<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bromide Levels in Rivers Remain High, Despite Changes in Brine Disposal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frackcheckwv.net/2011/12/05/bromide-levels-in-rivers-remain-high-despite-changes-in-brine-disposal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2011/12/05/bromide-levels-in-rivers-remain-high-despite-changes-in-brine-disposal/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:06:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dee Fulton</title>
		<link>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2011/12/05/bromide-levels-in-rivers-remain-high-despite-changes-in-brine-disposal/#comment-1781</link>
		<dc:creator>Dee Fulton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 01:53:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frackcheckwv.net/?p=3665#comment-1781</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the good post, Nicole.  
I was alerted to the danger of trihalomethanes in May 2009.  That&#039;s when I received the first of two letters from the Masontown Water Works.  The first letter informed me that my water had violated TTHM drinking standards for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008.  TTHM stands for Total Trihalomethanes, a piece of vital info not provided in the letter, interestingly enough.  But, the best part is that the numerical data provided showed that there was no small exceedance of maximum contaminant level (MCL) going on.  The yearly average of TTHM for the latter half of 2008 exceeded the standard by a factor of....wait for it......one thousand!  Yes...the MCL standard is 0.080mg/L.  The water Masontown was serving was at an average of  81mg/L and 104mg/L for the 2 quarters.  In my neck of the woods, the water comes from the Mon River via MUB but I&#039;m billed by Masontown.  
Also, it took the good people a year before they informed me that the water had exceeded the MCL for Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)in the second quarter of 2008.  Care to guess how much the HAA5s exceeded standards?  If you said &quot;1,000&quot;, YOU ARE A WINNER!  
    Things were better in the notice I received concerning the 2nd quarter 2009.  The notice was more timely (mailed on July 30, 2009), and the TTHM level was in exceedance by 0.01mg/L, but it was still after the fact.  
   Both letters reassured the consumer that there really wasn&#039;t anything to worry about.  &quot;This is not an immediate risk.  If it had been, you would have been notified immediately.&quot;   
The letter also stated that a project was being bid that would address disinfection byproducts such as TTHM and HAA5 with an anticipated completion date of early 2011.  Don&#039;t know what the status of that project is.  
   It&#039;s sad when we can no longer trust our municipal water providers to serve us safe water.  But hey, we&#039;re hillbillies.  We&#039;re disposable, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the good post, Nicole.<br />
I was alerted to the danger of trihalomethanes in May 2009.  That&#8217;s when I received the first of two letters from the Masontown Water Works.  The first letter informed me that my water had violated TTHM drinking standards for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008.  TTHM stands for Total Trihalomethanes, a piece of vital info not provided in the letter, interestingly enough.  But, the best part is that the numerical data provided showed that there was no small exceedance of maximum contaminant level (MCL) going on.  The yearly average of TTHM for the latter half of 2008 exceeded the standard by a factor of&#8230;.wait for it&#8230;&#8230;one thousand!  Yes&#8230;the MCL standard is 0.080mg/L.  The water Masontown was serving was at an average of  81mg/L and 104mg/L for the 2 quarters.  In my neck of the woods, the water comes from the Mon River via MUB but I&#8217;m billed by Masontown.<br />
Also, it took the good people a year before they informed me that the water had exceeded the MCL for Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)in the second quarter of 2008.  Care to guess how much the HAA5s exceeded standards?  If you said &#8220;1,000&#8243;, YOU ARE A WINNER!<br />
    Things were better in the notice I received concerning the 2nd quarter 2009.  The notice was more timely (mailed on July 30, 2009), and the TTHM level was in exceedance by 0.01mg/L, but it was still after the fact.<br />
   Both letters reassured the consumer that there really wasn&#8217;t anything to worry about.  &#8220;This is not an immediate risk.  If it had been, you would have been notified immediately.&#8221;<br />
The letter also stated that a project was being bid that would address disinfection byproducts such as TTHM and HAA5 with an anticipated completion date of early 2011.  Don&#8217;t know what the status of that project is.<br />
   It&#8217;s sad when we can no longer trust our municipal water providers to serve us safe water.  But hey, we&#8217;re hillbillies.  We&#8217;re disposable, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
