
Unsafe levels of toxic chemicals found in drinking water for 6M Americans - upen
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemicals-drinking-water/
======
ianlevesque
Since people seem curious how to analyze this for their locale, the best I
could come up with (using the raw data at
[https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc...](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-
data.zip) ) was:

1\. Search zipcode in UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt, obtain PWSID.

2\. Filter by PWSID in UCMR3_All.txt.

3\. Filter that result by rows containing "=" (which means at or above minimum
reporting level)

4\. Don't panic.

5\. Compare AnalyticalResultsValue column to the Reference Concentration in
ucmr3-data-summary-april-2016.pdf. If its under the Reference Concentration
then you're safe, within the limits of how incomplete their reference
concentations are. The document specifically states:

> The intent of the following table is to identify draft UCMR reference
> concentrations, where possible, to provide context around the detection of a
> particular UCMR contaminant above the MRL. The draft reference concentration
> does not represent an “action level” (EPA requires no particular action1,2
> based simply on the fact that UCMR monitoring results exceed draft reference
> concentrations), nor should the draft reference concentration be interpreted
> as any indication of an Agency intent to establish a future drinking water
> regulation for the contaminant at this or any other level.

The minimal reporting level seems to be based on how small an amount is
detectable, not harmful. The reference concentration appears to be a best
guess at the moment for what a maximum safe amount is.

My zipcode for example came up with several of these above the MRL but below
the reference concentration. Enjoy.

Edit: added link.

~~~
rando832
tldr:

    
    
        region=$(grep YOUR_ZIP_GOES_HERE UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt|awk '{print $1}')
        grep $region.*= UCMR3_All.txt | awk 'FS = "\t" {print $14,$5,$18}'| sort
    

open page 7 in ucmr3-data-summary-april-2016.pdf, compare

~~~
twr
Using xsv
([https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv](https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv)):

    
    
      cargo install xsv
      xsv search -s ZIPCODE <zipcode> -d $'\t' UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt
      xsv search -s PWSID <pwsid> -d $'\t' UCMR3_All.txt |
        xsv search -s AnalyticalResultsSign = |
        xsv select FacilityName,Contaminant,AnalyticalResultsValue |
        xsv table

------
mortehu
A small PSA: "Brita" brand water filters seem to be very popular in US, but
they're also some of the worst in tests. For example in this test ...

[http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health-
products/g684/water-f...](http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health-
products/g684/water-filters/)?

... "Brita" filters were found to remove around 55% of PFOA, whereas
"ZeroWater" filters remove more than 95%. I.e. "Brita" filters leave 9x more
stuff in the water. The performance difference is similar for other unwanted
stuff, like lead.

~~~
technojunkie
ZeroWater changed their filters and now have a time release of a metallic
element into the water after about 20-30 refills. Meaning, they make you
change the filter unless you can stand the terrible taste. Super scammy. Their
water tastes really good... until it doesn't. Then it's horrible.

~~~
electic
Does anyone have a better suggestion? I am all for changing the filter on time
but if they are putting something in the water at their choosing, that seems
wrong.

~~~
mcone
ConsumerReports rated the Clear2O filter one of the best [0]. I've been using
it for over 24 months in Pittsburgh, PA and I can definitely taste the
difference. I haven't done the math, but I feel like their filters are cheaper
than Brita filters. They have published a fact sheet on their website [1]
showing what their filters remove.

[0] [http://www.consumerreports.org/products/water-
filter/clear2o...](http://www.consumerreports.org/products/water-
filter/clear2o-cws100a-9650/overview/)

[1]
[http://clear2o.com/download/PERFORMANCE%20DATA%20SHEET.pdf](http://clear2o.com/download/PERFORMANCE%20DATA%20SHEET.pdf)

------
refurb
_had at least one water sample that measured at or above the EPA safety limit
of 70 parts per trillion (ng /L)_

Just as a comparison, the EPA safety limits for other compounds in drinking
water is[1]:

Arsenic 10,000 parts per trillion

Cyanide 200,000 parts per trillion

Carbon tetrachloride 5,000 parts per trillion

All of those compounds are known to be very toxic. I'm curious why the safety
limit is so low for these PFAs if there isn't much data on them.

[1][https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-
re...](https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-
drinking-water-contaminants)

~~~
akiselev
There isn't much (or any) research on the effects of PFAs on humans, only on
lab animals, so we really don't know anything about its toxicity to us. What
we do know, however, is that these organic molecules have an extremely rare
combination of characteristics: they are unbelievably stable (they seem to be
both both hydrophobic and hydrophillic), they can bind to a significant
fraction of common proteins indiscriminately, and there exists no biological
mechanism that can effectively filter them out. Even though we don't yet know
how toxic the compounds are, we do know that this behavior creates a perfect
shit storm because not only do these molecules interfere with basic
biochemistry but also bioaccumulate though environmental exposure (drinking
contaminated water) and the food chain.

The closest analogy would be prions which are also very stable, interfere with
the basic function of proteins, and can accumulate through a variety of
exposure vectors. The difference is that prions coevolved with the rest of our
ecosystem whereas PFAs are entirely synthetic and do not exist in nature. It's
unlikely that these molecules are as toxic as arsenic (which wrecks havoc by
replacing phosphorus in DNA and the Krebs cycle) but this rather unique
combination of circumstances requires an extreme level of caution.

~~~
Iv
That's interesting. How can they bioaccumulate if they are both hydrophobic
and hydrophilic?

~~~
akiselev
This is what makes PFA molecules so potentially dangerous: they don't behave
like anything we've seen in natural biochemistry. Since they have both a
hydrophobic carbon chain and a hydrophilic functional group containing
fluorine, no known protein can break them down and no known biomechanical
mechanism can filter them out so they remain in the blood indefinitely. At the
same time, however, the carbon chain and functional group are free to bind
onto other proteins as long as the molecules are oriented in the right way,
which invariably prevents the other protein from functioning correctly.

~~~
im4w1l
If the natural ways of removing toxins don't work... could it be done
artificially? Engineer some kind of enzyme to break them down? Dialysis?

~~~
akiselev
Maybe, but not for a very long time. You'd have to develop an otherwise inert
enzyme that can go through cell membranes and spread to every cell in the
body. Theoretically this would be feasible using a retro virus that can infect
every cell and instruct it to produce the enzyme but we're basically just
getting our feet wet with genetic engineering research that is bound to take
decades or centuries to get to that point.

Dialysis wouldn't do a thing since most of the toxic molecules arent going to
be in the blood plasma.

------
mox1
If you want a report like this for your own personal drinking supply check out
[http://www.karlabs.com/watertestkit/](http://www.karlabs.com/watertestkit/)

I did it recently. I'm using the results to put some water filters into the
house that are actually NSF (1) certified to remove the contaminants the test
found.

[1] [http://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/](http://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/)

~~~
mr337
That is a rough looking website :)

~~~
dprvig
Similar product with a better website
[https://120wateraudit.com/](https://120wateraudit.com/) :)

------
stokedmartin
To see specific zip codes, download zip[0]. UCMR3_ZipCodes.txt has all the zip
codes and you can cross reference UCMR3_All.txt using PWSID to get facility
ID; then cross reference UCMR3_DRT.txt using the facility ID to get the
disinfection type. Details about the disinfection type can be found in a pdf
within the zip file.

[0][https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc...](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-
data.zip)

~~~
tbrock
crap, my zipcode is on there... does this mean i'm going to die?

~~~
buzzybee
When you get deep into these widespread public health issues you start to
realize that there's always going to be at least one that you or your locale
is at risk for. If it's not the water, it's the food. If it's not the food,
it's the air. If it's not the air, it's the soil. If it's not the soil, it's
your building. And so on...

