Eshoo supports state look at chloramine safety
Original post made
on Aug 23, 2007
In an effort to help dozens of Peninsula residents, including 30 from Mountain View and others from Palo Alto, who say their sensitivity to chloramine has caused skin rashes and respiratory problems, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is pulling strings to allow them to speak with the state Environmental Protection Agency.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 12:13 PM
Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth F Cole MD
a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Agree chlorine is a better water disinfectant in general at this time. (However, chloramine is said to of greater efficacy in situations of gross septic contamination on an emergency level.) As for the cancer threats from the trihalomethanes austensibly caused by chlorine, chloramine itself has been reported by worthy scientists to produce them in several sites in US and this depends on the geologic substrate/native flora there where native water is susceptable before it meets the local municipality. Regarding damage to pipe structures in homes and public buildings, it is known that chloramine can cause copper pitting within pipes, leaking of water into the structure, subsequent mold damage to the buildings, each of which is unique and poorly understood by most owners. With certainty, some individuals have respiratory, eye, and skin sensitivity to chloramine. There are complex reasons why, individual's susceptablilty as well as chemical alterations able to affect populations by area. I am not sure what else results during the future, but reality is, that something we don't know is happening and that research funds for these studies is not is on the web. Ask questions of it. (Osha, also a fed govt agency did report that chloramine is one of the most frequent causes of industrial accidents, janitors for instance.) Formidable to the health of all populations individually and culturally is chloramine's capability of releasing lead from anywhere along the entire pipeline from the municipal water supplier, meters,especially in one's own home, workplace, recreation area. Lead leaching from pipes, water meters, plumbing in the building is most dangerous,least known of all, and depends upon multiple factors to detect, use of proper testing techniques at multiple outlets in homes. Water fountains, especially at playgrounds, schools, and other public facilities receiving attention have been found all over the US to cause elevated lead levels in users. Home damage repair is not paid for by the EPA! or your municpality,some munipalities have not tested accurately even about release of lead though their own systems. And there have been many instances of false testing, con artist testing. Aging pipes, their connectors, even "new" ones,in spite of laws forbidding their use can release unacceptable levels of lead and copper, depending on their location within buildings, how much water passes though vs lying stagnant, temperature, and other factors. Yes, use your search engine, and find out that the EPA has lied to the public, still thinks of blaming lead paint and gasoline, that lead poisoning in children is from kids eating dirt (!)especially those with lower income and social status. And it has steadfastly insisted blood lead levels acceptable far higher than the best science insists. EPA never wavering, no response. Again, industry through government wins over science. Children, developing humans, certainly are damaged by lead more than adults, but the effects on adults are known but largely ignored...re heart, blood pressure, liver, and other organ systems including the most sensitive, the nervous system, intellect, the most important factor in our culture. Even adults lose IQ from lead ingestion. Aquaria have lost valuable remnants of extinct species by changing water to chloraminating sources. When any other animal is killed by any given substance, you'd better know what you are doing, LEARN, RESEARCH, insist. Search on the web and you will find the best scientific arguments possible,just ask the questiond, but not from information given out by the the EPA. This is a very very important issue. chlorine and ammonia are produced by the oil industrials. And know, If you want it changed, it will cost local taxpayers a lot of money to have it changed with the changes required within your local water facility equipment, they people you pay your water bill to. Expect that, and accept it. The changeover back to chlorine can be quite difficult for the first while . It is not easy.
I think it is time to stop the EPA from requiring use of chloramine, allow localities to educate themseleves and decide, knowing that it is not a free ride and that changeover must be done carefully.