Chloramine in Bay Area Drinking Water Why we have this page on tap water -- In February, 2004 the article "Change in Hayward Water" appeared in our local newspaper The Daily Review.  I thought it was newsworthy and posted it below.  I didn't know then it announced a milestone event, an event that would negatively impact our daily lives and raise havoc with some people's health.  This page is intended to shed light on the effects of Chloramine that is now in bay area water systems.  If you have had health changes since February, 2004 and don't know why, the water you're drinking and preparing your food with could be the root of your problems.  Problems like skin irritations, rashes, digestive and bowel disorders (irritable bowel syndrome), kidney stones, coughing, respiratory problems and many other symptoms seem to be linked to the amount of Ammonia that is now in our drinking water.    Yes, Ammonia.  You see, Chloramine, which is in almost all bay area drinking water is a combination of Chlorine and Ammonia.  Small amounts of Ammonia have been used by many water districts in this nation since the early 1900's.  However, that use was limited to very small dosages to improve the taste of water.  In recent years that changed.  Now large amounts of Ammonia are being added to Chlorine, making a Chloramine that is raising health concerns as people report unexplained ailments.   Worse yet, it appears no tests were done as to the affects the higher strength Chloramine has on humans before or since it was added to bay area drinking water.     With increased complaints of ailments from citizens all around the bay area the SFPUC, which is responsible for adding Chloramine to our drinking water, at a meetin on July 25, 2006 expressed interest in investigating its affects, but has  done nothing since then, except ignore the issue.  If interested, a video of that meeting is in the right column.   I encourage you to write your lawmakers and urge them to test the effects of chloramine on human beings.  Since it causes kidney failure in animals, kills fish, ruins your plumbing pipes, can it really be safe to drink, to cook with, to bathe in? If you would like more information I suggest you contact the Citizens Concerned About Chloramine and talk with Denise Johnson-Kula or Linda Corwin.  They especially would like to hear from you if you have experienced a change in your health since the addition of chloramine to the water supply. Best regards, Joanne, Your San Francisco Bay Area Real Estate Broker Anna Eshoo takes up chloramine question • Menlo Park-based group's three-year effort challenging water additive gains force; meeting with EPA ahead. by Daniel DeBolt August 29, 2007 - Congresswoman Anna Eshoo has arranged a meeting in early September between local opponents of the water additive chloramine and the federal Environmental Protection Agency — a major victory for the Menlo Park-based group representing hundreds of Bay Area residents who say they've suffered from skin, respiratory and intestinal ailments since the substance was added to the water in 2004. "Constituents have raised their serious concerns about chloramine," said Rep. Eshoo, D-Menlo Park. "I think it's important for the EPA and the Public Utility Commission to hear directly from them and I am facilitating this. The use of chloramine as a disinfectant in public water should be guided by sound science showing that it is both safe and effective." Chloramine replaced chlorine as the disinfectant for Hetch Hetchy tap water in February 2004. The switch had been recommended by the EPA to reduce the carcinogenic byproducts of chlorine. Since then, however, more than 400 Bay Area residents have reported suffering effects from the chloramine that mimic allergic reactions, including skin rashes, respiratory problems and inflamed digestive tracts, according to the Menlo Park-based Citizens Concerned About Chloramine. That group's president, Denise Johnson-Kula, said the goal of the meeting, scheduled for Sept. 5 in San Francisco, is to start a discussion with the EPA about providing a "waiver" to local water agencies allowing them to go back to chlorine use — despite whatever effects that may have on byproducts in the tap water. On the Peninsula, this could put responsibility for the problem back into the hands of the local water provider, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which has said its switch to chloramine — a combination of chlorine and ammonia — was prompted by EPA recommendations. The group has joined forces with others from as far away as Vermont to build a national movement to stem the disinfectant's use until studies can be done on its health effects. The renewed effort came after a California bill to study chloraminated tap water, authored by local Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, failed to pass for the second year in a row this summer. The groups celebrated one of their first victories two weeks ago, when a handful of residents in Pennsylvania were able to delay a switch to chloramine by the Pennsylvania-based American Water Co. Opponents said proper studies of its health effects had not been conducted. One-third of the country has already converted to the disinfectant, said Ms. Johnson-Kula. Water agencies, meanwhile, say some places have used chloramine since the early 1900s with no problems. The EPA recommended that water agencies switch to chloramine to reduce trihalomethanes, a carcinogenic byproduct of chlorine disinfection. But the byproducts of chloramine are even more dangerous, according to Dr. Michael Plewa, professor of genetics at the University of Illinois, who recently published a study on tap water disinfection byproducts. In an e-mail to the Mountain View Voice (the Almanac's sister paper), Mr. Plewa stated that the byproducts of chloramine are "much more toxic" than chlorine's — and that these byproducts are found in California water supplies. He recommends that water agencies switch back to chlorine. Whether chloramine itself can be linked to people's health problems has yet to be studied. Dr. David Ozonoff, a professor of public health at Boston University, says that question is definitely worth looking into. "A close temporal relationship between the treatment change and the complaints of water users strongly suggests that one is the cause of the other," he wrote in a letter to Vermont-based People Concerned About Chloramine. "Without a more detailed study of the matter it is not possible to say this definitively, but it is plausible that something about the treatment change has caused this. Water chemistry is complicated and sometimes produces unexpected and untoward results. The complaints are notice to look into the matter." Such chemistry may have affected water supplies in Los Altos, where lead content is regularly tested. Following the introduction of chloramine, water in several homes was found to contain lead levels over the public safety limit, possibly due to the way chloraminated tap water reacts with the lead-soldered plumbing in older homes. Greg Hosfeldt, business manager of the Mountain View Public Works Department, said 24 random water samples were taken from Mountain View homes and wells after the switch to chloramine in 2004. Lead levels were not found to be over the maximum level, he said. The city is slated to test its water again in September. More information can be found at http://www.chloramine.org Daniel DeBolt writes for the Mountain View Voice, the Almanac's sister paper. Source: More Info It is time to test chloramine? Friday, September 28, 2007 - Amid the recent turmoil over dangerous chemicals in our food and toys, it's amazing to observe the federal government's somewhat lackadaisical reaction to concerns over chloramine, the chemical additive used to treat our tap water. Perhaps because only a small minority — a few hundred among the Bay Area's millions — have reported serious reactions, earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency all but shrugged off pleas for more testing, despite valid reports of horrible allergic reactions to the additive. Chloramine came into our pristine Hetch Hetchy water supply in 2004 when the EPA decided that chlorine, the disinfectant that had protected municipal water for many years, wasn't good enough any more. The agency called on water districts to ramp up disinfection efforts, and many districts found chloramine, a chemical combination of chlorine and ammonia, to be cheap and effective at killing bacteria without producing certain harmful byproducts. The San Francisco Public Utility Commission ordered the switch three years ago, and that's when people along the water district's service line, including in Mountain View, began showing symptoms such as skin rashes, painful digestive tract inflammation, and asthma-like respiratory problems. Eventually these residents formed an organization, Citizens Concerned About Chloramine, which is seeking to convince the SFPUC and EPA to test chloramine to make sure it is safe. Actions by this group have brought about two revelations which we find alarming: 1. Apparently, the EPA recommended chloramine without fully testing its potential impact on the population. 2. After Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, requested that the EPA meet with local residents on Sept. 5, the agency claimed it cannot take any action until health concerns are reported by the Centers for Disease Control or the medical community. Bruce Macler of the EPA's San Francisco office told the Voice last week: "As far as we know there is no evidence there is a problem with public health. When we talk about what's safe, we talk about generally safe. It is possible people are affected. Medical folks have to start saying this is an issue." This may happen in Vermont, where enough residents reported problems to cause the state legislature there to hold two days of hearings and to prompt the CDC to take a closer look. Back in the Bay Area, the citizens group has identified about 400 people who report allergic reactions when exposed to chloramine. Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that the byproducts of chloramine are much more toxic than those of chlorine. Dr. Michael Plewa, a professor of genetics at the University of Illinois who coauthored a study of tap water disinfection byproducts, told the Voice that byproducts from chloramine are the most toxic he has ever seen. He recommends a switch back to chlorine. At the very least, the EPA and SFPUC should be bending over backwards to look into claims of adverse reactions, and our elected officials should push to make sure that happens. More testing should begin immediately to sort out just how toxic this substance is. What if those affected are just the canaries in the coal mine? Those of us not affected today could still show symptoms in the future. Without question, a full range of tests should have been conducted before chloramine was put into our drinking water. It is unconscionable that the government agencies charged with protecting public health are instead putting up roadblocks in what appears to be a legitimate concern. Source: Mountain View Voice More Info   April 11, 2007 Annette Smith Executive Director Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc. 789 Baker Brook Rd. Danby, VT 05739 Dear Ms. Smith This is in response to your inquiry concerning the plausibility of health effects from chloramination of the Champlain Water District. I am Professor of Environmental Health and Chair Emeritus of the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University School of Public Health. My research and teaching are in the area of environmental epidemiology, especially related to water contamination by chlorinated ethylenes, where I have published a number of major epidemiological studies. I also served two terms as an official negotiator in EPA’s negotiated rulemaking for the microbial disinfection and disinfection byproduct rule, so I am familiar with the science of this general area of environmental health. My Curriculm Vitae is attached for your reference. As I understand it, in April 2006 the Water District began a program of primary disinfection with free chlorine and residual secondary disinfection with monochloramine. Subsequently numerous water users began to complain of various acute health problems, reported to me as rashes, respiratory discomfort and gastrointestinal complaints. A close temporal relationship between the treatment change and the complaints of water users strongly suggests that one is the cause of the other. Without a more detailed study of the matter it is not possible to say this definitively, but it is plausible that something about the treatment change has caused this. Water chemistry is complicated and sometimes produces unexpected and untoward results. The complaints are notice to look into the matter. The provision of safe and secure piped drinking water is one of the great triumphs of twentieth century public health and its effect on the entire community is a great benefit. At the same time that a water supply is an efficient means to deliver a health-giving substance, it is also an efficient means to distribute harmful ones. A water system is a “long lever” for both good and ill. We have learned that the disinfectant that we relied upon for so long, free chlorine, also has a negative side, disinfection by-products. All water systems are now trying to figure out how to minimize the impact of DBPs while insuring proper disinfection of their systems. As they make these adjustments missteps are bound to occur, and this may be an example. In any event, health complaints from water users attendant upon any treatment change are a red flag and need attention. I hope this has been useful to you. Sincerely yours David Ozonoff, MD, MPH Professor of Environmental Health Chair Emeritus, Department of Environmental Health Boston University School of Public Health Dr. Ozonoff's letter on letterhead David Ozonoff, Curriculum Vitae (PDF: 070725_ozonoff_cv, 239 KB)   Is additive to water really safe? Ruskin revisits issue of whether chloramine poses public health risks By Aaron Kinney, STAFF WRITER Inside Bay Area 02/27/2007 02:48 AM FOSTER CITY — At first, Virginia Tech civil engineering professor Marc Edwards didn't believe the claims that residents of Maui in Hawaii were making about their water supply.  But when he finally went there to investigate in 2004 he decided they were right: Chloramine, a chemical disinfectant that had been added to their water, appeared to be a factor in the skin rashes and other ailments from which some people were suffering. "At first, I thought they were crazy, but in retrospect, they were right on," said Edwards, who has conducted EPA-funded tests on chloramine. "Seeing how accurate these folks' concerns turned out to be, I'm not one to dismiss (them) out-of-hand." A group of local residents hope that state-funded studies will vindicate their belief that chloramine, used to cleanse the water of the Hetch Hetchy system that serves most of the Peninsula, can cause painful reactions in some people who drink, bathe or even wash their clothes in the water. "Our primary concern is the people who cannot use their water without becoming extremely ill," said Denise Johnson-Kalu, president of Citizens Concerned About Chloramine, which holds an informational meeting tonight in Foster City. For a second year, Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, has authored a bill to study the effects of chloramine on human health. While last year's unsuccessful bill would have focused on byproducts of the disinfectant, this year's version is intended to focus exclusively on chloramine, a combination of chlorine and ammonia. Ruskin said he has heard numerous complaints since chloramine was added to the Hetch Hetchy system in 2004, replacing chlorine, which the EPA decided was linked to high amounts of many carcinogenic byproducts known as trihalomethanes. "This is something that I think we owe it to our population to understand," said Ruskin. "It just surprised me to find that there were no national or state studies done on chloramine — there were just assumptions that it was effective and safe." Edwards said the study he helped conduct of the Upper Kula water system on Maui is the only he's aware of that has looked at the health effects of chloramine. The study found that chloramine left behind ammonia residue that allowed certain bacteria to survive in the water, contributing to skin rashes. Edwards conducted a separate study that showed chloramine caused an alarming increase in the amount of lead that leached into the water system of Washington D.C., although studies of other water systems indicated that chloramine actually reduced lead leaching. Edwards said it is likely that chloramine interacts differently with various water systems, depending on the chemical make-up of the water. Reported problems with chloramine, while significant, "seem to be the exception and not the rule," he said. Marilyn Raubitschek considers herself one of these exceptions. Raubitschek, 81, is a health-conscious San Mateo resident who developed severe skin reactions after chloramine was introduced in February 2004. "My skin was so dry and scaly," Raubitschek said. "And I developed these welts with scabs on them, and they itched horribly." By monitoring and experimenting with her water consumption, Raubitschek has come to believe that chloramine was responsible for her condition. She no longer uses the shower in her home. Instead, she takes baths using distilled water. The Hetch Hetchy water used on the Peninsula is controlled by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Spokeswoman Maureen Barry said the commission will support Ruskin's studies if they are approved. "However, everything we have found in our studies indicates that chloramine is a very safe disinfectant," Barry said.   Report from Vermont-- Residents fight for safe drinking water By Justin Dragos | Special to the Vermont Guardian March 22, 2007 - SOUTH BURLINGTON — Nearly one year ago, the Champlain Water District became the first municipal water provider in Vermont to add an additional disinfectant called chloramine to its potable water system. The following day, Ellen Powell of South Burlington, one of the nine towns served by Champlain Water District (CWD), started experiencing irritations in her eyes and on her skin, as well as problems breathing. Suspecting that chloramine might be responsible, since nothing else was new to her water supply, she immediately sent a letter to the editor of newspapers throughout Chittenden County. The responses she received confirmed her fears. Other residents were claiming to have experienced similar symptoms. Local concern over the chloramination of the tap water led Powell to help form a group called People Concerned about Chloramine (PCAC). More than 130 people have since come forward with reports of what they believe to be chloramine-related problems. The CWD maintains that monochloramine — which is formed by chemically bonding chorine with ammonia — is entirely safe for human consumption and use. It is one of three disinfectants sanctioned by the EPA for use in potable water systems along with chlorine and chlorine dioxide. PCAC, however, asserts that there are a number of reasons why chloramine should not be used. “Among the many concerns we have about chloramine, there are eight key points,” says Rebecca Reno, a PCAC member. “One is that there has been no adequate testing on the skin or respiratory effects of chloramine on human beings.” Dale Kemery, a spokesman for the regional office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said such tests have been conducted. They are contained in a 155-page public report. However, the report clearly states that information on the human health effects of chloramines “are limited to a few clinical reports and epidemiologic studies. There are no epidemiologic studies that have been designed to address specifically the potential adverse effects of exposure to chloramines on human health.” The report also claims that such testing has not been done on animals either. CWD claims studies have been performed on the skin and respiratory effects of chloramine on human beings and provided the Guardian with a list of chloramine related health studies. Several studies pertained to the digestive effects of chloramines, but none focused on the respiratory effects of chloramine on human beings. And, there was only one study on the dermal effects in humans. This study, conducted by June Wientraub in California, consisted of 17 phone interviews with people claiming chloramine-related symptoms. Wientraub concluded, “The complaints described were heterogeneous, and many of the respondents had underlying or preexisting conditions that would offer plausible alternative explanations for their symptoms. We did not recommend further study of these complaints.” A growing concern Many of the people who have come forward claiming side effects have reported symptoms that are consistent with those experienced in districts throughout the country. Complaints have arisen in California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Texas. “I think the 400-plus people who have come forward here in the bay area goes a long way in proving a cause and effect relationship,” said Denise Kula, founder of Citizens Concerned about Chloramine, a San Francisco-based organization. CWD officials say such claims are unproven. “To date no reported symptoms have been linked by evidence-based physician diagnosis to be related to CWD’s drinking water,” CWD officials said in a four-page flyer responding to PCAC’s claims. “It’s a catch-22,” said Reno.“If there is no formal testing done on the respiratory or dermal effects then there is no criteria upon which doctors can make an informed diagnosis.” Many people in the area have performed tests on their own. They have refrained from using CWD’s water for weeks at time in order to see for themselves if it is the cause of their problems. “Nearly every person who has done this finds that within days their symptoms are gone. As soon as they start taking showers in their own home again, they return,” said Reno. Powell is one of the many people who continue to avoid using their own water. “I have to drive seven miles just to shower. Why would I or anyone else do this if we weren’t absolutely sure that our symptoms were coming from our faucets?” she said. Unlike chlorine, chloramine cannot be boiled out of the water or removed by letting the water sit out. It can only be removed by expensive home filtering systems which cost thousands of dollars. The World Health Organization claims “chloramine is 2,000 to 100,000 times less effective than free chloramines for inactivation of E. Coli and rotaviruses.” Chlorine however, can result in cancer causing disinfectant byproducts that chloramine can reduce. PCAC asserts that there are other methods to reduce these byproducts such as prefiltration. The Canadian EPA calls chloramine “toxic to the environment,” but it allows it to be used in tap water. Toxic water spill? Aside from the human effects, PCAC is worried it will harm aquatic life. CWD has issued warnings to homeowners before adding chloramine and the impact it might have on aquatic pets. For many, the question this raises is “what are the potential effects on the eco-system if chloramine were to find its way into the watershed?” According to Mike Barsotti, the director of water quality control at CWD, this is not a threat. “Chloramine will not remain in the water outside of a controlled system,” Barsotti. Because the water mixes with so many other substances, the chloramines are used up in a matter of hours or days. “The ground interface does not have the conditions of a clean, disinfected water system [because of dirt, etc.], and therefore, the chlorine residual from free chlorine and monochloramines dissipates much more quickly at the ground interface,” Barsotti said. This does not rule out the possible environmental damage were a water main to break. “There have been some instances of fish kills due to breaks of water mains where the utility has not been able to contain the spill or direct the water into sewers for transport to the wastewater treatment plant, but these are not common,” said Kemery of the EPA. Reno believes CWD could meet new EPA drinking water standards without chloramines, such as using prefiltration. A new set of sanitation goals spurred on by a series of EPA guidelines under the Safe Drinking Water Act calls for a reduction in the allowed level of disinfectant by-products (DBPs) in potable water. Chloramine has succeeded in decreasing to levels far beyond EPA requirements. It is wondered whether these regulations could have been more moderately met through alternative measures. Prefiltration is a method of filtering total organic carbon (TOC) out of the water prior to disinfection. TOC reacts with chlorine to form DBPs. CWD does use a prefiltration method known as enhanced coagulation, Barsotti said. This method removes 25 to 35 percent of TOC. He states that because of CWD’s deep Shelburne Bay water source, which starts out with a low TOC level compared to other water districts, CWD does not use the more common and thorough method of prefiltration known as carbon contracting. This latter method, Barsotti adds, contains several drawbacks such as necessitating large amounts of fuel and landfill space in the transportation and disposal of waste matter produced from this method. However, this method would reduce the level of TOC and, as logic follows, the level of DBPs in the drinking water. Whether it would reduce them to levels meeting EPA regulations is disputed. Additionally, it is also asserted that chloramine has its own byproducts — dichloramine and trichloramine. “It is impossible for CWD water to drop to these extremely low pH levels due to the natural buffering capacity of the deep Shelburne Bay source. CWD’s optimized monochloramines residual actually eliminates the possibility of dichloramine and trichloramine being formed,” said Barsotti. What’s on tap With CWD the first, and arguably the largest, water system in Vermont approving the use of chloramines — will other districts follow? As of right now, it appears there are no concrete plans for the addition of chloramine anywhere else in Vermont. While some water districts have expressed doubts over chloramine, few have ruled out completely