So these reservoirs are open and uncovered, and not watched? Or closed off and inspected? Because if a deer* drowns and decomposes, the chloramines won’t remove those toxins. Is boating allowed? What happens if oil is spilled - how is that removed?
There’s nothing adult or immature about it. It’s a fact of life. Animals, humans and otherwise, introduce harmful bacteria into water streams.
I believe they use chlorine, not chloramine (unless they’ve changed processes in the past five years, but I’d have heard about it) but the same principle holds. We actually have some of the cleanest water around, although that’s in part because we have only about 50k upstream of us. But yes, methods are taken to reduce influents into the water supply. It’s common sense. What you’re not getting is that this is not enough. Never enough. Whatever steps you take to eliminate bacterial counts in water will never be foolproof unless you use some sort of biocide.
In situations when they were around supplies of dangerous bacteria, like sick people, a hospital or a unsafe garbage heap and similar. Not from breathing normal air.
Well, and I have answered how to deal with each of these entry points. I still don’t understand in what dangerous area you live that is teeming with serious bacteria all over so that each drop of water must be disinfected. Even in Africa, certain kinds of bacteria (worms, viruses) are found in certain regions, so treatment is taken there.
And I still don’t understand why it’s easier to disinfect the water then treat the source of infection to stop all those bacteria from spreading around and getting into the water.
You’re right, I don’t get it, because for some reason, it’s not necessary over here. The water is tested as safe and 1.3 million people drink it daily for years without any biocides. They use fish to test how clean the water is (toxins mainly) so putting biocides in wouldn’t work. And people would notice the changed taste if they suddenly started.
Yes, open and uncovered. It’s a river that’s been dammed, creating an artificial lake. Recreational boating is allowed but not with combustion engines. Chlorine does a terrific job at killing the bacterial products and other toxins associated with decomposition. How do I know? Because there’s not just deer, but fish, coyotes, birds and uncountable other wildlife in the area, who have all the normal bodily functions of other wildlife, including producing waste products and dying. The number of cases of someone getting sick from bacteria from water in my city? Zero, so far as I’m aware. (And these would get noticed - the Walkerton, Ont. water crisis was national news several years ago, which resulted from incompetent public utility officials not treating water for bacteria. Several people died from cryptosporidium)
Yes. The difference between bacteria in air and bacteria in water is indicated below.
The mistake that you seem to be making is that it’s not an either/or. Both methods are necessary to ensure clean drinking water.
Incidentally, it appears on a quick Google search that drinking water from Lake Constance is chlorinated before being piped to consumers.
To correct myself: it was e. coli.
And at the risk of running on at the keyboard. Over 90% of Europe’s drinking water is chlorinated.
I thought that might be an old article, and indeed it’s from 1998. Furthermore, it’s about an experimental filtration method to replace the usual filtration and ozone treatment.
So they washed the new filters with chlorine, but the conventional treatment is still ozone (and the new filters worked quite well, but were too expensive). The chlorine mentioned as last point in the conventional treatment is probably the amount that has been replaced entirely with ozone a few years back (when I saw the report about the water treatment at Boden Lake Konstanz)
Um, first, that’s hardly an objective, neutral source. Second, it doesn’t say anyhting usefull about how they count these 90%. What European countries? What year? Amount by liters of water used, by cities/ countries?
I was talking primarly of my city, which I know most about, and secondary about Germany. Naturally Germany has not only high and strict standards, but also enough money and technology to build and maintain a good infrastructure. The former Eastern bloc countries struggle with broken infrastructure after communism all over, and despite EU grants, it takes a lot of money and time to build up a new infrastructure. Likewise, because partly of corruption and partly less strict standars (or relaxed enforcments of existing standards) plus geography (less rainfall) against them, the southern countries like Italy, Spain and Greece have huge problems with their drinking water. Tourists are always warned not to drink water in southern countries because of the danger of catching diarrhoe.
So obviously, if those two big problem areas are included, a large percentage of European water is treated with chlorine.
That still doesn’T change that my city doesn’t need to.
I doubt that this will convince you, but here is a PDF (90 KB) of the Jan. 2010 test of the Munich water. It’s only in German, however, and the homepage doesn’t offer English either.
(Durchschnittswert = Average, Grenzwert nach TrinkwV = allowed maximum according to drinking water law; a lot of the chemical names are similar in English).
And before you claim that that is just PR:
This seems to indicate that 270k tonnes of chlorine is used within Europe for water treatment annually, a not insignificant amount.
This pdfincludes a survey of German water treatment plants (older, 1994, but I’d be surprised if there was a dramatic change) that indicates that chlorine is used at a majority of German water treatment plants.
A difference in philosophy that I’ve noticed in investigating this is that European plants often don’t feel it’s necessary to treat with residual chlorine: in other words, they dose and that’s it. To me is a needless risk - one of the ways you can tell that you have in fact killed what’s there is to make sure that there’s chlorine left over. If there is, that means it’s killed everything it can (chlorine works by actually chemically reacting with the bacteria and is used up) - but they still use it.
As far as the Southern European issues you mention, I fail to see the relevance here - are you suggesting that they do chlorinate and for some reason it doesn’t work?
I don’t have any particular problem with ozonation as a water treatment, but this gets back to the discussion about where water comes from and the need to treat it - fine, you don’t want to treat with chlorine. But you’re treating with ozone in order to kill harmful bacteria. It’s got nothing to do with what your water source is.
Rare cities like Munich may get away without microbial treatment. That’s a crazy risk in my opinion, though. And any city that takes its water from anywhere other than directly at the source (and I mean directly) is being negligent if they don’t treat for microbes in some way (which, with these oddball exceptions like Munich, they do).
Part of the reason for that is that Central Europe is densily populated, so the rivers are (despite the best measures) still under stress and cannot regenerate enough before the next city takes water out, so to be on the safe side, chlorine is used.
The main difference in philosphy is that we don’t want to use biocides because we take the long-term approach. Basically, you can either dump chloramine and long-lasting biocides to kill everything in the water - that’s the short-term approach.
Or you can try to keep chemicals and nutrients (nitrogen, shit) out of the water and enable the natural regeneration - and build and maintain pipes. That’s the long-term view. It costs more at the beginning to invest in sewage plants and strict controls for industry (which make the powerful companies angry) and strict enforcments. But once that’s in place, you need less treatment, only a bit of chlorine that will soon leave.
Because the harmful bacteria grow only strong if they have nutrients - nitrogen fertilizer or shit - so keeping the water clean with filtration and putting air into it with circulation means that the harmful bacteria won’t multiply to dangerous levels. (One E coli won’t harm you, only a million will cause diarrhoe).
That also concerns all the deer that shit in the woods or the fishies in the lake - as long as there is no nitrogen added, as long as there is enough circulation, as long as fresh water enters the lake, as long as no biocide chemicals are added - then the lake will regenerate itself and be free of harmful bacteria. (And the shit from the deer in the forest will also be changed by normal bacteria and become part of the healthy humus layer).
No, I mean that because their pipes and water source are in worse condition, and because they have less rainfall to replenish the source, they have to chlorinate more heavily. If they don’t chlorinate everywhere, the water is still risky and to avoid it as tourist (not used to the local bacteria) is easiest and safest way.
Well, the majority of my city’s population see things quite differently, as do the experts - both in the city admin. who do the external control, and the city service company, as well as the biological and medical experts of two uniersities. Nobody has ever publically said that not treating is a risk; contrary, the experts applaud the approach of the city of Munich both towards long-term water safety and to the re-naturalisation of the river (although that is not related to the drinking water itself, it’s connected to keeping water natural and allowing its regeneration.)
Part of the different approach and philosophy is also that can take a long-term approach because the city service companies in most of Germany are what you call “socialist”, that is, they belong to the city and are not primarily profit-oriented private companies. So they can pour profits back into long-term infrastructure projects.
The EU, following the influence of Liberatrian ideology lobbyists, want to privatize water companies, but our cities are resisting because we have seen the example of London under Thatcher and how badly that turned out: Basically, major infrastructure overhauls - replacing old and leaky pipes for kilometers on end - were looming ahead, which would require a lot of money. The govt. preferred not to spend that money, and were afraid of the citizens being upset if they raised costs to cover it. So, following the “free market is always better” ideology, they sold the water company to private company. The first thing they did was to raise prices by a third, and over the next decade the situtation and water quality for the citizens detiorated. Then, when the govt. told the private company to finally do the repairs after water was being lost in big amounts in the leaky pipes. But the private company hadn’t put the accumulated income from the higher prices into a reserve, they had distributed it among the shareholders and the directors. Furthermore, they had skipped on maintance and control, to further save costs and increase revenue. So they handed the company back to the government, saying that they could no longer make profit off it. And after paying higher prices, and getting less service, the citizens still had to pay taxes to the govt. to do the repairs.
So we have seen in real life how under profit-oriented companies the water quality and the pipes deterioate, and we don’t want that.
Here’s what I’m getting at - do you think that we don’t? The fact that we use chlorines and chloramines for water treatment doesn’t mean that we don’t have any interest in taking care of our watersheds.
Um, I think that you have a different approach because the whole time you have argued about water needing to be sterile all the way, about using biocide chemicals to kill all bacteria and similar. This attitude means that you want your water lifeless and sterile, and that is opposite to the view that water in a river, lake or aquifier is alive with harmless bacteria and regenerates by itself and so on, and that keeping chemicals out which destroy this mechanism is most important.
I’m not entirely sure about this point, because the detailed technical methods of water treatment are not told at length to the public. Due to the communal organisation of our water companies, I would have to write to hundreds of different companies and ask them technical details to make sure my information is correct.
Generally speaking however, I highly doubt this. In Munich - where the water is not treated - samples are taken at every point possible by the water company. And then the city health dept. comes by and take their independent samples. This is very likely standard procedure for every German water provider. Not testing how much chlorine is left over is not conceivable with this strict regimen of controls at every step. Furthermore, I know how in swimming pools, reading of both bonded chlorine and free chlorine are taken regularly in order to keep the chlorine level at the right concentration. I expect this much more for drinking water. Simply dumping chlorine without checking the levels afterwards would mean either too much (expensive, smells bad) or too little (dangerous), so why would they do that?
Well, how many people have gotten sick or died from bacteria in the drinking water of Germany? None in the last decades*. I have heard of several cases of the disease dysentery being caught at the Ruhr river in the 50s; however, at this time the water treatment - both sewage and drinking water - were still being built up to full strength after the war.
Moreover, since the 70s, when sewage treatment was improved to keep the lakes clean, we know much better how important it is to let the self-regulating natural way work instead of just messing around with biocides.
Interesting discussion. I ran across this quote from a US for-profit water company. It seems that German has cared and invested enough to develop and maintain water distribution systems that don’t require chlorine/chloramine.
http://www.amwater.com/paaw/ensuring-water-quality/pa-chloramine-facts/fact-vs-fiction.html
Should the decision by Germany to ban the use of chloramine raise concerns?
Although Germany stopped using chloramine years ago, the fact is that Germany and many European countries also banned chlorine for disinfection. What’s more, Germany does not require any continuing disinfection in its distribution system, unlike in the United States where a disinfectant residual must be maintained in the water main as an added layer of protection for consumers. So don’t be misled by Germany’s prohibition of chloramine since it imposes a similar ban on chlorine – not to mention the lack of any disinfection between German treatment plants and their customers’ homes.