The Health of our Oceans Is “Spiralling downward,” and Still We Act Like Nothing Is the Matter 

by Philip Hoare

This week’s review from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean is a salutary warning.  According to the IPSO, the evidence is clearer than ever that the effect of climate change is being felt most acutely by the world’s seas.  Whilst their vast expanses absorb heat and CO2 – thereby ameliorating the effect on us land-dwellers – the results are having disastrous effects on marine life.  The oceans are increasingly acidifying; warmer water holds less oxygen; and combined with overfishing and pollution from heavy metals, organochlorines and plastics, the outlook is darker than ever.

All this because we seem to ignore the great expanse of water on which we depend.  90 per cent of the earth’s life is to be found in its oceans; its phytoplankton provides 40 per cent of our oxygen.  A large percentage of our food comes from the sea; it carries our trade: 90 per cent of the UK’s trade is conducted via the oceans.  And yet by the very fact of our increasing disconnection from the sea, we allow it to be polluted and ravished.  

In the past month I’ve taken part in three events at which experts in their fields have painted a gloomy prognosis for the oceans.  At the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth, the ‘Beagle Debate’ used a game-show format in which 5 experts evangelise for five marine species – shark, ocean sunfish, plankton, coral, and whale.  The shark won – on the gruesome and emotive statistic that 100 million die each year to provide Asian diners with shark fin soup.

But we also learnt, from coral expert Dr Kerry Howell of the Marine Institute, that in cold water reefs only identified in British waters last year, spires of these ancient, slow-growing animal colonies up to 4,000 years old were being mindlessly destroyed by trawlers.  That same week, a panel convened by Horatio Morpurgo in Bridport, constituting of myself, George Monbiot and the eminent marine biologist, Callum Roberts, examined the state of play of one of Britain’s only marine protection zones in Lyme Bay, on Dorset’s Jurassic Coast.  The measured despair of us panellists was not matched by one member of the audience, who shouted out that the best way to stop the trawlers was to dump old cars in the bay, thereby snagging their nets.  A great piece of direct action – if somewhat drastic.   

And a few days ago, the Natural History Museum called a day-long conference marking 100 years of records of cetacean strandings.  It was a unique opportunity to hear the latest, state-of-the-art research on why whales and dolphins appear to ‘commit suicide’ by beaching themselves.  One positive aspect which emerged was the notion that more strandings are being reported because the public are actually more aware of their plight – and less likely to hoick the carcasses off to render down for their fat, as was common in earlier days. 

But here too was depressing news.  Dr Paul Jepson, of the Zoological Society of London, delivered a lecture which showed that PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, used as flame-retardants, among other things, and now banned but still heavily present in the oceans) in the waters around Europe have begun to affect resident populations of killer whales to the extent that none of the pods of these magnificent, apex predators have given birth to calves in the last ten years.  As a result, it may be that European killer whales – off Scotland, in the North Sea, and the Mediterranean – are doomed to extinction.

Is there any good news to be had?  Well, the mere fact of these three events, all in the past month, all attended by packed audiences, shows the extraordinary concern of the general public.  But they also demonstrate how appallingly we are being let down by our politicians.  Earlier this week we had Owen Patterson proclaim that climate change might actually be good for us (tell that to the soon-to-be drowned Pacific islanders of Kiribati), while earlier this summer his fellow minister, Richard Benyon, agreed to implement just 31 of 127 recommended marine protection zones on the south coast, as advised by the UK Wildlife Trusts and other expert bodies.  And even then Defra have not proposed any timetable for their implementation. 

Britain is a maritime nation.  We should be leading the way in creating the conditions for cleaner, cooler seas – if only out of self-interest.  The fact is that without drastic action, there really might not be any more fish in the sea.  I only hope we don’t have to resort to dumping old bangers in the Channel to get our way.

Source: The Independent.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement.

Research: Fight against bacteria is harming environment and humans

By Judy Benson 

Unregulated, potent, germ-killing chemical triclosan, commonly found in cleaning products and cosmetics, breezes through sewage treatment plants to enter waterways, including Thames River

Editor’s Note: The article we’re reprinting here from The Day  focuses on the essentially useless and potentially very dangerous “antimicrobial” chemical called triclosan,  but the overall issue involves the many unregulated chemicals commonly found in cleaning products, antibacterial soaps and additives, cosmetics, articles of clothing, and regular household items that are collectively referred to as “emgerging contaminants.” The problem is that the “emerging contaminants” are being introduced into the environment much faster than regulating agencies can evaluate their safety. This poses a weighty problem for wastewater treatment facilities. – Hardly Waite.

Every time you brush your teeth with Colgate Total, coat your underarms with Arm & Hammer Essentials deodorant, or wash your hands with Dial Complete liquid soap or your dishes with Dawn Ultra, you may be polluting the Thames River.

These and dozens of other cleaners and cosmetics, along with toothbrushes, socks, underwear, yoga mats, hockey helmets, cutting boards and other items carrying labels like “Biofresh,” “Microban,” and “antimicrobial,” contain triclosan. This powerful chemical kills bacteria but also is the target of growing concern about its harmful effects on human health and the environment.

This summer, The Day worked with University of Connecticut environmental engineering professor Allison MacKay to collect and test samples from the river and from the effluent that’s discharged into the river by the region’s largest sewage treatment plants. For the past year and a half, MacKay has been researching the presence of 11 chemicals from medications and cleaning products, including triclosan, in two other rivers in the state. In the Thames River tests, triclosan showed up in three of the four wastewater samples.

University scientists take samples from Connecticut’s Thames River

“This is a stupid use of a toxic chemical,” said Mae Wu, attorney for health programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit group with a pending lawsuit to force the Food & Drug Administration to regulate and curtail use of triclosan and its close cousin, triclocarban.

First introduced into products in the 1970s, triclosan became a common ingredient in the 1990s when antibacterial hand soaps became popular, but the FDA, which declined to comment on this story, has left it unregulated.

