Drinking water ... by derogation in 400 cities in France !!

Work concerning plumbing or sanitary water (hot, cold, clean or used). Management, access and use of water at home: drilling, pumping, wells, distribution network, treatment, sanitation, rainwater recovery. Recovery, filtration, depollution, storage processes. Repair of water pumps. Manage, use and save water, desalination and desalination, pollution and water ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

Drinking water ... by derogation in 400 cities in France !!




by Christophe » 23/01/13, 09:30

Crazy but true! 400 municipalities in France are no longer able to supply drinking water to the tap most of the time ...

The "60 million consumers" association reveals that More than 400 municipalities are in troubled waters, drinking water can be drinkable by dispensation

The survey of 60 million consumers and France Libertés, launched last July, led associations to put their finger on the extent of the exemptions granted in France compared to the physico-chemical thresholds normally authorized. And the reality could still exceed these first results ...


Transparency on the quality of drinking water appears to be an endless quest. France Libertés associations and 60 million consumers have just made their contribution, by publishing, on January 17, a map of exemptions from which more than 400 municipalities benefit.

That is to say as many permits to pollute since these communities indeed exceed the thresholds for nitrates, arsenic, atrazine, glyphosate and other pollutants. And deliver non-compliant water to consumers.

This publication was produced from data transmitted by the Directorate General of Health. The associations have requested verification from the regional health agencies (ARS) (1). The result is impressive: more than a thousand exemptions, spread over 419 municipalities, were listed in the fall of 2012. They are granted by the prefects for three years, and can be renewed twice, specifies the press release from France Libertés.

As often, the reality could exceed these figures. Brittany and Oise have therefore no listed exceptions. This is also the case for around fifty departments in all. On the contrary, Seine-et-Marne alone concentrates almost a third of the measures. Behind it, the Val d'Oise and the Orne have between 5 and 30 exemptions.

It must be said that the derogation procedure is quite flexible. As soon as a physico-chemical threshold is exceeded locally, the water distribution manager immediately informs the managers of the Regional Health Agency (ARS) as well as the mayors of the municipalities concerned. It is also he who makes the request for exemption from the prefect. Three conditions, fixed by a decree of November 25, 2003 (2), only specify that the health of people must not be in danger, that there are no other alternatives to distribute water and that a plan action must be taken to restore the situation "in the medium term".

It was on July 3 that France Libertés and 60 million consumers decided to launch a transparency operation on the quality of drinking water (see JDLE). The associations deplored the intense opacity surrounding French data on quality. some water.

One example among others: a municipality released water for 35 days with levels of bentazone (the molecule of a pesticide) three times higher than the acceptable daily dose, due to an exemption. The consumer was not warned. On the contrary, he thought he was drinking water that complies with regulations.

Today, France Libertés and 60 million consumers are making their way towards more transparency. They invite all individuals to question their elected representatives to specify, everywhere in France, the real state of the exemptions.


Image

Source: http://naturealerte.blogspot.fr/2013/01 ... lions.html

List of municipalities: http://www.france-libertes.org/IMG/pdf/ ... france.pdf
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 23/01/13, 09:56

Regarding the case of arsenic, it should be noted that most of the derogations are linked to the fact that the regulations changed in 2001 from the authorized rate from 50 µg / l to 10 µg / l.

Many towns (especially small ones) in mining areas (arsenic is naturally present with many metals) have thus found themselves "outside the norm" (sometimes 1 or 2 µg / l) with the obligation to finance an expensive installation for decrease arsenic levels.
There remained as an immediate solution only the derogation or the general water cut ...

Finally, you should know that mineral waters are not subject to the same thresholds and that some exceed 50 µg / l or even 100 µg / l while still being legally sold : roll:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 23/01/13, 10:04

Arsenic in bottled water? waaw do you have a source?

The lowering of the sanitary thresholds is a hypothesis that I had thought of ... which would explain why formerly potable water is no longer ...
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 23/01/13, 10:43

Christophe wrote:Arsenic in bottled water? waaw do you have a source?
A Senate report (extracts here et leaves) recalls that
Senate report wrote:if we applied the regulation of drinking water to mineral waters, many waters would not be in conformity and would therefore be qualified as "not drinkable"
ou Wikipedia for example, chapter "limits to consumption"

It seems that the regulations have evolved since (but after the change of threshold for drinking water) and certain mineral waters are now undergoing treatments to eliminate or reduce the presence of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese , mercury, nickel, selenium.

The question was whether we could apply chemical treatments to them and continue to call them "Mineral waters. Natural" :?:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 23/01/13, 11:00

Thank you! This is crazy ... we must remember about arsenic this:

It will be recalled that the regulations on drinking water do not apply to mineral waters and that some of them are also extremely loaded with arsenic. Thus out of 74 mineral waters analyzed in 1995 by the national public health network, 24 had arsenic contents greater than 10 ug / l, 4 exceeded 50 ug / l, and 2 exceeded 100 ug / l.


I like the comments of the 1st link:

So, if some French people turn away from drinking-tap water, because they fear degradation, they sometimes turn to ... drinking water!

In addition, we may be surprised by the miracles of marketing, which manages to pass off arsenic as a trace element and sell bottles rich in calcium and water softeners to remove lime ... while it it's the same!


: Cheesy: or rather :|
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 24/01/13, 13:36

No no. Not crazy.

A "mineral water" by definition has certain properties due to an "abnormal" composition. Do not drink Hepar like spring water, it is far too rich in magnesium. You are having kidney stones. Take a cure ...

One water is too salty (sodium), etc ... Another rich in iodine or fluorine ...

Unfortunately, in France, all bottled water is confused. They are sold in the same department of supermarkets.

In particular "spring waters" (drinkable in the regulatory sense) and "mineral waters" some of which are not drinkable in the legal sense (because precisely, "out of the ordinary" for a particular mineral hence their name), of which some have therapeutic actions that should almost lead to a prescription!

But yes, it's crazy what the marketing happens to make us do. Not just for water !!!
0 x
User avatar
Macro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6459
Registration: 04/12/08, 14:34
x 1610




by Macro » 24/01/13, 13:57

Another study that will not fix my chronic alcoholism ... As long as I drink poison ... As long as it has between 12 and 13.5% ethannol ...
0 x
The only thing safe in the future. It is that there may chance that it conforms to our expectations ...
User avatar
fabio.gel
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 282
Registration: 06/03/08, 13:33
Location: 14 - Calvados
x 6

Meeting on the water




by fabio.gel » 25/01/13, 19:51

Bonsoir

I went to a meeting organized by the region, over a year ago now.
The biggest problem for them is to protect the groundwater of agriculture.
Currently, the different pumping sites produce more or less good water, they mix the good sources with the bad in order to obtain water that is drinkable.
But here it is not going in the right direction at present because the pollution of the aquifers increases.

Otherwise the link below allows you to access the statement of your municipality.

http://www.sante.gouv.fr/resultats-du-controle-sanitaire-de-la-qualite-de-l-eau-potable.html

Fabio
0 x
I do my best to not leave trash world to my children ....
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 28/01/13, 16:33

Well. A number of minerals have nothing to do with agriculture. The arsenic we are talking about, elsewhere it can be selenium, etc.

Agriculture is above all nitrates and a whole host of pesticide derivatives (atrazine, the famous corn weed killer, has not been authorized for sale for a long time but is still found in analyzes, or its derivatives) ...

But all the same, it is not the problem of potability!

And indeed, interconnection is one of the methods to "enter the thresholds". On the one hand a source of 20 mg of nitrates, on the other another at 60 mg ... We mix in adequate proportions and we just go to 49 mg
0 x
User avatar
fabio.gel
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 282
Registration: 06/03/08, 13:33
Location: 14 - Calvados
x 6

Water at risk but not unsafe




by fabio.gel » 28/01/13, 20:14

Did67 wrote:But all the same, it is not the problem of potability!



Hi Did67

It's not wrong on the govt site

http://orobnat.sante.gouv.fr/orobnat/orobnat/glossaire/glossaire_DR.html#limitesqual

I quote

Quality criteria: If a quality reference is not satisfied and that water poses a health risk people, the distribution manager is responsible for taking corrective action.

In no case do they say that the water is not drinkable



: Mrgreen:
0 x
I do my best to not leave trash world to my children ....

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to “Water management, plumbing and sanitation. Pumping, drilling, filtration, wells, recovery ... "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 158 guests