text:
Northern Ireland Football League Danske Bank Premiership Preview
Posted in Northern Ireland By Matt McKayPosted on March 24, 2017 March 23, 2017
Irish League Preview Matchday 33 – 24th & 25th March 2017
It's the last regular season game before the split officially takes place despite the post-split fixtures already having been drawn up.
Glentoran v Carrick Rangers Friday 24th March 19:45
The Glens pulled off a shock 4-2 victory over Ballymena last weekend and will hope to carry that form into this game against league strugglers Carrick. Carrick managed to gain some more yards on bottom club Portadown after beating them on Saturday, almost assuring themselves of avoiding automatic relegation. The Glens and Carrick are one apiece in competitive games this season with both clubs losing their respective home fixture in the ties.
Ards v Glenavon Saturday 25th March 15:00
Despite Keke's fourth goal in three games, Ards were powerless to resist a thumping from Linfield in a 5-1 loss. They'll be hoping the in-form Frenchman can get them firing against a Glenavon side who are consistently inconsistent. The Lurgan Blues were beaten 2-1 by Colerain despite going ahead in the early stages of the game. Glenavon will be looking to complete a hat trick of wins over Ards in the league this season having beaten them 1-0 on both previous occasions.
Ballinamallard United v Linfield Saturday 25th March 15:00
The Mallards gave up a 1-0 half time lead against Crusaders to lose 3-1 in their first Sky Sports appearance. The Fermanagh side will still have one eye over their shoulder at Carrick Rangers in the relegation playoff spot but should remain confident of avoiding any drop. Linfield's 5-1 hammering of Ards may have sent out a message to league rivals Crusaders but the Blues remain 7 points adrift after the Hatchetmen's Monday night victory. The South Belfast club will expect an away victory to keep the pressure on Crusaders.
Cliftonville v Ballymena United Saturday 25th March 15:00
Cliftonville had to come from behind to draw 2-2 with Dungannon after initially surrendering their 1-0 lead, it was a disappointing result that allowed Coleraine to overtake them into 3rd place. Ballymena's shock defeat to Glentoran was compounded by only taking a point from their midweek game in hand against derby rivals Coleraine. Ballymena can draw level on points with Cliftonville with a win on Saturday.
Coleraine v Crusaders Saturday 25th March 15:00
Coleraine's victory against Glenavon on Saturday lifted them into 3rd place in the league but they only managed to extend that lead over 4th placed Cliftonville by a point as they failed to see their midweek game out from a winning position. Crusaders made an impressive comeback in the second half against Ballinamallard on Monday night to maintain their 7 point lead in the title race, Coleraine will be tough opponents but Crusaders know an away victory here will be a significant statement in the race for the title.
Portadown v Dungannon Swifts Saturday 25th March 15:00
Portadown's loss to Carrick has almost certainly doomed them to automatic relegation, even accounting for their 12 point deduction this season they would still sit in bottom place. The Ports have failed to register a league win since their boxing day encounter with Mid Ulster enemies Glenavon. Dungannon managed to take a point from Cliftonville on Saturday at Stangmore Park but will have been disappointed to give up a 2-1 lead which came thanks to two quick fire goals from Glenavon-bound Mitchell who will move in the summer.
My fancy this week is an away double of Crusaders (v Coleraine) and Dungannon (v Portadown) which warrants a price of just over 4/1 – odds provided by A. McLean Bookmakers.
Portugal vs Hungary is a decisive match for the European champions
Germany likely to move one step closer to qualification against Azerbaijan


text:
Microbial Health Risks of Regulated Drinking Waters in the United States — A Comparative Microbial Safety Assessment of Public Water Supplies and Bottled Water
By Stephen C. Edberg
Submitted: April 24th 2014Reviewed: July 16th 2014Published: June 17th 2015
Home > Books > Topics in Public Health
Stephen C. Edberg
Mt. Sinai Health System, New York, New York, USA
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
*Address all correspondence to: stephen.edberg@Yale.edu
Topics in Public HealthEdited by David Claborn
Topics in Public Health
Edited by David Claborn
The quality of drinking water in the United States (U.S.) is extensively monitored and regulated by federal, state and local agencies, yet there is increasing public concern and confusion about the safety and quality of drinking water –– both from public water systems and from bottled water products. In the U.S., tap water and bottled water are regulated by two different agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates public water system water (tap water) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates bottled water. Federal law requires that the FDA's regulations for bottled water must be at least as protective of public health as EPA standards for tap water [1].
The quantity of publically supplied water which is directly consumed as drinking water is estimated by the American Water Works Association to be less than four tenths of one percent (<0.4%) of the total produced [2]. As a food product, however, 100% of bottled water is intended for human consumption.
With respect to public water supplies, researchers estimate that more than 500 boil alerts occurred in the United States in 2010 [3]. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that waterborne diseases, such as Cryptosporidiosis and Giardiasis, cost the U.S. healthcare system as much as $539 million a year in hospital expenses [4]. In 2006, EPA researchers reported an estimated 16.4 million cases of acute gastrointestinal illness per year are caused by tap water [5]. Subsequent research has estimated that the number of illnesses to be closer to 19.5 million cases per year [6].
In contrast, a survey of state bottled water regulatory authorities, dated June, 2009 and conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), found there were zero outbreaks of foodborne illness from bottled water over a 5-year period. Moreover, in testimony before a July 9, 2009 Congressional hearing, a FDA official stated that the agency was aware of no major outbreaks of illness or serious safety concerns associated with bottled water in the past decade [7]. In addition, a review of the FDA's recall database reveals that only two Class I recalls of bottled water products have occurred since 1990. The first, occurring in Puerto Rico in June, 1990, was a recall of isopropyl alcohol that was labeled as "distilled water." The second recall, in 2007, involved five Armenian mineral water products imported into the U.S. with excessive arsenic levels, as discovered by testing completed by the FDA.
Drinking water experts have begun turning their attention to the distribution systems that carry the EPA-regulated public system drinking water from treatment plants to consumers. Emerging research has found that microbial issues in distribution systems are causing significant waterborne illness outbreaks, and that the outbreak incidence has been steadily increasing since the late 1980s [8].
The purpose of this review and position paper is to help educate the public about the importance of access to safe drinking water and inform policy makers and the general public about issues such as water distribution systems, infrastructure repair, safe water availability, and the EPA's regulation of public water systems for microbial contaminants and how this compares with the FDA's regulation of bottled water. All of these topics combined are potentially major contributing factors to impending health concerns and risks related to drinking water in the United States.
2. Comparison of regulations, standards, monitoring and advisories
2.1. Regulations
Public drinking water and bottled water are both regulated extensively. These regulations include an array of international, federal, state, and local agencies, and in some cases, trade associations. There are health-based standards for both tap and bottled waters, and these standards are, with few exceptions, the same [9].
Unlike tap water compliance failures, which generally result in monetary fines and requirements for corrective action, under the Park Doctrine, the failure of a bottled water product to meet the FDA Standards of Quality can result in criminal liability for the responsible person(s) in the manufacture and distribution of a food product that causes adverse health consequences to the public [10].
2.2. Standards
There are notable differences in standards for microbiological contaminants between bottled water and tap water. With the promulgation of the FDA's "Bottled Water Microbial Rule," effective December 1, 2009, bottled water now has standards specifically regulating total coliform (TC) and Escherichia coli (E. coli) in both non-Public Water System (PWS) source water and all finished product water. There are specific requirements for follow-up monitoring in the event of a positive test result for total coliform, i.e., each positive TC result must be evaluated for presence of E. coli. The FDA Rule also makes clear that:
If E. coli is detected and confirmed in non-PWS source water, that source water is not of a safe and sanitary quality for bottling, and must not be used as a source for bottled water. If that water is used for bottling, the finished product is considered by the FDA to be adulterated.
If E. coli is detected and confirmed in finished product water at any level, that product is also deemed adulterated under provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
The EPA currently has no enforceable standard for either total coliform or E. coli in source waters. Under the EPA Groundwater Rule (GWR), groundwater-sourced PWSs must engage in additional source water testing and implement a sanitary survey, specified levels of treatment, and other corrective actions, but the source is not removed from service. However, the U.S. EPA published the revised Total Coliform Rule (rTCR) as a final rule on February 13, 2013. Although not yet promulgated, the Rule will affirm a new standard for E. coli in public drinking water, and will also require an investigation and corrective action at groundwater sources that test positive for E. coli. The revised TCR removes the standard for total coliform, while the FDA continues to regulate bottled water for both total coliform and E. coli.