As the use of triclosan has increased, mounting evidence has shown that the chemical may interfere with important hormonal processes in wildlife and humans, and it may spur the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, Wu said.

“The government needs to say it’s safe or get it off the shelf,” she said. “Why are they making guinea pigs out of all of us?”

The problem with triclosan – and with other chemicals in pharmaceutical, health and cleaning products used every day – is that sending it down the drain means tiny amounts enter the environment. Traces of antidepressants, birth control pills, pain killers and other medicines have been found in treated wastewater – samples that appear crystal clear and meet all state and federal quality regulations – as well as in the waterways that receive the discharges. These are the leftovers of drugs that people take every day, but that don’t get fully metabolized. Instead, they pass through with urine, get flushed into sewage treatment systems and emerge in minute quantities at the end of the process.

Collectively known as “emerging contaminants” or “contaminants of emerging concern,” these byproducts of human consumption are getting a lot of attention from researchers worldwide who are trying to understand what their presence means for wildlife and people.

“People are often surprised to find out that when you take drugs, your body doesn’t use all of it,” said MacKay, who has been focusing her examination of wastewater and river samples from Vernon and Southbury on how emerging contaminants break down in sunlight. “There’s no question that many of these pharmaceuticals have some very important public health benefits. But wastewater treatment plants were not designed to remove these compounds.”

‘Committed to the environment’

In August, MacKay and The Day collected samples from the Thames and from four of the five sewage plants that empty treated wastewater into the river. Officials at the Montville plant refused to provide a sample of treated effluent for the project, citing concerns that the results would lead to orders for new and costly upgrades.

The Thames, a large tidal estuary that flows from Norwich to New London and empties into Long Island Sound, is much larger and more complicated than the other rivers MacKay has tested. At the outset, she acknowledged that because of this, the chances of finding traces of any of the 11 compounds – including antibiotics, over-the-counter pain medications and triclosan – were slim. Indeed, the river water tests, collected at three depths near the Norwich and New London wastewater outfall pipes on a bright, late summer day, revealed no detectable quantities.

“It’s a little bit like finding the needle in the haystack,” she said after a morning boat trip on the river to collect the samples.

Just because the needle doesn’t turn up after a single search of the haystack doesn’t mean the needle’s not there. A week after the river samples were collected, The Day visited the Norwich, Groton Town, Groton City and New London wastewater plants, al of which agreed to provide samples of treated effluent just before it entered the river. The samples had been through the multi-stage settling, biological and chlorination processes at the plants that remove all the obvious contaminants people send down their drains every day.

“We’re the first responders to human health,” said Kevin Cini, chief plant operator of the Groton City plant, which discharges 2 million gallons of treated wastewater daily into the Thames. “I tell young people who tour the plant all the time that (emerging contaminants) are probably the next thing we’re going to have to bes dealing with.”

At the New London plant, where 6 million gallons a day from the city, Waterford and East Lyme are treated and discharged into the river daily, Joseph Lanzafame, director of public utilities, said he and other plant operators are looking for direction from federal and state regulators as to what to do about emerging contaminants.

“If these things end up being regulated, we’ll upgrade,” he said. “We’re committed to the environment.”

Highest level in Groton City

After samples were collected from the four plants, they were stored on ice and taken that day to the Environmental Engineering Lab at UConn in Storrs. There, Laleen Bodhipaksha, who is pursing his doctorate in chemistry, began the tests.

Bodhipaksha has been working with MacKay, running dozens of the advanced, highly sensitive tests known as ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. As the name suggests, it is a multi-step, complicated process requiring expensive equipment and advanced analytical chemistry skills.

It is only over the last 15 years or so that the techniques and equipment needed to detect minute quantities of drugs and consumer chemicals have become available, MacKay said, so in many ways, the technology has driven the rising concern about emerging contaminants. They’ve been getting into waterways for years, but no one knew.

“It’s a new problem, but it’s not a new problem,” she said.

The tests detected triclosan in the samples from Norwich, Groton City and New London. The Groton City sample, which had the highest level, also contained small amounts of ibuprofen – the main ingredient in Advil and Motrin – and gemfibrozil, a blood pressure regulator. None of the 11 compounds showed up in the Groton Town sample, probably because of the four, that plant has had the most recent upgrade and is able to treat to a higher standard the 2.9 million gallons a day it takes in, John Carrington, Groton’s manager of water pollution control, said.

MacKay said the levels of triclosan, ibuprofen and gemfibrozil locally were in the same range she has seen in her other testing, and also were similar to national results. Since the triclosan is in the treated wastewater, it’s clearly getting into the Thames, which daily receives about 18 million gallons of effluent from the five plants. True, the tests found what amounts to a tiny speck of the stuff per bucketful – 493 nanograms per liter was the highest level found – but day after day, in a steady stream, those specks taken together may be significant.

“This is definitely a compound that’s high on our radar,” said Dana Kolpin, senior research hydrologist and team leader at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Contaminants of Emerging Concern Project. “It’s fairly common to find triclosan in effluent, but the big question is, in these concentrations, does it mean anything?”

Kolpin, who began researching emerging contaminants in 1998, is considered one of the nation’s experts on the issue. He noted research that shows triclosan can spur the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, as well as findings that it degrades in the environment into methyltriclosan, “a dioxin-like compound.” Dioxin exposure can cause cancer and immune and developmental disorders, among other effects.

“It’s not just the active ingredient,” Kolpin said. “It’s that it can degrade into something just as bad. It’s very tricky chemistry.”

Triclosan, he said, is an unnecessary product additive. It washes out of socks and underwear treated with it, and liquid soap with triclosan doesn’t work any better than hot water and soap at getting hands clean and bacteria-free, he said.

“We’ve gone crazy with these products,” he said. “We just don’t need them.”

