Water Contamination


Our Water is Contaminated!


Did you know sticker vector 7688896 Vector Art at Vecteezy

“U.S. drinking water contains more than 2100 toxic chemicals that can cause cancer.”   -  Ralph Nader Study Group, after reviewing over 10,000 documents acquired through the Freedom Of Information Act

By the 1980's, production of synthetic chemicals was up to 500 billion pounds.  And 1000 new chemicals are introduced each year. Yet the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act only addresses 100 contaminants!  

"...when two or more of these contaminants combine in our water, the potency may be increased by as much as 1000 times.”  - 1995 Science Advisory Report to the EPA

“Drinking water plants are old and out of date, and water supplies are increasingly threatened by and contaminated by chemicals and microorganisms.”   - Natural Resources Defense Council.

The World Health Organization and the National Cancer Institute both suggest that most human cancers, perhaps as many as 90% are caused by chemical carcinogens in the environment

"Lead is the number one environmental health threat to our children."  -  U.S. EPA

"Weed killers were found in tap water of 28 out of 29 cities tested... the results of these tests reveal widespread contamination of tap water with many different pesticides at levels that present serious health risks... we estimate that 45,000 infants in these 29 cities drank infant formula reconstituted with tap water contaminated with multiple weed killers."  - Environmental Working Group report, "Weed Killers By The Glass"

"Each year in the U.S., lead in drinking water contributes to 480,000 cases of learning disorders in children and 560,000 cases of hypertension in adult males." - U.S. EPA Report summary.

An examination of 65 of the 3,000 largest utilities found cities such as Philadelphia, Boston, New York City, Providence, R.I., and Portland, Me., are "manipulating the results of tests used to detect lead in water, violating federal law and putting millions of Americans at risk,'' The Washington Post said. More than 250 major cities currently exceed the EPA's lead standards, and many of them have been deceptive, or even fraudulent in their reporting of the problems."  - NBC nightly news as aired on 10/5/2004

"Each day, millions of Americans turn on their taps and get water that exceeds the legal limits for dangerous contaminants."  USA Today, Special Report "How Safe Is Your Water?"

"Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is as much as 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine."  -  U.S. Council Of Environmental Quality

Over 14 million people in the Midwest routinely drink water contaminated with five major agricultural herbicides [including every major Midwestern city south of Chicago].... Drinking water contaminated with these herbicides is a serious public health issue; the manufacturers' own laboratory shows that these five herbicides cause nine different types of cancer, various birth defects, and heritable genetic mutations. None of these herbicides are removed by the conventional drinking water treatment technologies that are used by more than 90 percent of all water utilities in the U.S.   - Study by the Environmental Working Group, "Tap Water Blues"



Primary toxic poisons found in our public water supply:

Arsenic, Antimony, Asbestos, Barium, Beryllium,  Bromate, Chlorite, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Fluoride, Chlorine, Chloramine, Chlorine Dioxide, Disinfectants, MTBE (fuel additive), Total Trihalomethanes, Haloacetic Acids, Microbes and Parasites, Pharmaceutical Drugs, Radionuclides, Radon, Combined Radium 226/228, Beta/photon emitters, Alpha emitters, Inorganic Contaminants, Lead, Mercury, Nitrates, Nitrites, and more.


Synthetic Organic Contaminants, including Pesticides & Herbicides
  • 2,4-D
  • 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
  • Acrylamide
  • Alachlor
  • Atrazine 
  • Benzoapyrene
  • Carbofuran
  • Chlordane
  • Dalapon
  • Di 2-ethylhexyl adipate
  • Di 2-ethylhexyl phthalate
  • Dibromochloropropane
  • Dinoseb
  • Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
  • Diquat
  • Endothall
  • Endrin
  • Epichlorohydrin
  • Ethylene dibromide
  • Glyphosate
  • Heptachlor
  • Heptachlor epoxide
  • Hexachlorobenzene 
  • Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
  • Lindane
  • Methoxychlor 
  • Oxamyl [Vydate]
  • PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls] 
  • Pentachlorophenol 
  • Picloram 
  • Simazine
  • Toxaphene 
Volatile Organic Contaminants
  • Benzene
  • Carbon Tetrachloride
  • Chlorobenzene 
  • o-Dichlorobenzene
  • p-Dichlorobenzene 
  • 1,1-Dichloroethylene
  • cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
  • trans-1,2-Dicholoroethylene
  • Dichloromethane
  • 1,2-Dichloroethane
  • 1,2-Dichloropropane
  • Ethylbenzene
  • Styrene
  • Tetrachloroethylene
  • 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
  • 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane 
  • 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
  • Trichloroethylene 
  • Toluene
  • Vinyl Chloride
  • Xylenes





There now appears to be adequate evidence that for political and perhaps monetary reasons, our high paid government and private sector scientists may be intentionally misleading the public as to the safety of our nation's drinking water.

This nearly perfected process of "killing the messenger" who is bearing "bad news" is being used on a regular basis to prevent scientific journals, and subsequently the local news media, from publishing the results of new studies on environmental health risks, including our public drinking water.

To the last man, scientists who discover cures or who are successful in implementing various technological advances into making our drinking water "safe", simply can't wait to rush to the news conference with this "good news".

Experience has shown that a nearly equivalent and sometimes larger number of studies on the same subject has resulted in negative conclusions, with dramatic results that the scientific community would just as soon not present to the public.

In the process of trying to protect "time honored technology" developed by the scientific community, these same scientists and their peers are reluctant to allow the public to view the downside results of studies on so-called "safe and proven" techniques.

It's a little like listening to an eminent scientist tell us that an American astronaut has just landed on Mars. We're all rightfully excited and proud of our great technological prowess.   What the scientist leaves out of his briefing is that the astronaut was going 18,000 miles per hour when he landed on the planet's surface.

Let's take chlorination of our public drinking water as an example. It is no secret that for over 20 years, chlorination of water has been linked to cancer in test animals. If this is news to you, don't feel left out. 20 years ago, scientists were discovering that chlorine was directly linked to coronary blockages in test animals. Did you hear about it? Probably not. Do you realize that there were virtually no coronary problems in the United States prior to the introduction of chlorine into the nation's drinking water?

What we did hear about was how effective the time-honored technology of chlorination was in killing microbes that cause typhus and other diseases---so why should scientists rock the boat with new concerns about possible negative effects?

Even if one of these carefully conducted studies finally reaches the news media, "spin doctors" began weaving their magic on the public with carefully concocted disclaimers intended to remove any public concern about what may in reality be a major health concern to the average American.

An example of this occurred recently when Dr. Thomas Chalmers of the Harvard School of Public Health concluded a study of chlorination of drinking water with the results that bladder and rectal cancers were increased by the use of chlorinated water.

According to charges being brought by Dr. Chalmers, his peers in the scientific community review cycle refused to publish the document because

"...they were uneasy about informing people about this problem".

Come again? And these are scientists who are tasked with our public health?

The U.S. Public Health Service, in response to public and private sector pressure to determine the efficacy of fluoridation of drinking water, recently completed a study of 40,000 children nationwide, half of whom drank fluoridated water, while the others drank water without fluoride.

The study was intended to overcome some of the questionable testing procedures conducted some 40 years ago when fluoride was identified through similar tests to be advantageous in combating dental caries.

In the most recent case, the USPHS study found absolutely no difference between the number of cavities in children who drank fluoridated water and those that didn't.

The real crime afoot here is that hundreds of studies both here and overseas have shown that fluoride added to drinking water destroys everything from bone structure to the immune system to the nervous system.

And yet, the public is not told about these potentially disastrous health problems---even when it is conclusively demonstrated by the Public Health Service, the organization which initiated fluoridation, that fluoridation of drinking water isn't doing our children any good in the first place.

And how about lead in our drinking water? Pipe and plumbing manufacturers have for years led efforts to stifle information regarding the presence of lead in their products (sounds a lot like the tobacco industry to me).

Lead is a killer, and many scientists get much of their monies (grants) from various industrial concerns, including the plumbing and pipe industries. Do you suppose that these scientists are scared to publish the "bad news" they know about in their laboratory tests because they might lose some of their precious "grant" monies?

We could list a dozen other drinking water problems where similar situations now occur: asbestos poisoning from water pipes, aluminum additives to the water contributing to Alzheimer and the list goes on and on.

