This is the source data for the results in the previous post. It states "The test results are not indicative of drainage water contamination" and "The sample results are not indicative of ground water or rain water due to the presence of Trihalomethanes".
I conclude that means it is Mains water.
This was dated 2nd November 2016.
By mid 2017 I recollect much confusion with the investigation of the water. I did find the title deeds for the cemetery and there were signs of a land drain, or a culvert, on that deed plan. That prompted some digging and the cut away that is evident on the slope now. Water was found but no culvert or drain.
I began to lose the will by mid 2017 when no real plan or direction for finding and managing the water source was apparent, and the spurious smelly sample that was thought to indicate drainage water diverted attention. (No sampling plan, no protocol, no agreement, just a sample taken by a council officer and someone from SW from the outlet of the blue lay flat pipe that dangles into the ground. Hmmmm) . 2 days after the smelly sample was reported I took a syringe and needle and withdrew a crystal clear sample of water from the mid section of the lay flat pipe.
The water runs on the hill side intermittently, where the second land slip took place, quite a distance from our home. It doesn't affect us, but I did try my best to help find the source. I felt for the council officer left in charge of this project, as he said, he is a horticulturist.
Now that the news has once more appeared that the steps may open, it reminds me of where I was in mid 2017 with this issue. Walk away from it and let it sort itself out was my thought at the time.
I was pleased though when the community council suggested a Participation project and thought to myself that when everyone is as up to speed as I am with this water testing, then perhaps we can have some useful discussion. This has still to happen but the first meeting is planned for March.
I don't think local people are up to speed yet, including the people who live in and around Ironmills. They hope that the steps may re open soon. Money has gone into bank stabilisation but there's no sign of works to fix new steps. Trouble is people don't have all the information, and nor do I. I was keen for an information board and I did at one time put up some information of my own onto a fence, for folks to read if they were interested.
Let me summarise and point out a couple of bits of info that I gleaned from the test results in mid 2017 that perhaps will help folks realise why I will continue to press for an alternative access route and new bridge over the river.
1. The source water is Mains water but no local water leaks were found. Sound tests were done twice by Scottish Water and no household has found any water leaks. I don't think there are any leaks at the tennis courts either. None of us has water pressure problems and the Mains supply pipes in Cemetery Road were very recently upgraded.
2. The testing in 2016 was signed by Robert C Beattie of the Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services at 4 Marine Esplanade, Edinburgh. Is that a water test lab? It must be I guess. I just don't know why it comes under bereavement services.
3. The testing included a test for surfactants and they found 118 ppb (micro g per litre) of Lauryl Sulphate (LS). I remember looking into to this at the time. LS is found in shampoo and toothpaste, as well as industrial cleaning materials. It doesn't really fit with the source being Mains water. How can there be surfactant in Mains water? Why did they test for surfactant?
4. The water on the bank must be picking up Lauryl Sulphate from somewhere. Maybe a leak from the septic tank in the vicinity of the water? But the septic tank was 100% checked out for integrity so it can't be that. Also there would be tomatoes and nettles growing if the septic tank leaked (tomato seeds don't digest in the gut and the nitrogen causes nettles to flourish). The things you learn.
5. Where could LS come from? Well it is also used in embalming fluid.
I have no idea if the graves that sit behind this water leak are providing a contamination to the water on the bank. I don't know how long it takes a cadaver to break down. It's not a nice thought. It's not something to research on the internet I think.
Bottom line though. The test results came from Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services and if the graves are a concern for contamination, what else might be in that water other than lauryl sulphate- that hasn't been tested for?
Good
ReplyDelete