I'm in favor of clean drinking water ... water for fishing, cooking, and other necessary human activities. I'm also in favor of clean water for swimming and cleaning. Drinking water is comprised of freshwater. Freshwater is sourced from surface water and groundwater.
Surface water comes from rivers, streams, and lakes ... and rainwater. Groundwater comes from aquifers, underground springs, and other such.
Groundwater comprises an estimated 97.5% of all of the earth's fresh water ... drinking water. Surface water comprises only 2.5% of all earth's fresh water ... drinking water.
Note that our drinking water coming from water treatment plants IS NOT just H2O. Water treatment plants DO NOT remove pharmaceuticals, caffeine, minerals (like iron), and particles of plant debris, decaying plants and animals, viruses and bacteria, sand and dirt, and various other agricultural, mining, and industrial wastes.
Yes, water treatment plant scientists and engineers have devised systems for removing most harmful stuff, especially the most harmful, but lots of stuff still gets through.
Then there's chemicals from "fracking". Fracking is the process of shooting large quantities of water and chemicals at high speed into shale rock formations to create openings for the natural gas trapped inside to be extracted.
Water treatment plants struggle to purify those concoctions. Industry says that they reuse the same water and the chemicals are safe. But they don't disclose the chemical contents and underground storage of the fracking fluids can leak. The industry expects us to trust them and fight any standards. But industry's track record with mining other fossil fuels is not good.
For example, scientists now find caffeine in fish swimming in our rivers, lakes, and streams ... where we catch and eat them.
Doesn't that sound better than being against pollution? Being "for" something is a solution oriented, an action oriented, approach.
Fresh water source pollution is a dollar-for-dollar matter as well as a quality-of-life matter. That's the same as our health care argument for wellness and prevention: It the upfront care savings meet or exceed the downstream spending.
Spending on upfront cleaning, and keeping clean, our sources of drinking water -- rivers, lakes, and aquifers -- saves even more on the collection and cleaning of wastewater.
So why are 45% of streams, 46% of lakes, and 40% of rivers in U.S. too polluted for safe fishing, swimming, or aquatic life, yet annual spending on wastewater infrastructure & maintenance averages and estimated $35 billion to $45 billion (according to a 2010 U.S. Conference of Mayors' report).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 64% of running streams and 40% of lakes are too polluted to support fishing and swimming, and only 28% of streams have healthy biological systems.
In a 2011 report, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the U.S. has nearly 170,000 public drinking water systems serving 264 million people -- 54,000 community drinking water systems and 114,000 campgrounds, schools, etc. -- serving 264 million people total. But >50% of the 170,000 systems serve only 500 or fewer people. No wonder we spend so much on public drinking water filtration infrastructure!
Home drinking water filtration systems, installed, cost anywhere from an estimated $500 to $5,000 each for just one home. Others estimate that by the year 2000, Americans were spending an estimated $.45 billion annually on home filtration systems.
The cost to farm production, and losses, add more to the economic argument. Yes, farmers & gardeners wash 73 different kinds of pesticides into our drinking water but the cost of polluted water damaging crops and fields plus the cost of not farming in certain otherwise fertile areas due to polluted water is not insignificant. (According to Water Benefits Health, Grinning Planet, and the Environmental Protection Agency "EPA")
Businesses and homes discharge annually an estimated 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, polluted groundwater, and industrial waste and then face the losses in business location and residential property values. Business headquarters, R&D facilities, colleges & universities, resorts & vacation properties, and high-priced homes are not located (intentionally) at polluted sites.
Click here to check your own state's percent of local drinking water treatment plants operating under violations and your state's percent of population drinking contaminated water.
See BELOW listing and descriptions of common drinking water contaminants.
Together we have the expenditures on public wastewater infrastructure and private home-business drinking water filtration products; the costs of lost farm land & crop production; and the costs of lost jobs and home values.
In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued this report to the public: "Water on Tap -- What you need to know".
The economic cost alone of addressing fresh water pollution at the back end clearly must be high enough to consider the alternative of upfront investment in cleaning, and keeping clean, our freshwater sources -- lakes, rivers, and aquifers.
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) runs a national "Drinking Water Week" so you can imagine how much contaminated drinking water contributes to health care costs.
So why aren't the states, and federal, governments cleaning up and keeping clean our freshwater sources: Lakes, rivers, and aquifers?
Washington State reports cleaning its freshwater under state management slowly and on a bit-by-bit budget. However, they have begun the process and have some cost estimated for clean-up. For example, their estimate for just sediment clean-up on all state managed aquatic lands totals (only) $2 billion. Compare that to the expenditures for waste water recovery systems and home drinking water filtration!
Why isn't there more information available for the costs of cleaning up our freshwater drinking sources? Perhaps because it's not being seriously, widely considered when developing pollution policy.
What would be the net cost of a campaign platform policy of Clean the Waters in your state? Your nation? Have you taken the time to find out so you speak from knowledge and positive action ... something to be for as opposed to against?
Let's spend less, grow more, and live healthier and happier with smarter water pollution policy.
By Steven J. Reichenstein
COMMON DRINKING WATER CONTAMINANTS:
Materials dissolved in water:
- Inorganic Compounds - Compounds that typically do not contain the element Carbon. They can become dissolved in water from natural sources or as the result of human activity.
- Dissolved gases (oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, radon, methane, hydrogen sulfide, etc.) - no appreciable health effects, except for hydrogen sulfide and dissolved radioactive gases like radon. Both methane and hydrogen sulfide can be inflammable. Carbon dioxide dissolved in water creates carbonic acid - a weak acid that gives carbonated water its "bite" and plays an important role in the weathering of limestone and other carbonate rocks. Caverns are a product of eons of erosion by carbonic acid laced water.
- Metal and metalloid positive ions - (aluminum, arsenic {MCL=0.05}, lead {MCL=0.015}, mercury {MCL=0.002}, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, zinc, copper {MCL=1.3}, etc.) Some of these ions (lead, mercury, and arsenic) are dangerous at extremely low concentrations and can be introduced into drinking water either though natural processes or as a result of human activity. Other ions in this group (for example, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) are essential to human health - in the correct amounts. Calcium and magnesium are interesting ions. Although their presence in drinking water is actually a health benefit, they are the prime culprits in most hard water, and are considered undesirable contaminants by those who must live with scaly deposits of calcium carbonate on their faucets (and in their pipes and water heaters) or who can not get their soap to lather.
- Negative ions - (fluoride {MCL=4.0}, chloride, nitrate {MCL=10.0}, nitrite {MCL=1.0}, phosphate, sulfate, carbonate, cyanide {MCL=0.2}) As with the positive ions, some of these negative ions are necessary to life in proper concentrations (chloride and carbonate), others can be dangerous to health at moderate concentrations (nitrates and nitrites - look at the ingredients in the next slice of ham, bacon, or hot dog you eat), and others are dangerous at even small concentrations (cyanide).Some, like fluoride, have raised quite a controversy over its safety as an additive (in many areas) to drinking water in an effort to lessen tooth decay, particularly in children.
- Radon - Radon is a radioactive gas that comes from the natural breakdown (radioactive decay) of radium, which is it a decay product of uranium. The primary source of radon in homes is from the underlying soil and bedrock. However, an additional source could be the water supply, particularly if the house is served by a private well or a small community water system.
- Organic Compounds - These compounds all contain the element Carbon. Although there are many exceptions, naturally occurring organic compounds (sugars, proteins, alcohol's, etc.) are synthesized in the cells of living organisms, or like raw petroleum and coal, formed by natural processes acting on the organic chemicals of once living organisms.
- Synthetic Organic Chemicals - Organic chemicals can also be synthesized in laboratories and by chemical companies. A growing number of these synthetic organic compounds are being produced. They can include pesticides used in agriculture, plastics, synthetic fabrics, dyes, gasoline additives like MTBE, solvents like carbon tetrachloride {MCL=0.005}, and many other chemicals. Many synthetic organic chemicals, like benzene {MCL=0.005} carbon tetrachloride, and vinyl chloride {MCL=0.002}, vaporize easily in air and are grouped under the category of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) is a common synthetic organic chemical used for a number of years as a gasoline additive.
No comments:
Post a Comment