201–206 of 206 posts
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.
That's ironic because I remember a few summers ago hearing about droughts in Europe. Looks like they may have had issues too but maybe not as public. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-upda...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 occu…
Once again: Veolia's role was in addition to the normal requirements and testing required by the US federal government (which is very similar to what Germany requires.) This was not privatization in lieu of public services, it was an additional stop-gap that failed.
The point being that privatization is not the issue - the same roles performed by the government in Germany are performed by the government in the US. All of which is a response to you stating it could not happen in Germany, because water isn't privatized.
> Of course not and that was never up for debate.
This was literally your evidence for saying it couldn't happen in Germany.
>> "If we're talking about unknown unknowns, this is true of anywhere in the world."
> No, water supply in Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties.
(Again, same as the US.) Followed by...
> If that does not convince you I'd like to point you to the list of water crisis in Wikipedia. There have been none in western Europe while the US had Flint and Jackson.
Your arguments have honestly been so disingenuous I can't even continue this.
> What happened in Flint was that the hole of the city and the hole of Veolia did align.
You are clearly still missing something if you think that Veolia had any hand in creating the water crisis, lol. They were hired as an outside party to keep the city (i.e. the government) honest after it became clear to citizens that the water supply had issues - and the government covered it up. Why do I keep having to repeat this?
Your argument has been that the water supply issues cannot happen in Germany because it's a public utility, controlled and monitored by the government. The same was true of Flint, and yet the government was responsible for creating the crisis and for failing to resolve it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
And once again, whether necessary or unnecessary, the original question was whether the water supply is safe to drink in the United States. And - at least in regards to municipal water (houses on well, e.g. in rural areas, obviously vary) - it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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,…
> That point is that with clean drinking water chlorine is unneccessary as evidenced by all developed countries except the US, Sinagpore and Canada. And once again, whether necessary or unnecessary, the original question was whether the water supply is safe to drink in the United States. And - at least in regards to municipal water (houses on well, e.g. in rural areas, obviously vary) - it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 occu…
> 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. Once again: Veolia's role was in addition to the normal requirements and testing required by the US federal government (which is very similar to what Germany requires.) This was not privatization in lieu of public services, it…
If so much control has been shifted from the municipality to a private entity that said entity had to pay damages, it very well means that part of the system was effectively privatized.
My point still stands: The system in Germany is different (different incentives, different form of checks and balances) and would have prevented an incident analogous to what happened in Flint.
In addition to that I have a hard time to understand your point that Veolia is not responsible for the crisis just because it was not responsible for the root cause.