With regard to response when a microbial standard is exceeded, bottled water compliance is determined from each individual test result in both the source and the finished product. When one sample exceeds the standard of quality for E. coli, and the bottler continues to use the source for bottling, the finished product is considered by the FDA to be adulterated and subject to recall. The FDA also clearly stated its policy on adulterated finished product in the 2009 Bottled Water Microbial Rule.
"If E. coli is present in bottled water, then the bottled water is deemed to be adulterated under section 402(a)(3) of the act (§ 165.110(b)(2)(i)(B); § 165.110(d))." 74 Fed. Reg. 25651 (May 29, 2009)
Public water systems are currently required to collect a specified number of samples per month, as is discussed in the monitoring section. The current EPA TCR maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total coliform is "no more than 5% of monthly samples are valid for total coliform." For example, if a small groundwater-sourced community water system collects only the required minimum of 25 samples per month, one of those samples may test positive for total coliform, but the system would be in compliance with the TCR. The TCR requires positive test results for total coliform to be confirmed for presence of E. coli. If any of the coliform samples are positive for E. coli, a public notification, usually with a boil water order, is issued to consumers. The new USEPA revised Total Coliform Rule will require public notification only for E. coli when it becomes effective (date to be determined).
The comparison of microbiological standards for bottled water and tap water is presented in the table.
Microbiological Contaminants FDA SOQ EPA MCL
Total coliform If positive for total coliform, follow-up testing required to determine presence
of E. coli in source water. No MCL in source water.
Finished product: No MCL in finished water.
MPN: <2.2 organisms per 100 ml. (8)
MF: <4 CFU per 100 ml; arithmetic mean shall not exceed 1 coliform organism per 100 ml. (8)
Escherichia coli (E. coli) None detected in source water. No MCL in source water. [11]
If detected, source water not of a safe, sanitary quality.
None detected in finished product. None detected in finished water. None detected in any of the follow-up samples if initial sample is positive.
If detected, product is deemed adulterated.
Comparison of microbiological standards
In addition, the EPA has established a guideline for heterotrophic plate count (HPC) bacteria of 500 CFU/ml as a means of demonstrating adequate levels of disinfection in the distribution system. This is not a health-based standard, and it is only used to indicate adequate disinfection in the distribution system. There are no standards or guidelines for HPC in bottled water. However, in 2002, the World Health Organization published a report on HPC bacteria in drinking water, concluding that "The available body of evidence supports the conclusion that, in the absence of fecal contamination, there is no direct relationship between HPC values in ingested water and human health effects in the population at large." Therefore, the HPC bacteria found in natural bottled waters is considered to be part of the natural flora of the water, and does not pose a health risk in the absence of fecal indicators such as E. coli [12]. Although HPC is not an FDA-required test for bottled water, most bottled water companies currently, or will, under upcoming rules from the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), monitor for HPC as part of their ongoing internal sanitation control and environmental monitoring programs.
In addition, as Messner, et.al. (2006) notes, pathogens have a wide range of resistance to public water system disinfection and Cryptosporidium is the most resistant. "Free chlorine, the most commonly used disinfectant, achieves virtually no inactivation of Cryptosporidium but appears very effective for inactivating most viruses [5]." The FDA permits only the use of ground water not under the direct influence of surface water, as defined in 21 C.F.R. §141.2, as source water for bottling. Exclusion of such source waters also precluded the need to regulate bottled water for surface water parasites like Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia.
2.3. Monitoring
It is in the area of monitoring activities that tap water and bottled water truly diverge. One major reason for this divergence is the method of delivery. Tap water is delivered to consumers through systems of underground piping, while bottled water is packaged in a sealed container and delivered to consumers through retail outlets and home delivery.
2.4. EPA monitoring requirements — Microbiological testing frequencies
Testing frequency for total coliform at groundwater and surface water-sourced Community Water Systems (CWSs) is based primarily on the population served. The number of samples required is prescribed on a monthly schedule. Therefore, a CWS will collect a minimum of anywhere from 1 up to 480 samples per month. The following table, which lists the number of samples to be tested, is taken from 40 CFR 141:
CWS Monitoring schedule for total coliform (From the USEPA RTCR) [11]
Population served
Minimum number of samples per month
2,501 to 3,300 3
8,501 to 12,900 10
12,901 to 17,200 15
96,001 to 130,000 100
130,001 to 220,000 120
970,001 to 1,230,000 300
1,230,001 to 1,520,000 330
3,960,001 or more 480
A small noncommunity water system that serves < 1,000 people would collect one sample
2.5. FDA monitoring requirements
Bottled water sources (other than municipal water sources) are required to be tested for total coliform weekly at each source used for bottling. If any source water sample is positive for total coliform, the FDA requires that it be evaluated for presence of E. coli. If a sample is confirmed to be contaminated with E. coli, the source is considered not suitable for bottling, and any product that contains water from that source is considered by the FDA to be adulterated.
Each bottled water finished product type (spring water, purified water, fluoridated water, etc.) is required to be tested for total coliform weekly. If any product sample is positive for total coliform, the FDA requires that it be evaluated for presence of E. coli. If a sample is confirmed to be contaminated with E. coli, the product type is considered by the FDA to be adulterated.
To fully understand a comparison of bottled water testing and public water system testing, one must look at the relative size of the operations and the amount of water processed by each. The FDA states in the preamble to their March 3, 2003 direct final rule for radionuclides that they base sample frequency on the following:
"According to EPA's per capita total water use estimates applied to bottled water, an average bottled water facility processes as much water as a municipal system serving between 42 and 72 households… serving between 100 and 500 people, which is the closest category EPA presents."
Applying this principle, a community water system serving between 100 and 500 people is required by the USEPA to test a minimum of one (1) total coliform sample per month. The FDA requires one (1) total coliform sample per week.
2.6. Comparisons of bottled water plant testing and PWS testing for total coliform
For more direct comparison of bottled water and public water testing, here are examples of each for total coliform.
In the table below, a large bottled water plant packaging approximately 250,000 gallons per day is compared to New York City, which, according to 2009 data, distributed approximately 1.086 billion gallons of water per day within its distribution system.
Bottled Water Plant (large bottler, 1) (product type) New York City (large city)
250,000 gallons per day 1.086 billion gallons per day
7.5 million gallons per month 32.58 billion gallons per month
1 sample per week; 4 samples per month 480 samples per month (~16 samples per day)
1 sample per 1,875,000 gallons 1 sample per 67,875,000 gallons
Sample Ratio: 36:1
Total coliform testing comparison – Large City
Disclaimer: Both the bottled water plant and New York City likely test more than the minimum number of samples each month. Numbers above based on minimum regulatory requirements.
As the table above shows, even though New York City is required to collect a minimum of 480 samples per month, when those samples are viewed on a gallons of water produced basis, the bottled water plant tests 36 times more frequently than the New York City system. Of course, this assumes only the minimum number of samples required by the FDA and the EPA is collected. In all likelihood, both the bottled water plant and New York City are collecting more than the minimum number of samples.
Below is a comparison of large bottled water plant with a smaller public water system – the groundwater-based CWS serving 10,000 that was reviewed earlier in this paper:
Bottled Water Plant (large bottler, 1) product type) CWS Serving 10,000 (small city)
250,000 gallons per day 1.2 million gallons per day
7.5 million gallons per month 36 million gallons per month
1 sample per week; 4 samples per month 10 samples per month
1 sample per 1,875,000 gallons 1 sample per 3,600,000 gallons
Sample Ratio: 2:1
Total coliform testing comparison – Small City
The Table below compares a small home and office delivery (HOD) bottled water plant with the CWS serving 10,000 people.
Bottled Water Plant (small bottler, 1) product type) CWS Serving 10,000 (small city)
25,000 gallons per day 1.2 million gallons per day
750,000 gallons per month 36 million gallons per month
1 sample per week, 4 samples per month 10 samples per month
1 sample per 187,500 gallons 1 sample per 3,600,000 gallons
Total coliform testing comparison – Small City, small Bottler
The ratio of bottled water samples tested versus the number of CWS samples tested is up to 19:1. Once again, this assumes both the bottled water plant and the community water system are collecting only the minimum number of samples required by their respective regulations.
3. Advisories
3.1. When public drinking water does not meet EPA standards — Advisories
Public water systems must notify the public when they violate EPA or state drinking water regulations (including monitoring requirements) in cases when the drinking water may pose a risk to consumer's health [13]. Under the EPA notification rule, there are three tiers of notification, depending on the seriousness of the violation. The table below shows how public system drinking water violations are assessed.