The best you can do, in the end, is to avoid paranoia or panic and just aim
for some systematic detection, mitigation and prevention processes in your
household. With a little luck and a good system, you cheat death or
disability, temporarily. You cannot create an ironclad guarantee of safety,
but there are many things that you can do something about.

~~~
tim333
I figure tallying the top ones based on impact on life expectancy makes some
sense. The list is probably going to be dominated by the top two or three
items. Probably obesity (4 years?) followed by air pollution (1 year maybe) in
my case. Not much point worrying about the barely detectable stuff.

------
vskarine
Original article has a generic map without much details but does anyone have a
list of specific cities or zip codes that are affected? Original article with
map: [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-
chemi...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemicals-
drinking-water/)

~~~
honkhonkpants
The map is almost worse than useless, and this larger, interactive one is just
as bad:

[http://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2015-teflon-chemical-
har...](http://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2015-teflon-chemical-harmful-at-
smallest-doses-lower-48.php)

For example it colors my county, Alameda County, CA in red because there is
some system, somewhere in the county where one of these compounds was
detected. But the populous areas of the county are served by East Bay MUD,
where the data indicates no detection. The actual data lies in a gigantic text
file in a zip archive at
[https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc...](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-
data.zip)

------
Loic
This illustrates the future unknown issues with respect to chemicals and
health/environment. At the moment, we have two _schools_ to handle this:

1\. not proved bad, we allow.

2\. not proved good, we disallow.

The US is more on the first side and the EU on the second, of course, like for
any complex issues, the right decision is context dependent and _in the
middle_.

I am working in the area of chemical properties, this is a hard problem and I
am sure that when this class of compounds arrived on the market, smart people
tried their best to figure out the health implications. We have more tools and
experience 50 years later, but we are not smarter. We need to move with
caution while handling an increasing market pressure... this is challenging!

------
ars
A simple carbon filter - of any type, will take care of these.

Lead is a much bigger problem since it's much harder to filter out.

~~~
zolphe
Report from the Minnesota department of health supporting that:
[http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/waterquality/pou...](http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/waterquality/poudevicefinalsummary.pdf)

------
wfunction
I saw an article on this back in January. I remember reading that CA seems to
have the highest number of people affected by PFOA.

Scary and worth reading: [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-
lawyer-who-be...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-
became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html)

~~~
tdaltonc
CA is the state with the highest number of people period, so that's what you'd
expect.

------
jonah
Ermm, my city's well closest to me has the following:

    
    
                     MRL	Tested
     chromium	0.2	0.67
     vanadium	0.2	1.1
     strontium	0.3	960
     chromium-6	0.03	0.44
     chlorate	20	190
     molybdenum	1	8.7
    

[Edit] to change "Allowable" to "MRL":

"The lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively
determined with stated, acceptable precision and accuracy under stated
analytical conditions (i.e. the lower limit of quantitation). Therefore,
analyses are calibrated to the MRL, or lower. To take into account day-to-day
fluctuations in instrument sensitivity, analyst performance, and other
factors, the MRL is established at three times the MDL (or greater)."

[Edit 2] In my town's overall distribution system there are multiple samples
above the allowable Reference Concentration. The highest were:

    
    
     		Tested	Allowable
     strontium	1900	1500
     chlorate	410	210

~~~
akiselev
Are you in Wisconsin, a region with large amounts of fracking, or near a
nuclear disposal site, by any chance? Such a large molybdenum concentration is
exceptionally rare as far as I know.

~~~
jonah
Coastal Southern California. There are numerous wells (including some using
fracking) within 15-50 miles.

~~~
13of40
I've got a similar mix in Washington State, far away from any fracking.
Chromium, strontium, and vanadium, at least.

Edit: Western Washington, not close to any kind of Hanford runoff.

~~~
akiselev
Chromium, strontium, and vanadium can enter groundwater from many different
sources including water seeping through concentrated deposits and industrial
pollution. It's the molybdenum concentration that caught my eye because it is
unusually rare due to mineral insolubility. It's only when high pressure
fracing chemicals oxidize molybdenum does it become readily soluble in
untapped deposits, causing it to seep down.

