<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Choking on Change: Study Estimates Cost of Water Pollution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2008/world/north-america/choking-on-change-study-estimates-cost-of-water-pollution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2008/world/north-america/choking-on-change-study-estimates-cost-of-water-pollution/</link>
	<description>Reporting the Global Water Crisis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:22:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Choking on Change: Study Estimates Cost of Water Pollution&#160;&#124;&#160;Eco! Magazine</title>
		<link>http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2008/world/north-america/choking-on-change-study-estimates-cost-of-water-pollution/comment-page-1/#comment-4515</link>
		<dc:creator>Choking on Change: Study Estimates Cost of Water Pollution&#160;&#124;&#160;Eco! Magazine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:34:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/?p=1251#comment-4515</guid>
		<description>[...] [2] Sarah Haughn from &#8216;Circle of Blue&#8216; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] [2] Sarah Haughn from &#8216;Circle of Blue&#8216; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Maier</title>
		<link>http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2008/world/north-america/choking-on-change-study-estimates-cost-of-water-pollution/comment-page-1/#comment-4448</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Maier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:43:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/?p=1251#comment-4448</guid>
		<description>Those in charge of implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) are clearly running out of red herrings trying to explain why the water quality in our open water keeps deteriorating. First it was non-point sources (storm water), than farmers over-fertilizing their crops and now watershed development. 

The truth is that EPA never implemented the CWA as it, like the rest of the world, used an essential water pollution test incorrectly and by doing so ignored all the nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste in municipal sewage, while this waste like fecal waste not only exerts an oxygen demand, but in all its forms is a fertilizer for algae and therefore is partly responsible for the depletion of oxygen as the result of eutrophication. This eutrophication is causing the dead zones, red tides and destruction of coral reefs all over the world. 

EPA’s first attempt to enforce the CWA through the back door with its TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Toad) program, by itself a violation of the CWA, initiated watershed protection programs that again exerted a lot of taxpayers money demands and which surprisingly resulted in establishing that ‘nutrients’ are the main cause of problems pointing at nitrogen and phosphorus.  

Most of these studies now recommend additional studies questioning the additional cost of sewage treatment to treat these nitrogen (mostly urine and proteins) and phosphorus nutrients, while not a word is mentioned about DBP’s (Disinfection By Products, many considered carcinogenic or endogen disrupters) and PPCPs (Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products, such as drugs).

While public concern regarding our environment was first awakened by ‘public health’ concerns, such concerns sadly are not longer even considered, mainly to cover-up the fact that EPA and States never implemented the CWA, because of a faulty pollution test. 
More information: www.petermaier.net</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those in charge of implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) are clearly running out of red herrings trying to explain why the water quality in our open water keeps deteriorating. First it was non-point sources (storm water), than farmers over-fertilizing their crops and now watershed development. </p>
<p>The truth is that EPA never implemented the CWA as it, like the rest of the world, used an essential water pollution test incorrectly and by doing so ignored all the nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste in municipal sewage, while this waste like fecal waste not only exerts an oxygen demand, but in all its forms is a fertilizer for algae and therefore is partly responsible for the depletion of oxygen as the result of eutrophication. This eutrophication is causing the dead zones, red tides and destruction of coral reefs all over the world. </p>
<p>EPA’s first attempt to enforce the CWA through the back door with its TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Toad) program, by itself a violation of the CWA, initiated watershed protection programs that again exerted a lot of taxpayers money demands and which surprisingly resulted in establishing that ‘nutrients’ are the main cause of problems pointing at nitrogen and phosphorus.  </p>
<p>Most of these studies now recommend additional studies questioning the additional cost of sewage treatment to treat these nitrogen (mostly urine and proteins) and phosphorus nutrients, while not a word is mentioned about DBP’s (Disinfection By Products, many considered carcinogenic or endogen disrupters) and PPCPs (Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products, such as drugs).</p>
<p>While public concern regarding our environment was first awakened by ‘public health’ concerns, such concerns sadly are not longer even considered, mainly to cover-up the fact that EPA and States never implemented the CWA, because of a faulty pollution test.<br />
More information: <a href="http://www.petermaier.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.petermaier.net</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

