Chlorinate well? after pump installation

Just curious. I had a new pump installed in my deep well. The water has definitely tasted different after the install and I wonder if it is common practice (or code) to add chemicals to the well to ward off bacteria, etc. I hope it clears out relatively soon so I can get the good ole mountain water taste back. I noticed a pretty strong smell in the pumphouse right after the install. I got to give these guys credit because pulling 770 feet of 1-1/4" pipe and putting it back no matter what kind of equipment you have is still a job.

Thanks for the Franklin Box parts info. Now I have another place to go.

It is proper protocol to chlorinate the well to disinfect the well and components since it was opened. How long it takes to clear-up really depends on how much bleach was added ... I suspect several days anyhow.

I run the chlorinated water out onto the lawn for at least two hours after shocking our well, then we don't drink the water for at least a couple of weeks. Maybe that's overkill, but why chance it? The water is perfectly fine for showers, laundry and teeth brushing despite a faint chlorine odor the first 7-10 days. Your well may take longer to flush than ours due to the exceptional depth.

It has become apparent to over the years than very few people realize the quote below. This quote does not pertain only to chlorine. It pertains to any form of contamination, including: fertilizers, bug killers, week killers and lawn grow chemicles sprayed on by companies all over the place.

But not only does drinking tap water expose us to health
risks, even showering and bathing does. Documented
scientific studies conclude that taking long showers (under
chlorinated water) can be a health risk. Our body can
absorb more chlorine as a result of a 10-minute shower than
if one drank eight glasses of the same water. A warm shower
opens up the skin pores and causes the skin to act like a
sponge.

As a result, chlorine vaporizes and is inhaled and absorbed
through the skin, directly into the bloodstream - at a rate
that is up to ten times higher than drinking.

bob...

Also, there are few to no cautions about shocking a well and there should be.

It can cause any type of bacteria problems to become worse. That can lead to a loss of water production from the well. And it can also lead to expensive pump, drop pipe, power cable, metal casing and water treatment equipment problems.

SpeedBump and Gary,

I reviewed the global published medical literature on trihalomethane exposure (chloroform, bromodicholormethane, dibromochlormethane, and bromoform), following Gary's post in my previous thread on cycle stop valves. At first glance, the literature certainly seems concerning about cancer risk and chronic exposure to chlorine. Also concerning is the suggestion that disinfection byproducts may increase the risk of cardiac birth defects such as ventriculoseptal defects.

The data on THMs is still very debatable, owing to the difficulty of gathering and interpreting health effects relative to exposure. Many of the studies do not achieve statistical significance. Methodologic weaknesses were present in all the published articles, and obvious confounding factors were often not eliminated. For example, several of the studies were conducted in Taiwan, China and India, where water quality suffers from a multiplicity of pollutants; yet no effort was made to determine whether THMs were at fault versus other pollutants, nor whether air pollution or cigarette smoke may have contributed to the cancers. Subjects' age, ethnicity, or lifestyle factors weren't controlled or measured. How can you know that the reported cancers occurred because of THMs instead of other carcinogens, or because one group of people (subjects) were 20 years older than the other (controls)? I see no discussion in most articles about possible confounders... which is to say the quality of the research is generally low.

On the other hand, one Harvard University School of Public Health study found a reassuring conclusion regarding THMs and bladder cancer... "Total fluid and water consumption and the joint effect of exposure to disinfection by-products on risk of bladder cancer," by Michaud DS, Kogevinas M, Cantor KP, Villanueva CM, Garcia-Closas M, Rothman N, Malats N, Real FX, Serra C, Garcia-Closas R, Tardon A, Carrato A, Dosemeci M, Silverman DT. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts:

BACKGROUND: Findings on water and total fluid intake and bladder cancer are inconsistent; this may, in part, be due to different levels of carcinogens in drinking water. High levels of arsenic and chlorinated by-products in drinking water have been associated with elevated bladder cancer risk in most studies. A pooled analysis based on six case-control studies observed a positive association between tap water and bladder cancer but none for nontap fluid intake, suggesting that contaminants in tap water may be responsible for the excess risk. OBJECTIVES: We examined the association between total fluid and water consumption and bladder cancer risk, as well as the interaction between water intake and trihalomethane (THM) exposure, in a large case-control study in Spain. METHODS: A total of 397 bladder cancer cases and 664 matched controls were available for this analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression, controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: Total fluid intake was associated with a decrease in bladder cancer risk [OR = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.40-0.95 for highest vs. lowest quintile comparison]. A significant inverse association was observed for water intake (for > 1,399 vs. < 400 mL/day, OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.66; p for trend < 0.0001), but not for other individual beverages. The inverse association between water intake and bladder cancer persisted within each level of THM exposure; we found no statistical interaction (p for interaction = 0.13). CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest that water intake is inversely associated with bladder cancer risk, regardless of THM exposure level." [Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Nov;115(11):1569-72.]

None of the studies I reviewed examined health risks of well chlorination nor other short term chlorine exposure. It's easy to imagine that repeated exposure over decades may have a set of risks that shorter duration exposure does not.

So, let's not make too many assertions about the health risk of annual well shocking. It hasn't been studied sufficiently to make such claims. I won't dispute assertions about pipe clogging or other problems after shocking, though I personally haven't experienced such issues. I did have numerous pinhole leaks open up in my cold water pipes one time when I shocked our well and went away on vacation. That was due to extremely low quality copper pipes which I have since replaced.

I do not believe that the shocking of wells has ever been studied by anyone.

My post was to make people aware that bathing in water which may be contaminated by anything, not just chlorine is worse than drinking the same water.

If you only knew how many people have come into my shop and also said in these forums that: "Oh, we don't drink the water, we just use it for showers, bathing and cleaning." The last lady that said that lives near me and has a shallow well. She has had it all her life, as she grew up there. She just recently went through some major brain cancer operations.

By the way, my well a mile or so from her 20' well is 240' deep.

And rather than 'global', I'd go with what the US EPA says. And I'd also consider that a private well produces raw water quality where most 'city' water is always treated in some way before it is chlorinated. And shocking a well is normally done with bleach and with varying "hell man if a gallon's good, more's better, grab 3 more gallons" volumes.

BTW, your skin is your body's largest organ and it allows what you put on it a way straight into your blood stream. So showering/bathing in it is more important than drinking it.

I don’t know if it works the same way but we have a spa H2O test kit. I had the wife test the water from the well for chlorine using the test kit. It will not register anything below 0.5ppm. The well water did not register so I am assuming it is below this mark but you can still smell the chlorine in the water. The funny thing is it smells more of chlorine than the spa and the spa ranges from 2 to 3ppm. Anyway after reading the above posts I have come to the conclusion that since I love soaking in the spa everyday at least once I have a foot and a half in the grave by now. I cannot give up my spa….too much fun especially with female companionship.

Maybe you have Chlorimine like we do here. It's half and half chlorine and ammonia. Mixed with Fluoride. If they have any other chemicals they want to dispose of, I imagine they will be in the tap water as well.

There's a great article on chloramines at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine

The information matches what I know as an aquarium owner, home brewer, and swimming pool owner. As the article states, the most common way to rid chloramines from a pool is superchlorination. Well shocking may differ from pool shocking since there's little surface area for ammonia to evaporate in a well.

We try not to enter our pool for 48 hours after shocking. That gives time for the chlorine and ammonia gasses to dissipate. I doubt many commercial or municipal pools have such waiting periods. Consider that before your next recreational water park trip with the kids.

I expect the best well chloramine strategy is to keep organic matter from entering the well in the first place. A tight fitting well cap is probably an essential measure for all wells. We replaced ours last summer to keep centipedes and spiders out. Prior to buying the new cap, I had affixed a plastic window screen around the well opening with a vinyl tie. The screen worked just fine, but removing a cap is more convenient than removing the screen.

The problem is that a well is nothing more than a hole in the yard designed and meant to collect water for future use. There is nothing sanitary about it; and it, the water produced, doesn't have to be sanitary to today's standards where everyone seems to be scared to death about everything, for humans to survive and/or live to ripe old ages.

Up until 25-30 yrs ago we mistakenly believed otherwise but today we know that the earth can only 'filter' particulates, not something that is dissolved into surface and/or ground water that a well collects and stores, or bacteria that live in the air and all over and under the ground, in or out of water.

Sanitary? The human gut contains trillions of E. coli, Klebsiella, Enterococcus and other bacterial species. Kitchens and bathrooms are great places for bacteria to thrive. Ever notice that pinkish slime that grows on tubs and shower curtains -- Serratia marcescens -- an opportunistic pathogen. We don't live in a sanitary world. That's not to say Vibrio cholerae or Salmonella typhi should be allowed to flourish in a well, or that we shouldn't take reasonable measures to keep bacterial counts & toxins to a minimum. But there are many known and unknown safety threats. Let's keep the risks in perspective: when was the last time somebody in your town died from drinking well water or bathing?

when was the last time somebody in your town died from drinking well water or bathing?

Click to expand...

I share your thoughts in the above quote. Although, I do believe there is a large difference between a shallow surface water well and a deep well firmly sealed into the aquifer.

I worry more about the chemicals in that water more than I ever will about bacteria.