
One-fourth of Americans drink water from systems that don’t meet standards - prostoalex
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/03/drinking-water-safety-in-united-sates-can-be-fixed/
======
willj
As someone who worked in this field for several years, and worked closely with
EPA, the biggest problem is the politicization of funding for EPA. Year after
year its funding gets slashed, or at the very least stays the same and so is
eroded by inflation. A 2013 report on state drinking water resources [1]
showed that state drinking water programs continually do more with less, and
are barely able to maintain their infrastructure as they have to dig into
their emergency funds to do routine maintenance, which leaves them in a bind
when a true emergency does happen, such as the rupture of a water main.

The legislation in place is solid, scientifically-sound, and thoroughly vetted
from a cost-benefit analysis side of things. The problem is lack of funding,
and visibility into the issue. Apart from high-profile incidents of sickness
and water main breaks, people just assume their tap generates clean drinking
water and give no thought to where it comes from, or the work that is required
to make it happen.

I wish people would think to what life must have been like in the 18th
century, and how difficult it must've been to secure clean drinking water. The
idea of having clean drinking water coming into your house via tap would've
been a pipe dream (pun not intended), and a luxury only the most rich could
afford. And now it's shunned in some crowds.

The bottled water crowd thinks they're immune to these issues around drinking
water systems, but in fact the bottled water companies generally get their
water from the same public drinking water systems we use, and their standards
are in fact lower than those surrounding your tap water (as it's policed by
the FDA, not the EPA).

All that said, we have amazing tap water in this country, and it is a
testament to the people and agencies responsible for making that happen. I
lived in Asia for over a year, and coming back to a country where I can drink
what comes out of the tap, use it to brush my teeth, and not worry about
getting it in my mouth while showering really puts things in perspective.

[1] (pdf) [https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SRNAP-
Analy...](https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SRNAP-Analysis.pdf)

~~~
quakeguy
„The bottled water crowd thinks they're immune to these issues around drinking
water systems, but in fact the bottled water companies generally get their
water from the same public drinking water systems we use, and their standards
are in fact lower than those surrounding your tap water (as it's policed by
the FDA, not the EPA).„

Excuse my choice of words here, but wtf. I always thought water in bottled
units is held to a higher standard.

~~~
pkaye
For bottled water that goes through reverse osmosis and carbon filtration,
many of the common contaminants in tap water would be removed. Also the
bottling might happen in areas with better quality water.

~~~
ska
It's probably less important what might have happened, that what is required
by law. If I recall correctly some bottled water is basically just bottling
the municipal supply (i.e. no additional treatment or filtration).

I don't really use bottled water, being lucky in where I live (and filtering).
Does anyone know how much enforced transparency there is on the industry? In
other words, can I in practice find out what processes they have applied or
not to particular water, especially if the company has multiple plants ?

------
rb808
I'm starting to think that bottled drinking water is a simpler and more
efficient method that getting people to drink tap water. It seems crazy that
every drop from the tap is high quality water good enough to drink - when
99.9% of it is not used for drinking. Perhaps its more efficient just to
deliver drinking water to everyone in office cooler type bottles, and lower
our standards for the water system.

~~~
MuffinFlavored
> when 99.9% of it is not used for drinking

What is it used for? Cooking?

~~~
clarry
Showering, bathing, washing hands, flushing toilet, washing dishes, washing
clothes, washing surfaces or floors (i.e. wetting and washing the rag/mop you
use for wiping said surfaces), maybe watering lawns & washing cars, if I had
to guess.

It's surprisingly easy and quick to run way more water than you could drink in
a day just for some daily cleaning duties.

Come to think of it, I drink around 2 liters per day; that's six mugs of
coffee plus maybe a couple glasses of water.

How much water do I spend when I flush the toilet once and then wash my hands?
I do that quite a few times every day.

~~~
viraptor
Some of those are handled more efficiently in Australia. Water tanks are
required with new builds and they usually do rain collection. Those feed into
toilets, lawn sprinklers, washing machine, etc. All car washes in the town
also use some form of not drinkable water.

I'm not sure about the water used for cleaning though. If you want your hands
to be clean before eating, why would you clean them in something your can't
safely drink?

------
neonate
[https://outline.com/BfUCs8](https://outline.com/BfUCs8)

------
as-j
I’m curious where this 25% statistic comes from, and after a bit of googleing
it seems to be a 2015 report from:

[https://www.nrdc.org/resources/threats-tap-widespread-
violat...](https://www.nrdc.org/resources/threats-tap-widespread-violations-
water-infrastructure)

This does exlcude ~13 million private water systems (wells) which is good. On
the link rhere’s a map you can click on and see what the health violations
are.

[edited to move into commentary comment]

~~~
as-j
As I thought about this, it annoyed me a the way the information was
presented, esepcially as I put my engineering/critical thinking hat on. Water
systems are large ditributed systems, they require maintenance, have parts
underground, are regulated and have testing.

If I click on San Mateo County, California for example, they have a water
company “Ca Water Service - Bear Gulch” who reported 1 violation afecting
58,432 people for “Surface, Ground Water, and Filter Backwash rules.”

This appears to be a leak, maybe some ground water got in and mixed with city
water. You don’t want ground water mixing into drinking water since it carries
a higher change of bacteria, etc. (aka you don’t want a bird pooping on a
roof, then dripping into a water resevoir)

But:

1\. This is a transient problem, 54,000 people don’t have bad water. The
company reported a leak/problem and presumably fixed it.

2\. This is why we chlorinate water, it kills off bacteria that might somehow
get in.

3\. This problem may not have even reached consumers. Aka, this is a system
working as designed to provide safe water.

The other way of looking at this is, the systems were tested, violations were
found reported, and it looks like in most cases resoled without formal
enforcement action. (seems about 6-10% of cases went to formal enforcement)

------
forgotmypw
EPA standards are a joke, designed primarily to avoid panic in the masses and
allow the polluters to continue doing their thing.

Go ahead, get your "just fine" tap water tested by a lab, it only costs a
couple hundred bucks to do a full array.

Then, consider how misleading the "parts per million" metric is, considering
Avogadro's number.

Just because all this shit does not lead to immediate and perceptible illness
doesn't mean that it is not putting a strain on our immune systems and causing
DNA damage left and right.

Each of those ppm requires an immune cell (or multiple) to bond with it,
sacrificing itself, and transport it into the kidneys or liver, where it sits
around also causing damage, and so on, until it is broken down into more
hazardous substances, or finally leaves the body, if ever.

If you are not frantically getting filters installed in all your loved ones'
homes, I think are just not paying attention. And I'm not talking about Brita
either.

~~~
creddit
> Then, consider how misleading the "parts per million" metric is, considering
> Avogadro's number.

What about Avogadro's number make a PPM metric (i.e. a ratio) misleading???
Because there are a lot of millions in Avogadro's number? How is that relevant
to a ratio?

~~~
rayiner
It’s hand waving, and possibly orthorexia:
[https://www.eatright.org/health/diseases-and-
conditions/eati...](https://www.eatright.org/health/diseases-and-
conditions/eating-disorders/orthorexia-an-obsession-with-eating-pure).
Remember, the human immune system was designed to drink water out there in the
world, which has animals pissing and shitting in it. Heavy metal pollution
likewise occurs naturally. (Bangladesh, where I’m from, naturally has
dangerously high levels of arsenic in the water.) Your immune system is
designed to handle the “strain” of dealing with all that. We’re drinking the
cleanest water humanity has ever drank (and have the highest life expectancies
in human history).

~~~
radicaldreamer
Humans were only "designed" to live until they reproduce and the human
lifespan was far, far shorter until the last few hundred years. Just because
it's possible to live till 25 and drink arsenic laced water, it doesn't mean
it's good to do so.

~~~
jimmy1
You have kidneys, a liver, and a lymphatic system that all work wonders
against small invaders in small quantities, perfect for the situation
described with the "PPM" metric. We all love buying into these "it's xyz
killing me!" stories but whats most likely causing you to feel terrible or
potentially killing you is your lack of (quality) sleep, excess of stress,
poor diet or potentially a combination of all three.

And if I may throw my two cents in, humans were "designed" to live right
around somewhere in the 60-70 range. This has been true since we kept track of
humans, at least.

------
elektor
What consumer products are available for us to be able to filter our water?

~~~
bjelkeman-again
There are lots of tech available. But depending on what the issue is with the
water you have access to, you need to pick tech. It can be expensive to go
overboard.

------
em3rgent0rdr
My understanding is water in US is generally very safe. I've been drinking tap
my whole life. My understanding is human body can filter out or otherwise deal
with small amounts of metals and other stuff, and that most city water systems
are sufficient. I don't use a water filter at home, and drink from the faucet,
and I seem to still be alive. I'll remain in the control group. But just my
one data point.

"The Environmental Protection Agency regulates more than 90 contaminants—but a
hundred more that are tracked are so far unregulated."

But are we supposed to worry about these other "contaminants"?

~~~
rubicon33
I'd be careful with the assumption that just because you're doing fine now,
means you will continue to when you're 50+.

Watch this, if you haven't already:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84glf6F3b-Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84glf6F3b-Y)

"The Devil We Know". It's a documentary about the Ohio river valley polution
by 3M and Dupont in the production of Teflon. There are many amazing parts in
this documentary but one of the most eye opening, is the fact that Dupont
understood the risks of dumping C8 into the water. Yet the continued to do it,
because, profits.

Who can say what companies are around you, polluting the ground water? Just be
careful with assumptions that its always safe, is all I'm saying. I'm sure
people in the Ohio River Valley thought the same.

~~~
MrTonyD
These guys like 3M and Dupont and Monsanto are doing worse things than tech to
destroy our society - why aren't we hearing calls to break them up or take
them over or stopping their operations in our society? (ie. Are you listening
Elizabeth Warren?)

~~~
darpa_escapee
Dupont, Monsanto et al. have been the target of leftist rhetoric for many
decades.

~~~
bsanr2
This is phrased as if it's supposed to be damning, and I'm not sure why. Both
companies have been less than supportive of moves to determine if their
practices and products are safe. As a business decision: yes, sound, but
unfortunately, it's conceivable that their interests could encroach on what's
necessary for the public good. Considering the breadth of their holdings and
influence, it's important to be vigilant for even accidental missteps on their
part.

~~~
darpa_escapee
I'm only damning MrTonyD's ignorance of politics, you're preaching to the
choir.

------
shrimp_emoji
And allowing a small percentage of Americans to own unlimited wealth (which
they also use to disproportionately influence politics to maintain the status
quo) is morally justifiable how?

