Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Testing metals - lead especially

i know i have given the numbers for lead found both in first draw samples (the US EPA standard for initial collection) and samples that have been run - a total of 17.65% of over 400 samples in Stamford, but let me explain the importance.
A few years ago, a person not from Stamford (We did tests for anyone in CT), brought a "run sample for general testing and a first draw sample for lead and copper.
I ran lead on both and found both to be significantly elevated (over MCLs) in Lead.
The people had lived in the house a number of years and had moved in when one of thier children was a toddler.  The other 2 were over the age of 6.
The one child had learning issues, behavior issues and many of the other typical signs of lead poisoning.  The other 2 children did not.
Why these people waited so long to have the water checked is typical of homeowners and i believe that it created this tragedy.
The leasson?  Test for lead at the very least!

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Pesticide variance revisited

For the past 4 years, i have remarked that i have not seen significant variance in pesticide levels in wells where it was found.
At first because the variance in one well in two test done 11 years apart was insignificant.
Then there were 8 wells in which in DEEP was taking samples quarterly and except in 2 cases of potential collector error (one was acknowledged and the other not)  there was not a significant variance.
In the last part of sample collection this year 2 wells were repeated - one had nothing showing in 2009 and had dieldren over the action level in 2012.  The other had trace levels a few years ago and not only was dieldren over the action level, there was chlordane showing up as well.
One occurrence is an anomaly, twice something to be concerned about.
I believe that the Health Department will recommend continued testing.