First, the bad news. 20 out of 158 water samples taken from American commercial airline planes were found to be contaminated with bacteria associated with fecal matter. That’s about an 87% success rate. The good news is that the EPA is hot on the trail, hoping to bring airlines up to the wildly successful 90% success rate of municipal water systems.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040921-091910-8178r.htm
:: Adds to lengthy list of Why I Won’t Fly ::
I do see a silver lining in this, though: When the traveling public becomes aware of this, perhaps they’ll buy more drinks on the plane, thus boosting the airlines’ revenues enough to stave off more bankruptcies.
What?
Amtrak, anyone?
Isn’t the Libertarian philosophy more or less against the government intervening in the affairs of private businesses? So from a Libertarian perspective, wouldn’t the EPAs actions in fact be bad news?
It’s a shame we cannot hear one’s tone of voice in a post.
I feel I can safely say that Lib is being wholly sarcastic about the “good news.”
And if it wasn’t, it should have been.
If the number of people getting sick & suing from poopwater costs less money than fixing the problem, then the problem she shall continue.
Honestly, Liberal, that’s the thing I don’t get about your philosophy. Capitalism without oversight = cutting corners wherever expedient & profitable. Why would it be any other way?
Isn’t American’s ad slogan Something Special In The Air? If coliform bacteria causes rampant diarrhea through the cabin then they’re not the only Special Thing that’s gonna be airborne.
Yeah. Thank goodness we have those guys at the EPA and their $7.7 billion dollar budget, especially since Goal Number 2 is “Clean and Safe Water”.
You know, Fessie, the “good news” kinda reminds me of that fake hair club commercial by Geico, where the guy increased his sales from a meager 25% to a whopping 28% just because of his new hair! I thought it was morbidly humorous that the EPA official basically shrugged the airline news off and told us that it wasn’t so bad, since it’s only slightly worse than our everyday drinking water. Thing is, they’ve conned you into trusting them. So you’re not vigilant. The airlines and the municipalities don’t have to worry about what you think. You can’t fine them.
So, 7.7 billion gets us 90% safe drinking water. How much safe drinking water would we have if we didn’t pay that 7.7 billion?
Are people getting sick from drinking their tap water? If they are, it’s the first I’ve heard about it. If the airline water is only slightly less safe than our tap water, and our tap water isn’t making anybody sick… well, then. Pardon the pun, but who gives a shit?
Sounds like a pretty solid argument against libertarianism to me.
What a delightful statistical fallacy! You know, this year’s budget is an increase over last year’s. Last year’s was an increase over its prior year. And so on. I guess that means that when we reach a trillion, water will be 91% safe. And before the EPA, everybody died.
Depends, I guess. If you’re one of the 100 people in Milwaukee in 1993 who died, or the 100,000 who got sick, you give quite a shit, I reckon. Don’t you have Google?
I hate to be the one to tell you, but the present society isn’t libertarian.
Okay, answer me this, Mr. Numbers: how much does it cost to ensure 100% safe drinking water for everyone in this nation? Is it more or less than 7.7 billion dollars?
Fair enough. And you think these numbers would be smaller if we didn’t have the EPA? How would that work, exactly?
Glad to hear it, because I’m pretty sure the society we have now is leaps and bounds better than the hellhole it would turn into if libertarians ever got their hands on it.
Eeeeeaagggghh.
I usually take a bottle of water when I fly - anyone seen any stats on the poop content of bottled waters?
I don’t get it, 20 out of 158 is about a 30% success rate, not 87% isn’t it? Do you do maths differently in the States?
You mean you crazy Kiwis are actually trying to get poop in your water?
20 contaminated
--------------------- = 12.7% contaminated
158 total
= 87.3% uncontaminated
This isn’t even GCSE level. This is the sort of maths done by 8-year olds.
I thnk the statistic is specious in many ways. First off, I can’t remember the last time I had water that wasn’t bottled name-brand water on a plane. Even the ice comes in sealed bags from SkyChefs or whoever. Second, all outliers aside, the water in the US is pretty freaking safe overall, and criticizing it for a few Googled outliers, given the billions of servings a day of it, is lunacy.
20 contaminated samples out of 158 total means 12 and 2/3% of the samples are contaminated – so in 87% of the samples the sanitation measures are succesful.
Thing is, the water they put INTO the airliner’s tanks would most likely come from the municipal water supply to begin with, so if 13% of airline water samples are contaminated, and the standard is 10% (=90% clean), that can be interpreted as meaning the airline water is 27% dirtier than the average municipal water (12.7% vs 10%); of course you could also say it means that you’re just 3% short of meeting standards (87% vs 90%).
And as Una observed, most airlines provide bottled drinking water (which IIRC, mostly performs just as well as municipal water in tests).
That said, the human organism has a certain tolerance for contamination – the threshold the EPA and your local water authority set as “acceptable” is deliberately within a more restrictive safe-zone.
Okay, I get it now, didn’t read the post properly, thought that only 20 were uncontaminated for some reason. Yeah, yeah, it must be because I’m upside down on the bottom on the world.
This is sensationalism by a reporter that thought the 8th grade was the three hardest years of his life. You have to put this stuff in perspective. That level of contamination does not mean that it is dangerous at all to the staggering, breathtakingly large percentage of the traveling public. The EPA sets the limits so strictly that you will still be within the safe zone if you drop well below it for awhile.
My former microbiology professor used to work as a bacteria level analyzer for a hamburger patty producer. He said that in ten years of testing, he never once tested a sample patty that did not have e coli. His job was to make sure that it just wasn’t too much.
If you are that paranoid about fecal bacteria, then we better talk about the stuff in your bathroom that you put in or near your mouth all the time. Let’s not even talk about your toothbrush and the “gentle fecal shower” that rains down on it every time someone uses your bathrrom.