Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Jan '16 23:14
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/its-not-just-flint-america-has-a-major-lead-in-water-problem-20160128#ixzz3ylvHiJNV

    EPA officials in Ohio on Monday banned the operator of a water utility in Sebring, Ohio, from going to work after the agency found he failed to tell residents that they had been drinking, bathing in and cooking with water containing unsafe levels of lead for months.


    Flint; Michigan; Water; LeadWho Poisoned Flint, Michigan? »
    The situation in Sebring is, of course, drawing comparisons to Flint, Michigan, where scientists discovered unsafe levels of lead in at least 40 percent of homes after the city switched water sources.


    Virginia Tech professor Yanna Lambrinidou is part of the team that confirmed Flint's water was dangerous when local and state officials were still denying it. And she says it's not just the residents of Sebring or Flint who should be worried about the level of lead in their drinking water.

    "If you're looking for parallels to Flint, there are 11 million homes in this country, at least, that are very likely facing a pretty severe lead-in-water problem, and they don't know it," Lambrinidou says.

    The reason for that, she explains, is that there are that many service lines — pipes that carry water from a utility's water main into private homes — made of lead across the country. Many utilities aren't even aware of them, she says.

    That fact should trouble people, but, she adds, it's not the scariest thing. The thing people really ought to be concerned about, Lambrinidou says, is the fact that the water in Flint still, today, passes the federal government's test for lead and copper contamination.

    "The sampling protocol that Flint used is to this day keeping it in compliance with the lead and copper rule, despite all the problems that we now know about," Lambrinidou says. "This is something that almost nobody knows, unless you're an expert on the specific regulation."

    The rule is based on the premise that there is no way a water utility can conduct tests that would guarantee zero lead — the only safe level of lead, according to the federal government — in the water of every single home it serves.

    There's always going to be some amount of lead in some amount of homes — it could be from the service line, or from lead solder used as glue in some pipes, from leaded brass plumbing, or a myriad of other sources. "Most homes in the United States are going to have some form of lead-bearing plumbing," Lambrinidou says.

    Because the government accepts that general premise, it only requires utilities to prove that the water in 90 percent of the homes contains 15 parts per billion of lead or less. So, even though the government says no level of lead is safe, its regulations don't.

    "What this means," Lambrinidou says, is that even when a utility is passing the federal test for lead and copper, "every, single home that it serves could have, in theory, up to 15 parts per billion lead coming out of its tap, and 10 percent of homes could have any amount of lead coming out its tap. Any — it could be thousands of parts per billion — and the utility would still be in compliance and release water quality reports telling people that the water is safe to drink."

    If Flint still passes that test, it's not very reassuring to think that the water in your home passes that test too.

    Lambrinidou's advice? Buy a filter. Everyone, but especially the most vulnerable populations — pregnant women and children under five — should be using a filter that is certified to remove lead, she says.

    "Even people who live in areas with the most ethical water utilities that are doing absolutely everything right," Lambrinidou says, "ought to be thinking very carefully about taking routine precautions, even when their water utility tells them that their water is safe to drink."
  2. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    31 Jan '16 01:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/its-not-just-flint-america-has-a-major-lead-in-water-problem-20160128#ixzz3ylvHiJNV

