FilterHN

points

by BoredPositron

7 days ago

| past

| 3 comments

| HN

Sounds like a band-aid solution for bad governance.

▲

SketchySeaBeast

6 days ago

[-]

It sounds like a great way to reduce the standard further with the justification that RO will solve the problems, leaving an even wider class divide having clean drinking water, creating haves and have nots in something so basic it's part of the table stakes to be considered a civilized country.

I say this knowing that many developed nations still struggle with this in specific circumstances, but it shouldn't be an issue nation wide.

▲

giantg2

6 days ago

[-]

Hence the part about programs to help facilitate it. I'd rather see RO systems being handed out in Flint, MI vs cases of bottled water for months.

▲

SketchySeaBeast

6 days ago

[-]

I agree that a flat of water bottles a month is a poor solution, but giving every house and apartment dweller a free RO system and then ensuring those system are maintained seems highly infeasible.

▲

giantg2

6 days ago

[-]

Replacing the pipes can take years. There needs to be some sort of good medium-term solution. I think it's reasonably feasible to use bottles as a very short term solution while implementing the RO systems for a medium-term solution. It's possible that you could even focus on providing apartment buildings with commercial RO systems for the whole building if the pipes inside the building are not lead. The maintenance is not that much of a concern with the filter life indicators. It would seem the people who couldnt stay up on replacing filters would also not be able to plan for how many water bottles they need, meaning they likely have (or need to have) someone to help them with their life.

▲

NewJazz

7 days ago

[-]

No, it is not a band aid, it is the gold standard for water filtration. And not all water issues stem from bad governance. Sometimes there is just unwanted minerals in the water for natural reasons.

▲

mitthrowaway2

7 days ago

[-]

The gold standard for air filtration might be a military grade gas mask or a compressed oxygen tank, but if everyone had to wear those to breathe the air outside, I'd consider it a band aid solution.

▲

NewJazz

7 days ago

[-]

How is that a reasonable comparison? You don't have to carry the RO filter on your back. You think about it maybe a couple times a year when you replace the filter. Plenty of people use water filters every day. If you told them that was like wearing a gas mask whenever you go outside, they'd look at you funny.

▲

dylan604

7 days ago

[-]

Like all of those yummy chemicals introduced to your well water after your neighbors allowed gas wells to be drilled on their property.

▲

Tadpole9181

7 days ago

[-]

Until you remember that now nobody is going to be able to drink water from restaurants or their workplace or the tap at the park. And that you can't filter the vegetables you eat that have been watered with contaminated water.

▲

giantg2

7 days ago

[-]

Keep in mind, these restrictions have nothing to do with the environmental pollution but only the water treatment. So those veggies would still be contaminated with or without the regulation. If we moved to a paradigm of point of use purification, then the park, work, restaurant, etc would all have filters too.

▲

BoredPositron

7 days ago

[-]

I can't follow why would you opt for filtration in individual homes?

▲

dylan604

7 days ago

[-]

Because I have no say in the plumbing used to get the water from the source to my home. Some of that infrastructure is older than I am. Whole home RO systems would still possibly flow through plumbing I wouldn't be happy with. Undersink RO systems at the primary place providing water that I ingest seems like the best place for me knowing the details about the plumbing from this new source.

▲

saulpw

7 days ago

[-]

Just use your own well! Sheesh.

▲

dylan604

6 days ago

[-]

And drink the chenicals that have leeched in from all of the fracking going on? Not without me RO filter.

▲

BoredPositron

6 days ago

[-]

That's also a bad governance problem.

▲

dylan604

6 days ago

[-]

And? You keep saying this like it's an answer to a question, but it's just not a useful one. Do you go through all of life deciding that you're going to do nothing because it's a bad governance problem? Do you honestly never make changes to things you can control just because it technically should be someone else's problem? Personally, I don't have time for that. If I can make improvements for things as a band-aid fix to something that will never get fixed in any other fashion, I do it. I don't have time for BS and lazy "but it's not my problem" type of people, and you're quickly moving into that column

▲

BoredPositron

6 days ago

[-]

I told you in other comments that other countries fixed their water network problems. Bad water is a governance problem it doesn't help you now but if you apply a band-aid solutions or argue for it. Nothing will ever change it's that easy.

▲

dylan604

6 days ago

[-]

No, you haven't. The most I've seen from you is a list of countries you list how they treat the water. You have yet to discuss how that treated water is delivered to the customers. One would assume a set of pipes of some sort. How does anything you've listed prevent the plumbing from contaminating the treated water?

▲

giantg2

6 days ago

[-]

We have both asked for examples of how countries guarantee safe delivery without any chemical treatment (chlorine, ozone, etc). You have provided nothing.

▲

BoredPositron

6 days ago

[-]

You are both simply ignorant. How hard would it have been to Google it yourself? You had all the context you needed. Now I will get comments that it's not a good enough source blurb. There are countries that have fixed the exact problem you are pondering about. At first we talked about chlorine now about pipes... keep kicking the ball. It's still a governance problem.

https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/en/topics/drinki...

https://www.blog.foma.net/en/brass-and-drinking-water-the-re...

▲

dylan604

5 days ago

[-]

> https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/en/topics/drinki...

"Additionally, to protect vulnerable population groups, especially pregnant persons, babies and young children, the last remnants of lead pipes that were installed more than 50 years ago are to be removed from house connection pipes or domestic distribution systems by 2026 unless already done"

So in the mean time, because you refuse to have an in home filtration system, enjoy the free lead additives until your government gets around to your pipes. Or, use an in-home system and enjoy unleaded water now. If you can't understand that, then you are just being willfully ignorant yourself

▲

BoredPositron

5 days ago

[-]

It's under 1% you little cherry picker. The people that are living with these pipes are also getting notified and a filter in their homes from their municipality. You could have found that in the same report/website. Get over it and admit that other countries have figured out how to protect their citizens without putting the burden on the individual. Can't wait for the next aKsChuAlLy.

▲

giantg2

7 days ago

[-]

To eliminate the distribution network risks.

▲

BoredPositron

6 days ago

[-]

I still don't understand why you would opt for individual home filter systems. Doesn't make sense if you are not off the grid.

▲

giantg2

7 days ago

[-]

And how do you treat water that needs to travel through questionably maintained pipes without chlorine etc? Seems a much cheaper and efficient fix to utilize point of use filtration.

▲

BoredPositron

7 days ago

[-]

The pipes are also bad governance. If they are your own pipes you certainly can opt for filtration instead of replacing them but as I said sounds like a band-aid.

▲

giantg2

7 days ago

[-]

Show me a nation with perfectly maintained pipes that doesn't use chlorine etc. If you can't show me that, then your proposed solution is invalid.

▲

BoredPositron

6 days ago

[-]

Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria with Czechia and Poland also transitioning to a high source-water protection and multi-barrier treatment like ozone, UV, and carbon filtration system.

▲

giantg2

6 days ago

[-]

The ozone has similar concerns as the chlorine with the formation of potentially hazardous by products. Carbon plus UV is probably sufficient as long as you can guarantee the pipes are fine through the whole distribution system. We will see how that plays out.

▲

BoredPositron

6 days ago

[-]

It played out pretty will since 2016...

▲

giantg2

6 days ago

[-]

It seems as though you're trolling since you've provided no actual response to multiple questions, mostly just giving zingers. Please check the site rules.

▲

ajmurmann

7 days ago

[-]

In Germany chlorine is used to treat water in the plant but it's removed before it goes into the pipe. There is a tiny residue but that's residue and not intentional to prevent issues with the pipes.

▲

binoct

7 days ago

[-]

What does Germany use to manage microorganism growth in it's water distribution system? As I understand cloramine/chlorine is used to keep the small amounts of microorganisms that will always be present in water and pipes from growing into a problem while it travels/sits in the distribution system.

▲

BoredPositron

6 days ago

[-]

https://utilityweek.co.uk/the-future-of-chlorine/

▲

binoct

6 days ago

[-]

Thanks!

▲

giantg2

7 days ago

[-]

If there is residue of the chlorine then wouldnt there be residue of the harmful compounds it reacts to create?