Marc Zimmerman, hydrologist at the USGS’s Northborough, Mass., office, said one of the issues with persistent triclosan contamination is that the chemical is causing incremental changes in ecosystems. He studied the issue in Cape Cod’s waterways.

“It’s disturbing the bacterial ecology,” he said.

Company reactions

At the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, a professional organization of 300 municipal wastewater treatment plants, curtailing the use of triclosan is considered a “no-brainer,” Chris Hornback, the group’s senior director of regulatory affairs, said. Figuring out what to do about all the emerging contaminants may take more research and significant effort on the part of regulators, but enough about triclosan is already known, he said.

“It’s a good place to start,” Hornback said. “We need to do more to limit how much is getting into the systems in the first place.”

In May, his group sent a letter to an Environmental Protection Agency panel reviewing triclosan.

“NACWA members are concerned about the environmental impacts of triclosan in wastewater and the potential of triclosan to harm the beneficial micro-organisms that treat wastewater,” wrote Cynthia Finley, director of regulatory affairs for the group. In other words, the chemical may be killing off the good bacteria that are key to the treatment plant processes, potentially causing plants to fail water-quality tests, “resulting in substantial costs for utilities.”

Since treatment plants have no control over what comes in, Finley argued, EPA and FDA regulations limiting use “are the most practical means of controlling discharges of these chemicals into wastewater and preventing adverse impacts to (plants), human health or the environment.”

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group is a strong ally of NACWA’s position. Citing evidence from its own water tests in San Francisco and tests of blood samples from 20 teenage girls showing that triclosan and other emerging contaminants are getting into the environment and into people’s bodies, the nonprofit group began calling for a ban on all non-medical uses of triclosan.

“Triclosan targets the thyroid system of humans and wildlife,” said Sonya Lunder, senior analyst with the group. “The potential for human harm is high, and there’s a real concern for the aquatic environment. The benefits of triclosan are minimal, if any.”

She and others noted that Johnson & Johnson announced in 2012 that it would stop using triclosan in its products. This year, Proctor & Gamble followed suit, pledging to phase it out by 2014.

Also this year, Minnesota became the first state to ban purchases of triclosan-containing products by state agencies. The action came in response to a University of Minnesota study that found the dioxin-like breakdown products of triclosan in sediments of lakes that receive treated wastewater, along with studies linking it to antibiotic resistance and endocrine disruption.

As the concerns mount, the Personal Care Products Council is resisting calls to ban or curtail the use of triclosan. A request for comment from the group, which represents health and beauty products companies, was directed to a sister organization, the American Cleaning Institute. That group acknowledged The Day’s request but did not comment.

The Personal Care Products Council articulated its position on triclosan in a 2010 statement to the FDA and in a 2011 announcement, both on its website. It argued that triclosan-containing products are effective and critical in reducing people’s risk of disease and cited a 2011 study in the International Journal of Microbiology Research showing no increase in the presence of antibiotic-resistant staphylococcus bacteria in users of antibacterial hand soaps compared to non-users. The research was supported by the council and the cleaning institute.

“After decades of use, antibacterial wash products continue to play a beneficial role in everyday hygiene routines for millions of people around the world,” Francis Kruszewski, director of human health and safety at the cleaning institute, said in the statement.

Consequences of choices

At the EPA, research into triclosan and other emerging contaminants continues, but it’s expensive and highly complicated, said Katrina Kipp, manager of the ecosystems assessment unit at the agency’s New England office.

“There isn’t yet a regulatory framework for controlling emerging contaminants, and states don’t have the water quality criteria they need,” she said. To regulate these chemicals, researchers would have to figure out what levels are harmful, among many other questions. Still, there is ample published research showing that exposure to some of these contaminants causes male fish to develop female characteristics, results in changes in fish behavior and affects thyroids in frogs, among other findings, so there clearly is a need for more studies, she said.

“Even at very low levels, there have been effects,” Kipp said.

In Connecticut, the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is aware of the emerging contaminants issue but doesn’t appear ready to recommend actions such as those taken in Minnesota. The state Department of Administrative Services, which sets supply purchase policies for state agencies, did not respond to a request for comment about products containing triclosan.

“At this point, we are following the science and analyzing all available data, but we do not yet have enough information to recommend any specific regulatory action,” DEEP spokesman Dennis Schain said. “This issue does point to the fact that choices we all make as consumers can have consequences for our environment, and people should try to make informed decisions about the products they purchase.”

Traci Iott, supervising environmental analyst at DEEP, said her agency is using public education to try to keep pharmaceuticals and personal care products from being flushed down the drain and to encourage people to bring unused products to community collection events.

While scientists and regulators continue to work on the emerging contaminants problem, MacKay sees a larger lesson for the public. People can become aware that their choices about products affect the larger environment, she said. They can decide not to use products with triclosan, and they can be more careful with their pharmaceuticals. And, if these compounds are able to survive the sewage treatment process, how much greater are the effects of chemicals people carelessly spill or dump directly into waterways?

“This is a rather indirect pathway to the environment,” she said, “and I would hope that people might be more conscious in their decisions about products that would have more direct pathways, like lawn care products and things you use working on your car.”

Source: The Day

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Water Topics from the Pure Water Gazette

Editor’s Note:  Below is the current issue of the “paper Gazette.”  It’s a two-page paper publication that we issue locally and sometimes put into packages. –Hardly Waite.

Wealth, Morality, and Water

Evidence suggests that above a very low level of income, economic growth benefits other species and the condition of a nation’s water. In general, as people get richer, they start behaving better toward other species. Likewise, as economic standards go up, countries get cleaner, more peaceful, more urban, more efficient, and better informed. Their people also have fewer children. Other species and the environment both benefit from these changes. In the United States, economic sufficiency has allowed us to maintain a system of water quality standards much higher than that of poorer countries. In other words, economic development may pollute water, but it also provides the means and the will to create and maintain water standards.

Not All Pipelines Leak Oil

In September of 2013 a pipeline owned by shipping magnate Matson carrying molasses from Hawaii to cargo ships leaked an estimated 233,000 gallons of dense, sticky molasses into Honolulu Harbor. Although thousands of fish were killed, a molasses spill in no way approaches the severity of an oil spill. This is because while oil and water don’t mix, oil and molasses do. The dense liquid sinks to the bottom of the ocean and is eventually dissolved into water. The company had an action plan for dealing with an oil spill but not a molasses spill. The worst molasses spill in history, by the way, was the so-called Boston Molasses Disaster of 1919, when a huge storage tank exploded on an unusually warm January day, flooding the streets of Boston with 2.3 million gallons of molasses. Nineteen people and numerous horses died.

One-fourth of all fresh water used in the United States goes for what?

An amazing fact: About a quarter of all fresh water used in the United States goes into the making of food that is thrown away. Amazing fact #2: Americans throw away 40 percent of the food they buy. An even more amazing fact is that a large part of the food that we throw away is tossed out simply because Americans do not understand the expiration dates that manufacturers label food with. The expiration date is not a mandate that the food is unsafe for consumption past the stated date; it is, actually, nothing more than an inventory control device that manufacturers put on the product for their own convenience. And it is, in fact, very convenient for Jiffy when you throw out your jar of perfectly good and safe peanut butter at the date on the label and buy a brand new jar.

Air Is a Powerful Water Treatment Tool

Many chemicals are used to treat water. You may not know that plain old air rivals many powerful chemicals like

The small air pump is usually used to inject air directly into the aeration tank.

chlorine in treating some of the most difficult well contaminants–iron, hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg odor), and manganese. Like chlorine, air can be a powerful “oxidizer” to prepare these contaminants for filtration. Air can be introduced into water by a pump, like the small compressor shown above, are it can be sucked into the water by energy created by the flow of the water itself. The powerful oxidizing for of air causes the contaminant to take on a form that can be easily trapped by a filter.

Did Water Shortages Cause the Civil War in Syria?

Drought and chronic water shortages played a significant role in sparking Syria’s civil war and in unrest throughout much of the Middle East, water experts now believe.

Around the world, water demand already exceeds supply in regions with more than 40 percent of the world’s population. That may climb to 60 percent in the coming decade.

Water-scarce regions like Syria can’t grow enough food to feed their own people,

About 70 percent of the world’s freshwater – and up to 95 percent in some countries – is used for irrigation. There is intense competition for freshwater between municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. Increasingly, agriculture has been losing out, particularly in water-stressed regions.

Between 2006 and 2011, up to 60 percent of Syria’s land experienced its worst ever drought and a series of crop failures. In 2009 over 800,000 Syrians lost their livelihoods and fled to cities as result of the drought.

Chlorine and Chloramine

Since the early 1900s cities have put a disinfectant in their water to prevent illness. The most commonly used disinfectant is chlorine, but more cities are turning to an alternative called chloramine, which is a mixture of chlorine and ammonia.

Chloramine has been used since the early part of the 20^th century, but it is still often controversial when a city adopts it. Cities turn to chloramine primarily because it helps them stay within certain EPA requirements for cancer-causing chemicals. Opponents argue that it is toxic to fish and dialysis patients and that many individuals appear to be highly allergic to it.

One persistent myth about chloramine is that it cannot be removed from water. Actually, chloramine is removed by carbon filtration, just as chlorine is, but it is much more difficult to remove, so larger filters and a slower flow of water are usually necessary. Most high quality drinking water filters and reverse osmosis units remove chloramine easily. There is also a specialty carbon called catalytic carbon that is especially good at chloramine reduction.

Cancer Villages in China

In some parts of China, water quality is so bad and cancer rates so high that a study has identified and designated more than 247 communities as “cancer villages.” The villages have in common the proximity of such industries as paper mills and oil refineries. Although many of the industries have closed, untreated domestic sewage and industrial waste pollute local rivers and groundwater.

Arsenic in US Water

Natural arsenic contamination of US drinking water was once considered fairly rare and insignificant. It was also believed that although arsenic was lethal in high doses, exposure to small amounts was of no consequence.

Opinions have changed. A number of studies suggest that arsenic is an astonishingly versatile poison, able to do damage even at low doses. Chronic low-dose exposure has been implicated not only in respiratory problems in children and adults, but in cardiovascular disease, diabetes andcancers of the skin, bladder and lung.

Trace amounts in the body interfere with tumor-suppressing glucocorticoidhormones, studies show, which is one reason that arsenic exposure has been linked to a range of malignancies. Arsenic also interferes with the normal function of immune cells. It damages lung cells and  causes inflammation in cells in the heart. In countries like Bangladesh where water is often naturally high in arsenic, it is not uncommon for the ability to take in oxygen of “normal” people to resemble that of long-time smokers.

Arsenic is removed from drinking water by reverse osmosis and and by a number of specialty filters.

“Flushable” Wipes Should Never Be Flushed

The “flushable” label simply means that they will go down your toilet when flushed. It does not mean that they will not do much harm to the sewage treatment system.

Unlike toilet paper, disposable wipes, even those labeled “flushable,” do not break down quickly in water as does toilet paper. Wipes have a long lifespan, and they clog personal and public piping, leading to expensive repairs, and they damage pumps and other parts of the sewage treatment system.

Only human waste and toilet paper should be flushed down your toilet.

Ultraviolet Is Getting Popular with City Homeowners

Ultraviolet light (UV) has for years been a popular alternative to chemical disinfectants like chlorine am

ong well owners. UV is not “just as effective” as chlorination; it is more effective. UV protects against giardia and cryptosporidium, for example, cysts that exist in city as well as well water than are not easily controlled by chlorination.

UV is now becoming much more common in city water applications. As water infrastructure ages and breaks in pipes and “boil water” alerts become more common, city water users are adding UV as a final barrier of protection .

