Archive for June, 2013

HEALTH EFFECTS OF IRON IN DRINKING WATER 1 COMMENTS PRINT Mar 28, 2011 | By Karen S. Garvin Photo Credit Young woman drinking water. Woman With Water Glass. image by Monika 3 Steps Ahead from Fotolia.com Pure water has no taste, but water is a natural solvent. Most minerals from groundwater, including iron, will be absorbed by water. Large amounts of iron in drinking water can give it an unpleasant metallic taste. Iron is an essential element in human nutrition, and the health effects of iron in drinking water may include warding off fatigue and anemia. IRON IN DRINKING WATER The thing that you’ll notice the most from water that is high in iron is that the water may taste metallic. The water may be discolored and appear brownish, and it may even contain sediment. Iron will leave red or orange rust stains in the sink, toilet and bathtub or shower. It can build up in your dishwasher and discolor ceramic dishes. It can also enter into the water heater and can get into the laundry equipment and cause stains on clothing. The EPA cautions that although iron in drinking water is safe to ingest, the iron sediments may contain trace impurities or harbor bacteria that can be harmful. Iron bacteria are naturally occurring organisms that can dissolve iron and some other minerals. These bacteria also form a brown slime that can build up in water pipes. Iron bacteria are most commonly problematic in wells, where water has not been chlorinated. advertisement Sponsored Links Thyroid Warning Signs ALERT: What Your Tongue Says About Your Thyroid. See the Photo www.newsmax.com IRON’S ROLE IN HUMAN NUTRITION Iron is necessary for your health. The most well-known role that iron plays in human nutrition is in the formation of the protein hemoglobin, which transports oxygen to all cells of the body. Iron is also used in cellular metabolism and is found in many of the body’s enzymes. Low iron stores in the body can lead to iron deficiency, anemia and fatigue and can make you more susceptible to infections. Some segments of the population are more at risk than others for iron deficiency. In particular, women, children, the elderly, and non-Caucasians are more likely to be iron-deficient than men, although anyone can be iron-deficient. It is possible that drinking water that is high in iron may be beneficial, as it adds small amounts of iron to your diet. However, while drinking water that contains iron may help mediate iron deficiency symptoms, you should not depend solely on the iron in your drinking water as the only source of iron in your diet. HEALTH EFFECTS OF IRON OVERLOAD It is possible for you to get too much iron through your diet, but ingesting too much iron through your drinking water is not associated with adverse health effects. However, while chronically consuming large amounts of iron can lead to a condition known as iron overload; this condition is usually the result of a gene mutation that afflicts about one million people in the United States. Left untreated, iron overload can lead to hemochromatosis, a severe disease that can damage the body’s organs. Early symptoms include fatigue, weight loss, and joint pain, but if hemochromatosis is not treated, it can lead to heart disease, liver problems and diabetes. A blood test can identify iron overload. Sponsored Links Compare Wholehouse FilterCompare Top 5 Whole House Water Filters. Quality, Performance, Cost www.CompareHomeWaterFilter.com House Water Filter WizardSelecting the right house water filter is fast & easy. Try it now. www.puriteam.com/wizard White Blood Cells at RiskImportant Info to Ask Your Dr. When it Comes to Chemo & WBC Counts. www.MyWhiteCells.com Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/155098-health-effects-of-iron-in-drinking-water/#ixzz2WaPb7HKz

Tuesday, June 18th, 2013

HEALTH EFFECTS OF IRON IN DRINKING WATER

Health Effects of Iron in Drinking Water
Photo Credit Young woman drinking water. Woman With Water Glass. image by Monika 3 Steps Ahead from Fotolia.com
Pure water has no taste, but water is a natural solvent. Most minerals from groundwater, including iron, will be absorbed by water. Large amounts of iron in drinking water can give it an unpleasant metallic taste. Iron is an essential element in human nutrition, and the health effects of iron in drinking water may include warding off fatigue and anemia.

