Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The drinking fountain button

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 206 posts

Re: The drinking fountain button

#191

Post by stonogo »

weinzierl wrote: post #145
weinzierl wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not drink American tap water, at least not in the cities that I travelled. It always smelt like chlorine and from what I googled apparently up to 4 milligrams per liter are regularly allowed in the US. This is definitely not a thing in western Europe. We don't need to talk about the things that you cannot taste or smell and what happened in Flint.

I cannot add to my post above, but since people don't seem to take it well, I'd like to add some data to back it up. Here is the link to a paper that compared contaminants in drinking water in various developed countries. When it comes to residual chlorine the USA demonstrated the highest levels followed by Singapore and Canada. After these three countries there was a huge gap before the UK and other countries which…

I don't think that WHO list is particularly useful. Included in the numbers of "people without access to safe drinking water" is everyone who draws from a well or a spring. The US is huge and well water is extremely common in rural areas; most well-water users have their own in-house water treatment equipment. Nevertheless they'd be classified as not having access to an improved water source under this survey.

Re: The drinking fountain button

#192

Post by gnicholas »

throwup238 wrote: post #139
gottorf wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely an odd thing to regulate federally. No reason at all why toilets in New Mexico (average annual rainfall 13") and Mississippi (56") should be held to the same legal limit of water usage.

The low flow restriction was criticized at the time for exactly that but I believe the reason it ended up in the bill is twofold: manufacturers wanted a unified standard at the national level that didn't change at the whims of 50 different state legislatures and the bill was geared towards energy conservation, not water usage. Since toilets account for 30-40% of indoor water usage and pumping water around is quite en…

> pumping water around is quite energy intensive

How energy-intensive are we talking? Compared to what?

Re: The drinking fountain button

#193

Post by gnicholas »

brewdad wrote: post #164
mjevans wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invariably, I end up using _at least_ 3.2 gallons as it takes multiple flushes to finish the job.

If that is your normal everyday experience you should consider changing your diet and or your toilet. Neither my wife nor I clog a toilet more than about once a year. The double flush might happen once every other month.

I don't think GP is saying he clogs the toilet, but rather that a single flush does not clear it. We have very low-flow toilets, and sometimes my little kids have to double-flush. It's not about diet or anything — the toilets are just very low-flow (assuming you only have to flush once).

Re: The drinking fountain button

#194

Post by radlad »

weinzierl wrote: post #183
radlad wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, you win. Germans are infallible and there have never been issues with tap water. > Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building. As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing. Additionally, your Wikipedia link is obviously not an exhaustive list of "water crises" nor does it offer any insight into whether lead in tap wate…

"As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing." If that was true, how could Veolia - a private company - ever come into a position to be even partly responsible for the disaster? Did all the wrong-doing happen inside the buildings? Of course not, and before you say Veolia had no responsibility: If they hadn't they would have paid no compensation. "Although lead…

Once again - they were not in any way responsible for the disaster. They did fail to improve it. The pipes are owned and operated by and the responsibility of the city. I don't know how to engage when you're making things up.

Let me be more clear: The fact that something hasn't occurred is not proof it can't.

I wish you the best.

Re: The drinking fountain button

#195

Post by radlad »

weinzierl wrote: post #182
radlad wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the question is very much why you are against it when your claim is apparently that the water is not safe to drink because of it.

Safety is always a trade-off. If I am in an area with cholera epidemic I gladly will consider the chlorine in my drinking water safe. Where I live the water is clean and adding chlorine does make it definitely less safe . Chlorine is a very hazardous substance after all. According to the CDC the TLV for chlorine is 1.5 mg/m3. Note, that this is per cubic meter and not per liter. So a TLV of 0,0015 mg/l vs 4 mg/l in U…

The TLV you cherry picked refers to concentration in breathable air, not drinking water.

Most health authorities agree that chlorine is safe at 4 mg/l.

Ultimately proactive and reactive approaches both have pros and cons. But implying levels of chlorine in US drinking water are unsafe has no scientific backing.

Re: The drinking fountain button

#196

Post by icambron »

weinzierl wrote: post #118
icambron wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite following; are you saying it's not recommended that you drink American tap water? Or that there are bunch of other countries with sketchier water full of drinking fountains?

I would not drink American tap water, at least not in the cities that I travelled. It always smelt like chlorine and from what I googled apparently up to 4 milligrams per liter are regularly allowed in the US. This is definitely not a thing in western Europe. We don't need to talk about the things that you cannot taste or smell and what happened in Flint.

I just read this whole thread, and it's all very silly. You've laundered "I don't like the water" into "it is not recommended that you drink the water" which are really different things. The latter implies that there is a consensus understanding about this, the way there is for, say, Guatemala. 200+ million Americans drink their tap water, and most visitors do too. There are many parts of the US where water could be improved, especially in lower-density places and especially for recently-discovered contaminants, but the idea that travelers need to be careful about it as a matter of safety just isn't true. Flint is a huge news story precisely because it is so aberrant in a country with otherwise good water.

Re: The drinking fountain button

#197

Post by weinzierl »

radlad wrote: post #194
weinzierl wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing." If that was true, how could Veolia - a private company - ever come into a position to be even partly responsible for the disaster? Did all the wrong-doing happen inside the buildings? Of course not, and before you say Veolia had no responsibility: If they hadn't they would have paid no compensation. "Although lead…

Once again - they were not in any way responsible for the disaster. They did fail to improve it. The pipes are owned and operated by and the responsibility of the city. I don't know how to engage when you're making things up. Let me be more clear: The fact that something hasn't occurred is not proof it can't. I wish you the best.

"Once again - they were not in any way responsible for the disaster. They did fail to improve it. The pipes are owned and operated by and the responsibility of the city."

The disaster was that harmful substances ended up in citizens body's. Veolia had very well a responsibility in that outcome, evidenced by the fact that they paid huge damages to the victims.

"Let me be more clear: The fact that something hasn't occurred is not proof it can't."

Of course not and that was never up for debate. I brought that point up after your claim that the water supply in Europe and the US are on par, which is just not the case.

Germany's water supply is secured by multiple layers in a swiss cheese model of security and has set up the incentives of the involved such that the holes will not align.

What happened in Flint was that the hole of the city and the hole of Veolia did align.

Re: The drinking fountain button

#198

Post by weinzierl »

radlad wrote: post #195
weinzierl wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety is always a trade-off. If I am in an area with cholera epidemic I gladly will consider the chlorine in my drinking water safe. Where I live the water is clean and adding chlorine does make it definitely less safe . Chlorine is a very hazardous substance after all. According to the CDC the TLV for chlorine is 1.5 mg/m3. Note, that this is per cubic meter and not per liter. So a TLV of 0,0015 mg/l vs 4 mg/l in U…

The TLV you cherry picked refers to concentration in breathable air, not drinking water. Most health authorities agree that chlorine is safe at 4 mg/l. Ultimately proactive and reactive approaches both have pros and cons. But implying levels of chlorine in US drinking water are unsafe has no scientific backing.

"The TLV you cherry picked refers to concentration in breathable air, not drinking water."

Chlorine is a gas. I started this subthread with my claim that I always experienced a smell of chlorine in American tap water. Now the threshold to smell chlorine is 3 ppm while the TLV is 0.5 ppm. In other words, when you can smell it is already way above the TLV.

But it is even worse: While chlorine is absorbed when ingested, this is a lesser problem. Copyed from my comment above: "Chlorine forms compounds with organic substances (the microorganisms it kills) in the water, which in turn can be toxic or carcinogenic. Instead of regulating the (volatile) chlorine it makes much more sense to regulate the harmful compounds, which is exactly what many European countries do."

"Most health authorities agree that chlorine is safe at 4 mg/l."

Authorities agree that chlorine is safer than dying from the pathogens in dirty water. We all agree on that. If you have the choice of dying from cholera next week or bladder cancer in 15 years, you sure will pick the cancer. (Yes, there is a link between chlorinated drinking water and bladder as well as colorectal cancer).

Safety is always a trade-off and the EPA's task is to find a compromise [1]. That is where the 4 mg/l come from. Other authorities and organizations have different priorities, which result in different thresholds. For example, The International Botteled Water Association limits chlorine in botteled water to 0.1 mg/l. In Germany, the level for water in swimming pools is 0.3 mg/l. And by the the way the current SDWA encourages alternate treatment methods too.

Ultimately proactive and reactive approaches both have pros and cons. But implying levels of chlorine in US drinking water are unsafe has no scientific backing.

It is not about proactive and reactive approaches. That point is that with clean drinking water chlorine is unneccessary as evidenced by all developed countries except the US, Sinagpore and Canada.

[1] "EPA must conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis for every new standard to determine whether the benefits of a drinking water standard justify the costs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Drinking_Water_Act

Re: The drinking fountain button

#199

Post by bombcar »

numpad0 wrote: post #150
bombcar wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reusable containers are used at almost ever restaurant in the world that serves on plates. Reusable containers are currently not cheaper and so they're not used - but the fact that they're not used for non-food items is pretty indicative that it's a cost thing, not a safety thing.

Do you really think what you've posted make sense? Or do they not teach you basic food safety in schools, like finish your food ASAP after removing from heat, heat any cooked food to 84C for 1 minute for sterilization, immediately refrigerate dishes not intended for immediate serving, etc until it gets annoying having to fill in same quizzes every few years? It really feels strange that this level of basic understand…

Do you really think that every restaurant that reuses dishes doesn’t do so safely?

Re: The drinking fountain button

#200

Post by bombcar »

rjmunro wrote: post #190
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe doesn't have the water scarcity issues of the US. When my brother in law from Germany visited a few summers ago he was shocked by the amount of drought news and water conservation instructions broadcast daily on TV.

Europe != Germany. Plenty of parts of Europe have drought issues and water saving laws. I expect plenty of parts of the US have loads of water and no droughts as well.

They do. But most of the water conservancy laws affect sale federally. So even if you’re in a water flush area you can’t really get high consumption toilets unless you go quite used.
Post reply on HN