Daily Archives: January 25, 2012

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA): Freedom and the Internet

State of the Union – Another Perspective

What USEPA said about Pavillion, Wyoming hydraulic fracturing…

Activists argued that hydraulic fracturing in Pavillion, Wyoming had contaminated drinking water wells.

The draft report (click here for prior post) actually says that fracturing contaminated ground water, not drinking water. The aquifer is 800 feet down….people do not drinking water from this aquifer……click here for more…

Bach et al 2011: Chemical compounds and toxicological assessments of drinking water stored in polyehtylene terephthalate (PET) bottles: A source of controversy reviewed

Bach, C., X. Dauchy, M.C. Chagnon, and S. Etienne. Chemical compounds and toxicological assessments of drinking water stored in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles: A source of controversy reviewed. Water Res. 2011 Dec 6.

Abstract: A declaration of conformity according to European regulation No. 10/2011 is required to ensure the safety of plastic materials in contact with foodstuffs. This regulation established a positive list of substances that are authorized for use in plastic materials. Some compounds are subject to restrictions and/or specifications according to their toxicological data. Despite this, the analysis of PET reveals some non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) produced by authorized initial reactants and additives. Genotoxic and estrogenic activities in PET-bottled water have been reported. Chemical mixtures in bottled water have been suggested as the source of these toxicological effects. Furthermore, sample preparation techniques, such as solid-phase extraction (SPE), to extract estrogen-like compounds in bottled water are controversial. It has been suggested that inappropriate extraction methods and sample treatment may result in false-negative or positive responses when testing water extracts in bioassays. There is therefore a need to combine chemical analysis with bioassays to carry out hazard assessments. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and antimony are clearly related to migration from PET into water. However, several studies have shown other theoretically unexpected substances in bottled water. The origin of these compounds has not been clearly established (PET container, cap-sealing resins, background contamination, water processing steps, NIAS, recycled PET, etc.). Here, we surveyed toxicological studies on PET-bottled water and chemical compounds that may be present therein. Our literature review shows that contradictory results for PET-bottled water have been reported, and differences can be explained by the wide variety of analytical methods, bioassays and exposure conditions employed.

Click here for full paper (fee).