Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint • Hacker News Board

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#51

Post by akg_67 » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:05 AM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #17

akg_67 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Default to not drinking from taps directly. I live in Seattle. We only use tap water after filtering with a Brita Filter for drinking and cooking. When we are outside home, we either bring filtered water with us or buy bottled water. At restaurants, if in doubt we ask if water is directly from tap. Since the flint lead news, I have been exploring how can I get my tap water tested on a routine.

Any results on the routine testing? Pointers?

Actually just a low tech method. Asked my wife who is on Board of Homeowners Association (HOA) to find out if HOA has done any testing in the past or would consider sending incoming city water supply samples for testing annually.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#52

Post by IndianAstronaut » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:08 AM UTC

ohthanks wrote: post #27

iofj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will notice the taste difference though.

You will for sure, I actually like it but not everyone does. You can remineralize and change the taste without too much trouble. I would avoid any other claims made for that process but it does usually improve the taste. Straight RO water is not great for coffee or tea as well.

Where does the average person find RO water?

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#53

Post by prewett » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:08 AM UTC

akg_67 wrote: post #15

voltagex_ wrote: post #10

If I travel to the US (Let's say Los Angeles, Seattle and New York) how do I know if the tap water is safe to drink? In the EU I normally just ask a local. In Germany it's safe to drink but in the Czech Republic you might be better off drinking bottled water (last time I checked was ~10 years ago, sorry if it's changed).

Default to not drinking from taps directly. I live in Seattle. We only use tap water after filtering with a Brita Filter for drinking and cooking. When we are outside home, we either bring filtered water with us or buy bottled water. At restaurants, if in doubt we ask if water is directly from tap. Since the flint lead news, I have been exploring how can I get my tap water tested on a routine.

> Default to not drink from taps directly

Why?? Tap water is highly regulated, and 1000 times cheaper than bottled water. It does not produce tons of plastic waste (much of which is not recycled). It does not leach possible carcinogens like BPA, DEHA, or BBP. Furthermore, much of the bottled water comes from municipal tap water!

The Mayo Clinic says that tap water and bottled water are about equally safe. If you can't trust top-notch doctors, who can you trust?

This myth about bottled water being better needs to stop.

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100310/why-t...

[2] http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-he...

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#54

Post by colin_mccabe » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:11 AM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #32

You can cheap water testing kits on amazon which you can use. Also not water is 100% safe and it makes a lot of sense to diversify the water sources. We use tap water for cooking, bottled water from different brands at home and workplace. That probably is good enough. I have tested water at home for lead and pesticides and found it to be safe to drink. [Sunnyvale]

It used to be that we got all Hetch Hetchy water in the south bay. Since the California drought hit, they have started getting creative with where they pull water from. Some homebrewers that I talk to say that the water chemistry changes periodically, even over the course of a week. It matters for homebrewing because things like the calcium salts present in the water can change the pH of the wort. So I wouldn't assume that just because you tested the water once, that you know what it will always be like.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#55

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:11 AM UTC

datashaman wrote: post #37

serge2k wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ridiculous. First off, evidence that Seattle water is unsafe? Second, brita is useless http://www.naturalnews.com/046536_water_filters_heavy_metals...

you're using 'natural news' as a source? this is one of the worst sites on the internet, literally riddled with unproven BS.

[deleted]

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#56

Post by thescriptkiddie » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:23 AM UTC

ohthanks wrote: post #18

overcast wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drinking distilled water is not a good idea, which is basically what reverse osmosis gives you stripping out essential minerals. It's also an incredibly wasteful 4:1 process. Look into three stage filtering, that's all you need.

Carbon filtration will not remove dissolved solids (lead, heavy metals) without added ion-exchange resins. RO is generally the most effective broad spectrum treatment method for drinking water. The mineral issue is pretty much bunk, if the lack of trace minerals in your water is a concern you need to see a doctor. Food is your body's preferred source of minerals, you have to drink a lot to have much effect on your da…

Sorry, but you really don't want to be drinking true deionized water. It isn't a about long term mineral loss, it is about the immediate discomfort of drinking it. It's fine for the first cup or two, but after that it starts to burn. Wash your hands with it and you'll find you skin is dry and cracking. You'll notice that reverse osmosis systems intended for producing drinking water have a much lower standard of purity than those intended for, say, washing glassware. If you want to make sure there is no lead in your drinking water a carbon filter with an ion exchange resin stage is the way to go. But really, get over it, 99% of the US has safe tap water.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#57

Post by ketralnis » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:23 AM UTC

IndianAstronaut wrote: post #52

ohthanks wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will for sure, I actually like it but not everyone does. You can remineralize and change the taste without too much trouble. I would avoid any other claims made for that process but it does usually improve the taste. Straight RO water is not great for coffee or tea as well.

Where does the average person find RO water?

Any drug store will have distilled water

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#58

Post by maxxxxx » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:26 AM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #32

You can cheap water testing kits on amazon which you can use. Also not water is 100% safe and it makes a lot of sense to diversify the water sources. We use tap water for cooking, bottled water from different brands at home and workplace. That probably is good enough. I have tested water at home for lead and pesticides and found it to be safe to drink. [Sunnyvale]

Do you have an amazon link for one of those?

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#59

Post by rgbrenner » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:29 AM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #35

akg_67 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Default to not drinking from taps directly. I live in Seattle. We only use tap water after filtering with a Brita Filter for drinking and cooking. When we are outside home, we either bring filtered water with us or buy bottled water. At restaurants, if in doubt we ask if water is directly from tap. Since the flint lead news, I have been exploring how can I get my tap water tested on a routine.

Ridiculous. First off, evidence that Seattle water is unsafe? Second, brita is useless http://www.naturalnews.com/046536_water_filters_heavy_metals...

I won't jump in on criticizing naturalnews. but:

To conduct the tests, we created a multi-element "spike" solution containing from 1300 ppb to 2300 ppb concentrations of each of the tested elements.

The EPA limit for lead is 15 ppb. So the test is 80-150x the limit. This is 4-8x what's been seen in Flint (up to 20x the limit).

It should not be surprising that these filters were overwhelmed.

Depending on which element is being tested.. this 1300-2300 represents significantly more than or less than EPA limits.

This was a very sloppy test.. and it would be difficult to draw conclusions from it.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#60

Post by matthewbauer » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:30 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #33

overcast wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drinking distilled water is not a good idea, which is basically what reverse osmosis gives you stripping out essential minerals. It's also an incredibly wasteful 4:1 process. Look into three stage filtering, that's all you need.

This is a rather ridiculous myth, in the same tradition as moon-landing denial or Korean fan death. You get minerals from food, not water. You (presumably) have kidneys and other organs that maintain the mineral balance in your body. A few micrograms more or less in your water isn't going to make much difference.

I hardly think it's a myth. Human bodies aren't as simple as you're suggesting. It's a complex process but no water found in the natural world is going to be pure H2O so it makes since to be cautious of water that is going to be so different from nature.

From the WHO report[1] on water quality:

"Sufficient evidence is now available to confirm the health consequences from drinking water deficient in calcium or magnesium. Many studies show that higher water magnesium is related to decreased risks for CVD and especially for sudden death from CVD. This relationship has been independently described in epidemiological studies with different study designs, performed in different areas, different populations, and at different times. The consistent epidemiological observations are supported by the data from autopsy, clinical, and animal studies. Biological plausibility for a protective effect of magnesium is substantial, but the specificity is less evident due to the multifactorial aetiology of CVD."

[1]: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientschap...