Your local water contaminants list by zip code

[ndrwater]

What the &!??$! ????

My point exactly... Why I installed a water softener and run a 7 stage RODI. Even still, I burn DI resin like it's free...
Corals still thrive, but I have grown a third head

 

[vetteguy53081]

I have softener, whole house carbon filter and RO UNIT

 

[Righteous]

Okay... a lot of these X times numbers are overblown

The uranium in the Anaheim water for example. 14X!!!! ... it’s only 6.23 pCi/L.

Better not eat a banana... that’ll give you more like 500 pCi/L

 

[flsalty]

Found this paper:

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2007/3385/pubs/25chlorate.pdf

Chlorate seems to effect brown algae the most in these studies.

From the paper:

“Clorate is rendered toxic by conversion to chlorite via nitrate reduction. Baltic Sea algae are mostly nitrogen limited and chlorate can easily take the place of nitrate. Chlorate and nitrate interact such that cells do not discriminate between the two.”

The chronic exposure levels for some brown algae’s were as low as 5ppb. That does give me some pause concerning coral Zooxanthellae.

My water is supposedly 14ppb. It seems like chlorate is stable is seawater so it might build up over time.

Hmmmm...mine is 542.5 ppb. Maybe I should move...lol.

Thanks for posting that paper. I'll be sure to read it.

 

[pdxmonkeyboy]

Great thread!

 

[Righteous]

Hmmmm...mine is 542.5 ppb. Maybe I should move...lol.

Thanks for posting that paper. I'll be sure to read it.

I did read that it can be physically bound to GAC for some time period. Maybe make sure you change out your GAC on a regular basis.

 

[flsalty]

I did read that it can be physically bound to GAC for some time period. Maybe make sure you change out your GAC on a regular basis.

Interesting because the EFW site says carbon doesn't filter it out. I just looked up where I lived for 25 years and the chlorate is 700+ ppb. I never had a problem there, but I also used NSW a lot. When I set up a tank here I can still do that and probably will anyway.

 

[Righteous]

Interesting because the EFW site says carbon doesn't filter it out. I just looked up where I lived for 25 years and the chlorate is 700+ ppb. I never had a problem there, but I also used NSW a lot. When I set up a tank here I can still do that and probably will anyway.

I think it’s just really bad at it, and can break thru

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/810r16013.pdf#page61

section 7.2.6
“chlorate was not reduced but was only physically and reversibly sorbed by GAC.”

Another discussion seems to indicate brine conditions increase absorption, but it’s not clear to me what those brine levels are.

Has any work been done on removal of chlorates compared to much...

Certain industries are large contributors to emission of chlorate to water streams. How can chlorate be removed from such streams?

www.researchgate.net

 

[Righteous]

double post... darn phone!

 

[Albert Bazaar]

I thought this might be helpful and remove some of the mystery surrounding providing suitable water for your reefs.

I found this link to a website "www.ewg.org". It shows using your zip code what contaminants are in your municipal water supply and what will remove them.

Now I understand why my anion DI depletes so fast. You will never drink unfiltered tapwater again.

Cool man!!! A very helpful post.I moved to Louisiana and I know the water here is poisonous,it kills turtles and will kill fish with carbon pretreating it.I suspect it's Flouride,but can't get ahold of the water works.they don't answer their phone and probably wouldn't tell me anyway.Anyway, A GREAT AND HELPFUL POST!!!THANK YOU!!!

 

[Dkeller_nc]

Folks, just so that you can put human health effects in perspective from the standpoint of tap water, you should realize that EWG's "health guideline" for a particular contaminant is somewhat suspect. EWG is an advocacy group, and wikipedia includes this statement:

"The accuracy of the EWG reports and statements have been criticized, as has its funding by the organic lobby.[2][3][4][5] Its warnings have been labeled "alarmist", "scaremongering" and "misleading". "

The general statement about popular science articles and websites about the risk of environmental contaminants is that they strongly lack perspective. Many of these contaminants noted by EWG as "potential effect: cancer" have only a theoretical link to human metastasis. Even in the case where there is no doubt about a causative link between an environmental contaminant and human cancer, such as radon exposure, the additional risk at the levels that are regulated in municipal water supplies is tiny.

To understand this point, let's examine the risk of arsenic. Arsenic is a known carcinogen, with a positive link to certain human cancers. Rice as a crop often has elevated levels of arsenic compared to other grains because of the way it's grown and the regions where it's grown. The additional risk has been extensively analyzed, and approximately speaking, the risk of the arsenic contained in rice is 39 additional cancers per million individuals in the population for someone eating rice 3 to 4 times a week, with a 90% confidence interval between 0 and 79.

On the face of it, to some in our population that sounds unacceptably risky. However, one needs to understand that the total risk of developing cancer of any type is about 390,000 out of a million. So even calculating the additional risk of a known human carcinogen is quite difficult over the "noise" in the data set.

 

[AllSignsPointToFish]

"The water sucks...it really, really sucks!"

 

[demonspeedn]

No wonder why I have lumps all over my body!

 

[C. Eymann]

Arsenic, radium, chromium hexoflourite, nitrates

Yum Yum

 

[Breadman03]

My water apparently has a bunch of chloroform. No wonder I get sleepy after drinking water at home

 

[Admann]

Everyone,
Please understand it was not my intent to create panic or be an alarmist, I only wanted to hopefully start a conversation about what each of our water sources contain and how to properly remove them on a case by case basis.
I would not have known GFO would bind chlorate for a time. So, I learned something.

 

[BeachBumm]

I would add that by far my biggest concern with tap water is copper, and copper can easily pass epa guidelines while still being way too high for a reef (0.5 ppm, for example).

Would a properly working RODI unit remove copper ? Just curious because here in South Florida most all in house water pipes are copper . Thanks !!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Everyone,
Please understand it was not my intent to create panic or be an alarmist, I only wanted to hopefully start a conversation about what each of our water sources contain and how to properly remove them on a case by case basis.
I would not have known GFO would bind chlorate for a time. So, I learned something.

An RO/di is always sufficient. I don’t think anyone needs to look more closely unless they are trying to use some other method instead, or they are just curious.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Would a properly working RODI unit remove copper ? Just curious because here in South Florida most all in house water pipes are copper . Thanks !!

yes. There is no drinkable water that a properly functioning ro/di won’t make suitable for a reef tank.

 

[Righteous]

@Randy Holmes-Farley Any feedback for those with high Chlorate levels? I found a paper that seems to indicate levels in the ppb can kill algae thru the replacement of nitrate uptake. Best I could determine was GAC could bind it to some degree, but it seems like it makes it through RO/DI.

paper for reference:

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2007/3385/pubs/25chlorate.pdf