What is a chemical?

Ok, So I was encouraged the other day by a comment on my blog to stop being so negative about chemicals. I must admit that I was a little bit confused. My blog is primarily about contaminant remediation…which is what I study in school. I guess that sounds negative?

Anyway, the point is well taken. So, I started thinking about the word, ‘Chemical.’ What does the word, ‘chemical’ mean to most people? I realized that it has a somewhat negative connotation. At least I think it does. People seem to think that when something is called a chemical that means it is harmful. So, I looked up the definition on google (where else would I?). This is what I found:

1. A substance with a distinct molecular composition that is produced by or used in a chemical process.
2. A drug, especially an illicit or addictive one.
3. adj. relating to, involving, or denoting the use of poison gas or other chemicals as weapons of war: the manufacture of chemical weapons.

The third definition is from the U.S. Military dictionary (I didnt know we needed one). Besides being slightly weird and disturbing this didnt shed much light. Then I ran into a pop up (or maybe it ran into me) that had a picture of a cute dog and it said, “He has 35 chemicals inside him. How many do you have?” The chemist in me started thinking…well counting all the different organic species I would say….some millions.

Wait?!!?!? The dog only has 35 chemicals inside him? That must be like an amoeba dog or something. How can he live if he only has 35 chemicals? Then I realized that they meant the dog has 35 harmful chemical species.

Anyway, enough nerd stuff. I think I am starting to realize that the word chemical is synonymous with ‘harmful’ most of the time. I think part of my posts from now on should be devoted to explaining has chemical species can sometimes be good and sometimes be bad, but most of the time they are neither. They just are.

Nature of science and faith

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.” Francis Bacon.

I believe there are very few easy answers to life. Things have a tendency to get convoluted and mixed up. This is perhaps never truer than in matters of Faith and Science. Some, who misunderstand science, claim that it negates all forms of faith as silly, superstitious, and unreasonable. Others, who misunderstand faith, claim that science is a bold affront to all things spiritual. Neither position is true.

Clarity is possible. It comes when we let down our emotional attachments and reasonably assay the situation.

The following are my personal views on Faith and Science. I will certainly alter them over time, but let me start with a few directions then I will move to a discussion.

Directions:

• I categorically reject the viewpoint that scripture and the scientific method are equal and mutually exclusive (independence position of science and religion).
• Science has a definition. It is not nebulous. 
  • There is such a thing as incorrect science.
• Faith has a definition. It is not nebulous.
  •  There is such a thing as incorrect faith.

Directions two and three probably sound obvious to you (hopefully), but if all literature, discussions, blogs, etc. followed them then our search would be much more fruitful.

Let’s start with some simple definitions of science. According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary science is,

“Knowledge attained through study or practice¹,” or

“Knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world¹“

These are both simplified definitions, perhaps overly so. In order to understand what science is then the knowledge itself must be defined. The knowledge understood in these definitions is brought about through the scientific method. The process of using the scientific method, for simplicity I will simply use science as a verb from now on (i.e. to do science, to use the scientific method), is hinged up falsification. Hypotheses are tested and tentatively accepted or rejected based on experimental observations. If they are rejected then new ideas take their place. If they are accepted then they are further scrutinized until they enter into a category of ‘reasonably certain.’

A comprehensive definition of science must be at least twofold:

1. Process oriented
2. Knowledge base

The process definition is the verb form, doing science. I take issue with some definitions that state that science “makes use of” the scientific method. In truth, science is the scientific method.

The knowledge base aspect of science should then be satisfactorily exact (yet not burdensomely so). Several excellent definitions exists, but personally I would just say, “a systematized, growing body of knowledge subject to revision and falsification” Some might argue here about established foundations of science-are they really subject to falsification and revision? One example in geology might be the theory plate tectonics. Is it really subject to revision? Certainly so. Is it really subject to falsification? Indeed yes. 

A historical example would be Newton’s Law of Gravity: F = G (m1•m2)/r² where F is the gravitational force, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are masses of two objects, and r is the distance between them. The ‘theory’ of gravity was considered fact for a very long time although really it was a “reasonably certain.” When Einstein published his theory of relativity he better described the attraction force in such a way as spacetime curvature rather than a force. It was latter seen that his theory better described the orbits of our planets than did Newton’s theory.

This is the nature of science. Science is not dogma. It can never be dogma. This is the great strength of science…its flexibility.

An interesting aside to this discussion is the idea of scientific determinism. One of the modes (without getting into types such as: incompatabalists, libertarians, etc.) of determinism said that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature⁶. Basically this view said that there was no such thing as free will. All events both natural and human are predetermined based on earlier events. Furthermore, many scientists claimed that when all information was known about the system then all future events of our system could be predicted. Therefore, one day man would be able to know all the events of his life before they happen (admittedly we are stepping on fatalists toes more then determinists). This view was shattered in 1926 when Heisenberg formulated his Uncertainty Principle which stated that one can not know both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time. As one more accurately knows the position the momentum becomes less known, and vice versa as one calculates the momentum the position become less accurate. This showed that it is not possible to gain knowledge about the exact conditions of a system at a given moment in time. Thus, it is not possible to predict the future based on knowledge of the past. Whether or not such a thing as free will exists we will leave to a latter discussion. Enough of that rabbit trail back to the main discussion.

Then, what is the definition of faith? Well, that is a much more difficult problem to tackle. First, I will narrow the playing field by only discussing supernatural faith. Certainly, there are other types of faith (such as wife’s faith in her husband’s fidelity), but this discussion will not purposely encapsulate them. Some definitions include:

“The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and trusting acceptance of God’s will²”

“Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another testifies is the truth³”

I have a preference to “the assent of the mind to the truth,” but  ”without other evidence” is not accurate. Faith is not a mindless emotional desire. Faith is based on evidence. It is not, however, based solely on observable or reproducible evidence.

The bible defines faith as,

“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen^4″

This passage brings the idea of faith to life. It places faith into the realm of the concrete…the stable. It is not a nebulous abstract fussy feeling. It says that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for” What does this mean? Simply put, when the faith that God gives us becomes real we recognize it is truth. It is not irrational. It is simply spiritual.

This is juxtaposed to science which we stated never comes to dogmatic ends. It retains its flexibility if you will. Faith, however, can KNOW things. With faith facts can be truth.

Let me state now that all men and women of the world have faith. It is not a choice whether or not one has faith. It is a choice what faith you have, but the existence of faith necessarily is in all of us whether we like it or not. This is because we all have to believe certain things that are beyond us. Not one person knows everything. Therefore, everyone must take certain things as faith. I know this infuriates some, but it is true.

Some even place their faith in science. They believe that science will eventually understand everything. There is no problem that faith will not ultimately unravel. Of course, this supposition has to believe that humans have the capacity to eventually figure everything out. There is nothing that is beyond our capacity. For the present moment at least…this is a faith…a belief.  

What then is the relationship of Science to Faith and Faith to Science in the natural world? I am aware of only 4 general positions. I will use Warren A. Nord’s descriptions⁵. These are:

1. Religion trumps science⁵: ‘When science and religion conflict, only religion provides reliable knowledge. It is through inerrant scripture or religious tradition that we come to know the ultimate truth about nature. No doubt good science would always agree with scripture or religious tradition, but, unhappily not all science is good science.’
2.  Science trumps religion⁵: ‘When science and religion conflict, only science provides reliable knowledge. It is through the methods of science that we learn the ultimate truth about nature. If the scientific net doesn’t catch something, it’s because it doesn’t exist. Consequently, scientists need not take religious claims into account in constructing their picture of nature. Sometimes this position is called scientism or naturalism or scientific materialism.’
3.  Independence⁵: ‘Properly understood, science and religion can’t conflict because they are incommensurable: each has its own methods; each has its own domain. (This is sometimes called the “two worlds” approach.) One common expression of this view is that science asks objective, “how” questions, while religions asks personal “why” questions. The conceptual nets of science and religion capture aspects of reality so different that they stand in no logical relationship; they can be true or false in their own terms only. Theology and science can be compartmentalized.’ 
4.  Integration⁵: ‘Science and religion can conflict and can reinforce each other, for they make claims about the same world. Neither can ignore the other, and neither automatically trumps the other. Because science and religion are each competent to illuminate aspects of the same reality, a fully adequate picture of reality must draw on and integrate both.’

The great strength to science is its flexibility. The great weakness to science is its amorality (not immorality). Science is directionless. Science makes no value judgments on datum. The fact that arsenic is deadly when consumed in [insert dose] is not bad. It is a fact. The fact that greenhouse gases cause the earth to heat is not bad. It is just a fact.

Science left by itself would not aid mankind in any way. Science would be useless.

In addition to this there are many questions science can not answer. There are many things that are out of the purview of science. Some examples are: “What is life all about?”, “Why are we here?”, “What is the value of a human being?”. The astronomer Arthur Eddington told a parable once to explain this. In his parable a fisherman used a three-inch meshed net to catch fish for his entire life. At the end of his career he concluded that there were no fish in the ocean smaller than three inches. Eddington’s moral was that one’s conceptual net determines what one ‘catches.’

To illustrate this again think about what type of information science gathers. It gathers observable information. Anything that isn’t observable can’t be evaluated by science. That is a very big caveat. My view is that anything that is unobservable falls out of the scope of science. It is silly to say that science will one day discover all of life’s secrets. That view demands that humans are capable of observing all things. Even if one takes all metaphysical aspects out of the equation one still can not observe many natural phenomena.

This also debunks viewpoint 2 that science trumps religion. This view states that when science and religion conflict then science wins. This view is forced to believe that: A. science is somehow capable of establishing facts beyond falsification, and B. the science has gathered all the data pertinent. Neither of these conditions can be met by science.  

Some then take the position that science and faith (religion) are incommensurable. They can not be compared by their very nature. I believe this view is somewhat silly however and a little like throwing in the towel during a fight you don’t think you can win. Science does have things to say about faith. Sometimes, for example faith is observable. I remember when lots of people believed that Jesus was coming back at the turn of the millennium. Was it not observable whether or not this was correct?

Faith likewise has lots to say about science. Faith is the backbone to science (such as man should fight to preserve and improve quality of life) without which science would languish into insignificance.

What then is my final position? Well, I would say that the reality is somewhere between viewpoints 1 and 4. I believe the bible is truth. It is infallible and inerrant. Before you take this statement as remarkable (although it is remarkable) I would encourage you to take a look for yourself before you make a decision, and do not take others word for what the bible says. There are many mischaracterizations and some flat out lies on the internet about scripture.

Also, I say that Jesus is God. He is the king. This something which science can’t tell you. You are going to have to search this one yourself…

2. http://www.allaboutreligion.org/definition-of-faith-faq.htm

3.  American Dictionary of the English Language

4. New American Standard Bible (©1995)

5. Science, Religion, and Education; Warren A. Nord; Gale Group, Phi Delta Kappan, 1999 v81 i1 p28; Copywrite 1999 Phi Delta Kappa, Inc.

Where the church gets Israel wrong

The political ties between the United States and Israel are some of the closest and strongest of any two nations on our planet. The United States gives Israel free reign to do as it pleases in the region with virtually no limit to its support; politically, financially, and militarily. America almost never challenges or rebukes Israel for policy decisions. The flow of words between the Bush administration and Israel are sweeter and softer than a young couple in love.

Most conservative christians in America never give this relationship a seconds thought. “Of course we should support Israel. They are surrounded by hostile Muslims right?” They are also the people of the old testament. A natural affinity towards Israel exists. One of the most quoted verses from the bible on the current nation of Israel is Genesis 12:3,

“I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Perhaps though we should take a step back and examine what this relationship should really be like. Israel is one of the most warlike nations in the world. They attack and provoke their neighbors constantly. This is not to saythat groups like Hamas are without blame. That would be idiotic. What I am saying though is maybe we should appraise the situation truthfully and fairly rather than choosing our position before we learn the situation.

First, I am not against using Genesis 12:3, but why do we emphasize it and ignore other verses that are equally valid in application? Perhaps, we should look at some other verses such as:

Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Proverbs 12:20, “Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, but counselors of peace have joy.”

