Support NeoGAF

[Brinbe]

18052
Hooray only two

lol'd at

This utility detected Radium-228 & Uranium.
Radiological contaminants leach into water from certain minerals and from mining. Drinking water contamination with radioactive substances increases the risk of cancer and may harm fetal development.

 

[Aaronology]

Well. Shit. I guess I'm already dead.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Every place I've ever lived gave me cancer, apparently.

Yup. 7 different kinds for us

 

[SchrodingerC]

Let me guess, I'm drinking cancer.

Basically.

I'm drinking about 4 different kinds of cancer.

 

[The Dink]

Wow.

There sure are a lot of people getting tricked by a water filter salesman in this thread.

Cool now foodbabers can read this site, then die off naturally after they swear off drinking water after deliberately not understanding the info provided.

Pretty much this. Come on guys, don't be so gullible.

 

[Xe4]

Cancer x4. To be fair, there is very little that doesn't give you cancer. I'm not worried.

 

[Wisker]

Chlorite
change in blood chemistry

Chromium (hexavalent)
cancer

Perfluorinated chemicals
harm to the immune system and changes in mammary gland development

Radiological contaminants
cancer

Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
cancer

Hormones
----------------------------
Change in blood chemistry? Does this mean I can become an X-Men?

 

[Eggiem]

Come to Germany. We have (healthy) tap water. Maybe the best in the world. If thats not enough for you, try our covfefe. Its great too. The best. Only with clean tab water, you can make America great again!
DRAIN THE SWAMP!

 

[Version 3.0]

Change in blood chemistry? Does this mean I can become an X-Men?

No, silly. X-Men are mutants born with their mutation.

You can be an Avenger.

 

[Princess Carl]

SLC got good water. Tap drinkers represent.

 

[SlaughterX]

Holy shit... I thought Kalamazoo had bad water... but the water here in Bloomington is actually worse, even though it doesn't look like it (Kalamazoo water was hard as shit, and there is a lot of silt left over after boiling water).

 

[Sir Doom]

Time to switch to ORGANIC non-GMO Detox Water

 

[Dreams-Visions]

seems like it could be worse?

can water filters filter this stuff out?

 

[TissueBox]

*checks zipcode*

...well that's comforting.

 

[zer0das]

This is surprisingly useful. Being able to compare locations was usually a pain in the booty since you had to do it manually, and that took a lot of time.

I've actually been trying to figure out ways to get students to care more about putting their waste in the proper place, because I get the general impression they're doing stuff they shouldn't be (can't watch them 24/7, it just isn't realistic- have to get them to care about it intrinsitically). Now you can just input a zipcode of a major research university and go oh, their chloroform levels are quite elevated. And then see how elevated the chloroform level is relative to what you would expect based on the size of their programs.

Although most the chloroform levels are way below the 0.07 mg/L regulatory limit, so meh. Still, can't hurt to be more scrupulous. I do wish they would list the EPA regulatory levels too, because it would put things into a better context.

 

[poodaddy]

Today I learned that I drink water with 7 different cancer causing compounds in it daily.

Cool.

 

[Ultryx]

... And I wish I never read this...

 

[The Dink]

Guys...come on. It's right in the OP.

A disclaimer from a poster:

FYI, this should be added to OP:

First, I should disclose that I work in the Water Quality department of a major California water company so I am literally defending myself here but this site seems to be tracking your water quality versus the Public Health Goal (PHG), which is intended to be an ambitious goal that is often below the detection limit in the laboratory (meaning there isn't a laboratory method that measures that low). I just did a quick glance to confirm that the numbers on the website do match what you'd find in the publicly available Consumer Confidence Report but just comparing against the PHG and not the legal limits seems to be confusing for the consumer.....

What you should actually be worried about is if you water quality is above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) which does not seem to be listed on this site. While the PHG is the level at which they can confirm that there is no health risk at all, the MCL is tje limit at which if you drink that water everyday for 80 years then you have about a 1 in a million chance of developing cancer from it. The MCL is also the limit that is enforceable.

And for the poster that mentioned being safe due to having a well, unfortunately that's going to have worse water quality due to not being treated, tested, etc. We get almost all our water from wells and it's usually pretty nasty in its raw form.

:

You are not getting cancer from your water people.

 

[Dark Stalkers]

6 different cancerous contaminants for me! Yahooooo!

 

[A.J.]

Bromodichloromethane
cancer

Chloroform
cancer

Dibromochloromethane
cancer

Dichloroacetic acid
cancer

Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
cancer

Trichloroacetic acid
cancer

6 isn't too bad I guess?

 

[Nose Master]

9/13. Rip

 

[hey_monkey]

Guys...come on. It's right in the OP.


You are not getting cancer from your water people.

Pretty sure most of us are being tongue in cheek when we're all OH HEY ONLY SIX CANCERS COOL

 

[Wag]

https://knowyourwater.pur.com/

This site does the same thing but is more specific based on address. I get my water from a well (unlike the rest of my town) and it shows that.

 

[Linkura]

Surprise, surprise: This is bullshit.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-that-viral-drinking-water-database-scare-you

But is all the drinking water in the United States causing cancer? Of course it's not that simple. In the US, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Because it found these lacking, the EWG based its analysis partially on its own standards.

"When official guidelines are not available or are insufficient to protect public health, we developed our own health benchmarks using publicly available scientific research," reads EWG's data sources and methodology page.

Similarly, on its its "EWG Standards" page, the organization notes the standards were devised using "the best and latest scientific evidence," but does not link to or mention any specific scientific studies it used. On the methodology page, EWG also notes that it relied on EPA standards, California public health goals, and an assessment from the Minnesota Department of Health.

A spokesperson from the EWG said in an email that it got the figure from a 2010 draft California Office of Environmental Health Hazard assessment, which indicated 1 ppb of chloroform is low enough for a "one-in-a-million" lifetime risk of cancer. In other words, there is some basis for choosing a number so low, but EWG cherry-picked the lowest health guideline it could find even though the document was never finalized.

"Some people look at this and say you're causing alarm or scaring people," Bill Walker, the EWG's vice president and managing editor told me over the phone. "Well we think people are smart enough to take in information and act on it intelligently."