arsenic removal from water

Discussion in 'Home Repair' started by Mark Modrall, Jun 5, 2007.

  1. Mark Modrall

    Mark Modrall Guest

    Hi...

    My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
    We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the new
    standards.

    She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
    ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
    there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
    media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the vendors
    who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly that far.

    Thanks
    Mark
    Mark Modrall, Jun 5, 2007
    #1
  2. Mark Modrall

    dpb Guest

    On Jun 5, 5:23 am, Mark Modrall <> wrote:
    > Hi...
    >

    ....
    > We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the new
    > standards.

    ....

    Where's the water from and what is the source of the arsenic?

    Attack the source/supplier???

    --
    dpb, Jun 5, 2007
    #2
  3. Mark Modrall

    Doug Guest

    On Jun 5, 8:46 am, dpb <> wrote:
    > On Jun 5, 5:23 am, Mark Modrall <> wrote:> Hi...
    >
    > ...
    > > We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the new
    > > standards.

    >
    > ...
    >
    > Where's the water from and what is the source of the arsenic?
    >
    > Attack the source/supplier???
    >
    > --


    Agreed, is it municipal source? Is it exceeding the MCL, or just the
    MCGL? Or is this another set or standards?
    Doug, Jun 5, 2007
    #3
  4. Mark Modrall

    EXT Guest

    "HeyBub" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mark Modrall wrote:
    >> Hi...
    >>
    >> My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
    >> We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
    >> new standards.
    >>
    >> She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
    >> ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
    >> there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
    >> media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
    >> vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
    >> that far.

    >
    > The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion
    > years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind
    > it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.
    >
    > If your water is below 50, save your money.


    I just read that low levels of arsenic can prevent certain forms of cancer.
    EXT, Jun 5, 2007
    #4
  5. Mark Modrall

    dpb Guest

    On Jun 5, 3:49 pm, "EXT" <> wrote:
    > "HeyBub" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > Mark Modrall wrote:
    > >> Hi...

    >
    > >> My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
    > >> We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
    > >> new standards.

    >
    > >> She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
    > >> ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
    > >> there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
    > >> media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
    > >> vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
    > >> that far.

    >
    > > The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion
    > > years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind
    > > it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.

    >
    > > If your water is below 50, save your money.

    >
    > I just read that low levels of arsenic can prevent certain forms of cancer.


    I seem to recall arsenic grows old lace...or makes lace grow old, or
    something like that, anyway... :)

    --
    dpb, Jun 5, 2007
    #5
  6. Mark Modrall

    Mark Modrall Guest

    In article <>,
    dpb <> wrote:

    > On Jun 5, 5:23 am, Mark Modrall <> wrote:
    > > Hi...
    > >

    > ...
    > > We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the new
    > > standards.

    > ...
    >
    > Where's the water from and what is the source of the arsenic?
    >
    > Attack the source/supplier???
    >
    > --


    We're on well water, so we have no other authority to take the complaint
    to.

    When we moved in 6 years ago, it tested just under the old standard by a
    hair, so it's obviously over by the new standard.

    Thanks
    Mark
    Mark Modrall, Jun 6, 2007
    #6
  7. Mark Modrall

    Bob M. Guest

    "HeyBub" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mark Modrall wrote:
    >> Hi...
    >>
    >> My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
    >> We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
    >> new standards.
    >>
    >> She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
    >> ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
    >> there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
    >> media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
    >> vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
    >> that far.

    >
    > The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion
    > years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind
    > it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.
    >
    > If your water is below 50, save your money.
    >


    Exactly. Clinton changed it in the waning -days- of his presidency. There
    was zero science behind the move, it was all political. If it was so
    necessary, it would have been lowered long ago.
    Bob M., Jun 6, 2007
    #7
  8. Mark Modrall

    mm Guest

    On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:51:56 -0600, "Bob M." <> wrote:

    >
    >"HeyBub" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Mark Modrall wrote:
    >>> Hi...
    >>>
    >>> My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
    >>> We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
    >>> new standards.
    >>>
    >>> She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
    >>> ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
    >>> there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
    >>> media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
    >>> vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
    >>> that far.

    >>
    >> The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a zillion
    >> years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science behind
    >> it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.
    >>
    >> If your water is below 50, save your money.
    >>

    >
    >Exactly. Clinton changed it in the waning -days- of his presidency. There
    >was zero science behind the move, it was all political. If it was so
    >necessary, it would have been lowered long ago.


    I don't konw about the rest of it, but this last sentence doesn't
    compute. For example, maybe they tried for the lower value but
    compromised on the earlier higher value. Maybe there were other
    efforts to lower it but they failed.

