Share This Page

Many residents remain wary of W.Va. water

| Saturday, Jan. 18, 2014, 7:00 p.m.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The smell lingers — the slightly sweet, slightly bitter odor of a chemical that contaminated the water supply of West Virginia's capital more than a week ago.

It creeps out of faucets and shower heads. It wafts from the Elk River, the site of the spill. Sometimes it hangs in the cold nighttime air.

For several days, a majority of Charleston-area residents have been told their water is safe to drink, that the concentration of a chemical used to wash coal is so low, it won't be harmful. Restaurants have reopened — using tap water to wash dishes and produce, clean their soda fountains and make ice.

But as long as people can smell it, they're wary — and given the lack of knowledge about the chemical known as MCHM, some experts say their caution is justified.

“I would certainly be waiting until I couldn't smell it anymore, certainly to be drinking it,” said Richard Denison, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund who has followed the spill closely. “I don't blame people at all for raising questions and wondering whether they can trust what's being told to them.”

The Jan. 9 spill from a Freedom Industries facility on the banks of the Elk River, less than 2 miles upstream from Charleston's water treatment plant, led to a ban on water use that affected 300,000 people.

Four days later, officials started to lift the ban in one area after another, saying tap water was safe for drinking because the concentration of the chemical dipped below one part per million, even though the smell was still strong at that level. By Friday, nearly all of the 300,000 people impacted had been told the water was safe.

Late Wednesday, however, health officials issued different guidance for pregnant women, urging them not to drink tap water until the chemical is undetectable. The Centers for Disease Control said it made that recommendation out of an abundance of caution because studies don't provide a complete picture of how the chemical affects humans.

For Sarah Bergstrom, a 29-year-old nurse who is four months pregnant with her second child, the news was devastating. She hasn't drunk the water since the spill, but she has taken showers.

“I cried myself to sleep (Wednesday) night. I was both angry and scared,” she said. “This baby that we've wanted for so long, I'm now questioning — have I done something that could have harmed her?”

Karen Bowling, West Virginia's secretary of Health and Human Resources, said pregnant women who drank the water before being told to avoid it should contact their doctors. For the rest of the population, Bowling said, she is confident the tap water is not harmful.

“It's understandable that people are concerned. I don't want to minimize anybody's feelings about an issue as sensitive as this,” said Bowling, who said she drank the tap water when it was declared safe. “It's hard to instill confidence when there's little known about the chemical, but at the same time we have to trust in the science of what's happening.”

According to the health department, 411 patients have been treated in hospitals for symptoms that patients said came from exposure to the chemical, and 20 people have been admitted.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.