[Dioxin-l] Re: Poor efficacy of residual chlorine in drinking water distribution systems

[pat.costner@dialb.greenpeace.org]

Dear Ms. Hansson,

In your message of Jan. 7,  you stated, "You only need chlorine for 
residual water treatment."  

In response to your statement, I presented the major conclusions as 
well as the abstract of a recent Canadian study [Payment, P. 1999. 
Poor efficacy of residual chlorine disinfectant in drinking water to 
inactivate waterborne pathogens in distribution systems. Can J 
Microbiol 45(10):709-15   :

    "... the maintenance of a free residual concentration in a
    distribution system does not provide a significant inactivation
    of pathogens, could even mask events of contamination of the
    distribution, and thus would provide only a false sense of
    safety with little active protection of public health." 

On Jan. 8, you responded as follows (emphasis added):

   "What you wrote is too general for me to know anything about,
    and I don't know how difficult this reingineering you talked
    about would be but it sounds major.  What I do know is that
    politics and perceptions are what drives the chlorine debate,
    and that Greenpeace etal could make some big steps forward if
    they would give in on things like this. After all, what
    is most important is that people perceive environmental  advocates 
    as  crediable and reasonable."

Perhaps I misunderstand, but are you saying that Greenpeace and 
other public interest groups should ignore valid scientific findings?  
If so, that would seem to preclude our being perceived as either 
credible or reasonable, don't you agree?

You go on to say, in your message of Jan. 8, 

    "It is easy for industry to grab on to the fact  that
    environmental groups are so unreasonable that they don't even
    want to use chlorine for residual water treatment and to make
    them look like fanatics. Industry would have lots less to say
    about environmental advocates if they would give in on these two
    points."

The fundamental issue is not whether or not we want chlorine to be 
used for residual water treatment.  It is that we want drinking 
water that is free of pathogens and toxic chemical 
contaminants.   I trust that you will agree that this is an entirely 
reasonable need, not a fanatical desire.  The Canadian study 
demonstrates that residual chlorine does not achieve pathogen-
free water and, based on numerous other studies, the treatment of 
water with chlorine generates toxic chemical contaminants.  

Pat Costner

On 8 Jan 00, at 12:14, superjicb wrote:
Re: Poor efficacy of residual chlorine in drinkin

> Pat,
> 
> What you wrote is too general for me to know anything about, and I don't
> know how difficult this reingineering you talked about would be but it
> sounds major.  What I do know is that politics and perceptions are what
> drives the chlorine debate, and that Greenpeace etal could make some big
> steps forward if they would give in on things like this. After all, what
> is most important is that people perceive environmental advocates as
> crediable and reasonable.  It is easy for industry to grab on to the fact
> that environmental groups are so unreasonable that they don't even want to
> use chlorine for residual water treatment and to make them look like
> fanatics. Industry would have lots less to say about environmental
> advocates if they would give in on these two points.
> 
> Connie Hansson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pat Costner
Greenpeace
P.O. Box 548
 or 512 County Road 2663
Eureka Springs, Arkansas 72632
ph: 1 501 253 8440
fx: 1 501 253 5540
em: pat.costner@dialb.greenpeace.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~