Found this article to be rather revealing.

Lies, lies and more lies by Henry Lamb

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Chicken Little's "the sky is falling" story taught a generation of children not to make up stories that are untrue. Unfortunately, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and many other environmental organizations failed to learn the lesson.

Why anyone would pay attention to what these organizations say – or contribute money to support their disinformation campaigns – is beyond comprehension.

The NRDC orchestrated, with the help of a high-priced public relations firm, the near-destruction of the U.S. apple industry by producing a "report" used by CBS's "60 Minutes" to declare that alar (a chemical preservative used on apples) was a powerful carcinogen that caused cancer in lab animals. Schools dumped apples, grocery stores took apples and apple sauce off their shelves, and in a matter of days, the apple industry was devastated.

Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, a biologist from the University of Washington, former governor of Washington and former head of the Atomic Energy Commission, later reported that in order for a human to be exposed to alar in doses comparable to the lab animals used in the NRDC study, a person would have to eat 28,000 pounds of apples each day for 70 years. She also noted that the NRDC report failed to mention that when the dose was reduced for the lab animals to the equivalent of 14,000 pounds of apples per day for humans, the lab animals had no ill effects at all.

In other words, the NRDC knew full well that alar was not harmful to humans in any conceivable dosage. Nevertheless, they arranged for scary, false information to be broadcast to the American people. Should this episode not destroy the credibility of the NRDC?

Greenpeace has perfected the art of disinformation for profit. This organization raised a ton of money using a video of hunters clubbing baby seals, and slogans that promised to stop the brutality if only people would send money to their organization.

Magnus Gudmundsson, a researcher who lives in Iceland, later revealed that Greenpeace had staged the event and actually paid actors to club the seals to produce the desired level of brutality. Gudmundsson produced his own 43-minute video – including interviews with the people who were paid.

Greenpeace produced another film depicting brutality to dolphins, using paid actors to stage events that were presented as actual dolphin harvests. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace who has jumped ship, says that these efforts to stop seal and dolphin harvesting never had anything to do with endangered species, as was claimed at the time, but were about promoting the idea that no animals should be used as resources.

More recently, Greenpeace decided to wage war on chlorine. In a special report issued shortly after Clinton was elected, Greenpeace said "... all uses of chlorine must be phased out ...," claiming that it caused all manner of illnesses, from breast cancer to shriveled penises.

Bill Richardson, who became Clinton's U.N. ambassador and energy secretary, introduced the "Chlorine Zero Discharge Act" (HR2898), in cooperation with EPA Administrator Carol Browner, who proposed to require (and not issue) permits for the discharge of water runoff that contained chlorine. Chlorine is used to purify 98 percent of public water supplies. Fortunately, the bill failed.

The World Wildlife Fund jumped on the bandwagon. Theo Colburn published "Our Stolen Future," which goes to great lengths to scare readers with what "might" or "could" happen to people who are exposed to chlorine. As usual, the evidence to support the claims was sketchy, incomplete and overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. Theo Colburn was an employee of the WWF – Al Gore wrote the foreword for the book.

In support of the Greenpeace and WWF claims, Stephen F. Arnold, a researcher at Tulane University, produced a study that said the effects of industrial chlorine use were a thousand times more potent than use of the chemical alone. Carol Browner praised the report: "I just can't remember a time where I've seen data so persuasive ... The results are very clean looking," she said. This report brought about new EPA regulations and screening programs that cost $10 million per year.

The federal Office of Research Integrity ruled that Arnold had intentionally falsified the research results, then covered-up his lies. His penalty is a five-year ban on receiving federal grants.

The EPA screening programs remain in place, despite the fact that Arnold's study has been thoroughly discredited.

Neither Greenpeace nor the WWF have slowed their quest to ban the use of chlorine – they have now moved to the United Nations to achieve their objectives. The Bush administration has announced its support of a new U.N. treaty to ban certain chemicals. Chlorine is not among the eight chemicals banned by the treaty, but it is among four others that are identified for special study for future banning.

Chlorine is used, not only for water purification, but also in many industrial processes, including the production of PVC pipe and a wide range of plastics.

Regardless of the endless studies, reports and exaggerated claims of these and other environmental extremist organizations, the sky is not falling. Nevertheless, these folks continue to say and do whatever it takes to impose their belief system on the rest of the world.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001

Answers

I'm not supposed to be surprised am I? It's all about money and power.

"Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimulated"

-- Joh in S. IN (jsmengel@fakedaddy.com), December 04, 2001.

WATERMELONS! WATERMELONS! THEY ARE ALL WATERMELONS!

Green on the outside, red on the inside!

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

In the "for what it's worth" department, chlorine gas is a deadly poison. If you don't believe it, just pour some Clorox bleach into some common household ammonia. It will make a (dead) believer out of you.

Chlorine gas barges and trucks are great potential targets for terrorists. You don't want one to break open anywhere near your neighborhood.

The EPA tells me that chlorine gas is only used for water purification because it prevents more deaths from water borne diseases than it causes from cancer. (they think). They are always trying to find better ways to treat water, but chlorine is cost effective, and I suspect there is a strong lobby for its use, for that matter.

One no brainer would be to drastically reduce the amount of cholorine use by only using it to produce potable water. Do we really need to chlorinate water which is flushed down the toilet? Or water our lawns? I think not. In fact, over ninety percent of the water we chlorinate in this country is for uses where it is not necessary.

Personally, I drink chlorinated water when I go to town, but only if I have forgotten my water bottle from home. I try to drink only well water as much as possible. (Don't say it: we still have pure ground water where I live)

-- joj (jump@off.c), December 10, 2001.

Joe,

I think most people are aware that chlorine gas is poisonous, especially when mixed with other ingedients. I for one would not suggest that someone mix chemicals together unless they know what will result from the combination.

Regarding your remark about chlorine causing cancer.I have read many reports indicating that just about everything in the world causes cancer, from the sun to charcoal steak and everthing in between. It seems obvious that drinking water with poison in it is not too swift, on the other hand it is safer than the water without it in most cases, at least in most cities. As with many things in life, it is a tradeoff.

I have to agree with you that using less chlorine would probably be a good idea. But until someone develops a system of manufacturing plastics etc. without chlorine we still need it.

I read somewhere a long time ago that chlorine was originally added to the water supply to keep algae from growing in the pipes, the bacterial purification was just a secondary effect of the chlorination. (As usual, many important discoveries were totally by accident.)

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

Of course, using Chlorine has its benefits and risks, just like anything else. The question is, is there a better way? I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect there are those that do NOT want us to find a better way, in order maintain their revenues due to our chlorine usage. (Hey, such is the case with Big Oil, why not businesses involved with other commodities?)

And I suspect that Joe's concern with is with chlorine usage per se, but overproduction and overuse of chlorine. Using too much chlorine and releasing it into the environment is bound to cause damage, just as staying in the sun too long or eating too much meat barbequed with charcoal can cause cancer.

-- Nexar (Arax7@mvn.net), December 11, 2001.

Nexar, I'd never have believed that someone would deliberately want us not to find a better, safer way to treat water than chlorine, except that I've seen so many other examples of this type of greed. E.g the marketing of baby formula in third world countries where it is known that babies get sick and die from the impure water used to mix with it. And how about the GW Bush & Co.'s shunning of solar energy research for the purpose of increasing profits to oil companies?

Bob, I am not trying to stop the use of all Chlorine. It has lots of good uses, imho. I'd just like to see a better way than chlorine for purifying drinking water.

One way might be to purify a small amount of drinking water with ultraviolet light, filtration, ozone, etc. This is currently being done. It's a bit more expensive, but if we didn't have to chlorinate all the water which is not used in a way where it needs purification, the overall cost would be MUCH less.

-- joj (jump@off.c), December 12, 2001.

Man, I really am seeing nothing wrong with a little chlorine. Afterall, if it caused cancer, then wouldn't it be expected that people with swimming pools would have a higher rate of cancer than those without? Shouldn't olympic swimmer's be more likeley to develope cancer due to a much increased exposure to this "dangerous and vile" substance? Greenpeace needs to examine their true motives before acting and stop trying to substitute emphatic whining an emotional testamonies for science.

-- Adam (zoot531@aol.com), May 21, 2002.

Adam, pure chlorine kills you very rapidly, by burning your lungs, leaving no time for you to develop cancer. I don't know if pure chlorine is even suspected of being a carcinogen.

The EPA, on the other hand, has told me that by products of chlorinating drinking water (chlorinated organic matter in water) are definitely carcinogenic. I don't know what the actual risk is, but the EPA considers the risk of getting cancer from the drinking water acceptable, since the chlorinization process prevents so many other other potential problems, e.g. bacterial infections.

Personally, I'll keep drinking my (non chlorinated) well water.

I'd stil like to see the use of chlorine eliminated, or at least vastly reduced, for all the reasons mentioned above.

-- joj (jump@off.c), May 21, 2002.

here are some other facts I have not seen well addressed:

1) most civic water supplies use rivers as their source

2) the water after it's used, and hopefully pretreated, is returned to the same rivers it came from

3) not all county treatment plants do a good job, thus giving the poor dopes who happen to live downstream from them a good source of fecal bacteria

4) fecal coliform bacteria makes those who ingest (read swallow) it very sick

5) chlorine kills fecal coliform bacteria

Speaking personally, I would much rather have no sewage dumped into rivers, treated or not. But seeing that's how it is, I'd rather ensure that my water was bacteria free than worry about a threat that is so minor as to be non-existant.

If you would rather swallow dirty water, more power to you. Just don't come to me complaining about being sick after you do.

-- Wayne (amd525@hotmail.com), June 26, 2002.

Wayne, (wish me happy birthday!) I don't believe anyone is suggesting that we drink "dirty" water. I for one, just want to stop purifying the water that people shit in, then flush down the toilet. Or use on their lawns. Or use to wash their cars. Or use to clean industrial parts. And so on.

I also don't drink any water which has been chlorinated, when I can possibly avoid it. I drink my CLEAN well water. There are also plenty of other methods to purify water besides chlorine. Like ozone. Like ultraviolet. Some are more expensive than chlorine, but if we quit purifying all the non-potable water, this would not be such a big deal.

-- joj (jump@off.c), June 26, 2002.

Happy Birthday, Joe!!

-- Bren (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), June 27, 2002.

Thanks, Bren. This is my Heinz birthday (57)

-- joj (jump@off.c), June 27, 2002.

Happy birthday Joj :)

While I can appeciate you enthusiasm for the environment, your apparent interest in a dual water supply appears to show a certain lack of thinking the process through. That is what one water system for drinking, the other for "other" uses would in fact be.

Here's a small sample of what would be involved:

a complete overhaul of virtually every county water system in the country from a single product to a dual product delivery system.

cost: hundreds of millions if not billions. Probably closer to hundreds of billions.

a complete overhaul of virtually every building in the country's water system to accomodate the new dual water utility delivery scheme

cost: hundreds of millions if not billions.

Alternatively, you could crowd the streets of every town and city in the nation with the delivery trucks you would need to supply the potable needs of the citizens.

cost: hundreds of millions PLUS the addition of several thousand tons of extra exhaust contaminants into the atmosphere.

The most effective means is the one currently in place, like it or not. Single source - multiple use.

And that currently requires chlorine.

Regarding your many times stated preference for natural source water, and your many times stated point that you do in fact have some natural source for your house, all I can say is that you are in a distinct minority.

There is no need for you to rub the faces of we who do not have access to said sources in it.

Wayne

-- Wayne (amd525@hotmail.com), June 28, 2002.

Hi, Wayne; although you may THINK that I have not thought the issue through, I have spent a lot of energy researching this issue. Your negative attitude is understandable, since it is apparent that YOU have not thought the issue through!

Did you know, for instance, that there are cities which are currently installing two pipe systems? That they are able to almost totally eliminate sewage effluent into the receiving water previously being used?

I'll give you just one example, since I've seen it with my own eyes. Tampa Florida. My son moved there a few years ago; all his irrigation water comes to him in purple colored pvc pipes, which carry recycled sewer water. Some of his neighbors complain that they don't like the smell, though I have not noticed it to be objectionable myself.

Another issue you apparently have not thought of: many cities have old systems which are in need of being rebuilt. The town I live near, for instance (Grants Pass, Oregon). The pipes in that town are gradually being dug up and replaced, as they are rusting out. New PVC pipes are being installed. I have tried to convince the city fathers to drop an extra pipe into the trenches as long as they are opened up, since the excavation is by far the largest expense here. Unfortunately, the city engineer refuses to pay the extra money, even though they are being pressured to clean up their sewer outfall, at great expense (They are actually being told that the effluent is too HOT!) They expect that EVENTUALLY they will be converting to a two pipe system, but don't seem able to plan ahead enough to realize that it's cheaper to drop in the extra pipes as the old ones are replaced. Too bad.

Wayne, you said, "Regarding your many times stated preference for natural source water, and your many times stated point that you do in fact have some natural source for your house, all I can say is that you are in a distinct minority.

There is no need for you to rub the faces of we who do not have access to said sources in it. "

I suspect you are correct that I'm in the distinct minority. I don't understand, therefore, why you seem so resentful. I'm attempting to get cities to convert to dual pipe systems for YOU and others who are currently more or less forced to drink chlorinated water. I personaly DO have a good water source, (as do approximately two thirds of the residents of my county--all of us who do not live in an incorporated city)

Sorry if you think I'm "rubbing your faces" in my clean water! It's not my intention.

-- joj (jump@off.c), July 01, 2002.

Wayne, just for drill, I did a google search for:

dual pipe water distribution systems potable recycle

Lots of data available. Here's an excerpt from Denver, Colorado:

Denver Water Recycled Water Project

Updated November 2001

With water supplies reaching their limits, and the difficulties and expense inherent in the construction of new storage projects, nonpotable reuse of water has become an environmentally and economically viable method for extending and conserving supplies.  Nonpotable reuse, properly implemented, does not present a health risk, and is an acceptable supply, favored by the public.  Major projects have been constructed in many states, particularly California, Florida, and Arizona.  In Colorado, fifteen projects are on-line including Colorado Springs, Aurora, and Westminster.  A new project is planned for Broomfield and expansions of existing systems are also planned.  When constructed, Denver’s project will be the largest in the state.  At full capacity, the project will supply about 17,440 acre-feet per year, or the equivalent of supply to about 34,900 homes. 

By the way, Wayne, you were right about one thing: I didn't think about the problem of retrofitting buildings for recycled water use; I think it would be impractical to do this in some buildings. It would be FAIRLY easy to do in many single family homes, though, and REALLY easy in new construction.

Of course, it's not necessary to have EVERYBODY use recycled water. The more the better, though. imho.

-- joj (jump@off.c), July 01, 2002.

Actuallu Joj, I'm not resentful, just wondering why you have to say you have access to natural source more times than are necessary (usually once is sufficient for most people).

Regarding the use of recycled sewer water for use in irrigation, that is common practice where I live and is nothing new. Obviously anyone using partially treated recycled sewer water is going to keep it separate from the drinking, it's only common sense.

Now would anyone actually use that water to wash anything like a truck, or farm machinery? Doubtful at best

Recycled potable water will require extremely efficient filtration, cleaning and sterilization in order to be publicy acceptable, even in areas where water is in short supply. Imagine the litigation that would occur if such a system ever failed, CNN would be flogging it for weeks if not months.

Seeing as there is more than one class of water user, lets' do a basic breakdown.

1) Potable water : non industrial, non aggricultural users, namely the public at large. Mostly uses county and district utility mains.

2) Industrial users : usually have their own intake and outlet for supplies, civil water systems generally not used. Chlorination not a factor.

3) aggricultural: mixed source but usually from canals or pipelines. chlorination not usually a factor

The majority of water used in the nation is used by people in general. What they use it for can be anything from taking a drink, to washing a truck to watering a lawn and any one of a million uses in between. But for the sake of simplicity I'll limit it to drinking vs non drinking.

Non drinking uses: watering lawns, swimming pools, washing vehicles, laundry etc

Drinking: plain water, making juice, ice etc

On the surface it looks easy, but please take into account that the non-drinking uses have a high degree of human contact. Where you have human contact you will also inevitably have thirsty people, and someone somewhere will drink from the non poyable source.

Ever see kids playing on a lawn with a sprinkler where at least one takes a drink from it? Happens almost every time with virtually no exceptions.

Personally, I'm not in favour of my kids drinking any water that hasn't been properly treated for human consumption, and if ensuring their health means chlorination, then I say go for it.

And the most efficient way so far of ensuring that no one gets sick from bacterial contamination is, as I stated earlier, single source/multiple use. And, as stated before, that currently requires chlorine.

If you can discover another way to do that doesn't harm the environment, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

Happy 4th :)

-- Wayne (amd525@hotmail.com), July 04, 2002.

I'm still waiting for your reply Joj

-- Wayne (amd525@hotmail.com), July 25, 2002.

What about hydrogen peroxide? hydrogen peroxide

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), July 26, 2002.

Hydrogen peroxide treatment is currently being used in some markets as a means of purifying drinking water and treating waste water, personally I have no problem with it. Heck, I gargle with a 3 percent solution of it after each time I brush my teeth; and I wouldn't dream of doing that with chlorine, that's for certain.

Good call

-- Wayne (amd525@hotmail.com), July 28, 2002.

Here's a link to the current editorial in U.S. News The Coming Water Crisis. I'm posting just a few paragraphs from the middle of it since they seem appropriate to this discussion:

".....New science has also undermined confidence in older methods of purify- ing water. Chlorination has been one of the 20th century's great public-health achievements, smiting the deadliest waterborne diseases, cholera and typhoid. But this sword has developed a double edge. Nearly 200 women in Chesapeake, Va., sued their water system, claiming that miscarriages they suffered in the 1980s and 1990s are traceable to trihalomethanes, chemicals produced when chlorine reacted with their region's murky river water. While pregnancy-risk research is hotly debated, the EPA decided that cancer risk from chlorine by-products is high enough that it ordered water system reductions earlier this year. Localities have already spent millions of dollars converting to another disinfectant, chloramine (a chlorine and ammonia mix), which curbs some byproducts.

Cities and towns are finding that they must deal with new science on contaminants at a much faster pace than the EPA can regulate them. This summer, Bourne, Mass., the southern gateway to Cape Cod, had to close three of its six drinking water wells, having discovered they were contaminated with perchlorate, a rocket fuel component that leaked from a nearby military reservation. Across the country, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, serving 17 million people, announced in April that its new treatment system "will remove a large portion of perchlorate" leaking into a major regional reservoir, Lake Mead. But U.S. News has obtained material distributed at a June 11 MWD board meeting showing the treatment was not working as hoped.

The EPA is still studying possible drinking water limits for perchlorate as well as for MTBE, a gasoline additive meant to reduce air pollution that proved to be a frighteningly efficient groundwater pollutant. (South Tahoe and Santa Monica, Calif., last month obtained big settlements from oil and chemical companies to help restore MTBE-poisoned water supplies.) And in April, a U.S. Geological Survey report revealed that streams nationwide are laced with prescription and over-the-counter drugs and even caffeine."

-- Bren (wayoutfar@skybest.com), August 05, 2002.

Sorry! That link didn't come out right! Let's try it again! :o)

T he Coming Water Crisis

-- Bren (wayoutfar@skybest.com), August 05, 2002.