More on that tap water study
We blogged briefly on Monday morning about a new study that gives Portland's water a medicore grade for purity. Today The New York Times is all over that study. Portland's results are set out here.
Meanwhile, the city's army of spin doctors have their own take on the study, and it is here. Skoal!
And in case you missed it while we were begging for money last night, we commented here on the latest developments in Portland's recent E. coli flap.
| Posted at 8:09 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (7)
Sarah Bott, from the chart of samples taken and tests made from samples, is there an explanation why samples taken has gone up about 10% but the tests made from samples has gone down 10% when population has stayed about the same in the past seven years?
Posted by lw | December 17, 2009 10:13 AM
lw,
I will ask the Water Quality folks and get back to you.
If anyone has specific questions and wants me to get answers expeditiously, please email me at sbott@water.ci.portland.or.us
-Sarah Bott
Posted by Sarah Bott | December 17, 2009 10:17 AM
lw,
Here's what the folks in Water Quality said:
"It should be restated that the table posted in the [water] blog is an approximation of the total tests. This only represents water quality testing performed by the Portland Water Bureau Laboratory. PWB laboratory does most of the day-to-day testing. Specialized testing that is done infrequently is done by specialized laboratories. A summary of the types of monitoring performed by PWB are shown in the attached spreadsheet. [to get the spreadsheet, you need to email me so I can email it to you.]
As you can see there are many distinct monitoring programs that have differ rent objectives. All of these evolve over time. One change that may have a relatively large impact on the statistical summary is changes in the frequency of long list monitoring at of the each groundwater wells. We have focused more monitoring at the combined outlet that enters the system, and less at individual wells before treatment. Long list monitoring at the individual wells before treatment is now performed once yearly, although this is not required by regulation."
--Sarah
Posted by Sarah Bott | December 17, 2009 11:02 AM
Well as long as they're not putting any FLUORIDE in the water, that's all right then.
Purity of Essence, dontchaknow.
Posted by steve | December 17, 2009 11:58 AM
Sarah Bott, thank you for the reply. I must say that the PWB's reply doesn't answer my question. Does it for you? I didn't think I asked a complicated question.
Posted by lw | December 17, 2009 1:24 PM
I think it's easy to blame the Water Bureau for water issues, but how about holding the companies, industries, and individuals accountable for their pollution?
Not all of Portland's water comes from the Bull Run watershed, and it does draw water from underground sources:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story_2nd.php?story_id=126073093666882100
People need to realize, that what you put in the ground eventually leads to the water. It's not the complicated, but people routinely flout common environmental knowledge by thinking that it's okay to dump oil and what not down a storm drain because they *think* that water gets treated -- when in fact in many municipalities it leads straight to an actual water body without being treated or broken down.
Posted by ws | December 17, 2009 3:05 PM
Problem solved with big pipe - gather your motor oil and dump-away!
Posted by Bilbo | December 17, 2009 3:36 PM