PDA

View Full Version : City water isn't safe for the elderly



ion_avenger
09-22-2009, 09:09 PM
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090921/ARTICLES/909219904/1350?Title=Study-says-even-safe-drinking-water-poses-risks-to-elderly

Study says even 'safe' drinking water poses risks to elderly

By BOB NORBERG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Monday, September 21, 2009 at 8:40 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, September 21, 2009 at 8:40 p.m.

Using extra water filters can reduce the number of stomach illnesses experienced by the elderly in Sonoma County, even though the drinking water meets all standards, according to a UC Berkeley study.

The difference, 12 percent, could be significant because the elderly tend to be less tolerant to pathogens and get gastrointestinal illnesses more severely, said John Colford Jr., the principal researcher for UC’s School of Public Health.

“It is statistically significant, it is larger than you expect to see by random chance,” Colford said. “It is important.”

Colford, however, said the study is not an indication that Sonoma County Water Agency water, which meets all state and federal standards, is unsafe.

Instead, he hopes the study will become part of an Environmental Protection Agency debate on whether there should be higher water standards for children, the elderly and those with immunology problems, such as cancer patients on chemotherapy.

“The study wasn’t about Sonoma. We did it in Sonoma County because the water is so good,” Colford said. “It was to see that when people were getting U.S. standard water, is there additional benefit from this overkill?”

The five-year study cost $2.8 million and was financed by the federal National Institute of Health. It is being published in the November edition of the American Journal of Public Health.

Water Agency spokesman Tim Anderson said the agency will be examing the study to figure out what it means for water purity. The agency last conducted 477 tests for e-coli and coliform with negative results.

“If research findings are showing things that can impact public health, we would like to know more,” Anderson said. “Our No. 1 concern is providing a safe product that protects people’s health.”

Sonoma County’s deputy health officer, Dr. Mark Netherda, said the journal is well respected and adds weight to the study, but there are still many unanswered questions.

“The study is interesting and bears further evaluation,” Netherda said. “To look at one study in one area and to use that to change the standard is pre******.”

The study was conducted in 2005 in 714 households and covered 998 individuals over the age of 55 in Sonoma, Temelec, Valley of the Moon, Oakmont, Glen Ellen, Kenwood, Cotati and Santa Rosa, which are served primarily by the county Water Agency.

Half of the households in the study were fitted with special filters and ultra-violet lights that removed 99.9 percent of all viruses, bacteria and parasites that are naturally present in water or can be introduced by pollution.

The filters, which cost several hundred dollars, are not now available in the United States.

“It is excessively good treatment,” Colford said. “The filter was tested in the laboratory under rigorous conditions, we know how good it can do.”

Those in the study were asked to track how many times they experienced such illnesses as diarrhea, vomiting, nausea and cramps.

Those using a non-working filter system had 12 percent more illnesses than those with the fully functioning filter systems according to the study.

“Are the standards strict enough? I honestly don’t know,” Colford said. “My study should not set the standard, this is one piece of evidence that should be included in the discussion.”

eugenelfiorenzil
10-28-2010, 11:36 PM
Well i guess this is quite true that city water is unsafe to elderly,as we all know that pollution are more drastic in the said area,hopefully the government should focus on this matter.

Nicdydaydaymn
02-11-2011, 11:35 AM
The current standards for tap water still allow for trace chemical contamination and it would make sense that people who are already at risk would be the ones most effected. In areas that have a higher water quality a simple point of use filter for drinking water works well.

ion_avenger
02-14-2011, 11:11 AM
Exactly! City water is basic minimum standard water - homeowners must take control of their own individual water quality by using a good drinking water filter or whole house filter.

Nicdydaydaymn
02-14-2011, 11:24 AM
Definitely, and make sure to know what is in your water too. Some areas have really good water to begin with, but your water quality report can give you a detailed breakdown of exactly what is in your water and how much of it is present.

A couple of months back I sat down with my parents to look at their water report from the neighborhood well and my dad did not know what most of the contaminants listed were or how to remove them. We had a long discussion about the best way to filter their drinking water. They were spending about $70 a month to have a company deliver drinking water.

greg-cws
02-22-2011, 09:59 AM
That is the sad reality of water that just meets MINIMUM standards. Minimum standards are good enough not to kill you in the short-term, but not necessary the best for long-term health.

It is a constant battle to balance costs -vs- benefits; people don't want to pay more taxes to make their city water cleaner, and the city does the very best job that they can with the funds they are given. Just another good reason to take control of one's own water quality at the point of use.


Definitely, and make sure to know what is in your water too. Some areas have really good water to begin with, but your water quality report can give you a detailed breakdown of exactly what is in your water and how much of it is present.

A couple of months back I sat down with my parents to look at their water report from the neighborhood well and my dad did not know what most of the contaminants listed were or how to remove them. We had a long discussion about the best way to filter their drinking water. They were spending about $70 a month to have a company deliver drinking water.

WendellT
01-21-2012, 08:08 AM
I'd be curious to know how "good" the Sonoma water really is when there is still a 12% rise in illnesses of those not using water filters. I guess it goes to show that even the 'best' public water isn't that great. I think if more people realized how contaminated their public water is, they would be more vocal in demanding better filtration for public water.

ion_avenger
01-21-2012, 11:50 PM
People drink less than 1% of the water coming from the city so its too expensive to treat at the city level without monster tax increases etc...Homeowners should be in control and filter their own water. Cheaper and people have a choice.