Monday, November 28, 2011

The Dieldren controversy

Why is this a controversy at all?
Because the agencies which are suppose to regulate such things have left it open, not closed.
Some where in the 1970's the US EPA decided that Dieldren, Aldrin and the chemical similar compounds were bad.  They restricted the use of the organophosphates so they could not be used for agricultural products.
They also declared that the were carcinogens of a type.
In 1987 they banned all use of dieldren, but they did NOT regulate dieldren nor did they create a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for its presence in drinking water.
By now you are saying, "Huh?"
Well so am i.  This of cource leads many others to question what was going on.
The US EPA is still on record as declaring dieldren a carcinogen, but they simply do not back it up.
now others start asessing the issue:
In 1987, the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) classified aldrin and dieldrin as category B2 carcinogens, i.e. probablehuman carcinogens, based largely on the increase in liver tumors in mice fedeither organochlorine insecticide. At that date, the relevant epidemiology wasdeemed inadequate to influence the cancer risk assessment.
There is more
There is no conclusive evidence that aldrin ordieldrin cause cancer in humans. Aldrin and dieldrin have shown to cause livercancer in mice. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) hasdetermined that aldrin and dieldrin are not classifiable as to humancarcinogenicity. The EPA has determined that aldrin and dieldrin are probablehuman carcinogens.
Okay so what is the big deal?
The US EPA has again failed.
With Radon they threw a lot of money to get all the states on board the issue, even thought there was evidence that this was not as big a deal as they made it. (National Science foundation really link the cancer to a serious issue for those who smoke).  They did not do this with the pesticide, thus we have controversy.

Friday, November 25, 2011


Yes, we had snow in October, but it has been down right warm for November and this means that the ticks are out.
For EVERYONE:  Be careful when walking any where that there is grass or leaves and brush.  The Adult female black legged tick is out and hungry!

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

finally something worth while...

I keep hearing from different places “why don’t you publish that?”
Now publishing anything has its place, for me it is to disseminate information that might not be obvious to everyone.
Lately, the things that other people have wanted me to publish are on the well water issues I see in Stamford .
The reason is because what I have seen so far does not warrant the current sole emphasis on pesticides.
“They” don’t want to deal with the pesticide issue.
You get that information here because I want discussion on it.

I get that.

I also do not slight the issue of pesticides because I think we have horribly misused them in the past and I think still in the present.

I think other issues might have even more importance to our health, but I do not know for sure and want more information.

That is what my well water update has been, until now.

Now I have found some thing that I think is important to publish.

Here it is for discussion!

The information first
Coliform bacteria
(all wells)
average value

6.4 CFU
high value

3,900 CFU
total tests


Not potable

With only 1 CFU
Wells without pits
Total addresses
5.4 CFU
500 CFU
a CFU is a colony forming unit, the way bacteria are reported by a laboratory which uses a membrane filtration method.
Why is this important?
For a significant while, pitless adapters and having wells finish above ground has been considered the "gold standard" for well construction.
While wells with pits have been considered something that was a real source of contamination.
Now i have good information from well people that many of the "pitless" adapters have been poorly installed, giving a home owner a sense of security that they really were not entitled to.
What this means is that a home owner still must be vigilant, test the well for bacteria during a rainy, wet period periodically.  The fixes still are all about the seals and are usually simple.

The coliform issue is a strange one - i kind of stand in a place of saying it is not that big a deal while everyone gets all excited over it.
Coliform usually do NOT come from septic, but the soil that is everywhere...
There are places where it is an issue and i get excited about that, but a coliform is not e coli is not a major concern in my view.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

finding missing pieces

I asked and received the pieces that were missing from my look at pesticide variability.
But they did not help cement anything because they were taken a full10 days before the one that i believe had a ale to tell.
They were important because i saw a window, a small time frame that might be a time for samples NOT to be taken if i want honest results for pesticides.  5 days was the windo and these were now before that window, they did not prove that my concept was correct, but they did not disprove it either.
The idea is simple - you ave many variables which infuence the water table and the water that a well draws from, this includes really different things like the tide level (in the ground water?, Oh yes!) and rain.
A dry period - a good one that normally occurs in August.  But the dry period is not enough because there still is the water from the reduced water table being pulled in from even furrther away.  then a significant rain, adding fresh water to the water table,  That is when you might get a Not detected.  That theory still stands and to protect the integrety of the information - the sampling will not be done around that situation.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Well water Summary

This is a revision and update of something i did back in June, when the old fresnel glasses were what i had.
There were errors and this is the first revision.  there will be more.  I have all the data and there are sevral question i am asked.
One is about radon and is it really correct oplace it at the top?  I have supporting data that i can not use because i do not have a "hard copy" of the results from someone who tests and did a comparrison that ranks very similar to my information (a bit down from my numbers, but very significant).

