Aquaponics Digest - Tue 06/26/01
Message 1: RE: super oxygenated water
from "Mark Allen Wells"
Message 2: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Sun 06/24/01
from "gutierrez-lagatta"
Message 3: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Sun 06/24/01
from "Arlos"
| Message 1
Subject: RE: super oxygenated water
From: "Mark Allen Wells"
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:32:21 -0500
Ted,
I just wanted you to know that I am not one of the
"pampered citizens of high tech industrial societies
.".
I think my whole meaning in my post was somewhat
misunderstood. I am thankful for having worked in the water
and wastewater field. I learned a lot. But just because our
average municipal drinking water is better than some third
world countries doesn't mean that it is healthy or as an individual,
I should not try to improve upon it for myself and my family
if I have the technology and means to do so. I wasn't suggesting
that all municipal water should be treated with RO. I am well aware
that only about 5% of municipal water goes for human comsumption.
This would be impractical as well as expensive. I was speaking from
my own experience and perspective.
When I was an operator, I became curious about the sodium
fluorosilicate being added to the water and researched it quite heavily.
Everything from the history of fluoridation, to where it
comes from. I was very upset by what I found. It's an industrial
poison
.a wasteproduct of the superphosphate fertilizer industry.
>From their scrubber stacks
direct to your tap!
It is nowhere near a pharmaceutical grade supplement and
contains trace elements of many other toxins. The solid
scientific toxicology data and cancer research could fill a library.
The American Water Works Association still supports it even
though it has been linked to bone cancer, soft tissue cancers,
hip fractures, etc
The politics, lies, deception, greed
that has allowed this to go on is disgusting. I'm sorry but I just
can't give them a pat on the back for a job well done.
In addition to this, the high amounts of calcium carbonate in many
municipal systems contribute to kidney stones and other problems.
While chlorine may have been the right choice years ago, it isn't today
and has it own problems. Some years back when Milwaukee Wis.
had a Cryptosporidium outbreak that killed over a hundred people
they called in experts from everywhere and wound up building
a new ozone plant. Chlorine won't kill it effectively. Chlorine
causes gastrointestinal problems for many and other problems. Ozone
does not produce Trihalomethanes either. At the moment, it does
me no good that AWWA is looking at other disinfection methods.
Someday maybe
.today no
so today, I remove it.
We have the highest cancer rates in the industrialized world. My family
has had it's share. While I can't control everything, I can
control water quality to an extent
.so I do. And since we
are nearly 80% water that seems like a good thing. I don't expect
our waterworks to produce high quality drinking water when 95%
of it will be used for other purposes.
Yes, our waterworks infrastructure and the people who made it
have contributed greatly to our standard of living and I am proud
to have been part of it. But as an individual, I can improve the
quality of my family's drinking water considerably
at an acceptable cost. Doing so hardly means one is pampered
or unappreciative. It simply means they have learned how to
improve upon yesterday to make today better. Should I not do this
because a family in Mexico can't? Municipal water is hardly the water
that Arlos says we as a species have done well on for millions of years.
We change it. I simply try to undo the negative aspects of
that change without waiting on my waterworks to do it for me. The
technology for the individual is already here.
Sincerely,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: aquaponics-request 'at' townsqr.com
[mailto:aquaponics-request 'at' townsqr.com]On Behalf Of TGTX
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 6:39 PM
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Subject: Re: super oxygenated water
> Mark,
> Not to start a string of dissent here but the entire planet at sea level
> has essentially the same percent of oxygen in the atmosphere. Polluting
> autos not withstanding.
True. Thank you.
> As an operator you should know that chlorine is cheap and has for the
most
> part separated us from the third world. We as a species have bode well on
> the water this planet has provided for millions of years dissolved
minerals
> and all. If you read the AWWA journals you know also there are changes
> taking place in disinfection methods. Chlorine and fluoride are indeed
> abundant, ozone is expensive and has little trace due to a short life.
> Reverse osmosis in this country has yet to find broad usage and is still
> expensive. ]
Trends may change that shortly (within 5-20 years), but, yeah
.True. Thank
you.
>By products of disinfection do have their drawbacks but in terms
> of the learning curve historically we are engaging newer environmentally
> friendly technologies that will have shown chlorine was the correct method
> due to its ease of producing (I've installed enough EDR equipment to
produce
> chlorine from sea water at desalination plants world wide to know). Spend
> enough time in other countries and one finds its greener on the other side
> and not in ways you'd care to experience. I for one am happy with tap
water
> in general in the U.S.and the infrastructure that has provided it. We
have
> an amazingly high quality of life over all due to clean water in this
> country. Thanks to everyone from plumbers and pipefitters to engineers and
> operators and lab rats (the ones in the white coats). As an operator,
you're
> part of that and should have a certain amount of pride in protecting the
> health of the nation.
>
> Arlos
Thank you, Arlos. You are saying it aint perfect, but it aint all that bad
compared with what it could be like
and you have reality to back you up
to compare what it could be like
a comparison that many of us pampered
citizens of high tech industrial societies are mostly unaware of, or
unappriciative of, on a day to day basis
Thank you.
Ted
| Message 2
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Sun 06/24/01
From: "gutierrez-lagatta"
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 04:13:10 -0500
Steve and David,
Where you buy your scale depends on what you need it for. If you will
be using it to price product sold by weight you will need one which is
certified as "legal for trade". I don't think the office supply store
ones are.
> Steve, check out the 'postal' scales at Office Max or Office Depot.
I got a
> digital scale there a few years ago that would weigh up to about 5
lb or
> 2Kilo,cost <$100.
Adriana
| Message 3
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Sun 06/24/01
From: "Arlos"
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:22:16 -0700
To add a note about commercial scales. They must have a "Dept of Weights and
Measures" certification on them through the county you live in (U.S). No
getting around this one.
-----Original Message-----
From: gutierrez-lagatta
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Sun 06/24/01
>Steve and David,
>Where you buy your scale depends on what you need it for. If you will
>be using it to price product sold by weight you will need one which is
>certified as "legal for trade". I don't think the office supply store
>ones are.
>> Steve, check out the 'postal' scales at Office Max or Office Depot.
>I got a
>> digital scale there a few years ago that would weigh up to about 5
>lb or
>> 2Kilo,cost <$100.
>
>Adriana
>
>
|
