Here are some pages taken from the "City of Ottawa" water treatment plant website.

Water purification and treatment

On an ordinary day, the human body loses about two litres of water through breathing, perspiration and excretion. It's important that we replace that lost fluid with clean, safe water. While the waterborne transmission of typhoid fever, diphtheria, cholera and several other intestinal diseases has decreased by over 98 percent in Canada during the last 50 years, our water still needs to be purified and treated before we drink it.

Constructed in 1874, Ottawa's original water supply system was located in the Fleet Street pumping station. This station used the hydraulic energy of the Ottawa River's Chaudiere Falls to pump untreated river water into the distribution system. In 1915, an electric motor-driven pumping station was constructed on Lemieux Island followed by a complete water purification plant in 1932. The Britannia water purification plant began operations in 1961. Today, these plants are part of a system that produces and distributes an average of 341 million litres of water a day.

The system draws water from the Ottawa River then, using the most effective processes and equipment available, treats it to remove colour, suspended particles, algae, vegetation, bacteria and viruses. Our water-purification processes are continuously monitored, ensuring that high-quality water is pumped out of the plants and maintained as it travels through the distribution system.

Central water supply system

Every day, the City of Ottawa's central water supply provides drinking water to approximately 750,000 customers. This quarterly report is published to give water quality information to the public and to meet the requirements of the province's new Drinking Water Protection Regulation. It summarizes water quality results and other information collected during the period October through December 2002.

Water supply in Ottawa

The source of our city water is the Ottawa River, an abundant supply of clean, soft water that is high in natural colour. Extensive testing confirms that the Ottawa River as a source of raw water is essentially free from contamination. Where urban or industrial discharges exist, there is the potential for pollutants to enter the watershed and impact drinking water quality. For the Ottawa River watershed, these are limited to the Chalk River Laboratories and a pulp and paper plant at Portage-du-Fort. Intensive monitoring for radioactive and trace organic substances are carried out to ensure the safety of our raw water supply.

The river water (raw water) is treated at two purification plants: Lemieux Island (constructed in 1931) and Britannia plant (1961). Both plants use an identical water treatment process and have undergone significant expansion and modernization over the years. Raw water enters the treatment plants through large intake pipes that extend into the main flow of the river.

The treatment process makes use of the "multiple barrier" principle. A series of treatment steps successively remove undesirable substances such as colour, suspended particles, algae, bacteria, and viruses from the water. The purification process in Ottawa consists of the following steps:
· primary disinfection (chlorine)
· coagulation (alum)
· flocculation (silicate)
· sedimentation
· filtration (sand/anthracite)
· pH correction (lime)
· secondary disinfection (chloramine)

During the final treatment step, fluoride is added for prevention of dental cavities, and chloramine is added to preserve water quality as it travels through the vast water distribution system.
After the treatment process, water is pumped through the distribution network of watermains (over 2400 km of watermain piping) to reach water customers over an area roughly 25 km by 50 km. Treated water from both the Britannia and Lemieux Island water plants is blended as it travels through the distribution system.
Pressure and storage requirements are met through the operation of 20 pumping stations and reservoirs located throughout the system. The total volume of water stored in reservoirs is 270 Million Litres, about 2/3 of daily water production.

Drinking Water Standards

Health Canada has established the "Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality" which lists 80 maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) values for various substances that are of health concern, as well as aesthetic guidelines for substances that affect consumer acceptance such as taste, odour, colour, and hardness. The Ontario Ministry of Environment has established "Ontario Drinking Water Standards" (ODWS) with MAC levels adopted from the Health Canada guidelines, as well as standards for several additional parameters.

Health Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment maintain that adherence to these standards will result in drinking water that is safe and protective of public health.

Surface water

Some of our cities still discharge raw or partially treated sewage with metals, grease and toxins into rivers, lakes and oceans. In the United States, most cities, even small ones, are required to perform at least secondary sewage treatment (see "Waste matters,"). In addition to treatment?plant discharges, overflows from combined sewers and dirty storm water are huge sources of water pollution in most Canadian cities. Although the technologies exist to solve these problems sewer separations and chemical recycling and other source controls to keep toxics out of the sewer system to begin with no consistent regulations require cities to clean up.

An Environment Canada working group is considering a national strategy for dealing with municipal wastewater effluent. Its report is expected this fall. But don't hold your breath waiting for real regulations. Says group member Michael Guilcher, Environment Canada's manager of pollution reduction in Halifax, "It takes about two years to get a new regulation through the system."

Drinking water

Revisions to the THM [trihalomethane, a by?product of chlorination] guideline were debated for seven years," echoes Health Canada engineer David Green, recorder for the federal?provincial subcommittee on drinking water (see " Can we drink the water?"). While there is a federal guideline for THMs, there are none for PCBs or dioxins in drinking water, to name just a couple of surprising omissions.

Water contamination and its effect on our health

“Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall.
He will end by destroying the earth.”
Albert Schweitzer

The causes of water contamination are numerous and range from agricultural runoff to improper use of household chemicals and everything in between. While the standard use in our society of over 75,000 different chemical compounds has offered added convenience and productivity in our lives, it has also come at a tremendous price… drastic increase in degenerative diseases. In the early 1900s, before chlorine, pesticides, herbicides and the tens of thousands of other chemicals that we are exposed to, the average person had a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer, today 1 in 3 can expect to get cancer in their lifetime, one out of every 2 men.

Our use of man made chemicals has become so extreme that we can now find traces of these low level toxins in virtually every public water supply in the world. A recent report by the Ralph Nader Study Group, after reviewing over 10,000 documents acquired through the Freedom Of Information Act, stated that “U.S. drinking water contains more than 2,100 toxic chemicals that can cause cancer.” The Federal Council On Environmental Quality reports that “Up to two thirds of all cancers may be attributed to these low level toxins.” and that “once contaminated our ground water will remain so for tens of thousands of years… if not geologic time!”

Our tendency is to blame it on the big factory up stream. And while industry has certainly played its part in our water contamination problems, it is “us” individuals that are the most to blame. The majority of the contaminants found in our drinking water can be traced back to improper or excessive use of ordinary compounds like lawn chemicals, gasoline, cleaning products and even prescription drugs.

Once we realize that everything that goes down the drain, on our lawns, on our agricultural fields or into the environment by any means… eventually winds up in the water we drink, we begin to see just how fragile our water supplies really are.

Our municipal water treatment facilities are not designed or effective for removing these synthetic chemicals and typically only consist of sand bed filtration and disinfection, much like a standard swimming pool filter. For the most part today’s water treatment facilities are much the same as they were at the turn of the century. “Drinking water plants are old and out of date, and water supplies are increasingly threatened by and contaminated by chemicals and microorganisms.” Natural Resources Defense Council. “The way we guarantee safe drinking water is broken and needs to be fixed.” Carol Browner, U.S. EPA.

