Talk:Arsenic contamination of groundwater

message: Is there a practical low cost way to test water for arsenic? See also where the question is posed at Appropedia:Category:Water#Testing for arsenic? --Chriswaterguy talk 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing arsenic levels? 

message: This section was misnamed and poorly written. If I were an English teacher, I would give the student an F.
*The story of the arsenic contamination of the groundwater in Bangladesh is a tragic one. Diarrheal diseases have long plagued the developing world as a major cause of death, especially in children. Prior to the 1970s, Bangladesh had one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world.
This section begins by saying there was a lot of suffering. Then it will go on to say that they dug wells, which was good (!) but then arsenic was found in the water.
It does not say how many people died or got sick as a result of the arsenic contamination. It only says that one mortality rate went down. Does this mean arsenic is good? I don't think that was the point. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects of contamination

message: "In West Bengal, water is mostly supplied from rivers. Groundwater comes from deep tubewells, which are few in number. Because of the low quantity of deep tubewells, the risk of arsenic patients in West Bengal is comparatively less.[11] " The section just above this mentions more than 8 million wells. It seems as if this is a new region, or there are two versions of the same section that have not been integrated into each other. As it reads, the section does not identify which well enough. Someone who knows needs to fix this....
On rereading I see my problem....The location is not assigned to India in its first mention, but somewhere in the middle of the paragraph. It should be assigned on the first mention of West Bengal. Never assume the reader has started at the first line of the section...making appropriate edits....OK... now I read the second section well. It is too stylistically different from the first one to imagine that they are talking about the same things. It seems to have a different purpose in mind. I question its usefulness the way it is written. It needs to be written so both sections work together.
This last paragraph appears to be a point of view. It does not contain any useful information about the topic. I suggest that it be removed...the paragraph above it is a nonsequitor to the section above it...
"One solution is “By using surface water and instituting effective withdrawal regulation. West Bengal and Bangladesh are flooded with surface water. We should first regulate proper watershed management. Treat and use available surface water, rain-water, and others. The way we're doing [it] at present is not advisable."[11]"
Avram Primack (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appears to be contradictory 

message: The statement, "In addition, mining techniques such as hydraulic fracturing mobilize arsenic in groundwater and aquifers due to enhanced methane transportation and resulting changes in redox conditions,[1]" contains an inaccurate citation. The Brown et. al. 2010 paper deals with the mobilization of arsenic in the presence of petroleum hydrocarbon groundwater contamination. It does not reference or refer to hydraulic fracturing activities.
The statement, ". . . and inject fluid containing additional arsenic.[2]" is also a dubious citation. The database associated with that publication does not list hydraulic fracture injection fluids as the source of any contamination.[A] Also the website, FracFocus.org does not contain any arsenic compounds on the list of common fracture stimulation fluids.[B] 
Additionally if any of these statements can be verified with other sources, this information would be more appropriately placed in Section 2 "Contamination specific nations and regions".
[A] http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780400389
[B] http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used In-Fact-uation (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the article had some comments that seemed inappropriate and unsubstantiated.  I just removed a lot of them.   The article was also tilted toward the US, whereas the issue is decidedly non-US.  You further comments or contributions would be welcome since this topic is of global importance.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Citations 

message: I realize this is not a forum, but I am mystified why solar water distillation is apparently not mentioned as a method to remove arsenic. Is there some technical reason this specific technology is apparently not being used?
It has no moving parts, requires only sunlight to operate, and can be cleaned just by pouring enough new contaminated water into the evaporation basin to flush the concentrated waste out an overflow channel. Using only a sloped glass window with a silicone gasket and collection channel, the rest of it could be constructed locally.
The following website says that "4.9 kg of distilled water is produced per square meter of still surface", for solar stills operated in northern Chile.
Ref: http://www.solaqua.com/solstilbas.html
-- DMahalko (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsenic removal via solar water distillation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arsenic contamination of groundwater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://202.136.7.26/images/jhpn242_Arsenic-contamination.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319034710/http://www.wbphed.gov.in/PHEDTables/arsenicbackground.html to http://www.wbphed.gov.in/PHEDTables/arsenicbackground.html
*Added  tag to http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/OPs/Moinuddin/MoinuddinOP.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The two lines in the Dietary Intake section do not seem to contribute much to the overall article, it should either be supplemented with more facts or deleted altogether.
Veena.narashiman (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietary Intake Suggestions 

message: You talked a lot about all of the advantages of SAR technology. Are there any disadvantages? Joey Stephenson 98 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subterranean arsenic removal (SAR) technology.  

message: This is the graphic being used by The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (here). A comparison brings out the limitations of the current-but-now-14-years-old-graphic. The UNEP graphic was used with attribution to Schwarzenbach (2010) Global water pollution and human health. Looks like we editors need to dust off GIMP and craft a new graphic. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better graphic needed 

message: I've removed this further reading list as it's outdated and not overly useful:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* Bhattacharya P, Polya DA & Jovanovic D (Eds.) 2017. "Best Practice Guide on the Control of Arsenic in Drinking Water". Metals and Related Substances in Drinking Water Series, IWA Publishing, UK, , 265p. https://www.iwapublishing.com/books/9781843393856/best-practice-guide-control-arsenic-drinking-water EMsmile (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed further reading list 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ash.cobbler (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology