Talk:Philadelphia Water Department/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wastewater and Stormwater Services

This article mentions wastewater and stormwater services, but says nothing at all about how these services are provided, nor anything about the problems with combined wastewater and stormwater sewers in most of the city. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

Please try to introduce your own counter statements and sources to support them rather than deleting sourced material based merely on your point of view. The Philadelphia Water Department is concerned and responsible with the quality of its water and the legislation governing it. Also, the "what part of...don't you understand" rape analogy is not appreciated.Smm201`0 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

According to WP, I am to inform you in advance that I am reporting you for repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing on this and the pages related to hydraulic fracturing. I am doing this because you have continued to engage in disruptive editing without contributing much sourced editing of their own. It takes a lot of time to research and write content compared to the time it takes to delete content because "WP:IDONTLIKE IT". It is with regret that I do this, but I have seen that others have also taken objection to your behavior, so it appears to be the consensus.Smm201`0 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, all of that information was related to Philadelphia's water quality issues and well sourced. You have yet to make counter arguments with sources, or demonstrate that the sources on this page were used in an inaccurate manner. It still sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is uncivil and disruptive.Smm201`0 (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The information related to the haliburton rule is unrelated to the PWD specifcally. I suggest you read up on WP:COAT to see what it is that you are doing. Please don't confuse my action with IDONTLIKEIT, that is a weak argument, and that you and your activist friends object to my attempt to impart nuetrality does not really matter all that much in the larger scheme of WP. Arzel (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your repeated deletion of relevant sourced material is inappropriate. Please contribute material supporting your view rather than deleting something simply because you don't like it.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

1st suggestion: Deleting everything.

Hmmm. Not sure deleting everything is the ideal solution, but it at least starts the conversation...Smm201`0 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To view full article, see version prior to runningonbrains' deletion.Smm201`0 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why Safe Drinking Water Act is relevant to PWD article.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (and its Halliburton loophole) is relevant to PWD article because it prevents the investigation and regulation of the contents of fracking fluid, including the radionuclides used as tracers. One of the most commonly used ones, iodine-131, is showing up in drinking water in Philadelphia. They have tracked it to water treatment facility effluent, and found it in some rivers, but have not conclusively determined its sources. They have ruled out nuclear facilities and hospitals. There is a new approach to tracking such substances which uses a form of chemical "fingerprinting" to identify the sources of contaminants. A similar technology has allowed researchers to identify the source of methane leaks in Denver as well. In any event, the regulation is very relevant to Philadelphia's issues, especially since there is a history of fracking wastewater disposal in the eastern half of the state, including in Montgomery and Buck's counties.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Frac Act would close the loophole and allow better oversight of drinking water quality. If you look at earlier versions of this page, you can see that I have responded by making the content related to the act more succinct. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The way you go about this is that you state the issue and the relevant reliable sources and then wikilink back to the corresponding sections. You don't argue the secondary section within this article, especially when you put together multiple sources to present a point of view which is not supported specifically within a given source. Any connection between the Hallibutron Loophole (which I am pretty sure is a boogyman term) is tangential at best. Your own explanation above clearly lays out the original research that you are trying to impart onto this article. Arzel (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, anything to do with safe drinking water or unsafe drinking water is relevant, but being relevant does not mean it belongs in the article. If it is relevant and integral to the article, in it should go, but as far as I can make out, it is not integral to this article, but to the fraccing issue in general. As such it should go into fraccing articles, and though it might well rate a mention in this article, all such a mention should comprise is that there are concerns and controversies on fraccing safety and desirability, with links to the most relevant fraccing articles. If you think that those articles do not mention the drinking water issues in sufficient detail and balance, go to the fraccing articles to make up the deficiency, not here. Otherwise we finally wind up with a separate (and very likely conflicting) fraccing discussion in every drinking water article for every major community in the Eastern US. And each of those will need its own updating and reconciliation etc. In short: a mess. Mention fraccing by all means. But do not explain, argue or enlarge at all in this article. If you want to expound, feel welcome, but do it in articles where it will be appreciated. The principle has nothing to do with fraccing as such; it has to do with decent construction of articles. (OH, and in case you were about to ask about my personal interests in the matter and my connection with fraccing concerns, save yourself the trouble; I have none whatsoever, and I am not even American, nor do I live anywhere near the US.) JonRichfield (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Making the page visible again to allow comment

I've reverted the deletion to allow others to more easily read what's there and comment. I'll also check again to make sure each statement is well sourced. Let's allow a consensus to emerge.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That is NOT how that works. Sourcing is not relevant for synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I have asked for others' comments on the content of this page rather that it being just us reverting each other. Please leave the content up so that it can be discussed and a consensus reached, which I believe is how these issues are resolved.Smm201`0 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be part of how it works, but the way Arzel put it is another, and more fundamental part of how it works. I suggest that you stop urging and start reformatting and re-assigning your arguments to the appropriate articles. JonRichfield (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Section of text under debate

EdJohnson had said I could display the text under discussion on the talk page and that it would not be edit warring. I have made significant changes to the section. I'd rather revise it in response to feedback than defend the original version. The revisions do not appears in the history of the page. I removed one reference to the "Halliburton Loophole" term in the last revert (forgot there was another), removed the other reference to it in this version, and have further reduced and condensed more general, non-PA content related to hydraulic fracturing waste in the version below:

Water Quality

In April 2011, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water. In response to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings, the Philadelphia Water Department posted a notice that Iodine-131 had been found in the water supply. Iodine-131 is associated with the treatment of thyroid cancer, nuclear energy, and hydraulic fracturing. Initially the Philadelphia Water department attributed the presence of Iodine-131 to nuclear energy production and the March 2011 Japanese nuclear incident (Fukushima Nuclear Incident). Iodine-131 was later found in the Wissahickon Creek, and at several sewage treatment plants along the creek near Philadelphia in late July 2011, after the fallout from the Japanese incident would have decayed. Iodine-131 had been found in several Philadelphia drinking water samples before. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records showed that Philadelphia's iodine-131 levels were the highest in the last decade in the set of those measured at 59 locations across the United States. EPA records show readings above the acceptable limit of 3 pCi were recorded at Queens Lane Water Treatment Plant on three occasions and Belmont Water Treatment Plant on four occasions since October 2007. Levels are recorded 3-4 times a year. Readings at Baxter Water Treatment Plant were lower.[1] The EPA also found elevated levels of Iodine-131 in the water discharged from water treatment plants within the same watershed in nearby Ambler and Abington in April 2011.

After the discovery of iodine-131 in the Philadelphia water supply in March 2011, the EPA asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) to require "community water systems (CWSs) near publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and centralized wastewater treatment (CWT) facilities receiving Marcellus Shale wastewater to conduct sampling immediately for radionuclides." They note that "in previous monitoring, radionuclides were not detected or were detected at levels less than one-half of maximum contaminant levels," but that "the CWS have not sampled after the introduction of Marcellus Shale operations." In Pennsylvania, much of the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants which are not designed to remove the natural or man-made radioactive components of this waste, which is often released into major rivers. The EPA letter adds that "Discharges from these operations could increase radionuclide levels substantially." In 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Philadelphia Water Department were working together to test surface water (rivers and streams) and discharge from water treatment plants. By June 2011, the EPA had ruled out hospital sources and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as causes and were still trying to identify the source. In July 2011 the Philadelphia Water Department suggested that elevated levels might be coming from thyroid cancer patients' urine because it was found in wastewater plant effluent.

On March 28, 2012, the Philadelphia Water Department reported that during the period between April 2011 and February 2012, iodine-131 levels were lower in the Queen's Lane (from graph, average about .5 pCi; highest about 1.5 pCi) and Belmont facilities (average about .4 pCi; maximum about 1.4 pCi). No iodine-131 was detected at the Baxter facility. The report notes that wastewater plant effluent has been confirmed as one source of the iodine-131; other potential pathways have not been confirmed. The report also said that there have been periodic elevations of iodine-131 in the Wissahickon Creek that decrease over time and do not affect drinking water. Iodine-131 has was also detected in the Schuylkill River during this period, especially when the river is low. The amounts found in the river and creek were not specified. No contaminant levels have been posted on the EPA web site since April 2011.

The Philadelphia Water Department web site reports that Philadelphia's drinking water meets the standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act. There is debate regarding whether the EPA and the PADEP have the authority to regulate fracking wastewater (EPA, 2011) under the Clean Water Act, which is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A new bill (The FRAC Act) has been introduced in both houses of the 112th United States Congress to address this issue.

Smm201`0 (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Smm201`0 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I still see a failure to understand WP:COATRACK. Chillllls ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? These are all topics that the PWD itself discusses on its web site.Smm201`0 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than go into specifics (both because Runningonbrains may end up doing that here anyway and because I don't feel like spending three hours going through every sentence in what you want to add to the article when it's fairly clear that my criticisms would fall on deaf ears anyway), please see WP:BITR, which is actually a section of the WP:COATRACK essay. Even though you removed most of the uses of the word "fracking" from your earlier additions, you're still trying to make this article primarily about the high iodine levels in the 2011 test rather than the subject, the Philadelphia Water Department. Also, while not explicitly stating it, you're still trying to imply a link to hydraulic fracturing with the third sentence in the first paragraph and the last two sentences of the fourth paragraph. Chillllls (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As Chillllls points out, this is still WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH. In all honesty, it may well be time to drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I go along with BR and Chillllls here. Look. The stuff you are peddling might have its own merits. I haven't bothered to go into details, being otherwise occupied, but the coatrack thing does not mean that the material lacks merit or that it has merit; it simply means that it doesn't belong here. Take it where it does belong and that problem, the subject of this RFC, will simply go away. Other problems might arise if someone else disagrees with the substance of your contribution, but at least you will not be wasting your effort and other people's time arguing order instead of substance. JonRichfield (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that folks aren't going to back down. I agree that the original rendition was too verbose and wasn't well focused, but like Jon I have other stuff to do. As I said on the noticeboard, I still respectfully disagree about the content being synthesis and coat rack. The PWD itself discusses the same topics at length on its own web site because they are BIG issues in PA, especially in Philly because of its size. The PWD site, however, lacks the RS that Wikipedia requires and I was adding. When a topic is hot, it is hard to tell how much of the fight over such content comes from rules and how much from editors' opinions about the content. HF is a very hot topic, with lots of money riding on it. I included some of the detail to cover data supporting and refuting problems fairly. Right now the page makes Philly water sound good - and the EWG Tap Water Database, Forbes, and Sperling's Best Places all concur that there are serious problems with water quality. But like I said, I've got other stuff to do too. Thank you for your time.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Things you might consider are editing the Hydraulic fracking article, and/or starting an Iodine contamination in groundwater article - these would allow for discussion of the issues without coatracking the PWD article. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Just the sort of thing I had had in mind. Smm, I don't see why you should object to that, and I hope you will take the suggestion seriously. JonRichfield (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but my understanding is that most groundwater studies focus on chemicals with longer half lives, and can't be done on HF proprietary chemical formulas because of the laws I mentioned. My understanding is that surface spills, wastewater treatment facilities, and fallout are more directly impacted by radiation from iodine-131, though it can make it into groundwater. The existing EPA data on iodine-131 is about drinking water, where it is showing up near nukes, and downstream from certain cities and HF operations - synthesis! Can't make anything of that. Also, from a WP:NHF perspective (no negative info about hydraulic fracturing on WP) folks would really hate that article, and it is too flimsy to write anyway.

I went back and re-read runningonbrains' critique after some sleep and with some time. Part of ROB's argument was that it was only one incident, but in fact several of EPA's quarterly readings have been above EPA's acceptable limit and the frequency of such high readings is increasing. He also didn't seem to know that Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania (the wastewater issue is statewide), that Abington and Ambler are in the same watershed (understandable), or that the Wissahickon feeds into the Schuykill (understandable). As you can see from the most recent report, the PWD and PADEP have theories, but are still tracking down the source (with some chemical fingerprinting I understand - very CSI). In fact, the claim that the source was the urine just because it came from wasterwater is synthesis. If I misunderstood those things, I might have coatracked it too. Or just considered it trivia. I certainly wouldn't have bothered to write about it. Another article from Forbe's just came out about Philadelphia being a toxic city partly because of it's general water quality, and it cites several resources. There is hope for it though - parts of Pittsburgh have very good drinking water, and that is a very industrialized city too. I wish I had read more closely the first time around. I think ROB litany influenced perceptions. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's another article about it's relevance to Philadelphia's watershed area: [2]

These is some conjecture in that article, but little in the way of conclusive evidence of anything. There appears to be an assumption that it must be bad without an understanding of how the amount of any one substance affects the overall environment. It is similar to the concerns about Yucca Mountain, where a basic misunderstanding or blatent misinformation by environmental concerns overstate the danger of radiation. In that example, the project has been effectively killed, even though the lifetime relase of radioctive isotopes would be less than what a person recieves naturally just from being in the sun, or taking a flight. From the reading of that article, there is no evidence provided that there is any danger from Fracking, yet the environmentist seem to want to portray that there is. Given that the EPA (which is no friend of the energy sector) has not made a declaration of danger you wold think that would be the end of the story (at least for now). But the environmental groups are also under the misguided belief that all energy companies are bad, therefore anything they do is bad (unless it is wind or solar). And if results don't meet their predetermined misguided beliefs than that means that the energy companies have bought off the research. Regardless, that article really says very little about the PWD. Arzel (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing failure to understand WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH

Look, I am getting extremely tired of this, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to keep trying to show you why you're wrong. I'm not one to call for sanctions or blocks or RFCs or any other bullshit because I believe that nothing needs the drama that people want to bring to it sometimes.

Here is the timeline of the event you feel is important enough to include in this article:

• April 2011: EPA shows detectable levels of Iodine-131 in Philadelphia's drinking water in a testing program in response to the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.[3]
• Sometime later: EPA discovers that monitoring in Philadelphia has actually been going on for some time, and shows some spikes in the past, ruling out the Japan event as a possible source.[4]
• March 2012: EPA announces that they have definitively ruled out any other source besides iodine therapy patients.[5]

At no point did iodine reach unsafe levels [6]

This is all that's important.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Are Safe Drinking Water Act, Halliburton Loophole, and Frac Act relevant to drinking water quality in Philadelphia/Philadelphia Water Department?

NOTE: This topic was also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#Edit_warring_on_several_articles Are Safe Drinking Water Act, Halliburton Loophole, and Frac Act relevant drinking water in Philadelphia/Philadelphia Water Department? Some of the discussion of this page took place on user talk pages (and was directed back here) and additional deletions occurred on other pages dealing with hydraulic fracturing. The ORIGINAL QUESTION HERE WAS whether the Safe Drinking Water Act, Halliburton Loophole, and Frac Act are to relevant drinking water in Philadelphia/Philadelphia Water Department and so belong on this page.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The current debate includes the deletion of sourced statements related to water quality issues in general, especially negative ones.Smm201`0 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Suppression of information from RS

The statements above are accurate except for a few points. The levels did reach and exceed EPA's acceptable level (see the EPA web site link with the readings: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_query , and this: http://articles.philly.com/2011-07-21/news/29798099_1_drinking-water-radioactive-iodine-water-department/2) , and this: http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/health-science/item/21635-iodine- . It happened several times, and these were quarterly readings, not daily readings. The level has been more than occasionally elevated, though not yet continuous (and thankfully in decline at this point), and this is in the context of Philadelphia's already high level of background radiation. ( http://www.radiationnetwork.com/ ) The way they set that critical level is a separate issue - the maximum contaminant level is 3 pCi, ( http://www.epa.gov/japan011/japan-faqs.html ) and levels went over 4 pCi. The most recent presentation by the PWD says waste water effluent, not urine, and that they are still looking at other causes. ( http://www.phillywatersheds.org/doc/PWD_Iodine.pdf ) The urine is a possible, not "confirmed" source, ( http://www.phillywatersheds.org/doc/PWD_Iodine.pdf ) except according to Bauer. There is an article that actually says that medical experts are skeptical that it is urine, ( http://enenews.com/iodine-131-also-found-in-philadelphia-area-sewage-plants-sludge-setting-off-radiation-detectors-at-landfills-experts-skeptical-its-from-cancer-patients-urine ) and there is no way to verify whether it is the urine, or determine its source. ( http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/health-science/item/21635-iodine- ) And of course, nobody is talking about hydraulic fracturing waste water as a source, even though it ends up in rivers and at waste water treatment plants. ( http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Pennsylvania-Allows-Fracking-Tainted-Water-Dumping-Gas-Drilling-112804034.html ) The Hatfield waste water facility is located near the border of the Neshaminy and Wissahickon watersheds,( http://www.csc.temple.edu/t-vssi/bmpsurvey/project_profile.htm ) and the iodine-131 spikes were the same years as the dumpings, ( http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_query ) but I excluded that because that might be synthesis. So, there are discrepancies between the actual EPA data and the reporting of it. There are also discrepancies the original EPA and PWD reports (including the most recent presentation) and the conclusions the news media draw. It happens.

I have been emphasizing the original EPA data and agency reports, trying to stay close to the actual data, but I could describe both. I actually did that a bit in the recent edits. I also think it is not consistent with WP policy to censor the information about exceeding the acceptable level, about the certainty of the cause, and about hydraulic fracturing and iodine-131. And there's a lot more to the PWD's problem - sodium, Trihalomethanes (THMs), sulfate, and hardness have been increasing over the last several years. Again, water is the Water Department's business. Their web site contains similar topics. Regulations are an important part of of their work. Why are you dead set on suppressing information? THAT is very unWP. Maybe even POV pushing. Thanks, though, because this dialogue has really clarified my understanding of the issues. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Smm201`0 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not out to suppress any information. I (and every other editor that has even remotely commented on this article) are of the belief of the following points:

• The pollution incident in question is not a major deal. No reliable source has stated that there is or ever was a danger to the public.
• There are no sources pointing anywhere near the direction you are trying to go (tying the pollution to hydraulic fracturing) and the way that you made this point was in gross violation of WP:SYNTH
• All the sources that say that they don't know where the Iodine was coming from are older than the source that says they have ruled out all sources except iodine therapy.

Wikipedia does not suppress information, but Wikipedia is also not a repository of all information. Your insistence on including a whole bunch of information on a minor incident is because you want to make it appear more serious than it was and tie it to hydraulic fracturing, which you apparently believe is dangerous and should be banned (let me know if I'm not reading that right).

And in further response to your points above, you are attempting to use primary sources without knowing what they're talking about. Wastewater effluent is the discharge from water treatment plants, which process wastewater such as sewage before releasing it back into the environment. This is not contrary to their statements that it comes from cancer patients' urine: it in fact confirms it! Urine typically goes into the toilet, which goes into the municipal sewer system, which goes into the water treatment plant. They say that they have confirmed no other sources, which is also consistent with the statements by the most recent articles, and your statement that they are looking for other sources is putting words in their mouths: they state that they "have not confirmed other pathways". Read this how you will, but it is completely consistent with the article as it is now.

Experts on medical waste being skeptical about patients urine being the cause is irrelevant, they experts in medicine, not fluid dynamics or nuclear physics; and that there's no way to directly detect the source of the iodine means nothing either, there's no way for us to directly detect where ANY chemical is coming from once it's mixed in with everything else.

Your source about dumping says nothing about Iodine.

Please don't accuse me of covering anything up. In real life I'm a scientist, I'm in favor of open information for all, education, and transparency. In my honest opinion your theories are plausible, though quite lacking in proof and what little evidence you do have is circumstantial. But that doesn't matter: when I'm on Wikipedia I'm not a scientist, I'm a Wikipedian. I follow and enforce Wikipedia's policies of verifiability, reliable sources, and neutrality. To say anything more than the article currently says would be improper POV pushing, not censorship. That's my diatribe. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you still feel I'm being reasonable, open a Request For Comment. I'm always open to others' opinions, and if I'm in the minority I always cede to the majority (not that I won't try to convince them). But I really don't think I'm in the wrong here. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 09:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I stick very close to what sources are saying and this is not an isolated "incident." The iodine-131 spikes date beck to 2005 and have been increasing in frequency. Seven years. The levels of iodine-131 are still higher in drinking water than they have been historically although below 3pCi. They are still elevated in the Wissahickon, which is 97% waste water effluent, and feeds into the drinking water source. The Philly watersheds are rated 1 out of 100 (with 100 being excellent), and background radiation levels are high in the area, which local researchers are concerned could result in a cumulative impact and even higher cancer rates. Water quality issues are a continuing problem for the PWD. Medical experts may not be hydrogeologists but they know about radiation used in treatments, amounts excreted by number of patients treated and distribution of the illness over the country. I asked for a link to the EPA report implicating urine and there isn't a report that "confirms" it, as the presentation content I linked suggests. They are still testing and looking for sources, and urine has not been ruled out, but not really "confirmed" either. Some of the sources you deleted reported that fracking water is being treated by wastewater treatment facilities, and another article was about one at the border of the Wissahickon and Neshaminy watersheds that was still dumping the fluid into streams. So, there are sources connecting fracking fluid and wastewater treatment facilities. It is deceptive and biased to list all the uses for iodine-131 except for radioactive tracer, especially in this context. None of the other uses initially listed were confirmed sources either. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Smm201`0 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the early draft needed to be edited down to something more succinct, and links used in lieu of text in parts. Also, I have learned more than I really wanted to know about the Wissahickon, like the incident in 2004 when Merck dumped cyanide into it causing a huge fish kill, and that the same gorgeous stocked creek where people swim and catch (and later eat) rainbow trout is 95-97% wastewater effluent. If there is a water quality section to the page, it should be balanced regarding the issues affecting the source waters. [User:Smm201`0|Smm201`0]] (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

More misleading information. During dry times up to 90% of the water in Wissahickon is treated water (effluent) from upstream water treatment plants. Your wording implies that it is basically sewage. Other than the iodine from patients that water is probably cleaner than the water in your average river. WP is not a place to right great wrongs. Go fill up your blog with that information if you so desire. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

90% isn't so great either, but that was in 2002. Here's one of the 95% sources from 2008: http://articles.philly.com/2008-11-01/news/25255501_1_raw-sewage-water-and-sewer-water-meters/3 . Here's a 95%+ source from 2011: http://articles.philly.com/2011-07-21/news/29798099_1_drinking-water-radioactive-iodine-water-department/4 . it's not clean or safe: http://articles.philly.com/2003-08-06/news/25454600_1_cleaner-water-rescue-equipment-wissahickon-creek . The official term for it is "wastewater effluent." Smm201`0 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Smm201`0 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Iodine problem does not appear to have anything to do with fracing. Do you like to use the term "wastewater effluent" simply because it makes it sound bad? Do the opinions of self-described environmental activists garner much attention when even the EPA has said that it is safe? Look, I understand that you want to make sure that their is safe and clean water, but do you understand the notion of dimishing returns? Take radiation exposure in general. We recieve background radiation from all kinds of stuff everyday, most of it from the sun. Yet environmentalist are overly concerned about levels far below what is already being recieved, why? Arzel (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is some debate regarding what information belongs on this page. Philadelphia's watershed faces multiple challenges, most discussed on the Philadelphia Water Department web site, but without RS. Should information about the watershed's EPA rating, contaminant problems (iodine-131, arsenic, etc.), and drinking water quality, and the state and national regulations affecting them, be included on its Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm201`0 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment How is this effectively different from the previous RFC? Let's put this as simply as possible: There is no definitive and uniquely correct scheme for any article. Sit down and rough out a skeleton outline of the subject. Is the PWD of interest in itself? Sure it is. Are there matters of broader interest relevant to PWD? Sure there are. Are water quality and safety among those? Definitely. Is every reader who logs into PWD likely to be looking for those topics? Conceivably, but hardly likely; there are umpteen more basic questions that intervene. Would anyone interested in the PWD be helpless to find those topics if the topics were separated out? Not if they were properly linked. In fact, by proper linking we would make it more obvious what the mutual relevance would be, and make each of the sections more interesting and accessible from more aspects for more readers. That is not a matter of partisanship, but a matter of proper article design. Now, go and rough out that outline and find someone literate who is not concerned in or about the matter, and ask him or her what would be the most likely segmentation that would avoid losing readers who don't want to schlepp through the whole mess just to look up when PWD first began to recycle sewage or collect rainwater, or alternatively readers who don't want to wade through that basic lot when they want to know about radioactivity in the water. You will not, not not not get better figures for either hits or readership by bundling the whole thing into one indigestible bolus. Just asking the question the first time showed someone too close to the coalface for competent judgment, which in itself suggests prejudice in favour of a monolith. Split, say I and get help doing it. If nothing else, you will lose a lot of opposition doing so. JonRichfield (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's helpful. At this point I have a clearer view of what I should probably cover and how to link it rather than spell out the details on the page. I have also read more about the various Philly water issues and have a broader perspective. And I will get some editorial feedback. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

EPA PWD March 2012 Meeting

I have provided an external link to the materials presented at this meeting. Sandy Bauers reported on these presentations. If she is reading this, I hope that in her next article she will clarify the discrepancy. In the meantime, I'm including both her statement and the reports on which it was based. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You cannot include those PDF Powerpoint presentation slides as realibale sources. For one thing they are unpublished and they are far too easy to take out of context. Stick with the actual publication in the newspaper or official releases from the EPA. She gave a very precise report on the the EPA and other governmental rulings, there is no need to muck it up with confusion regarding bullet points on the Power Point presentations which only lend themselves to original research and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Powerpoints are the actual EPA and PWD presentations and are posted on the official PWD web site. I'll hope that she clarifies the issue in her next article. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, they are not not the same thing. Also, why after relative calm are you trying to insert a bunch of stuff unrelated to the PWD again into this article? Arzel (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits - many unsourced statements

Someone who may be connected to PWD has made extensive edits to this page, some of which are not supported by any RS. Please help add sources for unsourced material, delete unsourced material, or otherwise help bring the content into compliance with Wikipedia standards. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the editor removed information about water contamination. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)