    The notion that things must have been done right the first time, so
    any other way isn't right, is not valid.
    mm, Jun 6, 2007
    #8
  9. Mark Modrall

    Smitty Two Guest

    In article <>,
    "<RJ>" <> wrote:

    > My wife fills empty soda bottles with tap water,
    > and stores 'em in the fridge....tastes just like 'bottled".
    >
    > But seriously folks;
    > Unless your water TASTES terrible, I wouldn't
    > spend the $$$ on filtering systems.
    >
    >
    > <rj>


    Saw a thing on TV a while back, one of those hidden camera things. Fancy
    restaurant, with a "bottled water" list. Like a wine list. Bottles
    ranging from maybe 6 to 15 dollars each. Very pretty bottles with fancy
    labels. Server is telling customers about the various qualities of the
    various waters.

    This scene repeated with various couples: The guy buys one thing, his
    date buys something else, the server pours delicately into crystal
    glasses, the customers ooh and ahh as the waiter elicits comments and
    points out nuances in the characteristics of each.

    Now cut to the parking lot, where all of these bottles are being filled
    from the same hose.
    Smitty Two, Jun 6, 2007
    #9
  10. Mark Modrall

    dpb Guest

    On Jun 6, 6:59 am, "<RJ>" <> wrote:
    ....
    > But seriously folks;
    > Unless your water TASTES terrible, I wouldn't spend the $$$ on filtering systems.


    Well, that's overly simplistic, too. :(

    There are many contaminants (mineral and/or biotic) that have no taste
    or odor but are serious health risks, so relying solely on taste or
    smell isn't sufficient guarantee.

    If it's a public water system there's at least a reasonable chance
    it's pretty good at least in the developed countries. If it's a
    private well, testing should be done on a periodic basis -- how
    frequently is often enough depends on well location, surroundings,
    etc., ...

    --
    dpb, Jun 6, 2007
    #10
  11. Mark Modrall

    Dan Espen Guest

    Smitty Two <> writes:

    > In article <>,
    > "<RJ>" <> wrote:
    >
    >> My wife fills empty soda bottles with tap water,
    >> and stores 'em in the fridge....tastes just like 'bottled".
    >>
    >> But seriously folks;
    >> Unless your water TASTES terrible, I wouldn't
    >> spend the $$$ on filtering systems.

    >
    > Saw a thing on TV a while back, one of those hidden camera things. Fancy
    > restaurant, with a "bottled water" list. Like a wine list. Bottles
    > ranging from maybe 6 to 15 dollars each. Very pretty bottles with fancy
    > labels. Server is telling customers about the various qualities of the
    > various waters.
    >
    > This scene repeated with various couples: The guy buys one thing, his
    > date buys something else, the server pours delicately into crystal
    > glasses, the customers ooh and ahh as the waiter elicits comments and
    > points out nuances in the characteristics of each.
    >
    > Now cut to the parking lot, where all of these bottles are being filled
    > from the same hose.


    Last hose I bought had a warning label that said
    not to drink from it.
    It said the hose had carcinogens.
    Dan Espen, Jun 6, 2007
    #11
  12. Mark Modrall

    dpb Guest

    On Jun 6, 8:27 am, Dan Espen <> wrote:
    ....

    > Last hose I bought had a warning label that said not to drink from it.
    > It said the hose had carcinogens.


    That's most likely owing to the CA law -- :(

    --
    dpb, Jun 6, 2007
    #12
  13. Mark Modrall

    EXT Guest

    I agree that often science gets left out and political pressure takes over,
    this usually creates standards that allow more toxins and/or pollutants than
    science would like, not the other way round. This is usually because the
    chemical companies or other vested interests have the lobbyists working on
    their behalf.


    "mm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:51:56 -0600, "Bob M." <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"HeyBub" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Mark Modrall wrote:
    >>>> Hi...
    >>>>
    >>>> My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
    >>>> We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
    >>>> new standards.
    >>>>
    >>>> She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
    >>>> ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
    >>>> there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
    >>>> media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
    >>>> vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
    >>>> that far.
    >>>
    >>> The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a
    >>> zillion
    >>> years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science
    >>> behind
    >>> it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.
    >>>
    >>> If your water is below 50, save your money.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Exactly. Clinton changed it in the waning -days- of his presidency. There
    >>was zero science behind the move, it was all political. If it was so
    >>necessary, it would have been lowered long ago.

    >
    > I don't konw about the rest of it, but this last sentence doesn't
    > compute. For example, maybe they tried for the lower value but
    > compromised on the earlier higher value. Maybe there were other
    > efforts to lower it but they failed.
    >
    > The notion that things must have been done right the first time, so
    > any other way isn't right, is not valid.
    EXT, Jun 6, 2007
    #13

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lobster

    Removal of redundant water main?

    Lobster, Jun 19, 2004, in forum: UK DIY
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    376
    Andrew Gabriel
    Jun 19, 2004
  2. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    211
    Doctor Drivel
    Jun 19, 2006
  3. mikehh
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    225
    Lobster
    Jul 25, 2006
  4. Dave Fawthrop

    Removal of Gas Water and Electricity services

    Dave Fawthrop, Apr 25, 2007, in forum: Misc DIY
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    198
    Dave Fawthrop
    Apr 26, 2007
  5. stripping cedar deck. Arsenic?

    , May 14, 2007, in forum: Home Repair
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    169
    Chris Lewis
    May 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page