permitted limit,” said Sonish Azam, a researcher from C-crest Laboratories in Montreal, in comments published in a news release.

Incredibly, more than 70 percent of the popular brands of bottled water tested failed to meet standards set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia, the non-governmental agency responsible for setting safety standards for medications and health care products.

The researchers came up with the idea for the study after one of their number complained of foul-tasting bottled water that made the individual ill.

While there were no pathogens found in the test samples, the high bacteria counts were a concern. No more than 500 colony-forming units (cfu) of bacteria per milliliter should be present in drinking water, according to the USP.

In tap water, the average cfu count was found to be 170 per milliliter. In comparison, some bottled water samples were found to contain a staggering 70,000 cfu per milliliter.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/14238/bottled-water-bacteria.html

NSA Water Filters

As the mercury soars, so does the prevalence of waterborne infections like typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and diarrhoea. The World Health Organisation attributes 88 per cent of the four billion cases of diarrhea that occur annuallyto unsafe water, inadequate sanitation and hygiene.
The water we use at homes comes primarily from underground bore well tanks or municipality supply. Most of the tap, underground and well water is not safe for drinking due to heavy industrial and environmental pollution, and has impurities of microbial (bacteria, viruses etc.) and chemical (lead, nitrate, arsenic, chromium and fluoride) nature. Toxic bacteria, chemicals and heavy metals pollute our natural water sources.

Whether we receive water from a bore well or a community water system, it must be treated at the point of use. A good water filtration system installed in our home is the only way to ensure the safety of drinking water. Water from community water system is commonly treated/purified at home level by boiling, filtration, purification or reverse osmosis. The aim for safe drinking water should be to minimise the count of microbes, chemical toxins and pesticides, and retain useful minerals like calcium and magnesium.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Take-a-safe-sip/624983/

NSA Water Filters

The report also found that almost three quarters of respondents (71%) agreed that tap water is as clean as bottled water.

The results echo the findings of a survey carried out by the charity WaterAid in 2009, which found that around two thirds of consumers are now opting for tap water when they visit restaurants.

This report coincides with new findings released by C-Crest Laboratories in Canada, where Dr. Sonish Azam claims that 70% of bottled water found in shops contains high levels of bacteria.

James McCoy, research director for YouGov SixthSense, said: “The mineral water market has experienced exponential growth over the past ten years but signs are this may be coming to an end. New reports are significant in altering the interrelated perceptions of tap water and bottled water, but the recession, innovations in home filtering and the popularity of Britta-style products may also have contributed to the renewed faith in tap-water.”

http://www.eatoutmagazine.co.uk/online_article/60_percent-of-adults-view-bottled-water-as-waste-of-money/10954

NSA Water Filters

In response to citizen and community concerns about the safety of water resources, state Senator Lisa Baker is preparing a series of bills to provide additional protections to drinking water sources.

“As more drilling takes place in our region, it increases the chances of something going wrong,” Baker said. “Prevention and protection are preferable to crisis management and emergency response. Individuals and groups are taking a hard look at state laws and regulations, finding restrictions that seem too slight in contrast to the consequences of human error or technological failure and offering constructive suggestions on steps that should be taken.”

In order to protect aquifers and determine any adverse consequences attributable to drilling, one bill would require testing at three times – before drilling, at the completion of drilling and six months afterwards – at three different depths.

A second bill would rule out drilling at sites too close to drinking water sources such as reservoirs.

A third bill would require DEP to ensure that the operators of wastewater treatment facilities are properly trained and sufficiently monitored to lessen the chances of human error creating a major problem.

Baker said that some of the costs would be borne by the gas companies.

Oversight costs could be paid for through a severance tax which is expected to be debated in the coming weeks. She reiterated her opposition to any severance tax plan that would devote the revenue generated to filling a hole in the state budget, rather than providing for community protection in drilling areas.

http://www.timesleader.com/TheDallasPost/news/Baker_prepares_bills_to_protect_drinking_water_05-30-2010.html

NSA Water Filters

We nonchalantly take tap water for granted – its cleanliness and its availability are the reasons why.

America’s supply is safer than most, courtesy of the Safe Drinking Water Act signed by President Gerald Ford in 1974 and strengthened by subsequent amendments.

Contrast our good fortune to that of one billion people across the globe who lack access to clean water, as reported by a faith-based world charity that provides drilling services to third world countries, and another 2.6 billion – two-fifths of the world’s population – who lack basic sanitation to safely dispose of body wastes, leading to contamination of water sources.

We’re lucky, really lucky. Twist the tap, there it is, water that, with few exceptions, is clear and cool and refreshing. Except when it’s not.

