HALLOWEEN JURISPRUDENCE

I detour briefly from water and waste water to acknowledge Halloween with an interesting court decision.

A Florida court addressed the issue whether a grade school Halloween celebration violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states stat no law shall be made respecting establishment of religion.

A parent objected to decorations in the public elementary school depicting witches, cauldrons and brooms and objected to teachers dressed as witches in long, black dresses and pointed hats. The parent alleged that witchcraft is a religion, Halloween is a religious holiday and witches in long, black dresses, cauldrons and brooms are religious symbols for some people. The parent sued to enjoin schools from including such decorations and costumes in Halloween celebrations.

According to the court, the school board presented evidence that "a number of teachers dressed in Halloween-related costumes, including a clown costume, a Ronald Reagan costume, and a witch costume; a member of the PTA put up a carnival poster which depicted a Halloween witch stirring a pot; some classes hold storybook dress-up day, where the teacher dresses as a book character; on one occasion, a teacher dressed as a witch from the Wizard of Oz; the book Streganona, an award-winning fairy tale with a witch character, has been read in conjunction with the festivities; these activities have been displayed in a secular and non-sectarian fashion and there has been no attempt to teach or promote wicca, satanism, witchcraft or any form of religion; costumes and decorations simply serve to make Halloween a fun day for the students and serve an educational purpose by enriching the educational background and cultural awareness of the students."

The school board also presented professor of religion, who disputed that Halloween was a religious festival and that Halloween symbols were religious in nature. He asserted that Halloween celebration is a secular event without religious connotations.

The court affirmed the lower court decision that the symbols in question do not constitute an establishment of religion and do not violate the Constitution. The court stated that there was no doubt that the festivities and decorations served a secular purpose and that the Halloween symbols were not an endorsement or promotion of religion.

The court quoted from a U.S. Supreme Court decision: "The First Amendment does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises or the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact. It is of course true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow." The Florida court concluded, "witches, cauldrons, and brooms in the context of a school Halloween celebration appear to be nothing more than a mere "shadow". if that, in the realm of establishment cause jurisprudence." GUYER V. SCHOOL BOARD, 634 S.2d 806 (Fl. D.Ct.App. 1994)

Best witches for a happy Halloween!

WATER SCIENCE FICTION BECOMES SCIENCE FACT?

One of my favorite 1950s science fiction movies is "The Monolith Monsters" (1957). A meteor crashes to earth, scattering its rock fragments. When one of these pieces comes in contact with water, it absorbs silicon from the environment and begins to grow into huge rock columns or monoliths. Eventually, the monoliths fall, shatter and give rise to new ones, as water makes contact.

Unfortunately, if a person is near one of these rock fragments which has been watered, the fragment will suck all the silicon from the person's body, turning him or her into stone. When a young girl begins to petrify in this manner, intense scientific research is conducted leaving no stone unturned, which reveals the human silicon deficiency caused by the rocks. Doctors develop a saline solution containing silicon, inject it into the little girl, and save her from a stoney fate. The formula then is applied to save others, as they roll into town from the countryside. Thus, water bearing silicon saves lives.

Now, 55 years after this movie was released, there is a report of a study performed at Keele University, UK, which allegedly shows that drinking a silicon-rich mineral water removes aluminum from persons with Alzheimer's disease. The study group, comprised of Alzheimer's patients, drank such mineral water for 12 weeks. For the majority of the study group, there was no deterioration in cognitive abilities, and a some showed improvements. The study apparently concludes, as a preliminary matter, that long term drinking of silicon-rich water can reduce one's exposure to aluminum and lower aluminum in the body, which for those with Alzheimer's disease may have positive benefits for the cognitive functions.

So, silicon in water--has science fiction become science fact?

GOOD BUGS, BAD BUGS

Is your drinking water "bugging" you? Two recent articles in the American Chemical Society journal "Environmental Science & Technology" reportedly offer contrasting views of bacteria that may be found in drinking water.

