.
’
«
—
.
"
'
".“
. ,
.:
-—
,.
«
H
\
rr‘a
ää‘
-—
-
à2Êtäw“
..
.
‘ai… ”' ‘"…g_î.!……
“««: ,-,—,…,?.… \\‘-“
w.
....rw...
". ..;.
”!
<
_,—)““g__æï*;æv_
.
s t
.
-
:
;Ë
.
"
‘
_
'
—
‘
recommended limits and 16 percent exceeded certain mandatory limits. More
than half the water treatment facilities examined had one or more major op—
erating deciencies. These included inadequate equipment or personnel to
deal with disinfection, clarication (the removal of suspended particles), and
the maintenance of proper pressure to ensure delivery of water.
'
Chemical Contamination
Appendix Table 2 summarizes the results of the PHS survey study of water in
969 communities. Sampling for chemical constituents in the study revealed
that both the recommended and the mandatory limits for a number of chem—
icals were exceeded. Samples were collected from two or more points in each
water supply distribution system and the results were then averaged. The
PHS limits which were exceeded appear [3].
But the numbers in the table are average gures. What each family really
wants to know is: What is coming out of our tap? Of course, it was impossible
to individually Sample the water supplies of 18 million people, but 2595 sam-‘
‘
ples were taken directly from consumer taps and 86 percent of these con—‘
tained at least one contaminant inan amount exceeding drinking water gstand—
«
ards. By applying a factor for population equivalency, it was estimatedthat
2.9 million of the 18 million people surveyed were receiving,$übStàndardfwa—
ter. The heavy metals arsenic,iron, maganese, cadmium, and lead were
found
in some individual samples at concentrations exceeding the rec0mmended or
mandatorylimit—by ten times or. more. Bacterial contamination asmeasured
-
.
.
-
‘
'
_
MQ .
l
H
‘
l
\\
.
......
.
’
«
—
.
"
'
".“
. ,
.:
-—
,.
«
H
\
rr‘a
ää‘
-—
-
à2Êtäw“
..
.
‘ai… ”' ‘"…g_î.!……
“««: ,-,—,…,?.… \\‘-“
w.
....rw...
". ..;.
”!
<
_,—)““g__æï*;æv_
.
s t
.
-
:
;Ë
.
"
‘
_
'
—
‘
recommended limits and 16 percent exceeded certain mandatory limits. More
than half the water treatment facilities examined had one or more major op—
erating deciencies. These included inadequate equipment or personnel to
deal with disinfection, clarication (the removal of suspended particles), and
the maintenance of proper pressure to ensure delivery of water.
'
Chemical Contamination
Appendix Table 2 summarizes the results of the PHS survey study of water in
969 communities. Sampling for chemical constituents in the study revealed
that both the recommended and the mandatory limits for a number of chem—
icals were exceeded. Samples were collected from two or more points in each
water supply distribution system and the results were then averaged. The
PHS limits which were exceeded appear [3].
But the numbers in the table are average gures. What each family really
wants to know is: What is coming out of our tap? Of course, it was impossible
to individually Sample the water supplies of 18 million people, but 2595 sam-‘
‘
ples were taken directly from consumer taps and 86 percent of these con—‘
tained at least one contaminant inan amount exceeding drinking water gstand—
«
ards. By applying a factor for population equivalency, it was estimatedthat
2.9 million of the 18 million people surveyed were receiving,$übStàndardfwa—
ter. The heavy metals arsenic,iron, maganese, cadmium, and lead were
found
in some individual samples at concentrations exceeding the rec0mmended or
mandatorylimit—by ten times or. more. Bacterial contamination asmeasured
-
.
.
-
‘
'
_
MQ .
l
H
‘
l
\\
.
......
.