[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: uranium in urine analysis
- --part1_e1.1243a205.27f15f90_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 03/26/2001 1:06:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT writes:
> Did I misunderstand or miss something? Wasn't EPA proposing something like
> 10 or 20 micrograms uranium per liter as a limit in drinking water? Are
> those people to be used as guinea pigs instead of cutting off their water
> supply at once and supplying them with clean water or installing devices for
>
That's an interesting concept, but there needs to be funding for such an
action, where the source is not a "public drinking water source," which I
think, in the U.S., requires more than 15 - 25 connections.
In a case I was involved in, the local health department required the
property owner to issue notices to the residents (this was a small trailer
park), containing information regarding the contamination in the water, and
the owner was required to truck in water, but there were a multitude of
problems even so. The owner had basically invested in the property as a
continuing return on his retirement savings, so was on a limited income. The
only water tank into which the fresh water could be delivered was
significantly contaminated with uranium residue from the 40 years of use of
the well water, as were the connection lines, and it was an expensive
proposition to flush and/or replace the tank and all the lines, or to provide
an appropriate filtering system, and to require a constant outside source be
trucked in. In this case, there was no public funding for such remediation.
The burden was on the property owner, who really wasn't equipped financially
to deal with the problem. It's generally not as simple as cutting off a
water supply "at once" and replacing it.
Oh, and BTW, don't ask the EPA to fix it, they just find the problems, they
don't actually do anything about them...unless they become Superfund sites.
Barbara L. Hamrick
BLHamrick@aol.com
- --part1_e1.1243a205.27f15f90_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 03/26/2001 1:06:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<BR>franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Did I misunderstand or miss something? Wasn't EPA proposing something like
<BR>10 or 20 micrograms uranium per liter as a limit in drinking water? Are
<BR>those people to be used as guinea pigs instead of cutting off their water
<BR>supply at once and supplying them with clean water or installing devices for
<BR>removal of uranium?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>That's an interesting concept, but there needs to be funding for such an
<BR>action, where the source is not a "public drinking water source," which I
<BR>think, in the U.S., requires more than 15 - 25 connections.
<BR>
<BR>In a case I was involved in, the local health department required the
<BR>property owner to issue notices to the residents (this was a small trailer
<BR>park), containing information regarding the contamination in the water, and
<BR>the owner was required to truck in water, but there were a multitude of
<BR>problems even so. The owner had basically invested in the property as a
<BR>continuing return on his retirement savings, so was on a limited income. The
<BR>only water tank into which the fresh water could be delivered was
<BR>significantly contaminated with uranium residue from the 40 years of use of
<BR>the well water, as were the connection lines, and it was an expensive
<BR>proposition to flush and/or replace the tank and all the lines, or to provide
<BR>an appropriate filtering system, and to require a constant outside source be
<BR>trucked in. In this case, there was no public funding for such remediation.
<BR>The burden was on the property owner, who really wasn't equipped financially
<BR>to deal with the problem. It's generally not as simple as cutting off a
<BR>water supply "at once" and replacing it.
<BR>
<BR>Oh, and BTW, don't ask the EPA to fix it, they just find the problems, they
<BR>don't actually do anything about them...unless they become Superfund sites.
<BR>
<BR>Barbara L. Hamrick
<BR>BLHamrick@aol.com</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_e1.1243a205.27f15f90_boundary--
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
------------------------------