According to one report, well water which is not disinfected may be the cause of up to 1.1 million cases per year of acute gastrointestinal illness--nausea, diarrhea, etc. Such effects may increase as water system infrastructure ages beyond its useful life and deficiencies arise. The study claims that more than 100 million people in the United States receive well water which is not disinfected or not adequately disinfected to control disease-causing nasties. ("Risk of Viral Acute Gastrointestinal Illness from Nondisinfected Drinking Water Distribution Systems", September 12, 2012).

However, the other article suggests that water systems may be able to "manipulate" infrastructure to enable finished water to contain beneficial bacteria. The study explained that ordinarily water utilities control bacteria by using filters to eliminate nutrients for bacteria and by applying chlorine and other disinfection methods to kill them. Indeed, some jurisdictions require a chlorine residual through out the distribution system. The report suggests that the pH of water can determine which bacteria continue in the treatment process, and by changes to the pH and how filters are cleaned, beneficial bacteria could remain in water received by customers. ("Beneficial Community Structure in the Drinking Water Microbiome Is Governed by Filtration Processes", August 8, 2012).

The good bacteria/bad bacteria situation may be tempered by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and U.S.EPA regulations. There are national primary drinking water standards for control of microorganisms in water with which all public water systems must comply. Generally, such systems are those serving 15 service connections or which regularly serve 25 persons. Under EPA's 2010 proposed revisions to its total coliform rule, public water systems subject to microbial contamination will have to perform an assessment of their system and correct any deficiency in their treatment or distribution facilities.

As a grade school kid, I remember sitting at the kitchen table looking at a drop of tap water through my A.C. Gilbert microscope. I do not know if I saw good bugs, or bad bugs, or just a dirty slide previously used for the grasshopper I had dissected. Frankly, I'm not sure I cared to know, anyway.

GOOD TO THE LAST DROP?

Use of water softening equipment has been prevalent for some time, particularly where hard water from wells is the source of supply. Typically, water softeners employ the ion exchange method, using salt in the form of pellets or blocks.

From time to time, there has been debate over potential health effects of using salt in this way, which can result in some salt being added to the softened water. In addition, in at least one state-California-some communities have banned water softeners using salt because of perceived adverse impacts of effluent salt brine on waste water treatment plants.

Interestingly, American history may provide a unique alternative to the traditional water softener method. According to an 1831 New York scientific report, urine provided am effective water softener for high concentrations of minerals being experienced due to runoff from graveyards and outhouses.

The report purportedly stated: "This liquid, [urine] when stale or putrid, has the remarkable property of precipitating the earthy salts from their solution, or in other words, it makes hard waters soft. Although the fastidious may revolt from the use of water thus sweetened to our palate, it is perhaps fortunate that this mixture is daily taking place, for otherwise the water of this city would become, in a much shorter space of time than it actually does, utterly unfit for domestic consumption." (Quote from Nelson Blake, "Water For Cities" in ON TAP magazine, Summer 2005)

In a way, this water softening technique may have been attempted in 2011. It was reported that a man was caught on a security camera urinating into one of Portland, Oregon's finished water reservoirs. The city, however, responded by draining the reservoir of some 8 million gallons. The man was quoted as saying that he thought it was a waste water treatment plant. (Oregonian.com, June 15, 2011) A policeman was quoted as saying "It's really an unfortunate incident that probably could have been avoided if he had just chosen a bush." (KGD.com, June 16, 2011) The man later allegedly pleaded guilty to "misuse of a reservoir" and was sentenced to community service (KPTV.com August 30, 2012).

An analysis has been made of the residential sewage flows in London during the royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. The flows decreased when the first guests arrived at Westminster Abbey, decreased more rapidly when the royal family arrived and reached the largest decrease when Kate arrived. Flows did not return to normal until after the kiss on the balcony of Buckingham Palace. (WE&T magazine, August 2011) Perhaps this analysis suggests that urine water softening may not be reliable.