The following is a summarization of water tests that have been submitted to or performed by the Stamford Health Department Lab and the various issues and problems that have been found.  We used simple criteria of having more than 25 tests results (0.5% of wells in Stamford).   

The following tables are an overview.  The same evaluation parameters are used for each item in this table.  Samples with treatment are not included. Multiple tests from one location only show the highest results. Tests for pesticides which were performed by the one lab not certified to do so and were using unapproved methods were removed (7 addresses).  This also includes older test where the detection limit was limited to 0.1ug/L (51 addresses, 12 repeated by newer tests). 

TABLE 1a – Health Dangers related to cancer

Average in number tested
Highest value found
Number of addresses recorded
35,316 pCi/L
555,000 pCi/L
At or Above  RL
 (5,000 pCi/L)
At or Above CT average
(7,000 pCi/L)
0.020 mg/L
0.77 mg/L
At or Above MCL
(0.03 mg/L)
0.0022 mg/L
.010 mg/L
At or Above MCL (0.010 mg/L)
0.0258 ug/L
1.30 ug/L
At or Above AL
(0.03 ug/L)
0.0416 ug/L
2.90 ug/L
At or Above AL
(0.3 ug/L)
At or Above MCL
(2.0 ug/L)
Other pesticides
0.0035 ug/L
0.32 ug/L
AT or Above MCL (various)
Total pesticides
0.054 ug/L
2.90 ug/L
At or Above MCL

Each of these items have some indication to a risk for cancer, the following is a discussion on risk by other agencies and studies.  Dieldren is seen as being the most controversial item as far a cancer risk, with many studies NOT implicating it.  While there is some controversy concerning Radon in water, there is a direct link to Radon in air and lung cancer and a general rule as far as how much water borne radon contributes to air radon (every 10,000 pCi/L in the water, contributes 1.0 pCi/m3 in the air)

Arsenic - Skin damage or problems with circulatory systems, and may have increased risk of getting cancer[1]

Chlordane - Liver or nervous system problems; increased risk of cancer[2]

Dieldren - In 1987, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified aldrin and dieldrin as category B2 carcinogens, i.e. probable human carcinogens, based largely on the increase in liver tumors in mice fed either organochlorine insecticide. At that date, the relevant epidemiology was deemed inadequate to influence the cancer risk assessment.[3]
There is no conclusive evidence that aldrin or dieldrin cause cancer in humans. Aldrin and dieldrin have shown to cause liver cancer in mice. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that aldrin and dieldrin are not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. The EPA has determined that aldrin and dieldrin are probable human carcinogens.[4]

Radon - The radon in your water supply poses an inhalation risk and an ingestion risk. Research has shown that your risk of lung cancer from breathing radon in air is much larger than your risk of stomach cancer from swallowing water with radon in it. Most of your risk from radon in water comes from radon released into the air when water is used for showering and other household purposes.[5]

Uranium - Increased risk of cancer, kidney toxicity[6]

 The probable sources for each of these items are from.

Arsenic – Erosion of natural deposits; runoff from orchards; leeching from pressure treated wood (1940 to 2004, especially since 1970), runoff from glass and electric production wastes.

Chlordane – Residue of banned termiticide

Dieldren – Residue of banned insecticide, breakdown product of aldrin (also a banned pesticide used in agriculture for root vegetables)

Radon – Erosion form natural deposits

Uranium – Erosion from natural deposits


Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The revision of an old well statue

From the state of CT on well testing and report.

This is a revision of Section 19a-37 of the public health code.

I believe it was an attempt to clear up language concerning reporting laboratory testing of water for home sales.

I read it through a couple of times and my eyes hurt.

I received some advice on how to review it and not to try to do it in my head.

Okay that was good advice; it meant that they read this blog and know this is legalese, not math.

It still hurt my head.

The attempt was, I believe, to say exactly who needed to report what to whom and under what circumstance.

For those of you who are scratching your head, there was something in the public health code that said, in effect, if you sell your house, the water must be tested 6 months before or 6 months after the sale and the results must be reported to the local director of health and while one lab did this (not including me), no other lab in the state did it.
This one says it must be reported to both the director of health and to the state by the lab doing the test.
There is more. a lot more and it begins to restrict power of how legislation can do and what health directors can and can not do.
The one that disturbed me was one limiting the health director from requiring pesticide tests unless there was a dump or nitrite levels were over 10(my plain langauge, not theirs)...this bothers me on many fronts.  pesticides do have to do with fertilizer, but not always, they have something to do with dumps, but not always.  I feels that they are trying to take control of something that shuld not be taken control of in the way they are.
There is a lot more.
This is the link to the whole giberish: