Mercury In Drinking Water

 

Author: APEC Publication:EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Date:10/24/12 Drinking Water Contaminants- Mercury This picture helps describe the natural cycle mercury takes  through the environment. Mercury is a liquid metal found in natural deposits as ores containing other elements. Electrical products such as dry-cell batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, switches, and other control equipment account for 50% of mercury used. Why is Mercury being regulated? In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act. This law requires EPA to determine safe levels of chemicals in drinking water which do or may cause health problems. These non-enforceable levels, based solely on possible health risks and exposure, are called Maximum Contaminant Level Goals. The MCLG for mercury has been set at 2 parts per billion (ppb) because EPA believes this level of protection would not cause any of the potential health problems described below. Based on this MCLG, EPA has set an enforceable standard called a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as possible, considering the ability of public water systems to detect and remove contaminants using suitable treatment technologies. The MCL has also been set at 2 ppb because EPA believes, given present technology and resources, this is the lowest level to which water systems can reasonably be required to remove this contaminant should it occur in drinking water. These drinking water standards and the regulations for ensuring these standards are met, are called National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. All public water supplies must abide by these regulations. What are the health effects? Short- or Long-term: EPA has found mercury to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: kidney damage. How much Mercury is produced and released to the environment? Large amounts of mercury are released naturally from the earths crust. Combustion of fossil fuels, metal smelters, cement manufacture, municipal landfills, sewage, metal refining operations, r most notably, from chloralkali plants are important sources of mercury release. Nearly 8 million lbs. of mercury were produced in the U.S. in 1986. From 1987 to 1993, according to EPAs Toxic Chemical Release Inventory, mercury releases to land and water totaled nearly 68,000 lbs. These releases were primarily from chemical and allied industries. The largest releases occurred in Tennessee and Louisiana. The largest direct releases to water occurred in West Virginia and Alabama. What happens to Mercury when it is released to the environment? Mercury is unique among metals in that it can evaporate when released to water or soil. Also, microbes can convert inorganic forms of mercury to organic forms which can be accumulated by aquatic life. How will Mercury be detected in and removed from my drinking water? The regulation for mercury became effective in 1992. Between 1993 and 1995, EPA required your water supplier to collect water samples once and analyze them to find out if mercury is present above 2 ppb. If it is present above this level, the system must continue to monitor this contaminant every 3 months. If contaminant levels are found to be consistently above the MCL, your water supplier must take steps to reduce the amount of mercury so that it is consistently below that level. The following treatment methods have been approved by EPA for removing mercury: Coagulation/Filtration; Granular Activated Carbon; Lime softening; Reverse osmosis. How will I know if Mercury is in my drinking water? If the levels of mercury exceed the MCL, the system must notify the public via newspapers, radio, TV and other means. Additional actions, such as providing alternative drinking water supplies, may be required to prevent serious risks to public health. This is a factsheet about a chemical that may be found in some public or private drinking water supplies. It may cause health problems if found in amounts greater than the health standard set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Drinking Water Standards: MCLG: 2 ppb MCL: 2 ppb link: http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-contamination/mercury-contaminants-removal-water.htm Summary:         Mercury is a liquid metal used mostly in electrical products and control equipment. In 1974 Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act, making it madatory for levels of unsafe chemicals to be measured and regulated in drinking water. If mercury is accumulated in the body, over time kidney damage can occur.Although it is bad for humans, we help it through its cycle in many ways. Combustion of fossil fuels, metal smelters, cement manufacture, municipal landfills, sewage, metal refining operations, r most notably, from chloralkali plants are important sources of mercury release. Mercury is unique in that it can evaporate when released from water, unlike most metals. Since Mercury is dangerous we have developed ways of filtering it out, like reverse osmosis, coagulation/filtration, and lime softening.       While i do believe it is important to maintain our own levels of mercury, people in third world countries probably drink more mercury in a month then we do in a year. I personally believe that the resources we have should be aimed toward helping those who cannot filtrate or clean the water themselves. The great amount of bioaccumulation might even affect a fetus, who's kidney has barely developed, and may never if the mercury levels aren't controlled. We waste clean water without even knowing it, and all this wasted clean, filtrated water could support a small, third world country. Questions; 1. Do you think that we should filter our water even further than we alreay do? 2. Do you think having little or no exposure to mercury in water could have unintended side affects? 3. What is your stance on the current acceptance level of mercury contamination in water? Do you believe it should be higher or lower?

How Much Water Do We Really Have

POSTED ON MAY 30, 2012 AT 10:03 AM BY KARA CAPELLI AND HOWARD PERLMAN

If you took all the water on earth – in oceans, ice caps, lakes, rivers, groundwater, the atmosphere, and living things – and wrapped it into a sphere, it would have a diameter of about 860 miles. That 860-mile-high sphere is represented by the largest bubble in the picture, which stretches from Salt Lake City, Utah to Topeka, Kan. It has a volume of over 332 million cubic miles. If you popped this bubble with a giant pin, the resulting flow would cover the lower 48 states to a depth of about 107 miles.

Climate change will also impact water availability. Projections indicate a steady increase in temperature progressing through the 21st century, generally resulting in snowpack reductions, changes to the timing of snowmelt, altered streamflows, and reductions in soil moisture, all of which could affect water management, agriculture, recreation, hazard mitigation, and ecosystems across the nation. Despite some widespread similarities in climate change trends, climate change will affect specific water basins in the U.S. differently, based on the particular hydrologic and geologic conditions in that area. For example, USGS models project that changes to snow pack in the Sprague River Basin in Oregon (pictured above) could cause annual peak streamflows to occur earlier in the spring as overall basin storage decreases, which may force managers to modify storage operation and reprioritize water deliveries for environmental and human needs.

In reality, most of the largest bubble is stretched over about 70 percent of Earth’s surface, a very thin layer over the land. As we stare out into them, we think of oceans as vast expanses. And in many parts of the world we feel water-rich, even as we hear stories of regions where water is far from abundant. This graphic shows that this amount of water is not nearly as abundant as it may feel.

Furthermore, most of this water is unusable to humans, because we need freshwater to survive, and 98 percent of that large bubble is saline. The much smaller blue sphere over Kentucky – by comparison, about 169.5 miles in diameter – represents the world’s liquid freshwater, including groundwater, lakes, swamp water, and rivers. However, 99 percent of that bubble is groundwater, much of which is not accessible to humans.

Now we can start to answer the question, how much water is available to humans? Do you notice that tiny blue speck over Atlanta, Ga.? That’s the bubble representing freshwater in all the lakes and rivers on the planet. Most of the water that people and ecosystems need every day comes from these surface-water sources. The diameter of this sphere is a mere 34.9 miles, with a volume of a little over 22,000 cubic miles. The sphere looks tiny compared to, say, the Great Lakes region, which is the largest freshwater source on Earth. But keep in mind that tiny dot is about 35 miles high.

In 2005 Americans used about 328 billion gallons of surface water and about 82 billion gallons of groundwater per day. Surface water is used as the primary supply of drinking and irrigation water, but groundwater is used for these purposes too. Groundwater is also vital in keeping rivers and lakes full, and it provides water for people in places where visible water is scarce, such as in the desert towns of the western U.S.

Still – look again at the picture. It doesn't seem like a lot of water! Certainly, it’s not. It’s important to remember that water is a precious resource. It’s never sitting still; it moves between the air, the land, underground, to the ocean and back again via the water cycle. USGS scientists conduct studies to understand how much water is available now and for the future, including how water flows through the water cycle, how surface water and groundwater interact, and how the quality of our water impacts availability. These studies are important for wise water use, especially as the world becomes increasingly water stressed




Summary: This article explains about how much water we really have. This takes up 70% of the world. The small one is the amount of freshwater, but we cant get it because 99% is underground. The little tiny blue ball is the amount of water we can actually use as drinking water. If Americans use 82 billion gallons of groundwater and 328 billion gallons of surface water then we might not have a lot left in a little while. While the water cycle does provide us with some extra water it still dumps a lot of water into the ocean which can never be used again. I hope that our world takes a notice and does something about it. 

Opinion: I think that this article is great. I am a little bit worried about the water amount after reading this article. Seeing how much water we have left is shocking. I didn't think that in my lifetime that we could be close to no water. I think that we need to do everything in our power to save as much water as we can. We need to somehow reach the groundwater below. If we can reach that then we can help many people get more water. Also i think that we should all work together. We shouldn't just have a United States water plan, we should have a worldwide plan to help all that are in need of water. That is my opinion on this article. 


Questions: 

What do you think we should do about the water situation? 

Should we work with other countries on this project why or why not? 

Were should we get our water supplies from? 

Should we share the water or keep it for our own country? 

Mass Extinction Underway, Majority of Biologists Say

Mass Extinction Underway, Majority of Biologists Say Washington Post Tuesday, April 21, 1998 [Note: scroll down this page for HUNDREDS of links to updates about the current mass extinction. Most recent update: September 3, 2012.] By Joby Warrick Staff Writer A majority of the nation's biologists are convinced that a "mass extinction" of plants and animals is underway that poses a major threat to humans in the next century, yet most Americans are only dimly aware of the problem, a poll says. The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet's gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer, according to the survey of 400 scientists commissioned by New York's American Museum of Natural History. The poll's release yesterday comes on the heels of a groundbreaking study of plant diversity that concluded than at least one in eight known plant species is threatened with extinction. Although scientists are divided over the specific numbers, many believe that the rate of loss is greater now than at any time in history. "The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past -- including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions," said Daniel Simberloff, a University of Tennessee ecologist and prominent expert in biological diversity who participated in the museum's survey. [Note: the last mass extinction caused by a meteor collision was that of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.] Most of his peers apparently agree. Nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass extinction" was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats. Among the dissenters, some argue that there is not yet enough data to support the view that a mass extinction is occurring. Many of the estimates of species loss are extrapolations based on the global destruction of rain forests and other rich habitats. Among non-scientists, meanwhile, the subject appears to have made relatively little impression. Sixty percent of the laymen polled professed little or no familiarity with the concept of biological diversity, and barely half ranked species loss as a "major threat." The scientists interviewed in the Louis Harris poll were members of the Washington-based American Institute of Biological Sciences, a professional society of more than 5,000 scientists. Sources:http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html Picture: http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/biodiversity.asp                                          Summary: What this article is about is the mass extinction that we are going through. This environmental worry surpassed global warming in a poll from four hundred scientists. The rate of extinction has skyrocketed and is now the greatest rate in history with one out of eight plants facing extinction. The last mass extinction, where the dinosaurs became extinct, was lower than the rate of extinction that we are going through now. Scientists predict that one fifth of species could be extinct within thirty years’ time. Even with all this data, some scientists believe that we are not going through a mass extinction. Many of the species that are going through extinction are due to humans, but humans do not really care about this and are just now doing something to prevent this. The scientists at the Washington-based American Institute of Biological Sciences were the scientists interviewed, and they have different opinions whether we are going through a mass extinction or not.                 I believe that we are definitely going through a mass extinction. Species are going extinct every day that I have never even heard of. As I grow up I keep hearing more and more prevention movements but I believe that we are too late. We keep cutting down all the species environment, and no matter how hard we try, the population will keep expanding and more species will keep going extinct. 1.       Do you think we are going through a mass extinction? 2.       What changes in biodiversity have you noticed over the past five years? 3.       What do you believe we should do to help prevent this problem?

Atmospheric Aerosol Climate Caution

ScienceDaily (Oct. 1, 2012) — Carbon dioxide is                not the only problem we must address if we are to understand and solve the problem of climate change. According to research published this month in the International Journal of Global Warming, we as yet do not understand adequately the role played by aerosols, clouds and their interaction and must take related processes into account before considering any large-scale geo-engineering.

---

There are 10 to the power of 40 molecules of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those carbon dioxide molecules absorb and emit radiation mainly in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum and their presence is what helps keep our planet at the relatively balmy temperatures we enjoy today.

Too few absorbing molecules and the greenhouse effect wanes and we would experience the kind of global cooling that would convert the whole planet into a lifeless, ice-encrusted rock floating in its orbit. Conversely, however, rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide lead to a rise in temperature. It is this issue that has given rise to the problem of anthropogenic climate change. Humanity has burned increasing amounts of fossil fuels since the dawn of the industrial revolution, releasing the locked in carbon stores from those ancient into the atmosphere boosting the number of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere.

However, these rising carbon dioxide levels do not complete the picture of climate change, scientists must also take into account tiny particles in the atmosphere, aerosols, made up of condensing vapours, soot, and dust. There is certainly no doubt that these species affect how much solar energy is reflected from Earth's surface and how much is trapped. According to Jost Heintzenberg of the Leibniz-Institute for Tropospheric Research, in Leipzig, Germany, the number of aerosol particles is a mere 10 to the 26. Of course, the weight we lend to a single carbon dioxide molecule compared to an aerosol particle, which might contain many more than a single molecule is a moot point.

Nevertheless, Heintzenberg sees a conundrum in how to understand atmospheric aerosols and how they affect cloud formation and ultimately influence climate. There are multiple feedback loops to consider as well as the effect of climate forcing due to rising carbon dioxide levels on these species and vice versa. "The key role of aerosols and clouds in anthropogenic climate change make the high uncertainties related to them even more painful," says Heintzenberg. It is crucial that we understand their effects. Geo-engineers are considering projects on an enormous scale that might one day be used to manipulate levels of atmospheric aerosols and influence cloud formation in order to cool our planet. Such efforts while seeming fanciful today might eventually allow us to influence, if not take control of, the climate to some extent. If the models fail us in terms of aerosols and clouds then such manipulations might cause more problems than they fix.

"Before considering such remedies the aerosol-cloud-climate conundrum needs to be reduced to a level of uncertainty that is comparable to those related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases," explains Heintzenberg. "Considering the complexity of the aerosol-cloud system the challenge will be to identify the necessary essential knowledge and differentiate that from marginal details and focus research efforts on these essentials in order to simplify the complex aerosol-cloud system without losing indispensable features," he says.

Jost Heintzenberg. The aerosol-cloud-climate conundrum. Int. J. Global Warming, 2012, 4, 219-241

http://saga.pmel.noaa.gov/aceasia/prospectus/Image65.jpg

Summary: People have been burning millions of fossil fuels for a long time but that isn't the only thing that is causing global warming. From soot and mineral dust going in the air aerosol goes into the atmosphere. When the sun tries to shine down on the earth the aerosols just reflect it back into space. This can cause a raise in temperature in the atmosphere which gets trapped in there. This causes an increase in temperature which is what global warming is. I think that aerosols are a main cause of global warming and if we can bring those levels down then maybe we can help the cause. It might be easier to stop this than burning fossil fuels.

What do you think we should do about the aerosol in the atmosphere?
What do you think it the main cause of aerosols in the atmosphere?
What do you think is easier to stop the aerosols in the air or the burning of fossil fuels?