In each and every case we are faced with the same dilemma: a supposedly "safe" or "proven" or "time honored technology" is found to be unsafe by an equal or greater number of studies which were used to initially implement the water treatment process or additive.

However, we never seem to hear from our esteemed scientific community about the other 50% of the studies. They killed the messenger who was bearing the bad news---while letting only the good news get to the public.

Ex Vice-President, Al Gore, had some interesting observations about this type of this scientific dysfunctional behavior in his new book, Earth in the Balance.  Gore talks about this process of "killing the messenger", a well-established form of denial which ironically is being practiced and perfected by the self same scientific community which has been set up with our tax dollars to protect us.

This destructive, denial process may stem from peer pressure, financial insecurity or other conditions surrounding the scientific research laboratories which are tasked with protecting our environment and in particular our health as it is related to drinking water.

To quote Gore,

"...until the scientific community can overcome their seemingly compulsive need to control the natural world (and the inherent hazards therein) without accountability to the public, they are no different than the street corner drug addict who acts in denial, both believing that they can continue to live out their professional or addictive lives at the border of conscious awareness".

Until the public understands this denial process which is going on in the scientific community and demands full accountability from those government and private institutions which have been responsible for hiding critical, health-related information from the public for decades, we (the public) will continue to be the recipients of "censored science" and suffer more and greater health problems from our polluted air and drinking water resources.




"Water Hardness" is the underlying cause of many, if not all, of the diseases resulting from poisons in the intestinal tract. These (hard minerals) pass from the intestinal walls and get into the lymphatic system, which delivers all of it's products to the blood, which in turn, distributes to all parts of the body. This is the cause of much human disease...  'Water Hardness' is inorganic minerals in solution (in water). When these minerals enter the intestines in drinking water, there is an immediate reaction between them and the fats, oils and fatty acids present, causing precipitation of inorganic calcium, magnesium, iron and so on---to form new, insoluble compounds."  - Dr. Charles Mayo (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota)

"To the best of our knowledge, there would not be any adverse health effects from the continued ingestion of distilled water."  -  May 17 1985; American Medical Association; Division of Personal and Public Health Policy; Jack A. Bell - Assistant Director

"Distilled water should be used if the usual water supply (tap or bottled) contains more than 20 mg. of sodium per liter." - American Heart Association(1986)

"The body's need for minerals is largely met through foods, not drinking water."   - American Medical Journal

"There are no essential nutrients dissolved in tap water which humans depend on from this source for their survival or well-being. All essential nutrients can be obtained from foods and proper dietary supplements."

"There have been some recent rumors that the consumption of "hard" water actually lessens the chances of heart and blood vessel disease.  These rumors are uncorroborated, and in fact, the opposite may be true.

Winton and McCabe ("Studies relating to Water Mineralization and Health" - Journal American Water Works Association, January, 1970, pp. 26-29.) conclude that a review of the literature on this subject does not reveal ANY conclusive evidence that water "hardness (mineral content)" benefits heart and blood vessel diseases". - Allen McDaniels, M.D., "Water---what's in it for you?"

"The Secret" of health lies in internal cleanliness! To be 100% healthy, a body must be absolutely free of deposits of inorganic minerals that come from drinking city tap water, water from lakes, rivers, wells and springs. Inorganic minerals contaminate the human body, (they) form incrustations that clog and obstruct the human pipe system (arteries and digestive tracts) and impair the vital organs.

When distilled water enters the body, it leaves no residue of any kind. It is free of salts and sodium. It is the most perfect water for the healthy functioning of the kidneys (83% water). It is the perfect liquid for the blood (83% water), the ideal liquid for the efficient functioning of the lungs (86% water), stomach, liver (85% water) and other vital organs. Why? Because it is free of all inorganic minerals. It is so pure that all liquid drug prescriptions are formulated with distilled water.

"The greatest damage done by inorganic minerals---plus waxy cholesterol and salt---is to the small arteries and other blood vessels of the brain(75% water). Hardening of the arteries and calcification of blood vessels starts on the day you start taking inorganic chemicals (and minerals from tap water) into our bodies."

Dr. Paul Bragg, N.D. Ph.T., from his book: "The Shocking Truth About Water"

"Distilled water is the greatest solvent on earth.  (It is) the only water that can be taken into the body without damage to the tissues.

"What we as scientists and the public have never realized is that minerals collected in the body from water are all inorganic minerals, which cannot be assimilated (digested) by the body. The only minerals that the body can utilize are the organic minerals (from fruits and vegetables).  All other types of minerals are foreign substances to the body and must be disposed of or eliminated.

"Today, many progressive doctors prescribe distilled water to their patients. All kidney machines operate on distilled water."

Allen E. Banik, M.D. from his book: "The Choice is Clear"

"The best system to purify water is distillation, which boils the water into steam to kill organisms and also remove impurities"

The Great Book of Health Secrets: 1991 Boardroom Reports Inc

"Distilled water is the purest form available. Distilled water helps to excrete excessive heavy metals from the body."

Who Killed Candida?; 1991 Vicki Glassburn

"There is only one water that is clean, steam distilled water. No other substance on our planet does so much to keep us healthy and get us well as water does." - Dietary Wellness; 1993 Dr. James Balch, M.D.

"Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sufferers are instructed to drink distilled water."

How to Stay Out of the Doctor's Office; 1994 Dr. Edward M. Wagner

"The 'gold standard' for purifying your water is a system that distills your water and filters it."

- Dr. Robert D. Willix, Jr. M.D.; Cardiac Surgeon; Editor-Health & Longevity Newsletter

"If you wish to drink water, you should drink distilled water if it is available. Mountain spring water is not ideal for the human body because it contains inorganic minerals that the human body can neither use nor precipitate out. These inorganic minerals tend to hook up with cholesterol in the body and form a thick plaque in the arteries. Distilled water does not have this effect.

"When you eat a piece of fruit or a vegetable, you are consuming distilled water. The minerals are taken from the soil, the plant distills them, and then you consume them.

"You may have heard that distilled water "leaches" minerals from the body. That is partially true. The minerals that are leached (removed) by distilled water are the inorganic minerals that the body cannot use. The effect, therefore, is healthful.

Distilled water will not leach (organic) minerals that have become part of the structure of the body cell system. Once a mineral has become part of the cell structure, it cannot be leached."  - Harvey and Marilyn Diamond; "Fit for Life", Warner Books - pp. 35, 1985


"Distilled water is safe to drink and should have no adverse effects on your health. Distillation merely removes most of the dissolved materials, which are found in all natural waters."

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Health Services Command; Raymond H. Bishop, Jr. M.D.
Major General, Commander - Medical Corps.May 23, 1983

"There is nothing about distilled water that would make it harmful for the body. It may be helpful to remember that distilled water is the only water available for crews of Naval vessels at sea."

May 26, 1983, United States Department of Agriculture Consumer Nutrition Division, Frank N. Hepburn; Chief, Nutrient Data Research Branch

"Highly mineralized water has been associated with the formation of (kidney) stones in the urinary system".

California Department of Consumer Affairs, Drinking Water Report - July, 1976

"...manufacturers dumped more than one billion pounds of toxic chemicals into rivers, lakes and other bodies of water between 1990 and 1994."  -  Washington, D.C. based Environmental Working Group (EWG)


Bottled Water

You may be surprised to know that bottled water is generally NO safer than tap water, and in some cases, even worse.

Occasionally, one sees reports in the news of pesticides, bacteria or toxic metals in the public water supply. Many think that this is a good reason to change to bottled water. But is it?

The The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 requires that tap water is tested at every stage of its treatment. Tap water usually comes from reservoirs and other surface water sources. Even here it is tested daily. Then it is pumped to filter beds where layers of graded sand or carbon filters remove all particles of matter and microbes, and it is tested again. At this stage the water is checked in laboratories against 57 parameters which can detect 80-90 different substances.  After this the water is chlorinated to ensure that any remaining bacteria are killed. If any unwanted substances do manage to get through all these tests and into the public supply, they will be in such small quantities as to be quite harmless. Detailed analyses of public tap water are available on demand.

Are bottled waters as clean? 

