'Potentially Toxic' Chemical Byproduct May Be Present in 1/3 of US Drinking Water (nbcnews.com) 136
NBC News reports that a newly identified chemical byproduct "may be present in drinking water in about a third of U.S. homes, a study found."
"Scientists do not yet know whether the byproduct is dangerous. But some are worried that it could have toxic properties because of similarities to other chemicals of concern." The newly identified substance, named "chloronitramide anion," is produced when water is treated with chloramine, a chemical formed by mixing chlorine and ammonia. Chloramine is often used to kill viruses and bacteria in municipal water treatment systems. Researchers said the existence of the byproduct was discovered about 40 years ago, but it was only identified now because analysis techniques have improved, which finally enabled scientists to determine the chemical's structure.
It could take years to figure out whether chloronitramide anion is dangerous — it's never been studied. The researchers reported their findings Thursday in the journal Science, in part to spur research to address safety concerns. The scientists said they have no hard evidence to suggest that the compound represents a danger, but that it bears similarities to other chemicals of concern. They think it deserves scrutiny because it's been detected so widely...
David Reckhow, a research professor in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who was not involved with the study, said the finding was an important step. The ultimate goal, he said, is understanding whether the substance is a hazard; he concurred that it was likely toxic. "It's a pretty small molecule and it can probably for that reason enter into biological systems and into cells. And it is still a reactive molecule," he said. "Those are the kinds of things you worry about."
"It's estimated more than 113 million people drink chloraminated processed water in the U.S.," according to a follow-up article by ABC News.
But they also include this quote from Dr. Stephanie Widmer, a board-certified medical toxicologist and emergency medicine physician. "The reality is that no one really knows too much about this chloronitramide and its impact on human health, and more research needs to be done. These disinfecting chemicals have been giving us clean drinking water for decades, so no reason to fear drinking water as a result of this study." Although ABC News tacks on this sentence.
"The study authors suggest, in general, adding a carbon filter to a sink or a standalone pitcher may be a good option for those concerned."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader Greymane for sharing the news.
"Scientists do not yet know whether the byproduct is dangerous. But some are worried that it could have toxic properties because of similarities to other chemicals of concern." The newly identified substance, named "chloronitramide anion," is produced when water is treated with chloramine, a chemical formed by mixing chlorine and ammonia. Chloramine is often used to kill viruses and bacteria in municipal water treatment systems. Researchers said the existence of the byproduct was discovered about 40 years ago, but it was only identified now because analysis techniques have improved, which finally enabled scientists to determine the chemical's structure.
It could take years to figure out whether chloronitramide anion is dangerous — it's never been studied. The researchers reported their findings Thursday in the journal Science, in part to spur research to address safety concerns. The scientists said they have no hard evidence to suggest that the compound represents a danger, but that it bears similarities to other chemicals of concern. They think it deserves scrutiny because it's been detected so widely...
David Reckhow, a research professor in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who was not involved with the study, said the finding was an important step. The ultimate goal, he said, is understanding whether the substance is a hazard; he concurred that it was likely toxic. "It's a pretty small molecule and it can probably for that reason enter into biological systems and into cells. And it is still a reactive molecule," he said. "Those are the kinds of things you worry about."
"It's estimated more than 113 million people drink chloraminated processed water in the U.S.," according to a follow-up article by ABC News.
But they also include this quote from Dr. Stephanie Widmer, a board-certified medical toxicologist and emergency medicine physician. "The reality is that no one really knows too much about this chloronitramide and its impact on human health, and more research needs to be done. These disinfecting chemicals have been giving us clean drinking water for decades, so no reason to fear drinking water as a result of this study." Although ABC News tacks on this sentence.
"The study authors suggest, in general, adding a carbon filter to a sink or a standalone pitcher may be a good option for those concerned."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader Greymane for sharing the news.
Of course there is. (Score:5, Funny)
It's called "fluoride" and RFK's on the case. Don't you worry your pretty little head about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's gonna decalcify your pineal gland whether you like it or not.
(this may or may not be a joke, or a superposition)
The dose makes the poison (Score:4, Interesting)
The is certainly a dose at which this chemical becomes dangerous. And there's certainly a dose at which it is harmless. So, indeed, "further study" is the appropriate step. And it's (probably) not reasonable to get hysterical about it. After all, there are problems with distilled water, too.
P.S.: What's it's boiling point? (For some reason Google doesn't return anything on it's vaporization.) Perhaps we should all switch to coffee and tea. That's not acidic enough to cause it to decompose, but perhaps it's hot enough to evaporate it.
Re: The dose makes the poison (Score:2)
Re:The dose makes the poison (Score:5, Informative)
Chloramine breaks down when heated.
Thirty minutes of boiling will remove it.
At room temperature, it has a half-life of about 75 hours.
Exposure to sunlight or other UV will speed up the decomposition.
My tap water has chloramine. When I fill an aquarium, I let it sit for a week before adding fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus, get a filter. You're playing Russian roulette with 3 bullets.
Standard charcoal filters remove chlorine but are mostly ineffective at removing chloramine.
Chloramine fact sheet [kinetico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My tap water has chloramine. When I fill an aquarium, I let it sit for a week before adding fish.
Chloramine is more stable than chlorinated water, so it can take a few weeks of sitting in still water to break down. You can use sodium thiosulfate (sold in aquarium stores) to remove break down the chloramine and bind the chlorine from the chloramine. It's cheap and quick. It won't get rid of the ammonia side but your filter should be able to take that out and the amount should not be an issue if you have a decently sized tank. Sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate will take out both. That is sold as ClorAm-X,
Re: (Score:2)
Hidden Research. (Score:3)
You mean it could take years for someone to admit fucking fault, because we’ll probably find those “classified” studies soon.
Re: (Score:2)
It could take years to figure out whether chloronitramide anion is dangerous — it's never been studied.
You mean it could take years for someone to admit fucking fault, because we’ll probably find those “classified” studies soon.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thisi is only a short term problem (Score:2, Insightful)
When the new administration takes office, the new EPA administrator will declare chloronitramide anion to be a vitamin. So, no problem. And the Maggots will rejoice.
And thats why... whole house filter + RO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long until we find out that the RO filters add back microplastics to the water? A carbon filter with pre-filter is likely plenty.
It's probably safe but we need years of study (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:2)
These disinfecting chemicals have been giving us clean drinking water for decades, so no reason to fear drinking water as a result of this study
"These cigarettes have been giving us smoking pleasure for decades, so no reason to fear tobacco as a result of these studies".
Yeah, I know - at first glance my comparison is bullshit as well. But what ISN'T bullshit is pointing out that saying "we haven't seen any problem here in decades, therefore there's no problem here" flies in the face of good science and the scientific method. We should expect better from a "board-certified medical toxicologist and emergency medicine physician".
Re: (Score:2)
The chlorination byproducts problem has been known for decades. This is just another one in the family. Before you get all histrionic keep in mind the alternatives are what?
A big system can't guarantee control over the entire delivery system, they have to disinfect. Cholera is far worse than chlorination, not to mention cryptosporidium or our old friend e-coli. If the water source is surface water then you need even more treatment to filter out the duck poop.
If you don't like chlorine, would you prefer brom
Re: (Score:2)
Before you get all histrionic keep in mind the alternatives are what?
I don't think I was getting "all histrionic", and I certainly wasn't advocating that the use of chloramine be suspended. I was pointing out that minimizing the problem with the justification of "we've been doing it for decades" isn't good science.
It's simple - if there's solid evidence that the problem is a minor one, present it. If there isn't, simply say that for now you believe that chloramine is the lesser risk - and then provide evidence, or at least reasoning, which supports that belief.
Re: (Score:2)
"simply say that for now you believe that chloramine is the lesser risk - and then provide evidence, or at least reasoning, which supports that belief."
That's easy,
https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/ab... [cdc.gov].
https://www.mayoclinic.org/dis... [mayoclinic.org]
https://www.who.int/news-room/... [who.int].
"Microbiologically contaminated drinking water can transmit diseases such as diarrhoea, cholera, dysentery, typhoid and polio and is estimated to cause approximately 505 000 diarrhoeal deaths each year."
Deaths from chorine treatment of water?