Please visit our main website for more information about UV.

www.purewaterproducts.com

Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

Overfishing and pollution are part of the problem, scientists say, warning that mass extinction of species may be inevitable

by Fiona Harvey

 The oceans are more acidic now than they have been for at least 300m years, due to carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, and a mass extinction of key species may already be almost inevitable as a result, leading marine scientists warned on Thursday.

An international audit of the health of the oceans has found that overfishing and pollution are also contributing to

Coral is particularly at risk with increased acidification of the oceans.

the crisis, in a deadly combination of destructive forces that are imperilling marine life, on which billions of people depend for their nutrition and livelihood.

In the starkest warning yet of the threat to ocean health, the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) said: “This [acidification] is unprecedented in the Earth’s known history. We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure. The next mass extinction may have already begun.” It published its findings in the State of the Oceans report, collated every two years from global monitoring and other research studies.

Alex Rogers, professor of biology at Oxford University, said: “The health of the ocean is spiralling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.”

Coral is particularly at risk. Increased acidity dissolves the calcium carbonate skeletons that form the structure of reefs, and increasing temperatures lead to bleaching where the corals lose symbiotic algae they rely on. The report says that world governments’ current pledges to curb carbon emissions would not go far enough or fast enough to save many of the world’s reefs. There is a time lag of several decades between the carbon being emitted and the effects on seas, meaning that further acidification and further warming of the oceans are inevitable, even if we drastically reduce emissions very quickly. There is as yet little sign of that, with global greenhouse gas output still rising.

Corals are vital to the health of fisheries, because they act as nurseries to young fish and smaller species that provide food for bigger ones.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the seas – at least a third of the carbon that humans have released has been dissolved in this way, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – and makes them more acidic. But IPSO found the situation was even more dire than that laid out by the world’s top climate scientists in their landmark report last week.

In absorbing carbon and heat from the atmosphere, the world’s oceans have shielded humans from the worst effects of global warming, the marine scientists said. This has slowed the rate of climate change on land, but its profound effects on marine life are only now being understood.

Acidification harms marine creatures that rely on calcium carbonate to build coral reefs and shells, as well as plankton, and the fish that rely on them. Jane Lubchenco, former director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a marine biologist, said the effects were already being felt in some oyster fisheries, where young larvae were failing to develop properly in areas where the acid rates are higher, such as on the west coast of the US. “You can actually see this happening,” she said. “It’s not something a long way into the future. It is a very big problem.”

But the chemical changes in the ocean go further, said Rogers. Marine animals use chemical signals to perceive their environment and locate prey and predators, and there is evidence that their ability to do so is being impaired in some species.

Trevor Manuel, a South African government minister and co-chair of the Global Ocean Commission, called the report “a deafening alarm bell on humanity’s wider impacts on the global oceans”.

“Unless we restore the ocean’s health, we will experience the consequences on prosperity, wellbeing and development. Governments must respond as urgently as they do to national security threats – in the long run, the impacts are just as important,” he said.

Current rates of carbon release into the oceans are 10 times faster than those before the last major species extinction, which was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum extinction, about 55m years ago. The IPSO scientists can tell that the current ocean acidification is the highest for 300m years from geological records.

They called for strong action by governments to limit carbon concentrations in the atmosphere to no more than 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent. That would require urgent and deep reductions in fossil fuel use.

No country in the world is properly tackling overfishing, the report found, and almost two thirds are failing badly. At least 70 per cent of the world’s fish populations are over-exploited. Giving local communities more control over their fisheries, and favouring small-scale operators over large commercial vessels would help this, the report found. Subsidies that drive overcapacity in fishing fleets should also be eliminated, marine conservation zones set up and destructive fishing equipment should be banned. There should also be better governance of the areas of ocean beyond countries’ national limits.

The IPSO report also found the oceans were being “deoxygenated” – their average oxygen content is likely to fall by as much as 7 per cent by 2100, partly because of the run-off of fertilisers and sewage into the seas, and also as a side-effect of global warming. The reduction of oxygen is a concern as areas of severe depletion become effectively dead.

Rogers said: “People are just not aware of the massive roles that the oceans play in the Earth’s systems. Phytoplankton produce 40 per cent of the oxygen in the atmosphere, for example, and 90 per cent of all life is in the oceans. Because the oceans are so vast, there are still areas we have never really seen. We have a very poor grasp of some of the biochemical processes in the world’s biggest ecosystem.”

The five chapters of which the State of the Oceans report is a summary have been published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin, a peer-reviewed journal.

Source: The Guardian.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Acid Demand

by Pure Water Annie

Acid demand can be defined as the amount of acid needed to reduce the pH level of water.  Acid demand is frequently measured in swimming pool applications by a test known as an acid demand test.

Results of the test are applied to a specific amount of water to determine what amount of acid to add to the water to achieve the desired pH.

Acid demand is strongly affected by the alkalinity of the water, which is a measure of the water’s resistance to pH change. The higher the alkalinity, the more acid that will be needed to lower the pH.

Acid demand tests used by pool owners are usually titration tests, where a reagent is added to the test solution and the drops counted to determine the “acid demand.”

Acids that are commonly used for lowering pH in residential water treatment are citric acid, muriatic acid, and vinegar.  Muriatic acid and sodium bisulfate are commonly used to reduce pH and alkalinity in swimming pools.

Will Drinking Reverse Osmosis Water Turn Your Bones to Putty?

Come, Let Us Reason Together

by Gene Franks

Several years ago a leading Natural Hygienist and distiller merchant wrote an article praising the health benefits of low-mineral distilled water. He used as a negative example the spring water at Hot Springs, Arkansas, which, he said, was so high in calcium and other minerals that it clogged the arteries and joints of the the natives, causing severe arthritic crippling. He offered no evidence except his personal observation.

This caught my attention because I had been to Hot Springs several times and the native Arkansans seemed to me as supple of limb as people in Texas or California. They did not clank or creak or cry out in pain when they walked.

Then I read a short book by another health authority, also a distiller vendor, named Dr. B., who described a scientific experiment he did with goats. Dr. B. put out several bowls of water, all high in dissolved minerals except one. When some thirsty goats were brought to the area, they all went straight for the distilled water and ignored the high mineral spring water. Dr. B said that this proved natural creatures instinctively know that distilled water is best.

However, when I tried to replicate Dr. B’s experiment with my own lab animal, my dog Pu Ch’i, I found that she always drank from the bowl closest to her, whether is was low in minerals or high, whether it was clear or muddy, whether it was bottled water or tap.

Drinkers of reverse osmosis water often have bones that bend easily because of calcium deficiency. Photo Courtesy of Get Rich Marketing Corp.

When I started selling water filters in 1986 I was exposed to the opposite view. Those who sell filters, as opposed to distillers or reverse osmosis systems, take the view that minerals in water are not just good but necessary, and that drinking low mineral water not only fails to provide essential nutrients but actually leaches calcium from bones and organs. Filter sellers at the time, especially the MLMers, cited a popular book (now forgotten, even by me) which gave examples of populations who drank hard (calcium rich) water as having healthier hearts than those of people who lived in areas where the water was naturally soft (low in calcium).

Since that time the great mineral war has continued, usually fueled by one marketing program or another. The arguments have remained essentially the same over the years. The mineral war is fought mainly at MLM rallies and on commercial websites. Independent science has not been a big player.

On one side are vendors of distillers, reverse osmosis units, and, more recently, deionizing cartridges, backed by many alternative health experts, who advocate “pure” water, which is defined as water with very low “dissolved solids” (minerals); they view anything in the water other than pure H2O as sludge, an impediment to water’s main function as the body’s purifying solvent, and they blame high-mineral water for everything from arthritis to kidney stones. Many doctors appear to support this view by putting patients with kidney ailments on low-mineral reverse osmosis water.

The other side, more vocal, is comprised mainly of sellers of conventional drinking water filters and, more recently, the curious devices called “ionizers.” Their pitch focuses on the body’s need for minerals and they argue that low-mineral water actually removes (“leaches” is the favorite word) minerals from the body. With the arrival of “ionizers” to the market, the issue of pH has been added. Ionizer vendors preach that the body needs water that is sky- high in pH and alkalinity, and that low-pH reverse osmosis water is harmful.

My Take on All This

Since our company sells both reverse osmosis and conventional filters, we don’t have a dog in the fight. If someone asks my opinion, I give it, but we’re happy selling either a filter or an RO unit and we try to make the product’s ability to reduce known contaminants, not mineral content, the issue.

We do this because we believe that except in extreme cases (like sea water, which I don’t advise you to drink) the mineral content of water is not a big issue.

Consider that in some parts of the United States, the total dissolved solids (TDS) count in drinkable city water is 20 times that of other regions. Is there an ideal TDS? Is there a correlation between the health of the citizens and the TDS of the local water? The total solids count contains both calcium and sodium. Some natural water has almost no calcium, while some naturally hard water has almost no sodium. Does this matter?

If you live in a city in west Texas, the tap water you drink may have 500 ppm (parts per million) hardness (calcium and magnesium), but if you live in Bolivar, Texas, your tap water has 500 ppm sodium and virtually no hardness. Does this matter? My unscientific observation has been that people in Bolivar and people in Lubbock both do fine, as do people who live in northern California where the TDS of tap water may be 30 ppm with very little calcium or sodium. I spoke with a customer in Colorado this week whose natural TDS reading is 27. He has a reverse osmosis unit to protect against fluoride and arsenic that reduces the TDS to 2. Should he put a “remineralizing” device on his reverse osmosis unit to restore the water to its original TDS, although that TDS is less than 1/20 of the TDS of the natural water in many areas? Does the difference between 27 and 2 matter? Does the difference between 1000 and 50 (typical reverse osmosis reduction) matter?

The human body has evolved and learned to thrive on a planet whose water differs greatly in mineral content from place to place. When water is in the clouds it is distilled water—literally–because the earth’s recycling process is a giant water distiller. When the distilled water precipitates and falls to earth it picks up impurities from the atmosphere and becomes very much like reverse osmosis water in mineral makeup, having roughly the same Total Dissolved Solids count (around 10) as lake water that has been run through an undersink reverse osmosis unit in your kitchen. People who have rainwater collection systems to provide water for their homes have essentially the same water they would have if they pulled water from a well and processed it through a reverse osmosis unit.

Should we assume that drinking rainwater is unhealthy and that the only suitable drinking water is water that has filtered through dirt and rocks and picked up their impurities?

To me it seems obvious that the human body has exceptional ability to adapt to its environment. Just as we can adjust to cold climates and hot, we have a wide range of tolerance for food and water. If you drink water with 20 parts per million dissolved minerals or 400, the inner wisdom of your body will quickly adjust it to what it needs. When your body needs minerals, it takes them the easy way, from the organic minerals in foods. It does not waste its time trying crack open the inorganic minerals (rocks) dissolved in water unless no other minerals are to be had.

Although the pH issue raised by “ionizer” vendors doesn’t deserve an argument, I’ll make a single comment: Simply ask yourself–does it seem reasonable that the human body, which has evolved over eons and done extremely well drinking natural waters from a wide pH range, from very acidic to very alkaline, now in the the 21st century suddenly requires high pH water that can only be obtained from a $2,000 “ionizer?”

Boil Water Orders Are Increasing 

What This Means to Residential Water Users

 by Gene Franks

“Boil water” alerts are issued by water suppliers when the safety of the water they deliver is in question. The standard instruction is that water should be brought to a rolling boil for at least one minute (longer at higher altitudes) to kill waterborne pathogens.

Formerly, government agencies tracked boil water alerts in the US as public information, but as the number of alerts has increased dramatically in recent times record keeping is no longer done. In the absence of such information, Dr. Kelly Reynolds of the University of Arizona recently used a Google News search to identify boil water alerts across the US for a two-week period in August 2013. Dr. Reynolds found 29 alerts during the period.

