Radium Level In Its Water Not Harmful, New Berlin Says
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and New Berlin continually cite the threat posed by naturally-occurring radium in New Berlin's well water as the reason New Berlin is pursuing cleaner water through a possible diversion of Lake Michigan water.
Some history here.
So it's surprising to read the opening of a Q&A on the subject provided by the "radium" tab on the water utility's webpage:
Is there radium in New Berlin water? Yes, radium has been in our water since we began serving customers in 1966. Radium is part of a family of radionuclides which include: Radium 226 & 228, Gross Alpha and Gross Beta.Talk about a head-scratcher.
2. Is radium in our water harmful to health? No, some experts have studied the health effects of radium in water on humans and tell us there is no scientific evidence that the levels in our water is harmful.
I'm not minimizing the health issue, but is someone at the New Berlin Water Utility quibbling about the value of the federal radium standard - - an Environmental Protection Agency decision which New Berlin agreed to meet years ago when it signed a binding, legal consent decree?
Is there more to the readium issue than the New Berlin website lets on, or
is the city's utlility website allaying its residents' fears?
What?
Plus - - the Q&A concedes a few paragraphs later that the amount of radium in its water exceeds the federal standard - - but calls the standard "proposed," when the standard is in place, and New Berlin has recognized that by signing the consent decree years ago.
Here is that portion of the Q&A:
7. How much radium is in the water? The most recent test from the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene shows that we have an average 5.4 picocuries of radium per liter of water. The current proposed EPA standard under the SDWA [Safe Drinking Water Act] is 5.0 picocuries/liter.
The DNR's radium webpages have a more in-depth discussion, cite National Academy of Science data about a "higher risk of bone cancer" from long-term exposure to radium in drinking water, and offer this conclusion:
It has been estimated that as much as 80% of all human cancer is due to environmental sources (including diet and such activities as cigarette smoking). In many cases, the specific causes cannot be identified due to the complex patterns of exposure and our inability to measure them. In the case of radium in drinking water, however, the exposure levels are known, our best science has identified a specific risk, and methods exist to deal with the problem.
I'm puzzled.
Here is the entire New Berlin Q&A:
Radium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Information - Radionuclides in Groundwater
Many of the deep sandstone aquifers in Wisconsin contain radionuclide minerals. Six of the Utility's nine wells are drilled into this aquifer for our water supply. Following are questions about Radium and Gross Alpha.
Radium:
1. Is there radium in New Berlin water? Yes, radium has been in our water since we began serving customers in 1966. Radium is part of a family of radionuclides which include: Radium 226 & 228, Gross Alpha and Gross Beta.
2. Is radium in our water harmful to health? No, some experts have studied the health effects of radium in water on humans and tell us there is no scientific evidence that the levels in our water is harmful.
3. Can radium be seen or tasted? No, it is very difficult to detect and measure. The cost of an accurate test is about $300. The utility does annual DNR required system sampling.
4. Is radium the same as radon? No, radon is a gas which can accumulate in basements and is a natural byproduct of decaying radium radionuclides.
5. Why is this standard being set now? The radium standard was originally proposed in 1976 but until recently was not considered important. In 1997 Congress ordered the EPA to adopt a standard for radium as soon as possible as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
6. Where does radium come from? It is a naturally occurring element much like sodium and calcium which comes from sandstone formations in our wells.
7. How much radium is in the water? The most recent test from the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene shows that we have an average 5.4 picocuries of radium per liter of water. The current proposed EPA standard under the SDWA is 5.0 picocuries/liter.
8. Can customers remove radium from the water? Yes, if customers have a water softener and don't mind drinking soft water, they can drink and cook with water that is almost radium free.
9. Can the Water Utility remove radium from the water? Yes, but the cost will be more than one million dollars. This will increase the present water bill.
10. Is bottled water safe? It is not likely that bottled water is safer than New Berlin water, but it is prudent to ask the supplier if radium has been removed and what the levels are.
11. Will home in-line treatment devices remove radium? No, most kitchen variety treatment devices will not remove radium or other radionuclides. You should contact the manufacturer for specific information about radium removal.
Gross Alpha:
1. Is there gross alpha New Berlin water? Yes, gross alpha has been in our water since we began serving customers in 1966. Gross alpha is part of a family of radionuclides which include: Radium 226 & 228, Gross Alpha and Gross Beta.
2. Is gross alpha in our water harmful to health? No, some experts have studied the health effects of radium (as a radionuclide) in water on humans and tell us there is no scientific evidence that the levels in our water is harmful.
3. Can gross alpha be seen or tasted? No, it is very difficult to detect and measure. The cost of an accurate test is about $300. The utility does annual DNR required system sampling.
4. Is gross alpha the same as radon? No, radon is a gas which can accumulate in basements and is a natural byproduct of decaying radium radionuclides.
5. Why is this standard being set now? The gross alpha standard was originally proposed in 1976, but until recently was not considered important. In 1997 Congress ordered the EPA to adopt a standard for gross alpha as soon as possible as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
6. Where does gross alpha come from? It is a measure of emissions from radionuclides (like radium) which are naturally occurring elements much like sodium and calcium which comes from sandstone formations in our wells.
7. How much gross alpha is in the water? The most recent test from the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene shows that we have an average 12 picocuries of gross alpha per liter of water. The current proposed EPA standard under the SDWA is 15 picocuries/liter.
8. Can customers remove gross alpha from the water? Yes, if customers have a water softener and don't mind drinking soft water, they can drink and cook with water that is almost radionuclide free.
9. Can the Water Utility remove gross alpha from the water? Yes, but the cost will be more than one million dollars. This will increase the present water bill.
10. Is bottled water safe? It is not likely that bottled water is safer than New Berlin water, but it is prudent to ask the supplier if radionuclides have been removed and what the levels are.
11. Will home in-line treatment devices remove gross alpha? No, most kitchen variety treatment devices will not remove gross alpha or other radionuclides. You should contact the manufacturer for specific information about gross alpha removal.
6 comments:
"It is not likely that bottled water is safer than New Berlin water, but it is prudent to ask the supplier if radium has been removed and what the levels are." What?? Of course bottled water is always 100% safe! What a silly statement.
I remember a few years ago a house burned down in New Berlin, and people complained that if there had been a paid fire department in that community rather than volunteers, that would not have happened- but the residents did not want to pay the higher property taxes that it would require. In other words, they were willing to go without services in order to save money. Would the diversion necessitate a raise in taxes? Is this part of the equation?
Also, the Water Utility's comments about the higher-than-recommended level of radon being safe seems a little Orwellian, don't you think?
Good questions.
A number of questions have been raised about the information in New Berlin's diversion application, too.
Sort of a pattern, in my opinion.
I'll be interested to see if that web information undergoes some editing.
If their drinking water's safe, they have no need to divert Lake Michigan water, no?
Quick, somebody file to have their request rejected out of hand.
River Otter found the pressure point: if property taxes are at issue, we need a meme to expose the fact that a) continued old-style devt won't cover municipal costs; b) the added cost of water diversion will have to be paid by taxpayers in New Berlin -- somehow; and c) only denser development patterns can cover costs, use water more efficiently, and use tax dollars more efficiently.
If New Berlin is going to continue to live in the style to which it is accustomed, and continue the same development patterns, their property taxes are going to go up. By more than the cost of their share of the water diversion.
I still say the solution is to move to Milwaukee.
It's not dangerous at these levels, and the deep aquifer is able to provide safe water for the region for many years. But, with water discharge exceeding recharge, it won't be safe forever. The DNR should look into controlling development in Waukesha County as a preventive measure to slow radium infiltration.
Get the sprawling expatriates to move back home. Call it cruel, but this may be Milwaukee's key to save itself from becoming decrepit. Milwaukee owes it to itself to not share the only asset growing in value. Besides, without a replacement for petroleum, the suburbia is not sustainable for future use. $2/gal wont last forever; we need to consider last year as a warning.
There definitely needs to be better planning and zoning in Waukesha County, but don't look to the powers that be to initiate that.
The City of Waukesha has expansion and annexation plans involving something like 40 square miles in an expanded service territory that will use Lake Michigan water.
Waukesha County's land use plan eventually greenlights a near disappearance of ag lands; SEWRPC's master land-use plan has no teeth, but its language and disinterest in fighting for the environmental corridors it has recommended for preservation tell us that genuine Smart Growth and sustainability are not on its agenda.
I am afraid that Waukesha will wave a few bucks at the Madison Common Council (as did New Berlin with a $75,000 annual payment for 20 years, all up front as $1.5 million) and the Council will take the money and run.
Last October, the Council approved a proposal to hire a consultant to determine the true value of water in a diversion situation, and here we are, six months later, and the revised RFP application period has yet to produce a hire.
If Milwaukee gets this wrong, it will enable sprawl and the city's decline, and I tell you, Waukesha is farther ahead strategically than is Milwaukee.
Editing myself: I wrote Madison common council in my comment. Now there's a flashback. Sorry. I meant Milwaukee.
Post a Comment