------
lvs
I continue to be shocked that consumer beauty products containing
polyfluorinated alkyl compounds are being sold without any significant
attention or regulatory oversight [1].

[1] [http://www.livingproof.com/buy/our-
science](http://www.livingproof.com/buy/our-science)

------
hiou
Good grief. There is very little data this stuff is harmful. Certainly not
going to wipe out a town in a weekend. Can't wait for millennials to age a few
more years and hopefully get a little context. Being wedged between baby
boomers and millennials gets more uncomfortable by the day.

~~~
dualogy
> Certainly not going to wipe out a town in a weekend.

Well neither did lead, in the olden days. Not in a weekend, that is.

Of course any fear such as it exists (and regardless of how ill-founded or
well-founded it may be!) is not about weekend wipe-outs but rather slowly
creeping seeping insidious very-long-term poisoning accumulating and
unnoticable from day-to-day, until who knows "suddenly" at some point the
entire population has at least half a dozen ailments of civilization, new-
fangled "syndromes", mitochondrial or neurodegeneration, and depends on dozen
of pills..

------
the_mitsuhiko
I'm not sure how it's in the US but my biggest fear with water quality is
never the water from the source but what happens on the way to your tap. In
Vienna Austria for instance they are super concerned about PH levels because
some old houses still have lead piping and if it gets out too far, then the
pipes can corrode and lead makes it into the water.

As another example the difference in water quality in the same district in
Moscow and SPB from different taps is crazy.

Now that smart meters are a thing for electricity I really wonder if it would
not start to make sense to work on basic water quality measurements in houses.

~~~
Klathmon
IIRC that was exactly the scenario that happened in Flint, MI in the US.

I don't know enough to comment on how it happened, but the end result was that
the PH was too far off and it destroyed something that caused them to leech
lead into the water until replaced.

Large parts of the city are still unable to use the pipes in their house.

------
smaili
Anyone have personal experience or research from reverse osmosis filters? I
keep hearing it makes the water "better" but never any hard facts on how it
performs statistically.

------
finid
> Drinking water samples near industrial sites, military fire training areas,
> wastewater treatment plants have highest levels of fluorinated compounds

Areas around fracking sites must be even worse.

~~~
msandford
Why is that? My understanding is that fracking "recipes" are secret only
because they're so boring. If it's just soap and sand and whatnot and you're
making $50mm a year on it, you gotta keep the recipe a secret or else everyone
will copy it and you're out of business.

~~~
finid
Nop! They are secret because those involved don't want us to know the exact
nature of the dangerous chemicals they're pumping into the environment.

And I don't even want to get into the associated earthquakes.

------
emilong
This appears to me to the raw sample data
[https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-oc...](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ucmr-3-occurrence-
data.zip)

The UCMR3_All.txt file inside looks to have a fairly nice, denormalized set of
samples with location names, dates, and detections.