Alerts are issued for a variety of reasons–bad weather, especially flooding, a break in a water main, low system pressure, finding of fecal coliform by testing, system leaks, system maintenance, detection of E. coli or cryptosporidium by routing testing, and general elevated bacteria counts—

Adding a “point of entry” ultraviolet system to the home’s incoming water does away with the need to “boil water.”

are the most common.

As pipes and pumps age, and as power outages and incidents of challenging weather become more frequent, it is certain that boil water alerts will become more common.

The boil water strategy for assuring micro-biologically safe water is at best a risky one. We have been conditioned to rely on the safety of our water systems to provide potable water, but this perception of safety is changing. Each time a pipe ruptures or pressure in the pipe goes down, microbes are drawn into the delivery system. A blanket “boil water” warning, even if given on time and received by all concerned, is a haphazard way to assure safety. Studies have shown that both reception of the alert and compliance with its recommendations are far below 100%.

It is certain that we have gone past the time of complete trust in the water delivery system to provide pathogen-free water. Just as more and more people are now relying on home treatment devices to provide chemical-free and more aesthetically pleasing water for drinking, cooking, and bathing, it is logical that “final barrier” devices to assure that water is free of bacteria, viruses and protozoa are becoming more common for city residents.

Fortunately, modern water treatment has developed many alternatives–from very tight filters for drinking water to whole house treatments like ultraviolet. These are certain to become prominent fixtures in US homes. As Dr. Reynolds says, “The inherent, unpredictable nature of the distribution system and the maintenance quality of the distributed water add credence to the need for routine POU [point of use] treatment.”

Reference: Water Conditioning and Purification, Sept., 2013.

Live In A Heavily Fracked Area? Watch Out For STDs

Editor’s Note: Fracking has been identified as the cause of much water waste, water contamination, general environmental degradation, air

If fracking is taking place near you, beware.

pollution, and more. Now you can add the spread of sexually transmitted diseases to the list of evils. — Hardly Waite.

Just in case news of the potential environmental damage didn’t scare you, anti-fracking advocates say you should be concerned about your social habits if you live in an area where fracking is practiced.

In 1850, near the beginning of the California Gold Rush, the female population was perilously low in Northern California. In mining counties, they made up less than 2% of overall inhabitants. According to Sierra Foothills Magazine, one man wrote at the time: “Got nearer to a woman this evening than I have been in six months. Came near fainting.”

It wasn’t long before women from all over the world began flocking to California in hopes of making some quick cash as sex workers. This was a situation ripe for STDs–men without long-term partners present having sex with all the same women. But this situation wasn’t unique to the Gold Rush.

The average annual number of cases of sexually transmitted infections was greater in heavily fracked rural counties.

Natural resource booms are generally accompanied by a wave of male workers who turn to prostitutes in the absence of a dating scene or their partners back home. And guess what: Today’s natural gas boom isn’t any different. If you live in a county where fracking is happening, there are probably a whole lot more STD-ridden people wandering around than in non-fracked areas, according to a new study. Keep those antibiotics handy.

In the “Social Costs of Fracking: A Pennsylvania Case Study,” the environmental group Food and Water Watch examines the social impact of fracking–an efficient but dirty process used to extract natural gas from the ground–in rural Pennsylvania counties, which are the epicenter of the growing fracking industry. Between 2005 and 2011, 5,000 shale gas wells were drilled in the state. As a not-so-obvious consequence, gonorrhea and chlamydia is now running rampant.

Food and Water Watch found that the average yearly number of chlamydia and gonorrhea cases rose by 32.4% in heavily fracked Pennsylvania counties between 2005 and 2010, while unfracked counties saw an uptick of just 20.1%. Once fracking began during these years, the number of cases rose an average of 8% per year in heavily fracked counties–and just 3.8% in unfracked counties.

While there’s no proof that fracking is actually causing the rise in STD rates, the study documents the correlation: “The increase in the average annual number of cases of sexually transmitted infections was greater in heavily fracked rural counties than in unfracked rural counties,” it says.

There are plenty of other social costs to fracking, such as increased disorderly conduct arrests and heavy truck crashes, but few things inspire fear in the heart of sexually active Americans like the threat of rampant STDs. So here’s a suggestion: Instead of warning people away from fracking with threats of environmental destruction (boring, right?), tell them instead that hydraulic fracturing will bring chlamydia to their doorstep.

Source: Fast Company.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Post-flood vegetable likely to be risky

 Gazette Introductory Note: The article  raises the related question of how much produce from flooded fields is sold in public markets. –-Hardly Waite.

If you’re cleaning up your vegetable garden after the flood waters recede, consider the safety of eating produce from the garden. If rain, and only rain, fell on the garden everything is fine. But if your vegetables were touched by by or near floodwater, your produce is risky-to-dangerous to consume.

Floodwaters can contain sewage, pollutants such as oil, gasoline, solvents, etc., bacteria and parasites such as Giardia, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Shigella, the virus for Hepatitis A, and a host of other unsavory contaminants. Young children, seniors, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems are at highest risk for serious effects from consuming contaminated food and should not eat any produce that was in or near floodwater.

In every case where the edible portion of the plant came into contact with floodwater — submerged or splashed — there is risk, regardless of whether the plant was above or below ground. In many cases, there is no effective way for washing the contaminants off of the produce.

To help you sort through what to do for crops that were near floodwaters, here are quick tips:

All crops eaten raw should be discarded, such as lettuce, mustards, spinach, cabbage, collards, Swiss chard, arugula, or micro greens. Soft fruits such as strawberries, raspberries, or blackberries as well as leafy vegetables such as spinach, chard, beet tops, or kale may be impossible to clean well and must be cooked before eating; avoid eating them raw. Because rain or sprinklers can splash contaminated soil back onto these plants and contaminants can become embedded in the leaves, stems, petioles, etc., the area is not safe for growing for 90 days, minimum.

