The Ivanhoe Reservoir in LA holds millions of gallons of drinking water. It’s also contaminated with cancer-causing bromate — caused by a reaction between sunlight, chlorine, and naturally occurring bromide.
So what to do? They came up with a really clever solution: Keep sunlight away from the water by covering the water with millions of black balls (called bird balls). Watch a video to see how it went down.
Boris
on 17 Jun 08Of course that assumes these balls don’t leak other harmful chemicals into the water supply, doesn’t it? ;)
Jlars
on 17 Jun 08This seems like a terrible idea. Plastic is increasingly suspected of interfering with biological processes, not to mention whatever black coloring was used to turn this (normally white) plastic black.
Anonymous Coward
on 17 Jun 08Boris/Jlars: I have a feeling they probably thought of this stuff. There are plenty of safe plastics out there. Chemists can make some pretty wonderful things these days.
GeeIWonder
on 17 Jun 08Doesn’t seem like a good idea White balls would at least reflect the light, rather than just increasing temperature and killing DO (and fish and everything else). This is not a pool folk
They’ve completed shifted the equilibrium there is no reaeration or volatilization (and stabilization of e.g. pH and kinetics thereby) then they’ve shifted the temperature to boot.
i for one, welcome our new black ball overlords
on 17 Jun 08JF
on 17 Jun 08Here’s an article about the safety of the plastic balls.
Charles
on 17 Jun 08So this is where the L.A. Laker’s balls are…
GeeIWonder
on 17 Jun 08Does the NSF test them in 30degree water?
absolutely safe
Bullshit. Nothing in water is absolutely safe. Chlorine trade deterministic risk for a stochastic one. I’m going to a fluorination debate in an hour.
Pharma compounds just make everything exponentially harder to account for.
You know what’s good in water? DO. This, in all likelihood, kills DO.
Anonymous Coward
on 17 Jun 08So, GeeIWonder, in your know-it-all world what is the solution?
Charles
on 17 Jun 08@ GeelWonder – This is the same kind of plastic that exists in house pipes, hot and cold.
Captain Obvious
on 17 Jun 08So, what happens when people fill their kiddie pools with the chlorinated bromide containing water and leave it out in the sun for a while?
john
on 17 Jun 08@Charles Prove that plastic doesn’t leech. Explain why my tap water has a taste of plastic and not minerals.
@JF They just found out that NALGENE may even leech. Nalgene, the formerly “it’s absolutely safe” plastic.
This is just a bad idea. But it’s probably the only decent idea…
GeeIWonder
on 17 Jun 08I don’t know it all. I do know the models we use to treat and understand speciation and kinetics in water. Hell, I wrote some of them.
If they were worried about chlorine, they could consider ozonation and or UV treatment plus adding a chlorine residual after it leaves the reservoir. That’s one know it all alternative.
UV is an interesting issue, but far more concerning is temperature, as this shifts almost all reactions. White balls would’ve been a great start. Testing the black balls kinetic rates for this kind application (w/ surface area and temperature) would’ve been another great start.
This might be a good solution if the water is to be used for something other than human consumption or to the environment. It depends on retention time, mixing rates and a bunch of other things. Doing nothing may very possibly have been a better solution.
f5
on 17 Jun 08the F.D.A. has allowable amounts (a.k.a. “safe” amounts) of FECAL MASS in the beef industry.
But then again…when is anything truly pure, anyway?
It’s all relative.
Tim
on 17 Jun 08A nice example of the chemicals and B.S. we end up drinking and eating every day. Good for washing down some nice irradiated and genetically engineered food. mMmm.
Adam
on 17 Jun 08Wouldn’t it be easier to just cover the whole thing with a tarp?
JF
on 17 Jun 08Wouldn’t it be easier to just cover the whole thing with a tarp?
The article said that a tarp would be too expensive.
Ron Evans
on 17 Jun 08As a resident of Silver Lake, and father of two small children who have grown up playing soccer at the park next to this very resovoir, I have a number of unresolved questions about this supposedly clever solution.
This blogger has been covering the plan for a few months, and here is her latest posting: http://donnabarstow.com/park_blog/2008/06/11/uh-oh-the-dwp-bird-balls-arent-good-enough-to-drink/
It appears that the tests performed were rather light on coverage of “edge cases”...
Splashman
on 17 Jun 08I don’t know anything for sure regarding “safe” plastics, but what I do know for sure is that many things that were considered “absolutely safe” fifty years ago are now considered dangerous. So whenever I hear the words “absolutely safe”, my ass twitches.
That is not to say that the plastic balls are a bad idea. As a value proposition, even if there is some risk associated with the plastic, this solution may well be better than the alternative (bromate in the water). But I’ll betcha an even better solution can (and will eventually) be found.
Splashman
on 17 Jun 08Interesting link, Ron. Here’s the relevant bits:
- Testing company (“NSF”) only performs the tests they are asked to perform. In this case, only a single test was reportedly done, with the water at 73.4 degrees. - No reported tests for UV and heat damage (i.e., sun—but maybe there isn’t much sun in LA). - No reported tests for damage to balls from rubbing against each other (Um . . .) - Or, it’s possible further tests were performed, but if they failed, there is no obligation for the testing company to publicize the failure.
I’m no alleging anything. But it’s good to see things as they are, and avoid taking things for granted.
David Andersen
on 17 Jun 08Why is drinking water out in the open in the first place? I assume it goes through extensive treatment before getting to the tap.
CJ Curtis
on 17 Jun 08Friggin’ Genius.
And to answer David Andersen, bromate is apparently a bi-product of the water cleaning process itself.
And to all the “save the fish” people in this thread…we’re talking about people’s DRINKING WATER.
john
on 17 Jun 08@CJ Do something thinking about eco-systems. Key word is “system”.
GeeIWonder
on 17 Jun 08Grrr. Still getting application errors with SvN’s posting form. Anyhow,
@David: Water Demand fluctuates widely in diurnal (and seasonal) patterns. Drinking water is a commodity that is produced at a given rate by a plant, just like Budweiser or Coke. The reservoir presumably is being used to buffer demand, probably post ‘extensive’ treatment since the chlorine residual has been applied (and indeed seems to be part of the problem).
I’d speculate the bromate is from ozonation of bromide in source waters in this case. A better alternative would be to simply chlorinate/dechlorinate (though there’s risks associated with e.g. chloramines too). Ozonation AND Chlorination seems an interesting choice, particularly before holding the water in an open reservoir.
Anonymous Coward
on 17 Jun 08I think if you’re getting “application errors” it’s because even the form doesn’t want to read your crap anymore.
GeeIWonder
on 17 Jun 08That could be— I am having more trouble from one IP than other. I’d like to think ‘the form’ hasn’t set out to be willfully ignorant or just outright silence opposing views though.
Besides, what part of that was crap? Attack the argument.
SH
on 17 Jun 08There’s no reason for anyone commenting to instigate or initiate or encourage attacks or arguments. Lets keep the conversation moving maturely upward.
Dhrumil
on 17 Jun 08A clever solution indeed. And, just because 37signals is all about getting to the root problem of things, I wanted to toss this in…
One day, I know it will be soon, we will move beyond chlorine as a solution to keep our water bacteria free. There are already many more technologically advanced solutions out there that have been used for hundreds of years.
Regarding the water and the quote in the post… the problem isn’t the sun, the problem is the toxic chlorine. Remove the chlorine and no plastic balls needed.
Chlorine for use in water treatment is a bi-product of WWI and WWII. Chlorine plants were built to create weaponized gasses for military usage. Lots of money and energy went into creating this infrastructure and the people behind them looked for uses for this chemical. In the 60s almost every water plant had moved to chlorine treatment.
Chlorine was successful in reducing Typhoid greatly around 1915 (by removing bacteria from the water system) but it has produced a whole host of side effects because it is of course a toxic substance. Mainly, arterial plaques. This plaques are most serious cause of heart disease.
Now it’s time to re-think the system and embrace large scale water ionization treatment via copper and silver. Creating this infrastructure will be expensive, but not more expensive than dealing with the side effects of toxicity from Chlorine.
Dhrumil
on 17 Jun 08Here’s a good article on this subject:
http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2000/articles/2000-v15n02-p089.shtml
GeeIWonder
on 18 Jun 08I agree with the sentiment to some extent, but chlorine’s big advantage (still!) is the residual protection it affords all the way through the distribution system. As I said and you reiterated, we are trading a deterministic risk (of e.g. e.coli poisoning, GI problems or a host of worse things) for a stochastic one (of e.g. increased exposure to possible carcinogens) over a lifetime. akin to having a few more xrays or a few extra cigarettes or flying more often or living in a brick house. Distribution networks are leaky things, detention tanks are not perfect, etc, etc and chlorine keeps the growth problems to reasonably safe levels.
Also, everything is a ‘toxic’ substance in the right dose. Water itself can kill you.
David Andersen
on 18 Jun 08@GeelWonder -
I understand the point of the large reserve of water; I don’t understand why drinking water is stored out in the open where it is more susceptible to contamination. Why not tanks? Why not an underground (human made) reservoir? Can this water be consumed directly from this reservoir?
GeeIWonder
on 18 Jun 08Fair question. The answer, basically, is yes. Here’s Portland’s case for keeping their reservoirs open (they argue there’s possibly less contamination). In fact, when they do build ‘closed’ reservoirs, they’re possibly going to build them IN the current ones with a layer of water to maintain aesthetics.
It sounds like the balls are an interim solution in the case Jason links to, and these open reservoirs will be phased out. Cost becomes a factor too of course.
Don Schenck
on 18 Jun 08I defer to GeeIWonder; seems to be his/her forte.
Please continue to educate us. It’s fascinating.
B
on 18 Jun 08I defer to GeeIWonder; seems to be his/her forte.
I defer to the engineers who studied this problem full time and probably thought about this stuff a bit longer than some people commenting on a blog with barely any background information besides a single article.
dlzc
on 18 Jun 08The bromate in this case is generated in a previously unsuspected reaction between chlorine, sunlight, and the natural bromide in the water. Ozone or chlorine dioxide had been previously been the only known producers of bromate (with or without Sunlight).
Potassium bromate is a carcinogen for a couple of species of mutant rats. Sodium bromate has failed to show carcinogenicity in levels 10000 times higher doses, in exposures of up to a year. US-EPA was simply staving off class action lawsuits (I guess) by claiming it a “suspected human carcinogen”, and requiring that water suppliers control bromate production.
In other words, much ado about nothing.
CJ Curtis
on 19 Jun 08Here’s an excerpt from a story I just read on this subject
The reservoir got its first drink in months when officials turned on the water Wednesday to start the 20-day process of refilling its 600-million-gallon, clay-based shell.
The emptying of the reservoir began in January. Water officials said the action was necessary to eliminate contamination by bromate, a carcinogen formed by the interaction of sunlight, chlorine and natural bromides in groundwater.
I couldn’t find how deep the reservoir is, but it’s 600 MILLION gallons. Black balls floating on top of a body of water that large cannot significantly affect the temperature of the water. And if it does, so what.
To put it in perspective, I have a small (about 1/2 acre) pond behind my house. It’s about 4 feet deep at it’s deepest point. It’s warm to the touch in summer, and it freezes almost solid in the winter. And it’s CRAWLING with fish and other animals…bass, channel cat, bluegill, turtles, frogs…
So yay, the fish get to live. And so do the people.
B
on 19 Jun 08Who cares if the water temp is raised a bit anyway? People aren’t sticking straws in it and taking sips from it right there. And even if they were, who cares? It’s not BOILING or anything. It’s sent through pipes underground all over the city.
GeeIWonder
on 19 Jun 08Shallow pools have a higher reoxygenation rate because the surface area to volume is higher. After a certain size, you get turnover which helps to keep life going at the bottom of lakes.
Lowering the surface area reduces this. Increase the temperature decrease the solubility of dissolved oxygen. This has the potential to make the stream anoxic (not anaerobic) and perhaps to shift the entire carbonate system too.
What does that mean chemically? All kinds of things. You’ve just gotten rid (shifted) two of the main buffering systems. For one, the hardness of water is a concern not only to your washing machine but to the distribution system as well. If there’s other chemicals in there (and there must be) then ‘conventional’ assumptions become less and less valid. This is problematic if the rest of the system relies on said assumptions for its design.
So I care.
GeeIWonder
on 19 Jun 08Black balls floating on top of a body of water that large cannot significantly affect the temperature of the water.
By the way, these balls are generally recommended by the European manufacturer to alter the heat of wastewater in winter (to keep process rates high at treatment plants) and to keep birds of e.g. mining wastewaters (limiting bird kills etc.).
David Andersen
on 19 Jun 08GeelWonder – 10, WannaBeHacks – 0
Don’t bring a slide rule to a calculator fight boys.
BoggyWoggy
on 20 Jun 08Can’t we all just get along? I’m just thankful that I live outside of city limits in beautiful Oregon, where we have our own deep well and drink delicious, chlorine-free water everyday.
CJ Curtis
on 20 Jun 08GeeIWonder:
JHC…sounds like you’re quite the eco-friendly expert?
I think Al Gore should put you in charge of saving the world.
The incredible irony in most of these conversations is that the part ACLU, part PETA, part “save the world” mentality usually comes from individuals in major metro cities with eye-burning pollution, annual energy crises and so on.
In contrast, I live in one of the most rural, best kept and most naturally beautiful places in the country. So I guess you can consider me out of touch with all this tree hugger bullshit. Sorry.
CJ Curtis
on 20 Jun 08...and just to clarify, I choose to live here because I love fresh water, wildlife and trees. I choose not to live in LA for the same reason.
In my experience, it’s the people that either don’t have a tree within 5 miles of their home, or have destroyed all hope of have wildlife in the name of urban development, that fight about this shit all day long. And of course, we are the ignorant ones, right?
It’s laughable.
Martial
on 20 Jun 08In my field of expertise (humanitarian aid) I can read a positive newspaper article about a project a world away and know exactly what the aid workers did to fuck up. I have on more than one occasion been able to visit sites I’ve read about to find that, unfortunately, I was right. It works the other way too; I can often tell when aid workers are getting it right despite negative articles.
That’s part of what being an expert is: a large enough store of specific knowlegde that has been transformed into a general framework/mindset that allows “intuitive” understanding of situations you haven’t seen. Of course it isn’t intuition even if the understanding is instant, and most experts can walk you through the chain of their reasoning.
The Webloglearner
on 22 Jun 08Wow! I have seen the vid and it was awesome! It is indeed a brilliant idea and i do hope it is effective in the long-run and not for a single year only.
Jeff
on 22 Jun 08They used this technique for shooting the movie The Abyss back in the late 80s. The plastic balls were smaller, about the size of BBs, but the principle was the same. They were shooting the movie underwater in a huge tank and needed to block out the sunlight to replicate deep ocean filming. They used the balls instead of a tarp for safety reasons. The actors and film crew needed to be able to break through the surface at any time.
Mike H
on 23 Jun 08Wouldn’t cubes have been a better shape? They fit together more efficiently leaving less space for the light. I guess the balls may block enough light to be as effective as necessary.
dlzc
on 23 Jun 08There is no guarantee that a cube shape will arrange “face-to-face”, and do so orthogonal to the water’s surface. Potentially many more cubes would be required, and the amount of coverage would likely vary through the day (and season) as this stuff heats. (Not that it won’t anyway.)
Also, I would expect the “edges” of the cubes would serve as sites for biogrowth, faster than spheres, anyway.
Adam
on 23 Jun 08I wonder what use plants would be in this situation.
This discussion is closed.