    EPA officials in Ohio on Monday banned the operator of a water utility in Sebring, Ohio, from going to work after the agency found he failed to tell residents that they had been drinking, bathing in and cooking with water containing ...[text shortened]... outine precautions, even when their water utility tells them that their water is safe to drink."
    If you live in a home built before 1985, there is an excellent chance the pipes are lead. Playing the blame game doesn't correct anything. Fixing it, or finding alternative drinking water is what needs to be done.
  3. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    767
    31 Jan '16 02:20
    Originally posted by normbenign
    If you live in a home built before 1985, there is an excellent chance the pipes are lead. Playing the blame game doesn't correct anything. Fixing it, or finding alternative drinking water is what needs to be done.
    There are altrenatives to lead solder connecting the copper pipes. A person could get their water tested and see where they stand. The addatives the city puts in the water is the scary thing. This warrants a filter anyway.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52855
    31 Jan '16 04:12
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    There are altrenatives to lead solder connecting the copper pipes. A person could get their water tested and see where they stand. The addatives the city puts in the water is the scary thing. This warrants a filter anyway.
    It turns out lead pipes get a coating of I think lead oxide inside the pipe and won't leach lead into the water. We have about 40 feet of the stuff in a nearly impossible place to replace. I hope we can just sell the house before we are required to change the pipe.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52855
    31 Jan '16 04:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/its-not-just-flint-america-has-a-major-lead-in-water-problem-20160128#ixzz3ylvHiJNV

    EPA officials in Ohio on Monday banned the operator of a water utility in Sebring, Ohio, from going to work after the agency found he failed to tell residents that they had been drinking, bathing in and cooking with water containing ...[text shortened]... outine precautions, even when their water utility tells them that their water is safe to drink."
    The world of water filtration just got really interesting, here is a Cornell university site talking about a breakthrough polymer filter that filters metals, including lead, gold, silver, and such and kills germs and viruses:

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/12/polymer-breakthrough-could-revolutionize-water-purification
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    31 Jan '16 10:46
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    There are altrenatives to lead solder connecting the copper pipes. A person could get their water tested and see where they stand. The addatives the city puts in the water is the scary thing. This warrants a filter anyway.
    What kind of "scary" things do you imagine are added to drinking water?
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    31 Jan '16 10:48
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What kind of "scary" things do you imagine are added to drinking water?
    DiHydrogenMonOxide amongst other things!!!
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Jan '15
    Moves
    10189
    31 Jan '16 18:28
    WeLL a LiTTle LED in TeH waTeR neVaR eFFectED Mee.
    Yuo aRe aLL sTOOpiT an sTUff.
  9. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    31 Jan '16 19:43
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    There are altrenatives to lead solder connecting the copper pipes. A person could get their water tested and see where they stand. The addatives the city puts in the water is the scary thing. This warrants a filter anyway.
    New York puts fluoride in the water and it helps decrease tooth decay

    https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/dental/fluoridation/benefits.htm

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/health/new-yorks-fluoridation-fuss-50-years-later.html?_r=0

    http://www.livescience.com/37123-fluoridation.html
  10. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    767
    31 Jan '16 20:08
    Originally posted by sh76
    New York puts fluoride in the water and it helps decrease tooth decay

    https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/dental/fluoridation/benefits.htm

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/health/new-yorks-fluoridation-fuss-50-years-later.html?_r=0