Proverbs 16:7, “When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”

The evangelical church of today largely takes the view that we should always support Israel because that is what God commanded. However, God also commands us to be loving and fair. I mourn the fact that some on America’s pulpits are so callous toward Arabs. There seems to be no love for them whatsoever. How is it glorifying to Christ who shed His blood for us to turn a blind eye on vastly disproportionate violence against Palestinian people? Palestinians kill 1 to 10. Israels bombs tens. Hezbollah kills tens. Fighter jets kill hundreds. How does one square the Jesus of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ with blind hatred?

Another, viewpoint that we might begin to think about would be a literal understanding of Genesis. Maybe, the best way to bless Israel is to demand that they pursue peace like Proverbs 12:20. Does a true friend not say when one has gone astray?

When I lived in the Middle East I lived close to a place called, Rumel Palestini. RP means ‘Palestinian Sands’ because it is a group of thousands and thousands of Palestinians who live on the seashore sands. They live in abject poverty. Their houses are cinder blocks with sheets for roofs. The children almost never have clothes. It is probably the worst place I have personally ever seen.

I think the wost part of it though is that they have lived there since the 50’s (history buffs know the exact year and event I am talking about). That is an entire generation that has lived in horrid conditions because Israel removed them from their homes.

Christians should pursue peace, not blind partisanism.

Canada may label bisphenol-A “Toxic”

The New York times broke the story today that the Canadian Government is prepared to label BPA toxic. Bisphenol-A is used in polycarbonate pastics. BPA may be banned in Canada from many household items such as: baby bottles, beverage containers, food containers, and linings in some food cans.

BPA is used in many many items. Several studies have shown that BPA can mimic oestrogen in the human body confusing the body’s endocrine system. Several studies have also shown that it may not be a risk to adults however babies may be espesially vulnerable. This is the reason its use in baby bottles has been under scrutiny. For more information on PBA look at my blogs at: Bisphenol Compounds,  and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds.

Carter meets with Hamas, the rest of the political world still clueless

Former President Jimmy Carter said today that his visit to the Middle East will likely include meetings in Syria with Hamas. “I’ve not confirmed our itinerary yet for the Syrian visit, but it’s likely that I will be meeting with the Hamas leaders,” Carter said in an interview on ABC news.

The Bush administration and Israel predictably oppose the meetings. Carter has always sought to be evenhanded in the Middle East until he was trounced by the Israeli lobby for daring to deal with both sides. The Bush administration still thinks that isolating Hamas and pretending like they don’t exist will solve the problem. The Bush administration’s continual strategy in the Middle East to overpower all challengers and to give unquestioned military, political, and financial support to Israel has done and will continue to do absolutely nothing toward bringing peace–both in the Middle East and here in America. 

Is it not obvious that this strategy only strengthens Hamas? The government should work with all sides regardless of what they think of each other. This is the nature of arbitration; people dont like each other yet they still meet at the same table to talk. America must stop giving Israel free reign to do as it pleases with OUR resources and begin to recognize the rights of Palestinians.

Mercury In Florescent Light Bulbs

Estimates are that as much as 25% of the average home energy budget is spent on electric lighting¹. Compact florescent lights have made a huge impact into the environmental scene in recent years because of their energy efficiency. They are extremely energy efficient. Some manufacturers claim things such as: compact florescent lamps are 4 times as efficient as regular light bulbs, they last 10 times as long as regular light bulbs, replacing a single light bulb with a compact florescent bulb will keep a half ton of CO₂ out of the atmosphere, and if everyone in the U.S. used energy-efficient lighting, we could retire 90 average size power plants. In truth, there is little reason to doubt these claims. They are certainly much more efficient. There has been much recent debate however on the actual environmental impact of compact florescent lights after the public became aware of the amount of mercury that was in the bulbs.

Of course, it should not come as a surprise that Mercury is found in compact florescent bulbs. Compact florescent bulbs are basically tiny versions of the full sized florescent bulbs we are more familiar with which contain mercury.

Mercury is a very harmful environmental contaminant. It is not beneficial to the body in any amount³, is a potent neurotoxin^{6, 7}, and has been linked to autism⁵. Recently, much news has been on mercury poisoning in fish especially sushi.

Manufacturers claim that there is very little mercury in the bulbs. Some sight that there is less mercury in some than in a common watch batteries. One article stated that there is more mercury in some tooth fillings than in the average compact florescent light bulb. Of course, the consumer should not be taken in by this last statement. The mercury in amalgam fillings is a different chemical species and is not toxic to the human body. For a more complete discussion of mercury in amalgam fillings see this post.

