Comments on: ECUA Still Disputes Claim That Pensacola Has Nation’s Worst Water

By: Cool Clear Water

Cool Clear Water — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:43:47 +0000

The fact remains – if you test something 75,000 times and compare it to something tested 420 times – and only mark when a contaminant not required to be tested for (non-regulated) appears – then it’s a no brainer that you will see it show up more often.

EWG didn’t test ‘levels’ – they marked ‘occurrences’.

Think of it this way. Two people work in Mobile, Alabama and commute from Pensacola, Florida. We’ll test the speed of one car against the limit 420 times in a 5 year period (or once every 4.34 days) and the other we’ll test 75,000 times in the same 5 year period or 50 times PER DAY.

This example only calculates the number of times they violate the LAW. Something they KNOW about. But let’s instead record the number of times they are mid-lane change. Or the number of times they’re adjusting the radio. Or any other thing that isn’t against the law, but could be potentially ‘hazardous’ by ANYONE without any scientific evidence saying that it actually is.

In the end, the one with the higher sample rate will have a higher level of occurrence than the one with a lower sample rate.

Oh, but wait! There’s more! It’s almost humorous that they also failed to mention that in 2005 and 2006 ECUA was the regional WINNER in a drinking water test competition.
http://www.ecua.org/images/dload/apr2006.pdf

Despite the report, I drink, and have drunk ECUA water for much of my life WITHOUT a water filter. I will continue to do so in the future. There is no reason for a self serving report without scientific evidence should cause people to change how they respond.

Oh, and before you jump to bottled water, the same group tested for contaminants in bottled water and gave only 18 labels a grade of ‘C’ or better. They are also quick to point out the lack of regulation for bottled water, and of course, explain how you can buy filters from their source which pays them a kickback.

Nice… maybe I should get into the testing for stuff no one regulates business and then recommend a product I get a kick back on….

And people think our local politicians are ’shady’ or ‘underhanded’…

By: K

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:33:30 +0000

This is like the last straw for this town. People have left here like rats off a sinking ship due to the economy and high cost of insurance/ innavailability of affordable insurance. Crime is climbing, businesses are closing daily, and there are more homeless wondering around the city than I have ever seen here.
Jobs were difficult to come by before, and now all but impossible.

Pensacola has become an economic ghost town, and now soon to be deserted by even more people because of the bad water. Even after Katrina MS and LA have better water than Pensacola?

Outside of the beach and the arts in this area there really is no reason to stay.
It’s time to move on. Bye bye

By: FaithB

FaithB — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:34:27 +0000

I can believe our drinking water has junk in it that is not good for us. I had a man come out to test my tap water last year and I was disgusted and appalled at the crud that showed up on his equipment- as compared to the filtered water from my refrigerator (that’s filtered, not bottled, water).

And, as the EWG report points out–the list of contaminants required to be tested for in our water supply has not changed in over 20 years, despite our current knowledge of the harmful effects of even minute quantities of certain things.

Would you drink a ‘not enough to hurt you’ quantity of poison every day for the rest of your life? No thanks!

By: Waterdog

Waterdog — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:45:24 +0000

Anyone know what health effect the current ECUA level of contaminants have on the human body over a measured amount of time? I have been drinking the water out of the tap in Bellview for 20 years and love the taste. I am leaving my body to science and would like to use it for contaminate analysis to better the lives of future generations. Any one know who I could call to choose a specific recipient for the study?

By: bama54

bama54 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:09:55 +0000

I say elect all new board members for the ECUA. Get a fresh start!!! The old boy network needs new blood!! We need ECUA Board members who do more than follow trash pick-up (trucks) during the day, or vist the local mens church breakfast meetings to promote his good ole boy network. I say to the ECUA Board Member get to work for the people who have elected you. I say get to WORK NOW!!

By: wondering

wondering — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:08:41 +0000

Does the EWG have any connection with the River Keepers or Greenpeace? One has to wonder. Sounds like some of the fact bending that us goin on with the climate change data these days. Some where down the line it is all about the money.

By: L. Stevens

L. Stevens — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:47:05 +0000

This is really a non story. Big surprise, there is contamination in the water. Welcome to the Industrial Age, folks. The surprise is that this report is being given any credibility. Of course your NOT going to find contaminants in the water where you DON’T test for those contaminants. The smaller water suppliers weren’t included in the study and the suppliers who were included DIDN’T all test for the same contaminants the same number of times. In order to rank results, you MUST compare apples and apples. I’d be willing to bet that if every water supplier on the list were required to perform the same tests ECUA performed they’d find the same things in their water. I bet there’s a whole bunch of agricultural run off in the water in n escambia, but since we don’t HAVE to test for it, we don’t know about it. Ignorance is bliss. The cost to ‘clean’ up the water and make it ‘pure’ water would be so much that we’d all be paying a bizillion dollars to flush our toilets and nobody is gonna agree to the rate hikes that would be necessary. We have to decide how much risk we are comfortable with vs how much money we are willing to shell out. I’ll flush with my affordable ECUA water, wash my laundry w my affordable ECUA water and even drink my affordable ECUA water. Heck, if nothing else we should be protected in the event of a terrorist attack on the water supply. If we’ve been ingesting trace amounts of radium and cyanide all along, we’ll be the ones who survive while all those ‘pure’ water cities drop like flies!

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:54:30 +0000

Of course ECUA is going to deny the results. Instead of hearing why the reports were supposedly flawed, I want to hear what they are going to do to improve the water quality.

By: robt

robt — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:47:33 +0000

If it’s not the worst water in the country then maybe ECUA can explain:

1) Why the permit process was fast tracked by the EPA . Permitting for a project of this scope should have taken literally 20-30 years with the environmental concerns that would have been voiced. This projected was rubber stamped taking about 30 days for EPA to give the go ahead.

2) Why was this project awarded the highest grant in FEMA history eliminating the need to issue bonds or establish new taxing districts which had the effect to allow immediate funding and immediate construction.

When you put these two FACTS together, it just seems like somebody somewhere has known about the poor quality of the water in Pensacola for some time.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:16:27 +0000

I think ECUA has been so focused on the need to move the sewer plant that it took its eye off our water quality. I’m glad they are fixing the sewers, although I hate all the construction around here. Water ought to be an issue in the next election for ECUA board.

Criticizing the environmentalists for raising the issue just doesn’t work. Stephen Sorrell should stop blaming the messenger and make a plan to clean up our water.