Water Quality Comparison of US cities

B

bhaktajan

Hare Krishna Templar
Would you drink the water? Doesn't some chemical retard intelligence?
12 cities with the worst tap water in the US
The scandal was one of the most egregious instances of water contamination in the US, but it wasn't an isolated occurrence. Every year from 1982 to 2015, between 9 million and 45 million Americans got their drinking water from a source that violated the standards of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

While rural areas are the most contaminated, a few major cities have struggled to renovate their aging pipes and enforce safe standards among local jurisdictions. Here are some of the cities with the worst tap water in the US.

Pittsburgh officials have been accused of downplaying the threat of lead-contaminated drinking water.

Milwaukee health officials may have failed to warn families whose children tested positive for lead.

Officials still aren't sure if the water in Flint is safe to drink.

The Flint crisis has been spilling over into Detroit public schools.

Newark's lead contamination is at an all-time high.

Washington, DC has seen lead-contaminated water since the early 2000s.

Residents of Brady, Texas, are worried about radium in their water supply.

Baltimore has a cloudy reservoir with potentially toxic particles.

Water in Dos Palos, California has toxic chemicals linked to cancer and kidney problems.

Charleston, West Virginia, is still recovering from a massive chemical spill.

The city of Newburgh in upstate New York declared a state of emergency over contaminated water.

Tap water in Miami, Florida contains "forever chemicals" called PFAS.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cit...ida-contains-forever-chemicals-called-pfas-12
 
Index and page #s from the link below:

City Summaries 91
Albuquerque, NM 91
Atlanta, GA 98
Baltimore, MD 105
Boston, MA 110
Chicago, IL 120
Denver, CO 126
Detroit, MI 131
Houston, TX 139
Manchester, NH 149
New Orleans, LA 156
Newark, NJ 163
Philadelphia, PA 171
Phoenix, AZ 182
Seattle, WA 194
Washington, DC 203

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/whatsontap.pdf

WATER QUALITY
AND COMPLIANCE
City 2001 Grade
Chicago. . . . . . . . . Excellent
Baltimore. . . . . . . . . . . Good
Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good
Detroit. . . . . . . . . . . . . Good
Manchester . . . . . . . . . Good
New Orleans. . . . . . . . . Good
Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Newark . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . Fair
San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Seattle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Washington, D.C. . . . . . . Fair
Albuquerque . . . . . . . . . Poor
Boston . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor
Fresno . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor
Phoenix . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor
San Francisco . . . . . . . . Poor

RIGHT-TO-KNOW
REPORTS
City 2001 Grade
Albuquerque. . . . . . . . . Good
Baltimore. . . . . . . . . . . Good
Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . Good
Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good
Detroit. . . . . . . . . . . . . Good
Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . Good
Manchester . . . . . . . . . Good
Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . Good
Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
San Francisco . . . . . . . . Fair
Seattle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Washington, D.C. . . . . . . Fair
Boston . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor
Fresno . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor
New Orleans . . . . . . . . . Poor
Newark . . . . . . . . . . . Failing
Phoenix . . . . . . . . . . . Failing


SOURCE WATER
PROTECTION
City Rating
Seattle . . . . . . . . . Excellent
Boston. . . . . . . . . . . . . Good
Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good
Manchester . . . . . . . . . Good
San Francisco . . . . . . . Good
Baltimore. . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
Los Angeles (local). . . . . Fair
Newark . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair
San Diego (local) . . . . . . Fair
Washington, D.C. . . . . . . Fair
Albuquerque . . . . . . . . . Poor
Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor
Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor
Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor
Los Angeles (imported) . Poor
New Orleans . . . . . . . . . Poor
Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . Poor
Phoenix . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor
San Diego (imported) . . Poor
Fresno . . . . . . . . . . . . Failing


TOTAL COLIFORM
BACTERIA
HIGH CONCERN
BOSTON
DETROIT
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SOME CONCERN
ALBUQUERQUE
ATLANTA
CHICAGO
DENVER
FRESNO
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES
MANCHESTER
NEW ORLEANS
NEWARK
PHOENIX
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SEATTLE
LITTLE OR NO CONCERN
PHILADELPHIA

TURBIDITY
HIGH CONCERN
ATLANTA
BALTIMORE
NEW ORLEANS
SAN FRANCISCO
SOME CONCERN
PHILADELPHIA
SEATTLE


ARSENIC
HIGH CONCERN
ALBUQUERQUE
HOUSTON
PHOENIX
SOME CONCERN
FRESNO
LOS ANGELES
LITTLE OR NO CONCERN
DETROIT
NEW ORLEANS

CHROMIUM
SOME CONCERN
LOS ANGELES
PHOENIX
SAN DIEGO


CYANIDE
SOME CONCERN[/B]
WASHINGTON, D.C.


LEAD
EXCEEDS ACTION LEVEL
BOSTON
NEWARK
SEATTLE
HIGH CONCERN
BALTIMORE
LOS ANGELES
MANCHESTER
PHILADELPHIA
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SOME CONCERN
ATLANTA
CHICAGO
DENVER
DETROIT
FRESNO
HOUSTON
PHOENIX
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
LITTLE OR NO CONCERN
NEW ORLEANS


NITRATE
HIGH CONCERN
FRESNO
PHOENIX
SOME CONCERN
PHILADELPHIA
LITTLE OR NO CONCERN
LOS ANGELES



HAAs
HIGH CONCERN
ATLANTA
BALTIMORE
BOSTON
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES
NEWARK
PHILADELPHIA
SAN DIEGO
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SOME CONCERN
ALBUQUERQUE
CHICAGO
DETROIT
MANCHESTER
NEW ORLEANS
PHOENIX
SAN FRANCISCO
SEATTLE
LITTLE OR NO CONCERN
CHICAGO
DENVER


TTHMs
VIOLATION
SAN FRANCISCO
HIGH CONCERN
BOSTON
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES
MANCHESTER
NEWARK
PHILADELPHIA
PHOENIX
SAN DIEGO
SEATTLE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SOME CONCERN
ALBUQUERQUE
ATLANTA
BALTIMORE
DENVER
DETROIT
NEW ORLEANS
LITTLE OR NO CONCERN
CHICAGO
FRESNO
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/whatsontap.pdf
 
What are the measured properties in the water involved?

For example, many cities particularly in the rust belt and on the East Coast have high lead levels due to the use of leaded steel piping in their water distribution systems. This is a legacy of simply old and outdated plumbing installed decades ago. More recent development areas will have plastic piping installed instead. Copper or plastic will be the norm in buildings.

I would add that the NRDC is firmly in the hysteric zero tolerance crowd as far as water quality goes. They should be taken with a bag of salt, so-to-speak. For example they list things they want strengthened by the EPA:

Third, NRDC recommends that the EPA strengthen and enforce existing health
standards that are too weak, and draft and enforce new standards for those contaminants that remain unregulated. Specifically, we recommend that the EPA:
 issue new standards for:
 perchlorate
 radon
 distribution systems
 groundwater microbes
 other emerging contaminants (see Chapter 5)
 strengthen existing standards for:
 arsenic
 atrazine/total triazines
 chromium
 Cryptosporidium and other pathogens
 fluoride
 haloacetic acids
 lead
 total trihalomethanes
Click to expand...


Taking just one item, arsenic for example: The current allowable level in drinking water is 10 ppb. That is about 1000 times below the seriously dangerous level in water (1 ppm) and easily 10 to 100 times more stringent than would be reasonably safe. In Bangladesh, drinking water often has 1 to 50 ppm arsenic in it. It is a serious health threat there. 10 ppb is nothing by comparison. Yet, the Chicken Littles at the NRDC are calling for tighter standards on it.
When the standard was lowered from 50 ppb to 10 in the 90's people who got their drinking water mostly from wells (ground water is the largest source of arsenic) saw their water bills double and triple due to the increased costs of testing and filtration necessary to reach the new, miniscule, level required. The NRDC is absolutely insanely wrong on this particular issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top