News Center 5 has just reported that you should not eat the fish, mainly the small mouth bass in Big Cherry reservoir but twice a month due to high levels of mercury found in the fish. Where does that put BSG's water supply for human consumption? And how did the mercury get into the reservoir?
The PMCL for mercury is 0.002 mg/L. The results for the last two samples collected from the Big Stone Gap WTP are less than 0.0002 mg/L mercury in each sample. [Sample # 1443481 collected on April 9, 2007 and #1580832 collected on April 1, 2008.] The water produced meets the federal standards for mercury in drinking water.
You can never rise above the image that you have of yourself in your own mind."
That is good to know, but how did the mercury get there in the first place? I wouldn't know apples from beans on whether mercury occurs naturally there or whether it could be from some sort of logging, mining or whatever.
*Setting drinking water standards is an imperfect process, rarely based on conclusive human evidence. Data relating human health effects to chemicals in drinking water are limited, and scientists have difficulty predicting the effects of drinking small amounts of chemicals for many years. In addition, regulatory decisions frequently incorporate economic, political and social considerations.
Therefore, it is important to understand that Primary Standards for drinking water contaminants do not guarantee that water with a contaminant level below the standard is risk-free, nor do they mean that water with a higher level is unsafe. The standards also do not take into account the possible presence of other chemicals, which may increase or decrease the toxicity of the contaminant.*
Bottom line. Passing the standard doesn't mean it's necessarily safe......
[img]http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/old-train2.jpg[/img]
Ok, but that still doesn't explain to me how the mercury got there to begin with. On some property my family owned in tennessee, there was a spring in which the water supply was drawn from. Whe had to have it tested and there was never any mercury in it. So, how did the mercury get there?
This is all I know. I really am not scientific enough to explain more.
You can never rise above the image that you have of yourself in your own mind."
I found this online with regards to how mercury gets into water (doesn't exactly bolster any anti-tree-hugger arguments LOL)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2...water_safe.htm
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HOW MERCURY GETS INTO WATER: Mercury is found in many rocks including coal, which when burned, releases mercury into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions. The EPA has estimated that about one quarter of U.S. emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the U.S. Burning hazardous wastes, producing chlorine, breaking mercury products, and spilling mercury, as well as the improper treatment and disposal of products or wastes containing mercury, can also release it into the environment. Current estimates are that less than half of all mercury within the U.S. comes from U.S. sources. Mercury in the air eventually settles into water or onto land where it can be washed into water.
</div></div>
and this:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How much Mercury is produced and released to the environment?
Large amounts of mercury are released naturally from the earths crust. Combustion of fossil fuels, metal smelters, cement manufacture, municipal landfills, sewage, metal refining operations, r most notably, from chloralkali plants are important sources of mercury release. Nearly 8 million lbs. of mercury were produced in the U.S. in 1986.
</div></div>
http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/wat...oval-water.htm
and here:
http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/hhazweb/mercury.pdf
You'll shoot your eye out.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v635/elp6n/santa.jpg[/img]
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">*Setting drinking water standards is an imperfect process, rarely based on conclusive human evidence. Data relating human health effects to chemicals in drinking water are limited, and scientists have difficulty predicting the effects of drinking small amounts of chemicals for many years. In addition, regulatory decisions frequently incorporate economic, political and social considerations.
Therefore, it is important to understand that Primary Standards for drinking water contaminants do not guarantee that water with a contaminant level below the standard is risk-free, nor do they mean that water with a higher level is unsafe. The standards also do not take into account the possible presence of other chemicals, which may increase or decrease the toxicity of the contaminant.*
Bottom line. Passing the standard doesn't mean it's necessarily safe...... </div></div>
You don't know how right you are. The standards set by the EPA are some of the most arbitrary things the government does. Many times those in charge just pull numbers out of the air.
[IMG]http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l53/blpjr77/culpeper1.jpg[/IMG]
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">*Setting drinking water standards is an imperfect process, rarely based on conclusive human evidence. Data relating human health effects to chemicals in drinking water are limited, and scientists have difficulty predicting the effects of drinking small amounts of chemicals for many years. In addition, regulatory decisions frequently incorporate economic, political and social considerations.
Therefore, it is important to understand that Primary Standards for drinking water contaminants do not guarantee that water with a contaminant level below the standard is risk-free, nor do they mean that water with a higher level is unsafe. The standards also do not take into account the possible presence of other chemicals, which may increase or decrease the toxicity of the contaminant.*
Bottom line. Passing the standard doesn't mean it's necessarily safe...... </div></div>
You don't know how right you are. The standards set by the EPA are some of the most arbitrary things the government does. Many times those in charge just pull numbers out of the air. </div></div>
Out of the air? I always thought they pulled them out of somewhere else...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: retiredteach</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The PMCL for mercury is 0.002 mg/L. The results for the last two samples collected from the Big Stone Gap WTP are less than 0.0002 mg/L mercury in each sample. [Sample # 1443481 collected on April 9, 2007 and #1580832 collected on April 1, 2008.] The water produced meets the federal standards for mercury in drinking water. </div></div>
I wouldn't get excited about 2 parts per billion mercury. Didn't see the report, but I wonder who recommended we shouldn't eat the fish?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks