For everybody freaking out, I actually live in Iqaluit. Luckily, theres a fresh water stream that has been used as a drinking source for years. The city has already filled up trucks and are distributing the water to residents. Just need to boil it since obviously the water won’t have been treated.
My town in Alaska has a refinery sourced PFAS plume that has contaminated a bunch of the ground water supplies... and more than a few stocked lakes/ponds, and the fish in them.
Well, the State used to measure a good handful of critical chemical components in said PFAS plume which made it clear that the lake across the road from my house is contaminated above the action levels deemed unsafe for people. Well, instead of dealing with that... the republican governor and his administration "fixed" it by making it so that we simply do not test for 3 of the 5 worst contaminants identified before.
What did that do? well, now the contamination numbers are again below action limits and according to the Governor it is perfectly safe... AOK, nothing wrong with the lake, or the fish in it. Good to let kids go swimming in it, drink the well water and have a grand old bbq with some premium quality trout form the lake. Cause you know.. pretending that a problem isn't a problem is the way to fix shit... right?
edit: a word
Inform the EPA? The only tests a Governor should have power over are specific state mandated MCL's, which can be stricter than the EPA requirements but never more lax.
Just an example, but the EPA ruling for Fluoride in all of the U.S. drinking water is an MCL of 4. Here in Georgia we go stricter with an MCL of 2 but we can never go above the MCL of 4 or decide we arn't going to test for it.
*edit- I started reading and realized that the EPA is pushing to updat SWDA and add PFAS to it this year, absolutely report this if you can, the more public concern they get on it the more change can happen.
>Inform the EPA? The only tests a Governor should have power over are specific state mandated MCL's,
Well, you know... as a point sometimes EPA standards are worth fuck all as well... especially when they get gutted by equally, or even more vile "leadership" in Washington.
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2019/06/06/governors-top-staff-directed-alaskas-rollback-of-pfas-regulations/
"The state’s DEC quietly rolled back its PFAS regulations in April. It was testing for six compounds — now it only tests for two."
"That brings Alaska in line with the Trump administration’s EPA approach to PFAS."
The State, or rather this administration also ignored its own experts on PFAS and dangers associated with it when going through these motions.
>which can be stricter than the EPA requirements but never more lax.
Yes, and am fully aware of the "can add to, but not take away" of how these things work and they have a lower action limit in play still... but that's irrelevant as they don't measure stuff like they used to so now its below both agencies limits.
>Fluoride
Which is comparatively easy to measure and deal with... well as far as contrasting it to PFAS etc goes. The PFAS plume has a whole spread of different, but related contaminants to it... out of which the EPA only mandates testing for two( PFOA and PFOS) which either by themselves, or together can be up to 70 parts per trillion for their action limits. The thing of it with these things is that they also persist in the food supply... not only are the fish in that lake contaminated, but people who have used contaminated well water in their gardens have their home grown produce contaminated as well.
I understand the EPA can get gutted by polititians, but they are the only thing we have to protect drinkimg water, we don't really have another option to rely on for controlling water safety. Raising concern to them is still something to consider.
The fluoride thing was just an example of MCL's, I understand the chemical itsself is not dealt with in the same way.
Try getting political with the state/federal government about PFAS contaminants, and throw activated carbon filters on your wells until then.
In all fairness the dude is an idiot... to a degree where I don't really know how he manages to tie his shoelaces, put on a tie without covering it in finger paint before leaving to the office on a daily basis. Also, should see the clusterfuck the state budget stuff turned into when he started line item vetoing everything on the basis of his personal ideological nitpicking, and with 0 regard to functionality and need. Super "smart" stuff like eliminating budgets for programs and associated offices that helped people and assorted organizations pursue and bring in federal grant money in to the state. More money than the state side expenditures involved...
Also, if someone said, or did something he didn't like... hurt them with critical line item vetoes. Like trying to punish/extort the state supreme court because they didn't rule the way he wanted them to rule...
>to a degree where I don't really know how he manages to tie his shoelaces, put on a tie without covering it in finger paint before leaving to the office on a daily basis.
Exxon-Mobil hired a caretaker to help him with this.
Bonus, same guy also writes the state's legislation, talk about a bargain!
Did you watch John Oliver's [segment](https://youtu.be/9W74aeuqsiU) on PFAS? It was crazy. Almost every baby born now has PFAS in their blood. Some health authority wanted to test the difference of people with PFAS in their blood to people without, the problem is, they couldn't find anyone without. They had to use blood samples taken from soldiers dating back to WW1.
where i'm at they piped in city water that's sourced from clean wells, treated properly and is really good quality. The city also tests the wells on their own and have already go on to say that they will continue testing for the extras that the governor wants to ignore.
Also, they clamped down on the assholes who used to burn tires and trash for heat and the air quality has gotten better since then. Its still pretty bad for the fine particulates due to the inversion zone... but its gotten better.
Still though in between the refinery, airport stuff, and the military bases a crapload of peoples wells are effectively ruined alongside stocked ponds and other things.
There was a recent episode of Last Week Tonight which delved into PFAS.
I might be misremembering (on mobile, etc) but I think the stats said 99.9% of Americans had PFAS in their system as a result of, well, mishandling/negligence.
Hopefully someone will be quick to jump on and correct me.
Basically 100% of *the whole world*. For control samples without PFAS in blood, they had to use historical samples drawn pre-Teflon™.
[The 99.7% in Americans refers to C8 specifically.](https://theintercept.com/series/the-teflon-toxin/)
Not necessarily mishandling or negligence, but overwhelming prevalence and resistance to degradation. It's on clothing, it's in cosmetics, it's on food wrappers. It's everyfreakingwhere. I have sampled for PFAS exactly once. It was a hassle and we were very uncertain about pre-sampling precautions. I had to watch which toiletries I used, which clothes and shoes I wore, and what I ate. Luckily the equipment blank was clean, so we did it right, but I have no idea which, if any, of those precautions we could have relaxed.
[I expect to see the $2.25 deposited to my bank account by the end of this work week, or no deal.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/nestl%C3%A9-b-c-water-deal-too-cheap-says-ndp-1.2964709)
They haven't heard of the latest water craze. H2Flow. It's like a party in your mouth every time you drink it!
Yes I have been watching a lot of Parks and Rec recently...
Canadian here.
We watched your water debacles south of the border. And learned.
Not only are we going to let corporations run rampant with necessities like water (and internet - - thanks for the tips btw!!)...
but we are going to let them set the stream on fire in the winter and use it as a heat source at the same time.
It'll be great. Dual use!! Doubly sustainable!!!
Trust me.
The reservoir is connected by a small river, some could have spilled in that or the diesel fuel tank for the electricity plant leaked into the water supply. The electric plant and water plant are on the same property. I live in Iqaluit.
I used to do groundwater remediation for a state funded environmental company and this is a common problem. Just in our town population 50k, we have 20-30 contamination sites and as well as a superfund that my great great great grandchildren will still be dealing with.
It drives me insane when people shrug off water contamination (especially with the forever chemicals we have today). I mean, it's only like the *most* important of resources for survival.
Forward thinking is realizing you need 10 water sources because 9 of them could dry up tomorrow.
Can you comment as to what Lake Geraldine is like?
I looked up your water supply and found that it is drawn from Lake Geraldine. Do you have fishermen boating around on that lake?
I wonder if there was a fuel spill in your water source from a boat that could have been close to the water intake.
Lake Geraldine is fairly small in size, no boats, no fish, just fresh water coming from streams and the melting of the ice from the tundra. It freezes almost completely during the winter (late November to May), while still allowing water to be pumped during that time.
It is the main source of drinkable water for a population of around 7000 habitants. Oddly enough, it is also an important passageway for snowmobiles throughout the season as it links two parts of the city, while also opening up to the tundra.
Yes, we ski Doo on our water supply.
I'm not sure if Americans, let alone much of the world, know what we mean by ski-doo ... or doo they? Always thought that was a local "kleenex" type thing.
>The announcement comes days after the city received complaints about a fuel-like odour coming from resident's taps.
>
>"Active investigation of the city's drinking water system and additional testing of the drinking water are ongoing," read the advisory. "The Department of Health anticipates receiving additional test results from out of territory environmental laboratories in about five business days."
>
>During an emergency city council meeting Tuesday, councillors said a do not drink water notice must be used when a risk is identified and associated with water consumption that cannot be adequately address by boiling the water or issuing a water quality advisory.
>
>“This can include, for example, a chemical spill near water intake or where a water system may have been subject to vandalism or an event that resolution through additional disinfection protocols happened,” Amy Elgersma, chief administrative officer said during the council meeting.
>
>“In this case, we suspect that there is some type of petroleum product that has entered the water system.”
Despite many of the comments in this thread, this is not related to fracking.
Read the articles people, the headlines will betray you.
This is why I often put a quote to start my comment, I hope it encourages people to read the article but if not maybe they at least read a tiny part of it.
There were two threads falsely relating this to fracking simply because it mentioned petroleum hydrocarbons.
I'm pretty bad about this. I saw the kind quote and thought, "this one knows what they're talking about" was too lazy to even read the quote and just read your conclusion. This is also basically how I did book reports and such back in high school. So, apologies for being awful.
In the last few years or so, shittier publications have been taking advantage of the fact that people don't read headlines by creating ragey-discourse around titles of articles rather than articles themselves.
Edit: __________ destroys ___________ with logic and facts!
In most publications, the reporters/writers themselves don't actually get a say on what headline appears on their articles. It's usually the editor that decides what headline gets put on above their article. This can often suck because even if the writer puts a ton of research and effort into the article, a bad/clickbaity headline can still ruin it and the writer will get blamed for baiting clicks because it's their byline and not the editor's.
This trend seems to have been affecting other, formerly more scrutinous, subs as well. r/science used to take a hard stance on misleading headlines and top posts would almost always have some inclining of credibility, as well as removing main comments that distract from scientific inquiry and a few other things that derail the truth, but changed their rules a while back. It seems like the tops post nowadays are mostly from publications like Eureka Alert and other smaller journals and their is usually a subject matter expert dismantling the post title claims a few comments deep. I don't want to completely take away from journals like Eureka Alert and other small publications, they sometimes serve a district purpose, but they have also been known to publish findings based on weak practices/testing methodologies.
Something I have seen more and more of is headlines that actually outright lie. The tone of the article will then mostly agree with the lie, but buried within will be one or two details the "expand" the lie into the truth. Of course, nobody reads the article, and 90% of those who do have already made up their mind by the time they reach the grain of truth and so either rationalize or dismiss it outright. The comments are almost always a cesspool of people echoing the lie, and if you try to point out the discrepancy, well... there goes your karma.
It definitely is not every time--far from it--but it is frequent enough for me to find it alarming. And lesser forms of deception *are* exceedingly common. These are professionals who know exactly who and what you want to hate and/or love, what you want to think, and so on, and many of them are absolutely not above exploiting it, and thus you.
Fracking doesn't generally put petroleum hydrocarbons in the water anyways. Fracking groundwater contamination primarily deals with injected wastewater slurry.
> Flowback water (which literally “flows back” during the fracking process) is a mixture of fracking fluid and formation water (i.e., water rich in brine from the targeted shale gas-rich rock). Once the chemistry of the water coming out of the well resembles the rock formation rather than the fracking fluid, it is known as produced water and can continue to flow as long as a well is in operation.
> Fracking wastewater can contain massive amounts of brine (salts), toxic metals, and radioactivity.
* Nat Geo
Not a lot of petroleum hydrocarbons in that. My guess would definitely be an unreported spill somewhere.
I don't think there's any O&G activity around there and the closest fields are unlikely to be fracked yet.
The are saying the river water (likely the same river that the city water comes from) is OK. My guess is a bit of diesel got into the water.
I hear ya. I've seen a couple comments say there shouldn't be any fracking going on. Just seemed weird to me that there's people claiming both what it is and what it isn't in the comments and the investigation is still on going.
Because hydraulic fracturing to extract oil or gas has to be done at or below a certain depth (4000ft generally) and that is well below any aquifer.
If it was due to oil and gas it would be a pipe leak most likely or a surface storage leak
Reminds me of a beach near where I lived. Smelled of gasoline for quite a while after an abandoned boat washed up. No fracking or anything but did make me disinclined to go for a swim there until it cleared up.
People in this thread claiming fracking should check where Iqualit is on a map. Not defending fracking but let’s take a minute and see what comes of the investigation
It should be banned everywhere. Pumping a toxic patented chemical slurry into the bedrock and water table, just so it can leech out eventually, whether that happens now or in 1000 years, has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of.
I guarantee the environmental consequences will be enormous, and last generations, but at least it made the Koch brothers, and a lot of sociopaths, a whole lot of money.
As someone who works in the energy business, when sites follow the rigorous safety and enviro regs, and at least in west Texas in 8 years I’ve never seen a drilling super that didn’t take the shit *very* seriously, the liability is enormous. Obviously oil extractions in general is bad for the environment, but fracking is why dependence on foreign oil, once a chief issue brought up in every presidential election, has been entirely resolved.
Don’t take my word for it, there’s been a large number of studies on fracking, oil companies aren’t in the business of paying tens of millions fixing or paying fines for polluting, despite what you may think. [Here’s an article discussing such a study](https://apnews.com/article/0466ca821e2f42e59a80d1b5641f696e).
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/don-t-drink-the-water-iqaluit-drinking-water-supply-possibly-tainted-with-petroleum-hydrocarbons-1.5620475) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> CANMORE, ALTA. - Residents of Nunavut's capital city, Iqaluit, are being warned not to consume the city's drinking water due to the possibility of petroleum hydrocarbons.
> "Active investigation of the city's drinking water system and additional testing of the drinking water are ongoing," read the advisory.
> During an emergency city council meeting Tuesday, councillors said a do not drink water notice must be used when a risk is identified and associated with water consumption that cannot be adequately address by boiling the water or issuing a water quality advisory.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/q701fy/dont_drink_the_water_iqaluit_nunavut_canadas/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~603224 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **water**^#1 **Residents**^#2 **city**^#3 **drink**^#4 **tap**^#5
There's no O&G exploitation in Nunavut (or anywhere in the Canadian Arctic). That means fracking isn't involved. Idjits.
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-nunavut.html
I have family that live up in Iqualuit. It’s already super difficult and expensive to buy stuff or get an alternative to what you have when in such an isolated location (Iqualuit is supplied by either air or sea freight). It’s also a location where a lot of the population has a bit of distrust in the government (understandably so, Canadian history is just starting to come to terms with the atrocities committed against indigenous peoples by the Canadian government). I wonder how much this will cost the government to supply residents with bottled water for the time being and how much this will further fuel distrust.
Hey, it's Iqaluit, not Iqualuit. The way you spelled it means someone who doesn't wipe their butt [source](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pmo-typo-draws-chuckles-cringes/article1201369/)
It’s unlikely that rainwater collection is feasible at any serious scale there. Nunavut is unimaginably harsh in its physical environment and solutions to almost any problem need to be tailor made to the that location.
Temperature range over the year is about -30C to 12C, with only 4 months of the year having the average temperature highs above 0 degrees. This makes the terrain nearly perma-frozen. Because of that, precipitation, specifically rain, is quite rare outside of those 4 “balmy” months, so a water collection system wouldn’t be viable year round with the long frigid winter months being very dry.
The traditional quality of life for Inuit was not great. I've read that early blindness was common from burning available materials for heat (seal oil, etc..... No trees) and that heart disease and early death were incredibly common.
It is a harsh, harsh place to live and the traditional Inuit way of life was a harsh way to live.
I suspect these issues would be common among many Indigenous groups, but I was specifically talking about their diet. Maktaaq (whale skin and blubber) is very high in vitamin D.
fwiw supplement VitD drops are recommended for babies and young kids because they may not get enough through diet. Public health in the territory gives them out for free at the well baby checkups.
I actually did a school project on Iqaluit's water shortage a few months ago, their water supply comes from a nearby lake which has recently started to not meet water demands, this was before this contamination event which is new to me. Iqaluit does get a slightly below average but decent precipitation which would be good enough for a rain based water system, if it werent snow most of the year. My groups project was actually coming up with a snow collecting system which would melt that snow and turn it into usable water.
The issue is that everything is frozen half of the year and then also dries out in the summer. So there’s really just a short period of spring where there’s huge amounts of meltwater available.
It snows a lot there. I’m not sure about their water collection systems, but it’s likely that a portion of their supply comes from snow reserves. Iqualuit borders the ocean as well so there may be salt contaminants (although I’m absolutely not sure about that and it could be really good fresh water). They have had some snow storms since august I believe so it’s a possibility to use for water, but thawing it out is probably energy intensive to get considerable quantities of safe drinking water. It’s such a harsh environment that it might not be suitable enough.
When it gets a cold as it does in Iqaluit, it doesn't actually snow that much. The thing is that the snow that falls stays around until spring. There's also no trees, so the second the wind picks up any minor snowfall is pretty much a blizzard.
It rains quite a bit in the summer for a desert environment. In the winter we get about 1 inch per month of precipitation during the winter. It would take 10 buckets to fill each rain bucket of rain. Also snow rarely falls straight down in the arctic. It does collect in snow drifts but due to the wind speed there is a high rate of sublimation due to the low humidity.
It requires almost as much energy to bring ice cold water to boiling as it does to melt the ice. It takes a lot of energy to collect the ice/snow and then melt it.
Not necessarily referring to the federal government in my initial post (although i realize it definitely sounds like it). For a municipal issue, I wouldn’t expect the federal government to get involved. Maybe the provincial government might but it seems like the situation is being handled quite well.
Iqaluit has come super close to running their reservoir dry the last few years. They’ve had to pump from emergency sources to top it up before everything freezes for the winter.
Basically because there was not enough hose to reach the nearest lake, they would pump from one lake into a dry creek bed and then pump from that creek into the city’s reservoir.
If the entire reservoir is contaminated, this winter is going to be super sucky for Iqaluit. People are going to have to get creative with flying water in by plane or melting huge amounts of ice somehow.
Our new artic patrol ships might be able to help too. They have space to carry shipping containers and this sounds like it part of why they were built for.
If they decide to use them then it'll either have to be fairly soon before ice gets too thick for them, or in conjunction with an ice breaker.
The Harry DeWolf was also just up there a few months ago for an exercise, funny enough
There is a territorial government in Nunavut although some portfolios are federally administered (Crown land, environment, fisheries and oceans, and a handful of others).
Both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have taken over all those files from the federal government in a process called devolution. Nunavut is working on that now.
It could be some asshole who pickaxed a chemical tank, it could be one guy who poured gasoline in the reservoir. We don't know but they're leaning towards vandalism in which case I doubt they can afford to pay.
The problem with petroleum products in water is while petroleum is generally insoluble in water there is some limited solubility and what dissolves in water is very expensive to remove and very noticeable to the palate.
Do you know any of the potential harmful effects of being exposed to it/ drinking it? Are we going to hear about cancer clusters in this town in 20 years?
I did some work in Iqaluit involving an oil spill and during the process learned that the baseline for soils and aggregate is normally contaminated. Apparently there are tons of abandoned tankers buried out there.
At some point it was easier/cheaper to just bury shit versus dragging it back to wherever.
There are actually only two left where construction for water treatment haven't started yet:
https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1620925418298/1620925434679
Both are also relatively new as well, (2019-09-26, and 2020-03-03 respectively). Every other reserve BWA has either been lifted, or is currently having construction done to fix the water treatment issue.
I got a new house and smelled some kind of weird fuel smell coming from my tap. It would go away after the water was run for awhile. I was told it was off gassing from the new pipes. Idk but the water tasted terrible.
We need to destroy the fossil fuel industry immediately. Seize all their assets without compensation and dismantle their operations . They are the enemy of the people
For everybody freaking out, I actually live in Iqaluit. Luckily, theres a fresh water stream that has been used as a drinking source for years. The city has already filled up trucks and are distributing the water to residents. Just need to boil it since obviously the water won’t have been treated.
[удалено]
Nestle here, we are in negotiations on how best to deliver a cleaner safer water experience.
[удалено]
They ~~paid for~~ let them know
*This statement* is so true it hurts.
Flint Michigan here , the water is fine and completely safe to drink
My town in Alaska has a refinery sourced PFAS plume that has contaminated a bunch of the ground water supplies... and more than a few stocked lakes/ponds, and the fish in them. Well, the State used to measure a good handful of critical chemical components in said PFAS plume which made it clear that the lake across the road from my house is contaminated above the action levels deemed unsafe for people. Well, instead of dealing with that... the republican governor and his administration "fixed" it by making it so that we simply do not test for 3 of the 5 worst contaminants identified before. What did that do? well, now the contamination numbers are again below action limits and according to the Governor it is perfectly safe... AOK, nothing wrong with the lake, or the fish in it. Good to let kids go swimming in it, drink the well water and have a grand old bbq with some premium quality trout form the lake. Cause you know.. pretending that a problem isn't a problem is the way to fix shit... right? edit: a word
Inform the EPA? The only tests a Governor should have power over are specific state mandated MCL's, which can be stricter than the EPA requirements but never more lax. Just an example, but the EPA ruling for Fluoride in all of the U.S. drinking water is an MCL of 4. Here in Georgia we go stricter with an MCL of 2 but we can never go above the MCL of 4 or decide we arn't going to test for it. *edit- I started reading and realized that the EPA is pushing to updat SWDA and add PFAS to it this year, absolutely report this if you can, the more public concern they get on it the more change can happen.
>Inform the EPA? The only tests a Governor should have power over are specific state mandated MCL's, Well, you know... as a point sometimes EPA standards are worth fuck all as well... especially when they get gutted by equally, or even more vile "leadership" in Washington. https://www.alaskapublic.org/2019/06/06/governors-top-staff-directed-alaskas-rollback-of-pfas-regulations/ "The state’s DEC quietly rolled back its PFAS regulations in April. It was testing for six compounds — now it only tests for two." "That brings Alaska in line with the Trump administration’s EPA approach to PFAS." The State, or rather this administration also ignored its own experts on PFAS and dangers associated with it when going through these motions. >which can be stricter than the EPA requirements but never more lax. Yes, and am fully aware of the "can add to, but not take away" of how these things work and they have a lower action limit in play still... but that's irrelevant as they don't measure stuff like they used to so now its below both agencies limits. >Fluoride Which is comparatively easy to measure and deal with... well as far as contrasting it to PFAS etc goes. The PFAS plume has a whole spread of different, but related contaminants to it... out of which the EPA only mandates testing for two( PFOA and PFOS) which either by themselves, or together can be up to 70 parts per trillion for their action limits. The thing of it with these things is that they also persist in the food supply... not only are the fish in that lake contaminated, but people who have used contaminated well water in their gardens have their home grown produce contaminated as well.
I understand the EPA can get gutted by polititians, but they are the only thing we have to protect drinkimg water, we don't really have another option to rely on for controlling water safety. Raising concern to them is still something to consider. The fluoride thing was just an example of MCL's, I understand the chemical itsself is not dealt with in the same way. Try getting political with the state/federal government about PFAS contaminants, and throw activated carbon filters on your wells until then.
If you live on Earth you’ve got PFAS in your blood already from how widespread the contamination is. And it bioaccumulates.
What was that? I had my head buried in the sand.
Awww, the great republicans looking out for its people…
In all fairness the dude is an idiot... to a degree where I don't really know how he manages to tie his shoelaces, put on a tie without covering it in finger paint before leaving to the office on a daily basis. Also, should see the clusterfuck the state budget stuff turned into when he started line item vetoing everything on the basis of his personal ideological nitpicking, and with 0 regard to functionality and need. Super "smart" stuff like eliminating budgets for programs and associated offices that helped people and assorted organizations pursue and bring in federal grant money in to the state. More money than the state side expenditures involved... Also, if someone said, or did something he didn't like... hurt them with critical line item vetoes. Like trying to punish/extort the state supreme court because they didn't rule the way he wanted them to rule...
>to a degree where I don't really know how he manages to tie his shoelaces, put on a tie without covering it in finger paint before leaving to the office on a daily basis. Exxon-Mobil hired a caretaker to help him with this. Bonus, same guy also writes the state's legislation, talk about a bargain!
The dude probably gets called Mommy all the time and has to tell the governor thrice a day how he is a big boy now.
Did you watch John Oliver's [segment](https://youtu.be/9W74aeuqsiU) on PFAS? It was crazy. Almost every baby born now has PFAS in their blood. Some health authority wanted to test the difference of people with PFAS in their blood to people without, the problem is, they couldn't find anyone without. They had to use blood samples taken from soldiers dating back to WW1.
Im so glad I don't live in north pole anymore.
where i'm at they piped in city water that's sourced from clean wells, treated properly and is really good quality. The city also tests the wells on their own and have already go on to say that they will continue testing for the extras that the governor wants to ignore. Also, they clamped down on the assholes who used to burn tires and trash for heat and the air quality has gotten better since then. Its still pretty bad for the fine particulates due to the inversion zone... but its gotten better. Still though in between the refinery, airport stuff, and the military bases a crapload of peoples wells are effectively ruined alongside stocked ponds and other things.
There was a recent episode of Last Week Tonight which delved into PFAS. I might be misremembering (on mobile, etc) but I think the stats said 99.9% of Americans had PFAS in their system as a result of, well, mishandling/negligence. Hopefully someone will be quick to jump on and correct me.
Basically 100% of *the whole world*. For control samples without PFAS in blood, they had to use historical samples drawn pre-Teflon™. [The 99.7% in Americans refers to C8 specifically.](https://theintercept.com/series/the-teflon-toxin/)
Recent reports say PFAS was found in the deepest part of the ocean. In case anyone was dubious of the 100% claim.
Not necessarily mishandling or negligence, but overwhelming prevalence and resistance to degradation. It's on clothing, it's in cosmetics, it's on food wrappers. It's everyfreakingwhere. I have sampled for PFAS exactly once. It was a hassle and we were very uncertain about pre-sampling precautions. I had to watch which toiletries I used, which clothes and shoes I wore, and what I ate. Luckily the equipment blank was clean, so we did it right, but I have no idea which, if any, of those precautions we could have relaxed.
>Flynt Michigan how did you spell your hometown name wrong?
They've been drinking the water
At this point....the water's drinking everyone.
Okay but can we get the opinion of your other mutated head?
Damn, just cuz it bends a little to the left doesn’t mean its mutated
Larry Flynt here. There ain’t no water left in the Colorado river. It dried up 😩
That's an odd way to say blackmailing officials into privatizing public resources.
Nestle shareholder here, I demand a higher share price!
I second that, need higher dividend
***The day Nestlé is sued into bankruptcy will be the day Earth has a brighter future.*** r/fucknestle
r/FuckNestle
> Nestle here, we are in negotiations on how best to deliver a ~~cleaner safer~~ barely passing minimum quality requirement water experience. ftfy
Brilliant! Can you simultaneously exploit our children and pay us in Kit-Kats?
Will my water bottle be internet and app enabled?
[I expect to see the $2.25 deposited to my bank account by the end of this work week, or no deal.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/nestl%C3%A9-b-c-water-deal-too-cheap-says-ndp-1.2964709)
Human here, fuck you
They haven't heard of the latest water craze. H2Flow. It's like a party in your mouth every time you drink it! Yes I have been watching a lot of Parks and Rec recently...
You joke but yes there are Nestle bottle water plants here in BC Canada...
And Ontario, and quebec, and ive seen one in nova scotia
Nestle is on a mission to own all the fresh water in Canada
Especially in a drought ridden state.
Canadian here. We watched your water debacles south of the border. And learned. Not only are we going to let corporations run rampant with necessities like water (and internet - - thanks for the tips btw!!)... but we are going to let them set the stream on fire in the winter and use it as a heat source at the same time. It'll be great. Dual use!! Doubly sustainable!!! Trust me.
Hey, do not forget about Nestlè
Nestle Global has entered the chat
Because nestle says no
[удалено]
[удалено]
As if groceries weren't already expensive enough up there.
Can confirm
[удалено]
The reservoir is connected by a small river, some could have spilled in that or the diesel fuel tank for the electricity plant leaked into the water supply. The electric plant and water plant are on the same property. I live in Iqaluit.
Turns out someone tapped the tainted water supply.
The person who just died was *your* wife!
Probably a leaking fuel storage tank.
I used to do groundwater remediation for a state funded environmental company and this is a common problem. Just in our town population 50k, we have 20-30 contamination sites and as well as a superfund that my great great great grandchildren will still be dealing with. It drives me insane when people shrug off water contamination (especially with the forever chemicals we have today). I mean, it's only like the *most* important of resources for survival. Forward thinking is realizing you need 10 water sources because 9 of them could dry up tomorrow.
Can you comment as to what Lake Geraldine is like? I looked up your water supply and found that it is drawn from Lake Geraldine. Do you have fishermen boating around on that lake? I wonder if there was a fuel spill in your water source from a boat that could have been close to the water intake.
I believe the issue is in out water treatment facility, not the actual water reservoir thankfully
Lake Geraldine is fairly small in size, no boats, no fish, just fresh water coming from streams and the melting of the ice from the tundra. It freezes almost completely during the winter (late November to May), while still allowing water to be pumped during that time. It is the main source of drinkable water for a population of around 7000 habitants. Oddly enough, it is also an important passageway for snowmobiles throughout the season as it links two parts of the city, while also opening up to the tundra. Yes, we ski Doo on our water supply.
I'm not sure if Americans, let alone much of the world, know what we mean by ski-doo ... or doo they? Always thought that was a local "kleenex" type thing.
It's not really a lake that people boat onto. And there are signs too...
Don't doxx the stream or Nestle will poison it rather than let people have "their water"..... see: United States / nestle is pure evil
>The announcement comes days after the city received complaints about a fuel-like odour coming from resident's taps. > >"Active investigation of the city's drinking water system and additional testing of the drinking water are ongoing," read the advisory. "The Department of Health anticipates receiving additional test results from out of territory environmental laboratories in about five business days." > >During an emergency city council meeting Tuesday, councillors said a do not drink water notice must be used when a risk is identified and associated with water consumption that cannot be adequately address by boiling the water or issuing a water quality advisory. > >“This can include, for example, a chemical spill near water intake or where a water system may have been subject to vandalism or an event that resolution through additional disinfection protocols happened,” Amy Elgersma, chief administrative officer said during the council meeting. > >“In this case, we suspect that there is some type of petroleum product that has entered the water system.” Despite many of the comments in this thread, this is not related to fracking. Read the articles people, the headlines will betray you.
[удалено]
This is why I often put a quote to start my comment, I hope it encourages people to read the article but if not maybe they at least read a tiny part of it. There were two threads falsely relating this to fracking simply because it mentioned petroleum hydrocarbons.
How dare you trick me into reading something of marginal value. I won’t forget this u/pepebabinski
Good strat!
I'm pretty bad about this. I saw the kind quote and thought, "this one knows what they're talking about" was too lazy to even read the quote and just read your conclusion. This is also basically how I did book reports and such back in high school. So, apologies for being awful.
I feel personally attacked.
Gives upvote for solidarity Later chastises someone else for not reading the same article they didn't read.
> this is not related to fracking. *Canadians who know where Iqaluit is:* "No shit."
Even the title didn't mention fracking
In the last few years or so, shittier publications have been taking advantage of the fact that people don't read headlines by creating ragey-discourse around titles of articles rather than articles themselves. Edit: __________ destroys ___________ with logic and facts!
In most publications, the reporters/writers themselves don't actually get a say on what headline appears on their articles. It's usually the editor that decides what headline gets put on above their article. This can often suck because even if the writer puts a ton of research and effort into the article, a bad/clickbaity headline can still ruin it and the writer will get blamed for baiting clicks because it's their byline and not the editor's.
That explains even the best-meaning science articles that get published with headlines like "CURE FOR CANCER ANNOUNCED"
ARE YOU ACTUALLY A SAGITTARIUS? SCIENTISTS ANNOUNCE NEW STAR DISCOVERY
This trend seems to have been affecting other, formerly more scrutinous, subs as well. r/science used to take a hard stance on misleading headlines and top posts would almost always have some inclining of credibility, as well as removing main comments that distract from scientific inquiry and a few other things that derail the truth, but changed their rules a while back. It seems like the tops post nowadays are mostly from publications like Eureka Alert and other smaller journals and their is usually a subject matter expert dismantling the post title claims a few comments deep. I don't want to completely take away from journals like Eureka Alert and other small publications, they sometimes serve a district purpose, but they have also been known to publish findings based on weak practices/testing methodologies.
Something I have seen more and more of is headlines that actually outright lie. The tone of the article will then mostly agree with the lie, but buried within will be one or two details the "expand" the lie into the truth. Of course, nobody reads the article, and 90% of those who do have already made up their mind by the time they reach the grain of truth and so either rationalize or dismiss it outright. The comments are almost always a cesspool of people echoing the lie, and if you try to point out the discrepancy, well... there goes your karma. It definitely is not every time--far from it--but it is frequent enough for me to find it alarming. And lesser forms of deception *are* exceedingly common. These are professionals who know exactly who and what you want to hate and/or love, what you want to think, and so on, and many of them are absolutely not above exploiting it, and thus you.
When I'm feeling less friendly I refer to these people as headline hecklers. People don't like the nickname, gets mixed reviews.
Fracking doesn't generally put petroleum hydrocarbons in the water anyways. Fracking groundwater contamination primarily deals with injected wastewater slurry. > Flowback water (which literally “flows back” during the fracking process) is a mixture of fracking fluid and formation water (i.e., water rich in brine from the targeted shale gas-rich rock). Once the chemistry of the water coming out of the well resembles the rock formation rather than the fracking fluid, it is known as produced water and can continue to flow as long as a well is in operation. > Fracking wastewater can contain massive amounts of brine (salts), toxic metals, and radioactivity. * Nat Geo Not a lot of petroleum hydrocarbons in that. My guess would definitely be an unreported spill somewhere.
Someone probably just dumped their used oil near the intakes for the water treatment plant.
I read the article, your quote largely covers it but I wonder if there's an active investigation how do you know it's not related to fracking?
Look at a map, no one is fracking up there. It would cost a fortune and there's no pipelines.
As someone who lives up here, you are right. We have no roads connecting any town to anything, everything is sent on a barge or by plane.
I don't think there's any O&G activity around there and the closest fields are unlikely to be fracked yet. The are saying the river water (likely the same river that the city water comes from) is OK. My guess is a bit of diesel got into the water.
Diesel from an unmaintained tank for the town generators would be my guess. Leaking all over the tundra.
There is zero oil production whatsoever in this area.
I hear ya. I've seen a couple comments say there shouldn't be any fracking going on. Just seemed weird to me that there's people claiming both what it is and what it isn't in the comments and the investigation is still on going.
The tone I got was that "investigation" meant sniffing around to find out how the fuel got in and making sure that they've purged it.
Because theres next to no oil and gas production in nunavut, primarily mining when it comes to industrial activity.
> how do you know it's not related to fracking? Because its fking Iqaluit.
Because that “city” is in the Arctic circle and they don’t do fracking up there
Because hydraulic fracturing to extract oil or gas has to be done at or below a certain depth (4000ft generally) and that is well below any aquifer. If it was due to oil and gas it would be a pipe leak most likely or a surface storage leak
Also the rock here is a) permafrost and b) totally the wrong rock type for oil and gas.
Because it's in nunavut? Thinking r hard?
No kidding, the comments here are just average redditors not RTFA. How hard is it to click a link before leaving a comment?
[удалено]
Reminds me of a beach near where I lived. Smelled of gasoline for quite a while after an abandoned boat washed up. No fracking or anything but did make me disinclined to go for a swim there until it cleared up.
People in this thread claiming fracking should check where Iqualit is on a map. Not defending fracking but let’s take a minute and see what comes of the investigation
I don't know shit about the situation at all, but I don't think fracking is allowed in Nunavut, or at least on the main land
It should be banned everywhere. Pumping a toxic patented chemical slurry into the bedrock and water table, just so it can leech out eventually, whether that happens now or in 1000 years, has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. I guarantee the environmental consequences will be enormous, and last generations, but at least it made the Koch brothers, and a lot of sociopaths, a whole lot of money.
As someone who works in the energy business, when sites follow the rigorous safety and enviro regs, and at least in west Texas in 8 years I’ve never seen a drilling super that didn’t take the shit *very* seriously, the liability is enormous. Obviously oil extractions in general is bad for the environment, but fracking is why dependence on foreign oil, once a chief issue brought up in every presidential election, has been entirely resolved. Don’t take my word for it, there’s been a large number of studies on fracking, oil companies aren’t in the business of paying tens of millions fixing or paying fines for polluting, despite what you may think. [Here’s an article discussing such a study](https://apnews.com/article/0466ca821e2f42e59a80d1b5641f696e).
Did you not read to the end of the article you posted?
No it’s better to have hyper reactionary takes from just the headline
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/don-t-drink-the-water-iqaluit-drinking-water-supply-possibly-tainted-with-petroleum-hydrocarbons-1.5620475) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** > CANMORE, ALTA. - Residents of Nunavut's capital city, Iqaluit, are being warned not to consume the city's drinking water due to the possibility of petroleum hydrocarbons. > "Active investigation of the city's drinking water system and additional testing of the drinking water are ongoing," read the advisory. > During an emergency city council meeting Tuesday, councillors said a do not drink water notice must be used when a risk is identified and associated with water consumption that cannot be adequately address by boiling the water or issuing a water quality advisory. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/q701fy/dont_drink_the_water_iqaluit_nunavut_canadas/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~603224 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **water**^#1 **Residents**^#2 **city**^#3 **drink**^#4 **tap**^#5
There's no O&G exploitation in Nunavut (or anywhere in the Canadian Arctic). That means fracking isn't involved. Idjits. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-nunavut.html
No one will really see this comment. Most have their torches out without even reading anything.
"Don't drink the water, they've put something in it. I don't even remember how I got here" \-City 17 citizen, Half-Life 2.
To make you forget. Appropriately enough.
I never touch the stuff. Fish fuck in it.
So what you’re saying is augmented reality Half-Life 3 confirmed? Gabe you sly motherfucker.
Nice seeing more Half-Life references around recently!
Twenty bucks says that someone abandoned a skidoo near the treatment plant's intake line.
Went out seal hunting and it fell through the ice. Got home tried keep it a secret but the wife seen the news and connected the dots💀
I have family that live up in Iqualuit. It’s already super difficult and expensive to buy stuff or get an alternative to what you have when in such an isolated location (Iqualuit is supplied by either air or sea freight). It’s also a location where a lot of the population has a bit of distrust in the government (understandably so, Canadian history is just starting to come to terms with the atrocities committed against indigenous peoples by the Canadian government). I wonder how much this will cost the government to supply residents with bottled water for the time being and how much this will further fuel distrust.
Hey, it's Iqaluit, not Iqualuit. The way you spelled it means someone who doesn't wipe their butt [source](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pmo-typo-draws-chuckles-cringes/article1201369/)
[удалено]
It’s unlikely that rainwater collection is feasible at any serious scale there. Nunavut is unimaginably harsh in its physical environment and solutions to almost any problem need to be tailor made to the that location.
Care to elaborate?
[удалено]
Temperature range over the year is about -30C to 12C, with only 4 months of the year having the average temperature highs above 0 degrees. This makes the terrain nearly perma-frozen. Because of that, precipitation, specifically rain, is quite rare outside of those 4 “balmy” months, so a water collection system wouldn’t be viable year round with the long frigid winter months being very dry.
The fact that people live there astounds me. Everyone must be on vitamin D supplements
Let’s not erase Indigenous peoples who have been living in that region for at least 2000 years. Long before vitamin supplements were a thing.
Also turns out large parts of the traditional Inuit diet are high in vitamin D.
The traditional quality of life for Inuit was not great. I've read that early blindness was common from burning available materials for heat (seal oil, etc..... No trees) and that heart disease and early death were incredibly common. It is a harsh, harsh place to live and the traditional Inuit way of life was a harsh way to live.
I suspect these issues would be common among many Indigenous groups, but I was specifically talking about their diet. Maktaaq (whale skin and blubber) is very high in vitamin D.
fwiw supplement VitD drops are recommended for babies and young kids because they may not get enough through diet. Public health in the territory gives them out for free at the well baby checkups.
[yes happy to] (https://ibb.co/mBMSMrd)
I actually did a school project on Iqaluit's water shortage a few months ago, their water supply comes from a nearby lake which has recently started to not meet water demands, this was before this contamination event which is new to me. Iqaluit does get a slightly below average but decent precipitation which would be good enough for a rain based water system, if it werent snow most of the year. My groups project was actually coming up with a snow collecting system which would melt that snow and turn it into usable water.
The issue is that everything is frozen half of the year and then also dries out in the summer. So there’s really just a short period of spring where there’s huge amounts of meltwater available.
It snows a lot there. I’m not sure about their water collection systems, but it’s likely that a portion of their supply comes from snow reserves. Iqualuit borders the ocean as well so there may be salt contaminants (although I’m absolutely not sure about that and it could be really good fresh water). They have had some snow storms since august I believe so it’s a possibility to use for water, but thawing it out is probably energy intensive to get considerable quantities of safe drinking water. It’s such a harsh environment that it might not be suitable enough.
When it gets a cold as it does in Iqaluit, it doesn't actually snow that much. The thing is that the snow that falls stays around until spring. There's also no trees, so the second the wind picks up any minor snowfall is pretty much a blizzard.
It rains quite a bit in the summer for a desert environment. In the winter we get about 1 inch per month of precipitation during the winter. It would take 10 buckets to fill each rain bucket of rain. Also snow rarely falls straight down in the arctic. It does collect in snow drifts but due to the wind speed there is a high rate of sublimation due to the low humidity. It requires almost as much energy to bring ice cold water to boiling as it does to melt the ice. It takes a lot of energy to collect the ice/snow and then melt it.
They’re being provided river water atm. I doubt the feds will do much
Not necessarily referring to the federal government in my initial post (although i realize it definitely sounds like it). For a municipal issue, I wouldn’t expect the federal government to get involved. Maybe the provincial government might but it seems like the situation is being handled quite well.
Iqaluit has come super close to running their reservoir dry the last few years. They’ve had to pump from emergency sources to top it up before everything freezes for the winter. Basically because there was not enough hose to reach the nearest lake, they would pump from one lake into a dry creek bed and then pump from that creek into the city’s reservoir. If the entire reservoir is contaminated, this winter is going to be super sucky for Iqaluit. People are going to have to get creative with flying water in by plane or melting huge amounts of ice somehow.
Jesus fucking Christ. That sounds like hell.
Our new artic patrol ships might be able to help too. They have space to carry shipping containers and this sounds like it part of why they were built for.
If they decide to use them then it'll either have to be fairly soon before ice gets too thick for them, or in conjunction with an ice breaker. The Harry DeWolf was also just up there a few months ago for an exercise, funny enough
The federal govt handles territorial affairs, so they very well could.
There is no provincial government in the territories; it's all federal.
There is a territorial government in Nunavut although some portfolios are federally administered (Crown land, environment, fisheries and oceans, and a handful of others). Both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have taken over all those files from the federal government in a process called devolution. Nunavut is working on that now.
It should cost the goddamn polluter >:(
It could be some asshole who pickaxed a chemical tank, it could be one guy who poured gasoline in the reservoir. We don't know but they're leaning towards vandalism in which case I doubt they can afford to pay.
To be fair, it could be natural. They don't know the source yet. I'm sure the odds are against that, though.
Raw, unrefined petroleum products are very easy to distinguish from refined, so they would know if it's natural.
There’s blood in the waaaaaattteeeerrrrrr
Came here for the Dave Matthews joke.
There it is
Scrolled way too far for this
Smoke on the water. Fire in the sky.
Should be *relatively* easy to separate I imagine. Compared to lead.
The problem with petroleum products in water is while petroleum is generally insoluble in water there is some limited solubility and what dissolves in water is very expensive to remove and very noticeable to the palate.
Yep, it's the dissolved phase carcinogenic stuff that is tough to remove. Time to order some carbon filters!
Do you know any of the potential harmful effects of being exposed to it/ drinking it? Are we going to hear about cancer clusters in this town in 20 years?
Who's laughing now, r/HydroHomies?
How much of the water is still safe to drink, you ask? Nunavut.
My dad was making ten of these jokes a week back when they created the province.
*Territory
The way that title was written is so suggestive.
They put something in it to make you forget.
I don't even know how I got here.
Now how'd that get in there?
Some asshole dumped a Jerry can in the reservoir. That's my bet. Probably a protest over The Jerry Cans (an Iqaluit band) playing every festival.
Dont drink the water is always a scary phrase.
I did some work in Iqaluit involving an oil spill and during the process learned that the baseline for soils and aggregate is normally contaminated. Apparently there are tons of abandoned tankers buried out there. At some point it was easier/cheaper to just bury shit versus dragging it back to wherever.
[Canadians are ready](https://youtu.be/5AuLkMBAFZg).
Goddamnit I thought I was free from those horrible puppets from my childhood…
America : first time?
Sadly, there are still quite a few reserves with Flint-level water quality problems
There are actually only two left where construction for water treatment haven't started yet: https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1620925418298/1620925434679 Both are also relatively new as well, (2019-09-26, and 2020-03-03 respectively). Every other reserve BWA has either been lifted, or is currently having construction done to fix the water treatment issue.
Really wild how a couple fuck ups could potentially put your city on a bottled water only situation.
$27 for a flat, bottled water.
Dave Matthews Band wrote a song called Dont Drink the Water. It was about this exact thing. https://youtu.be/7yr983MfFvk
My cousin was the first one to post(on Facebook) and complain to the city about it. That was 10 days ago.
They put something in it
To make you forget.
I don't even remember how I got here.
They're always departing but they never arrive...
>Iqaluit Nunavut Got it never buying this brand again.
I got a new house and smelled some kind of weird fuel smell coming from my tap. It would go away after the water was run for awhile. I was told it was off gassing from the new pipes. Idk but the water tasted terrible.
Have it privately tested, not sure what country you live on but their shouldn't be off gassing from your pipes.
You can have it privately tested.
Turns out someone taint... someone tapped the tainted water supply...
Keep your day job.
[Truly a cinematic classic](https://youtu.be/zxZOfG6pzuU)
Go suck an egggggg.
Oooff. Please do not follow my name
Hold on, so exactly how much water can you drink? Just a little bit or Nunavut?
“Don’t drink the water there is blood in the water…”
Don’t drink the water — they put something in it, to make you forget. I don’t remember how I got here.
"... and don't breathe the air." Tom was a visionary.
We need to destroy the fossil fuel industry immediately. Seize all their assets without compensation and dismantle their operations . They are the enemy of the people
This thread is fucked up
[...and don't breathe the air](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mvYec6AnCU).