This thinly veiled chloramine endorsement appeared on MSN in the form of an "Ask Dr. Rob" demonstrates apparent influence of policy makers over main stream media.
The question concerns apparent water exposure symptoms from simply bathing or showering.
The answer directs attention to every other imaginable cause. And in this case the real story is all about what is not mentioned.
It hardly seems an accident that the entire long winded piece saves chloramine from as much as a single mention. This in spite of increased awareness and even legislation presently being considered in multiple states to ban the continued use in favor of an immediate return to chlorine.
See for yourself via the link immediately below.
And of course, DeepWaterWeb has a reply
May 23, 2007
Dear "Dr. Rob",
It appears that you have, knowingly or otherwise, participated in a deliberate deception. I can only wonder whether you might genuinely believe this "water allergy" to be anything but another of a flood of reports to adverse reactions to about the only water disinfectant somehow magically excluded from even a single mention in this same apparent propaganda piece.
The best indication of masterful redirection is the application of a technical term "aquagenic pruritis", with a more easy-to-remember and completely misleading description as a "water allergy" as suggested by the bold introduction. And as long as, as you state "the exact cause of this condition remains uncertain", it is an empty meaningless term for what will later be recognized as a toxicity affect from a well-enough known enemy to public health and also to the environment.
We both know, and the body of your article correctly states that it is not an allergy. What most readers will more likely remember, however, is the bold introduction "Allergic to Water? Yes it's possible."
The body of this same piece is also correct to point out that the non-allergic but very real and "miserable" reactions are all about what's in the water. Still the most likely cause associated with most reports is the one impurity specifically excluded from mention.
Somehow you did remember to mention "chlorine, fluoride" and even "mineral present in the water." This appears to leave two possibilities. One is that you, like most of the public, are completely unaware of an alarming trend to misuse chloramine as a water system disinfectant. The more sinister possibility is that you are reasonably knowledgeable and that you deliberately excluded any specific mention by including "chloramine" in the seemingly innocuous mention of "others".
I suspect you do know that chloramine is the result of mixing two chemicals that any "D" biology student knows not to mix. The result of the mixture of chlorine and ammonia is so toxic that the water systems adopting this very poor choice in a disinfectant need to wear full Hazmat gear when adding it to our water, and that accidental release of the resultant potion (primarily by water-main breaks) has already resulted in mass kill-off's of fish, frogs and other amphibians.
This same bad choice does such a poor job of disinfecting, that the World Health Organization actually recommends boiling water a full ten minutes before any immune compromised persons even think about drinking from water systems compromised by the use of chloramine. And dialysis patients are simply not allowed any water so treated.
It does however do a great job of corroding plumbing, damaging water filtration systems, and persisting in both food and drinking water (in spite of filtration attempts), and sufficiently caustic that the very acts of bathing and showering has become a known hazard for some, and an under-studied long term health risk for the rest of us.
What is worse still, is chloramine is about as persistent as the most recent prior EPA endorsed threat to our water systems, namely MTBE.
As simple a matter it is to remove chlorine and other impurities, whole home filtration systems deemed adequate to reasonably deal with chloramine removal are $15,000 and up, and there is still no guaranty offered by those offering these systems that the chloramine will not still appreciably sneak through.
Whereas there is simply insufficient study on chloramine (for it to be responsibly used in public water systems), the following are known:
What has not been established (yet) is a correlation between sharp increases in childhood asthma might be related to inhalation in a hot bath, shower, or in situations where a humidifier is used with chloraminated tap water.
The worst thing, is that with insufficient research on human health effects, there is no reasonable basis for physicians to connect the dots between the emergence of what will likely continue to be misdiagnosed as "aquagenic pruritis".
As for your own answers to this desperate call for help, had you even thought to ask the individual whether there were any changes in their water system during the time these symptoms first appeared? Or whether the same individual might experience relief when traveling to regions not yet poisoning their own system with chloramine. The same relief will be realized in the much less convenient option (to which many have actually been forced to adopt) of bathing in bottled spring water. And virtually all who remove chloramine from their food, drink and bathing practices, enjoy immediate rewards in significant improvements to their health.
Whereas you have likely detected a by of cynicism on my part, I remain hopeful that this is an honest mistake as opposed to a purposeful manipulation. If this is truly a matter of being under-informed, than I hope you might consider researching the facts and submitting a correction. A good place to start would be www.chloramine.org .
Hope this helps you, and more importantly however large an audience will benefit any followup writing you might offer after becoming a bit better informed.
Will keep you posted as to any replies from "Dr. Rob" or MSN
DeepWaterWeb wants YOUR