the idea of adding it in the future. Tom Dion, the chief operator of water at Burlington Public Works, said that their DBP level does not warrant adding chloramines. Like CWD, Burlington sources its water from Lake Champlain. Officials in Berlin and Bennington also said they had no immediate plans to add chloramines, but would consider it if necessary, or as a last resort. John Highter, chief operator of Brattleboro’s water treatment plant, said the town has no intention of adding chloramine. “I’m a little hesitant about ever mixing ammonia and chlorine together in our water,” Highter said. Chloramine has been used in water for 90 years. However, it has only been used as disinfectant in the past few decades. Prior to this, it was used in very small dosages primarily to rid water of unpleasant taste. This week, PCAC will present its case before the Legislature. Experts from both sides will give statements. For Powell, the end result is simple: “We want this stuff out of our water.”   This just in... EPA fines local Dole plant for mishandling chloramine Not in My Court Says the Judge   ~ CCAC ~ CCAC Vice-President Linda Corwin, left, and President Denise Johnson-Kula, right, speak at a SFPUC meeting Citizens Concerned About Chloramine - is a volunteer organization that has  gathered information on chloramine and making it available to the public. Attend their meetings and get involved with CCAC to protect the water you drink.  Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality.   Marc Edwards Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Imminent Endangerment: “Lead” Astray by the EPA May 4, 2006. Louis Clark Vanuxem Lecture Marc Edwards is an internationally known expert in potable water treatment. A leading researcher in the causes and control of copper and lead corrosion, Edwards was an author of a report published in August 2005 linking traces of lead in tap water in Washington, D.C. and other metropolitan areas to leaching from household fixtures, not just from pipes further from the home. He has testified in Congress urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address the impact of water treatment changes—specifically water utilities’ switch, which was mandated by EPA regulations, from free chlorine to chloramine (chlorine plus ammonia) as a disinfectant—on home plumbing systems. Watch Marc's Presentation Did you know... Most Bay Area utility districts and many communities nationwide have already switched to chloramine for drinking water disinfection. Local water providers include: Alameda County Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa Water District, Zone 7 Water Agency in Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin, Marin Municipal Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District. Some water providers throughout the United States have used chloramine for over 80 years, but in much weaker strengths. How can I remove chloramine from my water? Chloramine cannot be removed by boiling water, adding salt, or letting water stand still. Treatment devices to reduce chloramine levels are available. These devices should be independently tested and specifically certified to reduce chloramine. Although home filtration systems will reduce the level of chloramine from water, it will not remove it completely. Think You Are Sensitive to Chloramine? Tips to Protect Yourself Use natural spring water for drinking and cooking. Two companies that offer this type of water are Crystal Springs and Arrowhead. (Note: we derive no benefit from these companies). To protect yourself from the effects of Chloramine from bathing is more difficult.  Some people attempt to neutralize the Chloramine in bath water by adding Vitamine C or Baking Soda.  However, the amount to add depends upon your degree of sensitivity to Chloramine. Some people have purchased expensive filtering systems for the sinks, showers and houses.  However, most are ineffective and actually become breeding nests for bacteria. Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and to your state senators and let them know your of the affects chloramine is having on you or your family. Use Natural Spring Water for drinking and cooking.  We buy it in 1 gallon jugs at Costco, which at $4.49 + CA Redemption is the most economical. If you find a safe product, please let us know so we can post it here for others.   EPA Office of Water - The Office of Water is responsible for the Agency`s water quality activities. Interactive Regional and State Map Links   Find Your State Senator Find your bay area district and your state senator on this interactive map and voice your concerns about chloramine in your drinking water. Find your district and state senator in other areas of California: State Wide Search   San Francisco Public Utilities Commission - In addition to supplying water to San Francisc, the SFPUC, under contractual agreement with 28 wholesale water agencies, supplies water to more  than 1.6 million  customers within three Bay Area counties. The SFPUC system provides four distinct services: Regional Water, Local Water, Wastewater (collection, treatment and disposal), and Power.   Water Quality    NSF.org - NSF International, an independent, not-for-profit organization, has been committed to making the world a safer place for consumers. Resources for filtering out Chloramine   Other Concerns with Chloramines in Drinking Water Chloramines, like chlorine, are toxic to fish and amphibians at levels used for drinking water. Unlike chlorine, chloramines do not rapidly dissipate on standing. Neither do they dissipate by boiling. Fish owners must neutralize or remove chloramines from water used in aquariums or ponds. Treatment products are readily available at aquarium supply stores. Chloramines react with certain types of rubber hoses and gaskets, such as those on washing machines and hot water heaters. Black or greasy particles may appear as these materials degrade. Replacement materials are commonly available at hardware and plumber supply stores. For more information Contact the Region 9 Drinking Water Office at (415) 972-3547. Your drinking water utility may also have information about your specific service. Contact the San Francisco Public Utility Commision National Drinking Water Program Safe Drinking Water Hotline  (800) 426-4791    In Other States Visit their web site Vermonters for a Clean Environment Visit their Blog CDC Officials to Visit Vermont --------------------------------------------- Cumberland County (Pennsylvania) residents concerned about water treatment Susan Pickford, who has filed a formal complaint over the matter with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, said chloramines have caused health problems across the country, mostly respiratory. She said the water companies have not considered recent studies that show chloramines create more dangerous by-products than chlorine. More Info Water Watch in Cumberland County -------------------------------------------- Here's an interesting excerpt from an online article in the St. Petersberg Times North Pinellas (Florida) By TAMARA EL-KHOURY - Published September 9, 2006 On Sept. 18, pour yourself a glass of water from the tap.  Sniff it. Taste it. Notice anything different? It's okay to swallow, said Bob Powell, director of the utilities laboratory for Pinellas County. But you might want to stir in some Kool-Aid. From Sept. 18 through Oct. 27, the method of water treatment used by the county will change in an annual exercise used to flush out the system. For a few weeks, the county will disinfect water with free chlorine instead of chloramine, which is used to treat the water the rest of the year. Chloramine does allow some growth of bacteria, Powell said, but the temporary chlorine treatment takes care of that. Although tap water drinkers may notice a difference in odor and taste, Powell said, the water is as safe as ever to drink, if not safer. "Free chlorine does kill bacteria better," Powell said. This is the article I read in the Daily Review Newspaper in 2004 that caused me to follow Chloramine to see if any ill effects would develop. Change in Hayward Water May Be Fatal to Pet Fish By: Michelle Meyers, Staff Writer, Oakland Tribune HAYWARD -- "Finding Nemo" was just an animated movie, but finding Nemo dead could be reality for fish owners who don't treat their water for a disinfectant that will be used in Hayward water come February. Hayward's water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, is scheduled to switch its disinfectant for tap water from chlorine to chloramine on Feb. 1. Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia. That's good news, particularly for gill-less animals, because chloramine is considered a better-working disinfectant. It not only lasts longer in water, it produces lower levels of suspected cancer-causing byproducts, and it might even taste better. Neighboring water suppliers such as the East Bay Municipal Utilities District and the Alameda County Water District converted to chloramine several years ago. But while chloraminated water is safe for humans and animals to drink and to use for cooking and bathing, it can be fatal if it enters into the bloodstream directly, such as through kidney dialysis. It could also affect pets such as fish, reptiles and amphibians -- creatures with gills -- and businesses using highly processed water. Dialysis patients should be aware, but not too concerned, said Marilyn Mosher, an analyst in the Hayward Public Works Department. The conversion won't happen until the state Department of Health Services inspects all kidney dialysis facilities and certifies that they've upgraded to remove all chloramine. Home dialysis patients should work with their dialysis facility to make the necessary adjustments, she added. More at risk are pets whose protection is in the hands of their owners. Most owners are already "conditioning" water with products that treat both chlorine and chloramine, several local fish specialty merchants said. Since the EBMUD and other water districts converted to chloramine, stores such as Aquarium Concepts in Hayward and Connie's Tropical Fish in Castro Valley phased out products that treat chlorine only. But some Hayward pet owners, including some with koi ponds, likely have been removing chlorine from water by boiling it or letting it sit for a few days. That won't work for chloramine. "It will kill them instantly," said Culligan sales and marketing director Stuart Dennis, who helped koi pond owners who lost their fish after the EBMUD conversion. That can be devastating for owners, said Connie's Tropical