One of America’s leading authorities on water contamination, Dr. David Ozonoff of the Boston University Of Public Health warns that, “the risk of disease associated with public drinking water has passed from the theoretical to the real.” Many illnesses that in the past could not be linked to a probable cause, can now be directly linked to toxins in our drinking water.

The use of pesticides and herbicides has become so excessive that they are now commonly found in household tap water with alarming frequency.

A 1994 study of 29 major U.S. cities by the Environmental Working Group found that all 29 cities had traces of at least one weed killer in the drinking water. The report titled “Tap Water Blues“ went on to say that “Millions of Americans are routinely exposed to one or more pesticides in a single glass of tap water”.

These first ever “tap water testings” found two or more pesticides in the drinking water of 27 of the 29 cities, three or more in 24 cities, four or more in 21 cities, five or more in 18 cities, six or more in 13 cities and seven or more pesticides in the tap water of five cities. In Fort Wayne Indiana nine different pesticides were found in a single glass of tap water!

As a startling side note it was reported that in these 29 cities 45,000 infants drank formula mixed with tap water containing weed killers and that “ over half of these infants were swallowing 4 to 9 chemicals in every bottle!”

The tragic health effects of consuming these highly toxic chemicals are magnified many times over for small children because their systems are more sensitive and still developing. Small children also consume a much larger volume of fluids per pound of body weight and therefore get a bigger dose, yet non of these factors are considered when the EPA’s maximum contaminant levels are set. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 1993 on this subject and stated that “ children are not little adults, their bodies are less developed and incapable of detoxifying certain harmful compounds.”

Another major flaw in the estimated risks of chemicals in our drinking water is the false assumption that only that one chemical is being consumed. The regulations are set based on what is assumed safe for a 175 pound adult drinking water with only that one chemical present and does not take into account the combined toxicity of two or more chemicals. In a 1995 Science Advisory Report to the EPA it was stated that “when two or more of these contaminants combine in our water the potency may be increased by as much as 1000 times.” Regardless of the differing opinions it is safe to assume that there is no acceptable level for pesticides and weed killers in our drinking water.

In America each year we use over 2.2 billion pounds of pesticides, or eight pounds for every man woman and child in the country.

Industrial solvents like TCE and Benzene make their way into our water supplies from literally hundreds of sources. Airports and military bases degrease planes and engine parts with TCE, one of the most concentrated toxins in existence. One teaspoon of TCE will render undrinkable over 250,000 gallons of water, and yet thousands of gallons are used in uncontained applications each day. Perchlorethelyne, cyanide, and benzene are used in such common industries as dry cleaning, car washes and photo processing, much of which ends up going down someone's drain and into our water supplies. It has been shown that areas with the highest levels of these man made carcinogens in their water supplies also have the highest incidence of cancer. Jacquelyn Warren of the Natural Resources Defense Council commented on this subject, “The one thing we know for sure about toxins in our drinking water is that the more we look the more we find.”

Cancer extracts a staggering toll from our society, one in every seven people will die from this man made disease. According to the Center For Disease Control “death from cancer is increasing more rapidly than is the population”. It is now widely accepted that cancer is an environmental disease. The World Health Organization and the National Cancer Institute both suggest that most human cancers, perhaps as many as 90% are caused by chemical carcinogens in the environment. This realization is paramount for change because it means that most cancers could be prevented by minimizing or eliminating our exposure to chemical carcinogens.

While the powerful chemical industry argues that the levels of these toxins in the environment are not significant, scientific evidence has shown otherwise. A National Cancer Institute report to the Surgeon General concluded that “no level of exposure to a chemical carcinogen should be considered toxicologically insignificant for man.”

We spend billions of dollars each year seeking a cure for cancer. The disease is merely a result of the real problem, environmental pollution. If we were to direct these billions of dollars and the same intense effort towards curing the problem (pollution) instead of learning to live with the result (cancer) we would do future generations a great service, and we could realistically stop the “cancer epidemic”.

Chlorine, cancer and heart disease

"We are quite convinced, based on this study, that there is an association between cancer and chlorinated water”
Medical College Of Wisconsin research team.

The addition of chlorine to our drinking water began in the late 1800s and by 1904 was the standard in water treatment, and for the most part remains so today. We don’t use chlorine because it’s the safest or even the most effective means of disinfection, we use it because it is the cheapest. In spite of all our technological advances, we essentially still pour bleach in our water before we drink it. The long term effects of chlorinated drinking water have just recently being recognized. According to the U.S. Council Of Environmental Quality, “Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.”

Dr. Joseph Price wrote a highly controversial book in the late sixties titled “Coronaries/ Cholesterol/ Chlorine” and concluded that “ nothing can negate the incontrovertible fact, the basic cause of atherosclerosis and resulting entities such as heart attacks and stroke, is chlorine.” Dr. Price later headed up a study using chickens as test subjects, where two groups of several hundred birds were observed throughout their span to maturity. One group was given water with chlorine and the other without. The group raised with chlorine, when autopsied, showed some level of heart or circulatory disease in every specimen, the group without had no incidence of disease. The group with chlorine under winter conditions, showed outward signs of poor circulation, shivering, drooped feathers and a reduced level of activity. The group without chlorine grew faster, larger and displayed vigorous health. This study was well recepted in the poultry industry and is still used as a reference today. As a result, most large poultry producers use dechlorinated water. “It would be a common sense conclusion that if regular chlorinated tap water is not good enough for the chickens, then it probably is not good enough for us humans!”

There is a lot of well founded concern about chlorine. When chlorine is added to our water, it combines with other natural compounds to form Trihalomethanes (chlorination byproducts), or THMs. These chlorine byproducts trigger the production of free radicals in the body, causing cell damage, and are highly carcenogenic. “Although concentrations of these carcinogens (THMs) are low, it is precisely these low levels that cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States“. The Environmental Defense Fund.

Simply stated chlorine is a pesticide, as defined by the U.S. EPA, who’s sole purpose is to kill living organisms. When we consume water containing chlorine, it kills some part of us, destroying cells and tissue inside our body. Dr. Robert Carlson, a highly respected University of Minnesota researcher who’s work is sponsored by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, sums it up by claiming, “the chlorine problem is similar to that of air pollution”, and adds that “chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times!”

Breast cancer, which now effects one in every eight women in North America, has recently been linked to the accumulation of chlorine compounds in the breast tissue. A study carried out in Hartford Connecticut, the first of it’s kind in North America, found that, “women with breast cancer have 50% to 60% higher levels of organochlorines (chlorination byproducts) in their breast tissue than women without breast cancer.”

