Challenging Chlorination: part 2

The rationale behind chemical secondary disinfection is seriously flawed. That a chemical is required because of the need for residual disinfection – something that remains and lingers in the water – means that disinfectants must ultimately be consumed. Chlorine is a potent oxidant, producing free radicals as part of its chemical action. It was actually used as a chemical weapon in W.W.II. Six decades after its introduction, Nobel Prize winning geneticist Dr. Joshua Lederberg asked rhetorically, “What happens to chlorine ingested in the body? Nobody knows.”

That is an ongoing risk imposed upon everyone using this water treatment system, and it is likely cumulative. There has been no credible, conclusive research proving that chlorine is safe for long-term consumption.


FHA assertions (dutifully repeated by City of Chilliwack) that chlorinated water supplies are typically free of chlorinated byproducts (e.g. carcinogenic THM’s) flies in the face of the facts:
THM troubles grow in N.L. water supplies
– Feb.12.2013: CBC news reported that in the Newfoundland and Labrador government’s latest report (posted online), 128 chlorinated community water supplies in that Province alone reported THM levels above the prescribed maximum – in some cases, five times the limit.

According to the U.S. Council Of Environmental Quality, “Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.”
Chlorine, Cancer and Heart Disease


All this, to say nothing of research that strongly suggests a link between chlorination and cardiovascular disease: the incidence level of heart attacks and strokes. Chlorination became widely established by 1904 – as an emergency measure against typhoid epidemic and therefore without thorough research. About a decade later, Atherosclerosis went from unknown to significant. Research in the 1960’s by Dr. Robert Price, confirmed by EPA toxicologist J. Peter Bercz (though oddly, never published), produced incontrovertible evidence of this link which was never challenged.

The status quo is often vigourously defended by institutions of the current establishment, merely on the premise that it is the status quo. “It seems to be working…” should never be sufficient in itself to reject questions and calls for further examination.

~Wayne Froese

Comments are closed.