EPA: 13 Percent of Airliner Water Unsafe

http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.p...st_item&id=257

Leslie Miller, "EPA: 13 Percent of Airliner Water Unsafe", Guardian,
September 20, 2004,
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...502966,00.html

Nearly one of every eight passenger airliners tested by the
Environmental Protection Agency carried drinking water that fails
agency standards because it contains coliform bacteria, the agency
said Monday.

EPA enforcement chief Tom Skinner said passengers whose immune systems
are compromised may want to avoid drinking water from airplane galleys
or lavatories, although he noted that test results were preliminary.

Of the planes checked, 20 tested positive for total coliform bacteria,
which could signal the presence of other harmful bacteria. Two planes
tested positive for E. coli bacteria, which in a severe form can cause
gastrointestinal illness.

``This is something that needs further analysis, but also immediate
action,'' Skinner said, adding that the EPA will begin further testing
in a few weeks.

Air Transport Association spokesman Doug Wills said the airlines are
confident their drinking water is safe, saying, ``No one has gotten
sick from airline drinking water.'' His group represents major
airlines.

In the United States, 90 percent of municipal drinking water systems
meet EPA standards. The agency's testing showed airline water was only
slightly worse: 87.4 percent of the planes tested had water that met
EPA standards.

The EPA randomly tested the water in August and September on 158
aircraft, including small commuter planes and jumbo jets for domestic
and international flagged carriers.

Skinner said the agency will do more sampling to determine if the
bacteria comes from the original water supply, the tanker trucks that
load water onto planes or the airplanes themselves.

Air Travelers Association President David Stempler said airline water
can stagnate in an airplane's tank, and that it can pick up bacteria,
particulates and rust.

``They really need to make sure that the water on the airplane is
drinkable,'' Stempler said. ``We recommend to our members that they
use bottled water for drinking purposes.''

The EPA conceded more testing is needed to figure out why its results
differ markedly from similar tests conducted by the Air Transport
Association and the Food and Drug Administration, neither of which
found any cause for concern, according to the ATA.

Nancy Young, an ATA lawyer, suggested the EPA's samples may have been
contaminated because they were taken mostly from the aircrafts'
lavatories. Also, one-third of the contaminated samples came from
foreign carriers, Young said in a statement. Such plans may have
brought water from countries with lower standards than those in the
United States.

Until more testing is done, the EPA is working with airlines to
develop new guidelines on testing frequency and sampling size, what to
do when test results are positive and how often to disinfect and flush
their tanks, Skinner said.

``We are working toward an acceptable agreement with airlines, and if
we can't achieve that in very short order we'll take enforcement
action,'' Skinner said.

Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, said most
people don't worry about the water on board airplanes.

``A lot of people take for granted it is safe,'' said Mitchell, whose
group represents business travelers. ``The last thing they worry about
is the water.''

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
In the United States, 90 percent of municipal drinking water systems
meet EPA standards. The agency's testing showed airline water was only
slightly worse: 87.4 percent of the planes tested had water that met
EPA standards.

So in essence, that article should have just stated that 2.6% of planes have
water that was worse than the city water fom which it is.

Skinner said the agency will do more sampling to determine if the
bacteria comes from the original water supply, the tanker trucks that
load water onto planes or the airplanes themselves.

And they should have kept their mouth shut until such testing was complete and
they could release meaningful information.

Air Travelers Association President David Stempler said airline water
can stagnate in an airplane's tank, and that it can pick up bacteria,
particulates and rust.

Either there are bacteria or there aren't any. If there are just a few
bacteria, and the enviroinment is right, then yes, they can multiply. And if
they got the water from the toilets, then there is the real problem of
bacteria not coming from the water supply itself but from the tap.

The real danger of such incomplete reports is that airlines will be forced to
add tons of chlorine to their water. I have seen that happen in Ontario after
the Walkerton disaster. In some areas, you must now boil the water for a few
minutes: not because of bacteria, but to release the huge amount of chlorine
that makes the water otherwise undrinkable.

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
In the United States, 90 percent of municipal drinking water systems
meet EPA standards. The agency's testing showed airline water was only
slightly worse: 87.4 percent of the planes tested had water that met
EPA standards.

So in essence, that article should have just stated that 2.6% of planes have
water that was worse than the city water fom which it is.

Skinner said the agency will do more sampling to determine if the
bacteria comes from the original water supply, the tanker trucks that
load water onto planes or the airplanes themselves.

And they should have kept their mouth shut until such testing was complete and
they could release meaningful information.

Air Travelers Association President David Stempler said airline water
can stagnate in an airplane's tank, and that it can pick up bacteria,
particulates and rust.

