i never mind admitting making mistakes,
that is why we scientist review things.
The errors were with metals results that had been reported to me and then i tried to correlate them.
The errors were two-fold:
In the database numbers were divided into a base number and before the number, an "operator". The operator could be the less than sign or a not detected symbol, in a query I wrote, used the base number of the result instead of the combination of using a less than operator and the not detected operator as 0.
They are not actually zero, but they are less than whatever detection limit was achieved in analysis.
This made a big difference in the Arsenic report, which previously had shown 3 tests results at the action level. Each of those results were a less than 10, meaning that arsenic has not been found elevated in any of the 227 tests that i had on record.
Cadmium results were correct: there was one test above the MCL of 64 tests, however the level was recorded as 40 mg/L (i used mg/L as the base measurement) and it was really 40 ug/L, a huge difference.
Chromium was correct, 1 test was above the MCL of 36 tests. The only thing i can say is that it was performed in 1989 and we never saw another elevated Chromium level.
Apparently all the other test result did not have this error.
The errors occurred during the years after my operation and i knew i was not doing that well and would be prone to errors and is one of the reasons i retired.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
Enough!
Coming home this afternoon, i was listening to a guest speaker on NPR in CT.
The speaker was identified as an organic chemist and was talking about a new book promoting healthy eating.
It worked for her, then she started to name the issues and the first on the list was MSG.
In the course of the discussion there were many things to believe - that the food industry is able to "hide" different additives in food through a variety of methods, being the foremost. I've seen and analyzed very serious issues in that respect.
But to blame obesity in children on MSG and aspartame seemed out of bounds, but i would allow for it.
I suppose if this chemist wanted to, they could have analysed food to determine if the statements they were making were true, but that was not presented.
Both are present as amino acids, naturally in the human body, but have been played with to create the effects they have.
So do i swallow it whole, no, but there might be a bit of credibility to it.
Then she went off on something i have heard before and it made me angry on many levels.
This was the talk about we need to make our bodies more alkaline to ward off disease.
Okay this got me -
1) Much of our body is naturally acid, Stomach acid having a pH of 1.5 to 3.5 (7.0 being neutral and lower being acidic), Saliva being mostly acidic with a pH between 6.0 to 7.4, urine being mostly acid at a pH of 6.0 and blood being slightly alkaline with a pH of 7.35 to 7.40.
2) Most "bad bugs" or bacteria that cause illness grow best in alkaline situations - that is what you use in a lab to isolate them and provide the best growth.
3) Acidity kills them - Campylobacter, e coli, Staph and MERSA and many others are KILLED with vinegar, lime or lemon juice and do not come back in those situations.
Here is whee i became upset and turned the nonsense off.
The speaker was identified as an organic chemist and was talking about a new book promoting healthy eating.
It worked for her, then she started to name the issues and the first on the list was MSG.
In the course of the discussion there were many things to believe - that the food industry is able to "hide" different additives in food through a variety of methods, being the foremost. I've seen and analyzed very serious issues in that respect.
But to blame obesity in children on MSG and aspartame seemed out of bounds, but i would allow for it.
I suppose if this chemist wanted to, they could have analysed food to determine if the statements they were making were true, but that was not presented.
Both are present as amino acids, naturally in the human body, but have been played with to create the effects they have.
So do i swallow it whole, no, but there might be a bit of credibility to it.
Then she went off on something i have heard before and it made me angry on many levels.
This was the talk about we need to make our bodies more alkaline to ward off disease.
Okay this got me -
1) Much of our body is naturally acid, Stomach acid having a pH of 1.5 to 3.5 (7.0 being neutral and lower being acidic), Saliva being mostly acidic with a pH between 6.0 to 7.4, urine being mostly acid at a pH of 6.0 and blood being slightly alkaline with a pH of 7.35 to 7.40.
2) Most "bad bugs" or bacteria that cause illness grow best in alkaline situations - that is what you use in a lab to isolate them and provide the best growth.
3) Acidity kills them - Campylobacter, e coli, Staph and MERSA and many others are KILLED with vinegar, lime or lemon juice and do not come back in those situations.
Here is whee i became upset and turned the nonsense off.
Friday, February 1, 2013
meetings
I went to a Committee meeting on Wednesday night to support the continued testing of pesticides in well water in Stamford.
I learned a few things:
While the meeting was strictly about extending the time of the ordinance, there were questions raised concerning what is going to be done with the data.
I found that interesting.
I guess if you want to blame someone, then you look for a single source.
And in the past i have found multiple source of something affecting wells, it was published. Some of that information was used when the CT public health code was being reviewed. It showed that softeners which discharge the salt brine into a septic system (commonly done) added chloride to wells near the system and to the south.
The information was made public and presented every time some one came with a question concerning treating their well water. It changed things because the homeowner was aware.
This is public health.
You find something dangerous - in this case, pesticides.
You test and tell the homeowner yes or no. There is treatment. It gets fixed.
This is public health!
And for the question, there is a slight pattern, in relationship to the south side of farms that have been broken up and become residential, but the pesticides were used by homeowners in there own right and so there are places that it is found that can not be "predicted".
The message?
Test!
There are other things that concern me though.
The Board seems , in private statements to be limiting the testing to the concern in regards to pesticides.
Maybe this is correct because i believe the Health Department should be on the forefront in saying things need to be tested for the sake of public health.
My list mostly involves the following metals:
lead
copper
arsenic
manganese
uranium
and the nonmetal is Radon.
Most of these are natural, but lead, copper and arsenic have man used sources.
Expect me to continue speaking.
I learned a few things:
While the meeting was strictly about extending the time of the ordinance, there were questions raised concerning what is going to be done with the data.
I found that interesting.
I guess if you want to blame someone, then you look for a single source.
And in the past i have found multiple source of something affecting wells, it was published. Some of that information was used when the CT public health code was being reviewed. It showed that softeners which discharge the salt brine into a septic system (commonly done) added chloride to wells near the system and to the south.
The information was made public and presented every time some one came with a question concerning treating their well water. It changed things because the homeowner was aware.
This is public health.
You find something dangerous - in this case, pesticides.
You test and tell the homeowner yes or no. There is treatment. It gets fixed.
This is public health!
And for the question, there is a slight pattern, in relationship to the south side of farms that have been broken up and become residential, but the pesticides were used by homeowners in there own right and so there are places that it is found that can not be "predicted".
The message?
Test!
There are other things that concern me though.
The Board seems , in private statements to be limiting the testing to the concern in regards to pesticides.
Maybe this is correct because i believe the Health Department should be on the forefront in saying things need to be tested for the sake of public health.
My list mostly involves the following metals:
lead
copper
arsenic
manganese
uranium
and the nonmetal is Radon.
Most of these are natural, but lead, copper and arsenic have man used sources.
Expect me to continue speaking.
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!
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.
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.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
first year of testing
The goal was 750 and thing were started late.
The person collecting samples was not hired until the middle of March.
The final total? 751.
the person hired was able to do 707 of those samples, while the inspectors added 44.
This was in spite of the snow storm and hurricane, so it was a job well done.
But people are not interested in numbers, but rather results.
I think the most significant thing uncovered was extremely high chlordane levels in the mid west portion of Stamford, far away from all the tauted "sources".
5 samples over US EPA MCLs and none relatable to the dump or the arboretum.
19% of the sample had some level of pesticide in them.
5% were over the action limits set by the State of CT.
The issue with pesticides and their affect on our lives may be more complex than simple carcinogens,
a recent study indicated there may be effects of the immune system and although it would be virtually impossible to study, there is thoughts that chromosome damage might be generational.
The numbers in the drinking water still pale in my view to the constant exposure that all of us have to all the newer agents used to control insects and the older ones still hanging around.
The person collecting samples was not hired until the middle of March.
The final total? 751.
the person hired was able to do 707 of those samples, while the inspectors added 44.
This was in spite of the snow storm and hurricane, so it was a job well done.
But people are not interested in numbers, but rather results.
I think the most significant thing uncovered was extremely high chlordane levels in the mid west portion of Stamford, far away from all the tauted "sources".
5 samples over US EPA MCLs and none relatable to the dump or the arboretum.
19% of the sample had some level of pesticide in them.
5% were over the action limits set by the State of CT.
The issue with pesticides and their affect on our lives may be more complex than simple carcinogens,
a recent study indicated there may be effects of the immune system and although it would be virtually impossible to study, there is thoughts that chromosome damage might be generational.
The numbers in the drinking water still pale in my view to the constant exposure that all of us have to all the newer agents used to control insects and the older ones still hanging around.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Countdown-day3
Well, people have finally been asking simple questions on the fly on how to do things.
It still perturbs me that these questions have not been asked before, but whatever.
Some acknowledgements came that i have been work 33 years and so i go to the first paper published in the National Environmental Health Journal about what we do to our wells with what we dump into a softener...
The paper was entitled: Salt in Well water, Is there a softener in the background.
The study linked the usage of softeners discharging Sodium Chloride into septic systems as the major cause of chloride levels over the area average.
Over time and a switch to a more Eco-friendly potassium Chloride, determinations could be made of actual ground water flow tracking potassium levels.
This has changed back with economic hard times with more people abandoning ecologically friendly products and using cheaper sodium chloride again.
It still perturbs me that these questions have not been asked before, but whatever.
Some acknowledgements came that i have been work 33 years and so i go to the first paper published in the National Environmental Health Journal about what we do to our wells with what we dump into a softener...
The paper was entitled: Salt in Well water, Is there a softener in the background.
The study linked the usage of softeners discharging Sodium Chloride into septic systems as the major cause of chloride levels over the area average.
Over time and a switch to a more Eco-friendly potassium Chloride, determinations could be made of actual ground water flow tracking potassium levels.
This has changed back with economic hard times with more people abandoning ecologically friendly products and using cheaper sodium chloride again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
