Which is dirty: The water or the study?

Posted on | December 20, 2009 | 2 Comments

kpNYQzOne of the recurrent themes in today’s round-up of the news highlights of the week carries troubling contradictions. Two reporters who do exemplary jobs covering their local water beats, Staci Matlock of the Santa Fe New Mexican and Janet Zimmerman of the Riverside Press-Enterprise, quote local water managers saying that their water quality tests do not jibe with the ratings reported on December 12th by the Environmental Working Group, which were then later widely broadcast by the news media.

In the case of Riverside, the water authority contends that the group ranked the city based on tests of untreated groundwater. Santa Fe is still investigating what its water department sees as a discrepancy. Once shot out of a cannon into the press, even subjects as important as municipal water quality rarely get the follow-up that they deserve. This post-script to The week that was, 12/13-19/2009 is to urge newspapers that reported the Environmental Working Group assessment unquestioningly, or that just as uncritically accept their water authority’s figures, to cross-check the data behind their local rankings. Then, whether the news is good or bad, proceed to make sure that the water quality information reported for your city is accurate.

In the case of Santa Fe and Riverside, all we know now is that it’s clear as mud.

UPDATE: On December 20th, the Los Angeles Daily News joined the Riverside Press-Enterprise and Santa Fe New Mexican carrying utility responses questioning the accuracy of the Working Group’s results. Here is the link to that story, along with the response of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. An earlier report from December 12th in the Los Angeles Times also carries responses from Riverside utilities saying that the water sampled by the Working Group was “raw,” meaning untreated.

This post has been updated. The headline was edited the day of publication and additional links were added on 12/27/2009

Comments

2 Responses to “Which is dirty: The water or the study?”

  1. Wayne Lusvardi
    December 21st, 2009 @ 11:19 am

    Ah yes, the Environmental Working Group. The same bunch of hoodwinkers that have manufactured the perchlorate scare with rigged studies of perchlorate in mother’s milk (after feeding the mothers kelp which is naturally full of perchlorate).

    Did you know that perchlorate can be inadvertently manufactured in municipal water tanks from chlorinated water that is exposed to electrostatic charges from pumping? No, because the Environmental Working Group won’t tell you that.

    Did you know that carbohydrate in the diet, such as lactose is cow’s milk, can neutralize perchlorate (according to Dr. Brahama D. Sharma, PhD chemistry)? No. for the same reason.

    Did you know that perchlorate can be neutralized by injecting carbohydrates into the ground, such as molasses or corn syrup? No, for the same reason.

    Did you know that any threat of perchlorate to the growth and development of children can be alleviated by cheaply and simply adding iodine to table salt? No, the EWG won’t tell you that either.

    Did you know that San Gabriel Water Authority has spent $1 billion, much of it shaken down from corporations, to clean up perchlorate from groundwater only to find that they can’t put the clean drinking water back into the water basin because the perchlorate removal process produces selenium as a by-product which is dangerous to fish and microscopic organisms? Perchlorate cleanups are manufacturing Kesterson Reservoirs full of selenium which can not be discharged back into the natural environment. Nope, the Environmental Working Group won’t tell you any of this.

  2. Zack
    December 28th, 2009 @ 8:40 am

    Yes this EWG group is dubious at best. They tried to claim water in Riverside, CA was dirty, but it’s not. Our local news took them to task and they hung up mid interview.

    http://www.instantriverside.com/riverside-ca-news/environmental-working-group-riverside-drinking-water/2009/12/15/

Leave a Reply





  • After the lawn


  • As you were saying: Comments

  • As I was saying: Recent posts

  • Garden blogs


  • Chance of Rain on Twitter

  • Contact

    Emily Green by e-mail at emily.green [at] mac.com
  • Categories