The greater Attleboro area missed by a drizzle the drinking water emergency that has left some two million Boston area residents high and dry since Saturday when a feeder pipe west of Boston broke and began spewing millions of gallons into the Charles River. Officials then warned against using tap water until contamination testing could be completed; President Barack Obama has declared this catastrophe a federal emergency. One month after rains gave us a surfeit of water, travails of the Boston area’s labyrinthine piping stoppered drinking supplies that on a normal day help us to wake up with coffee, mix baby formula, shower, brush our teeth, rinse off plates, feed our pets.

Aren’t you glad we escaped the drought? Boston’s emergency is a teachable moment: Tap water in Massachusetts is of decent quality, fine for cooking, bathing and, yes, for drinking.

You’d just never know it, not by the mountains of plastic and glass bottles that make their way into our recycling bins or, alas, into the landfill. Who says that bottled water is any better? How do you know someone’s not just pouring tap water into that fancy container?

An estimated 40 percent of bottled water, including certain popular brands, use local municipal supplies, Forbes magazine reported recently.

So who’s getting fooled to pay premium prices for a commodity that’s already assessed via taxes?

Some 286 million Americans, including folks in this area, receive tap water from a community water system. These public water systems are monitored and regulated by EPA which has authority to take control if local managers fail to attain and maintain standards. Granted, it’s not a fail-proof system – there have been outbreaks of illness attributed around the country to water-borne microbes – but by and large our supplies are fairly trustworthy, fairly tasty, certainly plentiful and cheap.

Tap water is like air, always there – nothing more than a take-it-for-granted commodity until a day arrives, as it did last week in Boston, when it’s beyond our reach and becomes the penultimate luxury. Think on that next time you look at a faucet.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2010/05/06/opinion/7343397.txt

NSA Water Filters

A new study has found high level of bacteria in bottled water in Canada.

The Montreal study showed that heterotrophic bacteria counts, in more than 70 per cent of bottled water samples, exceed the recommended limits specified by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP).

Researchers from Ccrest laboratories report their results today at the 110th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in San Diego.

“Despite having the cleanest tap water a large number of urban Canadians are switching over to bottled water for their daily hydration requirements. Unsurprisingly, the consumer assumes that since bottled water carries a price tag, it is purer and safer than most tap water,” says Sonish Azam, a researcher on the study.

Regulatory bodies such as Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada have not set a limit for the heterotrophic bacteria counts in bottled drinking water.

However, according to the USP not more than 500 colony forming units (cfu) per milliliter should be present in drinking water.

The study was initiated in response to a Ccrest employee’s complaint of fowl taste and sickness after consumption of bottled water at the company.

Azam and her colleagues randomly purchased several brands of bottled water from a local marketplace and subjected them to microbiological analysis.

They discovered more than 70 per cent of famous brands tested did not meet the USP specifications for drinking water.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life/health-fitness/health/Bottled-water-not-safe-for-drinking/articleshow/5977197.cms

NSA Water Filters

Here at Data Port headquarters we regularly receive a health news letter published by the Center For Science in The Public Interest.

The newsletter, Nutrition Action, is filled with information about the food we eat and the stuff we drink. The cover story this month is titled “H2 Uh Oh” and outlines in scary detail some of the bad stuff that may lurk in our drinking water.

“For years, people said that America has the cleanest drinking water in the world,” William K. Reilly, the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator under George H.W. Bush, told the New York Times last year.

“That was true 20 years ago. But people don’t realize how many new chemicals have emerged and how much more pollution has occurred. If they did, we would see very different attitudes.”

The risks from germs, contaminated surface water, leaking distribution pipes and plumbing (lead) are familiar. Happily, various disinfectants like chlorine can go a long way to make us safe. But according to Arizona State University’s Paul Westerhoff, director of ASU’s School of Sustainable Engineering we’re still not home free.

Chlorine combines with organic matter naturally found in water to form “hundreds of compounds called disinfection byproducts, or DBPs.”

The Nutrition Action article goes on to say, “The EPA regulates the 11 most common and best studied DBPs. Nine of the 11 cause cancer in laboratory animals.”

So what do we do? We filter. Home filters offer varying degrees of protection, but anything would be better than nothing. Costs and efficiencies vary from the simple home ‘pitcher style’ to sophisticated reverse osmosis systems.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/dataport/2010/05/27/how-safe-is-our-drinking-water/

NSA Water Filters

Six out of 10 British adults think bottled water is a waste of money, according to a report by You Gov.

The organisation said that the recession, perceived negative ecological effects and potential health risks are all influencing consumer behaviour and contributed to a 10% fall in mineral water sales in 2009.

You Gov said only 27% of adults drink bottled mineral water in an average day, compared with 58% consuming tap water.

Research director James McCoy said: “The mineral water market has experienced exponential growth over the past 10 years but signs are this may be coming to an end.

“Innovations in home filtering and the popularity of Britta-style products may also have contributed to the renewed faith in tap water.”

http://www.offlicencenews.co.uk/articles/84507/Bottled-water-a-waste-of-money-–-report.aspx?categoryid=9059

NSA Water Filters