------
bronz
i rent a room in a very old house and i wouldnt be surprised if there were
higher than acceptable lead levels in the tap water here. so it got me
thinking about water filtering. a reverse osmosis filter and charcoal filter
working in series seems to be the most thorough method. does anyone have
experience with filtering their water?

~~~
goldenkey
Ive never done reverse osmosis but Ive built water filtering fountains for my
cats.

You'll want NSF grade (food grade) carbon from either bone or coconut shells
with a fine enough mesh to provide resistance. I bought 10 pounds of this one
and its still lasting over a year:

[http://www.buyactivatedcharcoal.com/product/granular_activat...](http://www.buyactivatedcharcoal.com/product/granular_activated_charcoal/coconut/20x50_mesh)

Next you'll want to get silver tubing and adapters to kill all bacteria.
You'll also be able to connect your carbon filter inline with the tubing and
use a pump to push your water through the filter.

This is the best NSF antibacterial silver infused tubing money can buy:

[http://www.newageindustries.com/clearflo-
Ag-47-antimicrobial...](http://www.newageindustries.com/clearflo-
Ag-47-antimicrobial-pvc-tubing.asp)

I recommend NSF Eldon James antimicrobial tube fittings:

[http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=550](http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=550)

You can also find the clearflo tubing on usplastics but only in 100 feet
rolls. I can ship some if you need only a few feet, my email is in my profile.

Next youll want a transparent/translucent inline refillable filter. I
recommend a 1/2" FPT but you can get larger/smaller depending on how much
water you want to filter and what your tubing, adapters, and pump size is,
everything needs to match. 1/2" ID for tubing and 1/2" NPT / barbs is very
compatible and provides enough flow for most purposes. Theres a lot of these
on the market, here's a good google search that sources images from amazon,
ebay, and some smaller vendors:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=inline+refillable+filter&prm...](https://www.google.com/search?q=inline+refillable+filter&prmd=sivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&biw=412&bih=652)

Unless you hook this contraption up to an actual water line( your sink),
you'll need a pump to push the water through the carbon. No, gravity is not
good enough - if the filter is worth its salt it will provide a resistance
much greater than what gravity can provide.

I recommend Danner steel pumps. Their plastic ones suck, trust me, I've burned
through a few. This pump has really shined:

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BJK3QQ](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BJK3QQ)

Now if you choose to use this pump, go with 1/2" on everything. Here is a
barbed adapter that will screw perfectly into the top of the pump and seal
perfectly with 1/2" ID tubing:

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008TSRZJE](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008TSRZJE)

Let me know what you finally settle on and how it goes. Filtration is lots of
fun!! Cheers! :-)

~~~
nextos
I'm not very familiar with filtration technologies. Is this better than a
simpler setup involving one Berkey filter?

~~~
goldenkey
I dont know much about Berkey filters. It looks like they are gravity powered.
They might be weaker than the filtration you could accomplish with line or
pump pressure.

------
tdaltonc
Any tips on how to tell what I should actually be worried about from FUD or
WOO wrt/ drinking water?

------
Aloha
Show me more on the science on them, and I might be concerned about this being
a problem.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
Only an absolute fool says, "its fine to saturate the environment with
synthesized chemicals with unknown effects until they are proven to be
harmful."

Unfortunately this is the law of the land and the opinion of many.

~~~
20yrs_no_equity
Appeal to fear.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
What does that have to do with fear? How on earth can you say its fine for me
to go into my basement and mix up any chemical compound I want and saturate
you with it? How on earth can you say I should have the right to adulterate
the environment and subject you to any chemical I mix up in my basement until
you prove that its harming you?

The truly frightening part isn't that people like you, completely devoid of
logic and common sense, exist. Its that people like you are many, and that
your ignorance is exploited by those who run the show and profit off of this
poisoning.

~~~
CamperBob2
Nothing measured in parts per trillion is "saturating the environment," and
everything including plain water has "unknown effects" in one context or
another. The precautionary principle is epistemologically bankrupt.

But then this sort of thread always generates more hype than light, I suppose.

~~~
rndgermandude
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-
harmful-a...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-are-
bisphenol-a-plastics/)

"These experiments yield bodily concentrations of BPA in ranges of parts per
million, but some recent studies have even found that when BPA interacts with
hormone receptors on cell membranes, _concentrations of one part per trillion
can stimulate physiological responses._ "

Just an example, tho.

Also, to borrow from history, cigarettes once upon a time were not considered
harmful mainly because there was just no data suggesting that they were.
Smokers regularly "saturated" their environments with smoke. Smoking is banned
in a lot of placed now that we have data. Does this help people who got lung
cancer or other diseases, who might not even smoked themselves but only second
hand? It does not.

The compounds in question here are known to bioaccumulate, meaning once you
got them in your system, they will (mostly) stay in and not break down. If I
came to your house every day, placing a rock in it and telling you that you
cannot remove it, you'd probably object and also don't think that me saying
"But it's only one(1) rock and does not matter!" especially after I added new
rocks for years.

