The World Health Organization (WHO) is an agency of the United Nations whose responsibility is “to attain by all people the highest possible standard of health” and whose mission is “to improve people’s lives, to reduce the burdens of disease and poverty, and to provide access to responsible health care for all people” (World Health Organization. Jan. 2008).
In regard to our water consumption safety, the WHO considers that “drinking-water” should be “suitable for human consumption and for all usual domestic purposes including personal hygiene” (World Health Organization. Jan. 2008). Further, the WHO goes on to submit that drinking-waters should be safe for lifetime use, taking into account of differing sensitivities that occur across life stages, including drinking water that is safe and suitable for individuals suffering from certain specific immune compromising disorders. Keep in mind, the WHO holds this accountable not just to public drinking water from the tap but also includes bottled water taken from springs and community wells.
In regard to specifics, the WHO presents first and most strongly that drinking water should be treated and that the control of fecal contamination in drinking-water systems and sources, where it occurs, is of primary importance. Fecal-specific indicator bacteria such as E. coli are the parameters of first importance in monitoring fecal pollution in both bottled and tap water. Additionally, bacteria and micro organisms that require treatment and elimination are contained in the definition and requirements of the WHO for both tap and bottled water. All of these requirements are found in the WHO’s Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality :

Guidelines for drinking-water quality, Volume 1

So how do these requirements and expectations of the WHO compare with what we are buying in bottled water and drinking from our taps? First we will look at bottled water.
The WHO’s Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality as we have already determined applies to bottle water, not just tap. Is bottle water measuring up to these guidelines and if so, is there any discrepancy within the consumer product? Research has found that bottled water, because it often sits a period of time before consuming, often times contains a specific growth situation for microbial flora; a harmful bacteria found in untreated water. Further, although bottled water is derived from “pristine” sources, they many contain or have added carbon dioxide to eliminate the bacteria’s however this often times leads to elevated temperatures while waiting to be sold and consumed. This is not good. Naturally occurring micro organisms found in all water is often times found to be higher in bottled water because of this than water that is treated and reaches us through our taps.
In regard to municipal treatment facilities (tap water), because of privacy issues, the World Health Organization cannot list what they may consider the “best” municipal treatment facilities within the United States, however, they do require each municipality to produce and distribute to the public an annual report of the water quality for human consumption. Additionally, if a facility fails to meet the Guidelines for Drinking Water standards, immediate intervention is taken.
The horizon holds many new technologies in the filtering and cleansing of the waters we ingest. Included in these new technologies are advances in: hydrological analysis, geological assessments and land use inventories to determine potential chemical and radiological contamination sites to avoid.
In conclusion, while bottled water may seem more glamorous or appear due to its marketing techniques, to be safer than tap water, the opposite may in fact be true. Consider this research when deciding on which water source you will use for yourself and your family. As always, we are here for your safety and safety education.

Safe living,
Yovette Mumford

Their minivan was discovered on a Sunday morning. A scant 12 hours before they were an active, vibrant family that loved life – and lived it to its fullest. Now they’re dead, the victims not of a drunk or drugged driver, but of a vehicle submersion accident.

Tasha Elliott, the principal of an elementary school, her husband, Kevin, along with their two children, 11 year-old Wyatt and 7 year-old Madison, didn’t die as a result of injuries sustained in a devastating high speed car crash, but because they couldn’t get out of their vehicle when it submerged in a pond.

In the U.S., we have just about every conceivable vehicle safety innovation at our disposal, from curtain side air bags to collision avoidance systems – and more. While these life-saving devices have added thousands of dollars to the price of a new vehicle, they have been credited with saving tens of thousands of lives. Unfortunately, one safety device that potentially could have saved the lives of the Elliott’s and the estimated 300 to 500 just like them who die every year in vehicle submersion accidents, isn’t required equipment on any vehicle. As a matter of fact, it’s not even available to the general public.

A number of years ago a company called Egression Technologies invented a simple, cost-effective device that could help people to escape from a submerged vehicle, when each passing second dramatically reduces one’s chance of survival. The device, called the Escape Tip, is a modified male end of a seatbelt, sometimes referred to as a latch plate, that can cause breakage of a vehicle’s side window glass every time it’s correctly used for that purpose. At this point, neither the auto industry nor government safety regulators seem interested in utilizing it – but they may not be aware of the magnitude of this problem. This tool isn’t rocket science. It’s a small tungsten carbide-tipped device that costs almost nothing to produce.

When a vehicle submerges, it begins taking on water within just a few seconds. The occupants don’t have time to think, plan exit strategies, or attempt to locate a device that could enable them to escape. While there are a number of products on the market (think LifeHammer and similar products) that can do the job, the Escape Tip is a better overall solution for a variety of reasons:
• It forces removal of the seatbelt
• It’s located near every window
• It simplifies the escape process
• It has a very low production cost
• It puts a means of escape into the hands of all vehicle occupants

The established protocol for escaping a submerged vehicle is POGO (Pop Open door Get Out). If the vehicle is rapidly taking on water, the doors may be impossible to open. At the same time, if a passenger manages to get the door open, the sudden rush of incoming water could doom all of the other occupants to a watery grave. This device – or one like it – would at least give all vehicle occupants an equal chance of escape. In addition, in order to get out of the vehicle, all occupants must remove their seat belts anyway. The simple act of removing the seatbelt would put a means of breaking the window into the hands of all occupants. To me, this makes good sense.

While no system is infallible, this is a common sense approach that government and the auto industry should consider. We rely upon our government to mandate safety rules when industry fails to act. All vehicles are now equipped with an inside trunk release in the event that someone is inadvertently locked in the trunk. It didn’t happen very often, but when it did it usually resulted in death.

While I’m angry that nothing has been done – at this point – to stem the tide of vehicle submersion deaths, I realize that anger without action is a futile waste of energy. To be fair to the auto industry, they have been innovative in many areas when it comes to our safety, many times even taking the initiative by developing lifesaving technologies.

Industry has tried to address this issue; now I’m calling on automobile manufacturers to step up to the plate and put some of the greatest engineering minds in the world to work in seeking a viable, cost-effective solution to this problem.

If someone can develop a solution that will solve this problem, I’m all for it. Does it have to specifically be the Escape Tip? Not necessarily. If someone else has a better idea that addresses all of the escape and safety concerns I’ve identified, I’m all for it. Until then, I think it’s the best game in town, but I’m open to any and all solutions.

It’s conceivable that the auto industry isn’t aware of the magnitude of this problem. If it’s not, we can all do our part by bringing it to their attention. A problem cannot be solved until it’s been identified. If we collectively begin lobbying for a commonsense device like this by calling, writing, or emailing all vehicle manufacturers, perhaps the automobile industry will answer the call by giving us what we want. Many times the laws of supply and demand alone are enough to solve problems.

Government legislation isn’t always the best, most expedient solution to a problem and the tragic drowning deaths of motorists should be no different. If, however, the auto industry fails to act, I think government has every right to respond legislatively. The wheels of government can turn very slowly – and sometimes with good reason. In this case, however, I think government should take an active role in addressing this very real problem.

Hearings to explore the best way of addressing this problem would be a good start. Moreover, I think legislation could ultimately be an excellent strategy to reverse this problem. Maybe the time has come for the Tasha Elliott Vehicle Escape Act. If this is what it takes to dramatically reduce the number of people who meet such a tragic end, I’m all for it. Regardless of the ultimate solution, I think special effort should be made to ensure that costs are kept to a minimum and that the technology be mandatory – and identical across all product lines – as in the case of the seatbelt. In addition, I think simplicity should be at the heart of any solution implemented.

The problem of vehicle submersion deaths may not seem like a problem worthy of government intervention, because only 300 to 500 people per year die in this fashion. However, when you break down the numbers, one person every 30 hours drowns inside a submerged motor vehicle. Since 1960, about 20,000 people have perished.

Would the implementation of a new federal regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard do much to save lives – and if so, how many would be saved? That’s unclear; what is clear, however, is that giving victims a simple tool with easy to remember instructions would be a dramatic improvement over the system currently in place. It would give victims like Tasha Elliott and her family a fighting chance.

She wasn’t just an anonymous face in a crowd of 20,000 drowning victims. She was also the beloved principal of an elementary school in west-central Illinois. Her death left a community stunned and hundreds of children confused about how a minor accident could forever, indelibly mar their earliest childhood memories.

Instead of collectively shrugging our shoulders, shaking our heads and doing nothing, we can all work together today to ensure that yesterday’s victims did not die in vain. There’s no better way I can think of that we can honor their memories than by preventing senseless tragedies like these from happening again tomorrow.

Be safe,
Kenneth Speegle

Please click on ”Auto Safety: Preventing Submersion Deaths“ to read the new version of ”Government Inaction Puts Our Safety at Risk”.

We all make critical daily decisions in regard to our health choices. One of these is the source of the water that we drink. With water being the single most vital substance that we need to maintain life, the source that we choose to drink from is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, with so many choices available, it is difficult to know what and who to put our trust in.
Let’s look at the facts. The United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, enacted in 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has had the responsibility for setting national drinking water standards that protects the health of the 250 million people who trust the public water systems for their water source. In this act, over 80 contaminants that may be found in water have national set safety standards.
While EPA and state governments set and enforce standards, local governments and private water suppliers have direct responsibility for the quality of the water that flows to your tap. Water systems test and treat their water constantly, maintain the distribution systems that deliver water to consumers, and report on their water quality to the state. Additionally, they are held immediately accountable if any report drops below the set standards.  The corresponding states and the EPA provide technical assistance to water suppliers anytime they may need and as well, can take legal action against systems that fail to provide water that meets state and EPA standards. Clearly, our public water sources are under constant scrutiny and evolvement and held to the utmost standards of quality possible.
People who get their water from private wells are not subject to Federal Regulations. This is considered to be a very unsafe source of drinking water.

What about bottled water? The Food and Drug Administration sets regulations specifically for bottled water. Each time the EPA establishes a standard for chemical or microbial contaminant, the FDA either adopts it for bottled water or makes a finding that the standard is not necessary for bottled water. As a result, companies that produce and distribute bottled water can claim that “standards for contaminants in tap water and bottled water are very similar.”
Current research indicates this is not necessarily the case. I have put together the chart below to demonstrate the current discrepancies within the regulations of both tap and bottled water.

As consumers, we must always put our safety first in. In order to reach and maintain our highest level of health, determining the safest water source is critical. Be a wise and informed consumer, for your health and safety.
Since life has no reset button….tune into this blog and to our website daily.

Safe Living,
Yovette Mumford