How Dangerous is Organic Arsenic in drinking water?

I have an exspensive filtartion system on my well water that cost me over five thousand dollars. I recently got my water tested and they said it had high concentration of naturally occurring arsenic levels and i need to get a reverse osmosis system which will run me over 10 thousand dollars! I want to keep my family healthy but are they trying to just scare me into buying this? The sales man said no amount of filtration can remove arsenic only reverse osmosis. My family has lived at our house for over twenty years and we are all very healthy. Any thoughts?

What was the concentration level they found?
Who tested it? The guys selling the system? If so, I would get an independent test done before even thinking about signing a contract.

EPA has set the arsenic standard for drinking water at .010 parts per million (10 parts per billion) to protect consumers served by public water systems from the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic.

water.epa.gov...

reply to post by HODOSKE


It really depends on where your house is located. A little arsenic won't kill you, but if there has been hydrocarbon exploration in your area in the past decade there is a chance the levels have risen from the previous baseline. If there has been a large increase, it may be something to consider, or if the preceding levels are a good percentage over what is considered safe.

My 2 cents.

reply to post by Phage

he sales man said no amount of filtration can remove arsenic only reverse osmosis.

I missed the "sales man" in the sentence.

Good catch...

i live in hunterdon new jersey which does have high concentrations of naturally occurring arsenic. And yes the sales man did the test

Originally posted by HODOSKE
i live in hunterdon new jersey which does have high concentrations of naturally occurring arsenic. And yes the sales man did the test

There are a number of independent labs that will test drinking water. They send you a container to scoop a sample and you return it to them. As Phage mentioned, I would send it to one of these places first and get the results, given they have no financial gain in the case that you buy a reverse osmosis system.

When the results are in, compare it to the national averages and the levels deemed safe for drinking. Making a judgement based on that...

reply to post by HODOSKE


I have to agree with Phage. I would get a second opinion literally because you can't trust someone who's sole motivation is selling you something he just happens to provide.

he said the levels were .06 mg

reply to post by HODOSKE

Sounds like a fancy water filtration for 5000. I can find reverse osmosis sets on internet for less than 500 but I don't know if they would be suitable in your house or for your needs. No idea about arsenic but I read reverse osmosis doesn't remove 100% of all contaminants but sometimes as much as 95% (possibly depending on model and contaminant). I think Phage gave you some sound advice.

Simple answer. Very. I am in total disagreement with any U.S. Gov. guideline that describes the parameters of a "safe"level of toxins like arsenic, lead and mercury.

Originally posted by HODOSKE
he said the levels were .06 mg

If true, it is high.
1) Was the test of water coming from your existing filter or from your well?
2) Verify the testing.
3) Shop around for a system if necessary.

reply to post by HODOSKE

Let me say this...as I'm no chemist or expert on such matters to say the VERY least. Arsenic has been the object of several major legal actions and no small degree of suffering and hardship in the region of Northern Arkansas and the Poultry farms. It was used in their food because Arsenic apparently works to fatten them up quicker and with less expensive feed put down their gullets.

Unfortunately, to put this politely, what goes in has a way of coming back out eventually...and then it dries..and blows around the surrounding community.

Anyway....I don't mean to take this in an off direction, but the court cases had a wide variety of hard science done with expert testimony to explain precisely how Arsenic acts in Poultry and Humans alike as well as the cumulative nature of the substance for the harm it does.

Sorry I can't contribute more in a direct way, but that is where all the facts you likely seek can be found by folks who already did the labor in showing it as accepted legal evidence. Great to hear on the filtering! Everyone ought to do it these days!

Did they actually say it was organic arsenic? There is a huge difference in the toxicity of organic and inorganic arsenic and both of these occur naturally. The inorganic salts, which are the more toxic of the two (by about 500 times), tend to be an issue in groundwater rather than the organic compounds, so I'm curious which of the two you were told was present given the title. Even if the 0.06ppm figure that you were told is correct, it might not be too much of an issue if they really are organic compounds. In any case, I agree with the others that you need to get a second opinion that doesn't come from an inherently bias source.