OP ED study
Study by the OP ED Citizens in the PAWC service area have challenged PAWC’s decision to use chloramine instead of chlorine to disinfect our drinking water. EPA has required water systems to reduce chlorine by-product levels caused when organic materials mix with chlorine. EPA suspects that these by-products cause bladder cancer. One of several methods available to PAWC to meet EPA standards is chloramine, a mix of chlorine and ammonia and one of the least expensive and easiest methods available. HOWEVER, when researching chloramine, PAWC customers found EPA studies stating that chloramine produces by-products far more toxic than those of chlorine which EPA seeks to reduce. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/13413.php According to studies conducted and/or funded by EPA, iodoacetic acid, one of the many by-products of chloramines, is among the most toxic by-products yet discovered. According to EPA’s own studies, by-products of chloramine are genotoxic and cytotoxic which means they are capable of mutating groups of genes and cells, causing cancer and/or birth defects. Many other by-products of chloramine have not as yet been identified. http://www.epa.gov/athens/research/process/drinkingwater.html. Chloramine is also highly corrosive, leaching lead from copper, lead and brass pipes. In areas using chloramine, high levels of lead were measured in the water. Ingestion of lead by children causes developmental and learning problems. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/apr/science/rr_chloramines.html Manufacturers of rubber and elastomer plumbing fittings report the life expectancy of rubber fittings has fallen severely with the change over to chloramine. http://www.ashtabularubber.com/ARC%20Images/Chloramine%20Resistance.pdf Scientists at Hach Homeland Security Technologies, a company producing terrorism detection equipment for water treatment facilities warn against the use of chloramines in water systems in service areas which include military bases. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070302082749.htm Scientific studies note that when heated, chloramine creates tri-chloramine vapor, a strong respiratory irritant. Recent studies have been done on indoor swimming pools showing respiratory effects in life guards and regular swimmers from inhaling tri-chloramine. Chloramine exists in swimming pools when chlorinated water mixes with ammonia from skin cells. Inhalation studies were last completed by EPA in 1994. Hundreds of people in areas of California, Vermont, Oklahoma and other states where the change to chloramines has already taken place are reporting respiratory difficulties associated with the water. http://swimming.about.com/od/allergyandasthma/a/cl_pool_problem.htm Permits to build a new facility intended for a chloramine system were granted to PAWC prior to the discovery of these adverse effects of chloramines and its by-products. EPA’s last risk assessment study of chloramines was done in 1998, before the studies in 2004-2007 were completed showing the likely public health hazard this compound can produce. There is much we don’t know about chloramines. We do know that in 2007, EPA’s own scientists and studies warn against chloramine as a disinfectant alternative. EPA claims chloramine is safe at levels approved for water supplies. However, those levels concern only residual compound, not by-products formed from interaction with organic material. Studies warning against use of chloramine do not state a “safe” level for these by-products. PAWC claims no reports of adverse health effects associated with chloramine in usage areas. However, in areas where customers have connected their chloraminated water supply to respiratory difficulties, hundreds of people have made reports to their doctors, water companies and legislators. Options are available to meet EPA standards without highly toxic by-products or lead leaching. PAWC delayed introduction of chloramines, not to research these issues, but to educate the customers to the safety of chloramine. It is incumbent upon PAWC to consider alternatives less harmful to the environment and human health. Dr David Ozonoff, Chair Emeritus, Dept of Environmental Health, Boston U. School of Public Health aptly stated, “At the same time that a water supply is an efficient means to deliver a health-giving substance, it is also an efficient means to distribute harmful ones.” He points out that after having relied on chlorine as a water disinfectant for many years, we have only now discovered its negative side. Scientists know now that chloramines by-products are more harmful than chlorine’s. Will we have to be exposed to them for years before EPA acts on this knowledge?