On Sun, 18 May 2003 11:25 am, robert luis rabello wrote: > Kris Book wrote: > > Can someone please explain to me why all of Europe and more > > recently so many U.S. water districts are using ozone to > > purify drinking water instead of chlorine/chloramine. I > > just searched for an hour to find an article I had read > > which stated that one chlorine molecule consumes over > > 100,000 ozone molecules in our upper atmosphere but, I > > could only find hundreds of articles portraying chlorine as > > a safe water treatment. IMO, chorline will soon go the way > > that saccharin and DDT did, no accepting of responsibility > > by its manufacturers. > > Among the reasons for the persistence of chlorine as a water purifying > agent, is a whole list of regulations that specify "residual kill time" for > municipal water systems. In short, while chlorine eventually becomes > oxidized and ineffective, it remains effective for quite a lot longer than > ozone. Any water system manager who wants to avoid litigation will specify > chlorine as the oxidizing agent for this reason. (It seems our friends in > Europe are a bit more understanding about risk, and don't seek to litigate > as readily as we Americans do.)
first a tacit "me too" one of the problems with both chlorine (gas) and ozone (gas) is accidental spills or exposure - e.g. something goes wrong and either too much or sufficient concentration in a populated area (building) causes severe problems, and Chlorine is available in solid liquid or gaseous chemical forms (e.g. pool chlor.), where ozone is only available as a gas. > > Further, I've seen some research somewhere (this was YEARS ago already) > suggesting that ANY oxidation agent increases long term cancer risks. If > this is so, the question becomes: Do you want typhus and cholera now, or > are you willing to risk cancer in forty years? yeah, but that would be IN the body, surely.... so in that case the Ozone, having the shorter life, all other things being equal, would be better, unless you are covering a low use or large area, when teh oxidiser has to last longer between treatments. > > Personally, I think point of use filtration should be mandatory for > every household--especially in developing countries, where many people do > not have access to clean water. > > I'll get off my soap box now. . . but before you do, why is this a solution? doesn't the environmental cost of all those filters add up? (I don't know, am asking) -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 "And some run up hill and down dale, knapping the chucky stones to pieces wi' hammers, like so many road makers run daft. They say it is to see how the world was made." Sir Walter Scott, St. Ronan's Well 1824 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
