Dear Editor:
I’m writing this letter in answer to the letter to you of May 23
by Richard Suminic of Morgan Hill. He is completely in error in
several major statements that can only further confuse and mislead
those who have read it.
Dear Editor:
I’m writing this letter in answer to the letter to you of May 23 by Richard Suminic of Morgan Hill. He is completely in error in several major statements that can only further confuse and mislead those who have read it.
Though I liked his comments on the parts per billion (PPB) examples, which seems like pretty good guessing, much of the rest of his letter just doesn’t correlate with known facts.
The first is the comparison of toxicity between nitrates and perchlorates, here he is just “bassackwords” claiming nitrates as the worst of the two because of the greater amount or bulk needed to be as toxic as perchlorates and this bulk amounts to more material, though less toxin, hence the parts per million (PPM) designation. Perchlorate being much more potent can cause much more harm with much less bulk therefore it is classified in the parts per billion (PPB). Regardless of the designation, the theory is supposed to he that exceeding either “safe” level designation you are going to be in trouble.
I don’t know enough about perchlorates. I know mainly that we in South County are faced with a relatively small amount of perchlorate pollution, and that it has been polluting our underground water supply for about 50 years. Yet despite its “serious threat,” no one especially those from directly downstream of the point source seems to have been adversely affected. Maybe their systems (human) have been able to purge the pollutant from their bodies fast enough to prevent any adverse reaction, however when they pass their wastes back into the soil through their septic systems, the next person down the line would still get the full benefit ad infinitem.
I’ve read some conjecture as to what could happen, is that real or just a guess, I don’t know? I’d like to talk with someone who does. I would think the water quality experts from anywhere would come forth and speak up – looks like the problem (if any) is pretty widespread. What we need is factual research or experience data documenting the actual dangers, physical, mental or otherwise. Then we can do what ever it is that would have to be done to correct or lay to rest as necessary.
I have a lot of faith in the ability of nature to absorb and nullify many substances that would otherwise be harmful to life through its own processes.
And I have a lot of faith in our bodies to cope with many harmful substances by neutralizing, purging or whatever. Over a period of 50 years our perchlorates are going somewhere.
The same situation seems to hold true with nitrates. Mr. Sumini believes that agriculture is the main contributor. I beg to differ. The main source is air and rainfall, it’s where nitrates originate. Most of the nitrates as applied by farmers (me included) is picked up by one planted crop (whatever they are) and is consumed by anyone that eats whether animal or human. The body retains what it needs the rest is passed on as waste. One way or another ending up in the soil – so blame us for feeding you – and very little more.
I was involved somewhat in the last area nitrate study – funded by the state and carried out by the Santa Clara Valley Water District – what a joke!
I was sitting on the ag water committee of the SCVWD. Very interesting – we were introduced to a person that represented county health. When questioned he stated that in his 18 (all that time) years with them, he knew of no case of anyone in our county being affected in any way by nitrates. Very positive statement.
The person (university grad) who researched the fertilizer used in the county, gave us a report of total use 25 years, an enormous figure, applied by local farmers.
Unfortunately, he wasn’t aware that all fertilizers weren’t pure nitrogen, but that it varied from five to 25 percent only, that broke up the meeting.
What most people don’t know is that originally we farmers applied fertilizes according to the recommendations of the Department of Agriculture at the University of California .
The bodies of those already drinking perchlorate polluted water for almost 50 years, seem to signify that if the body can pass the perchlorate, as I have read in publications on the subject, within nine hours, than perhaps we can assume that our bodies have built up some immunity or tolerance to minute amounts and a PPB certainly qualifies as a very very minute amount.
Nitrates are a different beast. Every living thing needs nitrates in order to survive. Can’t say that about perchlorate.
I read recently where an “expert” declared that there are some 70,000 different chemicals that can and do pollute our water – don’t give up. We’re not dead yet, sounds worse than it is.
On nitrates, my personal experience has been to have 17 babies from one day old up to their adulthood drinking the up to 160 PPM nitrate water on my ranch. They are all still kicking as I am, after drinking this water for 54 years. I view it as a plus for raising prunes to have high nitrate water to irrigate with.
On fertilizer. As to your 40,000 PPB of nitrates – so what. It’s like admitting how comparatively less toxic nitrates are to perchlorates. Sounds to me like “nothing times even less,” can hardly be worth mentioning. Thank you for your efforts.
Fred Angelino, Gilroy
Submitted Wednesday, June 4
