Chapter Three: Rest In Peace

I rush through the rusting metal gates. Around me lies the remains of my most wonderful ideas: that book I wanted to write in fourth grade, that acapella song I was going to make during middle school, that cliche panning-over-of-people-sitting-in-a-field-and-looking-at-the-mountains-while-Hans-Zimmer's-"Time"-plays-in-the-background video I was in the process of shooting during my early high school years. I arrive at a trio of tombstones, tears welling in my eyes. Kneeling down, I read: "Bromine Treatment," "Lifestraw Technology," and "Piping Reworking."

Unfortunately, the ideas that I had two weeks ago for reamping our water treatment and transportation have stopped at dead ends. Here's why:

Bromine (and other chemicals)

While that pool study (to refresh yourself) found that chlorine is more likely than bromine to cause health problems for swimmers, leading me to think that bromine treatment could be a serious contender in chemical treatment, it turns out that bromine is actually incredibly toxic to humans. While it's fine to use bromine-containing compounds (ionized bromine) in pool treatment, ingesting those same compounds can cause nausea and vomiting. Long-term exposure can cause respiratory problems and systemic poisoning (poisoning of organ systems). All the information on this can be found here. Simply put, bromine treatment can't work for drinking water.

Lifestraw Microfiltration

The Lifestraw is really cool: let's be honest. Originally created to help people afflicted by natural disasters who don't have access to clean water, the Lifestraw is great for helping with third-world countries. That's because the Lifestraw is made of a microfilter (essentially, a bunch of tubes with microscopic spaces that filters out water). However, microfilters won't work for larger-scale treatment because, similarly to nanotechnology, they're expensive. And, to cut out a few more possibilities for treatment, ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis also won't work because of their high cost and difficult implementation. For a better explanation of what each of these filtration methods are, I found this picture at this website.

Essentially, the best possible method we could use would be reverse osmosis. Why doesn't Flagstaff use it? Likely, it's expensive. My later research will evaluate this.

Piping Reworking

In light of the Killip incident, allow me to provide a mic drop: Flagstaff's water doesn't even have lead in it! (Well, it does, but barely any.) At one of Killip's tested sites, the amount of lead in the water exceeded the action level (generally half of the EPA exposure limit), which requires precautionary action, not the EPA level that requires the shutting down of the water and a public notice. (And even further, to my knowledge, because the water only exceeded the action level at one site rather than many, there was no risk.) Yet, Killip made the call on its own to tell parents, which led to a huge overreaction. As it turns out, Flagstaff's water has taken 359 water quality samples since 1992. None of them have exceeded the action level for lead. (Statistic found here.) So, there doesn't need to be any pipe reworking in Flagstaff.

So What Comes Next, Lucas? Good question. I'll keep doing research on other methods, but as it stands, Flagstaff's method of water treatment is looking pretty good. (Note: the conclusion of my project could result in the status quo being upheld!) Over this next week, I'll be meeting with Dr. Bruce Hungate, professor of Biological Sciences at NAU, about getting my sample analyzed and potentially interning at one of NAU's labs. I'll also continue with my research about other methods, as well as maybe delving into the budgetary analysis, if time permits.

Rest in peace, my wonderful Week One Ideas; you were good while you lasted.

End of Chapter Three.