It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US water has large amounts of likely carcinogen: study

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

US water has large amounts of likely carcinogen: study


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A US environmental group has found that drinking water in 35 American cities contains hexavalent chromium, a probable carcinogen, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

The study by the Environmental Working Group -- the first nationwide analysis measuring the presence of the chemical in US water systems -- is to be made public on Monday, the daily reported.

The group found hexavalent chromium in the tap water of 31 out of 35 cities sampled.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Eesh...

Although I cannot say I am particularly shocked by these results, since every other type of garbage and chemical is infiltrating our water supplies, such as the ever-over-used FLUORIDE which is forced upon the populace, as well as known pharmaceuticals which keep 'mysteriously' showing up in copious amounts within the supply lines as well.

If this isn't another cause to think about investing in a micro or reverse osmosis filtration system, I don't know what is. Our water supplies are flat out unhealthy.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Which cities I wonder. "35 American cities" isn't very specific.
I know of one for sure they found last year but the rest?
Houston Chronicle

MIDLAND — Beverly Crouch spent hundreds of dollars on chemicals last fall to try to get the green tinge out of her backyard pool. All for naught. It wasn’t until two months ago that she learned why the chemicals she put into her 13,000-gallon, above-ground pool wouldn’t clear the water. The green color came from well water contaminated with hexavalent chromium, a known human carcinogen.

edit on 19-12-2010 by Nephalim because: added one possible city



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



...and chemical is infiltrating our water supplies...


Water is a chemical substance.


...such as the ever-over-used FLUORIDE which is forced upon the populace...


How is water fluoridated at 1 PPM 'over-using' it? Oh, you know what else is "forced" on your water supply? Water treatment. Hell, it's probably even controlled by the government.



...as well as known pharmaceuticals which keep 'mysteriously' showing up....


Oh, you sly devil you, using the word mysteriously to insinuate someone is purposely adding them to cause harm.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 
Here in England it has been known for over ten years that oestragen, as part of the female contraceptive pill, has been in the water cycle and cannot be eradicated. Such a "small" thing as this could alter the fine ballance in pregnancies between being male or female. Could this be the answer to the prevelance of so many men exhibiting female behavior in our society. Just a thought.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 


Ummm, whatever.


Who cares WHAT reason they are being added! They don't BELONG in our water, nor are many of these things healthy. So I'm not sure what your little diatribe was about.

Our water ain't healthy, and the garbage being put in it sure isn't helping-period.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
good find, and UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!


nothing like getting cancer drinking h20. I would suggest not just saying meh, when you hear stuff like this, ask questions, and demand answers!!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Great! So not only do we have cancer causing agents free flowing in our water we also have numerous prescription drugs in it.

I think the world needs a quick cleaning and I have a feeling its coming soon.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


What I don't understand is why industrialized nations can't create a gray-water line that is on a closed loop system for human waste? Why are we using fresh water for our toilet bowls and dumping the filth in the same water system that ends up feeding back into our lakes, rivers, and eventually back into our horrible water treatment facilities?!

Why don't we have a closed loop system with grey water that feeds our toilet bowls? You could keep the cheap water treatment and feed it into this line, and create a newer more sophisticated water treatment system that works for all potable water lines. Our water treatment systems are pure garbage. I'd certainly be willing to pay some extra $$$ for something that did an excellent job without adding chemicals like chlorine and fluoride into the mix.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
The Washington Post being a respectable news source states that 31 cities were found to have this chemical compound in their water supplies. This is entirely misleading.

Facts to Consider :

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 19,354 cities in the United States.

35 Cities were tested.

31 Cities found to contain it.

Roughly 0.180841169784024% of all US cities were tested.

88.57142857142857% of all US Cities will possibly contain this chemical compound if we can trust the science of the source.

Conclusion : The science suggests that almost 90% of all US Cities contain a dangerous chemical compound. Should we be ourtaged? Demand answers? Inquire more on the issue? I firmly believe so.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



Ummm, whatever.


Saying "chemicals infiltrating our water supplies" is, in my opinion, leading a reader into the "chemicals are bad" idea, which is just silly.


Who cares WHAT reason they are being added!


I do, if it's beneficial, why would you NOT add it.


