Chemical smell in well water

[Rand Reed]

We have a well that is contaminated with:

9.30 ug/L Fluorobenzene 9.20 ug/L 2-Bromo-1-Chloropropane 3.90 ug/L p-Isopropyltoluene 0.19 mg/L Iron, Total 0.04 mg/L Manganese, Total

The water smells like some sort of chemical and there is some yellow staining. Carbon filtration does not work, and the local water conditioning companies do not know what to do about it.

We already have a neutralizer and water softener installed and these levels are tested by a certified lab from water sample taken AFTER those devices. If those devices are bypassed the water is brown and horrible!

We would like to find out if there is a way to get that chemical stuff out of our water.

Can you please help us?

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Please answer these questions clearly, and separately:

1) How long have you lived in this house?

2) Before you moved into the house, did you have the water tested?

3) What state do you live in?

4) Have you spoken to your local health department AND your state's environmental enforcement agency?

[Goedjn]

I think I'd go with a distillation unit at that point. Or a water catchment. the benzenes and toluenes mean the well water isn't potable, don't they?

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Whether it's potable depends to a great extent on what political party appointed the current EPA stooge, but according to scientists, those chemicals are a bad thing.

[Doug Miller]

[snip]

Well, they certainly aren't anything *good* -- but also keep in mind that micrograms per liter (ug/L) is equivalent to parts per *billion*.

For fluorobenzene at least, the oral LD50 in rats is on the order of 4.4g/kg body mass.

A 70kg human being would need to drink 32 million liters of the OP's water to get a dose that high.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Yeah, but the chemical companies say tests on rats are no longer valid. Anyway...the guy still needs to look into his problem.

[Goedjn]

Good point, in that I'd ignore the units. On the other hand, LD-50 isn't really the standard I'd prefer to use for my drinking water. Who did the water assay, and do they have a recommendation?

[Doug Miller]

Well, no, but it does give a useful figure for comparing to other hazards, and for estimating relative danger.

[avid_hiker]

It seems that most chemicals listed here....the first 3 anyways, are chemicals used in factories. Would you live close by a factory that may use these in production of their goods? If so, they may be responsible for a solution.

[avid_hiker]

[Pete C.]

EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Here's some text from that link. Tell me what's not credible in this text:

p-Isopropyltoluene Status: Unregulated - EPA has not established a maximum legal limit in tapwater for this contaminant.

p-Isopropyltoluene is a widely used industrial chemical, used in the manufacture of paint, furniture, and other consumer goods. No information on potential health impacts for p-Isopropyltoluene was identified in standard government and academic sources.

Sources of p-Isopropyltoluene: Industry

An Environmental Working Group analysis of p-Isopropyltoluene tests reported by 22,144 public water suppliers in 34 states shows that between 1998 and

2003, 4,641 people in 13 communities drank water contaminated with p-Isopropyltoluene. No health-based limit has been established by the federal government.p-Isopropyltoluene remains unregulated in tap water, without a maximum legal limit.

begin 666 icon_industry.gif M1TE&.#EA(@`B`*(``````/___W=W=YF9F41$1*JJJHB(B ```"P`````(@`B M`$ #D1BZW/X/R$FK!4)A+7G-E!%0PYB97@JMT.1=:[GHY9XS'Q2*F_)X'>ET

[Pete C.]

The source. If you want credible information try going to the EPA site. Just because a few paragraphs on an EWG site do not contain glaring mistakes, lies or errors does not in any way give them credibility. Search around their site with some objectivity and you will find massive bias, lies, mistakes, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc. Try reading the "report" from some of their claimed "testing" and you will find nothing but misrepresentation, lack of any scientific validity and general nonsense.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

What about the water quality reports available on this page? Are they also suspect?

[Pete C.]

Less likely to be suspect, though there have been a few cases where water companies (municipal or not) have been less than honest.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

OK. Back to that EWG site. Two questions:

1) On the specific page we're looking at, it appears they have compiled data from water authorities. Assuming the original data was accurate (from the authorities), and the web site gathered the data into larger statistics, where is the fault, assuming there were no typographical errors when entering the numbers for the charts & graphs? 2) Could you please point out at least one or two lies, mistakes, etc., on that page or others?

[JoeSpareBedroom]

One other question: Are there any environmental organizations other than the EPA which you consider reputable and dependable? Which ones?

[Pete C.]

>> >> >

There may be none on that page. This does not however validate EWG in any way.

Find their page with the report on Teflon / PFOA / C8 for a good example of pseudo science, distortion and bias.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

> >> >> >

OK. Saw the report. What specific things do you take issue with?

[Pete C.]

>> >> >> >

Um, the complete lack of scientific methods? The hyping of a "sophisticated infrared thermometer" to try to make this pseudo report sound technical and the complete lack of any detail on how they "determined" there was outgassing or what this alleged outgassing was composed of? That's a good start. The fact that this "report" materialized shortly after they decided to attack DuPont over alleged C8 pollution near a plant makes it even more pathetic.