Either there are bacteria or there aren't any. If there are just a few
bacteria, and the enviroinment is right, then yes, they can multiply. And if
they got the water from the toilets, then there is the real problem of
bacteria not coming from the water supply itself but from the tap.

The real danger of such incomplete reports is that airlines will be forced to
add tons of chlorine to their water. I have seen that happen in Ontario after
the Walkerton disaster. In some areas, you must now boil the water for a few
minutes: not because of bacteria, but to release the huge amount of chlorine
that makes the water otherwise undrinkable.

On 20 Sep 2004 16:01:41 -0700, (Roman
Bystrianyk) wrote:

EPA enforcement chief Tom Skinner said passengers whose immune systems
are compromised may want to avoid drinking water from airplane galleys
or lavatories, although he noted that test results were preliminary.

I've always thought the water in lavs was non-potable and not to be
used for drinking or rinsing out the mouth; I've never done more than
washed my hands in it.

All airlines I've been on in recent memory (mostly DL, but also FL,
UA, AA, HP, and F9) serve bottled water as part of their beverage
service, and AFAICT use a known clean water source for coffee if it
isn't brewed before takeoff (for F/J pre-flight service, etc.)

-SC
--
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
....
"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune

On 20 Sep 2004 16:01:41 -0700, (Roman
Bystrianyk) wrote:

EPA enforcement chief Tom Skinner said passengers whose immune systems
are compromised may want to avoid drinking water from airplane galleys
or lavatories, although he noted that test results were preliminary.

I've always thought the water in lavs was non-potable and not to be
used for drinking or rinsing out the mouth; I've never done more than
washed my hands in it.

All airlines I've been on in recent memory (mostly DL, but also FL,
UA, AA, HP, and F9) serve bottled water as part of their beverage
service, and AFAICT use a known clean water source for coffee if it
isn't brewed before takeoff (for F/J pre-flight service, etc.)

-SC
--
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
....
"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune

On 20 Sep 2004 16:01:41 -0700, (Roman
Bystrianyk) wrote:

EPA enforcement chief Tom Skinner said passengers whose immune systems
are compromised may want to avoid drinking water from airplane galleys
or lavatories, although he noted that test results were preliminary.

I've always thought the water in lavs was non-potable and not to be
used for drinking or rinsing out the mouth; I've never done more than
washed my hands in it.

All airlines I've been on in recent memory (mostly DL, but also FL,
UA, AA, HP, and F9) serve bottled water as part of their beverage
service, and AFAICT use a known clean water source for coffee if it
isn't brewed before takeoff (for F/J pre-flight service, etc.)

-SC
--
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
....
"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune

Stanley Cline wrote:

I've always thought the water in lavs was non-potable and not to be
used for drinking or rinsing out the mouth; I've never done more than
washed my hands in it.

But wouldn't it cost too much, especially in extra weight, to have
two water containers, when you could just use the potable water
for everything. At least some planes have a tap near the galley
or lavs, which is meant for passengers wanting a drink of water.

So, since they need to bring along the potable water anyway, why
bring in non-potable water?

--
Mikko Peltoniemi
Film & Video Editor, Avid Technician at large.
http://editor.is.dreaming.org

Stanley Cline wrote:

I've always thought the water in lavs was non-potable and not to be
used for drinking or rinsing out the mouth; I've never done more than
washed my hands in it.

But wouldn't it cost too much, especially in extra weight, to have
two water containers, when you could just use the potable water
for everything. At least some planes have a tap near the galley
or lavs, which is meant for passengers wanting a drink of water.

So, since they need to bring along the potable water anyway, why
bring in non-potable water?

--
Mikko Peltoniemi
Film & Video Editor, Avid Technician at large.
http://editor.is.dreaming.org

Mikko Peltoniemi wrote:
But wouldn't it cost too much, especially in extra weight, to have
two water containers, when you could just use the potable water
for everything.

They do. Single tank. Problem is that of hygiene/maintenance. Because the
toilet sink is used for all sorts of potentially unhygienic uses, they don't
recommend drinking water from tap since the tap may be contaminated.

Same water goes to galley where the tap is kept clean and only used in
hygienic ways. So the tap in galley is much safer to use.

Mikko Peltoniemi wrote:
But wouldn't it cost too much, especially in extra weight, to have
two water containers, when you could just use the potable water
for everything.

They do. Single tank. Problem is that of hygiene/maintenance. Because the
toilet sink is used for all sorts of potentially unhygienic uses, they don't
recommend drinking water from tap since the tap may be contaminated.

Same water goes to galley where the tap is kept clean and only used in
hygienic ways. So the tap in galley is much safer to use.