We just don't know.  Bottled waters are split in law into two types:  'Mineral' and 'Spring' waters. The Natural Mineral Waters Association claims that the regulations which apply to them are draconian and expensive. But the parameters call for mineral waters to be tested for only 13 chemicals and bacteria - less than one quarter as many substances as are tested for in tap water. There are also no requirements that mineral water be tested daily or even weekly.  A mineral water manufacturer can test when conditions suit him and when a clean result is likely. But the public still cannot know what those tests say, as the results of tests of mineral waters are not available to the public. The regulations on 'Spring Waters' are even more relaxed - there is no specific legislation at all!   Anyone can go to any water source, bottle the water, call it 'Natural Spring Water' and sell it in shops without doing any analyses at all. And it is likely to be contaminated.

The Hereford and Worcester Public Analyst tested many of springs in his area and found that over half were unfit for human consumption. He considered that without safeguards, many of the bottled spring waters were unsafe.

Dr. Joseph LaDou, former chief of the Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of California, agreed that bottled water is "no safer or healthier than ordinary tap water. They just taste better because they aren't chlorinated, " he explained. "But these waters typically contain as much or more asbestos, dry cleaning fluid, and other volatile compounds as does tap water."

Mineral Contamination

Scientists at the University of Wales at Aberystwyth led by Dr Ron Fuge tested 81 bottled waters, selected at random, for their mineral content using a plasma mass spectrometer. Many were found to have levels of potentially harmful minerals which were above the legal regulation levels for tap water.  In some cases they were considerably higher. The legal limit for sodium in tap water is 150 mg/litre. The amount of sodium in Vichy Saint-Yorre, for example, was seven times that limit.  For anyone on a low-salt diet, this is much too high. In Hépas, calcium was nearly twice the limit and fluoride in Mattoni was more than twice the limit. Uranium is rarely seen in tap water. Where it is, it is less than 2 micrograms per litre. There are no specific limits set down for uranium but uranium is a very toxic metal and the probable prudent limit is about 4 micrograms per litre. Perrier's level was 4 micrograms, San Pellegrino was 8 and Radnor Hills 12. Uranium in Badoit, however, was a massive 24 times the prudent limit. Badoit's label states 'Constant analysis shows that there is a low level (97 micrograms per litre) of uranium present and this is a natural component.' Natural it may be, but low level it is not. Of the 81 waters tested, 17 exceeded mineral limits for tap water as defined in the UK Act and a further 29 exceeded guidelines laid down elsewhere.

Italian scientists studied the cause of kidney stones in the city of Parma.  They compared the diets of stone formers with people free of the complaint, and found that there was only one difference. 'It was deduced that stone patients did not follow a different dietary style from the rest of the population except for a high consumption of un-carbonated mineral water'. The amount consumed was less than two litres a day.

Man-made chemical contamination

Contamination from man-made chemicals is potentially more of a problem than the minerals. The chemicals can be split into two classes: organic and inorganic. The organic chemicals likely to be found are residues of pesticides and herbicides used by the farming industry, and industrial detergents used both by farms and the water industry.

Until fairly recently there were no limits set for organic chemicals in tap water.  That has changed and there are now stringent limits in which allowed amounts are in the order of only 1 part in ten billion. If you hear of tap waters breaking these limits, and it does happen from time to time, and are thinking that you might be better off with bottled water, you might reflect that in many cases, the same aquifer is used for both tap and bottled water - and there are no tests for pesticides required to be done on bottled water. The bottled water manufacturers don't test for organic chemicals.

The Suffolk County Study in the USA tested 88 bottled waters and what they found was horrifying.  It was this study which discovered the cancer agent, benzene, in Perrier and caused it to be withdrawn, but they also found: Freon, kerosene, toluene, trichloroethylene, and xylene in a number of other bottled waters.

Another American team in Pennsylvania analyzed 37 brands, 28 of them from Europe, for:  alkalinity, aluminum, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, chloride, chromium, cobalt, copper, fluoride, iron, lead, lithium, magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, nitrate, pH, phosphate, potassium, silver, sodium, specific conductance, sulfates, tin, vanadium and zinc.  Twenty-four of the 37 did not comply with drinking water standards in the USA.  With the exception of Mountain Valley, a United States water, every one of them failed to pass EEC or WHO limits on at least one count.

Again - the only monitoring that is done, is done by the water bottling companies themselves - and they don't publish the findings.

Bacterial contamination

There are bacteria all around us: in the air, in the water, on our hands and on bottling equipment.  In tap water, bacteria are killed by the chlorine or ultra-violet light with which the water is treated. Although the limit for bacteria in tap water is 100 bacteria per millilitre, the normal level found is around 2 bacteria per millilitre. The situation with bottled waters is quite different.

In a test of 51 bottled waters taken at random, Chester Public Health Laboratory found only 22 with a bacterial content within the limits set for tap water. Only Purefect 95 and the sparkling waters bottled in glass had levels comparable to tap water.  Ten of the other waters had levels of up to 1,000 bacteria per millilitre, eight had between 1,000 and 10,000, while a further eleven were in the 10,000 to 100,000 bacteria class. One bottle was found to contain 188,000 bacteria per milliliter - a massive 1,880 times the limit for tap water.

Once again there are no legal limits for bacteria in bottled waters, although there is a legal requirement that no bacteria must be introduced during the bottling process. The bacterium usually found is Pseudomonas fluorescens , found widely in fresh-water springs and not considered to be a contaminant.  But while the presence of this bacterium is not considered dangerous in bottled water, when it is found in meat products it is described as potentially pathogenic and is a cause for concern. Go figure!

There are no regulations governing the number of bacteria in bottled water at point of sale. However, there is a legal requirement that none must be added at the bottling stage. It is disturbing, therefore, that Hunter and Burge found 7 cases of Staphylococcus which originate on human skin. They say that over 11% of the bottles contained bacteria that are unlikely to have been present in the source water and conclude: 'at least in some cases standards of hygiene may not have been as high as one would hope'. These levels of contamination are clearly at odds with bottled water's clean image.

A matter of taste

The other reason people give for drinking bottled water is its taste - bottled water, they said, tastes better. Yet when this was tested, those who professed to be able to tell the difference failed miserably. The testers used Evian and Highland Spring against local tap water - three waters which had very different characteristics from each other. Even so, only one-third of the 140 people got the correct answer. That is exactly what one would expect to get by chance.


The major problem with bottled water is that we just don't know what is in it. Tap-water regulations make it mandatory that the public water supply is tested daily and that findings are freely available for scrutiny.  There are no similar regulations for mineral and spring waters.  What we do know, however, is that bottled mineral and spring waters have no health-giving properties over tap water.  We also know that, while most bottled waters are safe, their mineral, chemical and bacterial contents mean that they are not as safe as tap water. (scary thought!) Yet they cost around 1,500 times as much as tap water.

Before 1980 there were few regulations for tap water.  Recent advances in equipment sophistication have meant that substances can be detected now at levels which previously were impossible. As a consequence, materials have been discovered in tap water which previously were unknown.  Studies have found that drinking tap water in any part of the USA is usually safer than drinking bottled water.  (And the tap water is in horrible shape!)  No study there or in Britain has found any benefit with drinking bottled water versus tap water.  While sparkling waters do tend to have a slight advantage, as the carbon dioxide gas used to make them fizz has antibacterial properties, no bottled waters are considered safe enough to be recommended as a drink for children.

We have an anomalous situation where different regulations apply to what is essentially the same commodity, merely packaged in a different way. Bottled waters should be subject at least to the same regulations as tap water. It could be argued, however, that if their advertising is going to stress their inherent purity, and if they are to cost so much more, perhaps their regulations should be even more stringent. There is little doubt that if tap water regulations were applied to bottled waters, many would disappear from supermarket shelves.

And, by the way, do you suppose some water bottlers are having a laugh at their customers' gullibility?  How many purchasers of Evian have noticed that this name spelled backwards is 'NAIVE' ?


Bottled Water Definitions:   Source:  https://www.fda.gov/

"Artesian" water: bottled water drawn from a well that taps a confined aquifer (a water-bearing rock, rock formation, or group of rocks) in which the water level stands above the natural water table.
"Distilled" water: produced by a process of distillation--vaporizing water, then condensing it in a way that leaves it free of dissolved minerals.
"Mineral" water (previously exempt from bottled water quality standards): water that comes from a source tapped at one or more bore holes or springs originating from a geologically and physically protected underground water source.
"Purified" water: produced by distillation, deionization (passing water through resins that remove most of the dissolved minerals), reverse osmosis (the use of membrane filters to remove dissolved solids), or other suitable processes, and that meets the U.S. Pharmacopeia's most recent definition of "purified" water.
"Spring" water: water obtained from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface, or would if it were not collected underground through a bore hole where a spring emerges.
"Well" water: from a hole bored or drilled in the ground to tap an aquifer .


The causes of water contamination are numerous and range from agricultural runoff to improper use of household chemicals and everything in between. While the standard use in our society of over 75,000 different chemical compounds has offered added convenience and productivity in our lives, it has also come at a tremendous price… drastic increase in degenerative diseases. In the early 1900s, before chlorine, pesticides, herbicides and the tens of thousands of other chemicals that we are exposed to, the average person had a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer.  Today, 1 in 3 can expect to get cancer in their lifetime; 1 out of every 2 men!

Our use of man made chemicals has become so extreme that we can now find traces of these low level toxins in virtually every public water supply in the world. 

“U.S. drinking water contains more than 2100 toxic chemicals that can cause cancer.”   Report by the Ralph Nader Study Group, after reviewing over 10,000 documents acquired through the Freedom Of Information Act

"Up to two thirds of all cancers may be attributed to these low level toxins.... once contaminated our ground water will remain so for tens of thousands of years… if not geologic time!”  The Federal Council On Environmental Quality

Our tendency is to blame it on the big factory up stream. And while industry has certainly played its part in our water contamination problems, it is “us” individuals that are the most to blame. The majority of the contaminants found in our drinking water can be traced back to improper or excessive use of ordinary compounds like lawn chemicals, gasoline, cleaning products and even prescription drugs.

Once we realize that everything that goes down the drain, on our lawns, on our agricultural fields or into the environment by any means… eventually winds up in the water we drink, we begin to see just how fragile our water supplies really are.

Our municipal water treatment facilities are not designed or effective for removing these synthetic chemicals and typically only consist of sand bed filtration and disinfection, much like a standard swimming pool filter. For the most part today’s water treatment facilities are much the same as they were at the turn of the century.

“Drinking water plants are old and out of date, and water supplies are increasingly threatened by and contaminated by chemicals and microorganisms.” Natural Resources Defense Council.

“The way we guarantee safe drinking water is broken and needs to be fixed.” Carol Browner, U.S. EPA

One of America’s leading authorities on water contamination, Dr. David Ozonoff of the Boston University Of Public Health warns that, “the risk of disease associated with public drinking water has passed from the theoretical to the real.”  Many illnesses that in the past could not be linked to a probable cause, can now be directly linked to toxins in our drinking water.

The use of pesticides and herbicides has become so excessive that they are now commonly found in household tap water with alarming frequency.

A 1994 study of 29 major U.S. cities by the Environmental Working Group found that all 29 cities had traces of at least one weed killer in the drinking water. The report titled “Tap Water Blues“ went on to say that “Millions of Americans are routinely exposed to one or more pesticides in a single glass of tap water”.

These first ever “tap water testings” found two or more pesticides in the drinking water of 27 of the 29 cities, three or more in 24 cities, four or more in 21 cities, five or more in 18 cities, six or more in 13 cities and seven or more pesticides in the tap water of five cities. In Fort Wayne Indiana nine different pesticides were found in a single glass of tap water!

As a startling side note it was reported that in these 29 cities 45,000 infants drank formula mixed with tap water containing weed killers and that “ over half of these infants were swallowing 4 to 9 chemicals in every bottle!”

The tragic health effects of consuming these highly toxic chemicals are magnified many times over for small children because their systems are more sensitive and still developing. Small children also consume a much larger volume of fluids per pound of body weight and therefore get a bigger dose, yet non of these factors are considered when the EPA’s maximum contaminant levels are set. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 1993 on this subject and stated that “ children are not little adults, their bodies are less developed and incapable of detoxifying certain harmful compounds.”

Another major flaw in the estimated risks of chemicals in our drinking water is the false assumption that only that one chemical is being consumed. The regulations are set based on what is assumed safe for a 175 pound adult drinking water with only that one chemical present and does not take into account the combined toxicity of two or more chemicals.  (Let alone 100s!)  

“...when two or more of these contaminants combine in our water the potency may be increased by as much as 1000 times.”  1995 Science Advisory Report to the EPA

“The one thing we know for sure about toxins in our drinking water is that the more we look the more we find.”  Jacquelyn Warren of the Natural Resources Defense Council

Regardless of the differing opinions it is safe to assume that there is NO acceptable level for pesticides, weed killers, or chlorine, MTBE, etc.. in our drinking water.

In America each year we use over 2.2 billion pounds of pesticides, or eight pounds for every man woman and child in the country.

Industrial solvents like TCE and Benzene make their way into our water supplies from literally hundreds of sources.  Airports and military bases degrease planes and engine parts with TCE, one of the most concentrated toxins in existence. One teaspoon of TCE will render over 250,000 gallons of water undrinkable, and yet thousands of gallons are used in uncontained applications each day. 

Perchlorethelyne, cyanide, and benzene are used in such common industries as bottled water, food processing plants, dry cleaning, car washes, photo processing, etc.. much of which ends up going down someone's drain and into our water supplies. It has been shown that areas with the highest levels of these man made carcinogens in their water supplies also have the highest incidence of cancer.

Cancer extracts a staggering toll from our society, one in every seven people will die from this man made disease. According to the Center For Disease Control “Death from cancer is increasing more rapidly than is the population”.    It is now widely accepted that cancer is an environmental disease.  The World Health Organization and the National Cancer Institute both suggest that most human cancers, perhaps as many as 90% are caused by chemical carcinogens in the environment.  This realization is paramount for change because it means that most cancers could be prevented by minimizing or eliminating our exposure to chemical carcinogens.

While the powerful chemical industry argues that the levels of these toxins in the environment are not significant, scientific evidence has shown otherwise. A National Cancer Institute report to the Surgeon General concluded that “no level of exposure to a chemical carcinogen should be considered toxicologically insignificant for man".

We spend billions of dollars each year seeking a cure for cancer. The disease is merely a result of the real problem, environmental pollution. If we were to direct these billions of dollars and the same intense effort towards curing the problem (pollution) instead of learning to live with the result (cancer), we would do future generations a great service, and we could realistically stop the “cancer epidemic".


Below are a few questions we often here about lead poisoning...

Q. What are the primary sources of lead exposure in humans?

A: Nationally, the primary source of lead exposure is lead paint. The two primary lead exposure routes for humans are inhalation and ingestion. Lead from airborne sources has been reduced since the phase out and elimination of lead additives in gasoline. Lead is also found in urban areas with older homes containing leaded paint which is also a source of soil contamination. Once lead enters the soil it adheres to the soil particles. Soil containing lead may also be blown by the wind, exposing people to lead containing dust. Movement of lead into groundwater is unlikely unless the water is acidic; a common situation in acid mine drainage areas. Sources of lead in surface water or sediment include deposits of lead-containing dust from the atmosphere, waste water from industries that handle lead (iron and steel and lead producers), urban runoff, and mining piles. Foods such as fruits, vegetables, meats, grains, seafood, soft drinks, and wine may contain lead. Cigarette smoke also contains small amounts of lead. Lead gets into food from water during cooking and into foods and beverages from dust that contains lead falling onto food during processing. The amount of lead found in canned food (lead solder joints) decreased 87% between 1980-88.

Levels of lead may build up in plants and animals in areas where air, water, or soil are contaminated. If animals eat contaminated plants or animals, most of the lead they eat will pass through their bodies. In general, very little lead is found in the groundwater or surface waters sources of drinking water (lakes, rivers, streams). Groundwater that is acidic may cause lead found in pipes, leaded solder, and brass faucets to enter water. Public water systems are required to treat water to make it less corrosive; this may include decreasing the acidity of the water.

Q: How does lead get into my drinking water?

A: Although sometimes found in natural deposits near drinking water sources, lead contamination generally occurs from the corrosion of lead pipes either between the water main and a customer's home (lead service lines) or in a home or building's plumbing system. Even in homes not served by a lead service line, corrosive water may cause lead to leach from lead pipes, lead solder, and brass fixtures.

Q: How much lead is harmful?

A: Blood lead levels of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (mcg/dL) or greater are considered harmful. This level has been associated with decreased intelligence, behavior problems, reduced physical stature and growth, and impaired hearing. A child is estimated to lose 2 IQ points for each 10-mcg/dL increase lead in blood lead concentrations. A variety of intervention actions are taken at various thresholds above 10 mcg/dL. Pregnant women and women who are nursing are also at risk from lead exposure. Fetuses have been shown to receive lead from their mothers and nursing mothers can pass lead through their breast milk. In both cases, the unborn and young children are taking in levels of lead that have more of an impact due to their smaller size. It should be noted that local and state health departments recommend that children be routinely screened for lead at 9 months and again at 24 months.

Q: Does a high level of lead in tap water cause health effects?

A: High levels of lead in tap water can cause adverse health effects because the lead may enter the bloodstream and cause an elevated blood lead level. Most studies show that exposure to lead-contaminated water alone would not be likely to elevate blood lead levels in most adults, even with exposure to water with lead content close to the EPA "Action Level" of 15 ppb. Risk will vary depending upon the individual, the circumstances, and the amount of water consumed. For example, infants who drink formula prepared with lead contaminated water are considered to be at higher risk because of the large volume of water they consume relative to their body size.

Q: Are some people more at risk than others from lead in drinking water?

A: Yes. Children under the age of 6, pregnant women, and nursing mothers are considered to be most at risk. Children because of their smaller body size and pregnant and breast feeding mothers because of leads ability to pass through the placenta and through breast milk to the child. If you fall into one of these categories and are concerned, contact your local health department or physician.

sources: Water Magazine, Water Technology Magazine

Giardia Lamblia Water Treatment | Giardia Water Filter | Remove Giardia  Cysts from Drinking WaterCYSTS

Cysts.... Real Pests in Our Drinking Water
Cryptosporidium, Giardia Lambia ("Beaver Fever")

This organic sporozoan, first described in 1907, wasn't recognized as a cause of human illness until 1976. It is a protozoan parasite that can infect a variety of animals. In the environment, Cryptosporidium exists as a resilient, infectious, round oocyst about four to six microns in diameter. The cyst is a "suitcase" for the infectious material inside.

Cryptosporidium is widespread in the environment. Oocysts (cysts) have been found in rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, sewage, and treated surface water. Once introduced to water, the oocyst can survive for weeks, even at low temperatures. The organism has been found in humans, cattle, sheep, swine, goats, cats, and dogs as well as deer, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, beavers, muskrats, rabbits, and squirrels. Oocysts infecting certain species can infect another (referred to as cross-transmission). For example, organisms from domestic animals (cattle, dogs, eats, etc.) are able to infect humans, Conversely, organisms from humans can infect animals. Consequently, animals which typically reside in or around watersheds may serve as hosts to the cysts and continuous sources of infection. This is where the nick name "Beaver Fever" was born. Beavers carry the organisms and through their feces spread it throughout surface water supplies without becoming ill themselves. Moreover, infection can occur not only from drinking contaminated water, but also from eating contaminated food and from exposure to fecally contaminated environmental surfaces.

When ingested, the Oocysts pass through the stomach into the small intestine. There the Oocysts split open, releasing sporozoites which invade the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract. Infected cells lining the intestine appear normal, but their ability to absorb water and nutrients is severely impaired. The water and food ingested simply passes through the digestive system. Additional Oocysts are formed in the intestine and either split open to release additional sporozoites to continue the infection or are excreted in the feces.

IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Protozoan Parasites in Drinking Water: A System  Approach for Improved Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Developing Countries

The Cryptosporidium infection causes an illness called cryptosporidiosis. After the Oocysts are ingested, the incubation period typically varies from 2 to 12 days with an average of seven days. Disease symptoms include diarrhea, abdominal cramps, nausea, occasional vomiting and low-grade fever.

The number of Oocysts that must be ingested to cause infection in humans is not conclusively known. Studies indicate that as few as 10, and perhaps as many as 500 Oocysts are required to initiate infections in mammals. The infectious dose for humans is thought to be fewer than ten.

Cryptosporidiosis typically lasts 10 to 14 days. However, it may linger off and on for up to 30 days and infrequently can persist for extended periods. Children may be the most susceptible, particularly six-year- olds and under. A rapid cure for Cryptosporidiosis has not been found. Recovery depends on the patient's overall health and immune system. The disease can be fatal for those who are already in a fragile state such as someone with AIDS or any other weakness to their immune system.

There are two varieties of the oocyst: (1) a sphere of about 4.5 micron in diameter
and (2) an ellipse of about 7 x 5 microns. The thick walls of the Oocysts make it difficult, almost impractical, to kill with the UV systems in most domestic water treatment systems. Also, the cyst is much more difficult to kill using
chlorine than normal coliform bacteria found in water supplies.

Since filter elements are manufactured so that they remove pathogenic bacteria down to one micron in size; they are 100% effective in the removal of Cryptosporidium.

Cryptosporidium Fact Sheet

What is Cryptosporidium?

Cryptosporidium is a one-celled parasite that can cause a gastrointestinal illness called cryptosporidosis.

Where does it come from?

Cryptosporidium occurs in the feces of infected animals or humans. It is environmentally resistant and may survive outside the body for long periods of time. To become infected, a person must consume contaminated food or water.

What are the symptoms of cryptosporidosis?

Diarrhea, abdominal cramps, headaches, nausea, vomiting, and a low-grade fever. These symptoms can last for weeks and may lead to weight loss and dehydration. Symptoms are more severe for people with weakened immune systems and can lead to death.

When do symptoms appear?

From 2 to 12 days after ingestion. The average is seven days.

How is it spread?

A person can be infected by consuming contaminated water or food. Direct or hand-to-mouth transfer of the bacteria from feces or contaminated surfaces can also cause infection.

What is the treatment for cryptosporidosis?

If you think you have cryptosporidosis, see a health care provider, especially if you have a weakened immune system. There is no cure for the disease. However, the symptoms may be treated with antidiarrheal drugs.

Who is at risk?

Anyone who consumes contaminated food or water, child care workers, young children who attend child care centers, persons exposed to human feces by sexual contact, and caregivers who might come in contact with feces while caring for a person infected with cryptosporidosis. Children are especially susceptible because they put so many things into their mouths.

How common is cryptosporidosis in Washington?

Cryptosporidosis is not a reportable illness in Washington. Originally considered a parasite of animals, reptiles and birds, it first was detected as a source of illness for humans in 1976. Health officials now believe Cryptosporidium has been causing human illnesses for a long time, but it was overlooked due to difficulties in testing and diagnosis.

How can I ensure my water is safe to drink?

For wells, use a UV Light between the well source and the home.  Pay attention to health advisories and boil water notices. To ensure your drinking water is safe during boil water notices, always boil, filter, or use distilled or bottled water:

What else can I do to avoid cryptosporidosis?

The single, most effective way to avoid illness is to wash your hands often with soap and water. During boil water advisories, use water that has been boiled and cooled, filtered, or safely bottled for washing dishes, fruits, and vegetables.

  • Always wash your hands before handling food and dishes and after using the toilet, gardening, changing diapers, or handling pets.

  • Wash fruits and vegetables with safe water, especially if you plan to eat them raw. You can also peel fruit that you will not cook.

  • Never cook for other people if you have diarrhea.

  • Avoid unpastuerized milk and dairy products. Cooking kills Cryptosporidium and other germs.

  • Don't swallow any water from lakes, rivers, pools, or jacuzzis. Water swallowed accidentally while swimming may contain the organism.

  • Take care when traveling in developing countries. Foods and drinks, in particular raw fruits and vegetables, tap water or ice made from tap water, unpasteurized milk or dairy products, and items from street vendors may be contaminated with Cryptosporidium. Talk to your health care provider about other precautions you may want to take when traveling abroad.


Are these recommendations sufficient for people with weak immune systems?

For most people, yes. However, persons with AIDS should use disposable gloves or have someone else who is not HIV positive change the cartridges on their water filter. The same precautions should be taken with cat litter boxes.

Where can I get more information?

For more information, call Communicable Disease Epidemiology (360) 361-2914.

Arsenic: King of Poisons


Arsenic is known as 'Senko Bish' among the Bengali-speaking people. This term is also used in the books in Bengali on medical science.  The use of arsenic as a deadly poison has been known since long years back. After winning the War of Waterloo, the British force reportedly used arsenic to kill French Emperor Napoleon Bonapart who was in exile at St. Helena island. After his death on May 5, 1821, it was announced that Napoleon died of stomach cancer. But many people thought that the Englishmen applied slow poisoning to kill Napoleon. The British people denied the allegation. But after many years, the hair of the French Emperor, reserved at a museum, was tested and it was proved that he was killed by poison, and the name of poison is arsenic. Arsenic was found in Napoleon's hair 13 times more than the normal level.


Arsenic is a crystal-shape metalloid element, which is brittle in nature, and gray or tin-white in color. Arsenic is a Group-V element in the periodic chart . Its atomic number is 33, and the atomic weight is 74.92.

Arsenic cannot be found in nature as a free element. It exhibits a broad range of chemical reactivity with an ability to form alloys with other elements and covalent bonds. Arsenic precipitates readily in oxidation-reduction, methylation-demethylation and acidbase reactions.

Arsenic can not only create compounds with oxygen, chlorine, sulfur, carbon and hydrogen, but also with lead, mercury, gold and iron. It mainly remains as oxide, hydrate, sulfide, arsenete, and arsenite. Gold, silver, copper, zinc, iron, and other metals exist with arsenic in these chemical compounds.

As many as 150 species of arsenic bearing minerals exist in the earth. But only three of them are considered as arsenic ore. Because, the amount of arsenic is higher in these three compounds. Moreover, they are more available than other arsenic compounds. These three compounds are Realgar or arsenic disulfide, orpiment or arsenic trisulfide, and arsenopyrite or ferus arsenic sulfide. There are differences in the physical properties of these three types of arsenic minerals. But a common feature of them is a garlic-like odor. Arsenopyrite has been primarily identified as the main source of arsenic pollution in the groundwater of Bangladesh and West Bengal. When arsenopyrite oxidises and mixes with water, no smell is found in the water. Arsenic burns in air giving off an odour of garlic and dense white fumes of arsenic trioxide.

Chemically arsenic compounds are two types- inorganic and organic arsenic. Inorganic arsenic are divided into two types- trivalent and pentavalent arsenic. Inorganic arsenic are more toxic than the organic ones. The trivalent arsenic is 60 times more toxic than pentavalent arsenic. Trivalent arsenic compounds are known as arsenite and the pentavalents are as arsenate. Usually there are four types of arsenic compounds existing in water. These are arsenite, arsenate, monomethyl arsonic acid and dimethyl arsinic acid. But in the groundwater arsenic predominantly occurs in the tri- and pentavalent form. These two were found in the groundwater of Bangladesh and West Bengal.

The name of some inorganic arsenic compounds can be mentioned here- arsenous oxide or arsenic trioxide, sodium arsenite, potassium arsenite, copper arsenite, copper acetoarsenite, arsenic acid, sodium arsenate, potassium arsenate, arsenic disulfide or realgar, orpiment or arsenic trisulfide, arsenopyrite, arsine, arsenic triiodide, etc.. Organic arsenic compounds include monomethyl arsonic acid, dimethyl arsinic acid or cacodylic acid, sodium cacodylet, atoxyl, stovarsol, sulpharsinamine etc..


Arsenic is a ubiquitous element being widely distributed in the earth. Nature itself is an adequate source of arsenic. According to availability of natural elements in environment, the position of arsenic is 20th.

Arsenic is found in atmosphere, in the aquatic environment, in soils and sediments and in organisms. Different minerals of arsenic are mixed with underground rock. The arsenic contents of the earth's crust is 1.5-2 mg/kg. However, arsenic up to 550 mg. can prevail in per kg. polluted soil. Arsenic poison can spread in air from the industrial wastes. Generally, nominal amount of arsenic also exists in water. Per liter natural water contains 1-2 microgram of arsenic.

Trace quantity of arsenic is also found in most of the fruits, vegetables, fish and meat. But high level of arsenic exists in sea water. Food of marine origin are much richer in arsenic than other foods. Arsenic up to 5 milligram can be found in per kilogram of sea fish. It means human beings are getting some amount of arsenic through air, food and drinks everyday. But the arsenic does not cause damage of human bodies as its extent is very minimum. The arsenic which are received through food is generally organic. Its poisonous effect is low in comparison to inorganic arsenic. Usually a man can receive arsenic up to 150 microgram for per kilogram weight of his body without any effect. But sensitive individual may however fall sick for only 20 microgram arsenic.

There are a lot of arsenic in earth's bio-mass. Arsenic also exists in lava of volcano. Geothermal system and uranium and gold mines are sources of arsenic. It occurs in the air in areas where coal is burnt, particularly near smelter and refineries.


Arsenic compounds are mainly used in agriculture, forestry, and industrial processes. Arsenic tri-oxide is used in manufacturing of agricultural chemicals (pesticides), glass and glassware, industrial chemicals, copper and lead alloys and pharmaceuticals.

In agriculture, arsenic compounds such as lead arsenate, copperacetoarsenite, sodium arsenite, calcium arsenate and organic arsenic compounds are used as pesticides. Substantial amount of methyl arsonic acid and dimethyl arsinic acid are used as selective herbicides.

Chromated copper arsenite, sodium arsenate and zinc arsenate are used as wood preservatives. Some phenylarsenic compounds such as asranilic acid are used as feed additives for poultry and swine.

Small amount of arsenic continue to be used as drugs in some countries. As medicine arsenic is used since the 5th century BC when Hippocrates recommended the use of an arsenic sulfide for the treatment of abscess. Arsenic preparations were used for the treatment of skin disorder, tuberculosis, leukemia, asthma, leprosy, syphilis, amoebic dysentery etc.. Homeopaths are also using arsenic as drug.

Besides, arsenic is used in the preparation of dyes, poisonous gas, transistor, as a component of semiconductor, as a preservative in tanning and in the industry of textile, paper etc..


The arsenic pollution problem took a severe shape in the present world. The pollution has been spread more or less in every continent. It occurs as results of geological processes and different development activities- agriculture, exploration of mineral resources and their processing-by human being. Arsenic pollution took place in different states of the world due to various reasons.

(Source: Dhaka Community Hospital: Hosted: May, 2001)



US Environmental Protection Agency reveals that tens of millions of Americans may be at risk from fluoridated drinking water.

Fluoride Does Not Even Stop Cavities!!

Recent Findings on Fluoridation's Effectiveness:

"An analysis of national survey data collected by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) concludes that children who live in areas of the U.S. where the water supplies are fluoridated have tooth decay rates nearly identical with those who live in nonfluoridated areas." - Hileman, B. (1989). New Studies Cast Doubt on Fluoridation Benefits. Chemical & Engineering News. May 8. https://fluoridealert.org/articles/hileman-1989/




More on the dangers of Fluoride:  The following material was provided by Mr. Glasser (see below)

"It's POLLUTION , Stupid! "

by George Glasser

Scientists can argue and bicker about the fluoride ion for eternity and beyond, but the one indisputable fact that no one can rebut is the origin of the product most used to fluoridate drinking water. The pro-fluoridationists are using captured pollution from phosphate fertilizer production: Commercial Grade Fluorosilicic Acid and Sodium Fluorosilicate. It is not, "simply the fluoride ion in water," it is a complex recipe of toxic substances that most countries have labeled:  Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP).

More:  https://www.inspiredliving.com/water-pollution/fluorosilic-acid.htm


United States Environmental Protection Agency

Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Administrator for Water, USEPA, 1983, wrote:   " ...in regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a LONG-STANDING problem. By recovering byproduct fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them."


The Geology of Florida, 1997, University Press of Florida, Pg. 143 The Economic and Industrial Minerals of Florida.

In addition to uranium, fluorine is an economic byproduct of phosphoric-acid production. The fluorine from the rocks reacts with silica to form SiF 4 gas . During acid production, this gas is recovered as fluorosilicic acid (H 2 SiF 6 ) in wet scrubbers that are part of the environmental-protection equipment . Fluorosilicic acid is widely used in the preparation of chemical compounds and in the treatment of public drinking water… Radon , a daughter product of the uranium-series decay, remains a major environmental problem…Gases such as ammonia sulfur oxides, and fluorine species have caused problems in the past.
Production of Phosphoric Acid - Description

Also See: Production of Phosphoric Acid 2 - Description


Fluorine Recovery in the Phosphate Industry:

By H. F. J. Denzinger, H. J. König and G. E. W. Krüger

ABSTRACT - Phosphorous & Potassium #103 SEPT/OCT 1979, pages 33-39

The fluorine compounds liberated during the acidulation of phosphate rock are now rightly regarded as a menace and the industry is now obliged to suppress emissions-containing vapors to within very low limits in most parts of the world. As with any pollution control operation, it is highly desirable for the operator of the fluorine scrubber to help defray at least partially the cost of the operation.

This article reviews the chemical and technical principles of gaseous fluorine compound removal, the principal types of practical fluorine recovery processes that have been developed and their limitations, and possible methods of utilizing the fluosilicic acid solutions which these processes generate.



1996, USEPA Office of Air and Radiation, 40 CFR Part 63 [IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5656-4] RIN 2060-AE40 and 2060-AE44: SUMMARY: Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the facilities covered by this proposed rule include hydrogen fluoride (HF ) ; arsenic, , beryllium , cadmium, chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel (HAP metals); and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) emissions. Human exposure to the HAP constituents in these emissions may be associated with adverse carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous system, dermal, developmental, and/or reproductive health effects. "
Carcinogicity: Arsenic and Old Laws, NRDC


Bladder Cancer: EPA Arsenic Technical Fact Sheet, Proposed Rules

EPA: Radiation in Drinking Water

[[Page 68432]]

Section II (introduction); D. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Industry Profile (paragraph 2). The second means of manufacturing phosphoric acid is through wet processes. There are 47 wet acid plants at 21 locations. The basic step for producing phosphoric acid is the acidulation of phosphate rock. Typically, sulfuric acid, phosphate rock and water are reacted with one another to produce phosphoric acid and gypsum. When phosphate rock is acidulated to manufacture wet process phosphoric acid (WPPA), fluorine contained in the rock is released.  Fluoride compounds, including HF, are evolved as particulates and gases which are emitted to the atmosphere unless removed from the exhaust stream.
43 and 63 [IL-64-2-5807; FRL-6329-5] RIN 2060-AE40 and 2060-AE44, JUNE 10, 1999

Also, the commenter said the proposed MACT floor standard for existing facilities failed to consider the benefits of airborne radionuclides reductions achieved by the proposed new facility standard. Citing the Agency's proposal not to exercise its statutory authority to go beyond-the-floor and require more stringent controls on existing WPPA plants based upon EPA's analysis of the health impacts of HF and HAP metals, the commenter was unaware of any Agency analysis of the human health and environmental benefit. The commenter maintained that the Agency was required by section 112(d) To evaluate the public health benefit and the environmental benefit which would result from the decreased radionuclide emissions associated with the particulate if existing WPPA facilities were required to meet the new source WPPA standard for HF emissions.


 "Handling of radium and uranium contaminated waste piles and other wastes from phosphate ore processing."

By G. Schmidt, C. Krüppers; annex by P. Robinson

Nuclear Science and Technology, Report EUR 15448 EN. p. 121 ISBN 92-827-4076-5, Published by the European Commission, Luxembourg 1995.


Natural phosphate ores contain radionuclides of the uranium series. In this report, calculations and evaluations of radiation doses for the public and workers from the phosphate industry are performed. From these findings, it is evaluated whether established radiation protection procedures should also apply to certain facilities, occupations and waste management practices in the phosphate industry. Measures for improvement and remediation are discussed and evaluated, and recommendations given.


The findings in this report are summarized with the following statements:

Processing and waste handling in the phosphate industry is associated with radiation levels of concern for workers and the public. The level of protection for these groups should be more similar to the level of protection that is state of the art in other industries, particularly the nuclear industry.

Radiation protection measures for workers are necessary, especially for certain areas of the facility and for repair jobs, because potential radiation doses reach a relatively high level of concern compared to levels in other branches.
Some waste management practices still found in the phosphate industry still deliver high individual and/or collective doses to the public, that can be substantially reduced by shifting to alternative management strategies.

Environmental risks from phosphogypsum piles can be reduced using relatively simple and cheap measures such as covers, liners or more sophisticated wastewater treatment. These are in place and working well art other facilities in and outside of Europe.
The unrestricted reuse of materials from phosphate processing facilities and of waste materials creates potential hazards to man that exceed the limits for radiation protection."
Available from:

Office of Official Publications of the European Communities
2, rue Mercier, L-2985 Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Read more about fluoride here



by George Glasser

"In l999, EPA convened a group of experts to carefully consider the results of the Varner et al. (1998) study," USEPA spokesman, Charles Fox wrote in a September 5, 2000 letter to US Congressman Ken Calvert, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. Fox continued, "As a result of that conference, EPA has requested that the National Toxicology Program consider the possibility of conducting additional studies of the neurotoxicity of aluminum that include verification of the results observed in the Varner et al. Study."

Fox carefully avoided mentioning the fact that the reviewed study he cited was replicated in two previous studies by Dr. Julie Varner. All three studies found that aluminum-fluoride interactions are associated with brain and kidney damage in laboratory animals. Aside from brain and kidney damage, there was an 80% mortality rate in the animals fed doses of sodium fluoride and aluminum similar to those found in artificially fluoridated drinking water.

Alum (aluminum sulfate) is most frequently used by water companies to improve the appearance of drinking water, to make it clear. For many years, aluminum has been known to be neurotoxic to humans and animals.

The original Varner, et al, study published in Neuroprotective Agents, 1997, was designed to determine whether aluminum and fluoride (aluminum fluoride) in drinking water play a role in age-related neurological damage similar to Alzheimer’s disease. It was the first scientific study to deal with fluoride/aluminum interaction.

The researchers considered that fluoride and aluminum could combine in the stomach and be more readily transported to the brain. The combination, they believed, could enhance neurological damage and cause conditions such as presenile dementia or Alzheimer’s like dementia (ALD). During the first experiment, the researchers had noted and were perplexed by the alarmingly high death rate in the group of animals receiving aluminum and fluoride in their drinking water (80% of the animals in the low-dose group died before completion of the experiment).

They also noted that the amounts of aluminum and fluoride fed to the animals was about the same as the amounts people are exposed to in artificially fluoridated public water supplies. The reasons for the high number of animal deaths is still unexplained as was the fact that the greatest number of mental impairments appeared in the low-dose group of animals.

It was also observed that the animals who drank the aluminum/fluoride-laced water developed sparse hair and abnormal, copper-colored underlying skin which is related to premature aging. Researchers said that most often this condition is the result of several diseases including chronic kidney failure. Further autopsy results showed serious kidney abnormalities in animals that drank water containing both sodium fluoride and aluminum fluoride.

The Varner team said that, "Striking parallels were seen between aluminum-induced alterations" in cerebral blood vessels that are associated with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of presenile dementia. They concluded that the alterations of the blood vessels may be a primary event triggering neuro-degenerative diseases.

Astounded, the researchers went on to say: "Not only did the rats in the lowest dose groups die more often during the experiment, they looked poorly well before their deaths. Even the rats in the lowest dose group that managed to survive the 45 weeks looked to be in poor health."

Subsequently, the researchers reported that the results of the "THIRD" animal study confirmed the findings of the previous studies. This red flag alarmed the USEPA panel of experts because the same physical and neurological damage can also be occurring in humans in areas where both aluminum sulfate and fluorides are added to the public drinking water.

Based on the conclusions drawn from the third Varner study, the USEPA experts requested further research be commissioned by the National Toxicology Program. In spite of the disturbing Varner team revelations it will take two to three years for the National Toxicology to review the request.

Almost 60% of the United States is fluoridated, and the odds of an American developing some form of dementia by the age of 65 is estimated at 1 in every 10 people, and at the age of 85, the odds are 3 in every 10 people.

In the United Kingdom, which is 10% fluoridated, 7% of the population over 65 years will develop some form of dementia.

Recent USEPA concerns over arsenic, a Group 1 (a) carcinogen, caused the government-contracted water treatment chemical certification laboratory, National Sanitation Foundation International, to say that there will be "increased product failures" due to high arsenic levels in fluorosilicic acid. USEPA has asked the US Government to dramatically reduce arsenic levels in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 5 parts per billion. The EPA is keen to change the regulations because arsenic in known to cause a wide range of cancers in humans.

More recently, the primary component of fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate - silicon - has also been discovered in the brain plaque of Alzheimer’s and Alzheimer’s-like dementia (ALD) victims. Silica has also been found in the brain tissue of people with primary brain tumors, which is considered a terminal condition. Although aware of these new developments, no responsible government agency including the USEPA will request that any research be done with the actual toxic waste "product" used to fluoridate public drinking water.


*Microvascular abnormalities are associated with strokes resulting in forms of memory loss.




New England Moves Toward Zero Mercury

A pact signed by all New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers to eliminate mercury products may cause the region to lead the way in zeroing out mercury fillings.

We all know what a horrid effect mercury fillings have on the environment -- to say nothing as on the children of this nation and world!


Dental mercury accounts for half of the mercury in wastewater; mercury from cremated teeth is an environmental menace -- and listen to the latest, from Michael Bender -- 55% of all mercury carried in products (e.g., thermostats, cars, etc.) is in our mouths. We are carrying over 1000 TONS of mercury, more than all mercury stored in all products combined.  Charlie Brown, Coalition for Mercury Free Dentistry

Jerry Mittelman, DDS, FAPM  Author   "What dentists aren't likely to learn in dental school."


Amalgam illness (mercuy poisoning) is linked to: allergies, asthma, autoimmune disease, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Panic attacks, Schizophrenia spectrum disorders, ADD, depression, OCD, Rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, MCS, chronic fatigue, IBS, sleep disorders, and fibromyalgia among others. So many people on this list could benefit from the book.

The book, "Amalgam Illness: Diagnosis and Treatment," is excellent supplemental reading for Lyme Disease sufferers and others suffering from chronic  illness. To learn more about the book, read excerpts from it, and order it online, visit:  http://www.lymebook.com/mercury.htm


The Role of Mercury in Alzheimer's Disease
The most common cause of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is due to toxic metal that leaches from mercury-silver amalgam dental fillings and causes many other medical complications. Dr. Murray Vimy, a dental researcher from the University of Calgary, Canada, and member of the World Health Organization (WHO) states:

. . ."In a human autopsy study,5 brain tissues from people with AD at death were compared with an age-matched group of control brains from subjects without AD. The only significant difference in metal content between the two groups of brains was mercury, being considerably higher in the AD group. Mercury concentration was prominent in the hippocampus, the amygdala and particularly in the nucleus basalis, all brain structures involved in memory function. " -- Bolen Report


About 8% of US dentists are now mercury-free. Our practice went mercury-free in '68 - possibly the first in the US to do so.




1. Report to Congress on Special Wastes from Mineral Process - Summary

and Findings, Methods and Analyses, USEPA, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, July 1990.

2. Phosphoric Acid Waste Dialogue, Report on Phosphoric Wastes Dialogue Committee, Activities and Recommendations, September 1995; Southeast Negotiation Network, Prepared by Gregory Borne.

3. Denzinger, H.F., König, H.J., Krüger, G.E., Fluorine recovery in the fertilizer industry - a review, Phosphorus & Potassium , no. 103, Sept/Oct. 1979.

4. The Geology of Florida , University Press of Florida, 1997, pp. 141-144, 247-249.

5. Sinkholes and stacks, U.S. News & World Report , June 12, 1995, pp.53-56.

6. AWWA Standard For Fluorosilicic Acid, B703-94, AWWA Standard for Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Fluorosilicate, and Potassium Fluorosilicate B703-94 , American Water Works Association 1994; Also see : AWWA Standard For Hydrofluosilicic Acid, B703-89 .

7. Correspondence from Joseph A. Cotruvo, Office of Drinking Water, USEPA to G.G. England, Aug. 12, 1986 (regarding the presence of radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid).

8. Correspondence from Thomas Reeves, National Fluoridation Engineer, USPHS to George Glasser, February 25, 1998 (regarding presence of radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid).

9. LCI, (Lucier Chemical Inc.) Ltd., Hydrofluosilicic Acid Specifications, H2SiF6, Commercial Grade, Oct., 1990.

10. Wastes bypass federal regulation despite radioactivity, Gunter, B., Kennedy, M., Tampa Tribune , 21 July 1991.

11. Gaseous Fluoride Emissions From Gypsum Settling and Cooling Ponds , Howard E. Moore, Florida Scientist , vol. 50, Spring 1987, pages 65-78.

12. Evaluation of Analytical Methods for Fluorine in Biological and Related Materials, P. Venkateswarlu, P., Jour. of Dental Research , Feb, 1990, Vol. 69.

13. Correspondence from Tudor Davies (Administrator, USEPA Office of Water) to George Glasser, June 1995. Davies states that EPA determined that sodium fluoride was an "appropriate surrogate" for fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate.

14. Society for Neural Science, 1995. The Abstract from the Neurotoxicological Evaluation of the Chronic Administration of Aluminum Fluoride and Sodium Fluoride , Varner, Jenson, Horvath & Isaacson. Also see: The Concept of Direct and Indirect Neurotoxicity and the Concept of Toxic Metal/Essential Element Interactions as a Common Biomechanism Underlying Metal Toxicity, Chapter 5, vol. 1; Chapter 11; Silver Impregnation of Organophosphorus-Induced Delayed Neuropathy in the Central Nervous System, Chapter 12 , The Vulnerable Brain and Environmental Risks , vol. 2, eds. Robert Isaacson & Karl F. Jenson. New York; Plenum Press, 1994.

15. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics , 1996-97, The Chemical Rubber Co. (Fluorine, Polonium, Radium, Radon and Uranium).

16. The Merck Index, An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals , Merck Research Laboratories, Merck & Co., Inc., 1996 ("Fluorine combines directly or indirectly, with to form fluorides with all the elements except helium, neon, and argon.")

17. Occupational Diseases, A Guide to Their Recognition , 1977, U.S. Public Health Service (Has not been revised to date), pp. 30, 403-402, 469-474 (pg. 30 mentions potentiation and synergism of fluoride compounds).

18. Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F ) , USDHHS, USPHS, ATSDR, April 1993.

19. Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma , 1978, George L. Waldbott, M.D., Burgstahler, A., McKinney, G, Coronado Press, Inc, pg. 225 (Ervin Bellack).

20. Little, J.B., Radford, E.P., McCombs, H.L., and Hunt, V.R., Distribution of Polonium-210 In Pulmonary Tissue of Cigarette Smokers . The New England Jour. of Med ., 272:25, Dec. 17, 1965.

21. Parsons, W.D., De Villiers, A.J., Bartlett, L.S., Becklake, M.R.: Lung cancer

in fluorspar mining community. II. Prevalence of respiratory symptoms and disability. Br. J. Industr. Med . : 21:10, 1964.

22. Pharmacology and Toxicology of Uranium Compounds , C. Voegtlin, H. Hodge, McGraw-Hill, 1949.

23. Marier, J., Rose, D ., Report for the National Research Council of Canada , 1977 (synergism of fluoride compounds).

24. Drinking Water and Health , National Academy of Sciences, 1977: Chap. VII, Radioactivity in Drinking Water, pp. 857-903.

25. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, 1993 NRC/NAS, EPA contracted.

26. Proceedings of Joint IADR/ORCA International Symposium on Fluorides: Mechanisms of Action and Recommendations for Use, March 21-24, 1989 , Jour. Of Dent. Research , Feb., 1990, vol. 69 (concern about possible interactions with heavy metals, water treatment chemicals, food additives, etc.).

27. C.H. Kick, Et Al, Fluorine in Animal Nutrition , Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 558, Nov. 1935.

28. Journal of Dental Research , volume 69, Feb., Pg. 883, International Symposium on Fluorides, researchers and scientists express a concern about fluoride interaction with various elements and food preservatives. Their concerns are not about the likelihood of adverse health effects, but that the substances may inhibit cariogenic ("cavity fighting") ability of the fluoride ion.

29. Toxic Properties of Inorganic Fluorine Compounds , R.Y. Eagers, 1969, Elsevier Pub. Co. NY.

30. Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences , Mack Publishing Company.

31. Radon and decay rate products: See Seventh Annual Report on Carcinogens ( PB95-109781, 1994) p. 65 ; Interim Protocols for Screening and Follow-up Radon and Radon Decay Rate Products Measurements (PB89-224265, EPA, 520/1-86-014-1, 1987) p. 22; and National Bureau of Standards Handbook , 69, 79 (1959).

32. A. W. Frazier, J.R. Lehr, E.F. Dillard, Chemical Behavior of Fluorine in the Production of Wet Process Phosphoric Acid, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, TVA Bulletin Y-113 .