UPDATE with Burleson’s 2014 water report…much better Arsenic reading of 1.28ppb than 2013’s reading of 4.48ppb (the MCl is 10ppb)…here is their resposne…
The City of Burleson gets 100% of its drinking water from the City of Fort Worth and they perform the treatment at their treatment plants. The sampling for arsenic is taken in their treatment system so there hasn’t been a specific change that the City of Burleson has taken to affect the arsenic levels.
However, the levels can fluctuate due to erosion of natural deposits and also from runoff from places such as orchards. While in 2013 the level was 4.48 ppb that is still well below the 10 ppb maximum contaminant level. So while the levels of both years are well within state and federal mandated requirements they can fluctuate due to runoff.
Thank you and let me know if you need further information.
From: kim feil [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 10:27 AM
To: Kevin North
Subject: what did you do different to improve that arsenic from 2013 levels?
Noticing it went from 4.48 to 1.28 ppb
I met a young mother recently from Burleson who had kidney cancer…their 2013 Water Quality report showed 4.5 ppb which is almost half of the 10 ppb legal limit…we are finding out that the alarms need to sound on even low, chronic exposures.
This link http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2014/niehs-08.htm shows that the (male) rats get cancer at lower rates than the really high Arsenic rates…so the dose/response exposure curve on a graph would look like an inverted letter U shape…that is called non-monoTONIC. So when the “dose makes the poison” it is monoTONIC, but not so with Arsenic. Read here to learn more about when the “dose doesn’t make the poison”.
Here is an article on nonmonotonic dose/response effects… http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/lowdose/nonmonotonic.htm
So too like in Benzene and radioactive particles, there is no safe, low, exposure levels to ARSENIC.
Just a reminder that endocrine disruption has been seen with certain hormones at parts per trillion in developing fetuses.
Our shale shot futures involve unknown, unregulated, multiple, cummulative (Arsenic is cummulative) poisons that R aimed at us with this insane build out of fracking.
Here is what the EPA has to say on filtering our Arsenic. Yes it is very expensive to filter this out, but yes it must be done.
Now Pantego TX is on well water sources and a rep told me they daily test their chlorine levels. It is good to know the average, but at some point in time(s?) the Max. Level almost reached the Maxium Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL). So statically speaking…who would know how many times folks were drinking almost illegal water? Is one time…one time too many?
Pantego has had problems with their Chlorine in the past…..a year earlier they had a similar violation….
Here is the link if you want to see other years… http://tx-pantego2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/3498
Below is the Cyanide detect for 2013. Cyanide started showing up in 2011…gee that was just after they fracked those five wells when my kid was in junior high at Bailey .… (note that Barium and Arsenic started showing up in 2010..there was already two wells there at that Carrizo site by that time.
The Denton Record-Chronical reported “The UTA led Texwell study which was published in Environmental Science & Technology journal, “The maximum concentration of arsenic detected in a sample from an active [gas well] extraction area was almost 18 times higher than both the maximum concentration among the nonactive/reference area samples and historical levels from this region.”
Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant limit for arsenic is 10 parts per billion. Anything over that is considered unsafe. The UTA team found that 29 out of 90 water wells exceeded the EPA standard. Methanol and ethanol, two chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, were also detected in 29 percent of water samples, according to the study.