arsenic removal from water

[Mark Modrall]

Hi...

My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house. We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the new standards.

She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly that far.

Thanks Mark

[dpb]

...

...

Where's the water from and what is the source of the arsenic?

Attack the source/supplier???

[Doug]

Agreed, is it municipal source? Is it exceeding the MCL, or just the MCGL? Or is this another set or standards?

[HeyBub]

The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.

If your water is below 50, save your money.

[EXT]

I just read that low levels of arsenic can prevent certain forms of cancer.

[dpb]

I seem to recall arsenic grows old lace...or makes lace grow old, or something like that, anyway... :)

[Mark Modrall]

We're on well water, so we have no other authority to take the complaint to.

When we moved in 6 years ago, it tested just under the old standard by a hair, so it's obviously over by the new standard.

Thanks Mark

[Bob M.]

Exactly. Clinton changed it in the waning -days- of his presidency. There was zero science behind the move, it was all political. If it was so necessary, it would have been lowered long ago.

[mm]

I don't konw about the rest of it, but this last sentence doesn't compute. For example, maybe they tried for the lower value but compromised on the earlier higher value. Maybe there were other efforts to lower it but they failed.

The notion that things must have been done right the first time, so any other way isn't right, is not valid.

[Anonymous]

My wife fills empty soda bottles with tap water, and stores 'em in the fridge....tastes just like 'bottled".

But seriously folks; Unless your water TASTES terrible, I wouldn't spend the $$$ on filtering systems.

[dpb]

On Jun 6, 6:59 am, "" wrote: ...

Well, that's overly simplistic, too. :(

There are many contaminants (mineral and/or biotic) that have no taste or odor but are serious health risks, so relying solely on taste or smell isn't sufficient guarantee.

If it's a public water system there's at least a reasonable chance it's pretty good at least in the developed countries. If it's a private well, testing should be done on a periodic basis -- how frequently is often enough depends on well location, surroundings, etc., ...

[EXT]

I agree that often science gets left out and political pressure takes over, this usually creates standards that allow more toxins and/or pollutants than science would like, not the other way round. This is usually because the chemical companies or other vested interests have the lobbyists working on their behalf.