Root crops, including carrots, radishes, parsnips, beets, or potatoes should be washed and rinsed in clean, potable (safe for drinking) water, sanitized in a dilute bleach solution, and then rinsed in potable water. They should also be peeled and cooked before consuming.

Make your sanitizing solution by mixing a scant tablespoon of food grade bleach, without fragrances or thickeners, to one gallon of potable water. Wash the produce with clean, potable water, using a vegetable brush to clean in crevices. Rinse, then dip into the sanitizing solution for two minutes, then rinse in clean water.

Peas, beans, tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, summer squash and other soft skinned crops that were present during the flood should be discarded. Winter squash, winter melons, and pumpkins, with their thick rinds, can be washed and rinsed in potable water, then sanitized in the dilute bleach solution described for root crops, and rinsed.

Questions on stage of plant growth versus potential for contamination can be summed up in this very good Purdue University response from Liz Maynard, Regional Extension Specialist, Commercial Vegetable and Floriculture Crops: Risks can be described as follows:

Edible portion of crop present: Very High Risk. Fresh produce is considered adulterated.

Plant emerged, edible portion not present: High Risk. The potential presence of microorganisms in the plant as well as in the soil could result in indirect contamination of the crop post flooding (splashing onto plant, etc.).

Planted but not emerged: Still High Risk for reasons given above from post flooding contamination in soil.

Pre-planting: Moderate Risk.

Soil contamination may be as dangerous as that of uncomposted manure. Tilling in the soil and a minimum of 90 days between the recession of waters and harvest are needed to reduce this risk from pathogens, but recovering soil from chemical pollutants may take longer.

To protect crops and areas not directly touched by floodwater, wash your hands before and after you’re in the garden, leave your garden shoes just outside your door, and change out of clothing you wore to work the vegetable patch.

For more information on post-flood issues, visit the Colorado State University Extension website atextension.colostate.edu/boulder/index.shtml orhttp://emergency.cdc.gov/disasters/disease/infectious.asp

Source: Daily Camera

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Mississippi River’s 1926 dead zone holds lessons for Gulf of Mexico today

by Matt Sepic and Elizabeth   Dunbar, Minnesota Public Radio

Gazette Introductory Note: We always believe that environmental problems were never worse.  The fact is, they usually were worse at one time.  Sceptics and naysayers notwithstanding, modern sewage treatment and laws like the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act have made our environment much better and healthier than in was in the “good old days.” — Hardly Waite.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Here in the land of 10,000 lakes, zebra mussels and Asian carp have generally topped the list of recent marine environmental concerns. But in the 1920s, before wastewater treatment plants were built, there were far bigger problems.

A 1926 survey of the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and Hastings turned up three fish.

“Not three species of fish,” said Rebecca Flood, an assistant commissioner at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Three fish.”

Back then there was so much sewage in the Mississippi River that algae took over and just about everything else died off. The river in the Twin Cities is much cleaner today, and the fish are back. But there’s a similar, even larger problem festering now just past the river’s southern end, in the Gulf of Mexico.

This time, the pollution that feeds the algae for the most part is fertilizer from Midwestern farms — including Minnesota’s. Just as in 1926, oxygen levels have plummeted. The fish population, the ecosystem in general, and the industries that depend on it are all in peril.

Scientists call that part of the Gulf a hypoxic zone. It’s also known as the dead zone. And its the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island put together.

Flood says Minnesota can do a better job of reducing runoff into waterways that drain into the Mississippi and contribute to the dead zone. The MPCA is developing guidelines with the goal of cutting phosphorous runoff into the Mississippi River watershed 35 percent by 2025, and nitrogen runoff by 20 percent. Part of the strategy will be to work with farmers to help them reduce the amount of fertilizer they use — and money they spend.

“My experience with individual farmers is that they’re pretty cautious and stingy about wasting money, and this is a waste of money to have our fertilizers going down to the Gulf of Mexico,” she said.

Details of Minnesota’s nutrient reduction plan will be available for public comment in early October. The proposal is just one of many being drawn up by the 12 states that are part of a task force that’s trying to shrink the dead zone. But reducing nutrient runoff from farms isn’t as easy as reducing fertilizer, says Bill Northey, co-chair of the task force that met in Minneapolis Tuesday. He’s an Iowa farmer, and his state’s agriculture commissioner.

“When we’re talking about nitrogen, we’re talking about soil organic matter. It’s in the crop residue that’s there from last year. As our water goes through those soils it’ll pick up nitrogen — sometimes from the fertilizer, sometimes from the residue, sometimes from the organic matter,” he said. “We have to manage all of that to try to reduce the amount of nitrogen that’s leaving those farms.”

In 2008 the task force set a goal of reducing the dead zone to 5,000 square kilometers — an ambitious goal that so far has proved elusive. The zone measured roughly 15,000 square kilometers, or roughly 5,875 square miles, this year.

Nancy Stoner, the EPA’s acting assistant administrator for water, admits the agency can’t claim success.

“It’s a very difficult goal, and even if we put in all the practices by 2015 that are necessary to reduce the dead zone, there’s a lag time,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges we have: to continue to make progress, to continue to motivate people.”

And motivating people is about all the EPA says it can do. The task force recommendations do not carry the force of law. The EPA has said setting nutrient rules would be too complex, and it can better fight water pollution by working with states.

But Ann Alexander, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, says the dead zone will continue to be a problem until the EPA steps up to the plate.

“I imagine there is a lot of nervousness on their part given the intensity of the opposition that they’re getting from many different quarters,” she said. “They’re getting opposition from agriculture, from manufacturing industries, from sewage treatment authorities.

The NRDC has sued the EPA in an effort to force the agency to act. Last week, a federal judge gave the EPA six months to decide whether to set nitrogen and phosphorous pollution standards — or explain why they’re not needed.

Source: MPRNews.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement