Do counter top water distillers work effectively to remove arsenic?
Yes, water distillers produce water without arsenic. The water evaporates (and then recondenses) leaving the arsenic behind. More information on in-home water treatment can be found through the water quality association at wqa.org. Distillers address both major forms of arsenic-based compounds in water. Not all water treatment technologies can treat for both.
1
Rather than just worrying about cleaning up arsenic, we should recognize that it is smart to try to keep it in the Earth. Burning coal releases arsenic and mercury into the air and they then get into water runoff. Anti coal forces should add the elimination of these poisons to carbon discussions.
1
...and now Trump's EPA appears poised to reverse this. It seems to be part of a GOP strategy of "culling the herd" of Americans from the poor, the elderly, people of color. Muslims, and LGBTQ people.
Mitt Romney gave it away back in that 2012 fund-raiser when he opined that "47%" of Americans are "takers" and should disappear at little or no cost. That means 150 million fellow Americans. (Remember, the Final Solution was very expensive in manpower and materiel that were required for roundups, transport, and building and staffing murder facilities.)
1
Thinking, to a caveman on a hunt, meant constantly scanning his surroundings for clues that pointed to either danger or food. Likely he moved very slowly until a decision led to a very short burst of physical energy. Hardly the same thing as a rower exerting constant physical energy while trying to recall memorized words.
Without a doubt the "new" EPA will relax these new standards as being interfering with the job producers.
9
From the current GOP viewpoint, think of the loss of "freedom" to drink the poisoned water!
8
This adds important evidence that the decades' long struggle to set a protective standard for arsenic in drinking water is on the right track.
Arsenic is still the weak link in our drinking water standards, however, and needs to come down even further. The cancer risk for any water just meeting the federally required drinking water limits is dominated by arsenic at the allowed 10 parts per billion.
The challenge is that it is more expensive for treatment plants to remove arsenic than most other contaminants. It all boils down down to supporting water infrastructure spending like we did when the Clean Water Act was promulgated in the 70s and Congress put up the money.
9
Centralized treatment for arsenic IS extremely expensive, and unnecessary in many portions of the US as arsenic isn't present equally in all water sources. Fixing the infrastructure is not the issue, though. Infrastructure problems lead to water that had been treated for arsenic leaking out through old pipes, or becoming potentially contaminated with other substances such as lead. Often, in-home treatment can be a more economical solution. Research shows that 10 ppb is not sufficiently protective a limit.
Thanks for the article- It was shocking to discover that the EPA heads - even before the latest funding cuts - somehow deem it safe to add up to 0.010ppm of arsenic to our "best tasting" NYC drinking water. They only deem it safe when it's added via the chemical hexafluorosilicic acid. This acid is produced in industrial quantities as a byproduct of the phosphate industry and is highly toxic. Diluting it via our drinking water is a convenient method for waste disposal. It is added to prevent cavities in young children but the latest unbiased research shows that's it's neither efficient nor effective and can even cause harm to those we are trying to protect:
For yet another report on the possible and probable adverse health effects of ingesting this toxic waste product please read the NIH funded epidemiological study just published:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/EHP655.alt_.pdf
5
If the goal for arsenic is zero, why then are toxic fluoridation chemicals that contain trace amounts of arsenic, lead and heavy metals allowed into drinking water?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090869/
8
The point in the article is to measure and reduce as much as possible the contaminants. It's not all or nothing. Fluoride is an important additive and helps public health. The problem is when non-scientists read a report and focus on their chosen hobby-horse issue rather than see the larger picture.
8
Fluoridation is a false dilemma. The only verifiable benefit is from topical usage, plus consumption is medically contraindicated for many and ill advised for others. It's also immoral. And that doesn't even begin to address the increased disease, disability and death due to the tramp contaminants in fluoridation products.
More power to you if fluoridation doesn’t bother you, but not the power to assume it’s safe for your neighbor with kidney disease, his pregnant wife or their diabetic daughter!
7
Many scientists including Nobel Prize winners oppose chemical water fluoridation. Contrary to Ms Addam's statement fluoride is not an important additive. It isn't even a nutrient and has no use in the human body. The larger picture reveals that it's time to end chemical water fluoridation. Most of the rest of the world including 97% of Western European countries never added or have rejected artificial water fluoridation for medical, ethical and scientific reasons. Only 5% of the world's population drinks artificially fluoridated water.
Get your facts straight. The EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for arsenic is zero. As for fluoride, there is no safe level for a pregnant woman or a nursing infant. So, yes, it is all or nothing when it comes to protecting children from exposure to toxic carcinogenic substances. Time for you to do some open minded research and stop throwing out disparaging remarks about non-scientists and hobby horses. In fact, the day is coming when our hobby horse will trample the notion that the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water is beneficial.
5
And what will happen with the current EPA? Oh, that’s right, science isn’t real.
10
The irony is that the fluoridation chemical used in 90% of municipalities is invariably contaminated with arsenic as well as aluminum, lead, and a whole host of other poisons (Mullenix 2014). Fluoride itself is characterized as an enzyme poison by chemists and a developmental neurotoxin by EPA scientists who advise a MCLG of zero. (Mundy et al. 2009, 2010, 2015)
Nevertheless, political pressures related to business plans and paychecks keep fluoride in our water supplies. I suggest it's not idealistic to at least stop the intentional addition of a toxic brew to known carcinogens to our water supplies.
“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis and mutagenicity and other effects.” - Dr. Wm. Marcus, EPA Senior Scientist and Toxicologist (1998)
6
Many of the groundwater wells that tap acquifers in this area have arsenic levels right around the legal limit, requiring the water district to blend water from different wells.
There has also been a PFOS bloom that originated with a local fire department that was careless with a fire fighting foam designed for airport runways.
Benzene contamination from old gasoline tanks is another common groundwater problem here and in many places.
Household plumbing and water connections can also introduce lead.
A 3 stage reverse osmosis under sink water filter costs less than $200 and is not difficult to install. Cartridges are replaced every 6 months and RO membranes last considerably longer. The system removes chlorine and other elements, organic compounds, bacteria and cysts effectively, leaving only pure water. Seeing the dirty cartridges is persuasive.
And there are no plastic bottles to recycle.
6
Reverse Osmosis is not always a good option for treating arsenic. Arsenic compounds in groundwater come in two main forms: those containing trivalent arsenic and those with pentavalent. The trivalent form is most common up and down the east coast due to the geology and resulting water chemistry. Reverse osmosis is not very good at taking out the trivalent (arsenic III) compound. It's very effective on the pentavalent, (arsenic V) compound that's more likely to be found in groundwater in the West and mid-west. In the home, arsenic III compounds can be treated with distillation and a specific (and relatively new on the market) under sink filter, or a whole house/point of entry adsorptive filter specific for trivalent arsenic removal. Caveat on the point of entry filter is that to get sufficient removal, two filters piped one right after another (in series) are needed. Counter top and under the sink filters are often tested and certified by third parties for arsenic removal performance and specify arsenic III vs arsenic V. The certifiers websites will have the product listings. wqa.org, nsf.org, iapmo.org. WQA also maintains a list of certified professional (general water treatment knowledge certification, not arsenic specific, so get references). County health departments are an excellent resource as well.
1