IRON IN DRINKING WATER

The thing that you’ll notice the most from water that is high in iron is that the water may taste metallic. The water may be discolored and appear brownish, and it may even contain sediment. Iron will leave red or orange rust stains in the sink, toilet and bathtub or shower. It can build up in your dishwasher and discolor ceramic dishes. It can also enter into the water heater and can get into the laundry equipment and cause stains on clothing. The EPA cautions that although iron in drinking water is safe to ingest, the iron sediments may contain trace impurities or harbor bacteria that can be harmful. Iron bacteria are naturally occurring organisms that can dissolve iron and some other minerals. These bacteria also form a brown slime that can build up in water pipes. Iron bacteria are most commonly problematic in wells, where water has not been chlorinated.

IRON’S ROLE IN HUMAN NUTRITION

Iron is necessary for your health. The most well-known role that iron plays in human nutrition is in the formation of the protein hemoglobin, which transports oxygen to all cells of the body. Iron is also used in cellular metabolism and is found in many of the body’s enzymes. Low iron stores in the body can lead to iron deficiency, anemia and fatigue and can make you more susceptible to infections.

Some segments of the population are more at risk than others for iron deficiency. In particular, women, children, the elderly, and non-Caucasians are more likely to be iron-deficient than men, although anyone can be iron-deficient.

It is possible that drinking water that is high in iron may be beneficial, as it adds small amounts of iron to your diet. However, while drinking water that contains iron may help mediate iron deficiency symptoms, you should not depend solely on the iron in your drinking water as the only source of iron in your diet.

HEALTH EFFECTS OF IRON OVERLOAD

It is possible for you to get too much iron through your diet, but ingesting too much iron through your drinking water is not associated with adverse health effects. However, while chronically consuming large amounts of iron can lead to a condition known as iron overload; this condition is usually the result of a gene mutation that afflicts about one million people in the United States. Left untreated, iron overload can lead to hemochromatosis, a severe disease that can damage the body’s organs. Early symptoms include fatigue, weight loss, and joint pain, but if hemochromatosis is not treated, it can lead to heart disease, liver problems and diabetes. A blood test can identify iron overload.

Resistance to Gas Drilling Rises on Unlikely Soil

Thursday, June 13th, 2013
THE TEXAS TRIBUNE

Resistance to Gas Drilling Rises on Unlikely Soil

Stuart Palley for The Texas Tribune

In Fort Worth, opposition to natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has emerged.

 

By KATE GALBRAITH
FORT WORTH — Texans pride themselves on being the heart of the nation’s oil and gas business. But even here, public concern aboutnatural gas drilling is growing.
The Texas TribuneExpanded coverage of Texas is produced by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit news organization. To join the conversation about this article, go to texastribune.org.

Stuart Palley for The Texas Tribune

Opposition has also grown in Southlake.

On Wednesday, several dozen protesters marched through downtown Fort Worth, waving signs and chanting anti-drilling slogans that reflected concern over air and water pollution.

The anxiety centers on a recently expanded drilling method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which is now used in more than half of new gas wells drilled in Texas. This practice — which involves blasting water, sand and chemicals far underground to break up rock and extract gas — is common in the Barnett Shale, a major shale-gas field around Fort Worth.

“It’s our health that’s at stake,” said Dana Schultes, who lives in south Fort Worth and worries about the impact of the drilling on her young daughter.

The protest, organized by the group Rising Tide North Texas, is the latest sign of a backlash against drilling in Texas. Yard signs saying “Get the Frack Out of Here” and “Protect Our Kids/No Drilling” have appeared in some yards in Southlake, a Dallas suburb. A few communities have declared a temporary moratorium on drilling permits, and Dallas set up a task force last week to examine drilling regulations within its city limits.

Analysts say the discontent appears to be partly inspired by highly publicized concerns in Pennsylvania, a state unaccustomed to drilling and where fracking has recently increased. The federal government is also raising concerns: the Environmental Protection Agency is beginning a study about the method’s effect on groundwater, and a report for Congressional Democrats released last week detailed the quantity of chemicals that gas companies are putting into the ground.

Lease payments by gas companies have also dropped significantly in Texas since natural gas prices hit highs in 2008, said Mike Slattery, the director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at Texas Christian University — even as gas production rises in the state.

Gas companies say fracking is safe, but some acknowledge that changes are needed.