Required Distribution Time Notification Delivery Method
Immediate Notice
(Tier 1) Any time a situation occurs where there is the potential for human health to be immediately impacted, water suppliers have 24 hours to notify people who may drink the water of the situation. Water suppliers must use media outlets such as television, radio, and newspapers, post their notice in public places, or personally deliver a notice to their customers in these situations.
Notice as soon as possible
(Tier 2) Any time a water system provides water with levels of a contaminant that exceed EPA or state standards or that hasn't been treated properly, but that doesn't pose an immediate risk to human health, the water system must notify its customers as soon as possible, but within 30 days of the violation. Notice may be provided via the media, posting, or through the mail.
Annual Notice
(Tier 3) When water systems violate a drinking water standard that does not have a direct impact on human health (For Example, failing to take a required sample on time) the water supplier has up to a year to provide a notice of this situation to its customers. The extra time gives water suppliers the opportunity to consolidate these notices and send them with Annual Water Quality Reports (Consumer Confidence Reports).
EPA'S 3 tiers of public notification
Source: EPA, "Water: Public Notification Rule"
The EPA reports that in 2011, 93.2 percent of US public water systems met health-based standards for drinking water. Also in that year, the EPA reports US public water systems had 8,431 total coliform rule violations affecting 9,837,344 people [14].
3.2. When bottled water does not meet FDA standards — Advisories
Under FDA rule (21 C.F.R.§165.110), bottled water that "contains a substance at a level considered injurious to health under section 402(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), or that consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid or decomposed substance, or that is otherwise unfit for food under section 402(a)(3) of the act is deemed to be adulterated, regardless of whether or not the water bears a label statement of substandard quality prescribed by paragraph (c) of this section. If E. coli is present in bottled water, then the bottled water will be deemed adulterated under section 402(a)(3) of the act [15]." Adulterated food and beverages should not enter the food supply, and if they do, the manufacturer could face criminal or civil penalties and mandatory recalls. Criminal penalties could be assessed under the Park Doctrine, which places responsibility for adulterated product on company owners and/or senior management.
The FDA's website recall database indicates that in 2011 and 2012 there was one incidence of a bottled water Class II recall [16]. Mountain Pure, LLC voluntarily recalled 23,000 16.9 oz. bottles of its Mountain Pure bottled water in Clinton, AR on May 4, 2011 because of a biological contamination. In a FDA press release, the Arkansas Department of Health said it was unlikely that a healthy person would get sick from drinking the water, but people with a weakened immune system might be at higher risk [17]. In 2014, in Pittsburgh there was precautionary voluntary recall of bottled water because of a preliminary finding of E. coli in a finished product. All confirmatory tests performed in a number of certified laboratories were negative for both E. coli and total coliforms. These negative findings plus the high ozone concentration used in bottled waters in Pennsylvania (plus the bottling plan in additions uses ultraviolet light) makes this finding of E. coli without any merit.
3.3. People who have immune-compromised illnesses
Waterborne diseases can lead to serious acute, chronic and sometimes fatal health consequences, especially for people who have compromised immune systems. Both the CDC and the EPA advise people who have immune-compromised illnesses (such as people undergoing chemotherapy, living with HIV/AIDS, transplant patients, children and infants, elderly and pregnant women) to consider taking extra precautions with their drinking water [18]. An EPA video and accompanying booklet aimed at educating health care providers about drinking water tells providers to advise these patients to "to consider alternatives to tap water [19]."
4. Comparison of estimated incidences of public water system-borne and bottled waterborne diseases
4.1. EPA approach to a national estimate
Research into drinking water-related incidences of acute gastrointestinal illness (AGI) is sparse largely due to gaps in data caused by reporting uncertainties. However, the EPA has developed an analytical approach and model for generating a national estimate of AGI illness due to drinking water and using this model, it is estimated that public water systems cause 16.4 million cases of AGI per year in the United States [5].
A Messner, et al. (2006) study uses AGI to measure public water system health risk because AGI is the broadest indicator of health effects associated with most water-borne pathogens and allows for comparison to national data on AGI incidence due to all causes. His study focuses on public water systems because 94% of the US population lives in a community that is served by public water systems. He acknowledges that water-borne diseases caused by non-public water systems could be significant, but a lack of data makes it difficult to include non-public water systems in calculating a national estimate.
In his research, Messner, et al. (2006) cites a Laval household intervention study that shows significant differences in Highly Credible Gastrointestinal Illness (HCGI) incidences between tap water drinkers and bottled water drinkers. "The difference in incidence between the two groups of 0.26 cases of HCGI per person-year represents the estimated attributable risk to drinking tap water [5]."
Meanwhile, a much broader study by Reynolds, et al. (2008) calculated all possible water-borne infections and illnesses associated with exposure to pathogens in drinking water, not just AGI, and concluded the estimated number of water-borne illnesses per year in the US is 19.5 million cases [6].
5. Outbreaks associated with bottled water
The FDA testified before a United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in July 2009 that the agency was aware of no major outbreaks of illness or serious safety concerns associated with bottled water in the past decade [20]. And said: "Because FDA's experience over the years has shown that bottled water has a good safety record, bottled water plants generally are assigned a relatively low priority for inspection."
At that same hearing, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made public its report on bottled water, which found that based on a survey of water quality or food and health protection officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, there was no evidence that bottled water caused any illnesses during the previous five years [21].
Meanwhile, the CDC attributes just five cases of AGI to bottled water in the past 10 years [22]. (One case of AGI in 2007 caused by an unidentified agent, one case of AGI in 2004 caused by gasoline byproducts, and three cases of AGI in 2003 caused by the chemical bromate, unidentified chemical cleaning product, and unidentified agent.)
5.1. Outbreak comparison
The following table summarizes the estimated incidences of Public Water System-borne and Bottled Waterborne diseases.
Drinking Water Sources & Estimated Cases of AGI 2003 - 2012
Tap Water: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
EPA 16.4m 16.4m 16.4m 16.4m 16.4m 16.4m 16.4m 16.4m 16.4m 16.4m 164m
Reynolds 19.5m 19.5m 19.5m 19.5m 19.5m 19.5m 19.5m 19.5m 19.5m 19.5m 195m
Bottled Water: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
FDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GAO n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0
CDC 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
Drinking water sources & estimated cases of AGI 2003-2012
6. Distribution system and contact surface comparisons
EPA-mandated protocols are designed to effectively eliminate pathogens from public water system drinking water, but treatment inadequacies and interruptions, as well as public drinking water distribution system failures, have been associated with waterborne disease outbreaks [6]. In fact, recent research indicates distribution system failures are increasingly the cause of waterborne outbreaks [23].
The pipes that connect treatment plants to consumers' taps span 1 billion miles in the United States [24]. Researchers studying public health risks associated with contamination occurring in public water supply distribution systems have found a list of probable causes including: cross connections and backflow, intrusion caused by pressure transients, nitrification, permeation and leaching, water main repair and replacement, aging infrastructure and microbial growth inside distribution pipes [25].
6.1. Number of outbreaks caused by public water supply distribution systems
Data from the CDC's passive drinking water surveillance system indicates the incidence of public water supply waterborne disease outbreaks has actually decreased since the 1980s, presumably due to the EPA's Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Total Coliform Rule. However, the number of outbreaks due to public water supply distribution system issues and failures has remained relatively consistent despite an apparent increase in the percentage of those outbreaks (see chart below). It is also the case that if contamination occurs but only affects a small number of people, it may not be reported and investigated as an outbreak. "Indeed, it has been acknowledged that a fairly sizable number of cases of cryptosporidiosis could be occurring in a large city such as New York City without detection of a possible outbreak [26]."
Public water supply outbreaks and percentage due to distribution systems
In a more recent update of the above data, CDC reports that in 2009-2010, there were 33 drinking water outbreaks. Of the 33 outbreaks, 25 (75.8%) occurred in community water systems.
6.2. Types of distribution deficiencies
Cross-connections and backflow issues pose serious public health threats. A backflow occurs when non-potable water flows directly into the drinking water supply through a cross connection, which occurs when the system has low water pressure or the non-potable system has backpressure [25]. A study that monitored public drinking supply distribution system failures from 1981 to 2002 found that 50% of waterborne outbreaks were the result of backflow [27]. A study by the University of Southern California examined the plumbing systems in 188 homes and found 9.6 percent had a direct cross connection that presented a health risk [28].
Water main breaks are another serious problem in the United States. Each day more than 700 water mains break, 36 exposing distribution system water and pipe interiors to external microbial and chemical contaminants, both during the break and the repair process. The EPA estimated in 2002 that 5 percent of all waterborne outbreaks due to distribution system deficiencies were caused by water main repairs or the installation of new pipes [29].
