1. Home
  2. Home Repair
  3. Chemical smell in well water
  4. Page 2

Chemical smell in well water

formatting link
> >> >> >> >

Interesting.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom
Loading thread data ...

I'm not really sure these days. Unfortunately while some environmental organizations may have started out reputable, much like the US political parties, they have been gradually taken over by extremists and have lost whatever credibility they had. Presumably there are some reputable ones left, but they are probably also the ones that get little publicity since they don't engage in distortion and attacks.

Reply to
Pete C.

I guess the extremists provide some balance, which is something we need, since the EPA is sometimes handed over to administrators who are on the take from the industries they're supposed to regulate.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom
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

I have been trying to research and help you out but having no luck in finding any filtration systems that would deal with these chemicals.......Fluorobenzene , 2-Bromo-1-Chloropropane , p-Isopropyltoluene . From what I have found, I believe the iron and Manganese are on the border line but below max tolerance.

The Fluorobenzene , 2-Bromo-1-Chloropropane , p-Isopropyltoluene on the other hand...............I dont know what to tell you.

Think you might be able to sell your home and move where the water is good? I see no other way out. This is extreme, but in your case it might be something to think about.

Good luck.

Reply to
avid_hiker

In the future, you should post your responses to the person who asked the question, not to other participants further down in the hierarchy of messages.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

I shall try to remember that.....and the reason being? dunno, but am assuming that if receiving emails from this ng, that you get it as a reply to your post? Is this true?

But thanks for telling me, as I would have never known.

Reply to
avid_hiker

I shall try to remember that.....and the reason being? dunno, but am assuming that if receiving emails from this ng, that you get it as a reply to your post? Is this true?

But thanks for telling me, as I would have never known.

Reply to
avid_hiker

I did not ask the question about the water problem, but you posted it as a response to ME. Take another look at the google screen. Or better yet, stop using google for newsgroups, and use news reader software.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Get a life Mr. Know-it-all, Ill use whatever I please, thankyou. Oh...and this was a reply to you, not the post.

Reply to
avid_hiker

Is this how you deal with *all* your mistakes?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

No, it's not.

Neither you nor anybody else receives emails from a news group.

Replies to your posts show up as, well, replies. On the news group. You may occasionally receive an email *copy* of a post to the group, but that does not come from the group -- it comes from the individual who made the post and decided to send you a copy by email.

If you were using an actual news reader, rather than reading and posting through a web interface, the operation of newsgroups might be a little more clear to you.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Time to call Erin Brokovich...

Reply to
sonofabitchsky

If I had all that crap in my well, I'd drill a new well or find another water source. The Iron, and Manganese are normal well type minerals and are not really harmful, just irritating. But the first 3 are industrial chemcals. I am not a chemistry whiz, but I know they are similar to paint thinners and/or gasoline. How is all this crap getting into your well? Obviously there is some industry leaking this stuff into the groundwater. Maybe a gas station with a leaky tank. Have you contacted the EPA, your state DNR, and other govt. agencies? This needs to be investigated and the source located. Then file a court case and let the polluters pay for your new well.

Reply to
noemail

You'd go to that trouble and expense before finding out if the levels are harmful?

They're also present at concentrations of less than ten parts per *billion*.

Indeed you're not a chemistry whiz.

The *first* thing to investigate is whether those chemicals are harmful at the levels at which they're present. A quick Google search on fluorobenzene toxicity suggests that that one, at least, may not be.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Thankyou Doug.......it is nice to get a non sarcastic reply to my questions. There are some good people in this world still....tg.

Thanks again,

Dean

Reply to
avid_hiker

.....yet. It would still be good to know if the source can be pinpointed, so he can know whether the contamination is still taking place, or likely to increase or decrease.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

I repeat: the *first* thing to do is find out if the chemicals are harmful at the levels at which they are present.... for TWO reasons.

First, if they're not harmful, or close to the threshold at which they might be, then the OP can set his mind at ease.

Second, and more important, if they *are* harmful, he needs to know that RIGHT NOW so that he can take steps to obtain a safe water supply, and get whatever medical attention may be needed.

Finding out where the contamination came from, and if it's still coming, are (or should be) strictly secondary concerns. The primary concern is finding out if it's a hazard at all, and if so, how much of a hazard it is. Everything else can wait.

Reply to
Doug Miller

One more thing... when replying to posts, it's customary to quote at least enough of the post that you're replying to that folks won't wonder what you're talking about. :-)

Reply to
Doug Miller

Agreed, except for the bit about "are they harmful". We've all seen ads asking for people to participate in drug studies. We don't see ads asking for people who are willing to be dosed with industrial chemicals. Since

*all* parties in the chemical debate now agree that studies on animals are not conclusive, it's important to err on the side of safety. Otherwise, we are unwitting guinea pigs.
Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Yes, but.

Where do you draw the line? Above some threshold level, almost *anything* is harmful. It's impossible to eliminate risk from life. And while I freely admit that I'm not a toxicologist, and don't actually know how dangerous those chemicals might be, I imagine that the OP probably places himself in much greater danger by driving to work in the morning than by drinking the water from his well.

Reply to
Doug Miller

HomeOwnersHub website 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.