The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.chloramine.org/ccacflier.htm

What you need to know about chloramine:
Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia.
Chloramine is a less effective disinfectant than chlorine and cannot kill pathogens like E. Coli and certain viruses effectively according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
As a result, the health and lives of infants less than 6 months of age, people with suppressed immune systems such as HIV and Aids patients and those going through chemotherapy, are at risk. They must have their water boiled for over ten minutes to kill the pathogens in the water as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that there are NO studies on skin or respiratory effects of chloramine.
The EPA states that the limited studies on cancer to date are inadequate. So we do not know if chloramine can cause cancer.
Kidney dialysis patients must have chloramine completely removed from the water for dialysis treatment to prevent hemolytic anemia.
Chloramine is difficult to remove from water. It cannot be removed by boiling, distilling, or by standing uncovered.
Your greatest exposure to chloramine in tap water is through bathing and showering.
Showerhead filters will not remove chloramine. A whole house or whole apartment filter with an extensive carbon filter and a reverse osmosis or cation filter is necessary and is expensive.
Sink filters only work on cold water. A costly whole house filtration system is necessary to process all water.
Chloramine leaches lead from pipes and lead-tin solder from pipe joints. Lead poisoning can cause neurological damage and health problems, even death in young children.
Chloramine can pit pinholes in copper pipes. Leaks from the pipes can cause toxic molds and endanger the health of people.
Insurance companies do not cover damage from mold. As a result, some homeowners lose their homes.
Chloramine can corrode rubber plumbing parts such as toilet flappers, and de-elasticizes plastic polymer pipes, leaching carcinogens into tap water.
The thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in plumbing repair costs caused by chloramine are passed on to property owners.
Chloramine can kill fish, amphibians and water-based reptiles and marine invertebrates. Chloramine enters directly into their bloodstream, gills, or skin, literally suffocating them to death.
Chloramine entering streams, ponds, or the SF Bay from water main breakages can cause environmental damage to fish and marine life. The Canadian EPA has deemed chloramine "toxic" to the environment (CEPA 1999).

Me? I'll continue to drink ONLY bottled water....you can not purify this poison out of the tap.

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/city-services/water/chloramine-information.aspx

POISON!!!!!!

Maybe RecycleMichael can tell us how great our water is again.

The flyer makes it sound like it's all good. Liars.

You people can continue to worry over Obama. Me? I'll continue to drink ONLY bottled water....you can not purify this poison out of the tap. When you go into a public place, limit your intake. And QUESTION AUTHORITY!

Plus make sure and come back tomorrow to find out something you do every day which may cause your death.

Unfortunately, it has some other problems like adversely degrading lead in old copper pipes. Fortunately, most of Tulsa has newer poly pipes.

When was the conversion to in-house poly pipe in place of copper?  I would think there are a lot of Tulsa area houses old enough to have copper.  Our place was built in 1968 and it has copper.

All city water is a gamble- Well water in rural areas  is not much safer because it's full of farm chemicals and farm run off, with  bottled water there is no telling what your drinking since they don't have to be labled. No thanks,  I'll stick with my soft drinks. For me there is nothing more refrishing  than sipping down an ice  cold soda on a warm day.  :-\

They use municipal water supplies to make your soft drinks, so you're not escaping the stuff you listed. I read the label on a Dr.Pepper once and noticed the words ethylene glycol. Same stuff in your car's radiator.

I got old galvenized pipe in my house. It was built in the 1950's.

For me there is nothing more refrishing  than sipping down an ice  cold soda on a warm day.  :-\

I prefer unsweetened ice tea or just plain water.  Sometimes a squeeze of fresh lemon or lime in the tea or water is nice too.

Some years ago Tulsa added a carbon filter to their water system.
The soft drink industry use a unique dual filtering system before the syrup and flavoring is added to the water including carbon filtering.
Plastics, as made by the designer of nature, have a tendency to be in constant deterioration from aging.
Houses built with galvanized piping will coat on the inside of the pipe with a stone substance.
Use of any lead or soldier in home construction can be detrimental in time.

Be safe and wear a gas mask at all times as we decrease the air quality that is so essential to preserve life as we know it. When one looks at the ozone cloud over the city from five miles out one can enjoy the enormous road construction underway to get the autos into the city faster.   



 
 

When one looks at the ozone cloud over the city from five miles out one can enjoy the enormous road construction underway to get the autos into the city faster.   

Use of any [...] soldier in home construction can be detrimental in time.

I prefer unsweetened ice tea or just plain water.  Sometimes a squeeze of fresh lemon or lime in the tea or water is nice too.

After many years, I have finally convinced my wife of the beautiful simplicity of sun brewed tea (in a large Mason jar if possible), a few slices of lemon and cut with filtered water, poured over ice as the best summer drink ever made. No sweetener. Brisk. Refreshing. The stuff advertising campaigns are made of.

Sun brewed tea is good.  Moon brewed tea is even better.  No kidding, put the jar anywhere overnight and you will have some awesome tea without the bitterness (at least I think it's the bitterness) that even sun brewed tea has due to getting warm.  We have some 1 gallon clear glass "Lipton Sun Tea" jars with a plastic top having a flip up section for a pouring opening.  I don't know if they are still available.

Edit:  I was looking to see if Sun Tea jars were still available and ended up here:
http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/suntea.asp

Moon tea may be a safer alternative to sun tea.

Are there any fond memories and practices from my youth that remain un-molested from science?

Are you referring to a premature death or just that fact that we all eventually die?

So burn your house down or die from cancer, but hopefully your dishes will be squeaky clean.

Are there any fond memories and practices from my youth that remain un-molested from science?

Bottle-rocket fights with the other neighborhood kids?
My accuracy was greatly improved when my weapons platform was a PVC pipe near the top of a great 100-year old cedar tree (long since gone).

When was the conversion to in-house poly pipe in place of copper?  I would think there are a lot of Tulsa area houses old enough to have copper.  Our place was built in 1968 and it has copper.

I've been pretty lucky I guess. Come to think of it, I was ill last week commensurate with drinking about a gallon during the weekend. No more sun tea for me (or moon tea either)!

Are there any fond memories and practices from my youth that remain un-molested from science?

When was the conversion to in-house poly pipe in place of copper?  I would think there are a lot of Tulsa area houses old enough to have copper.  Our place was built in 1968 and it has copper.

I got old galvenized pipe in my house. It was built in the 1950's.

You should change it out to copper.  Not from the health issues necessarily (although that might explain some things...) but to get better water pressure and flow.  Those old galvanized pipes are almost plugged solid now.  The flow rate is horrible.

Luckily, there is an EXCELLENT alternative that doesn't pose any of the risks and makes tea that is sublime - never any bitterness.  Use the same container and process that you would with sun tea, but then place it in the refrigerator overnight.

Wow!  Did you think of that all by yourself?

Did you happen to look at the link I posted earlier?
http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/suntea.asp
The refrigerator tea is near the bottom of the page.

I would have thought so too. Yet, my old galvanized pipes date to WWI and they still have the pressure to burst any hose I buy at the D'pot. I regularly clean the calcium and sediment from the faucet aerators, shower heads and W/D hookups. That helps. I heard the city actually has to adjust pressure downwards around town to keep from blowing up water heaters. Is that true?

I never thought of bacteria in tea.  Lesson learned: If they bring me my tea and it’s got stringy brown things, promptly leave the restaurant.  If they’ve got bacteria in the tea, no telling what else they’ve failed to do in terms of sanitation and food prep.

I don't know about water heaters blowing.  Never had one do that unless it was already rusted to the failure point.  Seems like there might be some kind of problem for that to happen.  I haven't thrown a gage on Tulsa water for so long (since early 80's), I don't know what they are running now.  

I would be very surprised if you pipes had not been changed sometime after WWII.  Even a 1" pipe could be very reasonably expected to corrode almost shut in 40 years.  A couple people I know in Maple Ridge have 1920-ish houses, with late 40's piping.  And that has gotten plugged in the last 5 or 10 years...  Just too much corrosion for too small a pipe...  

I really DO NOT recommend you opening up a pipe to look - it will cause trouble that doesn't exist now - but if you looked in the end of one of those pipes, I bet the hole would be very small.  Did I mention - don't open the piping just to look?  NO point is asking for trouble and a whole lot of grief like that would bring.

I left about two inches of tea in the fridge when I went on vacation for a week and a half, a few years ago.  When we got back, there was a layer on top.  Lesson learned.  Was mildly surprised until I thought about it for a minute or two, but it makes sense.

I've lived in the house some 33 years. Not ruling it out, but I'm pretty sure this is original piping. The bathroom plumbing sits in about 6 inches of original concrete and tile. This past holiday I got tired of having only one outside hydrant so I added one to the other side of the house which necessitated opening a "T" connection near the main water line in the basement and adding new pipe. There wasn't any corrosion or calcification to speak of. It surprised me too. Other areas of the house like where the kitchen pipes are and where the W/D hookups are do show lots of buildup, so go figure. Maybe proximity, usage or pressure makes the difference.

Mostly these homes have had electricity upgraded instead of plumbing unless you're adding or remodeling kitchen and bath. At least for us po'folks.

I wonder if a little lemon juice would preserve it longer?

One of the friends did a whole house "gut and rebuild".  Down to the studs.  Whew!  Massive job.  New everything all around.

One might be tempted to think back with nostalgia on the "good ole days" when construction was SO much better... well, some of the things in this 1921 place were downright scary!  They cut corners then as much as anyone today.  Several places in the house where they ran out of full length 2 x 4 for stud wall, so just took 3 shorter pieces, nailed them together end to end until they got the right length.  Ahhhh, it will be behind plaster, so no one will ever know...

