Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 95

Thread: Snot like brown slime in water from neighboring farm well

  1. #21
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Slusser
    Second home or not, he would be treating HIS water, not the neighbor's.

    So from what I quote you saying above, in writing too, you 'promise' potable water; I take that to mean that if there is too much arsenic to zinc, you then remove or reduce any or all those contaminates found to be above the MCL (max contaminate level), right? And that the MI State code requires that you do so, right? I know that that is not true.
    We grout with cement and line off wells that have a high levels of secondary contaminates. It is a new world out there. Hop into the 21st century.

    Not many problems we can not stop in the well.

  2. #22
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Drilling a well used to be a long hard process. Not now. Many wells we have drilled 300/400 foot and hooked it up the same day. Of course, this also depends on the ground formation. Most of the time I know where the water will be, the quality and at what depth. How? Computers. I look at wells logs in the area and work closely with area heath departments. They have the water test records on ALL wells. By the time I have drilled and hook-up a well, I have had over a million dollars worth of equipment on the job site. Knowledge is power. State-of-the equipment, priceless.

    The best information on any water question will come from your health department. It is FREE!!
    Last edited by Driller1; 12-01-2009 at 11:59 AM.

  3. #23
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Gary, I am curious. I have read many post of yours. You frequently discourage people from talking to the health department. What are you afraid of?

  4. #24
    Gary Slusser is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wherever we park the motor home.
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Driller1
    We grout with cement and line off wells that have a high levels of secondary contaminates. It is a new world out there. Hop into the 21st century.

    Not many problems we can not stop in the well.
    Originally Posted by Gary Slusser
    So from what I quote you saying above, in writing too, you 'promise' potable water; I take that to mean that if there is too much arsenic to zinc, you then remove or reduce any or all those contaminates found to be above the MCL (max contaminate level), right? And that the MI State code requires that you do so, right? I know that that is not true. end quote.

    And now you leave out all the primary contaminates; the arsenic to zinc I mentioned.

    What do you do about them to guarantee "potable" water as you claimed you do, and as you say you are required to do by MI code?

  5. #25
    Gary Slusser is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wherever we park the motor home.
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Driller1
    Gary, I am curious. I have read many post of yours. You frequently discourage people from talking to the health department. What are you afraid of?
    What am I afraid of, since you say you have read the very few posts, you should have seen that my advice was to prevent the OP, a well and property owner, from having their well condemned until they jumped through multiple and potentially very expensive and lengthy government hoops before they would be allowed to use their water.

    You on the other hand love getting the health department involved because it makes you more money.

    Also, in many to most states, there is no code as to water quality issues from private wells (and usually it is only for Coliform bacteria and Nitrates if they are) but as we see, even MI does not get into all contaminates that are commonly found in groundwater/wells.

  6. #26
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Slusser
    Originally Posted by Gary Slusser
    So from what I quote you saying above, in writing too, you 'promise' potable water; I take that to mean that if there is too much arsenic to zinc, you then remove or reduce any or all those contaminates found to be above the MCL (max contaminate level), right? And that the MI State code requires that you do so, right? I know that that is not true. end quote.

    And now you leave out all the primary contaminates; the arsenic to zinc I mentioned.

    What do you do about them to guarantee "potable" water as you claimed you do, and as you say you are required to do by MI code?
    IF it ever happened, we would re-drill. We would abandon the first well to code.

  7. #27
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Slusser
    What am I afraid of, since you say you have read the very few posts, you should have seen that my advice was to prevent the OP, a well and property owner, from having their well condemned until they jumped through multiple and potentially very expensive and lengthy government hoops before they would be allowed to use their water.

    You on the other hand love getting the health department involved because it makes you more money.

    Also, in many to most states, there is no code as to water quality issues from private wells (and usually it is only for Coliform bacteria and Nitrates if they are) but as we see, even MI does not get into all contaminates that are commonly found in groundwater/wells.
    Please name ONE state where that is true.

    So, you know more than any local heath department? OMG!!!!

  8. #28
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default



    The link about generally about codes in the US.
    Last edited by rscardigno; 12-05-2009 at 08:44 PM.

  9. #29
    Andy CWS is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    747

    Default

    GARY SLUSSER:
    What am I afraid of, since you say you have read the very few posts,
    I think it was "many" not "very few" posts that were read. I didn’t want to assume that it was an intentional misquote—unless sarcasm or literary irony was involved.

    you should have seen that my advice was to prevent the OP, a well and property owner,
    I understood the whole foundation of the OP's post was that the well DID NOT belong to him, yet he was suffering its consequences and was seeking sincere help and advice, Uhm, interesting interpretation.

    from having their well condemned until they jumped through multiple and potentially very expensive and lengthy government hoops before they would be allowed to use their water.
    I inferred nothing of this nature at all; was THAT what you were implying? But I can well understand the fears you express and how you would handle it. Advising others to follow personal shortcuts, often results in reluctance to follow practical, ethical, moral, if not legal, matters with the possibilty of health consequences not related to the counselor's own well-being.

    And, if in the end, the authorized entity does, in fact, prohibit (condemed well) them from water usage for consumption (or other ) purposes, then BRAVO! in averting a potential health risk. I'll, again--reiterate, get the water tested. The OP’s concerns are both typical and valid. He is obviously trying to be a responsible homeowner and my hat’s off to him for taking the steps necessary to provide not only good, but safe, water to his family. Knowledge is a wonderful thing.

    Given the choice of having the water tested with negative result and not tested with positive results (especially going through cow-dung saturated ground--I WAS able to relate the difference between HIS water and that of his neighbor's, right), then I would rather be safe than obtuse.


    You on the other hand love getting the health department involved because it makes you more money.
    I could not make such a statement which I would neither know to be true, relevant nor professional. Driller1 has made no indication here or elsewhere, to my knowledge, to even pretend to offer advice with the intent-- be it obvious or subtle--with the sole purpose to peddle products, offer personal services or acquire profit in any way, shape or form. I have seen those, on the other hand, who willfully act quite the contrary.

    Also, in many to most states, there is no code as to water quality issues from private wells (and usually it is only for Coliform bacteria and Nitrates if they are)
    So, say 10 to 26 (many to most) states offer no code, regulation, or ordinance on private wells and the quality of water coming out of it concerning safety. I would not argue against something that is unknown, unverified or undocumented or simply just guessed at, but it would be safer for me to say that I don’t know any states that don’t require some kind of testing for new wells which need a permit for to dig, seal, or alter. When I say 'states' you may infer counties, townships, parishes, wards, borroughs and other local authorities to preclude an argument in semantics.

    but as we see, even MI does not get into all contaminates that are commonly found in groundwater/wells.
    "ALL contaminants???" Whew! Not really following the motivation or point of this statement as it would be like saying no restaurant serves every meal found on every menu. Since ground waters can contain tens of thousands of contaminants (some pandemic, some endemic), that pretty much makes it a moot point. Maybe MI uses the “many to most” approach when conducting research, presenting analyses and establishing ordinances.
    Last edited by Andy CWS; 12-02-2009 at 02:46 PM.

  10. #30
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Noooo, never thought about sending a well by UPS.

    I am just trying to get DONE for the year!!!!

  11. #31
    Gary Slusser is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wherever we park the motor home.
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Driller1
    Please name ONE state where that is true.
    It would be much easier to name the very few states that have any control/testing requirements over the water quality from a private well for any contaminates other than Coliform bacteria and nitrates.

    Most states do not require a nitrate test, just a Coliform bacteria test done after the driller drilling the well shocks the well and the Coliform bacteria test is done quickly afterward.

    There's little chance to find Coliform right after shocking any well. You have to test 7-9 days after shocking if you are really trying to find out if the well is contaminated by Coliform or other dangerous bacteria.

    The EPA requires no tests of private wells for anything.

  12. #32
    Gary Slusser is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wherever we park the motor home.
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy CWS
    GARY SLUSSER: What am I afraid of, since you say you have read the very few posts, I think it was "many" not "very few" posts that were read. I didn’t want to assume that it was an intentional misquote—unless sarcasm or literary irony was involved.
    Yes she was talking about my posts in other threads/forums etc. where I have previously mentioned the health department. It is very few posts that I have done that, not many as she claims.

    You are mistakenly thinking/replying as if she and I were talking about THIS thread or to or about this OP, or to you or about something you said, we weren't/aren't, were not are not; this is to you to correct your misunderstanding of what we were talking about. Now in your defense, Driller1 is hard to follow, see her latest posts above.

    So the rest of your post is useless and totally off topic.

    And frankly, it is nothing more than contradictions to what I say and a personal attack on me.

