Slashdot Mirror


Viruses From Sewage Contaminate Deep Well Water

First time accepted submitter ckwu writes "Scientists once thought that pathogens could not reach drinking water wells sunk into deep, protected groundwater aquifers. Nevertheless, over the past decade, researchers have identified diarrhea-causing viruses at a handful of deep bedrock well sites in the U.S. and Europe. Now, researchers report where these pathogenic viruses may have originated. The viruses appear to seep from sewer pipes and then swiftly penetrate drinking water wells. Experts recommend that public water systems might need to start testing for viruses on a routine basis."

27 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. One word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shitty

    1. Re:One word by dmbasso · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just start fracking, so all these sewage contamination problems will be minimized. At least in a relative way...

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    2. Re:One word by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fuck ground water, have you looked at how many fricking earthquakes AR has had in the last 15 years and then compared it to what the state saw for a century? You can just go yanking shit deep underground without causing serious problems the the stability of the ground above it, you just can't.

      Oh and I have dealt a little with the wildcatters and what you need to know is they can get away with anything because they set their businesses up from the start to be liability proof, which frankly ought to tell you something. The wildcatters OWN NOTHING as they have it set up so the least their gear, down to the last stapler, from a shell corp they have set up overseas. Its all bullshit, same guys own both corps, its set up that way so if they poison a town or seriously fuck shit up someplace they can just "burn" the original company (with zero penalty) and then make a new one the same day with a different name but the same people and equipment because that gear is owned by the shell corp.

      Its a great scam, we had some wildcatters disappear owing more than a quarter mil to several businesses and I got some nice deals picking through their corpses at auction but the wildcatters themselves? They just burnt the company and the next town over set up anew with the new name, hell of a scam they got going, practically free money and no risks.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:One word by mcrbids · · Score: 2

      Congratulations! You've just laid out exactly why I personally object to corporations in general! There are a million ways that corporations can be used to shield liability and hide money - it could easily be argued that's the reason for their existence in the first place.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  2. Simple solution by schneidafunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just drink bottled water! Oh wait, doesn't that come from the same place? Beer it is then.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Simple solution by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Where do you think the water for beer comes from? :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Simple solution by DougOtto · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hops are a pretty effective anti-pathogen. In most beers the alcohol content isn't significant in that regard.

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    3. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where do you think the water for beer comes from? :-P

      Heaven.

    4. Re:Simple solution by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

      "I don't drink water. Fish fuck in it." - W.C. Fields

    5. Re:Simple solution by firex726 · · Score: 3

      Not quite, it wasn't "invented" to clean water from pathogens.

      The documented "How Beer Saved the World" suggests that like many things its invention was an accident, and the not making you sick properties were not realized till much later.

      All they knew was that when you boil/brew water into beer it would not make you sick later.

  3. This is what happens ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what happens when you say "in the absence of evidence it's harmful, we'll assume it's safe".

    It seems entirely reasonable that it going to move around underground. Water tends to do that.

    Sadly, this is not much different from all of the fracking and the like going on -- everybody says "well, it must be safe since there's no evidence to the contrary", and then people find themselves with flammable tap water. Then the companies try hard to deny that what they did had any impact, and that it must have been contaminated before (even when things were tested and came up clean).

    Water will move around in cracks, and penetrate wherever it can. Human sewage is going to be full of pathogens, and those aren't going to stay put because we want them to.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:This is what happens ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I recall the claims about fracking causing flammable water were debunked.

      Only by the people doing the fracking who go to great lengths to deny it. Everyone else is still studying it, or has already found evidence fracking leads to contamination.

      Contamination at one point could take decades or even centuries to spread significantly throughout the aquifer

      It could, but apparently, it doesn't.

      TFA is pointing out that it was supposed to be hundreds of years, when it's really very fast (like weeks or months).

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:This is what happens ... by Tator+Tot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You really need to educate yourself with fracking before you start with the talking points.

      First, the people who claimed that their "flammable tap water" started happening ONLY when they began fracking have not necessarily been honest. In the past, these same people reported that their water was flammable, many years prior to fracking ever occuring in Pennsylvania.

      Take a look at some news sources that attempt to remove the bias, such as Science News

      Newly fracked gas wells could also be intersecting with old, abandoned gas or oil wells, allowing methane from those sites to migrate. "We've punched holes in the ground in Pennsylvania for 150 years," Jackson says. Many old wells have not been shut down properly, he says. "You find ones that people plugged with a tree stump." In some places in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and elsewhere (especially those with existing coal beds), methane turned up in well water long before hydraulic fracturing became widespread.

      Any place sitting on top of the Marcellus Shale has a chance for hydrocarbons to rise through layers of sediment related to the old wells that were drilled there. Remember that Pennsylvania was the "oil center of the world" in the late 1800's.

      Could fracking play a part in methane increases due to the multitude of old wells that were drilled in Pennsylvania a long time ago? Possibly. Could fracking play a part in methane increases in homes in "new plays" located in North Dakota? Highly unlikely.

      Second, when you frac 15k feet below the surface, you might fracture rock up to a half mile up or down (and I'm being generous). So if you're fracking horizontally, you'll induce fractures that can travel anywhere from 12.5k to 17.5k feet below the earth. You know where the LOWEST aquafer's are located? (and again, I'm being generous) Around 1000 ft below the surface.

      Do you think frac operations use too much water? That's a legitimate concern.
      Do you think frac operations could do better and treating and disposing waste water? That's a legitimate concern.
      Do you think frac operations pump toxic chemicals below the ground? Then you should really check your fact sources.
      Do you think frac operations have "secret chemicals" that they put in the water, and they won't tell us what they are? Then you should really check your fact sources. Go to any major service company's website (Halliburton, Schlumberger, etc) and search for "what's in frac water?"
      Do you think frac operations cause natural gas to seep into aquifers? It's a concern, but you really need to check your fact sources, and take into account several factors before drawing conclusions.

      --
      To all you virgins: Thanks for nothing.
  4. Re:Oops. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, now that I actually read the TFA I'm not terribly surprised - other than the fact that this study apparently hasn't been done before.

    Researchers tracked human pathogenic viruses in a city sewage system. The concentration of the little critters varies as waves of infection go back and forth amongst the humans and other creatures whose waste is collected in the system.

    The then track the appearance of viruses in a deep well under the sewage lines and find that about six weeks later, the same virus shows up in the presumably sterile well water with roughly the same kinetics (peak and ebb). So they are able to posit (but not prove) that the viruses came from the sewage system (as opposed to skinnying down the pipe itself or just magically appearing).

    So, you have unmapped connections through the supposedly sealed off clay cap that lies between the sewage systems and the aquifer. Doesn't surprise me. One small earthquake 100000 years ago could have done it.

    But it is a cautionary tale that deserves some additional testing to see how widespread the issue is.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. Re:The magic of chlorine by chill · · Score: 2

    General Jack D. Ripper would argue with you.

    I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  6. Semantics? by Dancindan84 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Scientists once thought that pathogens could not reach drinking water wells sunk into deep, protected groundwater aquifers.

    And from TFA:
    Groundwater models predicted that surface contaminants would require tens to hundreds of years to reach wells in these aquifers, which typically sit more than 700 feet underground.

    They may still be right about their overall assumption, but were just wrong about those handful of wells being "protected". Basically, it's not THAT the viruses reached the aquifers (the models predicted they'd get there, but that it would take longer than the virus could survive: 700 years), it's HOW they did it so much more quickly than was modelled.

    Also from TFAs:
    Bradbury thinks that the problem probably occurs in any city with wells located under sewage pipes.

    The most likely source of the viruses in the wells was leakage of untreated sewage from sanitary sewer pipes.

    Emphasis mine. Anyone want to bet that the 700 year models were based on uncompromised pipes that didn't leak, and only calculated the time for potential contaminants to get from the sewage outlet to the well?

    --
    "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:Semantics? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

      In other words, in a perfect world where their idealized model actually applied, they were right.

      But in reality, they had a set of unfounded/incomplete assumptions, acted on that, and then subsequently discovered that the duck isn't perfectly spherical.

      But if anybody points out at the time that the assumptions are based on a lot of unknowns, they get dismissed as being alarmist and raising hypothetical concerns when their team of crack scienticians can pat our heads and tell us our fears are unfounded.

      By the time you figure out they had no real way of knowing if this was safe, it's too damned late.

      And in the modern context where lobbyists and special interests want to muddy the waters with their mouth-piece organizations and fake journals, they get what they want, and the rest of us will be left to deal with the consequences.

      Privatize the profits, socialize the risk is a winning formula if you can prevent people from believing the dangers posed by putting up your own "competing theory", which is usually from a bought and paid for "research institute" or "academic journal".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Semantics? by Dancindan84 · · Score: 2

      Along those lines. Like the joke about a physicist solving an engineering problem. "This will work... In a zero gravity vacuum."

      Actually had a real world example of this.

      My then fiance was telling us around the dinner table about her teacher and his wife who were both mathematicians. They did ridiculous stuff in their free time like figuring out the most efficient way to mow their lawn. They came up with the idea it was more efficient to mow in circles instead of box/rows. When I laughed, she said they showed the equations that proved it. I asked, "Did they take into account the fact that a riding mower generally has a wide turning radius and can't mow a perfectly filled circle, or that a push mower generally has to be lifted to turn since they have fixed wheels?" "...no." "That's why you don't ask a mathematician how to mow a lawn..."

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
  7. Re:Oops. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

    You mean I can't literally shit where I eat as a society, metaphorically?

  8. Re:The magic of chlorine by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    I love the reference, but man, that was fluoride!

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  9. Re:Deep well water tastes better by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    That would be the cyanide

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  10. Not everyone's on sewers by cellocgw · · Score: 2

    Leaving wild animals and their poops aside, there's plenty of human dwellings with a well at one end of their property and a septic tank& leaching field at the other. Anything that passes through the X feet of filtering soil is going to find its way into the groundwater. It would seem that, other than the "ick" factor, there's really nothing new here.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:Not everyone's on sewers by vux984 · · Score: 2

      there's plenty of human dwellings with a well at one end of their property and a septic tank& leaching field at the other.

      The septic tank is the key difference. It doesn't go from the toilet to the drainage field directly. The tank is effectively a mini-sewage treatment plant.

      The analogy would only be apt if the pipe from the house to the septic tank was assumed to be leaking.

      TFA suggests the problem is leakage from pipes carrying waste to the sewage treatment plants.

  11. Re:The magic of chlorine by schneidafunk · · Score: 2

    "Have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?"

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  12. And they say... by wbr1 · · Score: 2

    ...that fracking chemicals won't seep into well water either.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  13. A Misleading Statement in the Article by srobert · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article states that viruses in drinking water aren't regulated by the EPA. That's a bit misleading. Regulations pertaining to pathogens in surface water and ground water sources in drinking water are largely based on disinfection criteria that would remove or inactivate 99.99% of viruses from the water.

    http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/pathogens.cfm#What%20pathogens%20does%20EPA%20regulate%20in%20drinking%20water,%20and%20what%20are%20their%20health%20effects?

    Steve Robertson, PE
    Las Vegas Valley Water District
    Planning Division
    Water Quality Team

    Finally, after 15 years, a Slashdot article in my field.

    1. Re:A Misleading Statement in the Article by Ramsus · · Score: 2

      Interesting link! the ground water rule http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2000/May/Day-10/w10763.htm would be the specific one that applies here? It will be fun to see how quickly the EPA or other organisations mobilise based on this data. It sounds like a lot of work to remedy these problems once found.