Fish manager Hank DeWall. Koi are not only expensive -- as much as $1,000 a fish -- they are often considered a sign of good luck, he said. The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, which maintains a pond of 50 to 70 koi at the Japanese Garden, is well-prepared for the conversion. HARD Assistant Superintendent Eric Willyerd learned about the chemical HARD will use to neutralize the chloramine several years ago when he thought the pond was on EBMUD water. Hayward's Buffalo Bill's Brew Pub is one of the businesses affected by the conversion. Culligan is supplying the brewery with a new carbon filtration system that will have to be serviced monthly, said brewer John Carbone. "Water is the main ingredient in beer," he said. Although the systems range in cost, Dennis said installation of a system for treating chloramine usually costs in the hundreds and can be maintained for well under $100 a month. Mosher has been busy getting the word about the conversion out to businesses, schools and the general public. The conversion was initially scheduled for November, but was postponed three months. More information on the conversion can be found at better.sfwater.org. Water customers can also request more detailed information from the city of Hayward by calling (510) 583-4700, or emailing waterinfo@ci.hayward.ca.us. Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia that is considered a better disinfectant than chlorine alone. Many Bay Area communities are already using chloramine to disinfect their water supply. On February 2, 2004, the San Francisco Pulbic Utilities Commission, which supplies the City of Hayward water supply, will switch from chlorine to chloramine disinfection. Most people will not be affected by this change. Howerver, certain customers will need to take special precautions, specifically: dialysis patients and providers businesses using highly processed water owners of fish and amphibians Service Contacts: Chloramine or 510-583-4723 Additional Information: General Information - better.sfwater.org Fish and Amphibians - www.sfaquarium.org  or  www.sfbakc.org Kidney Dialysis - www.network17.org

~ More News on Chloramine ~ Hanovia Wins Major Contract To Supply UV Disinfection Systems To Chinese Pharmaceutical Manufacturer April 24, 2007 UV disinfection specialist Hanovia has won a major contract to supply UV disinfection systems to a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer in China. The UV systems will be used for ultra-pure process water disinfection. "This is our largest ever pharmaceutical order for the Chinese market and cements our position as one of the leading suppliers of UV disinfection systems to the global pharmaceutical industry. The support of our local Chinese representative was instrumental in Hanovia winning this contact." UV technology has many applications in the pharmaceutical industry, including process water disinfection, TOC (total organic carbon) reduction, ozone and chloramine destruction, and dechlorination. UV systems are easy to install on existing pipework and require minimum disruption and site preparation. Depending on the level of use, the only routine maintenance required is changing the UV lamps every 12-24 months, a simple procedure that can be carried out by on-site personnel. Once installed, a plant can be kept operational 24 hours a day, without the necessity of shutting down the system for routine sanitation and sterilisation. Reader enquiries: Hanovia Ltd 145 Farnham Road, Slough Berkshire SL1 4XB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1753 515300; Fax: +44 (0)1753 534277 E-mail: sales@hanovia.com Website: www.hanovia.com Joanne L. Gardiner, Broker, e-PRO Realtor® Serving the San Francisco Bay Area Advantage Realty 3205 Whipple Road - Union City, California 94587 (510) 429-4800 Affiliations    Our primary services in the San Francisco Bay Area are: East bay real estate,  Hayward real estate, Castro Valley real estate,  Danville real estate,  Dublin real estate,  Fremont real estate,  Newark real estate, Niles real estate, Pleasanton real estate, San Leandro real estate, San Lorenzo real estate, San Ramon real estate, Sunol real estate and Union City real estate.  The types of real estate in which we specialize are:  houses, homes, condominiums, townhomes, garden homes, PUDs, single family homes, manufactured homes, mobile homes, modular homes, duets, residential income property, duplexes, tri-plexes, four-plexes, small apartment complexes and special use properties. Alameda County Homes, Homes in Alameda County, Contra Costa County Homes, Homes in Contra Costa County, Castro Valley Homes, Homes in Castro Valley, Danville Homes, Homes in Danville, Dublin Homes, Fremont Homes, Homes in Fremont, Homes in Dublin, Homes in Hayward, Hayward homes, Newark Homes, Homes in Newark, Oakland Homes, Homes in Oakland, Pleasanton Homes, Homes in Pleasanton, San Leandro Homes, Homes in San Leandro, San Lorenzo Homes, Homes in San Lorenzo, San Ramon Homes, Homes in San Ramon, Sunol Homes, Homes in Sunol, Union City Homes, Homes in Union City. San Francisco Realty, San Francisco Bay Realty, San Francisco Bay Area Realty, Realty in San Francisco Bay Area, East Bay Realty, Bay Area Realty, homes in San Francisco bay area, homes in San Francisco East Bay.

top of page

.