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

2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: 2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

#21

Post by orsenthil »

londons_explore wrote: post #16

Most of these people are not cut off from the world. You will find a coca-cola bottle in the same village! The solution is to tell them why clean water matters , and provide them a cheap way of making dirty water pretty clean . Ie. a water filter. The cheapest water filters, costing perhaps $10 and able to filter a family drinking water supply for years, will still eliminate most concerning contamination in water. Th…

> Most of these people are not cut off from the world. You will find a coca-cola bottle in the same village!

This! And this has been true for the last 40 years, when more people didn't have access to water. This just shows how a few people care for the rest, and majority fall along. This was with Cola-Cola from 1980s.

Today, it is with information. More people have access to bad news via WhatsApp (like Coke) than education (like safe drinking water).

Re: 2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

#22

Post by sandworm101 »

And how many of these 2B people life in China or India? Such countries that have actively decided to persue manned spaceflight and innumerable other prestige programs ahead of safe drinking water. Rather than doing thier job for them, we should be lobbying for these countries to put thier own people first.

Re: 2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

#23

Post by londons_explore »

sandworm101 wrote: post #19
kccqzy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noticed that in some countries tap water isn't safe for drinking but good enough for cooking; and everyone buys large plastic 40lb jugs of water for drinking. How much more cost effective would it be to adopt such a system as opposed to safe drinkable tap water?

It isnt thay simple. As i kid we had non-potable water in the pipes. (Middle east) It was recycled water heavy on chlorine, safe for washing but not drinkable. Pressure was never the issue. We drank from a "sweetwater" tap, which also fed the hot water tank and the dishwasher. Using safe potable water to flush toilets is silly. Splitting drinking from other uses is far more efficient.

> Splitting drinking from other uses is far more efficient.

This isn't universally true. Pipework (laying+maintaining), collection and storage is generally the expensive bit of any water system. The actual purification is fairly cheap.

That means having two sets of pipes to every house (one for drinking water, one for mid-grade water) usually costs more than just one set of pipes and having all water drinkable. Thats why it's rarely done.

The alternative is you use the pipes for non-potable water, and tell people to buy bottled water for drinking - more than half the world is in this position I believe. It helps that people drink perhaps only 1% of the water they use - so bringing 1% of the water via bottles on the back of a motorbike is viable.

Re: 2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

#24

Post by sofixa »

makeitdouble wrote: post #8

This a truly big problem that has been going surfaced for decades, and I honestly have become split... On one side, France in particular, but many other "developed" nations as well have stepped in to build the infrastructure and provide clean water to places where it was problematic. Only to monopolize water distribution one way or the other, resulting in people not able to afford the water at the end, while losing t…

> On one side, France in particular, but many other "developed" nations as well have stepped in to build the infrastructure and provide clean water to places where it was problematic.

> Only to monopolize water distribution one way or the other, resulting in people not able to afford the water at the end, while losing their previous precarious access to dirty but natural sources as well.

> Nestle, Danone are the poster child of these predatory moves.

I've heard of Nestlé monopolising water in developing countries, but didn't know Danone nor France itself (private companies, Swiss or French, aren't "France") being involved. Do you have concrete stories you can share?

Re: 2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

#25

Post by pluto_modadic »

londons_explore wrote: post #7

We also need to think about uses of water. Water is used for drinking (~2 liters/day)... Contamination here really matters. Waker is used for cooking (~20 liters per day). Contamination here matters somewhat, since some forms of pollutants will be rendered harmless by cooking. Water is used for washing (~200 liters per day). Contamination here matters a little too, because washing water can touch something which gets…

"far cheaper than providing large amounts" that doesn't factor in the cost of plumbing an entire town with 3 sets. remember photos of the tangle of wires when DC vs AC fought? It's more expensive especially for a suburb of single family homes to plumb in sewers and water mains (long distances for low flows), vs plumbing in duplexes and apartments.

having a secondary water system (e.g., purple pipes / grey water), for general lawn/washing and one for drinking/cooking - strikes a good balance. You don't want your potable water system to move too slowly.

You also should have water towers at different heights (higher pressure in the potable system). any accidental interconnects (these do happen) will flow /away/ from the potable one.

finally, letting people use rainwater, runoff, and letting them recycle lightly used potable water for other uses (like flushing toilets, watering gardens) is good - try to get every liter of water used twice as a goal.

bonus: get past the ick factor and allow your sewage to be re-used (purple pipes) as the greywater after treatment at the plant.

Re: 2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

#26

Post by sofixa »

sandworm101 wrote: post #22

And how many of these 2B people life in China or India? Such countries that have actively decided to persue manned spaceflight and innumerable other prestige programs ahead of safe drinking water. Rather than doing thier job for them, we should be lobbying for these countries to put thier own people first.

India in particular has a massive government program to bring running and drinking water to a bigger part of its population. Most countries are capable of doing more than one project at a time.

Re: 2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

#28

Post by jillesvangurp »

kccqzy wrote: post #10
londons_explore wrote: post #7

We also need to think about uses of water. Water is used for drinking (~2 liters/day)... Contamination here really matters. Waker is used for cooking (~20 liters per day). Contamination here matters somewhat, since some forms of pollutants will be rendered harmless by cooking. Water is used for washing (~200 liters per day). Contamination here matters a little too, because washing water can touch something which gets…

I noticed that in some countries tap water isn't safe for drinking but good enough for cooking; and everyone buys large plastic 40lb jugs of water for drinking. How much more cost effective would it be to adopt such a system as opposed to safe drinkable tap water?

Mostly the water is more or less safe but chlorine is added in many countries. That won't kill you but it's not very nice. And those big containers of water are affordable enough that they are preferable for cooking/drinking. I'm currently staying in Portugal and I'm buying a lot more water than I normally do. Back in Germany, the tap water is fine. But I do buy a lot of sparkling water because I like drinking it. Also, my urologist mentioned that bottled/filtered water is a great way to reduce the chance of kidney stones. The same calcium deposits that eventually destroy your washing machine might cause you some issues with those. So, there's that.

Re: 2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

#29

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

untech wrote: post #11

I didn’t find this in the article, and am still confused. Do they boil their water? Doesn’t it help with disease? There was one example of the family spending time collecting firewood equal to time collecting water, but boiling was still missing. Also, what about filtering? You can do it with charcoal. I was raised to both filter and boil tap water before drinking. I don’t understand why these aspects are not mention…

IIRC, heating water to the boiling point is hugely fuel intensive and making charcoal is also hugely fuel intensive plus time consuming.

Re: 2B people don't have safe drinking water: what does this mean for them?

#30

Post by njarboe »

londons_explore wrote: post #13
kccqzy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noticed that in some countries tap water isn't safe for drinking but good enough for cooking; and everyone buys large plastic 40lb jugs of water for drinking. How much more cost effective would it be to adopt such a system as opposed to safe drinkable tap water?

Non-drinkable tap water is mostly due to water not being available 24x7x365. If a water system is turned off even momentarily, the pressure drops to zero, and sewage and groundwater seep into the water pipes, making it unsafe to drink. Countries with unreliable power grids usually don't have drinkable tap water for that reason. It can also be because the water isn't treated (ie. it is just rainwater in the pipes). Wa…

In the west water systems are pressurized using a large reservoir and gravity. I imagine its similar in third world countries? They have unreliable water due to the reasons they have unreliable power: poor ability to plan, not enough supply, undersized systems for current use, deferred maintenance, etc.
Post reply on HN