January 5, 2026 • 17 mins
Scott talks with Richard Harrison from the Hamilton County Water District to find out the truth around microplastics in our water.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Going to be an American idiot not be twenty twenty six,
Gott's back with you on seven hundred ww had I
hope you had an enjoyable one, be it Christmas, New
Year's or whatever the hell does you do?
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Get some downtime for you, that's good. One of the
things you don't think about, and so it's a good
time to, I don't know, touch on these things this
time of year, when it slows down a little bit,
to put your little thinking hat on, would be the
state of our water supply. We often don't think about that.
Right you turn your tap on, you have a glass
of water, you don't make, boil some pasta, something along
those lines wherever, you don't think too much about it.
(00:32):
As we know, for years now we have started to
learn more and more about microplastics that are in our
water system. And of course enough of that in you
will kill you because it's a known carcinogen. So what
is the state of our water supply here in the
Buckeye States. There's been a lot with the EPA that's
been made and special federally Ohio EPN or Mike and
Whine did this a few years to get a study
to find out where the stuff is coming from. Try
(00:54):
and figure out the source. And if you look at
a map of our local water treatment plants, we have
two big ones here. We have the Richard Mill or
Frank Harris Senior Treatment Plant that's the source of about
oh ninety percent of our water in Cincinnati. And then
the other one is the Cincinnati water Works facility I
think up in the in I want to say Fairfield
area too as well, that supplies some drinking water. But
(01:16):
I don't know much about that other than I turned
the foster to the shower head on and stuff comes out,
and I hope it's okay to drink and use. The
guy that could tell me not to do that is
Richard Harrison. He's the executive director and chief engineer for
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission known as ARONSCO. Richard,
welcome back.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
To the show. Good to have you. Thank you, Scott.
I appreciate you inviting me to join you today.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Yeah, I know this is well. I mean, I guess
what comes out of the faucet's outside of your scope
because you do more with intake in the waterways. But
that's where this thing starts. If we can stop this
stuff from getting into the water. It's a more cost
effective solution than trying to treat it to the end.
It's always the case is whether it's this or healthcare
or anything else for that matter. But let's start with
the PFA saying what do we need to know about this,
(01:58):
where does it come from, and what are the lengths
to our health?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well. PFASs is a very complex group of chemicals and
the technical name for them is per and polyplori alcohol sentences.
As you correctly noted, p FOSS is how they are
known through their acronym, and they are a group of
man made chemicals that are found everywhere. They're applied to
many consumer goods to make them waterproof, stain resistant, or
(02:27):
non stick. They're also used in products like cosmetics, fast
food packaging, and types of firefighting foam, specifically something called
a triple F so they're essentially everywhere. They're very long
lasting chemicals by design, their man made chemicals, and that
was the attraction to them back in the forties when
(02:47):
these chemicals were identified and created and put together because
of those tendencies that they last an extensive period of time.
It can take several years for them the break down
within our bodies. That's why there's also culturvel chemicals.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Okay, so what happens is kind of like a lead
poisoning for example. We know your body doesn't create a
waste product for it. It accumulates, So the more you're
exposed to it, the more it builds up in your body.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Absolutely, And because they can come from from anywhere, many
many pathways, and of course we're talking about drinking the
water as one of those pathways, but certainly they come
from other pathways air, food products, again, clothing. So it's
a challenge.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Well, your job is tasked with trying to prevent it
from getting in the drinking water supply in the first place.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
How's that going, Well, maybe we can step back and
just talk about the process. So USCPA has invested a
lot of resources in trying to determine how to remove
these chemicals from many different sources. And we're talking about
(04:00):
drinking water. So as we talk about the rivers and waters,
what we work with within the Higher Basin, of course,
the Higher River is the largest body of water. They're
approaching this from several different directions. Of course, drinking water
is one which we're talking about the day, but also
there's something called the Clean Water Act. So we're talking
(04:21):
about the Safe Drinking Water Act, and we talk about
maximum contaminate levels and regulations for utilities. But also when
you talk about the Clean Water Act, you're talking about
the sources of water, and we talk about making water fishable, swimmable,
and drinkable. And that's ensuring that the higher river and
other surface waters are suitable for fish being able to
(04:45):
live and survive bugs, macro vertebrates, but also for human
health we consume fish, and also the utilities have to
have a water supply that is safe. So that's a
whole other area. We're expecting to have draft criteria for
the for the surface waters for human health later this summer,
(05:06):
and that's really when Orsenko we'll get more involved with
our partner states to really figure out what's next.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
All right, So should people be freaking out about this?
I mean, it's been it's you said, it's been the
better ren since the forties, and it's taken a while
for getting our drinking water. And it's probably a case
where our equipment and our testing abilities have gotten much
much better, more granular, if you will, And so we're
now we're seeing stuff we never could see before. But
we know that this is a known cursin egen, that
(05:35):
it causes some bad things to happen within the human body,
and obviously we want to prevent that as well. But
how concerned should we be? Do you drink out of
the water the water you're talking about. You turning your
faucet and you're drinking tap? Are you doing doing bottle?
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Richard? I do tap so. I used to be the
vice president of engineering, production and Distribution for North Kentucky
Water District, one of the large utility on the High River,
and we're very fortunate that Kentucky Water District, then, of
course greater to say water works for the majority of
their water, adds granuar acivated carbon treatments to their process
(06:12):
and that has been shown to be very effective at
removing carbon. But I drink tap water. I feel very
comfortable with it. A lot of discussion here is about
overall risk. These compounds are everywhere. I'm very proud to
be part of a water resource sector that works so
(06:33):
hard to protect our drinking water supply in our river.
So I think it's a matter of risk and balancing
risk and there's a lot we don't know. There are
over let's see here, let me make sure I give
you the right information. But we're talking about over one
hundred and sixty million chemicals are known through the World
(06:54):
Health Organization. About eighty five thousand of these ESCPA lists
on them OREO substances through the Toxic Subsics Control Act.
There are over four thousand p fos chemicals and less
than one hundred are regulated through MCL. So this is
extremely complex. Well, you covered it very well when you
mentioned we're learning more. We now know that through EPA
(07:19):
toxicity studies that there's actually more pf husts in rainwater
than is considered to be protective in terms of human health.
And so this is very complex. So there's a lot
we don't know, and it's a matter of just balancing risk.
We all pay for this response through as customers, so
(07:41):
we're customers of wonderful water utilities, wastewater utilities, and it's
just a matter of how much investment goes into this
and benefit costs ratios. So this is very complex, but
it's certainly not something I'm losing freepover. But it is
important that we continue to understand these chemicals and remove
(08:01):
them that the sources if possible.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Well, that's the key, because it goes in the rain water,
then that goes to water our crops, the food that
we eat goes into our drinking water through groundwater, through
the rivers and streams, et cetera, et cetera. Richard Harrison,
Executive Director and Chief Engineer for the Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission ARONSCO is what they're called. These are
the folks who test our drinking water. And there's concern
(08:24):
over something called pfoss p fas, and those are basically
microplastics that accumulate in your body. So plastics do break
down to some degree that gets in the drinking water
and it's so fine that the filtration systems in the
carbon it doesn't catch that, and it builds up in
your body over time, and it's a known carcinogen. We
don't know the long term I mean, I guess we
do know the long long term effects. But that is
(08:45):
the current target now for water treatment people like Richard,
to try and eliminate that from our water system, if
that's indeed possible. Now, Ohhio, we're still pretty good considering
other states, New Jersey probably manufacturing and military, Michigan more
automotive manufacturing, And therefore you have a lot of chemicals
that are in the groundwater supply, which is why they're
(09:06):
seeing levels that are at the top. Here in Ohio
not as much. However, I will say that I was
looking at two of our bigger plants here, the Harris
Treatment Plant, to provides about ninety percent of Cincinnati's water.
They didn't find any measurable levels there, But if you
go up to Fairfield, the plant there said they were
almost in the danger zone. It's really not that far
(09:28):
away as far as distance goes. But how do you
describe the disparity one plant showing no results the other
one The Neil's moving pretty.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Well well, Scott. You talked a little bit earlier in
our conversation about the technology and the level of detections.
What I find fascinating is through uscpa's research, and to
be clear, or Senko does not work in the toxicology
end of things. We work in the monitoring response that skills.
(09:58):
I spoke with you last year about our response to
these Palestine chemical train derailment still and so our area
is working on the water quality. And one of the
challenges we have is now UCPA has determined that the
levels of these are in the parts per quadruleon and
the technology to actually measure these are in the parts
(10:18):
for trillium. So we're trying to find these and levels
that are a thousand times more stringent then we can
actually measure them. So it is something that is a challenge,
and so when you talk about disparities between creatent plants,
it's important to understand that when USCPA puts together these
types of regulations, they're looking at a lifetime risk and
(10:42):
it's based upon an average person around one hundred fifty pounds,
which I certainly aim over that, but they're looking at
consuming a half gallon of water every day over seventy
years and a one in a million increase in cancer risk.
And we're very fort to have this type of work
(11:04):
to protect us from a risk standpoint, But it is
important to understand what goes into these types of calculations,
and they are determined in a way to be very
protective of human health. So the variations, you know, we're
talking about parts port trillion. It's really difficult to even
measure these below four parts petrillium in terms of accuracy,
(11:26):
and so this is an evolving science and we're only
talking about a handful out of four thousand pfus chemicals.
So it's something that there'll be more work in this.
USCPA every five years does what they call a contaminant
monitoring process the Safe Drinking Water Act, and there's over
(11:49):
twenty of these being looked at in the current one.
So this is an ongoing effort.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Richard Harrison, what may I ask, are we just trying
to scare people the compliance and you're telling me the
equipment we have can't even measure the great greatest detail
of what the stuff is in our bodies. I mean,
let's face it, the air that we breathe, the milk
that we drink, the food we consume, it all has
something toxic in it. I mean, you know, there's arsenic
in our food, but it's trace amounts. There's ratpoop in
your cheerios, but it's trace amounts. Is this any different?
Speaker 3 (12:18):
I'm very proud to work in a field that is
so protective. USPA follows the lull to say Drinking Water
Act when they put this together, I'm not the right
person to talk about toxic ecology. I will say that
risk is a question and it's something that we have
to look at. They're doing their job, they're looking at
(12:39):
the science as where they's drinking water. But as you say,
there's risk from everything, and so just the water infrastructure.
You know, I always like to say every dollar we
invest as customers in a new regulation makes it harder
to put that dollar in replacement of water botts. And
so it's something that is very complex and we all
(13:00):
have to be engaged in this. We have to understand it.
We're the ones that are paying for this through our
rates as customers and knowing working with our utilities. We're
lucky to have incredible drinking water utilities in our areas.
So I'm not going to touch a political question. That's
not where our Senko gets involved. But it's a fair
question to talk about the overall risk and just.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Balancing that because you hear this stuff and people usually
it's new parents start freaking out about this stuff and
they start washing there. You know, they have their dishwasher
water coming out of a giant bottle of Desanni and
it's cost prohibitive and everything else. If I use like
a Britta filter on top of my tap water. Does
a Brita filter take this stuff out or reverse osmosis?
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Well, I will talk about Britta because it's a brand name,
but I will say that there are filters that can
be added. If folks want to do that, they can.
They can certainly contact their doctors if if they're concerned
about this. So keep in mind that the FDA currently
is not regulating bottle of water for pifos, and so
(14:08):
this is very complex. I would I would just talk
to folks and which I'm doing, and and just comment
that it's all of it's all about balance. It's understanding
how complex this is. And the U s c p
A is doing their job, or State EPAS, Ohio EPA,
Tuckt Divisional Water, Indiana Department Environment Management, and they all
(14:29):
work within this area. They're they're working as hard as
they can on this, and this is complex and it's
all about managing risk in safety and following the laws
that that we we have approved through Congress, Save Drinking
Water Act, Clean Water Acting. So that's what us e
PA is trying to do. They would have they would
be the ones to talk to you about all the
(14:50):
science behind it. This is very complex Scott.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Yeah, yeah, I mean if if you're so inclined, you know,
you could do a filter system. I use the word
Britta because it's like clean X or jell O. It's
a it's a brand name that's become common. And I
look at this and go, okay, look at the risk.
Listen to what you had to say. You know you're
drinking the tap water. You see this stuff under a microscope.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
We don't.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
And if it's good enough for you, it's good enough
for me. I sleep well knowing that the drinking water
is being policed by yourself, people like yourself, and you're
more at the source end. We talked during the East
Palestine disaster about the plume that was traveling down the
Ohio River. You guys had it all timed out, saying, yah,
we're tracking it. Everything's good, it moved out, it dissipated,
and all is well at this point too. So if
(15:32):
you want to lose sleep over this and get down
a rabbit hole, I'm sure there's stuff online that'll scare
the hell out of you. However, it is safe to
say that most of us aren't one hundred and fifty pounds.
I would like to talk next to you. If you
I'm gonna have Richard as a guy who sets the
average weight for Americans because I think he's a little drunk.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Well that's that's the science behind develop these criterias. But
I'm not near one hundred and fifty pounds.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I just I just flew and there are maybe two
people on the plane that were one hundred and fifty
pounds and I included the toddlers. So yeah, well, I
mean it's true. So what you're saying is if you
weigh more, then you can absorb, you can absorb more
p foss or is that true.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Or I'm not gonna really say that. What I'm saying
is that the background that USCPA uses to complete their studies,
and so it's important to understand when criteria put out,
it's based on a specific methodology that they follow from
(16:34):
a science basis.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
I was trying to make an excuse and say, see
that's the upside to obesity.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
You can.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Richard Harrison, the executive Director, is the chief engineer at
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. He's the guy
policing our water sources in and around Ohio and elsewhere.
And Richard I appreciate you coming on the show. I
know I didn't want you talking out over your skis
a little bit there, and I asked you some questions
that were outside of your scope. But I appreciate coming
on and trying to give us a basic understanding whether
(17:01):
or not our drinking water is safe. And it sounds
like it is.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Always a pleasure. Scott the best play, take care, Thank.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
You once again, and we've got a news update in
just minutes. Here our first mental health Monday update. Julie
hattersh Hear's next Scott's loan seven hundred Deputy Other
Going to be an American idiot not be twenty twenty six,
Gott's back with you on seven hundred ww had I
hope you had an enjoyable one, be it Christmas, New
Year's or whatever the hell does you do?
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Get some downtime for you, that's good. One of the
things you don't think about, and so it's a good
time to, I don't know, touch on these things this
time of year, when it slows down a little bit,
to put your little thinking hat on, would be the
state of our water supply. We often don't think about that.
Right you turn your tap on, you have a glass
of water, you don't make, boil some pasta, something along
those lines wherever, you don't think too much about it.
(00:32):
As we know, for years now we have started to
learn more and more about microplastics that are in our
water system. And of course enough of that in you
will kill you because it's a known carcinogen. So what
is the state of our water supply here in the
Buckeye States. There's been a lot with the EPA that's
been made and special federally Ohio EPN or Mike and
Whine did this a few years to get a study
to find out where the stuff is coming from. Try
(00:54):
and figure out the source. And if you look at
a map of our local water treatment plants, we have
two big ones here. We have the Richard Mill or
Frank Harris Senior Treatment Plant that's the source of about
oh ninety percent of our water in Cincinnati. And then
the other one is the Cincinnati water Works facility I
think up in the in I want to say Fairfield
area too as well, that supplies some drinking water. But
(01:16):
I don't know much about that other than I turned
the foster to the shower head on and stuff comes out,
and I hope it's okay to drink and use. The
guy that could tell me not to do that is
Richard Harrison. He's the executive director and chief engineer for
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission known as ARONSCO. Richard,
welcome back.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
To the show. Good to have you. Thank you, Scott.
I appreciate you inviting me to join you today.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Yeah, I know this is well. I mean, I guess
what comes out of the faucet's outside of your scope
because you do more with intake in the waterways. But
that's where this thing starts. If we can stop this
stuff from getting into the water. It's a more cost
effective solution than trying to treat it to the end.