One third of water? (Score:3)
Is it oxygen?
DHM? (Score:2)
so they're FINALLY going to do something about DiHydrogen Monoxide? It's about time!
Get back to me (Score:2)
"Might be in 1/3 of water?" "Might be harmful?"
Tell you what Champ, you go nail those down a bit and get back to us. I'm going to worry about more specific issues until then.
Doesn't everyone assume the water is junk? (Score:2)
Well (Score:2)
Reverse Osmosis (Score:2)
Get a reverse osmosis filter consisting of at least 3 stages (carbon, RO, carbon). Filters almost all bad stuff out (and some good stuff too). I have a tap on my sink for drinking/cooking water and my fridge is hooked to it for clean ice and cold drinking water.
You might also consider a whole-house carbon filter just to touch up the wash water a bit. With a bit of planning, it can use the old carbon filters from the RO system.
Re:rfk jr (Score:5, Interesting)
But bad teeth often lead to other health problems. The tradeoffs are not so clear cut.
Re: (Score:2)
About a year back, I remember there was a story here, about a water treatment plant in Florida that had a SCADA remtely hacked, and it dumped a bunch of NaOH into the drinking water (which was reported as an "inconvenience"). If this was fluoride, it might have caused a much bigger problem.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
fluoride in water reduces testosterone in boys/men (Score:2)
Link between fluoride and harming men's reproductive systems is well known. Would appreciate any link to a study about how it affects boys under 18 or women pregnant with boys since a pregnant woman carrying a boy passes high levels of testosterone to the in utero baby boy.
Sodium fluoride disrupts testosterone biosynthesis by affecting the steroidogenic pathway in TM3 Leydig cells
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Does Fluoride Affect Serum Testosterone and Androgen Binding Protein with Age-Specificity? A Po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are fluoridating the pets!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But bad teeth often lead to other health problems. The tradeoffs are not so clear cut.
Seeing as how we collectively don't give a shit if the poorest Americans can even afford proper healthcare, I'm more inclined to believe the conspiracy that water fluoridation really is just a convenient way to dispose of what would otherwise be a toxic industrial byproduct. Oh wait, it's not actually a conspiracy. [osu.edu]
Additionally, putting it in the water is about as stupid as adding Bengay to your Pepsi because you've got a sore muscle. The correct application for fluoride on teeth is for it to be applied to
Re:rfk jr (Score:5, Informative)
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that is...naturally present...in mineral water... In other words, if you tap it straight from a water well, chances are it has fluoride in it that has been there since pangea. The concentration of it varies by region, same as every other mineral.
Re: (Score:3)
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that is...naturally present...in mineral water...
Radon is naturally occurring too. Of course, the mistaken belief that radioactivity was a healthful thing [orau.org] didn't last long enough for the government to jump on that bandwagon.
Also, my younger brother's home is on a well and I can tell you with absolute certainty that well water isn't always the gold standard for what you'd ideally want to be drinking. His water stinks to high heaven, stains everything brown, and I've lost count of how many washing machines he's been through due to scale build-up of the in
Re:rfk jr (Score:4, Funny)
If the brain worm guy says it, it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:rfk jr (Score:5, Funny)
"The correct application for fluoride on teeth is for it to be applied topically rather than orally,"
So you put it on your teeth, but not while they are in your mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
So you put it on your teeth, but not while they are in your mouth.
In the case of a drug, oral administration implies that it's being swallowed for systemic application, and topical application means the drug is only applied to a specific part of the body. So, a drug that is applied inside the oral cavity is still considered topical if you aren't swallowing it. English is full of hilarious little idiosyncrasies such as that, and everybody on the internet loves when someone is quick to point them out at every given opportunity. /s
Re: rfk jr (Score:3)
Seeing as how we collectively don't give a shit if the poorest Americans can even afford proper healthcare
Obamacare plans start at about $25/month with subsidies. Medicaid is free. I agree there are idiots who try to squash Medicaid, but that's waining.
Re: rfk jr (Score:4, Interesting)
Obamacare plans start at about $25/month with subsidies.
You do know that "start at" is one of those weasel-word phrases used by marketers when they don't want you to think about what something actually costs. It's like I can say "A Tesla Model 3 starts at $100" (for a totaled one on Copart, but who's counting?)
Funny thing is, they actually run those ACA ads here in Florida, where those $25 plans are pure unobtanium because Florida is one of the ten states which didn't accept the ACA expansion. You'd think the government would've recorded a separate commercial calling out those states for their bullshit, but nope, we just get some empty promises that makes the federal government look incompetent when you go looking for that affordable plan on healthcare.gov which doesn't exist. And yep, I suspect that was the plan all along.
Re: rfk jr (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree there are idiots who try to squash Medicaid, but that's waining.
Is it really waning, though?
Re: rfk jr (Score:3)
> believe the conspiracy that water fluoridation really is just a convenient way to dispose of what would otherwise be a toxic industrial byproduct. Oh wait, it's not actually a conspiracy.
That article doesnâ(TM)t say what you suggest it does. Itâ(TM)s actually quite an interesting article, about the history of fluoridation of water. But it merely mentions the possibility that an industrial promoter was involved in the decision-making process. It doesnâ(TM)t claim, nor provide any evidence
Re: (Score:2)
Like any substance, extremely high doses of fluoride can cause health problems (no municipal water system presents a fluoride overdose risk - typically it is well water or people taking fluoride tablets or eating toothpaste that have a problem).
If you really wa
Re:rfk jr (Score:5, Informative)
The poorest Americans qualify for Medicaid.
Unless they live in the 10 states which rejected the ACA. [stateline.org] According to that article, there's 1.6 million people without health coverage. I'm sure the results of the recent election don't bear repeating, but yes, collectively America voted that this situation is totally acceptable. Because you just shouldn't be poor in those ten states, I suppose.
Now, contrast that against what you'll need to spend if your water happens to be non-fluoridated. A $1.25 tube of toothpaste [dollartree.com] is hardly an unreasonable burden (although admittedly, it's a little weird that it's not something you can purchase with EBT benefits).
Re:rfk jr (Score:4, Informative)
The poorest Americans qualify for Medicaid.
Unless they live in the 10 states which rejected the ACA. [stateline.org] According to that article, there's 1.6 million people without health coverage.
Those are not "the poorest Americans". They are in households with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid.
Re:rfk jr (Score:5, Informative)
That's not correct. If your income is below the federal poverty level in one of those ten states you do not qualify for income-based Medicaid. That's $15,060 for a single person in the lower 48 states. You would only qualify for Medicaid if you were eligible for another reason such as age or disability.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glo... [healthcare.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about the other 9 states, but in Texas there is no income low enough to qualify for Medicaid, on its own. You have to be broke and pop out a kid. Or be a caretaker of some kind.
https://www.hhs.texas.gov/site... [texas.gov]
Not sure how the article tabulated people without children, who don't get Medicaid in any case. It sounds like they excluded them to look at a narrower subset of the uninsured. Poor people who popped out a kid, but then weren't poor enough to qualify.
The obvious thing to do, of course, is get
Re: (Score:3)
That would be a stretch. Among the handful of legislative seats that switched, how many had that as the key issue? I would also mention Trump only got a minority of the popular vote (counting all candidates), although sources are inappropriately rounding up to exactly 50%.
Majority [Re:rfk jr] (Score:2)
I would also mention Trump only got a minority of the popular vote (counting all candidates), although sources are inappropriately rounding up to exactly 50%.
Accurate.
Early returns had suggeseted that Trump would win a majority, but with later returns with more of the votes counted, looks like he won 49.86% [wikipedia.org], just a hair under 50%.
https://www.reuters.com/graphi... [reuters.com]
https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
Of course, a majority is irrelevant to the election results.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We do care about each other. It's just people like you that don't care about others.
Either you can't count or you're just a typical lying Republican piece of shit. Elections have largely trended Democratic since 2008, and Dems only lost a handful of seats this year despite overwhelming headwinds.
Use better soap in your brainwashing, you d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you're just a typical lying Republican piece of shit.
I am a Democrat. I voted for Harris.
But I believe that Democrats should talk to swing voters and try to win elections instead of insulting them and feeling smug about losing.
I suppose that makes me a lying, fascist, racist traitor to my party. Whatever.
Elections have largely trended Democratic since 2008
There are six political power centers in America:
1. The presidency
2. The Senate
3. The House of Representatives
4. The Supreme Court and judiciary
5. The governorships
6. The state legislatures
Republicans control six of them. Democrats control zero.
If you believe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As far as I can tell, you're a concern troll spouting GOP inverse-history against a candidate who did exactly what you "advise": Wasting her time chasing conservative-leaning votes while key Democratic bases had to fend for themselves.
There hasn't been a single losing Democratic presidential ticket in this century that hadn't used the exact playbook you're pimping. A playbook that was notably ignored by Barack Obama, much to the rage of the GOP trolls who had alway
Re: (Score:2)
Our system of government is defined by the US Constitution - something you may have heard of occasionally between Trump tweets - and the respective state constitutions, none of which are arranged into your six "power centers".
The first four on the list are explicitly defined by the constitution, a document you seem to like to refer to but have apparently not read, and, yes, their powers are explicitly listed there,
The other two are in the tenth amendment.
There are thousands of elective offices.
Sure. Our county votes for lots of things, like clerk of courts and for the aldermen of our small town of about 50,000 people. But these are in no way "political powers", unless you consider AA batteries the equal to a power plant ("the majority of electrical power in the US co
Re: (Score:2)
The first three items on his made-up list consist of 536 separate elective offices. Also, the fourth item (federal judiciary) is not elected, and requires in practice a substantial majority in the Senate to pass non-consensus appointments - which they didn't gain.
There are over 7,500 state legislators in the US. This year, with every conceivable advantage except a likeable top candidate, the
Control [Re:rfk jr] (Score:3)
The first three items on his made-up list consist of 536 separate elective offices.
Correct. Your previous assertion was that these are not in the constitution. They are.
Also, the fourth item (federal judiciary) is not elected,
Your statement was that the power of the judiciary wasn't in the constitution. It absolutely is. Now you're saying that they're not elected. Nobody said they were.
...
There are over 7,500 state legislators in the US. This year, with every conceivable advantage except a likeable top candidate, the GOP
I have no idea what "every conceivable advantage" means here. The Democrats fielded a candidate that was superior in absolutely every possible way. But still lost presidential race and state races.
gained control of exactly one state legislative body in one state. One.
Uh, you're talking here about the increase in number of legislati
Re: (Score:2)
No. I said his six "power center" model of government isn't in the Constitution. It's not. There are three branches of government, the House and Senate are one branch, and the Presidency isn't a branch at all (the Executive largely consists of civil service, diplomatic service, and military professionals, not political appointees). And it's irrelevant because I spoke to number of offices that switched hands.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I said his six "power center" model of government isn't in the Constitution. It's not.
Ah, more weasel wording. All six power centers most certainly are in the constitution.
Conversation over. I can't bother wasting my time with somebody who keeps changing what they're saying.
Frankly, I don't think even you really know what you're saying.
Re: (Score:2)
This has already been explained to you far more carefully than you would need if there w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you sincerely believe that Democrats are winning, then I don't know what to say.
I feel like I'm talking to a flat-earther.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad info [Re:rfk jr] (Score:2)
Either you can't count or you're just a typical lying Republican piece of shit. Elections have largely trended Democratic since 2008,
Nope. Here's the trend for the House (the elections closest to popular vote): https://ballotpedia.org/Propor... [ballotpedia.org] . If there's a Democratic trend there, I sure can't see it.
and Dems only lost a handful of seats this year despite overwhelming headwinds.
Huh? This year the Democrats lost the Presidency, the House of Representatives (219 seats lost, 213 seats won), and the Senate (47 seats won, 53 seats lost). There's no way to call that losing "only a handful of seats".
I think that what you meant to say is "Democrats lost only a handful of seats more than the seats that they'd lost in pre
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at the wrong part of the page. That's a measure of total voter share, not trending of offices switching hands - specifically since 2008. Go down to the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Swiss put fluoride their water. Swiss health statistics are excellent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drinking tap water is very common in Germany. Also, it is not illegal to add fluoride. It is just generally not done and nobody wants to stir up the few but very loud protesters. Germany puts fluoride into most table salt tough, a variant of putting it into water. And, in addition, German health statistics and life-expectancy are worse than the Swiss ones, with life-expectancy being more than 2.5 years lower.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:rfk jr (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm truly loving this American experiment in governance. Let the 6 year olds fly the plane for a little bit, why not?
Re: rfk jr (Score:3)
1) you know Trump's not in charge yet, yeah?
2) Because the "experts" were doing so awesome in the current administration?
Pardon me while I recoil from the vast amount of competence displayed.
Remind me of Buttegieg's qualifications to become Sec'y of Transportation?
Mayorkas has done a bang up job, clearly.
Or the senior health official who literally believes he's a woman? The klepto crossdresser who liked to steal other people's luggage?
Re: (Score:3)
1) you know Trump's not in charge yet, yeah?
What's that go to do with anything other than you being triggered because we're insulting people on your side?
2) Because the "experts" were doing so awesome in the current administration?
Yeah nothing says I'm smart by pointing to someone else and saying "but they are dumb too". What did the GP just say? 6 year olds? That is literally what this is, you're arguing like a 6 year old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hes right about fluoride it has no business in drinking water other countries have banned it
Other countries banned guns as well, so since we're doing what other countries are doing are you going to support that movement too? Or will you come up with some justification as to why other countries shouldn't be followed on that one?
Re: (Score:2)
You might not want to read up on "microplastics". Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: now at least i know using bottled water is goo (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Microplastics seem concerning on first glance, but is there evidence they actually cause any harm? Most of these microplastics are completely inert.
Chemically inert doesn't mean biologically inert. One example: asbestos is inert, which is why it was widely used, but when inhaled into the lungs, it causes cancer.
"Humans inhale a staggering amount of microplastic every week. Here's where it ends up. [livescience.com]: "The full health impacts of microplastics on the human body are still unknown. However, microplastics have been shown to kill human cells, and cause bowel inflammation and reductions to fertility in mice."
"Should we worry about the accumulation of microplas [thelancet.com]
Re:now at least i know using bottled water is good (Score:5, Informative)
always used bottled water
Where do you think bottled water comes from?
Often, it's just tap water.
If it's spring water, it likely contains fluoride.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: now at least i know using bottled water is goo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to do more research and make sure they're not just filling the bottles from the tap and marking the price up.
Re:water is often high in chlorine (Score:4, Interesting)
but in the US whatever is cheapest is ALWAYS the right answer.
Cheapest for the one doing it that is, not cheapest for society as it should be.
Re:water is often high in chlorine (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironically, Russia is failing from inside roughly similarly to how America is failing, but on fast-forward. In Russia, city maintenance is crumbling: water, steam, and sewage pipes are breaking and there's no one to fix them. Salt is being dumped in piles on side streets rather than on roads. Butter is being stolen in Russia like razor blades in American pharmacies. Russians are waiting in line for 4 hours for cheap eggs. Russia's potato harvest collapsed and had to import them from Egypt. It's not an "us" or "them" thing, it's a signals of decline thing by degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
Re:water is often high in chlorine (Score:5, Informative)
> Chlorine is an odorless gas
It absolutely isn't. You're right that the "chlorine smell" that comes off of pools etc. is not raw chlorine gas, but if there is raw chlorine gas in the air you WILL smell it. And feel it.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
In my fortunately limited experience, chlorine gas smells very much like the "chlorine smell" of an over-chlorinated pool, just stronger.
Then, after you neutralize the reaction, start the exhaust fan and evacuate the room, the regular water you drink to relieve some of the irritation tastes like pool water.
Re:water is often high in chlorine (Score:5, Informative)
You can't smell chlorine. Chlorine is an odorless gas.
Not! Chlorine is not odorless, and you do not want to try this by smelling it.
Re:But.. (Score:4, Funny)
How many people (in the US) actually drink tap water?
I only drink water from plastic bottles. The bottling company must have gotten the water from a pristine mountain stream as indicated in the artwork printed on the bottle.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly do. But our water system does not chlorinate.
As for the fluoride, 0.86 ppm straight from the well. 1.26 ppm nitrates. We have boring water which is a good thing.