The real issue is the fragility of the light bulbs. If a florescent bulb breaks the mercury is released. This is a major problem because it is much easier for a watch battery to reach the landfill unharmed than it is for a glass bulb. Not only does this mercury get released to the environment (which can eventually find its way into fish believe it or not), but it also exposes city workers to high levels of a potent neurotoxin. Some cities have placed ordinances on putting compact florescent bulbs in the trash. Most major cities offer recycling options for florescent bulbs.

Therefore, the major question becomes: what is the actual environmental impact of compact florescent bulbs? Does the mercury pose a greater threat to the environment than the increased carbon emissions of less efficient traditional bulbs, or is the mercury of much smaller environmental impact?

In a recent paper entitled, “Release of mercury from broken fluorescent bulbs¹¹” Aucott, McLinden, and Winka develop a method for measuring mercury released from broken bulbs.  They found that between 17 and 40% of the mercury in broken low-mercury fluorescent bulbs is released to the air during a two-week period immediately following breakage which is approximately between 3 and 8 mg of elemental mercury vapor¹¹. Approximately 620 million fluorescent bulbs are discarded annually in the United States, and many are broken during disposal. Based on the estimated release rate of 3-8 mg per broken bulb developed in this study, discarded bulbs release approximately 2-4 tons of mercury per year in the United States^11.

That is certainly a significant amount of mercury being released to the environment every year in the United States. However, it should be recognized that our total carbon footprint is also reduced quite a bit from their use. My personal opinion is that use of compact florescent bulbs should be encouraged as long as recycling technologies are easily accessible and the public becomes aware of the proper disposal process.

 

1. http://www.eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.htm

2. Importance of wetlands as sources of methyl mercury to boreal forest ecosystems
St. Louis, VL; Rudd, JWM; Kelly, CA; Beaty, KG; Bloom, NS; Flett, RJ
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences [CAN. J. FISH. AQUAT. SCI.]. Vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1065-1076. 1994.

3. http://dcnutrition.com/minerals/minerals.cfm

4. Mercury methylation in aquatic systems affected by acid deposition; Gilmour CC, Henry EA, Environ Pollut. 1991; 71(2-4):131-69

5. Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning; S. Bernard, A. Enayati, L. Redwood, H. Roger and T. Binstock; ARC Research, Cranford, New Jersey, USA

6. Methylmercury poisoning: long-term clinical, radiological, toxicological, and pathological studies of an affected family; Davis LE, Kornfeld M, Mooney HS, Fiedler KJ, Haaland KY, Orrison WW, Cernichiari E, Clarkson TW; Ann Neurol. 1994 Jun;35(6):680-8

7. Iatrogenic exposure to mercury after hepatitis B vaccination in preterm infants;

Stajich GV, Lopez GP, Harry SW, Sexson WR; J Pediatr. 2000 May;136(5):679-81

8. Personal Presentations in Biogeochemistry; Texas A&M University; Dr. McGuire

9. People with high mercury uptake from their own dental amalgam fillings; L Barregard, G Sallsten and B Jarvholm; Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol 52, 124-128

10. Regional differences in worldwide emissions of mercury to the atmosphere; Nicola Pirrone, Gerald J. Keeler and Jerome O. Nriagu; Atmospheric Environment Vol. 30, No. 17, pp. 2981 2987, 1996; Copyright © 1996 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd

11. Release of mercury from broken fluorescent bulbs; Aucott M, McLinden M, Winka M.; Journal of Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2003 Feb;53(2):143-51

12. The Materials Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the United States and the World; John L. Sznopek, Thomas G. Goonan; U.S. Geological Survey CIrcular 1197

13. Airborne Emission of Mercury from Municipal Solid Waste. I: New Measurements from Six Operating Landfills in Florida; Steven E. Lindberg, George R. Southworth, Mary Anna Bogle, T.J. Blasing, Jim Owens, and Kelly Roy; Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

Living in the promises of Christ against fear

1 John 4: 18 “Such love has no fear because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of judgment, and this shows that His love has not been perfected in us.”

Knowing that fear does not come from God is such an amazing promise. The love of Christ expels all fear in your lives. When we do fear we know that it is showing an area where we are not trusting Christ. It is a place that Christ has not changed yet; a dirty spot in our heart with cobwebs. Ask Christ to come in and change it. He will give you faith.

I have come to know that He does not always give it immediately (although sometimes He does!), but He is always faithful…even when I am far from it (well, actually I am almost never really faithful). Just as we talked about in church on sunday:

1 Corinthians 1:20, “For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.”

The EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels for Microorganisms

Contaminant	MCLG1	MCL or TT1	Potential Health Effects from Ingestion of Water	Sources of Contaminant in Drinking Water
	(mg/L)2	(mg/L)2
Cryptosporidium (pdf file)	zero	TT 3	Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)	Human and fecal animal waste
Giardia lamblia	zero	TT3	Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)	Human and animal fecal waste
Heterotrophic plate count	n/a	TT3	HPC has no health effects; it is an analytic method used to measure the variety of bacteria that are common in water. The lower the concentration of bacteria in drinking water, the better maintained the water system is.	HPC measures a range of bacteria that are naturally present in the environment
Legionella	zero	TT3	Legionnaire’s Disease, a type of pneumonia	Found naturally in water; multiplies in heating systems
Total Coliforms (including fecal coliform and E. Coli)	zero	5.0%4	Not a health threat in itself; it is used to indicate whether other potentially harmful bacteria may be present5	Coliforms are naturally present in the environment; as well as feces; fecal coliforms and E. coli only come from human and animal fecal waste.
Turbidity	n/a	TT3	Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of water. It is used to indicate water quality and filtration effectiveness (e.g., whether disease-causing organisms are present). Higher turbidity levels are often associated with higher levels of disease-causing microorganisms such as viruses, parasites and some bacteria. These organisms can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.	Soil runoff

 

Notes

¹ Definitions:
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) – The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) – The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL) – The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG) – The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.
Treatment Technique – A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.

² Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless otherwise noted. Milligrams per liter are equivalent to parts per million.

³ EPA’s surface water treatment rules require systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water to (1) disinfect their water, and (2) filter their water or meet criteria for avoiding filtration so that the following contaminants are controlled at the following levels:

·         Cryptosporidium: (as of1/1/02 for systems serving >10,000 and 1/14/05 for systems serving <10,000) 99% removal.

·         Giardia lamblia: 99.9% removal/inactivation

·         Viruses: 99.99% removal/inactivation

·         Legionella: No limit, but EPA believes that if Giardia and viruses are removed/inactivated, Legionella will also be controlled.

·         Turbidity: At no time can turbidity (cloudiness of water) go above 5 nephelolometric turbidity units (NTU); systems that filter must ensure that the turbidity go no higher than 1 NTU (0.5 NTU for conventional or direct filtration) in at least 95% of the daily samples in any month. As of January 1, 2002, turbidity may never exceed 1 NTU, and must not exceed 0.3 NTU in 95% of daily samples in any month.

·         HPC: No more than 500 bacterial colonies per milliliter.

·         Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (Effective Date: January 14, 2005); Surface water systems or (GWUDI) systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must comply with the applicable Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule provisions (e.g. turbidity standards, individual filter monitoring, Cryptosporidium removal requirements, updated watershed control requirements for unfiltered systems).

·         Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (Effective Date: January 4, 2006) – Surface water systems or GWUDI systems must comply with the additional treatment for Cryptosporidium specified in this rule based on their Cryptosporidium bin classification calculated after the completion of source water monitoring.

·         Filter Backwash Recycling; The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule requires systems that recycle to return specific recycle flows through all processes of the system’s existing conventional or direct filtration system or at an alternate location approved by the state.

⁴ more than 5.0% samples total coliform-positive in a month. (For water systems that collect fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be total coliform-positive per month.) Every sample that has total coliform must be analyzed for either fecal coliforms or E. coli if two consecutive TC-positive samples, and one is also positive for E.coli fecal coliforms, system has an acute MCL violation.

⁵ Fecal coliform and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in these wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. These pathogens may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and people with severely compromised immune systems.