One of the most shocking components to all of these studies is that up to 2/3s of our harmful exposure to chlorine is due to inhalation of steam and skin absorption while showering. A warm shower opens up the pores of the skin and allows for excelerated absorption of chlorine and other chemicals in water. The steam we inhale while showering can contain up to 50 times the level of chemicals than tap water due to the fact that chlorine and most other contaminants vaporize much faster and at a lower temperature than water. Inhalation is a much more harmful means of exposure since the chlorine gas (chloroform) we inhale goes directly into our blood stream. When we drink contaminated water the toxins are partially filtered out by our kidneys and digestive system. Chlorine vapors are known to be a strong irritant to the sensitive tissue and bronchial passages inside our lungs, it was used as a chemical weapon in World War II. The inhalation of chlorine is a suspected cause of asthma and bronchitis, especially in children… which has increased 300% in the last two decades. “Showering is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every home because of chlorine in the water.” Dr Lance Wallace, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Chlorine in shower water also has a very negative cosmetic effect, robbing our skin and hair of moisture and elasticity, resulting in a less vibrant and youthful appearance. Anyone who has ever swam in a chlorinated pool can relate to the harsh effects that chlorine has on the skin and hair. What’s surprising is that we commonly find higher levels of chlorine in our tap water than is recommended safe for swimming pools.

Aside from all the health risks related to chlorine in our water, it is the primary cause of bad taste and odor in drinking water. The objectionable taste causes many people to turn to other less healthful beverages like soft drinks, tea or other sweetened drinks. A decreased intake of water, for any reason, can only result in a lower degree of health.

The good news is that chlorine is one of the easiest substances to remove from our water. For that reason it logically should serve it’s purpose of keeping our water free from harmful bacteria and water borne diseases right up to the time of consumption, where it should then be removed by quality home filtration.

No one will argue that chlorine serves an important purpose, and that the hazards of doing away with chlorine are greater than or equal to the related health risks. The simple truth is that chlorine is likely here to stay. The idea that we could do away with chlorine any time in the near future is just not realistic. It is also clear that chlorine represents a very real and serious threat to our health, and should be removed in our homes, at the point of use, both from the water we drink and the water we shower in.

Chlorinated drinking water: Health or hazard?

Josef Tyls III, MSc, PhD


Bladder cancer has been linked to chlorinated drinking water in epidemiological studies.

How harmful is it to consume chlorine and chlorine disinfection byproducts in our water? Proponents of chlorine claim there is no danger. But not all the information has been
disclosed to the general public.

Water and our health and wellness

Clean water is absolutely essential for all proper body functions, including skin and organ integrity, immune system balance, cellular respiration and repair, waste elimination, and longevity.
The primary purpose of clean water within the body is to transport nutrients to the cells and then transport waste byproducts to the eliminatory system. It is absolutely essential in maintaining the critical balance needed to support life. Yet this system, with its multiplicity of interrelated dependencies, can be grossly affected by minute traces of chemical toxins like chlorine.

Hazardous byproducts of chlorination

Chlorine is used to disinfect municipal water supplies and swimming pools from harmful bacteria. But chlorine is also a highly toxic element, which has an ability to oxidize all proteins, effectively rendering them useless. All living organisms are made up of proteins. Hence, any living organism that comes in contact with even trace amounts of chlorine is affected and, if exposed to sufficient quantities of chlorine, killed.
The major health issue regarding the chlorination of municipal water is that it exposes us to a variety of toxic chemicals called trihalomethanes (THMs), which are byproducts of chlorination. Studies have linked THMs to miscarriage and fetal malformations, and they may be also associated with an increased risk of stillbirths.
One of the most common of the THMs, chloroform, is classed as a potential cancer-causing agent. In public pools it has been measured at more than twenty times the level found in tap water. Little data exists regarding dermal and inhalation exposure routes to the chloroform body-burden from domestic and recreational use of chlorinated water.
And not all harmful bacteria are effectively disinfected by chlorine. The bacteria Cryptosporidium parvum, excreted in the feces of infected humans, cattle, and other mammals, is highly resistant to chlorine at the levels normally found in swimming pools and drinking water. Giardia lamblia is also more resistant to disinfection by chlorine, but can be effectively filtered.

How safe is showering?

Volatile chemicals like THMs can evaporate from water in a shower or bath. Conservative calculations indicate that inhalation exposures can be as
significant as exposure from drinking the water; that is, one can be exposed to the same amount of THMs by
inhaling during a shower as by drinking two litres of water a day. People who shower frequently could be exposed through ingestion, inhalation, and/or dermal absorption.
Some studies found that the dangers from inhaling chlorine can even exceed those derived from drinking chlorinated water. The amount of chloroform, the most common
trihalomethane in chlorinated water, inhaled or absorbed through the skin during a typical shower may be six times higher than that absorbed from chlorinated drinking water.

The cancer connection

Epidemiological studies funded by Health Canada concluded that 14 to 16 percent of bladder cancers in Ontario may be attributable to drinking water containing relatively high levels of chlorination byproducts. According to the results of a 1992 Norwegian study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, the consumption of chlorinated drinking water has been associated with a 20- to 40-percent increase in the incidence of colon and rectal cancer.
A study done by the Medical College of Wisconsin and Harvard University found that the consumption of chlorinated drinking water accounts for nearly 15 percent of all rectal cancers and nine percent of all bladder cancers in North America. The study also concluded that drinking chlorinated water over long periods of time increases the chances of contracting rectal cancer by 38 percent and contracting bladder cancer by 21 percent. In addition, among those who drank chlorinated water, the researchers found a higher incidence of cancer of the esophagus, rectum, breast, and
larynx, as well as Hodgkin’s disease.

Josef Tyls III, MSc, PhD, is an industrial engineer who specializes in H2O processing and related technologies.

Health and Science - Study: Dirty tap water puts pregnant women at risk

WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of americans have been drinking tap water contaminated with chemical by-products from chlorine that are far more than what studies suggest may be safe for pregnant women, two environmental groups say in a new study.
Chlorine is commonly used to disinfect drinking water. When it is added to water that contains organic matter such as runoff from farms or lawns, however, it can form compounds such as chloroform that can cause illness.
The study released Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group and Public Interest Research Groups identified areas that may have increased health risks including miscarriage, neural tube defects and reduced fetal growth from women drinking chlorination byproducts.
"By failing to clean up rivers and reservoirs that provide drinking water for hundreds of millions of Americans, EPA and the Congress have forced water utilities to chlorinate water that is contaminated with animal waste, sewage, fertilizer, algae and sediment," the report says.
Jane Houlihan, EWG's research director, said the report also shows how that cleanup failure has "a direct impact on human health." Pregnant women need to drink plenty of water, she said, but they can reduce their exposure to potential risks through simple measures such as home filters and purchasing bottled water.
One expert on environmental health cautioned that the link between the byproducts and pregnancy risks is suggestive, not conclusive.
Still, if the pregnancy studies are proved, millions could be at risk, said Dr. Robert Morris, an environmental epidemiologist at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
"That body of literature isn't necessarily conclusive but people ought to be aware of it," Morris said. "It's pretty clear that some of these compounds can be pretty bad actors. The fact that these levels are as high as they are is certainly something to be concerned about."
The environmental groups combed water quality records in 29 states and the District of Columbia and matched them with various research into birth defects and miscarriages conducted by state and federal agencies and universities.
"The groups said the places statistically most at risk due to chlorination byproducts were those that are populous, lacked buffers from urban sprawl and were downstream from agricultural sites. But women in small towns generally face twice the risk from drinking high levels of the by-products", Houlihan said.
Matching high rates doesn't prove the environmental risk caused the health problems, however. Also, the results are limited because, among other reasons, such health records do not exist in some states.
The Environmental Protection Agency already has decided that some chlorination byproducts pose health risks and instituted stricter standards on Jan. 1 for seven of them: five haloacetic acids, bromate and chlorite. The agency also began requiring a reduction by one-fifth of the allowable level for trihalomethanes, another chemical produced by adding chlorine to dirty water.
EPA studies showed that reducing the level of trihalomethanes might mean 2,332 fewer cases of bladder cancer per year, down from its estimate of up to 9,300 annual cases caused by trihalomethanes.
While the environmental groups said the majority of water suppliers were meeting the current and future drinking water health standards, they also found that since 1995 more than 11 million people in 1,044 communities were being served water contaminated with chlorination byproducts for 12 months in a row at levels above the new legal limit.
To reduce the risks, the groups said, the federal government should provide billions of dollars more for cleaning up sources of contaminated water and providing more buffer areas that can filter potential contaminants from farmland and urban areas.

Lead In Drinking Water

"Lead is the number one environmental health threat to our children."
-U.S. department of Health And Human Services-

Next to chlorine, lead is the most common contaminant found in tap water. Lead in drinking water usually originates between the water main in the street and the household faucet, so treatment from a central point is neither logical or practical. Most lead in drinking water comes from lead lined pipes, lead solder and brass plumbing fixtures inside your home. The EPA estimates that 98% of all homes have pipes, fixtures or solder joints in the household plumbing that can contribute some level of lead to the tap water.
It has been determined and recognized by the EPA that there is no safe level for lead in drinking water and that any level poses some degree of adverse health effects.
Ironically lead takes it’s greatest toll on small children. Even very low levels of lead can cause reduced IQs, learning disabilities and behavioral problems such as hypertension and reduced attention span in children. And often the effects of lead are life long and irreversible.
In adults lead in drinking water causes high blood pressure and reduces hemoglobin production necessary for oxygen transport and interferes with normal cellular calcium metabolism. Water borne lead effects every one in a very tragic and permanent way. Lead exposure is cumulative and long lasting. This toxic metal is stored by the body, primarily in teeth and bones. When the body is under physical stress, or deficient in certain minerals, the stored lead is released in varying quantities depending on the individuals physical state.
Essentially, lead has a very damaging effect on the body’s electrical system, the nervous system. It causes the critical life giving messages, sent from the brain to every cell and organ in our body, to become distorted. This results in the onset of a chain of tragic health effects.
It is estimated by the U.S. EPA that lead in drinking water contributes to 560,000 cases of learning disorders in children and 680,000 cases of hypertension in adults, each year in the U.S. alone. Some studies have even shown a relationship in exposure to lead and adolescent crime. Areas in large cities that have shown to have higher levels of lead in the drinking water, have also been found to have a higher rate of pre-adult crime. The effects of lead in drinking water; depression, anxiety, learning disabilities and hypertension are many of the same factors that lead to anti-social behavior and in some cases violent activities in children and teenagers.
In the first quarter of 1993, the EPA released a first-time report that showed the results of the new “test at the tap” requirements for lead in drinking water. The report documented that, in America, 42 states exceeded the legal limits of lead in drinking water and that other states failed to do the required testing. Some areas had lead levels in excess of 450 parts per billion, thirty times the legal limit of 15 ppb. The level the EPA has set as the safe level, or MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal), is -0- ppb.
The U.S. EPA has also found that in adult males, better control over lead in drinking water could prevent over 680,000 cases of hypertension, 650 strokes, 880 heart attacks, and 670 premature deaths from heart disease every year in America alone.
In 1991, the U.S. EPA lowered the federal standard for the allowable level of lead in drinking water from 50 ppb (parts per billion) to 15 ppb. This new standard was an improvement, but according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, was in violation of federal law. The law requires EPA to set Maximum Contaminant Levels based on “health effects” and not economic feasibility. Even though research presented to the EPA documented that there is NO safe level for lead in drinking water, and that any level poses certain adverse health effects, the allowable level was set at 15 ppb after an intense lobbying effort by the water utilities. EPA’s new standard also gave water utilities, that were out of compliance, up to 20 years to comply.
Essentially, every household with indoor plumbing has some level of lead in the tap water that represents a health risk. The biggest tragedy of lead contamination from drinking water is that it is completely preventable. By taking a few simple steps, beginning with Point-Of-Use filtration of our drinking water, we can virtually eliminate the crippling effects of lead on our society, and most importantly on our children.

Kids Are Not Little Adults

By Charles Strand

Other than just being smaller, children’s bodies are really quite different than that of an adult. Because many of the crucial defense systems that help protect adults from disease and environmental pollutants are not fully developed in children, they are much more sensitive to environmental pollutants. Just as medications and other chemical compounds effect children differently than they do adults, so do contaminants in our air, drinking water and foods. Unfortunately there is little we can do about toxins in the air and chemicals in foods, which makes the purity of our water even more critical. Water is the body’s only way to flush out these toxins, and the purer the water is to start with… the higher it’s capacity is to collect and cleanse these harmful compounds from the body. Pure water helps a child’s defenses grow stronger and perform better, giving them the protection they need during those fragile developing years.

A child’s immune and detoxification systems are still developing into and throughout their early teens. Exposure to even very low levels of toxic chemicals in childhood years has been linked to increased risks of degenerative disease in later years. A mixture of chemicals such as chlorine, lead, herbicides, pesticides and a host of other contaminants are commonly found in our water supplies, and in many bottled waters. These trace levels of water borne chemicals have been documented to have adverse health effects on humans, and especially small children. Unfortunately the health standards that determine how much and what levels of these toxins we are permitted to consume in our drinking water are all based on the potential effects on adults. These “Maximum Contaminant Levels” (MCLs) are also based on the false assumption that we are only exposed to one chemical at a time. We find every thing from gasoline additives to traces of prescription drugs from recycled waste water in our public water systems. Often there are out breaks of chlorine resistant parasites like Cryptosporidium and Giardia in city water supplies, just as was the case recently in Milwaukee WI, when over 100 people died and 400,000 became sick, mostly children, when the water system became contaminated with Cryptosporidium, an intestinal parasite that causes flu like symptoms, but can be fatal to children and the elderly.

