If someone wants to advocate the use of ozone rather than chlorine I'd go along with it to a degree on the basis of cost but lets not do it on the basis of a report that wheels out the same old discredited ideas.
The stuff about free radicals is a red herring; they don't generally last long in the water so they are not a problem.
Also ozonation of water certainly generates free radicals. One such free radical is oxygen which everyone seems to be in favour of.
None of the chlorine in the water you drink survives passage through the digestive system so it cannot destroy bacteria like acidophilus in the colon .
The report also goes on about trihalomethanse and such; these are known to be toxic and carcinogenic- but they ware weak carcinogens
The study of two groups of women who drink water from different sources would be interesting; not from the point of view of the incidence of miscariage but to see how on earth they corrected for the other possible effects. Since these two groups were drinking different water they must have lived in different places. That means that other environmental factors would have differed. Unless each of those was identified and corrected for there's no way the study can tell you anything about trihalomethanes.
The essential fatty acids are present in fairly large quantities in the diet; some of them may be destroyed by chlorine in the water but most won't. In particular the ones that are doing their job in the nervous system won't get damaged by chlorine in the stomach- it simply doesn't reach them.
The stuff about arterial plaques and trans fatty acids simply have nothing to do with the effect of chlorinated water.
I got bored of reading the paper at that point.
Can I ask that next time you think about citing a report you check to see if it is rubbish first?
Better still, find a reputable source and see wht it says for example here's one in which I have italicised some points
F344 rats (50 per sex per dose) were given sodium hypochlorite in drinking-water (males:
0.05% or 0.1%, 75 or 150 mg/kg of body weight per day; females: 0.1% or 0.2%, 150 or 300
mg/kg of body weight per day) for 2 years. Experimental groups did not differ from controls
with respect to the total tumour incidences or mean survival times
, and most of the tumours
found were of types that commonly occur spontaneously in F344 rats. The authors concluded
that sodium hypochlorite was not carcinogenic in rats
In a seven-generation toxicity study, the incidence of malignant tumours
in rats consuming
drinking-water with a free chlorine level of 100 mg/litre (10 mg/kg of body weight per day)
4did not differ from that in controls
(21). The incidence of tumours in treated animals was not
significantly elevated in F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice (50 per sex per dose) given solutions of
sodium hypochlorite (70 or 140 mg/kg of body weight per day for male rats, 95 or 190 mg/kg
of body weight per day for female rats, 84 or 140 mg/kg of body weight per day for male and
female mice) in their drinking-water for 103–104 weeks (25)."
There are certainly risks from disinfection by-products from chlorination but the risk is small compared to the risk of water born disease. Ozone also produces by-products which have not been so well researched- they may turn out to be as bad or worse.
In any event since ozone isn't stable it cannot be carried through the pipes and disinfect them on a continouos basis as chlorine odes.