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
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?
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?
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.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
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.
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
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?
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.
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.