Childhood Asthma, Cancer, Leukemia and immune disorders have all risen in the last decade. Many experts and studies suggest that this is due to children’s increased exposure to environmental toxins and their decreased ability to detox. Water plays a major role in a child’s exposure to pollutants and in their body’s ability to get rid of them.

A child consumes 3 times as much water per pound of body weight than an adult does, so they get a bigger dose of the chemicals in our water, and they’re developing bodies are simply much more sensitive.

An increased intake of pure healthy water is one of the easiest and best ways to help promote good health for our children.

Choosing to safeguard the quality of the water we use, as adults, is a choice we are all free to make for ourselves. Choosing to protect our children’s health is an instinctive responsibility, and water plays a major role in that protection.

“The human body is over 70% water, it’s a common sense equation that the quality of the water we drink will have a major impact on our health.”

Return to top of page

Study: Bottled water no better than tap water

GENEVA (AP) — Despite perceptions that it's healthier, there is little difference between bottled water and tap water — apart from cost — a conservation group said Thursday.

"Bottled water may be no safer, or healthier, than tap water in many countries while selling for up to 1,000 times the price," the World Wildlife Fund said.

Bottled water is the fastest growing beverage industry in the world, worth up to $22 billion a year, according to the fund.

A study commissioned by the fund found the "bottled water market is partly fueled by concerns over the safety of municipal water and by the marketing of many brands which portray them as being healthier than tap water."

The fund also said bottled water sales were rising because people were worried about pollution.

"Our attitudes toward tap water are being shaped by the pollution which is choking the rivers and streams," said the fund's water campaign director Richard Holland.

But the study — conducted by University of Geneva researcher Catherine Ferrier — said the only difference between some bottled water and tap water is that it is distributed in bottles rather than pipes.

But Stephen Kay, spokesman for the International Bottled Water Association, said the fund's criticism was misguided.

"The goals are laudable, and we agree totally that people have a right to clean drinking water," he told The Associated Press by telephone from Alexandria, Va. "But bottled water sales are a symptom of the problem, not the cause itself."

"The difference between bottled water and tap water is that bottled water's quality is consistent," he said.

But according to the fund, regulatory standards for European and U.S. tap water are tougher than those applied to the bottled water industry.

While agreeing bottled water may be safer in areas where tap water may be contaminated, the fund said boiled or filtered tap water is still a better option for people on a lower income.

Buying bottled water is "not a long term sustainable solution to securing access to healthy water. Protecting rivers will help ensure that tap water remains a service which delivers good quality drinking water for everyone at a fair price," according to the fund.

The group added that 1.5 million tons of plastic are used to bottle water every year. "Toxic chemicals can be released into the environment during the manufacture and disposal of bottles," it said.

Thursday, 3 May, 2001

Bottled water 'a waste of money'

Cheaper and better for the environment, says the WWF

By Claire Doole in Geneva

Research commissioned by a Swiss-based conservation group indicates that bottled water is often no healthier or safer to drink than tap water.

The World Wide Fund for Nature argues strongly that bottled water is not only environmentally unfriendly but also a waste of money. The research by the University of Geneva shows that bottled water sells for up to 1,000 times the price of tap water, but that the quality is often no better.

In 50% of cases the only difference is that bottled water has added minerals and salts, which do not actually mean the water is healthier.

Furthermore, some bottled waters are exactly the same standard as tap water, without being as energy efficient.

Uphill battle

Tap water comes from underground pipes, while the manufacture, distribution and disposal of bottled water requires much more energy and fuel.

While the WWF does acknowledge that bottled water is generally safer in areas where tap water is contaminated, it says boiling or filtering local water is a cheaper and more sustainable alternative.

The long-term solution, it argues, is to clean up municipal water supplies.

But in the meantime, the conservationists are fighting an uphill battle.

The bottled water market is booming. It is the fastest growing drinks industry in the world and shows no signs of drying up.

Are Shower Filters Necessary And Beneficial?
Editorial By Charles Strand, Water Quality Specialist

The answer is simply “both”! Over the last decade the cosmetic benefits of showering in filtered water have been realized and experienced by millions of consumers around the world. “It’s so noticeable, you can feel the difference in your skin and hair the very first time you use a shower filter.” Rena’ Matthews / Nutritional Consultant and Editor of Cosmetology Today.

Any one who has ever swam in a chlorinated pool can readily relate to the harsh drying effect that chlorine has on your skin and hair. By removing chlorine from your shower water you allow your skin and hair to retain their natural moisture content for a softer feel and more youthful appearance. It’s like showering in natural spring water, a difference that is immediately noticeable.

For most people the aesthetic advantages are most noticeable, but recentdocumentation of the surprising health advantages of showering in filtered water prove the necessity. It has been shown that our body takes in more chemicals during a ten minute shower than from drinking a gallon of the same water. Dermal absorption and inhalation of chlorine and other chemicals while showering has now been linked to breast cancer, bladder cancer, asthma and many other ailments. During a hot shower the pores of our skin open and allow for an accelerated rate of absorption. We’ve long known that chemicals can be absorbed through the skin, a common example is the nicotine patch. Imagine the rate of chemical absorption in warm water and over the entire surface of your skin.

Of equal concern is the level of chemical exposure from inhalation. Almost all synthetic chemicals, including chlorine, vaporize at a much faster rate than water. The result is that the steam has a much higher concentration of the chemicals found in water, often 10 to 30 times higher. We also know that when chemicals are inhaled, they get into our blood stream almost immediately and have a more intense effect.

The American Journal Of Public Health, in 1992, published the results of a ten year study that showed how chlorine in our water caused significant increases in certain types of cancer… and stated that up to 2/3 of our harmful exposure comes from inhalation of steam while showering. The U.S. EPA recently released a report that said “ Virtually every home in America has a detectable level of chloroform gas in the air due to chlorine and showering.” The National Breast Cancer Fund has published many recent reports on the “Chlorine Connection”, and documented that the one common factor among women with breast cancer is that they all have 50 to 60% higher levels of chlorine by-products in their breast tissue. Today in America, a women dies of breast cancer every 13 minutes.

Childhood asthma has increased by over 300% in the last two decades even though outdoor air quality has improved. Medical science now suspects a large part of this increase is due to a decline in indoor air quality, much of which can be traced to synthetic chemicals that vaporize and become airborne from shower water.

My initial involvement in the home water quality industry began over 15 years ago when we discovered that our six month old son’s, so called, “chronic asthma” turned out to be nothing more than a sensitivity to chlorine in our water. I’ve since produced and sold over 3 million shower filtration systems and heard literally hundreds of testimonials from people who have had similar experiences.

The health hazards from absorption and inhalation of chemicals while showering have been heavily documented. The cosmetic benefits of showering in filtered water are instantly noticeable. These factors combine to make a shower filter one of the most unique and beneficial household appliances we have available to us.

In today’s industrialized society we use over 75,000 toxic chemicals, 2100 of which have already been found in our public water supplies, (Ralph Nader Research Report), all of which can be absorbed and inhaled while showering. It is critically important to reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals to the greatest degree possible… and a shower filter is one of the most effective means of doing so.

“The need for, and benefits of, showering in chemical free water are equal to or greater than that of drinking chemical free water. “

The Air we Breath

Indoor air is 100 times more polluted than outdoor air.
Bad, stale air in your home can cause:
· eye, nose, throat and lung irritations
· colds and flu, sneezing and wheezing
· headaches, fatigue, asthma and allergy symptoms
· waking up with puffy eyes, a sore throat, or a stuffed up nose

What you can't see CAN hurt you.
99% of pollutants are so small that they are invisible to the naked eye!

Bacteria
Asbestos
Viruses
Pollen
Dust Mites
Formaldehyde
Germs... and more

Filter facts:

Dust contains 2% aluminum.

There are over two million dust mites in every double bed.

Ozone can kill mould.

A human hair is .75 microns thick. Bacteria is .22 microns. A virus is .01 microns. The Nutri-Tech cartridge filters down to 0.03 microns.

Scientists believe that while air pollution probably doesn't cause asthma, other respiratory conditions or heart problems, it certainly aggravates them. And new research suggests that some of the smallest pollutants (too small to be measured until recently) may be linked to lung cancer.

U.S. POLLUTION IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

BUT HOMEGROWN HAZARDS ARE ALSO TAKING A TOLL ON HUMAN HEALTH.

By Pat Moffat
First published in Chatelaine's October 1996 issue.
© Pat Moffat

Every breath I take hurts," says Judy LeBlanc, one of Saint John's most vocal campaigners for clean air. Stricken for more than 10 years with a severe respiratory disease, bronchiectasis, and maintained by medications whose side effects include heart palpitations, nausea and weight loss, the 43?year?old mother of two teenagers continues to fight local air pollution despite
her doctors' warnings to slow down. She knows the air is making her sicker.

Part of LeBlanc's motivation is to fulfill a pact she made with her friend and fellow
campaigner Cynthia Marino, who died during an asthma attack in May 1995. "Cindy and I
promised that if one of us died, the other would continue the work," says LeBlanc.

In several urban trouble spots?Vancouver, Saint John and the Quebec City?Windsor corridor?air pollution is taking a toll on human health. Studies are showing that people with respiratory and heart conditions are at risk of premature death in polluted cities and that children can be seriously affected. Some of the most dangerous pollutants are ozone (which contributes to smog and comes primarily from vehicles), sulfate (an acidic aerosol formed largely from industrial and power?plant emissions of sulfur dioxide), carbon monoxide (largely from vehicles) and very fine particles (primarily from industrial emissions) that penetrate deeply into the lungs. This "particulate matter" is measured in microns as PM10 or PM2.5; a human hair, by comparison, is 100 microns thick.

Scientists believe that while air pollution probably doesn't cause asthma, other respiratory conditions or heart problems, it certainly aggravates them. And new research suggests that some of the smallest pollutants (too small to be measured until recently) may be linked to lung cancer.

Saint John receives hefty amounts of pollutants from the United States. But it's a local problem that's made the city's air notorious. In Saint John's east end, an oil?fired electricity plant, a pulp?and?paper mill and the biggest oil refinery in Canada, owned by the Irving family, all emit sulfur dioxide, which, in the city's frequent fogs, becomes sulfuric acid. "Saint John is certainly not the most polluted city in Canada, but it has the most acidic air we've ever measured," says Health Canada scientist Rick Burnett. Unfortunately, neither Environment Canada's air quality index nor our supplemental data fully reflect the amount of corrosive sulfuric acid in
the air. That's why Saint John scores higher than it probably should in our air quality rankings (see "The regulatory haze.")

In southern Ontario, on the other hand (where up to half the air pollution comes from the United States), and Vancouver (where most is homegrown), ozone and fine particles are of greatest concern. A study by Burnett and Haluk Ozkaynak at the Harvard School of Public Health, which correlated nonaccidental deaths with daily levels of ozone and other pollutants over 20 years in Metro Toronto, concluded that 30 deaths each month are related to high levels of air pollution.

"Among asthmatics and people with allergies, even a low exposure to ozone can increase their sensitivity to allergens," says Dr. David Bates, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of British Columbia and an authority on air pollution and health. "Studies are also showing that PM10 has a long?term and highly significant health impact, not only for asthma but possibly also for lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases." People doing aerobic exercise in peak smog times, the elderly, infants and children are especially susceptible. Health Canada's Rick Burnett has found that 15 percent of the summer hospitalizations of babies in southern Ontario are linked to high levels of air pollution.

In the west, Calgary and Edmonton contend with hydrogen sulfide from the petroleum industry and traffic exhaust. Winnipeg's wheat?stubble burning in the fall and swirling sand in the spring (from winter de?icing) help explain its mediocre position in our air quality rankings. And in near?pristine Saskatoon, which scores among the best on the pollutants Environment Canada reports, teacher Judith Benson is seeing more children with "puffers" for asthma. She also worries about cancer from pesticide residues. "In the summer, there's grit on my furniture," says
Benson. "If we're getting topsoil as household dust, we must be getting the pesticides too." So far, there are no studies to ease?or confirm?her fears.

Compared with much of the world, Canada enjoys enviable air quality. Yet the fact remains that Canadians are getting sick and dying from air pollution. And unanswered questions beg for better regulations and monitoring. It's citizens who often drive change. In Saint John, Judy LeBlanc is proud of what "two housewives" and other volunteers in the Citizens' Coalition for Clean Air have helped accomplish in two years: a new Clean Air bill before the legislature and a
toughening of the provincial standard for industrial sulfur dioxide emissions. And now that LeBlanc no longer lives in the pollution?plagued east end her family moved last winter she has more energy to campaign for a respiratory clinic.

THE REGULATORY HAZE

First, the bad news. Our guidelines are old, our laws have no teeth and change is a political
football. The good news? There's a committee studying the problem...

By Pat Moffat
First published in Chatelaine's October 1996 issue.
© Pat Moffat

Last year we had egg on our face. Our ranking of Saint John as top city for air quality triggered a torrent of protests, including a letter from 14?year?old asthmatic Amy Evans.

What went wrong? Our rankings relied entirely on Environment Canada's air quality index, the main source of national pollution data, reporting acceptable or unacceptable levels of ozone, sulfur dioxide, total suspended particulate, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide in most Canadian cities. According to the index, one of the worst cities for people with respiratory diseases came out on top.

"Many things have a greater effect on health than what's in the air quality index," says Tom Dann, head of air toxics in Environment Canada's Environmental Protection Service. In Saint John, acidic aerosols and very fine particles just 2.5 microns or less in diameter (known as PM2.5) appear to be causing the problems. Yet they're not part of the main index.

Why not? Government regulations catch up with changing scientific knowledge slowly. In several areas, Canada's guidelines lag behind U.S. standards. Although the gaps in air quality guidelines are particularly glaring, similar problems are found in surface?water and drinking?water guidelines. (For an explanation of how we tried to improve this year's ranking, see "How we graded them")

AIR

We've been pushing for an objective for PM2.5 since 1987," says a frustrated Environment Canada official who asked for anonymity. While stations have monitored PM10 and PM2.5 since 1984, the main air quality index includes only "total suspended particulate," a grab bag of different?size particles that most experts now consider irrelevant as a measure for health effects. The United States has had a national standard for PM10 since 1987, and the push is on to extend the law to PM2.5.

One difficulty in trying to ensure that regulations protect human health is that for some substances there may be no way of confirming at what point they cause problems. "People get hospitalized when the ozone is less than 82 parts per billion, which is the federal objective for acceptable levels," explains Health Canada scientist Rick Burnett. "The system of how we set national objectives may not be appropriate anymore."

Toxics?including benzene, dioxins and heavy metals are another disturbing unknown. Although 40 stations monitor for many different airborne toxic chemicals across the country, no national air quality objectives cover them.

WHAT'S NEEDED NOW

Some of Canada's most serious problems with air and water pollution can't be solved without the cooperation of our closest neighbour. Three years after a bilateral air quality agreement was signed in 1991, officials of both countries began working on the trans?boundary smog problem in central and Eastern Canada, where up to 50 percent of air pollution comes from south of the border. Pete Christich, senior international officer for U.S.?Canada relations at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C., says that for the past five years the United States has been "encouraging" Canada to work with British Columbia to "make progress in treating Victoria's sewage," 91 percent of which is dumped untreated into the shared Juan de Fuca Strait. (So far, progress has been slow.)

The two countries take different approaches to air and water quality. In the United States, federal laws govern environmental standards, and polluters face fines and possible jail terms. In Canada, the federal government sets guidelines for air and water quality, which the provinces may turn into enforceable regulations. (In July, for example, Ontario bowed to political pressure and announced its intention to crack down on auto emissions. Days later, a government report showed plans to
dismantle a slew of other environmental regulations in the interests of unburdening industry.)

It's natural for environmentalists to get fed up with Canada's kinder, gentler approach, to wish our laws had more teeth and that governments enforced them more rigorously. "The federal government doesn't have the stomach to do what must be done in controlling polluters," charges Daniel Green, Co-President of the Société pour vaincre la pollution (a Quebec organization similar to Pollution Probe) in Montreal. He's referring to the industries and municipal wastewater plants
that dump mercury, lead, PCBs and other chemicals into the St. Lawrence River?polluters that could be charged under the powerful but little?used Federal Fisheries Act if the government chose to do so. When Ottawa has acted, its laws have proven effective. Banning leaded gasoline in
1990 reduced airborne lead?blamed for neurological problems in children?to very low levels. The federal environment minister's implementation of stricter standards for auto emissions this past June, which aim to meet the U.S. standards for the 1998 model year, is a step in the right direction. And revisions to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1988 may have the most far?reaching consequences yet, says Ann McMillan, member of a federal?provincial working group on air quality objectives and guidelines. The aim: to tighten regulations and strengthen the federal government's ability to prosecute polluters. But as past experience proves, it's a long slow road from good intentions to regulatory clout. In the meantime, we all pay the price. Airborne toxics are another disturbing unknown. No national objectives govern benzene, dioxins or heavy metals.

Return to top of page

ANSWERES TO YOUR QUESTIONS

What are carbon and zeolite used for?
Carbon and zeolite are used to remove gases and odors. Both have properties that allow them to adsorb gaseous materials.

What are the guarantees?
The motor, fan and other working parts come with a limited lifetime warranty and a conditional 10 mechanical warranty.

What would cause a filter to fill up in less time?
Having many pets, new carpeting, paint fumes, heavy smoking, city pollution, etc

How long do you think my unit will last?
The unit should last well over 10 years or more if properly maintained. It is the filter that must be replaced when needed.

Where should I place the unit for maximum effectiveness?
It can be placed anywhere in a room, including corners. Ideally close to an air intake vent. The air cleaner should be placed in the bedroom at night with the door closed in order to produce the best personal results. The best room in the house to use a single machine is the bedroom.

How much space does the air cleaner effectively clean?
It will clean an average bedroom in about 10 minutes with the door closed. In technical terms, it cleans up to 1,600 square feet per hour. The Compact model cleans up to 700 square feet. (All estimates assume 8 ft. ceilings.)

Does the unit require any special maintenance?
Periodic (once a month) vacuuming of the front of the pre-filter with the brush attachment of your vacuum cleaner is the only regular maintenance required for the air cleaner.

How much electricity is required to run the air cleaner?
Your Nutri-Tech uses an ordinary 120 volt outlet. Maximum draw is about 135 watts on the high setting or 1 cent per hour, average cost.

A guide to understanding air cleaning terms.

CFM
CFM (Cubic Feet per Minute) a measurement of air flow.

CADR
Although there is no universally accepted method for comparing air-cleaning devices, several investigators of portable air-cleaning units have expressed their results as a "Clean Air Delivery Rate" or CADR. The CADR is the product of the unit efficiency and the airflow rate, and is a measure of the number of CFM of air it cleans of a specific material.

RPM
Revolutions Per Minute (RPM) is a measure of speed for any rotating device. Typically found in specifications for motors.

DOP
The DOP Military Standard is the standard set by the federal government to rate particle reduction by HEPA filters. This test rates high-efficiency filters by the percentage of 0.3 micron size particles of dioctylphthalate (DOP) smoke they remove.

HEPA
HEPA stands for High Efficiency Particulate Air, and like the name says, these filters are designed to remove 99.97% of all airborne pollutants 0.3 microns or larger from the air that passes through the filter (these include tobacco smoke, household dust and pollen).

PSF
Pounds per Square Foot (PSF). A measurement of air pressure

CARBON
Carbon, the sixth most abundant element in the universe, has been known since ancient times. Many natural substances of base materials are used to make carbon. The most common of these are wood, coal, lignite, and coconut shell.
Amorphous carbon is formed when a material containing carbon is burned without enough oxygen for it to burn completely.

ACTIVATED CARBON or AC
Activated carbon is the generic term used to describe a family of carbonaceous adsorbents with a highly crystalline form and extensively developed internal pore structure. Activation creates a fast internal pore network and imparts certain surface chemistries (functional groups) inside each particle. Thus activation gives carbon its unique filtering characteristics.

ZEOLITE
Zeolite is a mineral with a unique interconnecting lattice structure. This lattice structure is arranged to form a honeycomb framework of consistent diameter interconnecting channels and pores. Negatively charged alumina and neutrally charged silica tetrahedral building blocks are stacked to produce the open three-dimensional honeycomb framework. Zeolites actually attract odors & gases and trap them in its crystalline structure.

PRE FILTER
A pre filter is the primary layer of filtration that collects large particles before they reach the HEPA filter. Eliminating these larger particles, dust and hair extends the life of your HEPA filter. Occasional vacuuming of the exterior of the unit will help extend life of the filters and will also prolong the HEPA filter life.

GAS ADSORPTION
When a gas or vapor is brought into contact with a solid, the solid takes up part of it. The molecules that disappear from the gas either enter the inside of the solid, or remain on the outside attached to the surface. The former phenomenon is termed absorption (or dissolution) and the latter adsorption.

TRAP
Trap is the process of gasses and particulate matter attaching to the surface of the carbon and or zeolite structures.

PRECIPATATOR
There are many simple electronic devices that claim to clean the air in your home by making negative ions and ozone. The claim is accurate--they do make both ozone and negative ions, and they do clean the air in your home. However, that's not the whole story. Also ozone gives off the "fresh" smell that occurs after a thunderstorm (a potent producer of ozone)

OZONE
Ozone is produced indirectly by ion generators.

MICRONS
A micron is a unit of length equal to 1 millionth of a meter or .000039th (39 millionth) of an inch. Another name for micron is micrometer.

PM10
Particulate Matter Up to 10 Microns in Diameter (PM10)
The number 10 refers to the particle size measured in microns.
PM 10's are widely considered the most dangerous to human health.

3 SPEED
3-Speed refers to a variable speed selection control on your air cleaner. This control allows you to operate your air cleaner on low, medium or high settings depending upon your needs.

BLOWER WHEEL
The blower wheel is a squirrel cage type wheel whose purpose is to move the air through the room. A blower wheel is more efficient than a fan as it will move more air and resists clogging.

PARTICLE COUNT
A standard developed for measuring particulate matter in a pre defined area.

AHAM
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) is an organization that represents the manufacturers of home appliances and creates standards with large manufacturers. While it has an admirable mission, it is important to note that AHAM is not a HEPA standard and seems to have been developed to resemble the output of electrostatic precipitators, a technologically inferior air cleaning method. It is for that reason that the output ratings are only valid for the first 72 hours (3 days) of operation.

ELECTROSTATIC
The electrostatic stage filters the air using static electricity by having a static charge on the filter to allow airborne particles to "stick" to the filter, just like static-charged clothing sticks together.

IONIZER
Ion generators act by charging the particles in a room so that they are attracted the unit. Ion generators remove small particles (e.g., tobacco smoke) from the indoor air. These devices provide a benefit by rectifying a hypothesized ion imbalance.

WARRANTY
A warranty is legal concept or doctrine that holds manufacturers or sellers responsible, or liable, for harm caused by defective products sold in the marketplace.

LIMITED WARRANTY
A limited warranty is a warranty that imposes certain limitations, and is therefore not a full warranty.

PRO RATED WARRANTY
The main filter cartridge in Nutri-Tec air purifiers is backed by the 1 year pro-rated warranty. Under this pro-rated warranty the user of a Nutri-Tech Air cleaner becomes eligible to receive a new filter cartridge at a partial cost if the unit fails within the duration period of the pro-rated warranty period. This warranty applies to the Nutri-Tech units used under normal residential conditions only. Under the pro rated warranty the sooner you have to replace the filter, the less money you pay.

GUARANTEE
A guarantee is an assurance for the fulfillment of a conditions put forth by the manufacturer.

ASHRAE
Is the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE publishes Standards for Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.

MOLD SPORES
Molds produce tiny spores to reproduce, just as plants produce seeds. Mold spores waft through the indoor and outdoor air continually. When mold spores land on a damp spot indoors, they may begin growing and digesting whatever they are growing on in order to survive. There are molds that can grow on wood, paper, carpet, and foods. When excessive moisture or water accumulates indoors, mold growth will often occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or unaddressed. Molds can trigger asthma episodes in individuals with an allergic reaction to mold.

SICK BUILDING SYNDROME
The term "sick building syndrome" (SBS) is used to describe situations in which building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be linked to time spent in a building, but no specific illness or cause can be identified. The complaints may be localized in a particular room or zone, or may be widespread throughout the building.
The following have been cited causes of or contributing factors to sick building syndrome:
Inadequate ventilation: Inadequate ventilation, which may occur if heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems do not effectively distribute air to people in the building.
Chemical contaminants from indoor sources: Most indoor air pollution comes from sources inside the building. For example, adhesives, carpeting, upholstery, manufactured wood products, copy machines, pesticides, and cleaning agents may emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including formaldehyde. Environmental tobacco smoke contributes high levels of VOCs, other toxic compounds, and respirable particulate matter. Research shows that some VOCs can cause chronic and acute health effects at high concentrations, and some are known carcinogens. Low to moderate levels of multiple VOCs may also produce acute reactions. Combustion products such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, as well as respirable particles, can come from unvented kerosene and gas space heaters, wood stoves, fireplaces and gas stoves.
Chemical contaminants from outdoor sources: The outdoor air that enters a building can be a source of indoor air pollution. For example, pollutants from motor vehicle exhausts; plumbing vents, and building exhausts (e.g., bathrooms and kitchens) can enter the building through poorly located air intake vents, windows, and other openings. In addition, combustion products can enter a building from a nearby garage.

PARTICLE COUNT PER CUBIC FOOT
Particle Count per Cubic Foot is a unit of measure to classify the amount of a particular size of particles in a cubic foot of air.

CLEANING CAPACITY
An air cleaner must constantly recirculate indoor air in order to effectively reduce concentrations of airborne particulate contamination. Cleaning the total volume of air contained within a room is the equivalent of completely changing the air in that room. Air cleaner filtration capacity is expressed as the number of air changes per hour (ACH). For air cleaners of equivalent filter effectiveness, a higher ACH rating yields higher levels of air quality improvement.

ROOM AIR CLEANER
Room air cleaners help with allergies by helping people live in cleaner, healthier environments. By sleeping in a room with an air cleaner, you will breathe much cleaner air all night long. And by also having an air cleaner in your office, or any other room where you spend a lot of time, you will maximize your clean air intake and minimize the allergens you breathe. Even if you have a good filter on your central air conditioning system, a room air cleaner will increase the purity of the air you breathe.

PORTABLE
Many room air cleaners can go with you. If your den and your bedroom are similar sizes, you can move your air cleaner to the room you're in.

Link to the Canadian association on Water Quality - Publishers the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada

Return to top of page