⁶ Although there is no collective MCLG for this contaminant group, there are individual MCLGs for some of the individual contaminants:

·         Trihalomethanes: bromodichloromethane (zero); bromoform (zero); dibromochloromethane (0.06 mg/L): chloroform (0.07mg/L).

·         Haloacetic acids: dichloroacetic acid (zero); trichloroacetic acid (0.02 mg/L); monochloroacetic acid (0.07 mg/L). Bromoacetic acid and dibromoacetic acid are regulated with this group but have no MCLGs.

⁷ The MCL values are the same in the Stage 2 DBPR as they were in the Stage 1 DBPR, but compliance with the MCL is based on different calculations. Under Stage 1, compliance is based on a running annual average (RAA). Under Stage 2, compliance is based on a locational running annual average (LRAA), where the annual average at each sampling location in the distribution system is used to determine compliance with the MCLs. The LRAA requirement will become effective April 1, 2012 for systems on schedule 1, October 1, 2012 for systems on schedule 2, and October 1, 2013 for all remaining systems.

⁸ Lead and copper are regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the corrosiveness of their water. If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed the action level, water systems must take additional steps. For copper, the action level is 1.3 mg/L, and for lead is 0.015 mg/L.

⁹ Each water system must certify, in writing, to the state (using third-party or manufacturer’s certification) that when acrylamide and epichlorohydrin are used in drinking water systems, the combination (or product) of dose and monomer level does not exceed the levels specified, as follows:

·         Acrylamide = 0.05% dosed at 1 mg/L (or equivalent)

·         Epichlorohydrin = 0.01% dosed at 20 mg/L (or equivalent)

 All of this information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html.

Is Al Gore’s $300 million dollar ‘We Campaign’ global warming drive money well spent?

Al Gore and “The Alliance for Climate Protection” have announced that they will raise and spend $300 million in an effort to persuade the public and elected officials to support his climate change agenda¹. Gore introduced the intiative on 60 minutes, and the first ad was posted on wecansolveit.org. The campaign seeks to affect five major areas: A cleaner energy economy, personal choices, adoption of renewable fuels, increasing our energy efficiency, and influence on political leadership.

Reaction from the blogging community has been mixed.

Tech President critisises the campaign by stating, “I wonder how much of that $300 million has gone into this too-slick web site, ” and “In a truly disempowering sense, the We campaign already has it all figured out — and all we, the robotic consumer people who don’t look as attractive as the “presenters” have to do is click here, buy this, give them our name and email address and the names….”  

Beyond DC says, “You spend plenty of time talking about techno wizardry and new sources of energy, but we pored over your solutions page and find nary a mention of anything about changing our gluttonous driving-based lifestyle. You have a whole section titled Cutting fuel costs on the road, but in the entire piece the message “drive less” is nowhere to be found. Tucked way down deep below whole chapters about minor subjects like light bulbs, properly inflated tires, and residential air filters, there’s a single sentence about public transportation and a passing reference to walking to work, but that’s the extent – a single sentence and a passing reference. Nowhere on the entire We Can Solve It site is there any mention about living in a walkable, urban community. Nothing about the damage caused by sprawl.”  

Environmental Graffiti, however, said, “This move has the potential to galvanise both sides of the American electorate, and to force the presidential candidates to be far more open about the extent of, the danger from, and the proximity of the climate crisis. They will also have to be far more forward-thinking in their plans to combat the climate crisis. It will make Mr. Bush look like a liar and a fool for putting oil wars ahead of the security and prosperity of Americans. It will make Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper look like a dinosaur. If the ads include a focus on solutions, then dinosaur politicians of all stripes are going to look like crooks. There will also be a massive multiplier effect from the initial $300M. Many senior executives have called for action, as have most churches. Environmental groups will piggyback on the message – as should the Green Party, in a non-partisan way.”

Opinions should be expected to vary wildly on the campaign; especially because Global Warming itself is so hotly debated. Personally I think it is money well spent. The science is clear, but science itself rarely influence public opinion. This is both a comfort and a source of frustration amongst environmental scientists. I can remember several lively debates myself about the role of scientists in public policy. What we need now is to begin challenging public and private lifestyle choices.

What is the balance between living “green” (a term by the way that I hate) and being environmentally self-centered? I dont know, but it is a topic that we should debate/discuss more.

1. Washington Post