“For the most part, I would view these as self-inflicted wounds,” said Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Range Resources, a drilling company, speaking about the industry generally.

Gas companies, Mr. Pitzarella said, have existed under the radar for a long time but now need to be more responsive to public concerns.

The Fort Worth protesters ended up at Range Resources’ offices. The company was singled out, an organizer said, partly because it is one of the drillers with headquarters in the city.

Range Resources is also the subject of a battle between the E.P.A. and the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas operations in the state. In December the E.P.A. accused the company of contaminating two water wells in Parker County, west of Fort Worth. The driller denied the accusations, and the Railroad Commission investigated and cleared it. But the E.P.A. case is continuing.

City governments are getting more involved, too. Fort Worth, which has just under 2,000 gas wells within its city limits, expects to complete a study this summer of drilling’s impact on air quality. Dallas, on the edge of the Barnett Shale, has no wells so far, but gas companies are keen to drill — hence the establishment of the task force, which may deliver recommendations to the City Council this fall.

Gas drillers are also facing extra scrutiny in Austin, where lawmakers are considering whether to reduce a tax break for “high cost” natural gas drilling, like hydraulic fracturing. The break cuts the amount of severance tax paid by many gas companies.

Thursday, June 13th, 2013

With Ban on Drilling Practice, Town Lands in Thick of Dispute

Matthew Staver for The New York Times

Voters in Longmont, Colo., approved a ban on the drilling practice known as hydraulic fracturing, prompting legal threats. “People really didn’t think through this too well,” the mayor said.

 

By 

LONGMONT, Colo. — This old farming town near the base of the Rocky Mountains has long been considered a conservative next-door neighbor to the ultraliberal college town of Boulder, a place bisected by the railroad and where middle-class families found a living at the vegetable cannery, sugar mill and Butterball turkey plant.

National Twitter Logo.

 

The New York Times

 

Matthew Staver for The New York Times

Sam Schabacker, Kaye Fissinger and Michael Bellmont, at what would have been a drill site at Union Reservoir, worked to get the ban passed.

But this month, Longmont became the first town in Colorado to outlaw hydraulic fracturing, the oil-drilling practice commonly known as fracking. The ban has propelled Longmont to the fiercely contested forefront of the nation’s antifracking movement, inspiring other cities to push for similar prohibitions.

But it has also set the city on a collision course with oil companies and the State of Colorado.

“People really didn’t think through this too well,” Mayor Dennis L. Coombs said, sounding weary at the prospect of an onslaught of lawsuits. “We are where we are. I guess you have to respect the people.”

In a way, Longmont’s fracking ban is in a position similar to Colorado’s ballot measure legalizing small amounts of marijuana for recreational use. Both are lessons in the promise and peril of populism: both initiatives sailed through on Election Day despite opposition from the authorities, and both now face legal scrutiny and fights at all levels of government.

Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, has warned Longmont residents that the ban is likely to mean a lawsuit from the state, which insists that only it has the authority to regulate drilling. Already this summer, Colorado suedLongmont over earlier city rules that limit drilling near schools and homes.

Local leaders are also bracing for more lawsuits as they tell energy companies they can no longer frack their wells — a process that involves injecting thousands of gallons of pressurized water, sand and chemicals deep into the earth to fissure the rock and extract the oil and gas locked inside.

The ban does not outlaw all drilling, only the specific practice of hydraulic fracturing within the city limits, as well as the storage and disposal of waste created by the process.

“We’re going contrary to state laws,” said Bill Swenson, one of seven former mayors of Longmont who fought the ban. “We are, in effect, taking your property.”

Fracking has allowed drillers to unlock huge new reservoirs of oil and natural gas over the past few years, and has kick-started economies from North Dakota to western Pennsylvania to here in northern Colorado. The industry says the practice is environmentally safe, but opponents have raised concerns about water contamination and air pollution while objecting to islands of well pads and forests of drilling towers in their communities.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Association, the main lobbying group for the energy industry here, criticized the ban as confrontational and encroaching on the private property of companies that have rights to oil and gas buried deep beneath Longmont’s streets, parks and reservoirs.

“Are the taxpayers of Longmont prepared to provide fair compensation to all of the oil and gas lease holders in Longmont?” said Tisha Schuller, the group’s president.

Supporters of the ban call it a “citizen uprising” against a rush of drilling that has spread like brush fire through towns across the plains of northern Colorado.

In nearby Firestone, wells sit within a few hundred feet of libraries, schools and subdivisions. In Greeley, herds of tanker trucks line up at city fire hydrants at dawn to load water for fracking. Earlier this year, a federal scientist reported finding elevated levels of propane and benzene in the air around Erie. City officials and environmental advocates have even led fracking tours of communities where drilling is at its peak.

When people learned of plans to sink wells in Longmont near the Union Reservoir and a playground and recreational area on the east end of town, a response began to coalesce: not here. Supporters said the state’s decision to sue over Longmont’s regulations stiffened their resolve.

At the start, the ban seemed like a doomed idea.

The energy industry poured money and resources into fighting it, raising more than $500,000 to send out mailers and buy advertisements saying the ban would drive away businesses and incite expensive court battles. The major newspapers in Denver, Boulder and Longmont all urged voters to reject the proposal.

“I had no idea we could upset an entire state government and a trillion-dollar industry,” said Michael Bellmont, an insurance agent who helped gather thousands of signatures and knocked on doors to persuade voters.

Advocates of the ban focused less on climate change and environmental concerns than on hitting voters where they lived: Do you want oil wells venting near your backyard? Do you want drilling near your schools?

The industry said the arguments were based on fear-mongering, deception and antifracking hysteria, but they resonated with voters. The ban passed 60 percent to 40 percent, with broad bipartisan support.

One recent afternoon, a few supporters who helped get the ban passed drove through town to visit some of the “red sites” — areas that had been leased for drilling, or could be in the future. They drove past public parks, open spaces and golf courses and stopped at the Union Reservoir, still and limpid under a cloudy sky.

“There’s a swim beach, there’s sailing, and there will be eight well pads,” said Kaye Fissinger, a supporter of the ban, pointing out potential drilling sites in the distance. “You come out here to relax. You don’t come out here to have your air polluted.”

 

A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May Be More

Thursday, June 13th, 2013

A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May Be More

For decades, oil and gas industry executives as well as regulators have maintained that a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that is used for most natural gas wells has never contaminated underground drinking water.

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Carla Greathouse is the author of a report that documents a case of drinking water contamination from fracking.

Multimedia

Drilling Down

Contamination Worries

Articles in this series examine the risks of natural gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry.

Complete Series »

Related

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, has said that there are no reported cases of a freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracturing.

Philip Scott Andrews/The New York Times

Dan Derkicks is an E.P.A. veteran who oversaw research for a report that documents a case of contamination from fracking

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

The claim is based in part on a simple fact: fracking, in which water and toxic chemicals are injected at high pressure into the ground to break up rocks and release the gas trapped there, occurs thousands of feet below drinking-water aquifers. Because of that distance, the drilling chemicals pose no risk, industry officials have argued.

“There have been over a million wells hydraulically fractured in the history of the industry, and there is not one, not one, reported case of a freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracturing. Not one,” Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, said last year at a Congressional hearing on drilling.

It is a refrain that not only drilling proponents, but also state and federal lawmakers, even past and presentEnvironmental Protection Agency directors, have repeated often.

But there is in fact a documented case, and the E.P.A. report that discussed it suggests there may be more. Researchers, however, were unable to investigate many suspected cases because their details were sealed from the public when energy companies settled lawsuits with landowners.

Current and former E.P.A. officials say this practice continues to prevent them from fully assessing the risks of certain types of gas drilling.

“I still don’t understand why industry should be allowed to hide problems when public safety is at stake,” said Carla Greathouse, the author of the E.P.A. report that documents a case of drinking water contamination from fracking. “If it’s so safe, let the public review all the cases.”

Eric Wohlschlegel, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, dismissed the assertion that sealed settlements have hidden problems with gas drilling, and he added that countless academic, federal and state investigators conducted extensive research on groundwater contamination issues, and have found that drinking water contamination from fracking is highly improbable.

“Settlements are sealed for a variety of reasons, are common in litigation, and are done at the request of both landowners and operators,” Mr. Wohlschlegel said.

Still, the documented E.P.A. case, which has gone largely unnoticed for decades, includes evidence that many industry representatives were aware of it and also fought the agency’s attempts to include other cases in the final study.

 The report is not recent — it was published in 1987, and the contamination was discovered in 1984. Drilling technology and safeguards in well design have improved significantly since then. Nevertheless, the report does contradict what has emerged as a kind of mantra in the industry and in the government.

The report concluded that hydraulic fracturing fluids or gel used by the Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company contaminated a well roughly 600 feet away on the property of James Parsons in Jackson County, W.Va., referring to it as “Mr. Parson’s water well.”

“When fracturing the Kaiser gas well on Mr. James Parson’s property, fractures were created allowing migration of fracture fluid from the gas well to Mr. Parson’s water well,” according to the  agency’s summary of the case. “This fracture fluid, along with natural gas was present in Mr. Parson’s water, rendering it unusable.”

Asked about the cause of the incident, Mr. Wohlschlegel emphasized that the important factor was that the driller and the regulator had not known about the nearby aquifer. But in comments submitted to the E.P.A. at the time about the report, the petroleum institute acknowledged that this was indeed a case of drinking water contamination from fracking.

“The damage here,” the institute wrote, referring to Mr. Parsons’ contaminated water well, “results from an accident or malfunction of the fracturing process.”

Mr. Wohlschlegel cautioned however that the comments provided at the time by the institute were not based on its own research and therefore it cannot be sure that other factors did not play a role.

In their report, E.P.A. officials also wrote that Mr. Parsons’ case was highlighted as an “illustrative” example of the hazards created by this type of drilling, and that legal settlements and nondisclosure agreements prevented access to scientific documentation of other incidents.

“This is typical practice, for instance, in Texas,”  the report stated. “In some cases, the records of well-publicized damage incidents are almost entirely unavailable for review.”

Bipartisan federal legislation before Congress would require judges to consider public health and safety before sealing court records or approving settlement agreements.

Dan Derkics, a 17-year veteran of the environmental agency who oversaw research for the report, said that hundreds of other cases of drinking water contamination were found, many of which looked from preliminary investigations to have been caused by hydraulic fracturing like the one from West Virginia. But they were unable to learn more about them.

“I can assure you that the Jackson County case was not unique,” said Mr. Derkics, who retired from the agency in 1994. “That is why the drinking water concerns are real.”

The New York Times was made aware of the 1987 E.P.A. report and some of its supporting research materials by Ms. Greathouse, the study’s lead author. Other records pertaining to the well were obtained from state archives or from the agency’s library.

Some industry officials criticized the research behind the report at the time. Their comments were among the dozens submitted by the industry to the agency.

“It is clear from reading the 228 alleged damage cases that E.P.A.’s contractor was careless in its investigation and presentation of this material,”  a letter from the American Petroleum Institute said.

The organization faulted a draft of the report as failing to include enough comment from state regulators and energy companies, and as including cases that were poorly documented or outside the scope of the project. In remarks to the agency at the time, the petroleum institute also emphasized that safeguards in West Virginia had improved because of the incident, which the organization referred to as an aberration and said was potentially caused by a malfunction.

“As described in the detail write-up, this is not a normal result of fracturing, as it ruins the productive capability of the wells,” the institute said about the case.

A spokesman for ExxonMobil, Alan T. Jeffers, was asked about Mr. Tillerson’s comments to Congress in light of the documents relating to the West Virginia case. He said that Mr. Tillerson, whose company is the largest producer of natural gas in the United States, was only echoing what various state and federal regulators had said.

On the issue of sealed settlements, Mr. Jeffers said that investigators and regulators could use subpoenas if they really wanted access to the information.

Improvements in fracking have led to a boom in natural gas drilling, enabling energy companies to tap vast reserves of gas in previously inaccessible shale formations deep underground.

Most drilling experts indeed have said that contamination of drinking water with fracking liquids is highly improbable. Even critics of fracking tend to agree that if wells are designed properly, drilling fluids should not affect underground drinking water. Industry officials also emphasize that all forms of drilling involve some degree of risk. The question, they say, is what represents an acceptable level. Once chemicals contaminate underground drinking-water sources, they are very difficult to remove, according to federal and industry studies. One E.P.A. official involved with a current study being conducted by the agency on the risks of fracking on drinking water said the agency encountered continuing challenges to get access to current cases because of legal settlements.

“Our hands are tied,” said the official, who spoke anonymously because he is not authorized to speak to reporters.

Brendan Gilfillan, a spokesman for the agency, said that it had indeed encountered these barriers but that there were still enough alternate cases to study.

A 2004 study by the agency concluded that hydraulic fracturing of one kind of natural gas well — coal-bed methane wells — posed “little or no threat” to underground drinking water supplies. The study was later criticized by some within the agency as being unscientific and unduly influenced by industry.

Asked about the 1987 E.P.A. report and the West Virginia well, Mr. Gilfillan said the agency was reviewing them closely.

Instances of gas bubbling from fracked sites into nearby water wells have been extensively documented. The industry has also acknowledged that fracking liquids can end up in aquifers because of failures in the casing of wells, spills that occur above ground or through other factors. However, the drilling industry emphasizes that no such cases exist in which the fracking process itself caused drilling liquids to contaminate drinking water.

Both types of contamination can render the water unusable. However, contamination from fracking fluids is widely considered more worrisome because the fluids can contain carcinogens like benzene.

The E.P.A.’s 1987 report does not discuss the specific pathway that the fracking fluid or gel took to get to Mr. Parsons’ water well in West Virginia or how those fluids moved from a depth of roughly 4,200 feet, where the natural gas well was fracked, to the water well, which was about 400 feet underground.

However,  state records not included in the agency’s final report show the existence of four abandoned wells nearby that were deeper than the fracked gas well. State inspectors and drilling experts suggested in interviews that the contamination in Mr. Parsons’ well might have been caused when fracking pushed chemicals from the gas well into nearby abandoned wells where the fracking pressure might have helped them migrate up toward the water well.

This  well was fracked using gas and water, and with far less pressure and water than is commonly used today.

The Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization, studied the Parsons case extensively over the past year, interviewing local residents and former state regulators as well as reviewing state and federal documents.

The organization found at least four abandoned gas wells within 1,700 feet of the gas well Kaiser drilled on Mr. Parsons’ property and roughly the same distance from the water well. All of these abandoned wells had been plugged with cement and other materials but had some of their casing removed, which is common for such wells, according to state records.

“The evidence is pretty clear that the E.P.A. got it right about this being a clear case of drinking water contamination from fracking,” said Dusty Horwitt, a lawyer from theEnvironmental Working Group who investigated the Parsons case.

The risk of  abandoned wells serving as conduits for contamination is one that the E.P.A. is currently researching as part of its national study on fracking. Many states lack complete records with the number or location of these abandoned wells and they lack the resources to ensure that abandoned and active wells are inspected regularly.

A 1999 report by the Department of Energy said there were about 2.5 million abandoned oil and natural gas wells in the United States at the time.

Mr. Parsons said in a brief interview that he could not comment on the case. Court records indicate that in 1987 he reached a settlement with the drilling company for an undisclosed amount.

Ms. Greathouse, the former environmental research contractor and the lead author of the 1987 E.P.A. report, said that she and her colleagues had found “dozens” of cases that she said appeared to specifically involve drinking water contamination related to fracking. But they were unable to investigate those cases further and get access to more documents because of legal settlements. All but the Parsons case were excluded from the E.P.A. study, she said, because of pressure from industry representatives who were members of an agency working group overseeing the research.

The justification for excluding the cases was usually that they lacked sufficient documentation or involved a type of contamination that was outside the scope of the study.

 

Water Issues in PA

Sunday, June 9th, 2013

What’s the water like in Pennsylvania?

Water quality can no longer be taken for granted — its quality varies from place to place and even house to house. A variety of factors can affect how your water tastes, smells, feels and works in and around your home. Well water quality, possible contamination, an aging water distribution system, violations of federal drinking water standards and a home’s plumbing are examples of things that can affect a home’s water supply. Some water problems may not be as obvious as others. Below, we’ve listed the water problems we commonly see in Lancaster, Harrisburg, Myerstown, and State College, Pennsylvania, But we need to test your water to determine if water treatment is necessary and which option is right for you.

 

 

HARD WATER

Hard water contains dissolved calcium, magnesium and in many cases, iron. Most homes in Pennsylvania have hard water, whether it is supplied by a private well or a municipality. In many cases, homeowners don’t realize they have hard water or the constant and expensive harm it causes.

Dry skin and hair, bathtub ring, spots on glass, silverware and fixtures, dull, dingy clothing, disappointing performance and a shortened life expectancy of water-using appliances are all problems frequently caused by hard water.

Kinetico Water Softener will solve your hard water problems.

 

 

IRON AND MANGANESE STAINING

Water is a natural solvent and given the needed time and conditions, it will dissolve anything it comes in contact with. That’s why, depending on where you live, your water can contain iron or manganese which can cause rusty-orange or black staining. You’ll see the stains on clothes, fixtures, sinks, tubs, water-using appliances and toilets.

Kinetico Water Softener or a Kinetico Water Filter will eliminate water staining problems.

 

 

BLUE-GREEN STAINING

If water has a low pH, you can see the tell-tale, blue-green stains. These stains are most noticeable on white surfaces that your water comes in contact with such as sinks, tubs and showers, toilets and even white clothing.

Crystal Clear Acid Neutralizer will treat your water and eliminate these unsightly stains.

 

 

CHLORINE TASTE AND SMELL

Since the 1850s, chlorine has been used as a disinfectant to kill harmful bacteria in water itself or the pipes that transport it. Although it has helped end a number of major threats to public health and is essential at the treatment plant and in the water distribution system, it is no longer necessary once the water reaches your home.

Though chlorine is vital in PA for stopping the spread of disease, its benefits come at a price. Chlorine tastes and smells bad. It dries skin and hair, fades clothes (bleach is made of chlorine), and can dry out the rubber seals in appliances, shortening their lives.

Remove chlorine from your water with a Kinetico Water Filter or a Kinetico Drinking Water System.

 

CLOUDY WATER

Cloudy, murky or grayish water is usually caused by dissolved or suspended solids. This is also known as “turbidity.” Water can become turbid naturally or from land disturbances such as construction, storms and urban runoff.

The turbidity of your water can range from low to high. But even if your water looks clear, it could still contain a high level of dissolved solids. That’s why, whether your water is turbid or not, we recommend you have it tested.

There are a few options to treat this type of water, depending on if you want to treat all the water in your home or just your drinking water.

 

 

BACTERIA AND VIRUSES

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there could be as many as 12 million cases of waterborne acute gastrointestinal illness annually in the United States alone. These illnesses are frequently caused by bacteria, viruses and protozoa that make their way into the water supply. Even well operated, state-of-the-art treatment plants cannot ensure that drinking water is entirely free of microbial pathogens. Learn more about safe drinking water.

Kinetico Drinking Water System or a Kinetico Specialty Water Treatment Systemwill rid your water of troublesome contaminants.

 

 

TASTES AND ODORS

In its pristine state, water is colorless, tasteless and odorless. So, if your Pennsylvania water tastes or smells funny, you owe it to yourself to find out why.

  • Earthy or musty taste and odor: These types of complaints are generally the result of compounds released due to decayed vegetation and are typically associated with different forms of algae. While not toxic, they are nonetheless unpleasant and can be offensive at very low concentrations.
  • “Rotten egg” smell: Another common source of smelly water is hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless corrosive gas which has the characteristic odor of rotten eggs. If present in high enough concentrations, it can leave an unpleasant odor on hair and clothing. It can also accelerate corrosion of metal parts in appliances. Find out how much sulfur is safe to drink.
  • Metallic taste: As the name implies, a metallic taste to your water indicates the presence of metals such as iron, copper, manganese or zinc. Iron and manganese are often naturally occurring and are predominately found in groundwater. Copper and zinc can come from an aging water distribution system or the corrosion of copper plumbing and brass fittings. Learn about the permissible amounts of trace elements.