That's right. The city officials deliberately, and with malice aforethought, added "cancer-causing chemicals" to the city's water supply.
Officials experimented on the water with a new added chemical to aid in removing sediment, silt, and other impurities in the water supply: aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH). It was due to replace the chemical known as ALUM that was regularly used to take the larger particles out of river water to treat it. Both chemicals weigh down the sediment to make it easily removable.So let's get a little perspective on this.
However, the addition of ACH to the city’s water supply wound up being ineffective as a treatment — so an excessive quantity of chlorine was added to the water, as well.
An astonishing failure, the combination of excess chlorine and aluminum chlorohydrate ended up yielding carcinogenic toxins known as “DBPs” — disinfection byproducts. Specifically, these are in the class of chemicals known as THMs, or Trihalomethanes.
According to Water Research, THMs are in the same chemical class as chloroform; and, although this water experiment ended about a year ago, the THMs remain in Sacramento’s water supply in levels that exceed EPA regulations. Several readings of THM levels provided to ABC10 exceeded 80 parts per billion, the EPA limit.
Eighty parts per billion is approximately one golf ball in a swimming pool of water that's six feet deep, sixty feet wide, and a hundred feet long.
Eighty PPB is approximately 37.5 micrograms per pint.
What the article does not say: how much of this stuff is a toxic dose? What's its bioavailability? What's its half-life in the human body? How long has the EPA had the limit at 80 ppb? What was the limit before that? Why did it change?
In other words, this article is nothing but scare mongering, if the headline didn't make that obvious.
* * *
More scare mongering: "Persian Gulf temperatures may be at the edge of human tolerance in 30 years." This headline could just as easily say, "Persian Gulf temperatures may NOT be at the edge of human tolerance in 30 years." Both versions are semantically equivalent.
It's more global warming nonsense, of course, predicated on faulty models and invented data. "Computer models" say that we're all doomed. The same computer models which, given historical conditions, have never replicated current conditions, and which have been repeatedly demonstrated to have absolutely zero predictive capacity.
* * *
My Thursday is done, and not a minute too soon. One workday left before my weekend. Hoody hoo.