Chemical smell in well water

Page 1 of 3  

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[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. (http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/FL/fluorobenzene.html )
A 70kg human being would need to drink 32 million liters of the OP's water to get a dose that high.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah, but the chemical companies say tests on rats are no longer valid. Anyway...the guy still needs to look into his problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:27:37 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, no, but it does give a useful figure for comparing to other hazards, and for estimating relative danger.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/contaminants/contaminant.php?contamcode 30
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
avid_hiker wrote:

EWG has less than zero credibility. Try to find info from a reputable source.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
` end
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What about the water quality reports available on this page? Are they also suspect? http://www.mcwa.com/watqlsum.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Less likely to be suspect, though there have been a few cases where water companies (municipal or not) have been less than honest.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK. Saw the report. What specific things do you take issue with?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.