They don't BELONG in our water


That's really subjective, comes down to adding a beneficial substance into the water supply VS should you be forced to drink something, and in this case, I'd side with adding it.


So I'm not sure what your little diatribe was about.


I can't stand silly claims like insinuating chemicals are bad and that water fluoridated at 1 PPM is too much

Slightly more on topic - yeah, all the junk they find in water supplies isn't the greatest, we can agree there.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



Ummm, whatever.


Saying "chemicals infiltrating our water supplies" is, in my opinion, leading a reader into the "chemicals are bad" idea, which is just silly.


CONTEXT !!! You're misleading by chopping up the quote. His full line reads:


Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Although I cannot say I am particularly shocked by these results, since every other type of garbage and chemical is infiltrating our water supplies, such as the ever-over-used FLUORIDE which is forced upon the populace, as well as known pharmaceuticals which keep 'mysteriously' showing up in copious amounts within the supply lines as well.


Huge Difference...


edit on 19-12-2010 by unityemissions because: butchered a tag



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Not really...

He said:


since every other type of garbage and chemical is infiltrating our water supplies, such as the ever-over-used FLUORIDE


Saying "every other type of garbage AND chemical..." is an indication to these "natural is good, chemicals are bad" concepts.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Note to the wise...

Don't feed the trolls and their absurdities.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
To those who call for a more effective water treatment scheme - there is one.

It's called wetland systems. Water flowing through expansive (uninhabited by humans) wetlands comes out a (censored)load healthier than it comes out of the water-treatment systems.

The problem is that wetlands, as well as playing host to a vast array of very useful wildlife, also play host to... mosquitoes.

Humans hate mosquitoes. Not only because they bite and make us itch, but because they keep that nice, clean water and the nice, fertile soil uninhabitable by spreading malaria.

So what have most (if not all) developed countries done?

Drained most (if not all) of their non-estuarine wetlands...

Goodbye to malaria, but hello to cholera, dysentry, typhoid... the list of diseases associated with untreated water goes on.

Now aren't we a clever little ape?

edit on 19/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 
This does not work. In my earlier post I said about oestragen in our water. This has already gone through the cycle of through the sewer network into the ocean been picked up and dropped as rainfall on the land been through different water treatment plants and still comes out contaminated. There comes a time when traces are small and intergrated so well into the water molicules that nothing will affect it. Now as mention in earlier threads its only small amount and is not dangerous. But no-one can say for certainty for or against these chemicals what the cumalative effect will be. By the time any defects show up it's too late.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Yes yes, disagreeing with the consensus on ATS members make you a troll / disinfo agent etc.

I was remarking about why the OP would use such wording or indirectly asking why he said chemicals rather than a more accurate and appropriate term. Also, if you have never heard about the whole 'natural is good' ideas on ATS, then you're clearly not paying attention. For example, just go find a topic that uses naturalnews.com as a source or something.

Again, if you say garbage AND chemicals are infiltrating into the water, you're insinuating chemicals are somehow bad. It's like saying garbage and water is infiltrating our water supply.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Excellent post, DD - thanks for bringing this to our attention! Do you think the Berkey filtration system removes this? I hope so. I've been using a Berkey for years and really feel that it has made a difference in our health.

Btw, ignore the Boy George wannabe; I've seen him trolling on a number of threads and you know what they say about feeding the trolls ...



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


Yes, that needs to be looked into, particularly if it was a random sampling. We scrutinize our annual water reports and this one was not on there ... yet.

It's getting to the point where it would be better to drink pond water (well, almost). We want to drill for a well but it costs about $20k to go as deep as we want and it's a crap shoot...
edit on 19-12-2010 by GirlGenius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GirlGenius
 



Btw, ignore the Boy George wannabe; I've seen him trolling on a number of threads and you know what they say about feeding the trolls ...


Yes, sorry for disagreeing on a site that has a "deny ignorance" slogan.

Seriously, you can be an example of what I was getting at about using the word "chemicals" with negative connotations or praising the 'organic' craze lately, this is what I mean:


Absolutely! We are totally sabotaged with all the chemicals and GMO, etc. The media and medical-industrial complex promote a totally unhealthy way of eating.


Link

You used chemicals the same way the OP used the word chemicals, and instead of addressing it, I just get called a troll. Yeah...
edit on 19-12-2010 by Whyhi because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join