Yeah, they had monday/friday employees and alcohol back in the good old days too! Some of their work was seriously overbuilt and intricately thought out. Other stuff was often done by the new guy and covered up with plaster. I like to envision the returning WWI vets glad to return to their trades having built my home.

My home seems to have been built with care and good materials which makes it hard to alter.

You must have Ozone Vision. 

I have seen the city up close and from many miles and the Ozone Cloud is not visible.  There is no dome of visible Ozone over Tulsa.  When the visibility sucks, it sucks all over - all over North East Oklahoma.  When the visibility over N.E. Oklahoma is good, it is also good over Tulsa.

One of the friends did a whole house "gut and rebuild".  Down to the studs.  Whew!  Massive job.  New everything all around.

One might be tempted to think back with nostalgia on the "good ole days" when construction was SO much better... well, some of the things in this 1921 place were downright scary!  They cut corners then as much as anyone today.  Several places in the house where they ran out of full length 2 x 4 for stud wall, so just took 3 shorter pieces, nailed them together end to end until they got the right length.  Ahhhh, it will be behind plaster, so no one will ever know...

Look west from 412 from the east shore of the ancient inland sea that formed the basin Tulsa is located in from 5 miles out.  On days the winds are calm and the red rays of the setting sun illuminate the dome of ozone over the city it is very hard to not be aware of it.  It can be photographed very easy.     

Please take a picture and post it.  I have flown to Tulsa from Pryor at about 1000 ft above the ground around sunset more times than I care to count and have not observed your dome.  It gets hazy but it is not concentrated over Tulsa.  It is area wide.

He's been inhaling the pink gas again....

Maybe that is what he is seeing.  Pink gas induced smog dome.

By the concretion of matter in layers such matter restricts the line of sight at the zero level whereas the deviating from the zero level of sight to a 1000 feet breaks up this visibility bond of the gases mater as it reduces the molecules by scattering them by vision.  The line of sight is at the maxim as the molecules of gas are at gathered at rest and one is looking through their mass instead of layers at 1000 feet.

That is what makes the pink gas so dangerous when it is concentrated within the city hall and one cannot focus on all the aspects effecting the citizen.

By the concretion of matter in layers such matter restricts the line of sight at the zero level whereas the deviating from the zero level of sight to a 1000 feet breaks up this visibility bond of the gases mater as it reduces the molecules by scattering them by vision.  The line of sight is at the maxim as the molecules of gas are at gathered at rest and one is looking through their mass instead of layers at 1000 feet.

That is what makes the pink gas so dangerous when it is concentrated within the city hall and one cannot focus on all the aspects effecting the citizen.

To be fair, there are times when it looks like there's something of a haze over Tulsa when you're out where 412 and 44 split. The sight line was a lot better before they put in the Creek. Temperature inversions trap particulate matter near the surface on occasion. There's nothing terribly conspiratorial about it. I wouldn't call it a dome, though. It's more like morning fog in a valley.

If you want to see air pollution, try flying into LA.

Meanwhile, on the surface of our nearest star:

"According to an article on Space.com, “The sun unleashed a huge flare Thursday (July 12), the second major solar storm to erupt from our star in less than a week.” The X-class sun storm, the most powerful type of flare the sun can have, according to the article, peaked at 12:52 pm EDT and was significantly more powerful than the flare that erupted on July 6."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The eruptions of our star galaxy in the past have caused many phenomenal disturbing effects in the radio wave spectrum.  Such eruptions in the past has been used by the armatures in conducting experiments in the radio frequencies when the “skip is in”, which aborts the “line of sight theory”.  The sun flairs may or could be associated with the planets aligning in December of this year held by the gravitational tether(cannot be explain even by theory)affixed to the sun.

Amateur (Ham) Radio Operators? Sun activity affects the skip but lower frequencies can bend over the line of sight anyway.  My dad was a Ham and regularly talked all over the world.

Edit:
I just went and looked at his homebrew (nothing to do with beer) transmitter.  His favorite bands were 15, 20, and 40 Meters.  I remember that back east the club he belonged to had a net on 6 meters.  When they were working DX (foreign countries) contests, the club members would announce on the net if a new country was on a particular frequency.  I knew most of the code at one time but never got my license.

VHF and UHF will experience a phenomena called ducting, usually in the summer time.  A signal can bounce back and forth in the duct, emerging somewhere far away.  I was listening to a net in Detroit one night when I was in Pennsylvania, with a signal so strong it almost seemed they were nearby.  And a friend experienced it with his television attached to a big Yagi antenna when he picked up Canadian porn on a broadcast channel one night.

Can't remember the call sign, but when I was a kid, had a crystal radio kit (probably still have it somewhere...) that I had put together that got a Chicago station most nights.  Don't remember liking what they played, but it was so fascinating listening to radio so far away, I just had to be there...

Probably WLS in Chicago.  We could get it in S.E. PA too.  Dad had an extra surplus military WWII multiband receiver that my brother and I had in our room. (Actually, I probably still have it somewhere in the attic or the outbuilding.)  We heard a lot of broadcast stations from the midwest.

Amateur (Ham) Radio Operators? Sun activity affects the skip but lower frequencies can bend over the line of sight anyway.  My dad was a Ham and regularly talked all over the world.

http://signon.org/sign/stop-the-use-of-chloramine?source=s.em.mt&r_by=5046976

STOP the use of chloramine in The Tulsa Area Water!
By Victoria Clark (Contact)

To be delivered to: Mayor Dewey Bartlett, The TMUA, and Tulsa City Council

We, the undersigned, are asking you for a moratorium on the use of chloramine in drinking water in Tulsa until more studies are done regarding the acute and long term effects of chloramine and it's byproducts as well as the impact on our homes, aquatic life and watersheds.

The safety assurances you have given Tulsans are solely based on the regulated byproducts of chloramine. The unregulated byproducts have only recently have begun to been studied! Even the EPA website itself reveals that these studies are showing that the unregulated byproducts of chloraminated water are "highly genotoxic" and "cause adverse health effects".

•   You say chloramine has been safely used for 90 years, yet safety on humans wasn’t studied until recently. The current growing body of scientific research is indicating that the use of chloramines is mutagenic, cytotoxic and carcinogenic.

•   Chloramine is known to leach lead into the water supply. Multiple children in Washington D.C. and North Carolina are known to have suffered lead poisoning from chloraminated water.

•   Chloramine eats rubber fittings in plumbing and is known to damage seals and parts within the water distribution system, including within homes.

•   Chloramine is toxic to fish and amphibians in our ecosystem, down to the earthworm.

It appears that we are fast approaching the time when science will conclude that choramine is unsafe for humans just as they realized, too late, that lead paint asbestos and thalidomide were unsafe. Don’t expose Tulsans to these risks when you have the alternative, safe, and affordable option of carbon filtering to meet the EPA 2012 guidelines for Tulsa. We know that you have 3-4 years time before the compliance date-take that time to consider what scientists are discovering: the cytotoxic, genotoxic, carcinogenic, and other adverse health effects of chloramines.

We ask you to consider what the science is showing about the unregulated byproducts of chloramine and take the responsible action to protect the citizens under your watch. Please STOP the use of chloramine in Tulsa now.

What Are They Drinking in New York City?
New Shop Sells Tap Water Run Through Filtering System; Officials Proud of H20

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577535100599492544.html

By SOPHIA HOLLANDER

New York is known for its food niche stores: The Hummus Place. The Doughnut Plant. The Dumpling Man. Even a spot dedicated solely to rice pudding.

But this week, a store in the East Village went a step further: It sells New York City tap water.

Not just any tap water, insist the owners of Molecule. They say the water streams through a $25,000 filtering machine that uses ultraviolet rays, ozone treatments and reverse osmosis in a seven-stage processing treatment to create what they call pure H20.

Despite the start-up costs, it is the ideal business model, they say, since they never have to worry about spoiled products or storage costs. And then there is the taste: "I mean it's subtle, but if you have a sensitive palate you can totally tell" the difference, said co-owner Adam Ruhf.

Water quality has long been a point of pride for New Yorkers, touted by Mayor Michael Bloomberg as one of the city's signature distinctions.

The owners of Molecule—Alexander Venet, a local art dealer and restaurant owner, and Mr. Ruhf, a former world champion boomerang player, musician and self-described social-justice activist—vehemently disagree.

"Terrible," said Mr. Ruhf, who moved to New York from California about a year ago. "I don't want chemicals in my water. I don't even want chlorine in my water. Chlorine is like bleach. Do you want to drink bleach? No one wants to drink bleach. So that's my opinion on New York tap water."

"Public health experts agree that New York City tap water is among the safest, highest quality in the world, a standard we confirm through more than 500,000 tests each year," said Christopher Gilbride, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection.

Some scientists and environmentalists suggest there is a need for some water treatment: A 2006 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that federal regulations allowed potentially dangerous amounts of fluoride into drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency has since lowered its recommended levels. John Doull, a professor emeritus of toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center who chaired the NAS report, says lower levels may also pose concern, but "we don't have enough evidence to satisfy a regulatory requirement."

Nneka Leiba, a senior research analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group, said the nonprofit organization recommends filtering all drinking water.

But she questioned whether New Yorkers should pay a premium for filtered water—in this case, $2.50 plus tax for a 16-ounce glass bottle (only $1 for up to 50 ounces if you bring your own container).

"Their water quality is not that bad to begin with," she said, adding that a $15 in-home filtration system would probably suffice.

When it comes to water, the answers are murky. The East Village store wades into a controversy that has brewed among water aficionados for decades. Some deride the stripped-down H20 as "dead water" because its natural minerals have been eliminated along with the chemicals.

To counteract critics, Molecule is planning a weekly naming ceremony to imbue its water with personality and Sunday blessings involving religious figures from all faiths, including Tibetan monks and pagan worshipers.

"Either you buy into it or you don't," said Mr. Ruhf, who came up with the idea for Molecule after sampling a similar store in California.

The tiny shop looks more like a laboratory than a love-in. Brightly lighted and spare, Molecule is dominated by the giant filtration machine, a vast tank connected to tubes, pipes and monitoring dials. Along the back wall hangs a line of long, thin burettes filled with colored liquids. Sales are rung up on an iPad.

Mr. Ruhf has combined the store with his second dream: creating an "all natural sports-drink line, like Gatorade for yogis." Or in language perhaps more familiar to New Yorkers, a cocktail bar for water enthusiasts. Patrons can order a shot of vitamins A, B, C, D and E or a mixture of roots, herbs, fruits and mushrooms blended in blasts called "energy," "immunity" and "skin, hair and nails" to add to their water.

Coming soon, he said: mixtures for anti-inflammatory, detox, digestion, vision and virility.

"Nothing tastes bad," he said. Though not everyone raves, "I haven't had anyone express revulsion yet."

To "sex it up a little bit," the store is also offering electrolyte and pH infusions, Mr. Ruhf said. For those longing for a heartier snack, it sells organic energy bars.


Mr. Ruhf says his water is unusually "fluffy" with a "smooth" finish. (A reporter found it lighter and more velvety than city tap water.) Still, some are skeptical.

"There's not as much of a quality difference between different waters," said Brandon Lederhouse, who was visiting a friend in the neighborhood. "It's not like people are going to be saying, 'Oh, this water tastes so much better than the Poland Spring I got on the corner.' "

His friend disagreed. "I think you'll have people who will start becoming water connoisseurs," said his friend, Caitlin Garcia.

That is just what Messrs. Ruhf and Venet are hoping.

On Tuesday afternoon they were awaiting the delivery of an adult tricycle they plan to use to deliver BPA-free plastic jugs—and water refills—to homes and businesses.

Still, they may have convincing to do: Even some of their single-item brethren were taken aback. "Water?" said Aaron Gallentine, who works two blocks away at the Dumpling Man, when informed of the idea. "I'm a little bit in shock."

"I have one to thing to say: Good luck to them," he continued, though he slowly warmed to the idea. "It's so completely random, and the East Village is so completely random. I think this may be the only place this could possibly work."

—Tania Karas contributed to this article.
A version of this article appeared July 19, 2012, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: What Are They Drinking In New York City?

What are the byproducts of Chloramine and how are they produced?

Since Chloramines are used to produce hydrazine as a explosive element to produce rocket fuel, the adding it in the drinking water could put a little zip in the termination of the human race as we know it. Our immune system requires certain good germs in the water to retain our digestive tracks which are essential to maintain our bodies of which sustain what we call life.  We will genocide this species called man.  Science says we involved from the dinosaurs after they ate themselves out of food, and after 60 million years man appeared.  There is a question if this mass explosion of technology we are experiencing during our region will bring about our demise.

Good post.  Is that the citizens of Pompeii in 79 that they are uncovering now?  As you are aware the citizens didn’t believe the rumbling mountain and warnings meant anything until the ashes covered them.   

Since Chloramines are used to produce hydrazine as a explosive element to produce rocket fuel, the adding it in the drinking water could put a little zip in the termination of the human race as we know it. Our immune system requires certain good germs in the water to retain our digestive tracks which are essential to maintain our bodies of which sustain what we call life. 

I recently saw a presentation on a water pH modifying system.  "They" claimed that high pH water was the elixir of liquids.  At least I think they said alkaline water was better.  I might have it backwards.  They also offered a filter system that could remove Chloramines.  I didn't stay for the whole live infomercial.

Where's the quadruple facepalm at?

 ::)

Depends on what you need the water for as to what the ideal pH is.  For most household purposes, a pH around 8 or so is pretty ideal.  Tulsa water is not far off what is considered “mineral water” by the snake oil salesmen.  Moderate alkalinity, moderate hardness, not particularly high in iron or sulfides.  Still not sure where the Will Rogers Hotel in Claremore got their “miracle” water from.  If it was off the Verdigris watershed, it’s the same water much of Tulsa bathes in daily.

I thought the "miracle" of the Will Rogers Hotel was sulfur and radium.

Whenever a public utility goes with price (chloramine is cheaper than chlorine I heard) over quality and effectiveness it gives me pause. I can't drink much wine because of the preservatives used domestically, notably ethlene glycol. Dang. That limits me to Vodka, Whiskey, Rum and cheap beer.

I don't expect to live forever but I would rather not change the chemical makeup the good Lord intended for my body.

I think these guys were pushing for a pH around 9 or 10.

pH 10 might start tasting a little soapy ;)

I thought the "miracle" of the Will Rogers Hotel was sulfur and radium.

Whenever a public utility goes with price (chloramine is cheaper than chlorine I heard) over quality and effectiveness it gives me pause. I can't drink much wine because of the preservatives used domestically, notably ethlene glycol. Dang. That limits me to Vodka, Whiskey, Rum and cheap beer.

I don't expect to live forever but I would rather not change the chemical makeup the good Lord intended for my body.

Thanks. Some incorrect info remains in the brain forever. I probably saw propylene glycol, probably remembered the 1985 scandal and put it all together. I seem to remember that whatever the preservative is, the local vintners don't need to use it. It was only for wines transported to other countries.

At any rate, quantity ingested seems to be the more important factor.

Computers allow people make mistakes faster than anything else with the possible exception of tequila.

I can have my first shot now.

Great laugh to start the weekend.  I can have my first shot now.

I'm waiting until 5.  We have a painting of a clock with all "5"s instead of 1 thru 12.  I think I'll use that one.

I think it's a rum weekend, not a tequila weekend. ;)

Bring some back from the islands?

Only a couple of liters.  ;D

Nerd alert!
Even higher frequencies will bounce off the troposphere or ionosphere under the right conditions.  I've used a 25 watt 10 meter transceiver to talk to both coasts from my driveway when conditions were right, but when the band shut down, I couldn't reach Collinsville.

VHF and UHF will experience a phenomena called ducting, usually in the summer time.  A signal can bounce back and forth in the duct, emerging somewhere far away.  I was listening to a net in Detroit one night when I was in Pennsylvania, with a signal so strong it almost seemed they were nearby.  And a friend experienced it with his television attached to a big Yagi antenna when he picked up Canadian porn on a broadcast channel one night.

Byproduct of water disinfection process found to be highly toxic
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/13413.php


A recently discovered disinfection byproduct (DBP) found in U.S. drinking water treated with chloramines is the most toxic ever found, says a scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who tested samples on mammalian cells.

The discovery raises health-related questions regarding an Environmental Protection Agency plan to encourage all U.S. water-treatment facilities to adopt chlorine alternatives, said Michael J. Plewa [PLEV-uh], a genetic toxicologist in the department of crop sciences. "This research says that when you go to alternatives, you may be opening a Pandora's box of new DBPs, and these unregulated DBPs may be much more toxic, by orders of magnitude, than the regulated ones we are trying to avoid."

Some good background information from Water and Wastes Digest magazine (I have such a great list of reading material). This article focused on private water supplies, but I thought the information was useful for this discussion.

I too, have qualms about Chloramine. But I refuse to become alarmist when I must kiss up to the city and their beauracrats to maintain my "IN" with them.it has been successfully used in so many cities for so long. The environmentalists in Boston, Portland and California cities have debated the use of Chlorine and Chlorimine for many years and there are lots of studies. I am not opposed to Tulsa switching from Chlorine to Chloramine.[/b]

Chlorine Treatment
 
The addition of chlorine to a water supply readily combines with chemicals dissolved in water, microorganisms, plant material, odors and colors. Chlorine that is “used up” by these components comprises the chlorine demand of a treatment system. Sufficient amounts of chlorine must
be added to a water supply to meet the chlorine demand and provide residual disinfection. Free or residual chlorine is the amount  of the disinfectant that does not combine with components in the water, and the breakpoint is the point in which free chlorine is available for continuous disinfection.

Disinfection By-Products

In 1979, the EPA adopted a trihalomethane (THM) regulation limiting the allowable level of this carcinogenic disinfection byproduct in drinking water. The maximum contaminant level for total THMs in drinking water is 0.10mg/L. THMs are chemicals that are formed, primarily in surface water, when naturally occurring organic materials combine with free chlorine.

Alternatives
 
Despite the popularity of chlorination, the treatment method has limitations when attempting to disinfect water sources that are heavily contaminated and possess protozoan parasites such as Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and reverse osmosis (RO)
filtration both have proved effective at inactivating specific protozoan. Both methodologies purify water without the addition of harsh chemicals or the need to handle hazardous materials.

UV Disinfection
 
UV disinfection is the process where microorganisms are exposed to UV light at a specified intensity for a specific period of time. This process renders the microorganism to be considered “microbiologically dead.” UV light penetrates the cell wall of the microorganism affecting the DNA by fusing the Thyamine bond within the DNA strand, which prevents the DNA strand from replicating during the reproduction process. This fusing of the Thyamine bond is known as forming a dimerase of the Thyamine bond. If the microorganism is unable to reproduce/replicate then it is considered to be “microbiologically dead.” While providing a 99.99 percent inactivation of bacterium and viruses, UV will have no effect on water chemistry.

Reverse Osmosis
 
RO filtration uses a semipermeable  membrane that enables the water  being purified to pass through while contaminants remain behind. Traditionally, osmosis refers to the attempt to reach equilibrium by dissimilar liquid systems trying to reach the same concentration of materials on both sides of a semipermeable membrane. Reversing the osmotic process is accomplished by applying pressure to stop the natural osmosis process, creating RO. RO removes virtually all organic compounds and 90 to 99 percent of all ions from the processed water. In addition, RO can reject 99.9 percent of viruses, bacteria and pyrogens.
 
Alternative methods of treatment for water supplies such as UV and RO do not provide a residual effect like chlorination. Without a residual, the regrowth of contaminants further down in the distribution system becomes possible. Chlorination generally is an inexpensive treatment method and proven to be effective against a broad spectrum of pathogens. Although it has shown itself  to be effective against waterborne bacteria and viruses, it provides only some degree of protection against protozoan agents. Nevertheless, a water supply should utilize a treatment system that kills or neutralizes all pathogens in the water through an automatic, simply maintained and safe process.  [/i]

I am glad to know you are such an expert on credibility.

No one from the city water department has asked me to respond or educate anybody. I am just good at doing research, attending public meetings, and sharing what I think. Water is not my field of expertise.

I am not a Water Boy, I am a Trash MAN.

I preferred Tulsa when we were not driven by expanding our economic base ...

Tulsan's should be less concerned about waste management and more concerned about the air they breathe and the water they need to survive.

Sparrow, if my backyard were the size of Vegas, trash could be buried there from the entire nation and in 100 years the nation might need a new location and just maybe a deeper hole.

Teacup, I think you underestimate the amount of trash this country generates.  Plus, I doubt your backyard is the size of Vegas (assuming you are referring to the city Las Vegas, NV) but we only want to put Tulsa metro area trash there, not the whole country's.

It's an option. We can bury the nations trash.

I believe we dry up the Colorado River just as it gets to Mexico so we wouldn't be polluting another country by flowing it downstream.

Like Amerika, you seem to be driving the discussion away from our priorities of water and air. See....

I’ve always found it curious you talk about our carcinogenic air in Tulsa but you never seem to be bothered by smoky bars.  Why is that?

Seems sometimes posters get overwhelmed when they try to pat them selves on their back, with both hands at  one time, congratulating them self’s on the their achievements in keeping the vital signs of the city secure.   

One, I am not concerned about "me"...I worry about the greater outside community and the city's ability to improve.
Two, an hour or two a week will not do me harm. It's not like I hang out in a manufacturing concern or a boiler room.

The city ‘screwed up’ with chloramines


The only reason Tulsa Municipal Utility Authority (TMUA) selected chloramine disinfection is because they have chosen the least cost alternative over the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
You can argue 50 different ways to help you sleep at night after making such a decision, but it is what it is - the cheap and easy way out.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the best available (BAT) technology for achieving compliance with the MCLs for both TTHMs and HAA5 as enhanced coagulation or treatment with granular activated carbon with a ten-minute empty bed contact time and 180-day reactivation frequency (GAC10), with chlorine as the primary and residual (secondary) disinfectant since 1994. Water utility associations have lobbied EPA for the use of cheaper cost alternatives ever since.
(Utility director) Mr. Edwards writes, “Tulsa will begin using chloramines as a secondary disinfectant to meet the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule. Chloramine, a disinfectant used to treat drinking water, is a common alternative to chlorine. Monochloramine, the form of chloramine used for disinfection, will be formed by adding a small amount of ammonia to the finished water as it leaves the treatment plant. The conversion to chloramine provides more equitable public health protection for all of the city’s customers by reducing the concentration of trihalomethanes (THMs) and halo acetic acids (HAA5) to below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) at all locations within the distribution system.”
This paragraph is complex and the points Mr. Edwards tries to make are flawed.
First, while monochloramine is the primary objective, dichloramine and in some instances trichloramine will form. The pH value determines which kind of chloramines are formed. Trichloramines mainly form when the pH value is 3 or below. When the pH value is 7 or above, dichloramine concentrations are highest, the amounts of chlorine and ammonia in the water also influence the origination of chloramines.
The chlorine/ammonia rate is ideally 6:1. During chloramine production, the rate is usually 3-5:1. When ammonia concentrations are higher, more di- and trichloramines are formed.
Mr. Edwards claims one of the purposes of selecting chloramine disinfection is to, “provide more equitable public health protection at all locations within the distribution system.”
In reality the same conditions that cause certain parts of the distribution system to be “out of compliance” today, will cause the chemical formation of the really bad disinfection byproducts at those same locations. So, while Mr. Edwards thinks he is providing equity, until he comes to grips with the fact that the distribution system suffers from circulatory problems causing poor water quality, the utility will serve up compounds 1,000 times more toxic to people living in these problem areas.
I don’t even want to get into the property damage chloraminated water causes.
I will just defer to Chairman Hudson’s own webpage: www.rlhudson.com/publications/techfiles/chloramine.htm, wherein he describes much better then I the damage chloramines cause.
Mr. Edwards wraps up with, “Finally, your letter indicated that Mr. Robert Bowcock and the Brockovich Foundation presented an affordable and effective alternative that would allow Tulsa to meet the new EPA requirements. The City of Tulsa thoroughly researched treatment alternatives and process modifications to ensure the city’s compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR. Research began in 1987 and continues today. This research includes several pilot programs that helped the City develop 13 options to upgrade the City’s AB Jewell water treatment plant to meet the proposed Stage 2 DBPR. At the time the study was done, the rule was not final. Therefore, many options were included in the study to address possible outcomes of the regulatory process.”
In response to Mr. Bowcock’s suggestion, the City of Tulsa revisited the GAC options and reviewed the data collected from the previous GAC pilot studies performed on City of Tulsa water.
The City of Tulsa data indicates that placing new GAC in the filters once a year as suggested by Mr. Bowcock would not reduce the concentration of DBPs in Tulsa water sufficiently to comply with the Stage 2 rules at all location in the City’s distribution system.
The City of Tulsa/TMUA is obligated to ensure consistent compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. With existing infrastructure, sole dependence on GAC cannot ensure consistent compliance with the Stage 2 D/DBP limits and therefore is not a viable option to meet the new requirements. Post GAC contactors with twenty minutes of empty bed contact time would be needed to reduce the DBP formation sufficiently.”
What Mr. Edwards fails to tell you is they screwed up.
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) can be used in scores of different applications. It can be used in the filter beds as media to remove the organics before the DBPs are formed; or, it can be used after pre-chlorination and filtration, in a process referred to as post contact, which removes the “formed” THMs and HAAs. The GAC will last significantly longer if used to remove the organics pre-chlorination, but TMUA wants to pre-chlorinate for other reasons, adjustments can be made.
Regardless, TMUA pilot tested post formations THMs and HAAs removal, “post contact.” But they used a media filter to perform the test. I witnessed this on my tour of the facility. That being said, I would ask that the work plan and results of the recent GAC pilot work be made available to the public immediately so that we may evaluate these findings.
Robert W. Bowcock


http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=6157

If tea is left out in the sun, it goes rancid.

What's that mean Mista America Environmentalist?

Dr. Michael J. Plewa is University Scholar and Professor of Genetics in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois. He is also an investigator with the NSF Center WaterCAMPWS Program in the College of Engineering. He has an international reputation for research and teaching in environmental and molecular mutagenesis and he has published 185 scientific papers and reports. This is what he found in researching the effects of chloramine:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BYPRODUCT OF WATER-DISINFECTION FOUND TO BE HIGHLY TOXIC:

Michael Plewa and Elizabeth Wagner, principal research specialist, both in the department of crop sciences, collaborated with three EPA researchers on research into a disinfection byproduct found in drinking water treated with chloramines.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — A recently discovered disinfection byproduct (DBP) found in U.S. drinking water treated with chloramines is the most toxic ever found, says a scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who tested samples on mammalian cells.

The discovery raises health-related questions regarding an Environmental Protection Agency plan to encourage all U.S. water-treatment facilities to adopt chlorine alternatives, said Michael J. Plewa [PLEV-uh], a genetic toxicologist in the department of crop sciences.

“This research says that when you go to alternatives, you may be opening a Pandora’s box of new DBPs, and these unregulated DBPs may be much more toxic, by orders of magnitude, than the regulated ones we are trying to avoid.”

Plewa and colleagues, three of them with the EPA, report on the structure and toxicity of five iodoacids found in chloramines-treated water in Corpus Christi, Texas, in this month’s issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology. The findings, which appeared online in advance, already have prompted a call from the National Rural Water Association for a delay of EPA’s Stage 2 rule aimed at reducing the amount of previously identified toxic DBPs occurring in chlorine-treated water.

“The iodoacids may be the most toxic family of DBPs to date,” Plewa said in an interview. One of the five detailed in the study, iodoacetic acid, is the most toxic and DNA-damaging to mammalian cells in tests of known DBPs, he said.

“These iodoacetic acids raise new levels of concerns,” he said. “Not only do they represent a potential danger because of all the water consumed on a daily basis, water is recycled back into the environment. What are the consequences? The goal of Stage 2 is to reduce DBPs, particularly the ones that fall under EPA regulations, and especially the ones that have been structurally identified and found to be toxic.”

The use of chloramines, a combination of chlorine and ammonia, is one of three alternatives to chlorine disinfectant, which has been used for more than 100 years. Other alternatives are chlorine-dioxide and ozone. All treatments react to compounds present in a drinking water source, resulting in a variety of chemical disinfectant byproducts.

Some 600 DBPs have been identified since 1974, Plewa said. Scientists believe they’ve identified maybe 50 percent of all DBPs that occur in chlorine-treated water, but only 17 percent of those occurring in chloramines-treated water, 28 percent in water treated with chlorine-dioxide, and just 8 percent in ozone-treated water. Of the structurally identified DBPs, he said, the quantitative toxicity is known for maybe 30 percent.

Some DBPs in chlorine-treated water have been found to raise the risks of various cancers, as well as birth and developmental defects.
Corpus Christi’s water supply has high levels of bromide and iodide because of the chemical makeup of the ancient seabed under the water source. Local water sources lead to different DBPs. Whether the types of iodoacids found in Corpus Christi’s treated water might be simply a reflection of local conditions, and thus a rare occurrence, is not known.

The DBPs in Corpus Christi’s water were found as part of an EPA national occurrence survey of selected public water-treatment plants done in 2002. The survey reported on the presence of 50 high-priority DBPs based on their carcinogenic potential. The report, published in April, also identified 28 new DBPs.

Because so many new DBPs are being found in drinking water, Plewa said, two basic questions should be asked: How many are out there? And how many new ones will be formed as chlorine treatments are replaced with alternative methods?

Co-authors with Plewa on the EPA-funded study were Elizabeth D. Wagner, a scientist in the department of crop sciences at Illinois; Susan D. Richardson and Alfred D. Thruston Jr. of the EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory; Yin-Tak Woo of the EPA’s Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; and A. Bruce McKague of the CanSyn Chemical Corp. of Toronto.

Yes, fluoride makes you stupid
Monday, August 20, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The next time somebody tries to tell you that there is no scientific evidence proving that fluoride chemicals are harmful to human health, simply point them to a new study review recently published in the Institute of Environmental Health Sciences journal Environmental Health Perspectives that shows, for something like the 25th time now, that fluoride damages brain development and leads to significantly lower IQ levels in humans.

Researchers from both Harvard University's School of Public health and China Medical University in Shenyang jointly studied the effects of fluoride on children by evaluating 27 different fluoride studies. Upon review, the team found "strong indications" that fluoride exposure, particularly among developing children, is highly problematic for proper cognitive development and brain formation.

Children living in areas where public water supplies are artificially fluoridated had far lower IQ levels overall, based on the figures, compared to children living in non-fluoridated areas. And after accounting for other outside factors that may have influenced cognitive health and development, the team essentially determined that there is no denying a link between fluoride exposure and damaged IQ.

"

• ur results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment," wrote Anna Choi, a research scientist at Harvard, and her colleagues in their report. "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."

Another study published in the same journal back in 2010 found a similar correlation between fluoride exposure and cognitive development. A comparison of children between the ages of eight and 13 living in two Chinese villages, one fluoridated and one not fluoridated, revealed a 350 percent higher IQ level overall in the non-fluoridated village compared to the fluoridated village. (http://www.naturalnews.com/030819_fluoride_brain_damage.html)

And again in India, researchers observed that fluoride chemicals cross the blood-brain barrier in children and "alter the structure and function of neural tissue." Published in the Journal of Medical and Allied Sciences, that particular study laid bare how pervasive fluoride actually is, in that the chemical deposits itself throughout the body and builds up over time, including in the brain. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special interest groups," says Paul Beeber, an attorney and president of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere."




http://www.naturalnews.com/036873_fluoride_lower_IQ_brain_damage.html#ixzz245RDCoLL

get the lead out...it's too simple to just add chemicals. The pipes are worse than the streets....have past Mayors just let the issue go? Quick fixes seem to be the easy way out....

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-to-consider-updates-to-capital-improvement-plan/article/3706703



Oklahoma City to consider updates to capital improvement plan
A required update to Oklahoma City's capital improvement plan will be considered in the next several weeks by the city council. The council must eventually find a way to pay for about seven percent of the plan that is unfunded as of now.
 
By Michael Kimball | Published: September 4, 2012      1
Oklahoma City expects to spend nearly $2.5 billion on capital projects in the next five years.
As the city council spends the next several weeks examining the plans, council members must find funding for almost seven percent of it.
The roughly $162 million worth of the projects without a current funding source sounds less daunting when compared to the unfunded projects in recent plans. The state requires Oklahoma City to update its spending plan every two years, and the unfunded portion has dropped from 12 percent two years ago and 15 percent four years ago.
The council will work on the capital plan into October before adopting it. The in-depth meetings and longer time frame give the council time to work out new funding sources, as it has in previous plans, city Budget Director Doug Dowler said.
Funding options
Most of the projects included in the $2.5 billion, five-year capital improvement plan already have a dedicated funding source. But new needs always crop up. One of the pricier items currently in the unfunded category of the plan is a new radio system for the city's public safety services.
“The manufacturer of that radio system is not going to continue supporting that after 2015, so we're going to have to have a new radio system or take on the responsibility for supporting that ourselves,” Dowler said.
“Unfortunately, that's about a $15 million expense, which is such a significant amount of money that we don't have a source for it right now.”
The council has room to maneuver when choosing funding options.
An example of how a recent hole was plugged in a capital improvement plan is MAPS 3 use tax funds paying for police and fire equipment.
Filling the gaps
Because of the length of the plans and the regular two-year intervals for updating them, along with the weeks of council meetings with capital improvement plan workshops, finding ways to fill the gaps shouldn't be difficult.
Having specific projects tied to what's funded and what isn't bring attention to not only what an appropriate funding source is, but the need or public desire for it, Dowler said.
“We put that type of project (the radio) in there just to kind of raise the visibility of those projects and put it on everyone's radar that we're going to have to address these needs,” Dowler said.

Are all OK communities using this cocktail? I know we supply a lot of them.

Keeping in mind all aspects from effectiveness over time, versus health risks, versus cost (chemicals and equipment), versus ease of deployment, versus impact on finished water product cost.  In other words, what gives us the 'best' bang for the bucks?

You better be careful letting money enter your evaluation of anything involving the environment or health.  Someone will think you are a RWE.  (I intentionally left off the 2nd "R")  You might even be labeled a Murcochian.

Money as in terms of cost effective is actually a good way to look at things. 

I know that.  Too often any economic analysis is deemed to be pro-pollution, anti-safety, corporate profit....

Too often it is that.  But spending more can be very anti-pollution, etc., etc.  And well worth the money. 

I will agree with "can".

Don't have to go any further than your driveway.  The electronics, sensors, and other miscellaneous items (fuel injection) added to the cars sold today cost hundreds of dollars to add, but save MANY thousands - probably into the tens of thousands - on maintenance costs, downtime, general aggravation of having to do a full scale tune up every 10,000 miles.  Shorter oil change intervals.  Elimination of lead in gas - helps engines burn much cleaner, all other things being equal.
All because of clean air rules.
Now, if we could just get the 5 mph bumper back.  And the CAFE standards we should have.... ah, to dream...

Acid rain.  12 MPG. Pathetic performance and handling.  Ah, the cars of the 70's...the interim results of clean air rules.  Anyone reasonably mechanically adept used to be able to work on their own car.  Now almost no one can.  Cars are better in almost every way since the 70s but I believe the market would have driven many or even most of those changes.

Ozonation as a pre-treatment reduces the amount of chlorine or chloramine needed to safely disinfect water but it doesn't appear to be a stand-alone process for municipal drinking water.  It's also become a common disinfectant for swimming pools and commercial HVAC cooling towers.  There really are no drawbacks or safety concerns with ozone that I'm aware of.

According to this article on the L.A. Calif. water system, they say using chloramine rather than chlorine reduces the amount of THM's in the water when it's got a high content of organics which means it's less carcinogenic using chloramines.  The EPA backs this up as well.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/chloramines_index.cfm#four

With any sort of man-made intervention into disease prevention there is always some drawback to go along with the benefits.

Either you don't treat the water and you have diseases which will kill you in a short amount of time or you treat it with agents which may elevate cancer risk for some people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterborne_diseases

I suspect secondary smoke ingestion is far worse than showering in chloramine-treated water.

But   it   did    not   !!

The seat belt was invented back in the mid 30's.  It took government intervention - against the howls of the entrenched interests - and a delay until the late 60s for that to show up as a requirement here.

It took clean air requirements and CAFE standards before ANY changes were even thought about, let alone made.

Luckily, the Japanese were poised and ready to help us out with that one.  A tradition that continues today...like the fact that Ford licensed the Toyota hybrid technology for there cars a decade ago.  They had sat on their thumbs enjoying the thrill until the Prius caught everyone by surprise.  Yeah, the market would have driven it....NOT!

We did have a little "self preservation" moment in WWII when Boeing realized they should get fuel injection into their B-17 engines - like the Germans showed them how to do...

but then fuel injection remained a novelty until the regulations requiring better fuel economy. 

Wrong, Mr. Forgetful

You are old enough to remember road draft tubes for ventilating engine crankcases.  PVC valves were on some cars in the early 60's.  Our family 63 LeSabre had a PVC valve.  The 63 Falcon my dad bought for my sister when she went to college did not have a PCV valve.  The Falcon vented directly to the atmosphere.  If my dad were still alive, he could tell you of other changes to improve pollution emission control that were made before they were mandated.   Unfortunately he passed away 11 years ago and I don't remember everything he told me.

Try telling Ford, GM, and Chrysler that Toyota and Honda are not part of the response to the market.

I vote for injection being better for high altitude than carburetors.
I don't remember mechanical fuel injection being that much better for economy.  I believe that at least some mechanical fuel injection systems had reliability or increased preventative maintenance requirements compared to carburetors.  Electronic controlled fuel injection was the ticket to better fuel economy.

Mechanical injection is better for fuel economy, but since it was virtually always put on the old cars for horsepower only (performance reasons), it is tough to sort out.  Yeah, if you got 12 mpg with a carb, and 12 with injection, it might seem like there is no difference.  But the carb gave 165 hp and injection gave 300, meaning the fuel usage would be deeply affected due to "performance" driving.

You are not going to convince me that the only difference between the 165 Carb engine and the 300 Injected engine  was carb vs. injection.  I'm expecting compression ratio, cam, better breathing.

Probably so.  In real world, I probably wouldn't expect more than maybe 25hp.  And if it is just throttle body, maybe not that - does nothing to evne out fuel/air mix.  If direct inject, it gives much better control of fuel/air mix to individual cylinders, which can help depending on how bad things are to start.
Yeah, the other mods are gonna be the big thing...and anyone doing injection would definitely be doing that.  Else why bother?

In 1952, Professor A. J. Haagen-Smit, of the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, postulated that unburned hydrocarbons were a primary constituent of smog, and that gasoline powered automobiles were a major source of those hydrocarbons. After some investigation by the GM Research Laboratory (Dr. LLoyd L. Withrow) it was discovered in 1958 that the road draft tube was a major source, (about half) of the hydrocarbons coming from the automobile. GM's Cadillac Division, which had built many tanks during WWII, recognized that the simple PCV valve could be used to become the first major reduction in automotive hydrocarbon emissions. After confirming the PCV valves effectiveness at hydrocarbon reduction, GM offered the PCV solution to the entire U.S. automobile industry royalty free through its trade association, the Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA). In the absence of any legislated requirement, the AMA members agreed to put it on all California cars voluntarily in the early 1960s, with national application following one year later.

During the first three years of Corvette production, seatbelts were not offered. Unless someone installed a set of aftermarket seatbelts later, a truly restored '53-'55 Corvette will never have a set of factory-installed belts. Beginning in 1956 and continuing through 1957, seatbelt-anchor provisions were utilized and installed at the factory for seatbelts that were dealer installed as an accessory. The '58 Corvette was the first to come equipped with seatbelts as standard equipment.

Direct cylinder injection for gasoline engines has not been common until the last couple of years.  Sequential port (not in-cylinder) injection has been the most common for several years.

You may be interested in the links below but they are getting a bit off topic (pollution) by including seat belts.

Early PCV Valve links

http://www.caddydaddy.com/1957-1958-1959-1960-1961-1962-Cadillac-PCV-Valve-p4803.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86689488/103/HISTORY

http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=31991

The two links above appear to have the same source, used below. 
(Emphasis is mine.)

I also saw a history page on the Fram filters web site indicating they had Positive Crankcase Ventilation Valves in 1950.


Seat Belts

http://www.squarebirds.org/picture_gallery/TechnicalResourceLibrary/seatbelt_installation.htm

http://www.stnonline.com/resources/seat-belts/the-history-of-seat-belt-development

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5008257_seat-belt-law-history.html

http://www.corvettefever.com/thehistoryof/corp_0512_chevy_corvette_seatbelts/viewall.html#ixzz26P4xqODP

Seatbelts were available but not too many buyers wanted them.  I don't remember if dad's 59 BelAir had them but I know his 62 did.  The lap belts in his 65 LeSabre kept his face out of the windshield in 1967.  The 59, 62, and 65 were company cars.  The family 54 Buick Special did not have seat belts but the 63 LeSabre did.  Tonight's research and finding Ford's push for seat belts in the 50s makes me surprised to have to report that my sister's 63 Falcon did not even have anchor locations for seat belts, even for the front seats.  We retrofitted front seat belts in the Falcon.   My 63 Buick Service Manual has several pages regarding installation of front and/or rear seat belts in factory provided anchors.

I have 95 and 97 Grand Marquis with direct cylinder injection...Crown Vic was the same.  And the Lincolns. 

Caddy didn't have a pcv in pre-61 years.  I have worked on 54 to 59 of different models from El Dorado to Deville, and never seen one, either.  Not sure what they are advertising, unless it is for retrofit effort.  Have read that 1952 history in a couple different places over the last few years...that seems to be the most agreed to story.

The John Deere 60 was built from 1952-57 as an improved successor to the John Deere Model A. Two innovations introduced with the John Deere 60 were positive crankcase ventilation, which prevented formation of sludge by drawing clean air through the crankcase with an air pump; and an automatic fuel shut-off valve operated by engine oil pressure. When there was no oil pressure, the flow of fuel to the carburetor was stopped.

FRAM - bless their little pea-picking minds...(that's Southern for "they're stupid") did not actually have them back then as a standard production product.  The concept hadn't even been idealized yet...

Seatbelts
It was about 65 or 66 when it finally became a regulation that ALL cars had to have them.

I cannot find any info that those vintage Ford products had direct in-cylinder injection.  They do appear to have had multiport injection where each cylinder has an injector but the fuel is injected when needed near the intake valve, not in the cylinder, diesel style.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2587
http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1041590_why-new-ford-v-6-and-v-8-engines-dont-have-direct-injection

O’Reilly Auto Parts seems to think Caddys as early as 1957 have a PCV valve.  Click on Compatibility then click on Cadillac.
http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail/BWD0/PCV255/02180.oap?ck=Search_02180_1320556_-1&pt=02180&ppt=C0023

Maybe the early PCV valves were for farm equipment rather than automobiles:
http://www.farmworldonline.com/tractor/Then I guess they decided to photoshop a product box for their website.
http://www.fram.com/enca/company/history
Click on 1950.
One of my previous links indicated the law was passed in 1966 which would have been to late to cover the entire 1966 model year.

All this information just emphasizes what I was getting at...technology that would help items related to car operation (or whatever) is NEVER voluntarily or widely adapted in a proactive fashion.  It has required a government regulation to make it happen.  That is one of the best incarnations of government and private enterprise working together (voluntary or not) to advance technology and quality of life.  What is sad is how much of it in recent years has had to come from California, then deployed to the rest of the country.

The way the government mandates automotive requirements, it would be foolish for the companies to make improvements on their own initiative. 

Car companies made bigger fins and more color choices on their own - sales and marketing stuff.  1949 Chevy ad I saw last night was bragging about "your choice of color"...

Brakes were definitely made bigger, as the fundamental need to actually stop 5,000 lb of steel.  Government mandates brakes, it is up to the responsible party to make sure they work.

And carbide lamps were another thing - there were electric lights in the 1890's but the industry waited a while for that innovation.

And Honda has proven that wrong back in the 70's with their CVCC engines.
And Toyota has proven it wrong with the Prius.

technology that would help items related to car operation (or whatever) is NEVER voluntarily or widely adapted in a proactive fashion.

Is this the car care thread?

Troll the trolls
roll away the stone...

(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/439459/799695.jpg)

Is this the car care thread?

"Water standards are right there in the middle of it, too.  We have taken those deaths down to virtually nothing in this country.  Not too shabby.  I'll take my chances with chlorine ANY TIME over typhoid or any other water borne plague.  Public Health Rules!!!"

Ozonation as a pre-treatment reduces the amount of chlorine or chloramine needed to safely disinfect water but it doesn't appear to be a stand-alone process for municipal drinking water.  It's also become a common disinfectant for swimming pools and commercial HVAC cooling towers.  There really are no drawbacks or safety concerns with ozone that I'm aware of.

According to this article on the L.A. Calif. water system, they say using chloramine rather than chlorine reduces the amount of THM's in the water when it's got a high content of organics which means it's less carcinogenic using chloramines.  The EPA backs this up as well.

With any sort of man-made intervention into disease prevention there is always some drawback to go along with the benefits.

Either you don't treat the water and you have diseases which will kill you in a short amount of time or you treat it with agents which may elevate cancer risk for some people.

I suspect secondary smoke ingestion is far worse than showering in chloramine-treated water.

As a review, we have to consider all aspects from effectiveness over time, versus health risks, versus cost (chemicals and equipment), versus ease of deployment, versus impact on finished water product cost.  In other words, what gives us the 'best' bang for the bucks?  It can cost more, IF there is a  benefit to be gained.

This chloramine situation reminds me of almost every environmental cause that has come along.  Someone identifies a particular undesirable situation that can be blown up without regard to the type of evaluation you mention above.  The situation then becomes an issue that must be corrected at any cost.  If you dare to speak up, you become labeled as an anti-environmentalist.

I have no desire to return to the mid 20th century regarding pollution.  I will even agree in principal to government standards.  Physics by legislation has probably not been the most efficient way to get to an ultimate solution though.  Once again, the goal is noble and generally accepted.  The way to get there is where so many of us differ.

Ozone seems to be good supplemental or spot treatment.  I remember from a previous life that there were municipalities doing that from time to time, but they depended on chlorine for the "heavy lifting".

Ultraviolet seems to be pretty good "spot" treater, too.  Don't know how it would scale up to municipal sizes.

RO can be eliminated due to massive amount of water it takes to do the process.  (RO -- reverse osmosis.)


TTC...
Still haven't heard any viable ideas....


As a review, we have to consider all aspects from effectiveness over time, versus health risks, versus cost (chemicals and equipment), versus ease of deployment, versus impact on finished water product cost.  In other words, what gives us the 'best' bang for the bucks?  It can cost more, IF there is a  benefit to be gained.

Still centers around the question; "how do we beat plain old chlorine gas injection to the finished water?"

There has been the occasional knee jerk reaction, but for the most part, it really hasn't been. 

Probably the one that is most arguably "knee jerk" would be freon, I think.  And that one has been showing up to be not knee jerk at all.  Sometimes (most times?) the type of physics we are talking about is already very solid.  The question I had with the freon thing was whether reducing chlorinated compounds would make a noticeable effect within an observable time frame.  The industry seems to be agreeing "yes".

And what we are using now (R410a) has its own issues.  Still has chlorinated compounds - just fewer - and the oil (PAG) is very nasty stuff.  And if it 'burns' - RUN!!  Very nasty.

Getting lead out of gasoline was a motor catastrophe according to the wacko-anti-environmentalists of the time (all funded by Ethyl Corporation, of course).  Well, of course it was not.  It was a very, very good thing.

One could even make the case that taking lead out of gasoline has been the primary source of our reducing crime rate for the last few decades.  It was increasing for decades until lead was removed, then started down and continued for decades....

I don't pretend to be an engineer

That's a lazy futuristic approach.

"The long-term solution is to eventually replace all significant lead-bearing materials that are used in the water system, such as, recycled water made from sewage water that is blended with drinking water, in spite of the denial of its use by city officials.
We need a national movement at the headwaters for alternate enginnering technologies for ozenation and ultraviolet light and reverse osmosis and plasma laser technologies and replace the pipe infrastructure."  Is it worth the cost to improve our city using alternative technologies? Depends if you are already fed up ( http://www.vce.org/ErinBrockovichChloramination.html ) with contaminating your children and grandchildren.   

I don't pretend to be an engineer but you're statements are a good example of why our country no longer moves forward with new technologies.

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is scrambling to come up with the money to comply with new federal clean drinking water regulations.

If it can’t, the state could have its power to regulate the safety of drinking water revoked by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The DEQ says they need $2 million to cover the costs of complying with three EPA rules put in place in 2005 and 2006. The state environmental agency has asked the Oklahoma Legislature for the funding for three years.


LOSING LOCAL CONTROL

“Once those three new rules were in place, we knew we did not have the resources to implement those, and EPA determined they would continue implementing those until we got the funding in place,” says Shellie Chard-McClary, director of DEQ’s Water Quality Division.

The EPA sets the standards for clean drinking water and states enforce them. It’s called the Public Water System Supervision program. Every state participates in PWSS, except Wyoming, which never has.

Oklahoma might soon become the second state with the federal government in charge of the safety of its drinking water.

In a letter to Oklahoma Secretary of the Environment Gary Sherrer, EPA Regional Administer Ron Curry said the state has until June 1, 2013 to fully implement the federal rules, and outlined what a federal takeover would mean for Oklahoma.

“Such a primacy shift would result not only in decreased technical assistance and increased federal enforcement of Oklahoma’s public water systems, but would also result in a loss of many millions of dollars available annually for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund…”

Communities and rural water districts in Oklahoma depend on that fund for loans they need to upgrade water systems.

Without roughly $10 million from Washington, D.C., each year — which the state leverages into millions more in loans — Oklahoma would be on its own to modernize its aging water infrastructure. Coming up with money to enforce the EPA rules is the more affordable option.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

DEQ Executive Director Steve Thompson says he has little doubt the EPA will follow through with its threats.

“The upcoming Water Quality Management Advisory Council and Environmental Quality Board meetings and 2013 legislative session represent the last opportunity to avoid EPA’s assumption of control of Oklahoma’s PWS Program,” Thompson wrote in a letter to water-challenged communities.

He says the latest proposal is for $1.5 million in new appropriations from the legislature and $500,000 in new fees charged to water systems across the state.

On Tuesday, the advisory council approved the new fees, which are expected to be passed along to consumers.

The board heard comments from the public before the vote, including from Rita LoPresto, city manager of Konawa, Okla., a small town with big water problems. She says the EPA doesn’t have a local touch.

“The staff at DEQ — whenever I can call them and say, ‘I’m out of water. This is what’s going on. These are my ideas. What do y’all think? Help me,’ and they’re there, that means more than all these regulations and everything,” LoPresto says. “I won’t have that if we go with EPA.”

When StateImpact visited Konawa last month, LoPresto worried federal control would mean $15,000 per day fines for missing deadlines to fix the town’s water pressure problems. She says DEQ works with her on things like extending deadlines.

“I mean, even though I have a deadline to fix the water pressure in this town, they know that I’ve already replaced this and this and this with as many grants and as much lending — borrowed money — that the city could borrow,” LoPresto says.

FINDING THE FUNDS

Most state agencies are still reeling from budget crisis cuts over the last few years.

This year’s legislature won’t be excited to spend, either. But Chard-McClary thinks lawmakers will like the idea of an EPA takeover even less.

“Although it has been attempted in the past, I think this has been the best cooperative effort in trying to get the funding in place,” McClary says.

Report Points to Cancer Risk From Chemicals Used to Treat Drinking Water -
“By failing to protect source water, Congress, EPA and polluters leave Americans with no choice but to treat it with chemical disinfectants and then consume the residual chemicals generated by the treatment process,”

This is of particular concern for pregnant women, said Sharp, since a fetus could be exposed to higher levels of the chemicals during crucial stages in development. “If you are thinking about pregnancy and the possibility for miscarriage or birth defects or stillbirth or any number of pregnancy or reproduction-related effects, then having short-term spikes can really make a difference.”

In my opinion, Dewey Bartlett should not even be allowed to run again.


The city councilors who fail to voice objections to the use of chloramines deserve to be rejected as well....
GOPeers are such hypocrites....

http://www.fairwarning.org/2013/02/report-points-to-cancer-risks-from-disinfectants-used-to-treat-drinking-water/

“By failing to protect source water, Congress, EPA and polluters leave Americans with no choice but to treat it with chemical disinfectants and then consume the residual chemicals generated by the treatment process,”

Your cited article says the EPA is at fault (i.e. the Obama Administration), but you want to blame a Republican mayor and city councilors?

I think he'd rather have cholera and dysentery

“By failing to protect source water, Congress, EPA and polluters leave Americans with no choice but to treat it with chemical disinfectants and then consume the residual chemicals generated by the treatment process,”

Your cited article says the EPA is at fault (i.e. the Obama Administration), but you want to blame a Republican mayor and city councilors?

Yes. Instead of proceeding to stop the sources of our dilemma we threw chemicals on it. Yes, the mayor gave the go ahead. The city councilors were their usual do nothing status qua....did they even look at alternatives? Did they think about going to get the sources and solving the problems rather than poisoning the citizens?

What do you suggest?

I've noticed my rubber sink stopper drying up.

For solid clean water...I'll pay whatever it takes....

Ozarka bottled water....

I'll pay whatever it takes....

You have good taste in water.....

Unfortunately, it's only good for sponge baths.

 

Here is a great article, and a must read, from The Environmental Working Group.
"...switching to chloramines has not solved the problem but rather moved the problem – and may have complicated it. Chloramines are toxic to kidney dialysis patients and extremely toxic to fish (EPA 2012b). A nationwide study on water treatment contaminants conducted by the EPA reported that chloraminated drinking water had the highest levels of an unregulated chemical family known as iodoacids (EPA 2002). Some researchers consider iodoacids to be potentially the most toxic group of water treatment contaminants found to date, but there is still relatively little research on them (Barlow 2004, Plewa 2004)."

drink up

I try to limit my exposure to poisons even if it means limiting my time around refineries or eating little if any bad foods or taking fewer showers.

Most the city water goes on my yard...and it's showing the curse of chloramines. Or is it the drought?

One little thing that I do for drinking water is to fill a couple of large pitchers, keep them in the fridge, use from only one at a time and refill as it empties while moving to the other one.  What this does is gives a "settling" time so that the dissolved chlorine can escape.  Works about as near perfectly as possible - open to the air in a residential environment, even in a fridge (or leave it out on the counter - won't hurt a thing) there will be NO chlorination compounds remaining after just a very few hours.  In NO case over 24.  (And yeah, I have tested this in a lab - extensively - when I was designing a chlorine measurement instrument in the deep dark past.)

Explaining away hygiene issues?

You'd never have survived at my office, I work 1/4 mile from Sinclair Refinery.  :o Fortunately, Tulsa is usually a windy place and disperses fumes of all sorts rather quickly.

That will work for Chlorine, but not Chloramine.

Every winter we place warm-mist vaporizers in living areas to increase comfort (and not have to turn the heat up so much).
While the steam that comes out is sterile, I have to wonder what affect aerosol chloramine might be having.

I try to limit my exposure to poisons even if it means limiting my time around refineries or eating little if any bad foods or taking fewer showers.

Most the city water goes on my yard...and it's showing the curse of chloramines. Or is it the drought?

Yeah...I kinda got close to blending the two right there, and they definitely do not react the same.  It will work for chloramine, but rather than 4 to 6 hours, it's half life is about 26 days.  Takes forever without a little 'kick'.  UV does nicely.  But then ya still got to do something with a few residuals and some free radicals.  Aeration works well for that in a reasonably short time.

There are reasonable ways to treat "whole-house" water - if you don't try to do lawn water at same time.  (Lawn water can be done, but much more expensive)  That's why I was asking TTC if he had done any of those things.  Watch while I go back and quote his latest non-reply....let's see if we can get an answer out of him this time!

Oh, and for the vaporizers...I would be more concerned about bacteria that might have a little niche to get started in one of those things.  The nooks and cranies are perfect breeding places, and the vapor coming out, though hot, will probably have cooler "edges"...  think in terms of those deep ocean volcanic vents where the hot central core is sterile, but there is massive amounts of life around the edges....

Why should I go to the trouble to retro fit my home again to balance the chloramine? There seems to be a disastrous affect  on everything it passes through.

Every body is different. My skin is doing much better away from the city of Tulsa's putrid aqua. As far as my lawn goes, I can't tell if the issues are drought driven or dismal Dewey drip.

 And, this is the wrong use for a vaporizer.....

http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/absurdity/

'Fluoride came into use at a time when asbestos lined our pipes, DDT was routinely sprayed on schoolchildren' and nine out of ten doctors smoked camels.

There are many cultures who don't fluorodate that have better tooth decay stats than us. It's not necessary.

It's the active ingredient in Prozac....which I have heard but have no idea if it's true


Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children's IQ
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html
   
Yet more studies link fluoride to brain damage
http://www.naturalnews.com/037339_fluoride_brain_damage_studies.html

Communities can't control the dose. Not good. And the ethics of medicating people without their having informed consent is pretty abhorrent.
Heir, I appreciate your input. But I will yield from coming in contact with our water as much as possible. How many PPM of hydrofluorosilicic acid comes out of your tap?

By far the biggest health concern is that no long term, and very few short-term studies have been performed that can clarify the effect of chloramines on human metabolism.

In one study, doses at the levels used by municipalities to treat water resulted in a significant reduction of water consumption by rats vs. controls, along with significant decreases in glutathione levels in rats. Other stud...ies demonstrated changes in the organ weights of rat spleens, livers, and kidneys. Other studies show that chloramine ingestion may be toxic to the organs that comprise the immune system.

Glutathione (GSH) is your body's master antioxidant, it is a small molecule produced naturally in the body if the required building blocks are available. Glutathione strengthens the immune system, detoxifies the body, fights intracellular inflammation, and neutralizes numerous types of free radicals. Toxins and free radicals damage your cells thereby accelerating the aging process along and making you more susceptible to ailments and other issues associated with aging. The cells in your intestinal tract use glutathione to try to eliminate the chemical preservatives, pesticides and countless other toxins you ingest before they are transported throughout your body. The liver cells use glutathione as their detergent to detoxify your blood. Your eye and skin cells use glutathione to protect themselves against radiation. Glutathione helps your body defend against oxidative stress, which has been associated with more than 74 major diseases and disorders. Simply put, without glutathione, oxygen-based life on earth would be impossible.

This choice to use chloramine in our water, is not a mere inconvenience, but a major health issue for everyone!

I am not taking the pro-chloramine side...

But Boston, San Francisco and Seattle have been using chloramine for two generations. These communities are filled with rabid environmentalists and water is a main aspect of their economy and image.

Why don't their citizens have the health problems that are being claimed? How come they don't have the protests that are coming up in Tulsa?

I am not taking the pro-chloramine side...

But Boston, San Francisco and Seattle have been using chloramine for two generations. These communities are filled with rabid environmentalists and water is a main aspect of their economy and image.

Why don't their citizens have the health problems that are being claimed? How come they don't have the protests that are coming up in Tulsa?

This and fluoride are two things that are just sounding more and more like the high voltage power line scares of the last 30 years or so.... goes like this; if you live near a power line, the "leaking" electricity is gonna deform your cows, make the milk go bad, kill off all the chickens, and make your babies have two heads.  None of which has occurred.

I still think aluminum is gonna be found to be a bigger factor....

Heir, Alzheimers has been around since the beginning of man. It was called going crazy or dementia in olden times before the health care industry and Big Pharma teamed up with the Medical Industrial Complex and Nursing facilities to form another profit center. Any metal in your bloodstream should concern you. Any foreign chemical entering your body should concern you. Power lines as cell phones do present issues even if what enters your head is intangible.

Ok...I will admit that power lines have an affect - it's just not detectable in human beings - EVER!!  It is very easy to measure the fields below a high voltage power line - in the 1 to 6 micro-Tesla range under a 400,000 volt AC line.  While the Earth's magnetic field - the same one human's evolved living in - is in the 30 to 60 micro-Tesla at 50 degrees latitude.  So, yeah, power line will have an effect, but the planet effect will be 10 times larger and will "get" you 10 times as fast just sitting there breathing.

The only real danger to humans is if you are standing near one and the line breaks and the line touches you while still energized.  Significant parts of your body will vaporize quickly.  Or if not energized, the mass of that wire hitting you has an excellent chance to kill you with mechanical damage - blunt force trauma.

Net of it is; don't believe the power line nutcases.  You wouldn't be that stupid, would you??

I'm not stupid at all....but I still limit close contact with my head during my cell phone use.

Part of the water issue for me was the totalitarian all powerful way the edict was handed down.

"If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will" Garcia/Hunter

Beer for me, thank you. There are standards that must be met with the ingredients.

ECS

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

A one-time suburban Chicago official was convicted Monday of lying for decades about drawing water for residents from a well the village knew was tainted by a cancer-causing chemical.
Prosecutors say she and other officials decided to pump the cheaper, polluted well water to score points with voters: They could boast about keeping water rates low. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/29/suburban-chicago-official-convicted-lying-about-drawing-water-from-tainted-well/

Who would we have in Tulsa that would safeguard against something like this?

Had my pool resurfaced this weekend.  Added water and started the process of regulating the chemistry.  PH tested in excess of 9 (that was all my tester would go up to).  That's about the PH of seawater. So at first I just figured it was due to the new plaster augmenting the results, but then I tested the tap water and sure enough 9+ on PH.  Alkalinity was normal, so the cause is related to very high amounts of dissolved solids in the water.  To make sure it wasn't just a fluke at my house, I tested at my in-laws last night in midtown with a different tester.  Sure enough, 9+ on PH.

Back when I used to have a bad Koi habit, I had several Koi ponds and typically measured Tulsa tap water PH before adding to ponds (it was around 6.2-6.9).  I'm not sure if this is a side affect of the new water treatment or not, but this high PH means any appliance that uses water is going to fill with scale quickly.  It also means that food, and beverages made with the water are going to be rather flat and bitter tasting.  If you have a swimming pool, you are going to have to invest in significantly more acid to normalize your water.  If you use Tulsa water to irrigate your lawn, you will likely have to add lots of amendments to get good root growth.  High PH will inhibit good root growth and cause burned up lawns in the summer.

At first I wasn't that concerned about the water treatment changes in Tulsa, but this is a radical and costly change.  It means that we all will have additional expenses related to correcting the PH or replacing equipment due to it!

Every part of town I have lived in has had ph of 8 (or higher) - going back to early 70's - but then I have always lived in the "cheap seats" sections of town - have always had big issues getting it lowered for the aquariums - lots of acid.  The carp (goldfish/koi) seemed to do ok with a little higher, but everyone else was always very sensitive to it.  Set up an aquarium in BA for family and it had very high ph at the time, too....like what you are seeing.


As for watering with tap water....well, don't.  Let the bermuda turn brown, then back green when it rains...won't "burn up" nearly as bad and won't have the damage to the plants that tap water gives.

We had fluctuations in the past that I noticed, but never as high as it is now.  I don't even have a test kit that will measure how high it is above 9.  As for BA, they have ridiculously bad water.  My father in-law is a developer out there and says that residents have to clean out the screens on their taps several times a year, and water heaters only last about half as long as in other places.

As for grass, I don't have any bermuda. . .all fescue, and letting it brown is not an option.  I like a plush lawn, and so do my kids. Just means that I'll be spreading lots of extra sulfur this year.

Had my pool resurfaced this weekend.  Added water and started the process of regulating the chemistry.  PH tested in excess of 9 (that was all my tester would go up to).  That's about the PH of seawater. So at first I just figured it was due to the new plaster augmenting the results, but then I tested the tap water and sure enough 9+ on PH.  Alkalinity was normal, so the cause is related to very high amounts of dissolved solids in the water.  To make sure it wasn't just a fluke at my house, I tested at my in-laws last night in midtown with a different tester.  Sure enough, 9+ on PH.

Back when I used to have a bad Koi habit, I had several Koi ponds and typically measured Tulsa tap water PH before adding to ponds (it was around 6.2-6.9).  I'm not sure if this is a side affect of the new water treatment or not, but this high PH means any appliance that uses water is going to fill with scale quickly.  It also means that food, and beverages made with the water are going to be rather flat and bitter tasting.  If you have a swimming pool, you are going to have to invest in significantly more acid to normalize your water.  If you use Tulsa water to irrigate your lawn, you will likely have to add lots of amendments to get good root growth.  High PH will inhibit good root growth and cause burned up lawns in the summer.

At first I wasn't that concerned about the water treatment changes in Tulsa, but this is a radical and costly change.  It means that we all will have additional expenses related to correcting the PH or replacing equipment due to it!

Are you sure your testing reagents haven't gone bad?  That is a really extreme swing.  pH 7.0 to 8.4 is what I've been used to seeing out of the tap.  I'll have to check that when I get home tonight.

I'd like to know the content of the dissolved minerals.

Are you sure?
 
 ;D

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!

Brain-Eating Amoeba Found In Louisiana Tap Water Treated Same As Tulsa's

http://www.newson6.com/story/26540102/brain-eating-amoeba-found-in-louisiana-tap-water-treated-same-as-tulsas

Misleading headline alert.
Treated with the same chemical, but not in the same way.

Then what are the differences?  Tulsa evidently flushes the dead end pipes but I would consider that maintenance rather than treatment.

Allowing the water to sit motionless in the pipes allows the bacteria-killing chlorines to dissipate, and that's exactly what investigators said happened in Louisiana.

"We designed our system where it's looped, and that means there are no long, dead-end lines. I'm assuming in these small rural areas that is the problem they have, is they have long lines, with not a lot of customers using it, so the water doesn't get turned over often enough,” said Roy Foster with the City of Tulsa.

In fact, chlorine tests in the Louisiana tap water revealed very low levels of disinfectants, less than 0.5 parts per million, meaning those pipes should have been flushed regularly to keep the water safe.

...

The results show Tulsa's water had four times the amount of disinfectants in its water than the water in Louisiana, an average of 2 parts per million, meeting state regulations.

Allowing the water to sit motionless in the pipes allows the bacteria-killing chlorines to dissipate, and that's exactly what investigators said happened in Louisiana.

"We designed our system where it's looped, and that means there are no long, dead-end lines. I'm assuming in these small rural areas that is the problem they have, is they have long lines, with not a lot of customers using it, so the water doesn't get turned over often enough,” said Roy Foster with the City of Tulsa.

In fact, chlorine tests in the Louisiana tap water revealed very low levels of disinfectants, less than 0.5 parts per million, meaning those pipes should have been flushed regularly to keep the water safe.

...

The results show Tulsa's water had four times the amount of disinfectants in its water than the water in Louisiana, an average of 2 parts per million, meeting state regulations.