    http://www.livescience.com/37123-fluoridation.html
    Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.
    P.O. Box 753
    Andover, Massachusetts 01810-3347
    Tele. (978) 475-9196
    FAX (978) 749-9447
    May 5, 1999
    BSA Environmental Services
    21403 Chagrin Boulevard
    Suite 101
    Beachwood, OH 44122
    Re: Request for information on drinking water fluoridation
    Dear Drs. Romoser-Breno and Beaver:
    The April 15 request for comments regarding water fluoridation is vague in that no assurances are offered as to how my written opinion will be used. Thus, a copy of this letter will be sent to Mr. Gilbert Gonzales at Fort Detrick. Without the benefit of having read the "Environmental Assessment" report to which you referred to in your letter, I run the risk of being redundant with regard to the material already prepared. With these caveats, I offer the following comments about the advantages and disadvantages of water fluoridation.
    To start, I must correct a statement you made in your letter regarding my being an "expert on drinking water fluoridation issues." Prior to 1982, my knowledge of fluoride was limited to television commercials saying It was good for my teeth. Rather, my expertise was detection of neurotoxicity, which brought me to the Department of Psychiatry at Boston's Children's Hospital and Neuropathology at the Harvard Medical School. It was there that I met Dr. Jack Hein, Director of the Forsyth Dental Center and the scientist responsible for putting mono fluorophosphate (MFP) into toothpaste. Dr. Hein was a student of Dr. Harold Hodge, the chief pharmacologist on the Manhattan Project who conducted the world renowned studies on fluoride (1) and started water fluoridation. Dr. Hein invited me to Forsyth to study the neurotoxic potential of materials that dentists use, starting with fluoride, and we set up the first toxicology department in any dental research institution in the world. I was made Head of the department, and Dr. Hodge moved to Boston and became a member of my department where lie stayed until his death in 1990. Another Manhattan Project scientist and fluoride researcher, Dr. Ben Amdur, also joined the department.
    My investigations of the neurotoxicity of fluoride started in 1987. Using a new computer pattern recognition system capable of a sensitivity and objectivity other behavioral measures did not possess, we studied an animal model first developed for the study of dental fluorosis. Frankly, we expected to find nothing. The results from the first experiment we thought must be wrong, so we kept repeating the study with more animals, different doses, sexes, ages and methods of administration. Like quicksand, every effort we made sank us further into the realization that brain function was impacted by fluoride. Scientific integrity dictated that we publish our results (2,3), but employed at a dental research institution made us weak in the knees to do so.
    In our 1995 paper (2), we reported that brain function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues. Rats exposed as adults displayed behavior-specific changes typical of cognitive deficits, whereas rats exposed prenatally had dispersed behaviors typical of
    hyperactivity. Brain histology was not examined, but the behavioral changes were consistent with those seen when hippocampal development is interrupted and memory problems emerge. Overall, we concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans.
    Criticisms of our study by dentists say that our results in rats are not relevant to humans because the doses we used were too high (75-125 pprn NaF in drinking water). These criticisms are without merit because our doses in rats produce a level of fluoride in the plasma equivalent to that found in humans drinking 5- 10 ppm fluoride in water, or humans receiving some treatments for osteoporosis. This plasma level is exceeded ten times over one hour after children receive topical applications of some dental fluoride gels. Thus, humans are being exposed to levels of fluoride that we know alters behavior in rats. Perhaps dentists see no problem with this fact, but scientists involved with toxicity risk assessment will view it differently. The fluoride levels in the drinking water of our rats were not high, they were taken from the well known animal model developed for the study of dental fluorosis, a model used repeatedly by dental researchers for several years.
    Other criticisms of equal absurdity have been expressed by dentists about our study. However, they are not important to dwell upon now because that first study was but one piece of an emerging picture. Soon after our study was published, we learned of two epidemiology studies from China showing IQ deficits in children over-exposed to fluoride via drinking water or soot from burning coal (4,5). Next, we found a literature review that assembled case reports spanning 60 years on neurological effects in humans exposed to fluoride (6). A common theme in these reports was that fluoride exposure impaired memory and concentration and that it caused lethargy, headache, depression and confusion. The depression is not something to ignore because suicide occurs more frequently than expected in populations of fluoride workers (7).
    More recently, another laboratory investigation found that chronic exposure to fluoride (I ppm) in drinking water of rats compromised neuronal and cerebrovasculature integrity (blood brain barrier) and increased aluminum concentrations in brain tissues (8). Another study found that fluoride in drinking water of rats decreased membrane lipids important to proper brain function (9). Moreover, the latest studies have shown that fluoride accumulates in human and animal pineal glands where it impairs melatonin production (10, 11), a finding critical when it is considered that melatonin is an agent that protects the central nervous system from radiation by scavenging free radicals (12). Finally, there is a recent study published which reports that silicofluorides in fluoridated drinking water increase levels of lead in children's blood, a risk factor that predicts higher crime rates, attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities ( 13).
    Unfortunately, the link between fluoride and the brain does not end with the above mentioned studies. In 1993 while studying the neurotoxicity associated with the treatments of childhood leukemia, we demonstrated that the fluorinated steroid dexamethasone disrupted behavior in rats to a greater degree than did its non fluorinated counterpart prednisolone (14,15). This finding prompted a clinical study of children treated for leukemia, where it was found that the fluorinated steroid was more detrimental to IQ than the nonfluorinated steroid, in particular reading comprehension, arithmetic calculation and short-term working memory deficits were greater (16). In short, this finding has fueled a growing concern about the contribution of fluorinated pharmaceuticals to the total body burden of fluoride.
    As you decide whether or not to fluoridate the water supplies of Fort Detrick, it is imperative that you consider the impact on total body burden of fluoride. The soldier today is a different individual, facing a very different situation than that encountered fifty years ago when fluoridation was promoted as a "safe and effective" means to protect against tooth decay. The difference stems from the fact that 1) fluoride exposures today are out of control, well beyond the dose touted as optimum for caries prevention; and 2) people today, especially soldiers, are exposed to substances and conditions that will interact with fluoride exposure and magnify harmful effects (i.e., exposure to beryllium, lead, strontium, aluminum, cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, uranium hexafluoride, stress, nutritional deficiencies, increased water consumption due to extreme exercises, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, and nerve gases including sarin).
    In summary, my opinion is that there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for benefit. Dr. Hodge during the Manhattan Project requested funds from Col. Stafford L. Warren to do animal experimentation to determine central nervous system effects of fluoride (17). He did so because he had clinical evidence that the fluoride component of uranium hexafluoride caused "mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude among the workmen. Yet, he never got to do those studies, and because this information was classified, he never discussed his findings with me. Perhaps, however, this explains why he was so intensely interested in my fluoride studies up to the time of his death.
    Therefore, in good conscience I can only discourage the notion of fluoridating the water supply of Fort Detrick. The evidence against the safety of this public health policy will keep mounting and never disappear again. My ignorance of fluoride in the beginning was a matter of chance. If you ignore this evidence today, it will be a matter of choice. Good luck with doing the right thing.
    Sincerely,

    Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.

    REFERENCES
    1). U.S. Dept. of Energy, Pharmacology and Toxicology of Uranium Compounds, C. Voegtlin and H. C. Hodge, eds., National Nuclear Energy Series, Manhattan Project Technical Section, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1949.
    2). Mullenix, P., Denbesten, P., Schunior, A., Keman, W.J. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17: 169-177, 1995.
    3). Mullenix, P. J.: The computer pattern recognition system for study of spontaneous behavior of rats: A diagnostic tool for damage in the central nervous system? In: "Motor Activity and Movement Disorders. Research Issues and Applications." P. R. Sanberg, K. P. Ossenkopp and M. Kavaliers, eds., pp. 243-268, Humana Press, New Jersey, 1995.
    4). Li, X. S., Zhi, J. L. and Gao, R. 0. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluorid...
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80056
    31 Jan '16 22:401 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It turns out lead pipes get a coating of I think lead oxide inside the pipe and won't leach lead into the water. We have about 40 feet of the stuff in a nearly impossible place to replace. I hope we can just sell the house before we are required to change the pipe.
    My understanding is that it depends on the water, in a hard water area the lead gets a nice coating of limescale that prevents it from getting into the water. In a soft water area the lead leaches into the water.
  12. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    31 Jan '16 23:26
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.
    P.O. Box 753
    Andover, Massachusetts 01810-3347
    Tele. (978) 475-9196
    FAX (978) 749-9447
    May 5, 1999
    BSA Environmental Services
    21403 Chagrin Boulevard
    Suite 101
    Beachwood, OH 44122
    Re: Request for information on drinking water fluoridation
    Dear Drs. Romoser-Breno and Beaver:
    The April 15 request for comments regarding ...[text shortened]... ., Zhi, J. L. and Gao, R. 0. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluorid...
    Despite the possible benefits of fluoride in preventing tooth decay, I'd rather not have it added to drinking water. Your dentist can give you fluoride treatments specifically designed for that, without any toxicology danger.
Back to Top