Items on the third list include things like personal health care products, prescription medications, over the counter medications, herbicides, pesticides, and other compounds that mankind has added to the products it uses on a daily basis.

Why have we not noticed some of these contaminants previously?  Quite simply, advances in analytical techniques and its associated instrumentation has made it possible for scientists to detect them.

Should we worry about emerging contaminants?  We should certainly keep an eye on their levels and monitor their effects on people, that's for sure!

Remember:  In the not-too-distant past compounds like asbestos, lead, mercury, arsenic, and thousands of man-made chemicals got used all around the world without so much as a single person batting an eye or questioning their safety for the general public.

Thank you, Margo, for your inquiry and you raise a very good question: Can you trust the quality of your tap water since the EPA regulates its quality?

The EPA only regulates and forces water treatment facilities to test for a select number of potential drinking water contaminants… that have already shown to modern science, beyond the shadow of a doubt, their harmful nature if consumed in drinking water.

The EPA adds new chemicals and contaminants (some which occur naturally in our environment, believe it or not) as scientific methods of analysis get better and mankind learns more about the harmful effects of chemicals, toxins, and pollutants it has directly or indirectly added to the environment.

Years ago we did not have advanced spectrometers to analyze water down to parts per billion levels for chemicals and compounds that we could not taste, smell, or feel — so we didn’t KNOW some of the compounds the EPA now regulates heavily even existed.

Additionally, some of the contaminants the EPA recently discovered in our water supplies and started to regulate, like the growing number of VOC’s (volatile organic contaminants), didn’t have names in the past because the industrial processes that create them did not, yet, exist… and in the short time that we have known about them we have not, yet, had enough time fully understand the long and short term health effects caused by exposure to them.

When it comes to water quality, Margo, mankind put itself on the wrong side of the learning curve and now spends an enormous amount of time learning how to correct the environmental evils that our lust for ‘bigger, better, faster, more’, usually derived from the latest technological or chemical breakthrough, has created.

We blindly reap the benefits afforded us by the newest and most convenient products on the market without ever considering the downside to them. Good example: While bottled water may not (usually!) contain undesirable compounds like DBP’s (disinfection byproducts), our early use of bottled water products caused landfills to grow in size much faster than their designers anticipated.

Granted now most people do recycle their bottles, but we had to first learn from our mistake before we could do anything about it. The same principle applies to all the chemicals and pharmaceuticals we create on a daily basis.

Moral of the story?

We will choose not to trust in a bureaucratic, behind the times, often backwards thinking, politically motivated organization’s rules to keep our water safe and clean. The EPA and other organizations who strive to keep drinking water safe may mean well, but their reach can only extend so far and cannot keep up with the blistering pace of today’s technological innovations.

Oh, and one more thing before we go: Water treatment plants, like everyone else these days, have limited budgets and the EPA knows this. Therefore we can only assume that the EPA prioritizes the contaminants it makes them test for into a list with limited spots… and that means some contaminant levels that ought to get checked will not get checked because they didn’t make the list.

So should you worry about the quality of your water, Margo? That’s entirely up to you.

Today’s inquiry came to us from ‘Ric C’ who asked a very wise question about a water filtration unit he may wish to purchase (HomePure AP-0930):

Hi
Am dealing with a product that has an NSF certification, and below is the address;

http://www.nsf.com/Certified/DWTU/Listings.asp?TradeName=homepure&Standard=&ProductType=&PlantState=&PlantCountry=&PlantRegion=&submit3=SEARCH&hdModlStd=ModlStd

Does this mean the product is good?

Quite honestly, we have never seen the HomePure AP-0930 before but as we said previously, the marketplace has a ton of water filtration units out there and we seriously doubt that anyone could know the in’s and out’s of every single water filtration unit currently available for purchase.

With that said, we looked at the NSF credentials supplied by Ric and saw that this unit has tested and certified to NSF/ANSI STANDARD 042 (Drinking Water Treatment Units – Aesthetic Effects) for the reduction of chlorine taste and odor as well as NSF/ANSI STANDARD 053 (Drinking Water Treatment Units – Health Effects) for the reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOC’s).

While having NSF Certification does give the HomePure AP-0930 a bit of credibility, please keep in mind that not every water filter will work in every application — even with NSF, WQA, etc. certifications to back up its capabilities.

Think of it this way: A high quality hammer won’t do you a bit of good when you need to turn a screw.

Testing your water first?

Yes! Do it! Test your drinking water before spending money on a water filter!

Before investing in a water filter for your home or office make sure you test your water for as wide a range of potential contaminants as possible. Doing so could save you the expense and aggravation associated with installing a filter that addresses the wrong water quality issues.

Anything specific about the HomePure AP-0930 catch your eye?

We like the fact that the HomePure AP-0930 has NSF certifications. As we said before, it means the unit certainly has some credibility.

One thing we did not like about the unit dealt w/ it inability to filter out heavy metals such as lead, copper, iron, chromium, etc. In our opinion a well-rounded, general purpose water filter would also have the ability to remove/reduce levels of heavy metals in drinking water.

Older homes most likely contain metal piping and the majority of public water systems contain metal pipes, as well. “But, we live a newly constructed home.” Does not matter (in our opinion). Newer homes, while mostly containing PVC or some other type of plastic piping, still get connected to public water systems that contain miles and miles of metal pipes.

Depending upon the quality of the water when it leaves the water treatment plant, it has the opportunity to pick up anywhere from traces of metals to noticeable levels of metals as it travels through those miles of metal pipes to homes and offices on the water system.

Interesting fact: The literature for the HomePure AP-0930 water filter system did mention metals and say that metals in water may cause problems, but the HomePure AP-0930 does not remove/reduce metals.

Replacement filters for the HomePure AP-0930?

According to the NSF web site, the HomePure AP-0930 uses a replacement filter element with model number “AP-0931”. A quick search on two popular online water filter web sites (FilterWater.Com, FiltersFast.Com) and a Google search yielded no locations where a person could purchase replacement filters.

Not a particularly good sign! What happens in 3 months or a year when the original filter kicks the bucket?

Moral of the story?

Not all water filter systems are created equal and even though some bear seals of certification and/or endorsement from well-known, reputable organizations such as NSF or WQA, not every one of those ‘certified’ products will clean up every possible water quality condition.

So, test your water to see what problems/issues it may have and THEN set about the task of locating the correct water quality improvement device for your water.

Look for products that bear the NSF and/or WQA logos, but do not assume the logo automatically means that a particular device will do what you need it to do.

Oh, and one last thing: Check to make sure you can easily acquire replacement filters for any water filter you consider buying.

Seemed odd at first (several years ago), but after getting asked the same thing so many times we eventually came to the conclusion that a good number of people really and truly don’t know what questions they ought to have about the quality of their drinking water.

Therefore, for your reading pleasure we will now give a list of the 10 most popular topics on Water Testing Blog for the month of August (2011):

1. Free Chlorine, Total Chlorine and Combined Chlorine
    
2. Testing for Fluoride in Water
    
3. Converting Hardness: Grains per Gallon to Parts per Million
    
4. What is DPD?
    
5. Chlorine Testing: Drinking Water vs. Pool Water
    
6. Simple Chlorine Testing Meter
    
7. Dirty Pool Water Can Make You Very Sick
    
8. Testing for Chlorine in Drinking Water
    
9. Lead in Soil
    
10. Private Well Water and Natural Gas Drilling

In no way does the above list begin to scratch the surface of what curious folks read on our site, but it may help you decide what questions YOU want answered… and if you come up with a question or topic you’d like us to address, send it to us using our submit a comment/question form.

It did, however, kind of shock us that hydraulic fracturing (aka: fracking), a means of extracting natural gas from shale buried deep beneath the Earth’s surface, came in so low on the list given the amount of (bad) publicity hydraulic fracturing has received in the past few years.

We also found it somewhat odd that bacteria in water did not make a single appearance in the list but then again, most folks in the United States have city/municipal water and make the assumption that city/municipal water couldn’t ever contain something as common as bacteria — and that, friends, can sometimes become a dangerous assumption to make!

Looking for a way to lower the amount of free chlorine and chloramines in the water you use in the garden… but don’t want the hassle of installing a complicated water filter?

If so, then we suggest you consider the Green Knight Hydroponic Dechlorinating Filter.

Functioning as an easily installed inline filter, the Green Knight screws right onto the average 3/4″ garden hose and promotes healthy plant growth by effectively reducing and/or removing potentially harmful chlorine from the water and also contains quartz crystals which aid plants’ absorption of vital nutrients.

Rainshow’r Green Knight uses a polyester pre-filter to catch sediment and then allows water to pass through 2 pounds of specially blended KDF55, 2 ounces of quartz crystal, and a final polishing stage which contains KDF73 filament media.

This product also comes with a sturdy 3-foot vinyl hose so that people can reap the benefits of the chlorine filter near the spigot/faucet w/o having to wrestle with a full-length garden hose. This works out well for rinsing off metal tools, washing mud off of dogs, etc.

Oh, and we learned something new while researching this product: People have found that reducing chlorine levels in rinse and wash water can greatly extend the life and luster of organic carnuba wax jobs on cars, boats, RV’s, etc.

Specific product details of the Rainshow’r Green Knight:

• Testing has shown that the unit removes 85% – 90% of Free Available Chlorine (FAC)
   
• Testing has shown that the unit also reduces chloramine concentrations by 65% – 75%
   
• Life expectancy: 30,000 gallons of source water assuming ‘average’ chlorine concentrations
   
• Suggested flow rate: Approximately 2 ppm
   
• Temperature rating: From 40F up to 110F
   
• Maximum pressure rating: 100 psi
   
• Freezing will cause irreparable damage to the unit, as will not running water through the unit at least twice a month after its first use.
   

Will the Rainshow’r Green Knight work as a drinking water filter?

Rainshow’r, the manufacturer of Green Knight Hydroponic Dechlorinating Filter designed this product for use in the garden and for outdoor applications, not for use a device to make water potable.

It lacks sufficient filter media capable of removing particulate matter and other contaminants such as organic chemicals, heavy metals (lead, iron, copper, mercury, etc.) and bacteria from source water.

Just before Memorial Day last year, tests showed high E. coli levels at Lake of the Ozarks. Those results weren’t made public until after a second round of testing showed bacteria levels had dropped.

The fallout for tourism and health was limited. Not so the political consequences for Gov. Jay Nixon.

Since last fall, a state Senate committee chaired by Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah, has held hearings into the testing failure.

It has produced useful information, most notably news that other tests showed hexavalent chromium, a heavy metal linked to cancer, in drinking water in Hannibal and Louisiana.

But the committee — indeed, the entire Legislature — is avoiding a much larger and more difficult issue: Clean water.

Missouri’s system for ensuring water quality and safety is broken and about to go bankrupt.

It’s not broken only at Lake of the Ozarks, Hannibal and Louisiana; it’s broken everywhere. ( source )

Sounds like some serious work needs to get done in that state, but where will the money come from? Clearly it sounds like a time when those responsible for polluting the water in that state (and others) step up and pay for the damage they have done in the form of fines, financial penalties and and so forth.

Yep. That SOUNDS like a good idea, but…

Each year, the state Department of Natural Resources tests water at about 350 sites; many are tested more than once.

Most of the money for those tests comes from fees on permits taken out by companies that discharge pollutants into lakes and rivers.

The fees haven’t been raised in a decade, but the cost of testing continues to rise. In 2005, lawmakers established a task force to make recommendations about the issue. It never met.

In 2007, with fees scheduled to expire, lawmakers set up another task force.

It recommended a 35 percent fee increase, with future hikes for inflation. But nothing happened until last year, when the fees were extended at their old rate for another year.

Most observers expect lawmakers to extend the fees without hiking them in the current session.

That means polluters still won’t pay their fair share of the cost for testing, and citizens still won’t be adequately protected.

If lawmakers fail to act, the testing program will be broke by July and gone entirely next year. ( source )

Ouch. So the burden to testing the water in Missouri will fall onto the shoulders of… the taxpayers, and ironically, the same people affected by the polluted water. This assumes, of course, that lawmakers will not allow the water quality testing program to (pardon the pun) wash away entirely.

Articles like this do nothing if not reinforce the notion that when it comes to guaranteeing the quality and safety of the water you drink, bathe in, swim in and use for other everyday purposes including watering your lawn and making sure the family dog or cat has something cool to drink, no one has your best interests at heart… unless you take an interest in the quality of the water yourself.

Sorry, but the days of someone else making sure your tap and well water won’t make you sick ended a long time ago. So we all pretty much have only one option right now: pay qualified water testing professionals to perform a full battery of tests every once in a while AND perform simpler drinking water tests ourselves between laboratory tests.

Otherwise we run the risk of falling through the cracks of an outdated, undermanned, soon to be bankrupt water management system.