The default should be to ban use of any compound until you can reasonably
prove it is safe according to the current state of science, not allowing
everything until somebody proves it is unsafe.

Now, if people want to ingest potentially harmful stuff by choice (e.g.
smoking)... that's another matter and they should be free to do so. But they
should not be free to make other people ingest potentially harmful stuff
against their consent or knowledge (e.g. pollution)

~~~
CamperBob2
_The default should be to ban use of any compound until you can reasonably
prove it is safe according to the current state of science, not allowing
everything until somebody proves it is unsafe._

This guarantees an exponential slowdown in human progress, while not
demonstrably leaving us any safer.

No, thanks.

------
drsim
nitpick:

> ...from the Faroe Islands, an island country off the coast of Denmark

Not really off the coast of Denmark...
[https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Faroe+Islands](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Faroe+Islands)

------
artur_makly
What are the stats for NYC?

------
azinman2
Being lazy here: anyone know the data for SF?

------
gcb0
better link [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-
chemi...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemicals-
drinking-water/)

~~~
sctb
Thanks, we updated the link from
[http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/4168.html](http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/4168.html),
which points to this.

------
grandalf
Anything that is public health related is bound to be full of tradeoffs and
"good enoughs". The water in Flint, MI was considered good enough by Flint's
officials, as is the water in many other municipalities.

Just as a private monopoly would start to reduce quality once it cornered the
market, public, regulated monopolies behave similarly. Why care about quality
if there is no competition and it's just another year earning a pension for
the bureaucrats involved?

Consider how the bidding process for building roads results in poorly built
roads and no incentive to the winner of the contract to build something that
will last. Nearly every piece of American infrastructure is riddled with
corruption or incompetence (or both). Even basic construction is full of
various rules intended to bolster union workers, etc. and adding enormous
cost.

~~~
gl338
I really want to be respectful here but your comment shows a large level of
ignorance around the difference between public monopolies, public UTILITIES,
public (regulated) goods, and the economics thereof. A lot of public utilities
were created specifically to enforce a level of quality and compliance and
protect the citizen. In situations where the quality of goods is reduced below
a safe level, you should not blame lack of competition, but call it what it
is: incompetence at best, corruption at worst.

Good book on the topic that HN readers will appreciate is "The Master Switch":
[https://www.amazon.ca/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-
Empires...](https://www.amazon.ca/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-
Empires/dp/0307390993)

~~~
tn13
> A lot of public utilities were created specifically to enforce a level of
> quality and compliance and protect the citizen

Calling others ignorant does not help an argument. I think he had a point that
when you let government control something it is the worst kind of monopoly and
the quality is bound go down the drain. Whether it VA affairs, public
education or IRS.

~~~
josephg
> I think he had a point that when you let government control something it is
> the worst kind of monopoly and the quality is bound go down the drain.
> Whether it VA affairs, public education or IRS.

Thats not necessarily true. Certainly outside the US there are many, many
public institutions which do fantastic work. The ABC here in Australia and the
BBC in the UK produce great television. The ACCC (Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission) are highly regarded here, as was CSIRO before the
government gutted their funding (CSIRO is an Australian government research
group which invented parts of wifi).

I don't know if the reputation US government agencies have for incompetence is
real or due to media spin, but the problem is obviously not _inevitable_. To
quote Bill Clinton: "The problem with ideology is that it gives you the answer
before you've asked the question".

~~~
shard972
> The ABC here in Australia

As an Australian, aside from their news which last I checked doesn't get the
same kind of views as the private companies I would disagree.

Maybe the parents enjoy ABC1 or whatever plays kids shows all day but I find
the quality of their original shows to be quite poor and their flagships like
QANDA have really gone off the rails in the last few years.

~~~
8note
in Canada, the CBC was pretty great until the conservatives annihilated their
budget. In that time, they lost the license to the theme of their flagship
show, Hockey Nightnin Canada, and after that, the show itself. Also, they lost
the rights to report the olympics, and the news is much lower quality.

its almost like public services dont work well when you defund them.