Issues with finished water storage (uncovered and reservoirs) is another cause of waterborne outbreaks as drinking water quality degrades over time and is susceptible to external contamination from wildlife, rain and algae [30]. Other public water supply distribution system risks include: biofilm build-up (the growth of bacteria on distribution system pipes and household plumbing), low-pressure intrusions [31] caused by leaks, permeation and leaching (in fact, 7 billion gallons leak from public water supply distribution pipes each day in the US [31] and the cost of water losses in 1994 was estimated $2.8 billion annually [32]).
Biofilm build-up, by itself, has been the subject of study by the EPA, which has concluded that: "Biofilms likely exist in all distribution systems, and are recognized as a normal part of the distribution system". Moreover, "…a wide range of primary and opportunistic pathogens have demonstrated the ability to survive, if not grow, in biofilms. These pathogens are of both fecal and non-fecal origin, and have a multitude of pathways through which they can enter the distribution system. Some of the pathogens identified as growing or potentially surviving in biofilms include Legionella, Mycobacterium avium complex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, poliovirus 1, coxsackievirus B and several species of fungi. …Once becoming established as part of the biofilm, pathogens can be protected from disinfection [33]."
6.3. Costs to address deficiencies in us public water supply distribution systems
According to the EPA's Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, 2009, the national assessment of public water system infrastructure needs shows a total twenty-year capital improvement need of $334.8 billion, to repair or replace thousands of miles of pipe, thousands of treatment plants, storage tanks and other assets to protect the public health [34]. The pie chart below shows the majority of need is to address deficiencies with the public water supply distribution systems that include co-residency of leaking water pipes in the same trenches with leaking sewage lines [35].
Financial requirement by repair type
In 2002, the EPA released a Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis Report, which calculated a "funding gap" of more than $500 billion dollars over the next 20 years. (Includes $122 billion for clean water capital costs, $102 billion for drinking water capital costs, $148 billion for clean water operation and maintenance and $161 billion for drinking water operation and maintenance [36]).
6.4. Water distribution
Under FDA rule (21 CFR Part 129), bottled water is: "required to be safe and that it be processed, bottled, held and transported under sanitary conditions. Processing practices addressed in the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations include protection of the water source from contamination, sanitation at the bottling facility, quality control to assure the bacteriological and chemical safety of the water, and sampling and testing of source water and the final product for microbiological, chemical, and radiological contaminants. Bottlers are required to maintain source approval and testing records to show to government inspectors [37]."
In addition, bottled water companies are required to conduct daily in-house total coliform monitoring on finished product of each product type and quarterly microbial rinse/swab tests which may be performed in-house by qualified plant personnel or by an approved laboratory on containers (incoming as well as those immediately from the washer) and closures as stipulated in 21 CFR Section 129.80 (f) [38]. This specific standard of sanitation for the interior of bottles and caps is: "No more than one of the four samples may exceed more than one bacterium per milliliter of capacity or one colony per square centimeter of surface area. All samples shall be free of coliform organisms." For example, not more than one of four 500 ml containers shall exceed 500 CFUs of bacteria. None of the containers are permitted to be positive for coliform bacteria. In comparison, there is an EPA guideline of 500 CFU/ml of heterotrophic plate count bacteria for public drinking water in the distribution system, beyond which the public water system must adjust disinfection levels to reduce the bacteria count. However, distribution pipes may still be lined with biofilms that may contribute to the bacteria load in the water.
Throughout the bottled water distribution system, each bottle is sealed and must remain sealed until it is opened by the consumer thus eliminating risk the of contamination during the distribution process. In addition, in the unlikely event that a problem with bottled water occurs, the product can be easily identified and recalled using a lot number printed on the bottled water container.
The quality of drinking water in the United States is extensively monitored and regulated by federal, state and local agencies, yet a close examination of both public system drinking water and bottled water processing and distribution procedures reveals striking differences that could explain why consumers have safety concerns regarding tap water. This paper has shown that on a gallon for gallon basis bottled water is tested more often than tap water. It is also the case that water quality breach notification differences means tap water drinkers would consume potentially hazardous drinking water before they are notified. Bottled water is tested before the water leaves the plant, and is withheld or withdrawn if the water does not meet FDA water quality standards.
A comparison of waterborne illness outbreaks reveals overwhelming evidence that the microbial health risks associated with drinking tap water are far greater than that of bottled water, with 195 million illnesses in the past 10 years for tap water compared to fewer than a dozen for bottled water.
In examining public water supply distribution systems, this paper highlights how deficiencies in these systems are key factors and causes of compromised tap water quality.
Overall, water is a precious resource. It has many uses for which there is no substitute and is therefore needed in many different ways for our survival and endurance. Thus, safe drinking water holds great value and to maintain its safety the public needs to stay educated and aware. Our government regulations are working to protect and produce our safe drinking water supply, but more needs to be done. And an informed consumer can help drive policies that will meet the needs of the American people—and ensure a safe drinking water supply.
J. Bartram, J. Cotruvo, M. Exner, C. Fricker, A. Glashmacher, eds., World Health Organization (2003). "Heterotrophic Plate Counts and Drinking-water Safety: The Significance of HPCs for Water Quality and Human Health".
F.A. Brigano, Ph.D. and Thomas A. Burke, "When is the Next Boil Water Alert?," Water Conditioning & Purification, August 2010, accessed October 2012, http://www.wcponline.com/pdf/August%20Flowing%20Issues.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Reported Outbreaks Associated with Bottled Water", Commercially Bottled Water, accessed November 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/bottled/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Waterborne Diseases Could Cost over $500 Million Annually in U.S.," press release, July 14, 2010, accessed October 2012, http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100714.htm
J. Cromwell, E. Speranza, and H. Reynolds. 2001a "Reinvesting in Drinking Water Infrastructure: Dawn of the Replacement Era." Denver, CO: AWWA.
Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis Report," 2002, accessed November 2012, http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/infrastructureneeds.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency, "Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment," 2009, accessed November 2012, http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/dwns/upload/2009_03_26_needssurvey_2007_report_needssurvey_2007.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency, "Fiscal Year 2010 Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics", June 2011, access December 2012, http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/upload/new_Fiscal-Year-2010-Drinking-Water-and-Ground-Water-Statistics-Report-Feb-2012.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency, "New or Repaired Water Mains," August 2002, accessed November 2012 http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/tcr/upload/neworrepairedwatermains.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency, Tap into Prevention, accessed December 2012, http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/healthcare/pdfs/booklet_healthcarevideo_suppliement.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency, "Water: Public Notification Rule", accessed November 2012, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/publicnotification/basicinformation.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency, Water on Tap: what you need to know, 2009, accessed December 2012, http://water.epa.gov/drink/guide/upload/book_waterontap_full.pdf
Food and Drug Administration, Safety – Recalls, accessed December 2012, http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm
Food and Drug Administration, Safety – Recalls, press release, May 4, 2011, accessed December 2012, http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm254580.htm
Food and Drug Administration, Section 410, Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act
Food and Drug Administration HHS, CFR-2010-title21-vol2, PART 165—BEVERAGES, accessed December 2012, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title21-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title21-vol2-sec165-110.pdf
Government Accountability Office, "Appendix III, Telephone survey administered to Officials from 50 States and the District of Columbia, and Summary of Responses," United States Government Accountability Office Report on Bottled Water, GAO-09-610, June 2009, accessed December 2012, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09861t.pdf
R. Hirst, "Bottled Water and Tap Water: Just the facts", Drinking Water Research Foundation, accessed October 2012). http://www.thefactsaboutwater.org/uploads/BW%20PWS%20Just%20the%20Facts%202011%20Final.pdf
International Bottled Water Association, Model Code of Practice, 2009, accessed November 2012, http://www.bottledwater.org/public/pdf/IBWA05ModelCode_Mar2.pdf
C.J. Kirmeyer, W. Richards, and C.D. Smith, "An Assessment of Water Distribution Systems and Associated Research Needs", AWWA Research Foundation: Distribution Systems, 1994.
M. LeChevallier, "Drinking Water: Challenges and Solutions for the Next Century," Yale University Drinking Water Symposium, 2009, accessed November 2012, http://www.yaleseas.com/watersymposium/
M. Messner, S. Shaw, S. Regli, K. Rotert, V. Blank and J. Soller, "An approach for developing a national estimate of waterborne disease due to drinking water and a national estimate model application," Journal of Water and Health 4(Suppl. 2).
National Academy of Sciences, "Public Water Supply Distribution Systems: Assessing and reducing risks," 2005, accessed October 2012, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11262
National Research Council, "Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: the New York City Strategy," The National Academies Press, page 249.
Natural Resources Defense Council, "Climate Change, Water and Risk: current water demands are not sustainable," accessed October 2012, http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/watersustainability/index.asp
M. Provost, "Evaluating the Potential Causes of Excess GI Illnesses Observed in the Payment's Distribution System," Yale University Drinking Water Symposium, 2009, accessed November 2012, http://www.yaleseas.com/watersymposium/
K.A. Reynolds, K.D. Mena, C.P. Gerba, "Risk of waterborne illness via drinking water in the United States," Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2008;192:117-58, accessed October 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18020305
Testimony of Joshua M. Sharfstein, M.D., Principal Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs, FDA, before an United States House of Representatives Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on bottled water, accessed November 2012.
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2009/07/t20090708a.html
United States Code Statutes:
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act:
§ 410, Bottled Drinking Water Standards, 21 U.S.C. § 349.
§ 414, Maintenance and Inspection of Records, 21 U.S.C. § 350c.
§ 709, Presumption of Interstate Commerce, 21 U.S.C. § 379a.
FDA Injunction against Distribution: 21 U.S.C. § 332.
FDA Criminal Penalties: 21 U.S.C. § 333.
FDA Product Seizure: 21 U.S.C. § 334(a).
FDA Administrative Detention: 21 U.S.C. § 334(g).
Food Safety Modernization Act: § 206, Mandatory Recall Authority, 42 U.S.C. § 247b-20.
Safe Drinking Water Act", §1412, 21 U.S.C. § 300g-1.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Regulations:
Facility Registration: 21 CFR §§ 1.225-1.243.
Records Maintenance: 21 CFR §§ 1.326-1.368.
Recall Procedures: 21 CFR § 7.40-7.59.
Food Labeling: 21 CFR § 101.
Current Good Manufacturing Practices: 21 CFR § 110.
Bottled Water CGMPs: 21 CFR § 129.
Bottled Water Standards of Identity and Quality: 21 CFR § 165.110 (a) and (b).
Food Additive Regulations: 21 CFR § 177.
"Bottled Water Microbial Rule", 74 Fed. Reg. 25651 (May 29, 2009)
Rule on Radionuclides, 68 Fed. Reg. 9873 (March 3, 2003)
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Administrative Decisions:
70 Fed. Reg. 33694 (June 9, 2005)
66 Fed. Reg. 35439 (July 5, 2001)
63 Fed. Reg. 42199 (August 6, 1998)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations:
Public Water System Quality Standards: 40 CFR 141, Subparts G and L.
Monitoring Requirements: 40 CFR 141, Subparts C, E, I, and L.
"Surface Water Treatment Rule", 54 Fed. Reg. 27486 (June 29, 1989)
"Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule", 63 Fed. Reg. 69478 (December 16, 1998)
"Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule", 67 Fed. Reg. 1812 (January 14, 2002)
"Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule", 71 Fed. Reg. 654 (January 5, 2006)
"Ground Water Rule", 71 Fed. Reg. 65574 (November 8, 2006)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Resources:
"The Standardized Monitoring Framework: A Quick Reference Guide," EPA 816-F-04-010
www.epa.gov/safewater, March, 2004.
USEPA Public Water System Pivot Tables for FY 2010 (Data from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010).
Downloaded from http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/pivottables.cfm.
Yale University: The "Your Drinking Water: Challenges and Solutions for the 21st Century" Symposium was
held at Yale University on April 20th & 21st, 2009. The purpose of the symposium was to bring together
individuals who are leaders in their fields and discuss, given his/her area, the following:
• Introduction to his/her area
• Data regarding his/her area
• Analysis of the data
• Challenges faced
• Proposed solutions
The conference was conducted by Stephen Edberg, Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine at
Yale's School of Medicine, Menachem Elimelech, Professor and Chair of the Chemical Engineering
Department and Environmental Engineering Program at Yale's School of Engineering & Applied Science, and
Dr. John Sinnott, Associate Dean and Professor at the Infectious Disease and International Medicine
Department of the University of South Florida. It is the goal that policy makers and others will use the
conference and its publications as the basis for decision making. The conference's publications are in the
public domain and include: Full video presentations, supplementary papers, full transcripts, PowerPoint
presentations, and speakers' biographies. Accessed January 2013, http://www.yaleseas.com/watersymposium.
The author acknowledges the Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Environmental, Yale University for providing a forum from which much of this information was generated and Robert Hirst and Jill Culora of the International Bottled Water Association for their meticulous verification and generation of information. In addition Martin Allen of the American Water Works Association Research Foundation is thanked for review of this document. Lize-Mari Russo is thanked for her excellent technical assistance. http://www.yaleseas.com/watersymposium/
2.Comparison of regulations, standards, monitoring and advisories
3.Advisories
4.Comparison of estimated incidences of public water system-borne and bottled waterborne diseases
5.Outbreaks associated with bottled water
6.Distribution system and contact surface comparisons
Stephen C. Edberg (June 17th 2015). Microbial Health Risks of Regulated Drinking Waters in the United States — A Comparative Microbial Safety Assessment of Public Water Supplies and Bottled Water, Topics in Public Health, David Claborn, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/58879. Available from:
Accelerated Detection of Microbes Utilizing an Organic Particle Catalyst in the Total Coliforms and Escherichia coli MMO-MUG (Colilert®) test
LeishmaniasisTrends in Epidemiology, Diagnosis and TreatmentEdited by David Claborn
Environmental Changes and the Geographic Spreading of American Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Brazil
By Elizabeth F. Rangel, Simone M. da Costa and Bruno M. Carvalho

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


It's an unfortunate trend that more and more health insurance companies are hindering access to services like Physical Therapy and Chiropractic care by setting a fixed number of yearly visits, high deductibles and required co-pays for services. This is an unfortunate trend in the American Healthcare Market today and there are fewer and fewer yearly or approved visits while the cost of deductibles and co-insurance keeps going up.
The consequence is that people often receive only a portion of the care that they require to fully recover and heal. The community needs practitioners that cost effectively and knowledgeable manage an injury post rehab, or supplementary to physical therapy, chiropractic services or acupuncture. You should not have to ask yourself, "What now?" after you finished your allotted health care services, chiropractic or physical therapy. "How can I prevent future injury?", "Am I fit enough to resume or even increase my previous fitness activities?".
Whole Body Kinetics provides answers by bridging the gap of health care services and fitness industry. We focus on health and movement integration in the whole body by combining Rolfing, Pilates and Movement Integration to achieve long-lasting change in your movement patterns. We don't think it sufficient to simply manage symptoms, which tends to focus on local areas of pain.
We achieve this by applying comprehensive whole body manual therapy in the form of Structural Integration as well as whole body form of corrective exercise that supports a variety of functional activities as seen in Pilates. Structural alignment and balance is gained while pain is reduced. This is coupled with the nearly 20 years of experience Brendan Gibbs has as a licensed Physical Therapy Provider.
While we do not accept health insurance plans you may still have availability to meet health insurance deductibles with Health Savings Accounts, Flex Spending Accounts, contribute to deductibles in PPO Plans or request reimbursement for an out-of-network provider. Please check with your health insurance carrier for more details.
Taken together, Whole Body Kinetics helps curb rising healthcare cost by providing cost effective and quality lasting strategies. Our supportive, complementary and skilled care is delivered with integrity and enthusiasm. We focus on your goals while improving overall structural integrity that is often the leading cause of pain, dysfunction and imbalances. We help you achieve long-term changes and improvement in quality of life.


text:
Julianne Bye Cup
Commissioner Flowers
Regular Season Champions
WCHA Men's League
WCHA Final Faceoff Trophy
Weekly Highlight Reel
This Week in the WCHA
2018-19 WCHA Game Recap
Sophomore defenseman Olivia Knowles scored at 3:05 of overtime for the Gophers
Knowles Sends Minnesota Past Minnesota Duluth In Overtime, 4-3, At Minnesota Cup
Date: Saturday, January 5, 2019
Box Score - Classic Box - Game Sheet
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. - Olivia Knowles scored the game-winner in overtime and Taylor Williamson scored twice in regulation to lead the No. 2 University of Minnesota women's hockey team to a 4-3 overtime win over Minnesota Duluth in game two of the inaugural Minnesota Cup on Saturday evening. The Golden Gophers advance to Sunday's tournament championship game against St. Cloud State after the Huskies defeated Minnesota State in a shootout in Saturday's first game.
A back-and-forth game between the Gophers and Bulldogs saw UMD tie the game twice in the third period after the Bulldogs got on the board first and forced Minnesota to come from behind just 53 seconds into the game. The Gophers led 2-1 and 3-2 before sealing off the 4-3 win with 1:55 remaining in overtime.
"It was a certainly an exciting game here tonight," head coach Brad Frost said. "Anytime you can win in overtime, it becomes pretty special. To score four goals on Duluth's goaltender is never easy to do, but our goalie tonight was the difference and I believe the reason that we won the game ultimately. Credit to Duluth, as they dominated us at times. We haven't had that many turnovers and bad changes in a long, long time. That was a little disappointing, but in the end we aren't going to apologize for winning. We have a chance tomorrow to raise a trophy and win a tournament, which we are excited about."
Minnesota (18-2-1) was led by Alex Gulstene's 33 saves in net along with Williamson's two-goal effort. The Gophers also got multiple points from Taylor Heise on a pair of assists, and Grace Zumwinkle also scored.
Minnesota Duluth (6-9-2) received goals from Anna Klein, Gabbie Hughes, and Sydney Brodt along with 17 saves from Maddie Rooney in net. The Bulldogs outshot the Gophers, 36-21 for the the game.
UMD got on the board first when Klein scored her fifth goal of the season just 53 seconds into the game, but the Gophers tied the game with Williamson's seventh goal of the season with 8:16 remaining in the opening period. Gulstene stopped a breakaway by UMD's Hughes and Amy Potomak gained possession of the puck in the Gophers' end. She moved through neutral ice with speed and broke into the UMD zone on a breakaway of her own, putting the initial shot on target where Rooney made the save. Williamson was there to bury the rebound and tie the game at 1-1, and the teams were even after one period of play.
Minnesota took the lead at the 6:15 mark of the second period when Williamson scored her second of the game, again crashing the net and banging home a rebound. Alex Woken and Heise picked up assists on the play as Rooney stopped Woken's shot, but Williamson was there for the rebound. Despite the Bulldogs having an 18-15 advantage in shots on goal after two periods, Minnesota took a 2-1 lead into the second intermission.
UMD tied the game twice over the final 20 minutes, first making it 2-2 with a power-play goal from Hughes just 25 seconds into the final stanza. A blast from Zumwinkle put Minnesota back on top at the 8:50 mark of the third period, but the Bulldogs again tied it up and ultimately sent it to overtime when Brodt scored her third of the year with 5:05 remaining.
Knowles locked up Minnesota's 11th-straight victory with her third goal of the season at the 3:05 mark of overtime, sending the Gophers to the Minnesota Cup championship game where they will take on St. Cloud State.
"Overall, it was so much fun to be back out there," Williamson said. "Overtime wins are always so much fun. We know that every single game we play against Duluth is going to be a huge battle. We had to come into it ready to play, because Duluth always comes ready, but we just did what we knew we could do."
The Gophers were scoreless on one power-play opportunity against the Bulldogs while holding UMD to one-for-two with the skater advantage.
Day two of the Minnesota Cup begins with Minnesota Duluth taking on Minnesota State at 1:07 p.m. CT before the Gophers face off against St. Cloud State in the championship game at 4:07 p.m. CT.
St. Cloud State (7-15-2) and Minnesota State (8-7-4) tied 2-2 in game one on Saturday, and the Huskies advanced to the tournament championship game with a 1-0 shootout victory on a goal by Jenniina Nylund. It looked like the Mavericks were headed to the Minnesota Cup title game, holding a 2-1 lead late in the game, but Abby Thiessen tied the game for the Huskies with an extra attacker with just 1:08 remaining before Nylund sealed the shootout win.
Minnesota Cup
1 / 2 Power Plays 0 / 1
1 / 2 PIM 2 / 4
6-9-2 Records 18-2-1
Minnesota Duluth Minnesota
Anna Klein (5)
1st/0:53
Taylor Williamson (7)
1st/11:44
2nd/6:15
Gabbie Hughes (8)
3rd/0:25 PP
Grace Zumwinkle (14)
3rd/8:50
Sydney Brodt (3)
3rd/14:55
Olivia Knowles (3)
OT/3:05 GW
GOALTENDERS
Maddie Rooney
63:05, 17 Saves, 4 GA
(L, 4-9-2) Alex Gulstene
(W, 14-0-0)


Hanoi (VNA) - The Ministry of Industry and Trade (MoIT) has added pepper to the list of commodities traded on the Vietnam Commodity Exchange (VNX), according to the ministry's Decision 1071/QD-BCT issued last week.
The pepper products to be traded on the VNX include black and white pepper under code H.S 090411, and black and white ground pepper under code H.S 090412.
Trading on the exchange will allow Vietnam's pepper industry to enhance its global trading activities, according to the Vietnam Pepper Association (VPA).
Vietnamese pepper accounts for 60 percent of total pepper volume trading on the global market, meaning the price of Vietnamese pepper has always exerted a significant influence on global pepper prices.
Pepper traded on the VNX will also connect to worldwide commodity exchanges, allowing for the transparency of information being exchanged, reducing risk during trading and offering insured pricing, according to the VPA.
Since 2014, the Vietnamese Government has planned to build an exchange for pepper, with the cooperation and support of the Indian Government. The two countries have discussed the building of cooperation mechanisms and technical support, so that the two sides, which are the two largest pepper producers in the world, can coordinate in the regulation of the global pepper market.
In the first two months of this year, Vietnam's export volume of pepper reached about 16,000 tonnes, earning 112 million USD. These figures represented a year-on-year reduction of nearly 20 percent in volume and 36 percent in value.
The reduction was due to the global pepper price, which dropped by 20 percent against the same period last year.
Vietnam's largest pepper export markets in the first two months included the US, India, Germany and the UK, accounting for over 41 percent of total pepper exports.
In 2016, Vietnam's pepper exports reached 177,893 tonnes, earning 1.43 billion USD, an increase of 35.3 percent in volume and 13.5 percent in value year-on-year.
According to the Ministry of Industry and Trade's target in 2017, pepper will be in the group of 13 exports with a value of over 1.5 billion USD. The local pepper industry's export turnover this year is expected to reach 1.6 billion USD, up 13 percent over 2016.
With the latest decision, pepper has become the third commodity traded on the VNX, joining rubber and coffee.
VNX has been licensed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade to operate with total charter capital of 150 billion VND.


text:
EZ Rock Golden
EZ Rock Kitimat
EZ Rock Kootenays
EZ Rock Nelson
EZ Rock Osoyoos
EZ Rock Penticton
EZ Rock Prince Rupert
EZ Rock Revelstoke
EZ Rock Salmon Arm
EZ Rock Summerland
EZ Rock Terrace
The Who Releases First New Album In 13 Years Today
Howie Edelson
PRPhotos.com
The long wait is over!!!! Out today (December 6th) is the long-awaited first new Who album in 13 years, titled simply, WHO. The new collection was mostly recorded in London and Los Angeles during the spring and summer 2019 and was co-produced by Pete Townshend and D. Sardy -- who has worked with Noel Gallagher, Oasis, LCD Soundsystem, Gorillaz -- with vocal production by Dave Eringa -- best known for his previous work with Manic Street Preachers, and Roger Daltrey & Wilko Johnson.
Daltrey and Townshend are joined on the album by long-time Who drummer Zak Starkey and bassist Pino Palladino along with contributions from Simon Townshend, Benmont Tench, Carla Azar, Joey Waronker, and Gordon Giltrap.
The new album's cover was designed by legendary pop artist Sir Peter Blake -- an old friend of the Who's and the designer of such iconic albums as the band's own 1981 Face Dances collection. Blake is best known for his work on the Beatles' 1967 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album.
The deluxe and vinyl editions of WHO include a total of four additional songs -- including a pair written way back in 1966. The deluxe CD will have two newly-written tracks "This Gun Will Misfire" and "Danny And His Ponies," with the decades-old "Got Nothing To Prove" also on the deluxe CD. The track "Sand" will be featured on the triple red, white, and blue colored 10-inch vinyl edition.
During Pete Townshend's recent appearance on NPR, he shed light on the meaning behind the new album's lead track, "All This Music Will Fade": "Since the '60s it's become more and more basic, more and more simple. Music is often what's borrowed, what is often stolen, what is often echoed, what is often repeated -- particularly in our business. So, it's kind of absurd for somebody to pop out of the woodwork and accuse, let's say, somebody like Ed Sheeran -- whose music is not exactly (Arnold) Schoenberg -- of ripping off some earlier song. It just happens. We only have this limited language to deal with."
Roger Daltrey broke down how he goes about finding his voice within Pete Townshend's new material: "It's a strange journey for me because I have to inhabit the songs. I never want to know what he's written them about, because that would be ridiculous for me. I just have to listen to them, (and) see what I can find inside the music inside me. And our chemistry is such that we very rarely work together; we work separately and piece it together, like a jigsaw puzzle. Basically, I'm singing to a demo track, and he gives me the freedom to then lay my voice on it, where I hear it making the song work. And he trusts my judgment on that, and I thank him for that freedom."
While chatting with Rolling Stone, Pete Townshend was asked what, if any, difference he sees between the new album's music and themes and those of the Who's last album, 2006's Endless Wire: "I don't think they're necessarily that much different. Y'know, I think there are a few dark ballads, there's some experimental electronica, there's, y'know, some heavy rock stuff. It's all new material. And I wanted it to be new material, and I wanted it to cover where I stand at the moment."
Pete Townshend told us the long wait for a new Who album had nothing to do with him not having enough material for the band to record: "I could have put material together for what we would have called a Who record at any time. So, it's not been through lack of material, it's really been about why you would want to put a record out by the Who."
Roger Daltrey, who has been working with the youngest Townshend brother exclusively over the past 25 years, and was more than happy to have Simon -- who's 15-year-younger than Pete -- contribute to the new album sessions with his original tune, "Break The News": "And there I've got a Simon Townshend song, which I'm glad to have done. Because Simon is a great musician and I've been with him since 1994 -- a long, long time. And he writes great songs, Simon. But this one, it's just something lighthearted on the album, but it's got a lot of tenderness in it and I like it. That's been nice doing that. I enjoyed doing that."
Pete Townshend On 'Borrowed Music'
Pete Townshend On Reasons Behind A New Who Album
Pete Townshend On The Sound Of 'WHO'
Roger Daltrey On Recording 2019 Who Songs
Roger Daltrey On The Who Recording A Simon Townshend Song
Toto's Steve Lukather Taps Ringo Starr For New Track & Video
The Doors Announce Deluxe 50th Anniversary Edition Of 'Morrison Hotel'
SZA Says Her Record Label Has Delayed Her New Album
Group element EZrock Osoyoos footer
203 - 8309 Main Street Osoyoos BC V0H 1V0
Studio (Osoyoos) / Reception (250) 495-7244 / (250) 495-7226
Studio (Princeton) (250) 295-6991
News (250) 493-6397


For perhaps the first time since the original Macintosh, we can get excited about using system UI fonts. They're an interesting, fresh alternative to web typography — and one that doesn't require a web-font delivery service or font files stored on your server. How do we use system UI fonts on a website, and what are the caveats? System UI fonts being amazing kind of snuck up on us. Google has been toiling away at Roboto with great success (including regular updates), Apple made a splash with San Francisco, and Mozilla asked renowned type designer Erik Spiekermann to create Fira Sans.
A few of these shorthand properties have existed for the longest time (caption, icon, menu, message-box, small-caption, status-bar), yet I have never seen them being commonly used.
The list targets the most popular browsers and operating systems, but it doesn't target all of them.
You might be inclined to combine approach A with approach B to get the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, this is not easy because the font and font-family properties are mutually exclusive — one will just override the other. Perhaps media queries can come to the rescue, but that's hacky.
This should be rendered in your system's UI font. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
Oxygen targets KDE, Ubuntu targets… well, you can guess, and Cantarell targets GNOME. This is beginning to feel futile because some Linux distributions have many of these fonts.
There's still work to do. Everything we've covered works only for Western typography. Also, if you want to adjust the padding or line height according to the UI font that your website is using, then you'll have to use the hybrid approach above or else detect the font after rendering.
Still, the early results are already good enough. Hopefully, in the future, all of this will become less complicated. If any of this is important to you, please tell browser vendors!
Thanks to John Daggett, Michael Duggan, Kenneth Ormandy and Emil Eklund for their help with this article.


American Legend White cigarettes have a long-lasting burn just perfect for those who want to get intense satisfaction from smoking. Their medium-light strength and exquisite flavor make your smoking experience ideal. Smokers appreciate their quality crafted filter and elegant packing design. The white packaging with an eagle spreading his wings speaks about the strength and quality of this brand.


text:
+1 (250) 558 -8340 info@pretiumcapitalgroup.ca
Strongbow Extends Amended Share Purchase Agreement and Date for AIM Listing
C:SBW Strongbow Extends Amended Share Purchase Agreement and Date for AIM Listing
SOURCE: STOCKWATCH
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Dec. 13, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Strongbow Exploration Inc. (TSX-V: SBW) ("Strongbow" or the "Company") is pleased to announce that the requirement for the listing on the AIM – London Stock Exchange under the amended Share Purchase Agreement ("SPA") with Galena Special Situations Master Fund Limited ("Galena"), and Tin Shield Production Inc ("Tin Shield") regarding the South Crofty tin project, has been extended from December 31, 2018 to June 20, 2019 (please refer to news release dated March 28, 2018 for details).
The amended terms of the SPA require Strongbow to make the following payments:
US$3.0 million in cash and US$1.5 million in Strongbow common shares payable immediately upon completion of an AIM listing.
A payment of US$6.0 million, payable in cash and / or shares at Strongbow's election, payable within 5 business days of the Company securing project financing to build a mine at South Crofty.
Richard Williams, Strongbow CEO, stated "We would like to thank Galena and Tin Shield for their support, cooperation, and agreement in this extension. We continue to make very good progress on the project (please see Operations Update dated October 9, 2018) and look forward to completing the AIM listing process in the first half of 2019."
ABOUT SOUTH CROFTY
South Crofty is an iconic former producing copper and tin mine located in the towns of Camborne and Pool, Cornwall, England. The first documented production history from South Crofty dates back to 1592, and it was the last tin mine to close in Cornwall in 1998.
Strongbow published a NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate on the project on April 19, 2016 (see Technical Report here), and published a NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment on the project on February 16, 2017 (see Technical Reporthere).
The project received an Underground Permission (mining licence) in 2013, which is valid until 2071, and Planning Permission to construct a new process plant in 2011. In October 2017, Strongbow was successful in securing a Water Discharge Permit allowing for the dewatering of the now flooded mine workings. In January 2018, the Company completed the sale of a 1.5% Net Smelter Returns Royalty to its largest shareholder, Osisko Gold Royalties, for C$7,170,000. Strongbow is now focused on completing the listing on the AIM Exchange and completion of the water treatment plant so the mine can be dewatered. Strongbow plans to bring the project to a production decision and complete a feasibility study in parallel with the mine dewatering process.
For additional information please contact: Irene Dorsman at (604) 210 8752 or by e-mail at idorsman@strongbowexploration.com or Sherman Dahl of Pretium Communications at (250) 558 8340.
Blytheweigh (Financial PR/IR-London) Tel: +44 207 138 3204
Tim Blythe tim.blythe@blytheweigh.com
Camilla Horsfall camilla.horsfall@blytheweigh.com
"Richard D. Williams"
Richard D. Williams, P.Geo
This news release contains "forward-looking statements" which are based on management's best estimates and assumptions at the time the forward-looking statements are made. Certain disclosures in this news release relating to management's plans to list on AIM in 2019, to amend the terms of the SPA as well as our ability to comply with the terms of the amended SPA, in addition to statements related to our ability to complete a feasibility study, make a production decision for South Crofty and secure project financing for mine construction are all forward-looking statements which are subject to numerous risks, uncertainties, and other factors related to Strongbow's operation as a mineral exploration company that may cause future results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements.
Although Strongbow intends to complete a listing in AIM in 2019, no assurances can be given that Strongbow will be successful in those efforts, or that the listing will be sufficient for the Company's future financial commitments, including the cash and common share payments described above, or sufficient to allow Strongbow to meet its other stated objectives. In addition, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its efforts to construction a water treatment plant, de-water the mine, complete a positive feasibility study for the South Crofty project (thereby enabling Strongbow to make a production decision) or arrange project financing for construction of mine facilities at South Crofty; there are a number of factors which determine project economics, several of which (such as the price of tin and the market for tin) are not within Strongbow's control. If such estimates are inaccurate or are reduced in the future, this could have a material adverse impact on Strongbow.
Forward-looking statements, while based on management's best estimates and assumptions, are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to: risks related to receipt of regulatory approvals, the successful integration of acquisitions; risks related to general economic and market conditions; risks related to the availability of financing; the timing and content of upcoming work programs; actual results of proposed exploration activities; possible variations in mineral resources or grade; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; accidents, labour disputes, title disputes, claims and limitations on insurance coverage and other risks of the mining industry; changes in national and local government regulation of mining operations, tax rules and regulations.
Although Strongbow has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Strongbow undertakes no obligation or responsibility to update forward-looking statements, except as required by law.
Lets Talk About Tin April 28, 2020
PAN GLOBAL ANNOUNCES NON-BROKERED PRIVATE PLACEMENT FINANCING November 25, 2019
Strongbow Extends Amended Share Purchase Agreement and Date for AIM Listing December 13, 2018
STRONGBOW ENTERS INTO FINANCING AND OFFTAKE AGREEMENT WITH ORION MINE FINANCE FOR THE SOUTH CROFTY TIN PROJECT October 17, 2018
Pan Global
Strongbow Exploration inc.
Design by bold media group inc. | © 2019 Pretium Capital Group Inc.


Beyonce had a baby girl named Blue Ivy Carter as I'm sure you've heard. I'm really happy for her and Jay-Z -- truly I am. But I am not happy about how things went down at Lenox Hill Hospital in NYC where she gave birth. I almost feel like I can't blame Beyonce and Jay-Z though. All they did was ask the hospital if they could rent out an entire floor while Beyonce had her scheduled c-section. The hospital could have said no. But a lot of money was paid and well, hospitals do need money, and so it was allowed.
And yes, scheduled cesarean. Maybe she had a preexisting condition that made a c-section inevitable. But maybe it was because of her celebrity status that her birth had to be planned in order for them to be able to rent out an entire floor at Lenox Hill. That just makes me sad. It's a bad example for moms. And I'm upset for the families and moms who were birthing there that were very disrupted as a result of all of this. Parents who were denied seeing their newborns.
New dad Neil Nash-Coulon said that he was denied access to the NICU to see his baby because of the security lockdown going on while Beyonce and family were there. He said that this was the case for many as the NICU was on same floor rented out by the singer.
It's been reported that Jay-Z paid 1.3 million dollars for the entire floor, but the hospital has so far kept quiet on the confidential matter.
I remember when I tried to get a private room after I had my twins because I wanted my husband to be able to spend the night to help me in-room with my two newborns. We were willing to pay the added fee, but were told that there was only one room and it was already taken. Which is fine. I get that. But then I hear of things like this ... renting an entire floor for a one-baby birth and I feel like more should be done for the everyday average Joe and Jane who have multiples and actually NEED to have more space or be able to have the dad stay to help mom. I'm talking about a room too, not a floor.
I also feel that because Beyonce had a scheduled c-section (for whatever reason) it makes so many other women who admire her think that is the glamorous way to birth. It's not. If it's necessary, then it's necessary and that is a different story, but too many of these diva births will have us ending up like China, where the c-section rate is 50 percent. And they have a one-child policy. So a mom is denying herself the rite of passage that is vaginal birth. But China says it's about risks because of the one child policy. So if anything seems less than perfect, then they choose cesarean.
Birth advocates know this is a bad decision. It's bad news for moms. Just look at the story of a mom who had twins, both breech, vaginally without any pain meds. This is trusting birth. Something we all need to do. Doctors need to give women more credit when birthing. Women need to give women more credit when birthing. And like many believe, I too think it's become a women's rights issue. If a doctor tells a woman she can't birth vaginally, she believes and trusts that doctor. But we need to start believing in ourselves. In our abilities. We can't believe in the Beyonce diva way of birth. We can't expect floors to shut down for our baby's arrival. I wish Beyonce didn't feel that she needed that. I get extra security, but how that hospital behaved was wrong. And I'm glad parents are speaking out about it.
We have to stop being passive spectators of our births and be active participators. We have to be very present and patient and active when we are parents, so it should start with the birth of our children.
What do you think of these diva births? Are we generally too passive when it comes to birth? Do you think we need to trust our bodies more?
UPDATE: At the press time of this article, all major news outlets were reporting a 'scheduled c-section' (sourced). The couple has since spoken out and called the birth natural. With or without Beyonce in the mix, the mentality of being 'too posh to push' in childbirth exists.


For various reasons, 2017 was a year with minimal travel and holidays, so any photographic opportunities were never far from home, in Guildford, Surrey. In fact, one of my most satisfying moments, was capturing lightning for the first time, taken from my house. A few of the shots were picked-up in some of the online editions of UK newspapers, earning me a somewhat underwhelming £20 in commission!
My primary focus has always been on wildlife, and with minimal time on my hands, birds took a front seat this year.


RJ's Signs & Designs, LLC offers a clean and inexpensive alternative to painted lettering. Rather than masking, mixing, painting; then waiting for the paint to dry, RJ's Signs & Designs offers computer cut vinyl graphics. The vinyl has an adhesive backing for lettering installation to virtually any non-porous surface, and even some porous surfaces, within reason. Below are photos showing a finished boat lettering installation. Once applied, vinyl lettering can be pressure washed without losing it's adhesive properties. The vinyl works great for seasonal watercraft, as shown in pictures below.
the lettering to surface. The lettering is then squeegeed to remove all bubbles and liquid from behind the lettering. The transfer tape is removed and the process is repeated with the second color; the green shadow. TOTAL INSTALLATION TIME: Approximately 40 minutes. Should this customer want to resell his boat, he will be able to remove the boat lettering by applying heat and peeling off the vinyl lettering. Thus, adding to the resale value of the boat.
Gosh I'd love this! I have a Welcome sticker from the Dollar Tree on my front door right now. I'm going to be ritpinaeng my front door this summer & know it won't hold up adn would like one a bit larger.This would be perfect!
Those actually look really nice! My uncle recently bought a new boat, and he's been trying to figure out what to name it. I'm just not sure if he's going to have the name across the back, or on the side. Either way, it should be fun to see what he ends up deciding on!


My doctor urged me to lose 10 to 20 pounds, saying that it would help me conceive and I would feel much better. I don't even know if I realized then how bad I felt, but looking back, I was so unhealthy: I had acne and anxiety, I slept all the time, and I couldn't keep up with my family. But it took being unable to get pregnant for me to start caring.
I was able to lose the 10 to 20 pounds on my own, and conceived our daughter Aubrey. Throughout my pregnancy with her, I did feel better. I knew that once she was born, it would be time for a life change. But when she came in October 2013, I felt completely discouraged. As a mom of two with a firefighter husband who is gone every third day, changing my lifestyle that drastically felt impossible. I was able to lose a good amount of weight on my own—44 pounds—but then I hit a wall.
That's when a friend told me about DietBet—and because as a mom of two in need of motivation, I knew that betting on myself was the only way to do it.
The accountability of DietBet was exactly what I needed. The unofficial weigh-ins were there for me to use as much as I wanted, and I vowed to check in every day and see my progress. Some days there was amazing progress, and some days nothing—but those weigh-ins taught me a lot about what different foods and lifestyle choices were doing to my body. The scale wouldn't lie to me, and DietBet's progress chart wouldn't lie. It was like having somebody to answer to all the time. As I made progress, I loved watching my pictures change on DietBet!
With DietBet giving me motivation and accountability, I was able to lose weight strictly with diet and exercise. I took up running twice a week and going to the gym two to three times a week. That first workout, it took me 18 minutes to walk a mile, and I set a goal to get faster and go for longer. I moved up to 5k, then 7k, then 10k, and I just finished my first half marathon in January. I didn't walk one step—I was able to run the entire thing!
Eventually, I lost 70 pounds, reaching my current weight of 157 pounds. This was the hardest thing I've ever done, but DietBet has been my saving grace. I've completed three Transformers to get here, and each one pulls me right back into check. I feel like I have every excuse in the book to quit—two young children, a husband with odd hours, working full time—but DietBet and the community remind me I'm not alone and I never will be in this. I can't wait to try the Maintainer once it's ready!
Losing the weight has let me do so many things. I went ziplining with a bunch of friends when I crossed the 100-pound threshold, which I wouldn't have been able to do before because of weight requirements and the hiking aspect. It was amazing. I also used the winnings from my first two Transformers as gas money to go to Disney World! We went in June both years, because the heat no longer bothers me like it used to, and I was able to ride on roller coasters that I couldn't before. My third Transformer is funding a hotel for a weekend getaway in California with my husband. DietBet has opened so many doors for what I can do physically, and made it possible financially to do them!
It's also been about the things I didn't even notice I couldn't do before…sitting on the floor with my kids with my legs folded; crossing my legs; buying clothes at all stores! We went to a wedding and I danced with my husband all night. I didn't realize I couldn't do that before, but while we were dancing, it occurred to me that I hadn't taken any breaks. It was awesome!
My change has also inspired a wave of people in my life changing their lifestyles. At least five people I know have lost weight dramatically and healthily after seeing that I can do it. And several of them also used DietBet!