It's always the case is whether it's this or healthcare
or anything else for that matter. But let's start with
the PFA saying what do we need to know about this,
(01:58):
where does it come from, and what are the lengths
to our health?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well. PFASs is a very complex group of chemicals and
the technical name for them is per and polyplori alcohol sentences.
As you correctly noted, p FOSS is how they are
known through their acronym, and they are a group of
man made chemicals that are found everywhere. They're applied to
many consumer goods to make them waterproof, stain resistant, or
(02:27):
non stick. They're also used in products like cosmetics, fast
food packaging, and types of firefighting foam, specifically something called
a triple F so they're essentially everywhere. They're very long
lasting chemicals by design, their man made chemicals, and that
was the attraction to them back in the forties when
(02:47):
these chemicals were identified and created and put together because
of those tendencies that they last an extensive period of time.
It can take several years for them the break down
within our bodies. That's why there's also culturvel chemicals.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Okay, so what happens is kind of like a lead
poisoning for example. We know your body doesn't create a
waste product for it. It accumulates, So the more you're
exposed to it, the more it builds up in your body.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Absolutely, And because they can come from from anywhere, many
many pathways, and of course we're talking about drinking the
water as one of those pathways, but certainly they come
from other pathways air, food products, again, clothing. So it's
a challenge.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Well, your job is tasked with trying to prevent it
from getting in the drinking water supply in the first place.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
How's that going, Well, maybe we can step back and
just talk about the process. So USCPA has invested a
lot of resources in trying to determine how to remove
these chemicals from many different sources. And we're talking about
(04:00):
drinking water. So as we talk about the rivers and waters,
what we work with within the Higher Basin, of course,
the Higher River is the largest body of water. They're
approaching this from several different directions. Of course, drinking water
is one which we're talking about the day, but also
there's something called the Clean Water Act. So we're talking
(04:21):
about the Safe Drinking Water Act, and we talk about
maximum contaminate levels and regulations for utilities. But also when
you talk about the Clean Water Act, you're talking about
the sources of water, and we talk about making water fishable, swimmable,
and drinkable. And that's ensuring that the higher river and
other surface waters are suitable for fish being able to
(04:45):
live and survive bugs, macro vertebrates, but also for human
health we consume fish, and also the utilities have to
have a water supply that is safe. So that's a
whole other area. We're expecting to have draft criteria for
the for the surface waters for human health later this summer,
(05:06):
and that's really when Orsenko we'll get more involved with
our partner states to really figure out what's next.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
All right, So should people be freaking out about this?
I mean, it's been it's you said, it's been the
better ren since the forties, and it's taken a while
for getting our drinking water. And it's probably a case
where our equipment and our testing abilities have gotten much
much better, more granular, if you will, And so we're
now we're seeing stuff we never could see before. But
we know that this is a known cursin egen, that
(05:35):
it causes some bad things to happen within the human body,
and obviously we want to prevent that as well. But
how concerned should we be? Do you drink out of
the water the water you're talking about. You turning your
faucet and you're drinking tap? Are you doing doing bottle?
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Richard? I do tap so. I used to be the
vice president of engineering, production and Distribution for North Kentucky
Water District, one of the large utility on the High River,
and we're very fortunate that Kentucky Water District, then, of
course greater to say water works for the majority of
their water, adds granuar acivated carbon treatments to their process
(06:12):
and that has been shown to be very effective at
removing carbon. But I drink tap water. I feel very
comfortable with it. A lot of discussion here is about
overall risk. These compounds are everywhere. I'm very proud to
be part of a water resource sector that works so
(06:33):
hard to protect our drinking water supply in our river.
So I think it's a matter of risk and balancing
risk and there's a lot we don't know. There are
over let's see here, let me make sure I give
you the right information. But we're talking about over one
hundred and sixty million chemicals are known through the World
(06:54):
Health Organization. About eighty five thousand of these ESCPA lists
on them OREO substances through the Toxic Subsics Control Act.
There are over four thousand p fos chemicals and less
than one hundred are regulated through MCL. So this is
extremely complex. Well, you covered it very well when you
mentioned we're learning more. We now know that through EPA
(07:19):
toxicity studies that there's actually more pf husts in rainwater
than is considered to be protective in terms of human health.
And so this is very complex. So there's a lot
we don't know, and it's a matter of just balancing risk.
We all pay for this response through as customers, so
(07:41):
we're customers of wonderful water utilities, wastewater utilities, and it's
just a matter of how much investment goes into this
and benefit costs ratios. So this is very complex, but
it's certainly not something I'm losing freepover. But it is
important that we continue to understand these chemicals and remove
(08:01):
them that the sources if possible.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Well, that's the key, because it goes in the rain water,
then that goes to water our crops, the food that
we eat goes into our drinking water through groundwater, through
the rivers and streams, et cetera, et cetera. Richard Harrison,
Executive Director and Chief Engineer for the Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission ARONSCO is what they're called. These are
the folks who test our drinking water. And there's concern
(08:24):
over something called pfoss p fas, and those are basically
microplastics that accumulate in your body. So plastics do break
down to some degree that gets in the drinking water
and it's so fine that the filtration systems in the
carbon it doesn't catch that, and it builds up in
your body over time, and it's a known carcinogen. We
don't know the long term I mean, I guess we
do know the long long term effects. But that is
(08:45):
the current target now for water treatment people like Richard,
to try and eliminate that from our water system, if
that's indeed possible. Now, Ohhio, we're still pretty good considering
other states, New Jersey probably manufacturing and military, Michigan more
automotive manufacturing, And therefore you have a lot of chemicals
that are in the groundwater supply, which is why they're
(09:06):
seeing levels that are at the top. Here in Ohio
not as much. However, I will say that I was
looking at two of our bigger plants here, the Harris
Treatment Plant, to provides about ninety percent of Cincinnati's water.
They didn't find any measurable levels there, But if you
go up to Fairfield, the plant there said they were
almost in the danger zone. It's really not that far
(09:28):
away as far as distance goes. But how do you
describe the disparity one plant showing no results the other
one The Neil's moving pretty.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Well well, Scott. You talked a little bit earlier in
our conversation about the technology and the level of detections.
What I find fascinating is through uscpa's research, and to
be clear, or Senko does not work in the toxicology
end of things. We work in the monitoring response that skills.
(09:58):
I spoke with you last year about our response to
these Palestine chemical train derailment still and so our area
is working on the water quality. And one of the
challenges we have is now UCPA has determined that the
levels of these are in the parts per quadruleon and
the technology to actually measure these are in the parts
(10:18):
for trillium. So we're trying to find these and levels
that are a thousand times more stringent then we can
actually measure them. So it is something that is a challenge,
and so when you talk about disparities between creatent plants,
it's important to understand that when USCPA puts together these
types of regulations, they're looking at a lifetime risk and
(10:42):
it's based upon an average person around one hundred fifty pounds,
which I certainly aim over that, but they're looking at
consuming a half gallon of water every day over seventy
years and a one in a million increase in cancer risk.
And we're very fort to have this type of work
(11:04):
to protect us from a risk standpoint, But it is
important to understand what goes into these types of calculations,
and they are determined in a way to be very
protective of human health. So the variations, you know, we're
talking about parts port trillion. It's really difficult to even
measure these below four parts petrillium in terms of accuracy,
(11:26):
and so this is an evolving science and we're only
talking about a handful out of four thousand pfus chemicals.
So it's something that there'll be more work in this.
USCPA every five years does what they call a contaminant
monitoring process the Safe Drinking Water Act, and there's over
(11:49):
twenty of these being looked at in the current one.
So this is an ongoing effort.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Richard Harrison, what may I ask, are we just trying
to scare people the compliance and you're telling me the
equipment we have can't even measure the great greatest detail
of what the stuff is in our bodies. I mean,
let's face it, the air that we breathe, the milk
that we drink, the food we consume, it all has
something toxic in it. I mean, you know, there's arsenic
in our food, but it's trace amounts. There's ratpoop in
your cheerios, but it's trace amounts. Is this any different?
Speaker 3 (12:18):
I'm very proud to work in a field that is
so protective. USPA follows the lull to say Drinking Water
Act when they put this together, I'm not the right
person to talk about toxic ecology. I will say that
risk is a question and it's something that we have
to look at. They're doing their job, they're looking at
(12:39):
the science as where they's drinking water. But as you say,
there's risk from everything, and so just the water infrastructure.
You know, I always like to say every dollar we
invest as customers in a new regulation makes it harder
to put that dollar in replacement of water botts. And
so it's something that is very complex and we all
(13:00):
have to be engaged in this. We have to understand it.
We're the ones that are paying for this through our
rates as customers and knowing working with our utilities. We're
lucky to have incredible drinking water utilities in our areas.
So I'm not going to touch a political question. That's
not where our Senko gets involved. But it's a fair
question to talk about the overall risk and just.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Balancing that because you hear this stuff and people usually
it's new parents start freaking out about this stuff and
they start washing there. You know, they have their dishwasher
water coming out of a giant bottle of Desanni and
it's cost prohibitive and everything else. If I use like
a Britta filter on top of my tap water. Does
a Brita filter take this stuff out or reverse osmosis?
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Well, I will talk about Britta because it's a brand name,
but I will say that there are filters that can
be added. If folks want to do that, they can.
They can certainly contact their doctors if if they're concerned
about this. So keep in mind that the FDA currently
is not regulating bottle of water for pifos, and so
(14:08):
this is very complex. I would I would just talk
to folks and which I'm doing, and and just comment
that it's all of it's all about balance. It's understanding
how complex this is. And the U s c p
A is doing their job, or State EPAS, Ohio EPA,
Tuckt Divisional Water, Indiana Department Environment Management, and they all
(14:29):
work within this area. They're they're working as hard as
they can on this, and this is complex and it's
all about managing risk in safety and following the laws
that that we we have approved through Congress, Save Drinking
Water Act, Clean Water Acting. So that's what us e
PA is trying to do. They would have they would
be the ones to talk to you about all the
(14:50):
science behind it. This is very complex Scott.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Yeah, yeah, I mean if if you're so inclined, you know,
you could do a filter system. I use the word
Britta because it's like clean X or jell O. It's
a it's a brand name that's become common. And I
look at this and go, okay, look at the risk.
Listen to what you had to say. You know you're
drinking the tap water. You see this stuff under a microscope.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
We don't.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
And if it's good enough for you, it's good enough
for me. I sleep well knowing that the drinking water
is being policed by yourself, people like yourself, and you're
more at the source end. We talked during the East
Palestine disaster about the plume that was traveling down the
Ohio River. You guys had it all timed out, saying, yah,
we're tracking it. Everything's good, it moved out, it dissipated,
and all is well at this point too. So if
(15:32):
you want to lose sleep over this and get down
a rabbit hole, I'm sure there's stuff online that'll scare
the hell out of you. However, it is safe to
say that most of us aren't one hundred and fifty pounds.
I would like to talk next to you. If you
I'm gonna have Richard as a guy who sets the
average weight for Americans because I think he's a little drunk.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Well that's that's the science behind develop these criterias. But
I'm not near one hundred and fifty pounds.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I just I just flew and there are maybe two
people on the plane that were one hundred and fifty
pounds and I included the toddlers. So yeah, well, I
mean it's true. So what you're saying is if you
weigh more, then you can absorb, you can absorb more
p foss or is that true.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Or I'm not gonna really say that. What I'm saying
is that the background that USCPA uses to complete their studies,
and so it's important to understand when criteria put out,
it's based on a specific methodology that they follow from
(16:34):
a science basis.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
I was trying to make an excuse and say, see
that's the upside to obesity.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
You can.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Richard Harrison, the executive Director, is the chief engineer at
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. He's the guy
policing our water sources in and around Ohio and elsewhere.
And Richard I appreciate you coming on the show. I
know I didn't want you talking out over your skis
a little bit there, and I asked you some questions
that were outside of your scope. But I appreciate coming
on and trying to give us a basic understanding whether
(17:01):
or not our drinking water is safe. And it sounds
like it is.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Always a pleasure. Scott the best play, take care, Thank.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
You once again, and we've got a news update in
just minutes. Here our first mental health Monday update. Julie
hattersh Hear's next Scott's loan seven hundred Deputy Other
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.