MisJif's Soapbox

Ban Disinfectants??

Had you heard this one? Environmentalist are at work again.

You'd think by now they be laughed out of business. So many of their claims have been proven to be nothing but propaganda:

Several years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency had the audacity to suggest that a study be launched to determine how feasible it would be to move away from chlorine to some degree, in say, solvent manufacturing and water treatment. Writes ABC News Nicholas Regush in his Commentary
"Government Should Pressure Industry to Limit Chlorine's Use". We are so disease ridden now that it is disgusting and now they want to start banning disinfectants...give me a break!

Have you ever noted that when you visit the doctors office for a routine check-up, 7-10 days later you come down with something like a cold, broncitis, measles or some other ailment? Wonder whose disinfecting their offices and I wonder what they are using??? Whatever it is, it doesn't work.

Have you noted how everyone seems to have gotten really lax about washing their hands? It is no wonder that disease is spreading and mutating.

And one more little comment, have you noticed that when the EPA takes a stand against large corporations they always say, "of course they are against it they will lose money....." Well that isn't all that is lost, there is the loss of jobs causing homeless families, a failed economy and so on. Just because they are large corporations why can't they make money if they have a product consumers buy? And if the FDA is doing their job why do we need the EPA. Read more about the real findings below:

See: The History of Chlorine By Keith Christman Just a small sample of the information you can find at "Chlorine Save Lives":

Continuous chlorination of drinking water began in the early years of this century in Great Britain, where its application sharply reduced typhoid deaths. Shortly after this dramatic success, chlorination was begun in Jersey City, N.J., in 1908. Adoption by other cities and towns across the US soon followed and resulted in the virtual elimination of water borne diseases such as cholera, typhoid, dysentery and hepatitis A. Before the advent of chlorination for drinking water treatment, typhoid fever killed about 25 out of 100,000 people in the US annually, a death rate approximating that currently associated with automobile accidents. Chlorine-based chemicals have been the disinfectants of choice for treating drinking water for nearly a century. In fact, some 98 percent of systems that treat water employ chlorine-based disinfectants. More than 200 million Americans and Canadians receive chlorine-disinfected drinking water every day. Chlorine's most important attributes are its broad-spectrum germicidal potency and persistence in water distribution systems, providing residual protection against microbial regrowth. It also is used to control taste and odor problems by oxidizing many naturally occurring substances such as foul-smelling algae secretions, odors from decaying vegetation, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. Furthermore, chlorine is the disinfectant of choice for drinking water for a number of reasons. Its wide range of benefits can not be provided by any other single disinfectant. Chlorine-based disinfectants are the only disinfectants that provide a residual in the distribution system. This residual is an important part of the multi-barrier approach to preventing water borne disease. The increasing need for ground water systems to disinfect may actually increase the use of chlorine for drinking water disinfection. According to the World Health Organization, disinfection by chlorine is still the best guarantee of microbiologically safe water (WHO Regional Office for Europe, Drinking Water Disinfection). This is unlikely to change in the near future. About the Author: Keith Christman is Director of Disinfection and Government Relations at the Chlorine Chemistry Council (CCC). Christman has managed disinfection issues at CCC for over two years following five years as an Economist for the American Chemistry Council. He has a Masters of Science in Economics from the University of Delaware. WaterWorld September 1998 An article in the Dec 1998 Lancet attempted to draw a link between organochlorines and cancer. However in a 2002 article Long Island breast cancer study clears organochlorines (You will find it archived under August 2002), they discovered there was NO such link: Author/s: Neil Franz Issue: August 14, 2002 An epidemiological study funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI; Bethesda, MD) has found that exposure to organochiorine compounds, including polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and several pesticides, do not increase risk of the disease in women. The conclusions dispute claims by environmental activists, who say that persistent pollutants in drinking water may have caused elevated rates of incidence of breast cancer in some Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. The $8-million study also Found, however, that exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in some forms of air pollution, such as cigarette smoking and diesel fuel, may produce a "modest" increase in risk.