  13. #33
    Gary Slusser is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wherever we park the motor home.
    Posts
    383

    Default



    The link about generally about codes in the US.[/quote]
    That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about, or that you alluded to as to the potability of well water being guaranteed by MI code. It has to do with well construction codes only.

    I said: Also, in many to most states, there is no code as to water quality issues from private wells (and usually it is only for Coliform bacteria and Nitrates if they are) but as we see, even MI does not get into all contaminates that are commonly found in groundwater/wells.
    Last edited by rscardigno; 12-05-2009 at 08:45 PM.

  14. #34
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Slusser
    That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about, or that you alluded to as to the potability of well water being guaranteed by MI code. It has to do with well construction codes only.

    I said: Also, in many to most states, there is no code as to water quality issues from private wells (and usually it is only for Coliform bacteria and Nitrates if they are) but as we see, even MI does not get into all contaminates that are commonly found in groundwater/wells.
    OK, just name ONE.

  15. #35
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Slusser
    It would be much easier to name the very few states that have any control/testing requirements over the water quality from a private well for any contaminates other than Coliform bacteria and nitrates.

    Most states do not require a nitrate test, just a Coliform bacteria test done after the driller drilling the well shocks the well and the Coliform bacteria test is done quickly afterward.

    There's little chance to find Coliform right after shocking any well. You have to test 7-9 days after shocking if you are really trying to find out if the well is contaminated by Coliform or other dangerous bacteria.

    The EPA requires no tests of private wells for anything.
    OK, name them anyway you would like.

  16. #36
    Andy CWS is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    747

    Default

    [QUOTE=Gary Slusser]
    Yes she was talking about my posts in other threads/forums etc. where I have previously mentioned the health department. It is very few posts that I have done that, not many as she claims.
    That's the way you should have said it. The point I was trying to make was -not that she was accurate in her statement but that it was being misquoted. If they are not accurate (in your opinion), then simply state that and make the correction. The quanifiers “many” and “few” are purely subjective in nature (what may be many to some could be few to others), so that is a moot point. But, you claimed that she said something she did not say-- and that was my point. Just trying to clear things up to avoid misunderstandings.

    But taking it one step further, since you continued the topic, I would easily say that you advise NOT going to the health department more than doing so. In fact, I can’t EVER remember you giving that advice. But I may be wrong—I just can’t think of one time when you have, and many (oops, a few) times when you have advised against it.

    I felt her main point was to ask you why you don't recommend testing water rather than where it was said previously.


    You are mistakenly thinking/replying as if she and I were talking about THIS thread or to or about this OP, or to you or about something you said, we weren't/aren't, were not are not; this is to you to correct your misunderstanding of what we were talking about. Now in your defense, Driller1 is hard to follow, see her latest posts above.
    Whew! A bit nebulous there. Thank you for extending your clear and concise response, and to the point, I might add!!! I guess that sums it up very nicely.

    I think the sentence I was basing my reply on was "you should have seen that my advice was to prevent the OP…” Now then, the definitive article “THE” clearly indicates an understood--to the readers--subject in the singular which would have been THE OP in this thread (not an OP or OPs from other forums, or all those other guys, etc.). I was only basing it on your actual words to avoid misinterpretation.

    If you are to refer to previous subjects/cases then either use the indefinite articles (a, an) or specifically state that ‘previous OPs’ were in general to be considered. So, in a way, yes I was mistaken that I could not comprehend your shifting of semantics. Your aforementioned statement makes it all so clear now just what and how you express yourself. I spoke only of the case on behalf of SunnyD, you know THE OP.


    So the rest of your post is useless and totally off topic.
    Glad to know that "I" was off topic when you just admitted that you were most likely discussing nothing concerning this topic, this OP, this thread, or even this forum. Again, that is a very interesting interpretation. Forum etiquette normally suggests that topics in the thread stay in thread, unless specially mentioned otherwise. We are all guilty of straying from this from time to time but it is always good to get back on course.

    Since I am guilty of not recognizing your vagaries, allusions, and cryptic statements, then would I find myself at fault for not thinking deeply enough and reading between your thoughts. I’ll be aware of that more keenly in the future.

    But, as you have seen, I was carefully trying to clearly separate each phrase or sentence and be thoughtfully precise to address exactly what you said in a chronological order without accusations of misquoting, making assumptions or being misunderstood. In fact, the whole purpose of my reply was to BE ON THE TOPIC involving members of this forom, in this thread, encompassed by a complete and very direct method, fullstop.


    And frankly, it is nothing more than contradictions to what I say and a personal attack on me.
    As far as contradiction--let's review: I first recommended that he get his water tested (right?) and THEN you came on and saying it would be a waste of time (paraphrasing) and not to bother. I suppose I 'contradicted' you by imaging what you would have said in many (oops, there I go again) other forums, knowing full well that you would respond to the contrary so that you could claim that “I” was being contradictory in a non-preclusive manner. That was my attempt to make a very interesting interpretation. Hey, I think I'm getting the hang of it now.

    In reality, as I continued to recommend that personal well waters used in residential service for private use and human consumption be tested by a laboratory for health purposes---and you persisted to strongly discourage it, well then yes, I will continue, I suppose, to contradict you. Boy, you got me there!

    Let me be very clear to you. As far as an attack--that's a pretty strong accusation. Help me out here. What was the attack? Did I accuse you of something? Was I being judgemental or righteous in dominance over you? Did I incorporate unsavory humor at your expense? Did I misquote you with the intent to put you in a bad light? Was there personal defamation or false characterizations involved? Have I dragged out laundry from the past, made malicious statements, caused anguish or despair? Perhaps you could point out specifically what it was that you consider an ATTACK so that I can avoid hitting those buttons in the future.
    Last edited by Andy CWS; 12-04-2009 at 03:28 PM.

  17. #37
    Gary Slusser is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wherever we park the motor home.
    Posts
    383

    Default

    I really like it when you talk so forceful, so domineering, and authoritative.

    I hope you feel better now; especially what with all the typing you've been doing here and on other forums lately. When I get some slack time, I'll have to read some of it, it really looks impressive.

  18. #38
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Slusser
    I really like it when you talk so forceful, so domineering, and authoritative.

    I hope you feel better now; especially what with all the typing you've been doing here and on other forums lately. When I get some slack time, I'll have to read some of it, it really looks impressive.
    Good, can you start with the list of states that do not monitor water well construction? You said you could did the opposite way, that works for me too!!

  19. #39
    Gary Slusser is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wherever we park the motor home.
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Driller1
    Good, can you start with the list of states that do not monitor water well construction? You said you could did the opposite way, that works for me too!!
    I would be very happy to, please quote for me where I said anything remotely like what you mistakenly think I said about that.

    In the mean time, I do recall saying I've never heard of any type of an inspector showing up to supervise, inspect or otherwise check out a driller as a well is being drilled to ensure its proper construction or even to see if the driller is following the code.

    That is a true statement, no property owner, driller or others have ever told me or posted anywhere that I've read that an inspector was anywhere near, at any time. Now I do know that in some cases an inspector will drive past after construction to make sure the cuttings are cleaned up and water didn't runoff where it should not have been allowed to and other clean up has been done.

    So you drillers are totally able to do whatever right or wrong and bury it under concrete, dirt or gravel hundreds of feet underground in someone's yard, and leave.

  20. #40
    Driller1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Slusser
    I would be very happy to, please quote for me where I said anything remotely like what you mistakenly think I said about that.

    In the mean time, I do recall saying I've never heard of any type of an inspector showing up to supervise, inspect or otherwise check out a driller as a well is being drilled to ensure its proper construction or even to see if the driller is following the code.

    That is a true statement, no property owner, driller or others have ever told me or posted anywhere that I've read that an inspector was anywhere near, at any time. Now I do know that in some cases an inspector will drive past after construction to make sure the cuttings are cleaned up and water didn't runoff where it should not have been allowed to and other clean up has been done.

    So you drillers are totally able to do whatever right or wrong and bury it under concrete, dirt or gravel hundreds of feet underground in someone's yard, and leave.
    They have the right to come on any job site. I was picked out of a group THIS year to have the water in my tanker checked for BT. Yes, much IS underground but, not all of it. The state will also run a cammera down a few wells per year. If there is any question on the well logs they will also check closer.

    Not to long ago a well was drilled to support oil well drilling in my area. They did not hit oil. The land owner asked them to leave the well. I was called to hook it up. When I looked it was 4 and a half inch, not five inch casing. The heath department came out (I called them) and wrote an abandonment order on the spot.

    They have taken licenses each year, don't fool yourself.
    Last edited by Driller1; 12-05-2009 at 02:46 PM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •